Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on March 11, 2008June 27, 2018

Companies Target Moms-to-Be With Wellness Programs

Kim Tuffarelli couldn’t kick her cold. Stuffed up, congested and six months pregnant, she was dying to take some medicine, but knew she probably shouldn’t, since pregnant women are advised not to take cold medication. Still, Tuffarelli, a workforce relations consultant at Pitney Bowes, was finding it hard to get any work done and was seriously considering going to her doctor to see if he could do anything.

As if she could read Tuffarelli’s mind, a registered nurse with Nationwide Better Health, a Columbus, Ohio-based wellness provider, called to see how Tuffarelli was feeling. She suggested a number of home remedies for her to try, such as drinking lemon tea and boiling water to breathe in the vapors. A few days later, Tuffarelli was feeling much better.


The nurse is part of a service that Pitney Bowes provides pregnant employees and dependents as part of its Great Expectations program. Once women sign up for the program, they are given a dedicated nurse who will call to check up on them throughout their pregnancies and after.


Pitney Bowes is among a number of companies that are offering wellness programs that target mothers-to-be. While 10 years ago many employers viewed pregnant employees as liabilities, today companies are seeing the potential for cost savings by reaching out to this group, experts say.


Maternal and child health care services account for one out of every five dollars large employers spend on health care, according to a recent report by the National Business Group on Health. That doesn’t account for the productivity time employers lose when their employees are tending to sick babies and children, experts say.


And as more women seek to have babies later in life, many are turning to fertility treatments—which can often result in high-risk pregnancies and births of multiples. The birthrate of twins has jumped 42 percent since 1990, according to the U.S. Department of Health. The percentage of babies delivered prematurely—before 37 weeks—has jumped 21 percent over the same period. Each year employers spend $9 billion on claims related to prematurity, according to the March of Dimes, which aims to prevent birth defects, infant mortality and premature births.


“Helping women to have healthy pregnancies is not just a nice thing to do; it’s a business imperative,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health. The business case for these programs is even more pronounced for companies that cover fertility treatments under their health care plans, says Patti Freedman, a senior health care consultant at Watson Wyatt Worldwide.


“If I was an employer with fertility benefits, I would tell employees that in order to get these benefits, they have to take part in the wellness program,” she says.


Dulles, Virginia-based AOL, which does cover fertility benefits, began offering its WellBaby Program in 2003. Before that, the company offered over-the-phone counseling for pregnant employees and dependents, but then decided it wanted to do something that would reach out to more employees, says Michaela Oliver, senior vice president of HR.


“The No. 1 reason AOL employees go on disability is to have babies,” Oliver says. “So we try to take a proactive approach to make sure babies and families are healthy.”


Also, AOL has a large female population. Thirty-eight percent of benefit-eligible employees are women, and the average age at AOL is 37. Eighty-six percent of participants in the WellBaby program had high-risk pregnancies.


Like Pitney Bowes’ GreatExpectations Program, AOL’s WellBaby service provides pregnant employees and beneficiaries with a case manager who works to answer questions and provide support. AOL also offers a lactation program that lets employees receive lactation counseling both in-person and over the phone.


Just last year, AOL added a preconception component to its WellBaby program. In it, care managers are assigned to women and their partners to help them with preconception planning, nutrition, and financial and emotional issues and to offer more information on infertility treatments if needed.


“Until this program, we would usually only hear from women once they were finished with their first trimester of pregnancy,” says Jackie Gillispie, compensation and benefits consultant at AOL. “But this way, we can help them from the very beginning.”


And AOL has seen results. Of the 650 beneficiaries and employees who had babies last year, 215 were participants in the program. In 2007, AOL saved an estimated $400,000 in just preterm labor prevention. Of the five sets of twins born last year, only one set was born prematurely.


Executives agree that the biggest challenge to offering a program like this is getting the word out to employees and dependents. Pitney Bowes sends mailers out and features its Great Expectations Program on its employee portal.


To generate buzz about the program, the company, which makes postage meters and other products for business mailing, gives participants a jumper when their babies are born. It features a “special delivery” stamp announcing the baby’s name, weight, time of birth and city.


“It’s a $25 item, but people just love it,” says Dr. Brent Pawlecki, corporate medical director. The company also provides discount coupons for breast pumps as an incentive to participate.


Employers also can use these kinds of programs to get the word out about other wellness programs provided by the company, says Lesli Marasco, director of work/life and dependent care solutions at Abbott Laboratories, an Abbott Park, Illinois-based health care company that offers a Healthy Pregnancy Program.


“We make sure that the nurses know about all of the various vendors we work with and services we offer,” she says. “So for example, if a nurse in our Healthy Pregnancy Program senses depression, she could recommend our employee assistance program.”


The challenge that many companies face with regard to marketing these programs to employees is that while they want to get the word out and increase participation, they don’t want employees to feel that their privacy is being violated, Freedman says.


“Women often try to keep their pregnancies a secret from their employers as long as possible because they are worried about the ramifications,” she says. “Employers have to tread lightly with these programs.”


But when done right, the return on investment is worth it, executives say. “As little as tens of dollars [of] investment can impact thousands of dollars of costs,” Pawlecki says.


Tuffarelli, for one, believes that having her own private nurse checking up on her helped her to be more productive and engaged throughout her pregnancy.


Even after her daughter Camryn was born in June, Nationwide Better Health’s nurse checked in to see how things were going.


“My girlfriends would be amazed that it was a service being offered by my company,” she says. “It really is a helpful program, particularly for new moms like me.”


Workforce Management, March 3, 2008, p. 23 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on March 11, 2008June 27, 2018

More States Adopt Workplace Breastfeeding Protections

The days of new mothers returning to work while still nursing and needing to hide out in a bathroom stall to pump breast milk are going, going, almost gone.

Three states—Oregon, New Mexico and New York—passed laws that took effect at the beginning of 2008 to protect a woman’s ability to breastfeed or express breast milk at the workplace. That brings to 14 to total number of states with such protections. Similar bills are pending in 12 others, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a Denver organization that tracks state-level legislation.

At the conference, interest in the subject is popular—so popular that a listing of state breastfeeding laws is the most visited page on the group’s Web site, “and we have hundreds of other pages,” says Megan Foreman, a health research analyst for the conference.

Though state laws differ on minor details, most require that companies provide a private space—other than a bathroom stall—for women to breastfeed or pump breast milk, and the time to do it. In Oregon, the new law requires that companies offer employees a 30-minute unpaid break to express breast milk for every four hours worked, and gives employees the option of using paid accrued sick, vacation or other leave to cover that time.

To help companies comply with workplace breastfeeding laws, the federal Health Resources and Services Administration is partnering with local advocacy groups on a national pilot project of a federally developed workplace breastfeeding information kit. The kit, called “The Business Case for Breastfeeding,” includes research on the financial benefits to companies of workplace breastfeeding, instructions for creating nursing spaces, and promotional literature for human resources departments and employees.

Advocacy groups in Oregon and other states currently are seeking companies to test the kit. “We’re going to be selecting 20 employers who’d like to be inspired and supported in implementing the law,” says Amelia Psmythe, executive director of the Nursing Mothers Counsel of Oregon. “We’ll work intensively with them. Beyond that we’re figuring it out,” she says.

While the laws are great news for working mothers, they’re good for business too, says Oregon state Sen. Ginny Burdick, who co-authored that state’s law along with a coalition of employer organizations and breastfeeding advocacy groups. Studies show that breastfed babies are healthier than bottle-fed babies, which means moms won’t miss as much work to stay home with sick kids, Burdick says. And happy working moms are happy employees, she says.

“Whether or not they’re in states with workplace breastfeeding laws, many companies have already implemented policies, according to breastfeeding advocates and others. But putting laws on the books takes the burden off an individual working mom to request accommodations, “so she doesn’t feel so alone,” says Chris Mulford, workplace breastfeeding support committee chair for the U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, a Washington lobby group.

In addition, laws force companies that might never have had a nursing mother on staff to come up with a plan for when and if they do. Small employers or companies with multiple small branch offices or remote sites might not need a dedicated space, “but they have to have a plan,” Mulford says.

Instead of being a burden, supporting workplace breastfeeding can be a company selling point. Two years ago, when Ken Stempson was human resources director at Virgin Mobile, a wireless carrier in Walnut Creek, California, he helped implement a workplace breastfeeding plan after the California state law was passed.

The 150-employee company created a private lactation room out of a small office with a comfortable chair, phone, wireless computer access, locking door and a “Do Not Disturb” sign that could hang from the door handle.

“It had a viral impact,” Stempson says. “We didn’t need to promote it or advertise it. It was instantly received as a benefit.” It also made Virgin Mobile attractive to prospective job candidates, and pregnant employees went on maternity leave knowing that their nursing needs would be met when they came back to work, he says.

Helene Wasserman, a Los Angeles labor attorney with Ford & Harrison who works exclusively with corporate clients, says she hasn’t represented any businesses that have challenged workplace breastfeeding laws for being a hardship, nor does she know of cases where an employee sued their employer for failing to comply.

Posted on March 10, 2008June 27, 2018

The ‘Grading System

Topgrading runs on a set of fairly straightforward rules:

►Understand exactly what the open job entails, including responsibilities and salary, so candidates know precisely what’s being offered.


►Interview job candidates using a set of rigorous, in-depth questions to plumb information on past job history, competencies, successes and failures. The higher the position, the greater the number of questions, the longer the interview.


►Always have two people—typically an HR manager and hiring manager—conduct job interviews in order to eliminate subjectivity or personal bias.


►Request multiple references and thoroughly check all of them. To get around potential corporate roadblocks, ask candidates to provide contact information for previous direct supervisors.


►For CEOs and other big hires, bring in an outside expert for a second opinion.


►Rate information collected during an interview using a comprehensive assessment scorecard to evaluate how a candidate measures up to the demands of the job.


►Use the same interview and scorecard process for internal promotions and performance reviews as well as external hires.


Workforce Management, March 3, 2008, p. 26 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on March 10, 2008June 27, 2018

The 401(k) Effect Employees Who Won’t Retire

While shifting workers from traditionaldefined-benefit plans into 401(k) plans may allow corporations to lower their retirement plan expenses, many companies may wind up dealing with an unexpected problem.


“Because there’s no guaranteed retirement income with a 401(k), employees will work longer than they would have if they were in a traditional pension,” said Alan Glickstein, senior investment consultant at Watson Wyatt. “And this will curtail an employer’s ability to efficiently manage their workforces.”


Glickstein pointed to a new Watson Wyatt study revealing that workers whose non-Social Security retirement incomes are primarily derived from 401(k)s are significantly less likely to retire than workers who are covered by a defined-benefit plan.


Employees with defined-benefit plans know exactly what their pension payout will be—making planning for retirement easier—unlike those with defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s. What’s more, it makes little financial sense for employees with DB plans to keep working once they are eligible to receive the pension. Typically, the payout from a DB plan won’t increase beyond what the company has promised even if employees continue to work after they become eligible for a full pension.


That’s not the case with 401(k) plans, where the more an employee puts into the plan, the bigger the payout—assuming, of course, the employee’s plan investments pan out.


“It makes it much more challenging for companies to anticipate the rate at which their employees will retire, and also the exact periods that these employees may leave the workforce,” Glickstein said.


Indeed, Watson Wyatt’s research shows that the timing of retirement for workers in 401(k) plans is often directly influenced by business cycles, as well as the ebb and flow of the stock market. To wit: Employees whose 401(k) plans have suffered a significant investment loss are much less likely to retire (roughly 1 percent less likely to retire for every 10 percent drop in the stock markets, according to Watson Wyatt data).


Ultimately, when there are market booms, 401(k) participants retire “just when companies need to add workers,” according to the Watson Wyatt study, and when the markets decline, 401(k) participants “stay at work just when companies want to cut the workforce.”


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

Posted on March 10, 2008June 27, 2018

Get Your ‘A’ Players Here

Brad Smart has spent a career teaching companies a better way to hire people.

Not just any people. Smart people. Top performers. The best and the brightest. He calls them “A” players.


Fill your company with best and you’ll be the best, Smart counsels. Specifically, keep the employee roster filled with 90 percent “A” players and your company can accomplish anything.


That mantra lies at the heart of the hiring method Smart conceived of more than three decades ago and dubbed “topgrading.” In it, he espouses rigorous in-depth interviews, meticulous reference checks and other hiring techniques to identify top players, redirect or retrain “B” and “C” players and dump deadbeats who don’t or can’t fit, perform or change.


In the ensuing years, Smart has brought the concept to Fortune 1,000 stars like General Electric, Barclays and Lincoln Financial as well as other companies large and small that have used it to navigate national expansions, mergers and acquisitions, bankruptcy reorganizations and other challenges.


Those successes have helped turn topgrading into a familiar phrase in business circles, and created a cottage industry.


Through his Smart & Associates Inc., in the northern Chicago suburb of Wadsworth, Illinois, Smart runs training sessions—at $35,000 a pop—for multinational companies incorporating topgrading into their executive hiring practices. The same companies retain him to personally interview CEO and other high-level job candidates, paying him as much as $16,000 a day. He also runs topgrading seminars and sells DVDs, books and forms through his Web site, SmartTopgrading.com.


Smart’s son Geoff, a fellow Ph.D. and industrial psychologist, runs a separate topgrading consultancy, Chicago-based ghSmart & Co., that has been featured in The Wall Street Journal and BusinessWeek and specializes in topgrading for financial institutions and venture firms looking for executives to run startup companies. Both Brad and Geoff Smart have published books on the subject, and both have new titles due this year. Father and son have taught their topgrading methods to about 200 consultants, who in turn work with companies around the world.


Brad and Geoff Smart decline to discuss annual revenue for their respective companies, both of which are privately held. However, they believe total annual revenue from topgrading-related enterprises could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, including revenue from their affiliated consultants as well as sales of topgrading books, seminars, training materials and in-house corporate trainings.


It’s a number that’s extremely difficult to confirm, or even put into perspective given the amorphous nature of the assessment industry. Insiders peg the global assessment industry at close to $1 billion, but admit that it’s hard to say exactly because of recent merger and acquisition activity, privately held companies that don’t share revenue data, and assessment companies that make money selling related products.


Regardless of the figure, it’s a hot space, says Charles Handler, president and founder of Rocket-Hire, an online training and assessment business. “It’s becoming more productized and tied to other offerings, and evidence for the power of assessment is growing, which is spurring uptake at an increasingly faster rate,” he says.


Against that backdrop, Brad Smart hopes to introduce topgrading to a wider audience and is negotiating partnerships with HR technology and outsourcing companies to that end. One affiliation is in the works with Taleo, the Dublin, California, talent management technology vendor.


Through it all, Brad Smart, 63, remains topgrading’s head cheerleader and globe-trotting chief practitioner. He typically spends two nights a week on the road. In the latter part of 2007 alone, he traveled to see clients in Turkey and London before spending the holidays with family at his vacation home on Bonaire in the Caribbean.


An unabashed self-promoter who’ll talk about his latest project at the drop of a hat, Smart is also sincere about bringing better hiring practices to the masses. Most companies still have a very superficial approach to hiring, Smart says. But “topgrading companies become magnets for ‘A’ players,” he says. “Word gets out. Successful topgraders are emulated; everyone wants to know what the Kool-Aid is they’ve been drinking.”


Fans like Fred Harding, Taleo’s vice president of global alliances and HRO practice, say Smart’s “distinctive confidence” helps separate him from the 15 or 20 other companies or consultants offering similar services. “He’s a brand name,” Harding says.


Not everyone’s a fan. The most common criticism is that topgrading interviews are too long. Other critics claim topgrading doesn’t account for people’s ability to grow and change in a job, that it doesn’t work in some fast-paced industries, and that it’s no better than the so-called “rank and yank” system some companies routinely use to rid themselves of underachievers.



“There are power vacuums all over companies pulling down performance standards. The head of HR is important to maintaing high performance,
but if the CEO doesn’t [help mantain performance standards] it’s difficult for topgrading to succeed.”
—Brad Smith

Competitors say they’ve taken away as many clients as Smart has taken from them. “I truly believe our assessment is more job-relevant and more objectively valid,” says Matt Paese, executive solutions vice president at Development Dimensions International, a Pittsburgh-based HR consulting firm and Smart & Associates competitor.


Such criticism doesn’t faze the perennially upbeat Smart, who maintains that his methods continually beat out his rivals for improving the quality of candidates hired. “Who cares if jobs get filled quickly and inexpensively if 75 percent of those turn out to be mis-hires?” he says.


Topgrading 101
The secret of topgrading is that there’s nothing really secret about it. In fact, the topgrading formula is built on basic hiring rules Smart outlined in his book Topgrading, published 10 years ago and updated in 2005.


Those rules include pinpointing the specifics of the job being filled; using a rigorous, in-depth interview, tandem interviewers and a rating scorecard to match a candidate to the open position; and thoroughly checking references. Smart espouses the same methods for internal promotions and performance reviews. According to him, if employees go through topgrading and are identified as “B” or “C” players, management should move them to jobs where they can become “A” material and train them if necessary—or, if they doesn’t look like they’ll ever get better, fire them. If companies strictly adhere to the topgrading regimen, they’ll end up with 75 percent high achievers, and in many cases, up to 90 percent, he says.


It’s pretty simple stuff. So why pay Smart tens of thousands of dollars for something you should have learned in Hiring 101?


Because simple can be deceiving. As easy as it sounds, hiring can and does go wrong, and when that happens, costs quickly add up. A 2006 survey of 444 North American companies conducted by Right Management, another talent assessment firm, found the average cost of a bad hire was 2½ times the person’s salary, including recruiting, training and severance costs and lost productivity.


The costs of a bad CEO or C-level executive hire could be even greater, though a lot depends on individual circumstances, says Lisa Aldisert, president of Pharos Alliance, a New York business and assessment consulting firm. “Everything from the size of the company, the predetermined exit package of the outgoing CEO to the degree of desperation to hire a new CEO will factor in,” Aldisert says.


Bad hires happen for lots of reasons, Smart says. Companies undermine their own efforts by conducting interviews for jobs they haven’t clearly defined. Or ill-prepared interviewers ask off-topic questions, spend more time talking than asking questions, or like a candidate so much they decide not to check references. Managers eager to fill open positions will hire someone they know doesn’t meet all the qualifications and cross their fingers that things will work out.


As a newly minted Ph.D. starting out in the psychological assessment business more than 30 years ago, Smart saw it all. Frustrated by the shortcomings of existing assessment tools, he set out to build a better mousetrap—one that would remove much of the guesswork from the process. He eventually came up with the heart of his system: an in-depth interview covering the previous 10 years of a pros­pect’s job history. To cover everything, interviews take two hours, and sometimes three or four hours for C-level positions.


Smart had some successes. But other early adopt­ers quickly reverted to their old ways. He deduced that companies weren’t good at creating their own interview questions, so he constructed the detailed interview template he still uses. Eventually, he also created a comprehensive scorecard for rating informa- tion collected in an interview. Topgrading took off.


Jack Welch calls
In the early 1990s, Smart got a once-in-a-lifetime call. Jack Welch, the hard-driving CEO at General Electric, had heard about topgrading and wanted to try it. Smart worked with Welch and other GE managers in a variety of areas, and found that topgrading fit in nicely with other hiring and performance review tools Welch championed, including tandem interviews and 360-degree reviews. As GE’s status as a management dynamo took off, it sealed topgrading’s reputation too. In his book, Smart calls Welch “a one-man topgrading hurricane,” and although Welch doesn’t mention Smart in the two management books he has written, over the years other GE managers have praised Smart’s techniques in published testimonials.


The experience gave Smart an “in” at other major corporations. Today, Smart claims to have worked with a who’s who of Fortune 1,000 enterprises, although some of those have simply attended his workshops.


One longtime practitioner is Philadelphia-based Lincoln Financial Group, a $251 billion-asset insurance and financial services conglomerate that merged with Jefferson Pilot Financial in 2006 and used topgrading to choose which executives from the two companies would be slotted into top management positions after the merger.


Using topgrading for those assessments helped hiring managers make quick decisions while under pressure, in many cases about people they didn’t know, says Karen Ruef, who until recently was Lincoln’s vice president of talent management and strategic staffing. When Lincoln’s CEO and COO reviewed and signed off on the hiring decisions afterward, “it really resulted in a lot of credibility of the process,” Ruef says.


Of Lincoln’s 10,000 employees, about 6,000 have gone through the topgrading process, a number that represents most of the corporation’s white-collar staff. Of those, Ruef ranks 75 percent as “A” players, a number that’s slightly below the company’s historic average of 90 percent because of the merger, she says.


Lincoln officials wouldn’t comment on the company’s topgrading costs. “We’re in that enviable position of having a leadership team that believes in the effectiveness of the process because they look at the talent and see they’re [better] than competitors, so don’t ask us to prove it,” she says.


However, officials confirm that the effect on turnover has been significant. Voluntary turnover runs 10 percent to 12 percent a year, plus 4 percent to 5 percent a year for layoffs, Ruef says.


Both Ruef and Elizabeth Reeves, Lincoln’s senior vice president of human resources, worked at topgrading companies before coming to Lincoln, and they wouldn’t have it any other way. “You spend far less money on blowout hires that don’t make the grade. It makes a huge difference,” Reeves says.


To work, topgrading can’t just be an HR mandate; it has to come from the top, Smart says. “There are power vacuums all over companies pulling down performance standards,” he says. “The head of HR is important to maintaining high performance, but if the CEO doesn’t [help maintain performance standards] it’s difficult for topgrading to succeed.”


One CEO who swears by topgrading is Curt Clawson, president, chairman and CEO of Hayes Lemmerz International Inc., a $2 billion maker of wheels and other automotive components based in North­ville, Michigan. Clawson joined Hayes Lemmerz in 2001; shortly after, he discovered accounting irregularities hidden by the 100-year-old company’s former executives. At the same time, the U.S. auto industry was tanking. The company filed for bankruptcy. Two years later, rising gas and steel prices walloped the company again.


Clawson had used topgrading before in executive positions at Allied Signal and American National Can, and believed it could help. With Smart’s assistance, he deployed it to reshape Hayes Lemmerz’s top management, and they in turn topgraded management within their divisions. As a result, Hayes Lemmerz restructured its core business, selling off some product lines, closing some U.S. plants and opening foreign ones. In a short time, the company’s overseas business grew from less than 20 percent to 55 percent, a change that has helped rejuvenate its finances.



“[By topgrading], you spend far less money on blowout hires that don’t make the grade.
It makes a huge difference.”
—Elizabeth Reeves, senior VP of human resources, Lincoln Financial Group

Clawson credits topgrading for much of the success. “Most people thought we would go under,” Clawson recalls. “Here we are two years later with a 1-to-1 debt-to-equity ratio and a new balance sheet. That would have been impossible without an outstanding team. Had we stuck with the previous management, we would have disappeared.”


Smart’s own business and his family life have served as living topgrading laboratories. Everyone on the staff of his four-person consulting firm went through topgrading interviews before being hired. Smart even used some of his methods raising Geoff, 35, and daughter Kate Smart Mursau, 32, who sprinkles anecdotes about life with her topgrading dad in a parenting book called Smart Parenting: How to Raise Happy, Can-Do Kids, which she co-wrote with him in 2006.


Smart hopes partnerships will help topgrading reach more companies. Taleo is considering incorporating topgrading techniques into its talent management suite, says Harding, the company’s global alliance and HRO vice president. The partnership is in the product development stage, and as of mid-February, the companies were selecting beta testers, according to Smart.


Not everyone’s a fan
For all its fans, topgrading also has its critics.


Paese, the Development Dimensions International vice president, says his company’s assessment system is superior because job candidates submit not only to in-depth interviews but also screening tests and full-day job simulations. The combination is critical at a time when major corporations are performing more due diligence on candidates for top jobs and are placing more importance on a good culture fit, he says. “If you look at a résumé and past accomplishments, you don’t get a good sense of how they’ll fit. But if you look at their personal characteristics, work values and what caused them to be motivated, you can reduce risk around culture fit,” Paese says.


Jim Estill, CEO of Synnex Canada, a 900-person technology reseller just outside Toronto, routinely writes about management and hiring issues on his business blog, Time Management. Estill follows some of Smart’s hiring tenets, but takes exception to the idea that bad people can’t be retrained, and that certain jobs require certain characteristics.


“I have a great salesperson who’s a total extrovert, and a great salesperson that is quite introverted,” Estill says. “They’re both equally good, and in many cases I need both of them because some of my customers relate to one and some to the other.” If he made the assumption that there was only one best way, he could be in trouble, he says.


Smart hopes such criticisms will be quelled by new research that could quantify how well topgrading works. In summer 2007, the American Productivity & Quality Center, a nonprofit benchmarking and best-practices research group in Houston, tapped Lincoln Financial to study for its standard-setting strategies for recruitment, selection and talent retention, including topgrading procedures. APQC documented those practices and is compiling the results in a study of Lincoln and five other companies that’s due to be released early this year.


Topgrading is also the subject of a case study on Geoff Smart’s ghSmart & Co. that is being compiled by Harvard Business School graduate student Ashraf A. Haque. According to Haque, the report will be added to the university’s business case studies library.


Such reports, plus the partnerships Brad Smart is pursuing and the books he and son Geoff have coming out next year, could propel topgrading toward that much sought-after tipping point of wider recognition. Meanwhile, as long as people will listen, Brad Smart will bend their ears about his quest for hiring perfection. When it comes to promoting topgrading, he’s the ultimate “A” player.


Workforce Management, March 3, 2008, p. 1, 20-28 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on March 7, 2008June 27, 2018

Capitol Hill Democrats Vent Over High CEO Pay, Mortgage Crisis

Democrats vented their frustration about the faltering housing market, slowing economy and burgeoning executive pay at a congressional hearing Friday, March 7.


The recipients of the ire were three current and former financial executives who Democrats believe earned too much while Americans defaulted on risky mortgage products developed by their firms.


Charles Prince, former chairman and CEO of Citigroup, E. Stanley O’Neal, former chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch, and Angelo Mozilo, founder and CEO of Countrywide Financial Corp., testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.


Committee Democrats criticized the trio’s compensation packages. O’Neal and Prince stepped down as the leaders of Merrill Lynch and Citigroup in 2007 when their companies each lost $10 billion and suffered a stock price drop of almost 50 percent. Countrywide lost $1.6 billion.


But O’Neal received a $161 million retirement package and Prince a $10 million bonus as they walked out the door. Mozilo, who still runs Countrywide, made more than $120 million in pay and the sale of the firm’s stock.


Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California and chairman of the committee, asserted that the executives were paid far in excess of their performance while millions of homeowners fell behind on their mortgages or had their property foreclosed.


“It seems to me like everyone is hurting except for you,” Waxman said to the executives. “CEOs hit the lottery even when their companies collapse.”


Committee Republicans said it was unfair to blame the housing debacle on the executives when a number of factors and institutions—including Congress—contributed to the problem.


“If you CEOs had made nothing during this time … [it] would not have saved one home,” said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Virginia and ranking member of the committee. “Punishing individual corporate executives with public floggings like this may be a politically satisfying ritual—like an island tribe sacrificing a virgin to a grumbling volcano.”


Company board members from Merrill Lynch and Citigroup defended the executive pay packages, which they said were based on past high performance and market rates for CEO talent. They also said that they align executive and shareholder interests by making executives retain the vast majority of their company stock while leading the firm. 


John Finnegan, chairman of the management development and compensation committee at Merrill Lynch, said that O’Neal did not receive a bonus or severance payment. He said that O’Neal was allowed to retire rather than being dismissed because he could only be fired for misconduct, not poor financial performance.


Harley Snyder, chair of the compensation committee at Countrywide, said that the board reduced Mozilo’s base pay from $2.9 million to $1.9 million and required that certain financial targets be attained before he would qualify for a bonus.


Mozilo, who said the stock sale was part of a planned retirement process, has vowed to forgo $37.5 million in severance payments and other earnings if Bank of America takes over Countrywide.


In making their defense, each of the executives relied in part on personal narratives that showed them overcoming significant obstacles to rise to the top of corporate America.


Prince was the first in his family to go to college. Mozilo started his company from scratch in New York City.


O’Neal, whose grandfather was born into slavery, lived in a boyhood home that lacked indoor plumbing or running water. He financed his college education by working at a General Motors factory. He stressed that his hardscrabble upbringing gave him empathy for people who are facing foreclosure.


“I understand as well as anyone the importance of homeownership, not only financially but also socially and emotionally, and I would never do anything knowingly that would deny anybody that privilege,” O’Neal said.


Richard Parsons, chairman of Time Warner and chairman of the personnel and compensation committee at Citigroup, cited the executives’ backgrounds in arguing that compensation has to be set based on competitive factors rather than a desire to close the gap between C-suite and cubicle or shop floor remuneration.


“These are the American stories because the market works,” he said.


That provided little comfort to Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, who related the stories of constituents who have lost their homes.


“I worry about this whole culture where the little guy gets squeezed and the next thing all he has is a debt, not a house, and the golden parachute drifts up the golf course,” he said.


Mozilo offered to assign staff to work with each House member’s office to address housing concerns in their districts.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Posted on March 7, 2008June 27, 2018

Millennials at the Gate

Pardon me if I seem sick and tired of all the overheated talk about the worker shortage that is supposed to be threatening American business.

I catch a lot of flak when I say this, but I just don’t buy that this is a real issue. Yes, there are shortages of workers in specific areas (health care workers and engineers, for example), but in general we don’t have a problem—something that is confirmed just about every day when I read about the latest company buying out or laying off workers.


But, you might ask, what about the impending retirement of the baby boomers? Who is going to take the place of the 76 million Americans born after World War II who are beginning to leave the workforce? I think this purported trend has been overblown too, and I have written about the talent-shortage myth on numerous occasions in my Business of Management blog at Workforce.com.


First, I think the boomers are going to take their time leaving the workforce. Second, there is a huge group of new workers now gearing up to take their place: the Millennials (also known as Generation Y), who were born after 1980.


They are here and ready to start working—but what if we aren’t ready to let them?


Last month, I was surprised to read in The Dallas Morning News about an advertising executive who had decided to stop hiring newly graduated Millennials unless they have an advanced degree or have done a work-related internship. The executive said that it wasn’t because Millennials lack creativity or technical know-how, but rather because they lack the ability to deal with responsibility, accountability and setbacks.


“They wipe out on life as often as they wipe out on work itself,” advertising executive Owen Hannay said. “They get an apartment and a kitty, and they can’t cope. Work becomes an ancillary casualty.”


The problem, according to a generational expert who talked to the newspaper, is that Millennials have been “overparented, overindulged and overprotected. They haven’t experienced that much failure, frustration, pain. We were so obsessed with protecting and promoting their self-esteem that they crumble like cookies when they discover the world doesn’t revolve around them. They get into the real world and they’re shocked.”


Well, maybe some are, but how can you broad-brush a group of 80 million people? Hasn’t every generation entering the workforce had its own share of strengths and challenges?


I have a close-up view of the Millennial generation: Not only do I have three in my own household, but I teach writing to a class full of them at a local university. And, although Millennials have their own unique generational issues, the ones I deal with reflect what you would find in society as a whole—some are good, some average, some clueless. How different is that from any other group?


“Some of them are the greatest generation,” said Marian Salzman, an ad agency executive at J. Walter Thompson who talked to 60 Minutes in November and invoked the term used for the pre-boomers who fought World War II and held down the home front. “They’re more hardworking. They have these tools to get things done. They are enormously clever and resourceful. [But] some of the others are absolutely incorrigible. It’s their way or the highway.”


The rap on the Millennials is that they have been spoiled and coddled, but they also tend to be much more realistic and pragmatic about the modern workplace. “I remember my dad getting laid off and all these things growing up,” one Millennial told 60 Minutes. “And that’s ’cause they sacrificed for the company. Well, the first knee-jerk reaction from me is, I sure don’t want to do that. I’m going to be in it for me and I’m going to make it work.”


From my perspective, this is a much healthier way to view work. It’s the result of more than 20 years of Corporate America treating workers like disposable parts, and now, the next generation of workers is saying, “We are aren’t going to do it the way our parents did.”


Maybe that’s the one thing the Millennials can teach the rest of us: that work is the means to an end, a way to help reach our goals but not the end goal itself. They are going to do it differently, and like it or not, we’d better be ready. Once this generation fully takes over, our workplaces will never be the same.


Workforce Management, March 3, 2008, p. 42 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on March 7, 2008June 27, 2018

EEOC’s Medicare Regulations Approved

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a final rule that exempts employer-sponsored retiree health benefit plans from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to allow plans to alter, reduce or eliminate such benefits when a retiree turns 65 and becomes eligible for Medicare.

According to the new rule, employers may, at their discretion, provide retiree benefits “only to those retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare,” and may “alter, reduce or eliminate” retiree health benefits for those retirees who become eligible for Medicare. Essentially, the new rule allows for employers to establish two categories of retirees and to offer more comprehensive benefits to those under 65 and more limited benefits or no benefits to those over 65.


In its preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register, the EEOC concluded: “The final rule is not intended to encourage employers to eliminate any retiree health benefits they may currently provide.”


It should also be noted that AARP has a pending challenge to the EEOC’s authority to issue the exemption in a federal district court case in Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit upheld a ruling in favor of the EEOC, holding that the commission had shown that the exemption was “a reasonable, necessary and proper exercise of its authority.” In November 2007, AARP filed a petition for review by the United States Supreme Court. That remains pending. 29 CFR Parts 1625 and 1627.


    Impact: Employer-sponsored health plans are relied on by more than 10 million retirees as their primary source of health coverage or as a supplement to their Medicare benefits. The EEOC’s final rule, effective December 26, 2007, has been met with support among the employer, labor union and benefits community, but has been vehemently opposed by AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans. Employers should continue to monitor this issue as to the Supreme Court’s final ruling on the matter.


Workforce Management, February 18, 2008, p. 8 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on March 7, 2008June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Reward Salespeople for Results

Dear Risk and Reward:

Attracting and retaining top talent is a challenge for even the savviest of hiring managers. Most sales representatives expect a compensation package that reflects the quantity and quality of their efforts. Generally, the more money a salesperson makes for the company, the more the salesperson expects to earn. However, when it comes to negotiating compensation, you’ll want to make sure you’re keeping sales performance the top priority. Consider the following:

First, consider the framework for your compensation model—how you want to reward people. Variable-pay models have more incentives for the salesperson to generate business, but they can be unattractive if your territory is cold. Generally, a combination of fixed and variable pay is best. You may want to look at some of your competitors’ job postings and see what is standard for your marketplace.

Consider what you compensate for. Specifically, make sure that your compensation plan promotes the behaviors you are looking for and supports the kind of selling you wish to execute. Think carefully about what role this person will play in the sales process. Will you need someone who generates leads or closes deals? How consultative or transactional is the sale? Is it a product or solution sale? Based on your responses, you may wish to create incentives that link to factors other than revenue (such as volume, profit, contacts generated or customer satisfaction).

Keep it simple. It can be tempting to base rewards on a wide range of factors. However, the compensation system can’t be so complex that the salesperson doesn’t know what should be driving behavior. The package can include gated commissions, bonuses, promotions and more. But, it will only drive behaviors if there are clear guidelines as to how the salesperson will need to perform to reach those benchmarks—and if there is a straightforward, visible process for tracking progress along the way.

Balance risk. If you have never managed an incentive plan in your territory, you may wish to consider mitigating risk for both you and your sales hire. A windfall clause, or cap on incentive earnings, is often added to ensure that the sales representative’s income stays within certain boundaries, enabling management to reduce commission on sales that exceed certain parameters. At the same time, a higher fixed component will ensure that the salesperson’s pay does not fall below a minimum threshold during the ramp-up time.

Don’t be afraid to change. While changing your plan every month would create confusion and distraction, do be sure to track it constantly. And, if it is not doing what you need it to, don’t be afraid to ask for salesperson input and change it.

Although there is no magic formula for creating the perfect plan, you can minimize stress by developing a plan that is aligned with the organization’s strategy, defines desired salesperson behaviors and results and determines what can actually be measured and thus rewarded before implementing the plan.

SOURCE: Seleste Lunsford, AchieveGlobal, Tampa, Florida, January 28, 2008.

LEARN MORE: More information on sales targets/commissions.

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
Posted on March 7, 2008June 27, 2018

Dear Workforce How Do We Shore Up a Failing Competency Framework for Line Managers?

Dear Failure on the Front Line:

Developing supervisory skills is not an easy task. The most critical step is the first: namely, clearly defining the requirements of supervisors versus those of individual contributors. Specifically, how will success as a supervisor be evaluated, and how clear are supervisors about changes in their roles?

Select for competencies in how to lead people, rather than relying exclusively on developing these skills after the fact. For example, effective supervisors balance their need to personally achieve results with a desire to accomplish goals through others. They also are able to build relationships that balance the need to be liked with the ability to manage employees’ performance—all while maintaining trust and respect.

Understanding a supervisor’s motives—their need for achievement, affiliation and power—helps you provide effective coaching and management development. Building people-leadership skills also involves assessing emotional intelligence (i.e., self-awareness), which is the ability to manage one’s self and relate to others effectively.

It also is important to understand an individual’s leadership style: Is it democratic versus autocratic; developing versus pace-setting; authoritative versus controlling; and so on. Finally, a helpful measure for determining a supervisor’s performance lies in assessing the work climate he or she creates. Climate is a culmination of the supervisor’s role clarity, motives, competencies and leadership style, and has been shown to affect overall performance as much as 30 percent.

There are supervisory programs that use assessment tools and multi-rater feedback prior to managers attending management-development training. In-baskets and role plays also are often used to assess and develop skills that create an engaged and motivated workforce.

SOURCE: Connie Freeman and Jim Bowers, Hay Group, Philadelphia, January 3, 2008.

LEARN MORE: Organizations may be missing essential managerial skills needed for sustained success.

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

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 … Page 591 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress