Author: Site Staff

IBM has launched a new program to help its employees upgrade their skills and broaden their perspective so that they can do individually what the company as a whole has been doing for years—compete in the global economy.

In an early evening speech Wednesday, July 25, in Washington, IBM chief executive Samuel J. Palmisano announced that the firm has established individual training and education accounts for employees with at least five years of service.

An IBM worker can put as much as $1,000 annually into the portable account, which would be similar to a 401(k) retirement fund. The company will make a 50 percent match on the employee contribution.

The accounts are one element of what IBM calls its Global Citizen’s Portfolio, a three-year, $60 million initiative designed to help employees bolster their skills and careers.

Another component is a leadership development program that will bring together IBM staff from around the world to tackle problems in developing countries in partnership with nongovernmental organizations.

The final piece of the program, called enhanced transition services, will help IBM employees find second careers in government, nonprofit, educational and economic development organizations when they leave the company.

Palmisano’s goal is to give IBM employees more agility in adjusting to global economic demands.

“To be competitive, any individual—like any company, community or country—has to adapt continuously, learning new fields and new skills,” Palmisano said at an IBM conference on global leadership. “We’ve set off down the path of empowering and enabling our people to make decisions and to act. We call this lowering the center of gravity of the company … pushing decision-making authority out and down.”

Giving employees more control over their training and career direction will increase their engagement, according to Palmisano.

“We believe that this kind of program will help us attract the smartest and most creative workforce,” he says.

IBM requires high-caliber people as it transforms itself from a traditional multinational company, with country-specific operations, to a “globally integrated enterprise,” Palmisano says.

“We used to have separate supply chains in different markets,” he says.  “Now we have one supply chain, a global one. Where we used to think about our human capital—our people—in terms of countries and regions and business units, we now manage and deploy them as one global asset.”

But millions of workers around the world aren’t being deployed in the global economy—they’re being deactivated. IBM is hosting the Washington conference in part to address fears about diminishing income and job prospects that are becoming rampant in both developed and emerging economies.

One way to address the anxiety is to weave a stronger safety net to help workers bounce back when they lose their jobs, says C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. The organization is helping sponsor the forum.

Ideas that Bergsten promotes include wage insurance, portable health insurance and pensions, and trade adjustment assistance.

These programs help workers absorb the impact of global competition. “The hit will not be so acute, will not be so damaging,” Bergsten says. “We are going to have to do more.”

Beyond paying attention to those left behind, advocates for the global economy need to do a better job explaining its benefits, according to conference participants.

For instance, IBM is just as likely to place an operation in the U.S. as it is to locate it in India, Palmisano says. Lowering costs is only one factor in the decision. Local labor market skills and infrastructure are also key.

“The important thing is we’re trying to have this integration of competency and value,” Palmisano says.

As countries develop those traits, they have to remain globally engaged. “Economies grow faster if they’re more integrated and open,” says Timothy Geithner, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Economic gains are also spread more broadly over time, Geithner says.

Palmisano asserted that companies have to articulate such arguments. “If we don’t make the case, the case will be made for us,” he says. “And we won’t like the outcome.”

To avoid that result, Palmisano proposed changing negative attitudes.“The most productive way to think about this—both for business growth and for societal health—is not ‘What will globalization do to me?’ Rather, it’s ‘How can I get work and investment to flow to me?’ “

—Mark Schoeff  Jr.

As the popularity of 401(k) retirement accounts grows, so does scrutiny of the costs associated with them.

The latest effort to make the savings vehicles more transparent is being led by Rep. George Miller, D-California, who introduced legislation on Thursday, July 26, that would require plans to reveal more information about fees and conflicts of interest.

Meanwhile, the Department of Labor is in the midst of considering regulations governing disclosure among plan sponsors, service providers, participants and the government.

The 401(k) plan is the most popular retirement option offered by employers, covering 52 million active workers. Companies are replacing traditional pensions, which are based on annual salary and length of service, with defined-contribution mechanisms like the 401(k). In 2006, there were $3.3 trillion of assets in such plans.

The number of participants and the amount of money are likely to increase substantially after the passage of major pension reform law last year. That measure enables companies to automatically enroll employees in 401(k) programs.

Such activity has helped focus congressional and administration attention on fees.

“We’re going to see enhanced disclosure both to plan sponsors and to participants,” says Jan Jacobson, retirement policy legal counsel at the American Benefits Council, an organization representing large companies.

But the question is whether the change will be influenced more by the executive branch or by Capitol Hill.

Miller has been pushing the fee issue ever since he took over as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee in January, when Democrats gained control of the chamber, arguing that opaque charges hurt workers.

He cites a recent report by the Government Accountability Office that shows that a 1 percent difference in fees could result in a 20 percent difference in returns.

“Hidden fees are eating into the retirement savings of millions of American workers without them knowing it,” he said in a statement.

His bill would require that plan administrators list individually every service fee charged to an account and to clearly identify historical returns and fees assessed on each investment option. It also requires that service providers disclose all fees and conflicts of interest to plan sponsors. And it would mandate that 401(k) plans include at least one lower-cost, balanced index fund in its investment array.

Business advocates, who want the Department of Labor’s regulatory process to play out over the next year before turning to legislation, fear Miller’s bill.

They say it would flood participants with too much information, increase costs for company sponsors and encourage people to sign up for the lowest-fee investment while ignoring factors like risk, diversification and historical return.

For instance, trying to parse individual charges for individual services, as the Miller bill stipulates, would be ineffective and create administrative burdens, Jacobson says.

“Providing these reams of information may be less useful than providing the bottom-line fee figure that [participants] can compare between investments,” she says. “It’s all a matter of cost and complexity and making the disclosure useful to the participant.”

Her colleague, Lynn Dudley, vice president of the benefits council, asserts the quality of information is more important than the quantity. “More [disclosure] is not necessarily better,” she says.

Although fee transparency can be improved, the vast majority of companies handle disclosure well, says James Delaplane, a partner in the benefits group at Davis & Harman in Washington.

It’s in their interest to limit 401(k) fees. “Employers see the 401(k) plan as a key recruitment and retention device,” Delaplane says. That means that they drive a hard bargain from investment companies.

“If they are even slightly out of line from a pricing standpoint, you won’t get business,” he says.

But Miller worries that 401(k) providers are giving participants the business in the form of hidden fees that crack retirement nest eggs.

“A lot of middle Americans struggle every month to make [their retirement] contribution,” he said at a hearing earlier this year. Inscrutable fees and conflicts of interest amount to a situation in which “you have a lot of people dipping into other people’s money.”

Dudley says that Miller’s bill is a “good starting point for a conversation” and that companies share his goal.

“This is an opportunity to improve everyone’s retirement security,” she says.

—Mark Schoeff Jr.

Despite the recent news that software support specialist TomorrowNow improperly downloaded materials, some see a bright future for tapping a third party to support HR software and other applications.

Using an independent service provider to handle tasks such as fixing bugs typically cuts support costs by half, says Forrester Research analyst Paul Hamerman, which can mean saving hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Hamerman adds that third-party software support will likely survive a legal spat between vendors Oracle and SAP, as well as SAP’s admission in early July that “some inappropriate downloads” of Oracle software fixes and support documents occurred at its TomorrowNow subsidiary.

“The legal case could have a dampening effect on the market, but only temporarily,” Hamerman says.

TomorrowNow offers support services to clients running various Oracle product lines, such as PeopleSoft software. In March, Oracle sued SAP, accusing it of stealing support materials. On July 3, SAP said TomorrowNow was authorized to download materials from Oracle’s Web site on behalf of TomorrowNow customers, but acknowledged the “inappropriate downloads.” SAP also said the U.S. Department of Justice has requested that SAP and TomorrowNow provide certain documents.

The Oracle-SAP dispute has thrown light on the relatively new arena of third-party software support. Traditionally, business software vendors have charged customers an annual support and maintenance fee as part of a software license sale. That support typically includes corrections to coding errors and updates for legislative changes. Support customers also generally get more substantial software upgrades for free—although installing those upgrades can be costly.

Support fees can start at less than 20 percent of the original license fee. But support fees usually rise each year and are considered lucrative for vendors. Third-party software support providers offer similar services—minus the upgrade option—for a lower price. Besides TomorrowNow, other third-party support providers include netCustomer and Rimini Street.

Of the thousands of business software customers worldwide, no more than 500 organizations have signed up for third-party software support arrangements, experts estimate. What’s more, the idea of a support contract is under pressure from the growing practice of renting applications over the Internet, where firms often pay a monthly fee that includes a support component.

Still, some analysts have been speaking highly of third-party support and maintenance options.

“These programs promise to significantly reduce annual support fees while eliminating forced upgrades, delivering services not available with standard vendor support and guaranteeing a much better service-level commitment,” research firm Technology Evaluation Centers said in an April report.

Some companies are heading to Rimini Street. In the second quarter of this year, sales bookings at the Las Vegas-based firm increased fourfold from the first quarter. Rimini Street was founded in 2005 by Seth Ravin, who co-founded TomorrowNow and sold his stake in that firm to SAP in early 2005.

Ravin says the SAP-Oracle legal dispute has been a blip rather than a big deal for his business.

“Most people are rightly seeing this as a procedural issue at TomorrowNow rather than an industry issue,” he says.

Ed Frauenheim

Will U.S. automakers manage to lighten their legacy costs by transferring an estimated $100 billion of liabilities for retiree health care to the United Auto Workers?

As the UAW opens contract negotiations this week with General Motors and Ford, following the start of talks with Chrysler on Friday, July 20, expectations are that the three car companies will try to replicate deals struck earlier this month by Dana Corp. and late last year by Goodyear.

Both Dana and Goodyear moved all their liabilities for retiree health care off their books by agreeing to pay lump sums into trusts that unions will use to provide retirees with health care. (The Dana and Goodyear deals still have to be approved by the courts.)

Such trusts, known as voluntary employee beneficiary associations, or VEBAs, look like a possible solution to the burden that retiree health care obligations pose for the automakers.

Changes in benefits are a sensitive topic for union members. In fact, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger has suggested that retiree health benefits are not up for discussion.

The problem of the car companies’ extensive retiree health care costs “cannot be solved at the collective bargaining table,” Gettelfinger said in a speech in June. “The UAW believes it would be immoral and irresponsible to abandon the hundreds of thousands of retirees who helped build GM, Ford and Chrysler.”

But the extent of the automakers’ financial difficulties suggests that they will be looking at all possible solutions.

“Ford and GM have never been in as dire straits as they are now. They need to make further progress,” said Robert Shulz, a managing director at Standard & Poor’s. “We think there are going to be some creative approaches to the legacy issues, including health care.”

The amounts involved in retiree health care are considerable. Analysts estimate that the three car manufacturers’ liabilities for retiree health care come to about $100 billion, with GM responsible for about half that amount.

But transferring the responsibility for future retiree health care expenditures to a VEBA would require the car companies to come up with a significant amount of money to put into the VEBA. Such a move also means the UAW would be assuming the risk of future health care cost increases.

Dana’s VEBA deal is seen as particularly significant because the UAW was one of the two unions involved, along with the United Steelworkers.

The Dana deal made it “more probable” that the automakers could achieve something similar, said Mark Oline, a managing director at Fitch Ratings. “It’s becoming more evident that the UAW is willing to enter this type of settlement to divorce the fate of retiree health care from the fate of the manufacturers.”

But Dana’s unions were negotiating against the backdrop of the company’s bankruptcy, a situation that conceivably could have allowed the company to walk away from its promises regarding retiree health care. Shulz questioned whether the Dana deal is relevant to the auto negotiations, noting that although U.S. automakers are in bad shape financially, they’re not bankrupt.

“What someone’s negotiating in bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily translate to something like the current contract negotiations between GM, Ford and Chrysler and the UAW,” he said.

Goodyear’s case is also somewhat different from that of the car companies, Shulz said, because Goodyear was more stable financially than GM or Ford are, and thus better able to commit a sizable amount of cash to fund the VEBA.

Certainly the sums involved would be large.

Oline estimated that General Motors might have to come up with $30 billion to $35 billion in order to transfer its roughly $50 billion of retiree health care liabilities into a VEBA, and Ford might have to pay $13 billion to $17 billion.

“If you look at the transactions that have been done and the level of funding that would be required of Ford and GM, it does draw into question the sufficiency of the liquidity as the companies are still in the early stages of a long-term restructuring program,” he said, adding that Chrysler, whose liabilities are smaller, “is probably better positioned at this point to put an agreement into place.”

Oline said the car companies might consider alternative financing methods, like using company stock as part of the funding for the VEBA.

The good working relationship between Gettelfinger and auto company executives and the progress the two sides have made on improving productivity were grounds for some optimism going into the talks.

“They’ve been working through their problems, which bodes well for the negotiations,” said Harry Katz, dean of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell.

Filed by Susan Kelly of Financial Week, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

HR software company SuccessFactors has filed to go public, despite mounting losses that totaled $32 million last year.

SuccessFactors on Friday, July 20, filed a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for a proposed initial public offering of its common stock. The company, which offers applications such as performance and recruiting management software, said the number of shares to be offered and the price range for the offering have not yet been determined.

The company’s public filing gave a window into its operations. SuccessFactors, which launched in 2001 and competes in the fast-growing arena of talent management software, said its revenue rose from $10.2 million in 2004 to $13 million in 2005 and $32.6 million in 2006. It took in $12.4 million in revenue for the first three months of this year.

But the San Mateo, California-based company’s losses are climbing as well. SuccessFactors recorded net losses of $5.3 million in 2004, $20.8 million in 2005 and $32 million last year. For the first three months of 2007, SuccessFactors weathered a net loss of $12.6 million.

SuccessFactors may be bleeding cash, but it operates in a healthy market. Research firm AMR Research calls human capital management software the fastest-growing segment of the business applications market, with revenue expected to grow 11 percent annually during the next five years to $10.6 billion.

The IPO filing comes as a number of other HR software and services firms have been moving from public to private ownership. Among them are software firms Kronos and Workbrain.

Jason Corsello, an executive at consulting firm Knowledge Infusion, said in a blog posting Monday, July 23, that SuccessFactors is investing heavily in sales and marketing and in product development.

“The company is obviously taking a ‘cold war’ approach to the market, focused on outspending the competition,” Corsello wrote. “This strategy will pose a significant challenge to many vendors that don’t have the financial resources or the ambition to dominate the market.”

SuccessFactors faces competition from a variety of rivals, including the giants of the field Oracle and SAP as well as talent management specialists such as Halogen and Authoria.

In its public filing, SuccessFactors also acknowledged a hurdle within its walls. The company’s independent registered public accounting firm “noted certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting,” SuccessFactors stated in the filing.

“Failure to achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could result in our failure to accurately report our financial results,” the company said.

SuccessFactors plans to use about $10.4 million of the net proceeds of the IPO to replay a loan.

“We expect to use the remaining net proceeds from this offering for general corporate purposes and working capital, which may include potential acquisitions,” the company said.

Should investors overlook the financial reporting trouble and growing losses to buy up SuccessFactors’ stock, it will amount to a win for HR software vendors overall, Corsello suggested.

“A successful IPO will be great news for the industry,” he wrote, “providing increased visibility in the HCM market, something that all vendors in the market should be cheering.”

—Ed Frauenheim

Legislation that would overturn a recent Supreme Court decision on pay discrimination is gaining momentum on Capitol Hill.

On Friday, July 20, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, along with 11 other Democrats and two Republicans, introduced a bill that would allow victims to file a claim within 180 days of any paycheck that has been diminished by bias—even if the discriminatory act occurred decades ago.

Business advocates worry that such a revision of the statute of limitations could make companies vulnerable to stale claims involving supervisors and employees who have long since left the company.

A similar bill was approved by the House Education and Labor Committee in late June, just days after it had been officially introduced. That measure is awaiting action by the full House.

Both pieces of legislation were inspired by a contentious 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on May 29. The court held that a discrimination claim must be filed within 180 days of the moment that an unfair pay decision is made.

Outside of that statutory window, which in some states is 300 days, an employer is not liable, the court said. The decision significantly narrowed the scope of pay cases.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg excoriated the majority for a ruling that she said ignored the realities of today’s workplace—where pay levels are secret and women and minorities can feel intimidated. She encouraged Congress to clarify the statute of limitations language in federal discrimination law.

Democrats in the House and Senate quickly responded, holding up the Supreme Court plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, as a civil rights hero.

The Supreme Court ruled that Ledbetter, a former supervisor at a Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama, could not sue the company for paying her less than it paid men for the same job over most of her nearly 20-year tenure because she did not file the suit when the discrimination first occurred. Ledbetter said she did not discover the disparity until years later.

Democrats contend that a narrow statute of limitations allows companies to avoid punishment for discrimination by hiding it long enough.

“This is unacceptable—that you win by being able to keep an illegal act secret,” said Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House labor committee, when the panel approved the bill. “That’s what cries out for this legislation.”

House Republicans criticized Democrats for rushing the legislation ahead to score political points without considering its potential consequences.

“This bill guts the statute of limitations and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charging requirement contained in current law,” said Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-California and ranking member of the House labor committee.

McKeon’s GOP colleagues said the bill could create myriad new liabilities for companies and subject them to expensive jury verdicts.

“This bill will destroy American jobs,” said Rep. John Price, R-Georgia.

The American Benefits Council, which represents Fortune 500 companies, raised concerns about how the bill would affect a company’s retirement plan if it had to recalculate benefits payable to a plaintiff.

Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, said that language in the bill would prevent each pension payment from being a cause of action in a suit.

He also asserted that the measure would not make it easier to win discrimination cases. “It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that a payment has been infected by discrimination,” he said.

Both the Senate and House bills would maintain the two-year limit on back pay in discrimination cases.

“Under the Kennedy bill, employers would not have to make up for salary differences that occurred decades ago,” said a statement announcing the introduction of the legislation.

—Mark Schoeff Jr.

A Pfizer human resources executive, Lois Baumerich, died of a heart attack she suffered when a steam pipe exploded in Midtown Manhattan on Wednesday, July 18.

Baumerich’s death was the lone fatality of the explosion, which sent tens of thousands of workers scrambling for safety at the height of the evening rush hour and dredged up latent fears of a terrorist attack.

Forty people were hurt during the blast. The most critically injured was Gregory McCullough, a 21-year-old tow truck driver. McCullough was at the intersection of 41st Street and Lexington Avenue when the earth opened up and a geyser of scalding steam erupted more than 150 feet high, flipping his truck and depositing it into the crater left by the explosion. McCullough remains in a coma with burns over 80 percent of his body, according to press reports.

Minutes before the explosion, Baumerich, who was director of employment compliance at Pfizer, was on the phone planning an upcoming conference in New York for the National Industry Liaison Group, an organization promoting workplace equality, according to press reports.

Baumerich, who was 51 and lived by herself in New Jersey, was a board member. She helped found the group, according to its Web site.

Baumerich worked for 28 years at AT&T before retiring in January, a spokesman for the company wrote in an e-mail.

“Our condolences go out to her family, friends and former colleagues,” the spokesman, Michael Coe, wrote.

Baumerich was hired in January to work in Pfizer’s legal division in charge of compliance with affirmative action and equal employment opportunity laws. CEO Jeffrey Kindler sent a memo to employees Thursday morning, July 19, to let employees know about Baumerich’s death and to make counseling available.

“It’s obviously a difficult time for people, particularly in the legal division, who worked with her,” says company spokesman, Bryant Haskins.

Shortly after the blast, Baumerich collapsed as employees fled the area, police said. She was outside Pfizer’s office at 150 East 42nd Street, which abuts Lexington Avenue where the explosion occurred. She died in an ambulance on her way to a nearby hospital, Haskins says.

Her family said she had no prior health issues, according to press reports.

Jeremy Smerd

Employee misuse of e-mail, blogs, message boards and media-sharing Web sites posed a significant security risk for publicly traded U.S. companies last year, with 31.8 percent investigating a suspected violation of privacy or data protection regulations, according to a new survey.

A report on outbound e-mail and content security conducted by Forrester Consulting and Proofpoint, a messaging and data security firm, found that 26 percent of the companies surveyed saw their businesses affected by the exposure of sensitive or embarrassing information.

Experts familiar with data security say corporations risk the loss of company trade secrets and also leave themselves open to a variety of defamation- or slander-related lawsuits when blogs and message boards are used inappropriately.

Proper use of e-mail continues to be a major problem at many firms, as one in three companies surveyed said they investigated a suspected leak of confidential or proprietary information last year. Furthermore, companies on average estimated that almost 19 percent of all outgoing e-mail contained content that poses a legal, financial or regulatory risk. Showing the seriousness of these matters, 27.6 percent of the companies surveyed reported terminating an employee for violating e-mail policies.

The survey also found that blogs and message boards have become a growing source of risk for companies. More than 19 percent of the companies disciplined employees for violating blog or message board policies, and more than 9 percent fired employees for such infractions.

Robert Scott, a partner at Scott & Scott, a Dallas-based IT compliance and management firm, said the ramifications of leaks of important data on blogs and message boards can be devastating. Scott said a company’s brand could be irreparably damaged if trade secrets fall into the hands of competitors.

“The overall financial impact depends on what the secrets are, who’s getting them and what they are used for,” he says.

Scott also emphasized that blogs are here to stay, so companies need to monitor them vigorously. In addition to leaking sensitive information, employees making disparaging remarks about competitors or using blogs for sexually explicit or offensive material can also lead to liability and lawsuits.

“It’s a matter of enforcement and compliance,” Scott noted, “because the individual employees may not be aware or may be intentionally disregarding [policies].”

Filed by Matthew Scott of Financial Week, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

Dear Coping With Caps:



One thing you should know at the outset is that you are facing a common problem. Many organizations struggle with this issue, and the solutions they come up with vary. Let me highlight a few points that I hope will be helpful.

First of all, you did not mention whether the organization already has formal salary ranges (with a minimum and maximum dollar value for each job). If you do not have such ranges, then you should consider implementing them (and communicating the rationale effectively to employees). This can help your workforce understand that every job has a marketplace maximum above which your organization may not be able or willing to pay, no matter how well employees perform in those jobs.

However, having salary ranges will not completely eliminate your problem. The reason is that employees with long tenure eventually will bump up against the maximum. Although employees may understand the concept of each job having a maximum marketplace value, psychologically they may still feel entitled to a salary increase. “What is my motivation to do a good job,” they will ask, “if there is no financial reward at the end?”

So an organization has to have a strategy for handling those cases in which individuals reach the maximum of the salary range. Here are two options:

• Some companies take a hard line by saying that the individual is not eligible for a salary bump until the salary range itself is increased based on market data. Once the salary range is increased, which most organizations do annually, then the individual may once again be eligible for a salary increase, since his/her salary will then be below the maximum.
  
• Other organizations provide one-time bonuses to employees in lieu of salary increases. Several organizations I have worked with provide a bonus that is equal to one-half of the amount a salary increase would have been had an individual received it. Their reasoning: A bonus should not equal the amount of a salary increase, as that would defeat the purpose of managing overall costs of employee compensation. In my experience, employee reactions to such schemes have generally been positive.
  

One word of caution: Whatever you decide to do, it should not be communicated as an action applicable only to your support staff. Even though those positions are the ones that concern you most at present, implementing a policy that focuses on one group of the population might create more problems than it solves. My recommendation is that any actions to treat this problem should be general enough to apply to all employees in your organization.

SOURCE: John D. White, JD White & Associates, McLean, Virginia, July 24, 2006.

LEARN MORE: Please see Four Ways to Lose Your Best People for information on how to retain top-flight employees.

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

People moving into key executive positions
	Lora Villarreal has been appointed executive vice president at Affiliated Computer Services. She has been with ACS for nine years, most recently as chief people officer.
	Joseph Gabbert has joined McAfee Inc. as executive vice president of human resources. Prior to joining McAfee, Gabbert was executive vice president of worldwide human resources at EMC.
	Diane Cook has been appointed vice president of human resources at Classic Residence by Hyatt. Previously, Cook was regional human resources director at Classic Residence by Hyatt. Before joining Classic Residence by Hyatt, she served as vice president of human resources and general counsel for Cookeville Regional Medical Center. She has also worked as a human resources director and labor relations counsel for ACS and Cummins Inc.
	Joe Connell has joined MassMutual Retirement Services as managing director of institutional sales. Most recently he was regional director for RSM McGladrey Retirement Resources. Before that he was district manager for ADP Retirement Services.
	Donna Regner Rizzo has joined MassMutual as managing director of institutional sales. Most recently she was mid-Atlantic corporate retirement sales manager for Merrill Lynch.
	Clem Johnson has joined Crist Associates as full-equity partner. Johnson was previously at Russell Reynolds, where he was executive director of the Chicago office.
	Cathye Smithwick has joined Delta Dental as group vice president of dental affairs. Prior to joining Delta, Smithwick was a principal and national practice leader for Mercer Health & Benefits.
	Cynthia Miller has joined Castleton Group as a benefits specialist. Miller has six years of industry experience.
	Martha Fay Africa has joined Hodge/Niederer/Cariani as a partner. She comes from Major, Lindsey & Africa, where she was also a partner.
	Deborah A. Strain has joined Giamarco, Mullins & Horton, focusing on workers’ compensation law.
	Tim Fielding has been named president and CEO of Snelling Staffing Services. Fielding was previously the company’s president and CFO.
	Michael A. Ray has joined Crescent State Bank as Eastern Wake community executive. He is the associate vice president of the Franklin County Home Builders Association and has 13 years of banking experience.
	Jennifer Tea has been promoted to vice president of compensation and benefits at Castleton Group. Prior to her promotion, Tea was director of client services.
	Jeff Holmen has been named director of international business development at PreVisor. Holmen joins PreVisor from Hewitt Associates, where he managed European business development activities for the HR outsourcing business of its Amsterdam, Netherlands, office.
	Scott Stimart has been named vice president of marketing and sales in the workforce development division at ACT. Prior to joining ACT, Stimart was vice president of sales and marketing at Fastek International.
	Phillip Stewart has joined Kenexa as chief people officer. Prior to joining Kenexa, Stewart was the area human resources director for Dentsply International. Before that, he was with Sara Lee Corp. as an HR director.
	Christopher Battaglia has been named publisher of Pensions & Investments. Battaglia joined Crain Communications, Pensions & Investments’ parent company, in 1991 and served in various sales positions, ultimately becoming ad director in 1998. Battaglia joined Pensions & Investments in 2002 as associate publisher.
	Robert E. Gemignani has been appointed senior vice president and chief talent officer at Hill & Knowlton. Most recently, he was head of employee relations and HR activity at Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Prior to that, he was vice president of HR for College Sports Television and Vivendi Universal Entertainment. He has also held various HR positions with Barnes & Noble, Random House Publishing and McGraw-Hill.
	Evan Davis has been named vice president of financial and strategic planning at MRINetworkTM. Most recently, he was CFO and vice president of Canadian operations for Yum Global Brands. Previously, he was senior director of field finance and planning in Yum Brands’ Dallas office.
	James K. Foreman has rejoined Towers Perrin as managing director of HR services. Foreman worked at Towers Perrin for 20 years in a number of leadership positions, including managing director of the company’s health and welfare business before joining Aetna to become executive vice president of national businesses.
	James J. Forese has been named nonexecutive chairman of the board of directors at Spherion Corp. Forese has served on the company’s board since 2003 and is operating partner and COO of Thayer Capital Partners.
	Gary Bragar has been appointed HR outsourcing research manager at NelsonHall. Bragar joined NelsonHall from AT&T, where he was the HR outsourcing service delivery manager.
	Patrick F. Goepel has been named president of HR services at Fidelity Employer Services. Prior to joining Fidelity, he served as president and CEO of Advantec. Before this, he was in marketing and sales position at ADP and Ceridian.
	Jean-Baptiste Gruet has been appointed vice president of sales at Workplace Options. Prior to joining Workplace Options, Gruet was director of global business solutions at Shepell.fgi.
	Warren Heaps has joined Birches Group as a partner. Before joining Birches, Heaps spent 20 years at Colgate-Palmolive Co., most recently as director of international compensation. Prior to this, he was a consultant with Towers Perrin.
	Suzanne Siracuse has been named publisher of InvestmentNews. She joined Crain Communications, InvestmentNews’ parent company, in 1996 as a salesperson for Pensions & Investments. A year later she moved over to InvestmentNews to help with its launch. In 1998 she was promoted to advertising director, and in 2001 she was named associate publisher.
	Richard Post has joined PeopleFilter Technology as practice lead of hospitality. Before joining PeopleFilter, Post held management, account executive and business development positions with several companies, including the Devine Group, Taleo Corp. and PwC Consulting.
Randle G. Havens has been appointed manager of finance and accounting at NelsonHall. Havens previously worked for Ernst & Young.
Scott Selin has been named partner at Arrow Partnership. Prior to his position at Arrow, Selin was a consultant at Accenture.
Darryl Green has been named executive vice president of Manpower Inc. Prior to joining Manpower, Green served as CEO of Tata Teleservices. Before that, he was CEO of Vodafone Japan. From 1989 to 1998, he held various positions at AT&T, including three years as president and CEO of its Japanese operations.
Matt McGreal has joined Crist Associates as principal.
Diane Hummon has been appointed vice president of global marketing at Personnel Decisions International. Hummon comes to PDI from Greater Twin Cities United, where she was senior vice president of donor relations and strategic marketing.
Tim Geisert has joined Kenexa as vice president of employment branding. Geisert previously held executive positions at Bailey Lauerman and the Martin Agency.
Carrie West has been promoted to customer service representative at Carpenter, Cammack and Associates. Prior to her promotion, West was branch service coordinator.
The following people have been promoted to senior client partners at Korn/Ferry: Gerd DeBeer, Michael DeCosta, Rodrigo del Campo, John Denson, Kevin Ford,Beth Kelshaw Fowler, Doug Greenberg, Andrew Hickman,Iain Manson, Jean-Francois Marliere, Clare Metcalf,Jairo Okret, Firoze Patel, Emilie Petrone, Vincent Poggi, Kim Shanahan, Hamish Shaw and Brad Westveld.
The following people have been promoted to client partners at Korn/Ferry: Sloan Baxter, Allen Brady,Maria Chow, Philip Darling, Sunita Devrani, Greg Gerson, Thomas Green, Joseph Huddle, Eva Kingston,Joylyn Largo-Afonso, Asheley Galloway Linnenbach, Sean McBurney, Scott Miller, Deborah Webster, Jan Westerink and Flaviano Zollo.
Yvonne Gemmell Keene has joined Cliff Consulting as senior consultant. Prior to joining Cliff Consulting, Keene worked as an independent consultant in business development for Ketera Technologies.
Danielle Comeaux has been promoted to managing partner of the Houston branch at Lucas Group.
Alix Miller has been promoted to managing partner of the Chicago legal branch at Lucas Group.
Kelly Blouin has rejoined Lucas Group as managing partner of the Washington, D.C., branch.
Katharina Grimme has been appointed research director of BPO for continental Europe at NelsonHall. Before joining NelsonHall, Grimme was director and principal analyst at Ovum.
J. Anthony West joins NelsonHall as sourcing and shared services consultant.
Robert G. Hogan has been appointed COO at Towers Perrin. Hogan has been with Towers Perrin since 1979. Most recently, he was managing director of HR services. Hogan will also be part of the office of the chairman, which consists of the CEO and COO.
Joseph Gabbert has joined McAfee Inc as executive vice president of human resources. Most recently, Gabbert was executive vice president of worldwide human resources at EMC.
Richard Grisolia has been appointed vice president of marketing at Arbella Insurance Group. Most recently, he was vice president and corporate officer of the personal insurance division at Atlantic Mutual Cos.
James C. Kilduff has been appointed senior vice president of underwriting at Majestic Insurance Co. Prior to joining Majestic, Kilduff created the workers’ compensation reinsurance and insurance facility at Professional Indemnity.
Mia Trujilo has joined Arrow Partnership as director of sales. Most recently, she was with Compuware Corp., where she was part of the West region sales team. Previously, she held sales and management positions at Hyperion, Gartner and Gillette.
Daniel Green has joined Begos Horgan & Brown as counsel member. Previously, he was an attorney with Jackson Lewis and, before that, at Ackerly & Ward.
Dino Farfante has joined American Barcode and RFID Inc. as president and COO. Farfante formerly was president of Insight Direct Worldwide. He has been a member of the board of directors at American Barcode and RFID since 2006.
Deepjot Chhabra has been promoted to president of Enwisen. He joined Enwisen in 2006 and was senior vice president of product strategy and business development. Before this, Chhabra was vice president of Oracle Global HCM Product Strategy.
Submit your move