Author: Site Staff

Dear Using Psychology:



Outdoor experience exercises can be great fun. For many organizations, they’re very useful in team building. But I’d be cautious about using outdoor training to identify leadership traits.

Outdoor exercises encourage people to think more creatively about how to meet their goals. They force people to work together productively, or they won’t get through the obstacles. Further, they can help individuals confront their physical fears and gain greater confidence in their own abilities.

But in planning to use outdoor training, you must consider the people who will participate. Are most of you fairly fit and active? Do you enjoy taking some controlled risks? If so, outdoor experiences can be an exhilarating way to get to know each other better and learn to work together better, especially if you choose skillful facilitators.

Be aware, however, that very often the announcement of an outdoor experience strikes dread in some people. Despite the very good chance that everyone will be successful, you may be causing deep stress among people who fear that they will fail, and fail publicly. People who are less active or who are older than the general population of your organization may particularly experience this fear. If you suspect you might get this reaction, you should consider another kind of experience for team building (cooking classes, for instance, or an off-site retreat).

I’d be wary of trying to use an outdoor exercise for identifying leadership traits. For one thing, many people who are quite capable leaders in physical situations may not be able to translate those leadership skills into the workplace. Even more important, leadership skills should be assessed over time, against a specific set of performance criteria developed for the unique needs of your organization. A one-time spectacular performance in an outdoor exercise won’t be a predictor of long-term performance, and may not be relevant to the everyday challenges of your business.

Sometimes we fall in love with an idea or technique, and then try to fit it into our already existing needs. If that’s the case with your organization’s interest in outdoor training, it would probably be better to start with the issue–identifying people with high leadership potential–and then choose or design a program to deliver on that goal.

SOURCE: Sheila Campbell, President, Wild Blue Yonder, Silver Spring, Maryland, December 14, 2005

LEARN MORE: Some companies like Wells Fargo still explore adventure-related training despite overall trends to cut back on training expenses. Also, checklists for managing a retreat.

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.

Ask a Question

Dear Workforce Newsletter

Dear Sick of Surprises:



The checklist is the easy part. Before tackling that, however, let’s first examine the underlying problem: that upper management isn’t informing your recruiters until well after positions become vacant.

This sounds like a disconnect in which human resources partners fail to keep each other informed, rather than an oversight by upper management. But learning about terminated employees earlier in the game is not the only condition you’ll want to address.

How prepared are you for downstream changes in your business (about six to 12 months out) that may require hiring a huge number of experienced professionals who possess scarce new skills–more people than your organization has experience recruiting?

Also, think about the problem of planned growth within divisions that possess solid succession plans, where it is already known who will step into these newly created positions. If succession causes high-potential, high-performance employees to move from their current positions, maybe your recruiting effort should focus on seeking candidates to backstop these high performers now, rather than later.

We could actually make a long list of situations where the added value of recruiting might resonate with hiring managers, HR partners, upper management and other stakeholders. Rather than a checklist, what you need is a mutual agreement, written and signed by the different parties responsible for recruiting.

Here’s how it should look. First, it typically arises out of a series of discussions between HR and other business leaders to establish the quality of your services. These service- level agreements, or SLAs, are like contracts that establish and meet clients’ expectations. The client and the service provider (recruiting, for example, or more likely HR) determine in advance which services and performance levels will be provided, and decide how the success or failure of an SLA is measured.

An SLA for recruiting might include an outline of the complete process used by recruiters and hiring manages to fill job openings as quickly and efficiently as possible. A staffing SLA takes managers step by step through this process, from submitting a requisition to extending an offer, and notes applicable turnaround times.

A staffing SLA also should be geared to the expectations of recruiters, recruiting coordinators, interviewers and hiring managers, since their partnership is essential to the attainment of your goals. Any worthwhile agreement would also describe the process, roles, timeframes and accountabilities for all parties.

The most competitive corporations use SLAs to manage the quality of their process, and it isn’t unusual to have several SLAs in place between internal HR functions–i.e., recruiting and other HR services.

The solution isn’t to look for, and adopt, an SLA template (although there are many). Rather, you should engage all the stakeholders in your process: hiring managers, upper management, recruiters, recruiting coordinators, vendors and candidates, and establish a level of service they can expect from you–and what you need in return to commit to it.

SOURCE: Gerry Crispin, SPHR, principal and chief navigator, CareerXroads, Kendall Park, New Jersey, December 5, 2005

LEARN MORE: Articles, tips and an online bulletin board are among the resources of Workforce‘s Recruiting and Staffing forum.

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.

Ask a Question

Dear Workforce Newsletter

The number of Americans without health insurance coverage grew last year amid a decline in the share of people covered by employment-based health insurance.

Those findings, revealed Tuesday (August 29) in a report from the U.S. Census Bureau, mean businesses spent less than they otherwise would have last year on direct health care benefits. But that’s not necessarily great news for U.S. employers, says Paul Fronstin, director of the health research and education program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a Washington, D.C., organization financed by companies and unions.

Fronstin says that the erosion of employer-based care since 2001 may be backfiring in the form of a less healthy, less productive population and higher taxes stemming from the cost of treating uninsured people in public hospitals.

“The fact that we’ve got 46 million people without health insurance really puts pressure on the system,” Fronstin says. “Not only the health care system, but the bottom line of business.”

The Census Bureau reported that the number of people without health insurance coverage rose by 1.3 million to 46.6 million in 2005. The percentage of Americans without coverage climbed from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent last year. The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 59.8 percent to 59.5 percent, according to the government report.

The same report found that real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percent from 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326. But real median earnings of both men and women who worked full time year round declined. The nation’s official poverty rate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent.

One factor behind the higher number of uninsured people is the rising cost of health insurance. A report last year from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust found that premiums rose an average of 9.2 percent in 2005, more than three times the growth in workers’ earnings. That report said a drop in the percentage of firms offering health coverage to workers stems almost entirely from fewer small businesses offering health benefits. Nearly all businesses with 200 or more workers offer such benefits, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation study.

Alexander Domaszewicz, a consultant at Mercer Human Resource Consulting, says savvy large companies are looking at health benefits as a way to gain competitive advantage. Plans that foster a healthier workforce can give U.S. employers an edge versus foreign rivals that don’t have much control over the health care of their employees, he suggests.

“If they do it right, they can get an advantage over their international competitors because they improve productivity,” he says.

High health care costs and a large population of uninsured people also have sparked calls for some variety of national health care in the United States.

Fronstin doesn’t expect the latest numbers to trigger a major new effort to create a single-payer health care system. Nor does he see the news as reason to promote health savings accounts, given that HSAs tend not to make health care much more affordable for people. Instead, he expects businesses to offer, and individuals to take on, thinner coverage in the form of higher-deductible plans with limited care options.

“HSAs do not address affordability the way higher-deductible plans do,” he says.

—Ed Frauenheim

No matter where you are, there’s likely a U.S. Post Office nearby. Until recently, that location probably handled its human resources operations a little differently from any other office.

But now the U.S. Postal Service—an organization with nearly 700,000 employees and annual revenue of $70 billion—is reaching the first milestones in streamlining its HR operations in an initiative called PostalPeople.

So far, USPS has integrated 73 of its 80 districts into a shared services center that can handle benefits, retirement, separation and management hiring.

The second phase of the project involves upgrading its core HR operation, which consists of 70 systems supporting 200 processes in the 80 districts. Part of the computer code is more than 20 years old and is based on essentially extinct computing languages.

The antiquated HR system is being turned off in stages around the country as the Postal Service implements a new system designed by SAP that will allow employees to conduct routine HR transactions at kiosks in the workplace or online from any location at any time.

The system introduction has begun in the New York City area, where it is being used to manage the process of advertising and filling open positions. Three more districts will be added by the end of September, with the national debut slated for January. The shared services center has been established in Greensboro, North Carolina.

PostalPeople, which kicked off in July 2004, is part of the Postal Service Transformation Plan, launched two years earlier with the goal of increasing efficiency. The Postal Service invested more than $103 million in PostalPeople. When completed, savings are expected to total $60 million annually.

The end result will be a self-service HR network that enables employees to do HR transactions electronically, from changing their address to registering for benefits. All of the information will be available in one system serving 37,000 Postal Service locations nationwide.

Supervisors will no longer have to log out of one area and into another to keep track of their employees, fill open positions and evaluate employees.

“It’s one system pulling information onto the screen,” says Deborah Giannoni-Jackson, Postal Service vice president of employee resource management. “It’s pretty incredible.”

The new approach will make the Postal Service more agile and free managers from time-consuming transactional work.

“The first part of being able to manage well is to have the data you need to make decisions,” says Giannoni-Jackson, former HR vice president for international supermarket operator Royal Ahold. “Now they can focus more on succession planning, training and development, or labor relations—issues that are much more strategic for the organization.”

That kind of thinking is becoming more important for the Postal Service, whose operating budget is derived from sales of postage, products and services. It’s a quasi-government agency that’s being run more and more like a private company.

With that in mind, it has worked closely with SAP, bringing the software company almost seamlessly into its operations.

“The Postal Service treats us not as a software vendor, but as a partner to them in building their business,” says Rand Blazer, president of the SAP public sector business unit.

—Mark Schoeff Jr.

Despite rumors that it was considering selling off its HRO division, Hewitt Associates says it’s staying in the business.

Rumors peaked after a number of executive departures. In June, CEO Dale Gifford announced he was retiring, while Bryan Doyle, president of the HRO business, and Michael Salvino, co-leader of HR outsourcing sales and accounts group, left the firm.

Then on August 3, Hewitt announced that it was delaying filing its third-quarter financial results to August 14 from August 9 “to allow for completion of the previously announced review of its human resources business process outsourcing contract portfolio.”

But on August 14, the company sent out a notice assuring analysts that it was staying in the HRO business.

“Our board of directors and our leadership remain firmly committed to our direction,” the company said in its statement.

The assurance came on the same day that the Lincolnshire, Illinois-based company posted its third-quarter earnings, which included a $249 million noncash charge related to the company’s HRO business. A $70 million loss provision based on the expectation that one-third of its 2005 contracts and two earlier contracts would lose money was part of the $249 million charge.

“It is clear with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that we underestimated the complexity and therefore the cost of taking on multiple contracts,” Gifford said on the earnings call.

Gifford and CFO John Park attributed Hewitt’s troubles largely to taking on too much too quickly. Specifically, they cited payroll and recruiting as two areas where Hewitt was facing significant challenges.

All of the major HRO providers are struggling with offering recruiting services because they require an in-depth knowledge of the buyer’s needs, says Mark Azzarello, director of HR operations at International Paper in Memphis, Tennessee, which is in the fifth year of a 10-year HRO contract with Hewitt.

Hewitt’s assurances that it is staying in the business came as a relief to him. Gifford and Jim Konieczny, the head of Hewitt’s HR business process outsourcing division, had met with Azzarello in June and delivered similar assurances then, he says.

“They made it clear that [the rumors] were unfounded … and that they have every desire to stay in the business,” Azzarello says.

But things may change in the next few months. On September 5, Russ Fradin, former president and CEO of the Bisys Group, starts as Hewitt’s new CEO, and analysts expect that he will do his own due diligence of the business.

“I for one don’t see how they avoid at least considering a breakup or sale as a whole,” HRO consultant Naomi Bloom says. “They lost a lot of talent when they failed to elevate the very capable people they acquired with Exult.”

—Jessica Marquez

Edward Kelley
CEO, Edward W Kelley & Partners

   Edward Kelley has held a variety of high-profile positions during his 30 years in consulting and the executive search industry, including president and board member of Korn/Ferry International’s European operations. Earlier this year, Kelley spearheaded the management buyback of A.T. Kearney Executive Recruitment from Texas-based Electronic Data Systems, from which emerged a new company: Edward W Kelley & Partners. As CEO, Kelley has traveled the globe, opening offices in Boston; Calgary, Alberta; Sydney and Melbourne, Australia; Moscow; and Vienna, Austria, to help clients meet staffing needs. Kelley recently spoke to Workforce Management staff writer Gina Ruiz.

    Workforce Management: Where is the demand for executive recruitment most pronounced?
 
    Edward Kelley: The global economy is growing at a healthy pace. This bodes well for business in general. But the markets where the demand is outstripping the talent by far is in the emerging world—China, India, Russia and Eastern Europe.

    WM: Have the executive recruitment needs of employers changed over the years?

    Kelley: The needs of clients are not changing tremendously. But the time given to a candidate to prove himself has shortened dramatically. Before, the time frame was a matter of a year or two. But now it can be a question of quarters or even months. This raises the stakes when it comes to selecting the most suitable candidate.

    WM: Do the needs of clients vary from region to region?

    Kelley: They vary drastically. Take China, for example. That country has a tremendous need for indigenous middle- and top-level people. In markets where economic growth is moderate, like North America, employers generally look for executives that have something unique to contribute to the company. They are looking for somebody who can make a strategic difference.

    WM: Are there any new technology tools that allow recruiters to meet the needs of employers more effectively?

    Kelley: There are all kinds of tools one can use. Certainly the ability to identify candidates within companies is much greater than it was before. The use of research, extensive databases, outside research centers like the ones in India or other parts of the world have made it a lot easier to get information on individuals than it was 10 years ago. There are also a whole series of personality tests.

    WM: Will recruitment activity be affected by unfolding events in today’s global political/economic climate?
 
    Kelley: It depends on the type of challenge that is out there. The situations in Lebanon, Iraq, the price of oil and interest rates may eventually force companies to look differently at where they make their investments and carry out staffing efforts. Some parts of recruitment are more insulated than others. For example, if you are working in the field of higher education, you are less susceptible. There is always a need for deans of schools and presidents of universities. That doesn’t change. But demand for heads of companies, marketing directors, finance directors in major Fortune 500 companies—yeah, that changes.

Workforce Management, August 28, 2006, p. 9 — Subscribe Now!

Dear Not Sold:



Self-assessments typically are not valuable exercises for targeting development. It is like cutting your own hair: You just don’t have all the angles.

Studies have shown that inflated ratings are a problem with self-assessment. In fact, those who rate themselves the highest are generally the folks with the greatest development needs. Those who rate with self-awareness and honesty are more open to feedback and are likely to accurately target the areas they need to develop. Thus, the results may skew reality. It’s best not to use self-assessment data alone to determine an individual’s or a group’s development needs.

Self-assessment is useful and more accurate when coupled with feedback from a manager or others working closely with the individual. The real value comes from a discussion about the different perceptions that emerge, and an agreement on true development needs. Here too is where you can best communicate the importance of professional development. This does not need to be complicated. While numerous self-assessment and multi-rater tools are available, a simple piece of paper with a list of competencies and behaviors can facilitate this discussion.

Self-assessment alone can only be useful in a few situations. One is as an exercise to communicate and familiarize people with the competencies and behaviors expected of them, especially if these competencies are new to the organization. As long as you do not collect and use the data, it is a way to let people ponder their own personal development behind closed doors.

Another related use is as the first step to a multi-rater implementation. An initial self-assessment introduces the competencies to be rated in the future and lets people become familiar with the behaviors, the rating scales and the feedback tool. Again, do not use the data; just let people go through the exercise on their own as a warm-up.

Whether used as a discussion starter for development, a vehicle to introduce competencies or as the first phase of a 360-degree feedback process, make sure you clearly communicate your intentions for a survey. Any hope for honest answers depends upon it.

SOURCE: Jeff Eilertsen, Development Dimensions International, Pittsburgh, November 25, 2005.

LEARN MORE:How Could We Help Employees Develop Career Plans? Other information, including a reader’s forum, can be found in our Training & Development archive.

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.

Employees in the United States may value vacations in theory—planning for them, negotiating for extra days when they’re hired—but in actual practice do the unthinkable: They forfeit paid time off.

Workers here already earn shorter vacations compared with those in other Western countries—14 days annually versus 24 in Great Britain, 27 in Germany and 39 in France. Now comes this surprising finding: On average last year, U.S. workers gave back three days, compared with one or two days in other Western countries. This year, entitled to two additional days, they’re expected to leave four unused, according to a survey conducted by Harris Interactive and Ipsos Reid for Expedia, the online travel agency.

The survey noted that workers in Western states spend the most time on the job: 41 percent don’t take all their vacation, compared with 33 percent nationally. Those workers give up an average of seven days. Overall, 574 million days of unused vacation will total an estimated $75.7 billion in wages this year. Expedia calls the trend toward “overworked, vacation-deprived” workers unsustainable.

Shortened vacations diminish revenue because overwrought employees lose productivity, says Gregg Lemley, a labor and employment attorney. “Vacation is a two-way street. It’s a benefit to employees to recharge their batteries. But it’s also a benefit to employers. They want employees well rested, ready to do their jobs mentally and physically.”

Lemley, who’s in the St. Louis office of international law firm Bryan Cave, doesn’t believe employers fuel the trend. “What we have is a generation of people who believe that work is paramount to the point it’s not healthy.”

Simple fear may also play a role. “American workers are overloaded and afraid that if they don’t give back some vacation, they might lose their jobs or promotions,” says D. Quinn Mills, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School and author of Having It All … And Making It Work: Six Steps for Putting Both Your Career and Your Family First.

Among the reasons workers relinquish vacation days are the need to schedule them in advance (14 percent), workload (11 percent) and the prospect of being paid for unused days (10 percent), though expectations of a payout may be misguided. States often regulate vacation policies, and while some have use-it-or-lose-it laws, most do not, Lemley says.

Occasionally, even in states that allow it, companies without well-drafted vacation policies can wind up paying almost a year’s salary upon an employee’s termination or retirement, Lemley says. Well-drafted policies are those that clearly state vacations must be taken in the year they’re accrued.

The survey didn’t ask respondents where they worked, but Lemley sees a growing number of industries, especially in emerging fields like technology, advocating vacations. “The reality of the situation is that you’re ultimately going to get more production and better work,” he says.

One challenge remains, however: Employees need to actually relax on vacation. Twenty-three percent check business voice mail or e-mail during that time, and 65 percent say they experience work-related stress—even though they’re off the clock.

—Betty Liddick

Dear Recognition Conscious:



Why do you want to initiate these programs? There is overwhelming evidence that such formal programs do little in the way of motivating employees and can actually be resented by your staff. Why put a quota on excellence in your organization? My guess is that your company will not be successful by one person having done a good job once a month. So why limit your recognition to this number and frequency?

I recommend that you discuss with your employees at each of the locations the types of things that would motivate them to do good work and achieve desired results, either individually or as a group. This might sound messier, but it will be more effective. This process will help ensure that what is done is something they value and will support. You want them to feel this is their program. It’s OK if this results in doing more than one thing at each location and having more than one winner. One size does not fit all.

 

It’s also OK to do different things at your different locations. This approach would be much more real, sincere and personal to your staff and–as a consequence–much more motivating.

You might also consider different types of recognition for different levels of performance. At the grass-roots level, anybody should be able to acknowledge anyone else who helped them do a good job–with no approval necessary from management. As the performance and results are more substantial, so should be the recognition that is given.

SOURCE: Bob Nelson, Nelson Motivation Inc., San Diego, December 2, 2005.

LEARN MORE: Nelson expands on this theme. Also, here are some do’s and don’ts about recognition programs.

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.

The latest effort to make more information about pharmacy benefit managers available to employers began July 25 when a committee of industry participants and observers began work on a set of standards that PBMs must meet in order to receive an industrywide seal of approval.

The meeting came a day after 10 PBMs—including two of the largest, Medco Health Solutions and Caremark Rx—agreed to pass on their rebates and follow a set of standards detailed by a 56-employer purchasing coalition created by the HR Policy Association. Members of the group include Caterpillar and IBM.

During the past five years, however, PBMs have come under attack for not acting in the best interests of their clients, particularly for not disclosing sweetheart deals with pharmaceutical companies and not passing savings from rebates on to their clients.

Despite fierce resistance from PBMs, insurance companies and chambers of commerce, laws governing the industry have been passed in several states and proposed in 24 others, much to the delight of doctors, drugstore chains and pharmacists.

Supporters say both the certification and accreditation will allow the marketplace to police itself.

“Mandates simply drive up the cost of doing business with PBMs for everyone,” says Marianne Fazen, who is part of the National Business Coalition on Health and a board member of URAC, the organization that will manage the accreditation program.

Some provisions in state laws could find their way into the accreditation process, says Debra Friedman, senior vice president at URAC. One of the more comprehensive laws passed in 2003 in Maine addresses the issue of transparency by requiring all PBMs to pass discounts on to customers.

That provision would not likely become an accreditation standard because “it would be too prescriptive,” Friedman says, though it is a part of the 56-employer coalition standards for certification.

Fazen says receiving rebates is “not the issue.” She would like to see standards that detail how PBM services are calculated. “The issue is, where is the money coming from and where is it going?” she says.

At the core of the Maine law is a provision requiring PBMs to act in the best economic interest of their customers, says one of its architects, Sharon Treat, a former Maine state legislator who is now executive director of the National Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices, a nonpartisan group working to reduce prescription drug prices.

Employers would like to see the concept of the fiduciary duty of PBMs adopted as part of an accreditation requirement, Fazen says.

PBMs, for their part, have a lukewarm attitude toward accreditation. Medco says it would support accreditation that “would highlight industry best practices,” but could not commit to participating in creating the standards. Once the standards are detailed this fall, the public will have a chance to comment.

—Jeremy Smerd