Category: Archive

Posted on

Delta Dental, The Driving Force


If you want a dental program that offers a variety of programs placing an emphasis on prevention and flexible product options, then Delta Dental is something to look into.


A Tradition of Leadership
As America’s largest and most experienced dental benefits carrier, Delta Dental (deltadental.com) has helped employers improve and maintain the oral health of their employees since 1954. A nationwide system of dental health service plans, Delta Dental offers employers, large and small, custom programs and reporting systems that provide employees with quality, cost-effective dental benefit programs and services.


The Delta system consists of 37 independent dental plans operating in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. About one quarter of all Americans with dental insurance enjoy the advantages and comprehensive protection afforded by Delta Dental coverage — that’s more than 42 million people in 75,000 employer groups across the nation. More facts about our healthcare leadership can be found on our Web site at deltadental.com


Dental benefits are now a mainstay in the benefits mix of many employers. More than three-quarters of respondents to a recent survey said they considered it important for a prospective employer to offer dental benefits.¹ While dental coverage is only one component of a benefits package, a comprehensive, well-administered dental program can be an asset in recruiting and retaining superior employees.


Delta Dental offers its members a unique advantage through contractual relationships with our network dentists that go far beyond traditional insurance. Our partnerships result in real solutions to oral health care with a focus on prevention. More facts about our healthcare leadership are at deltadental.com.


 Here are some of the ways Delta Dental can put its unmatched industry experience to work for you:


Our Network Advantage
Three out of every four dentists in America are part of Delta Dental’s Premier provider network, giving Delta the most extensive network of participating dentists in the nation. Affordable, appropriate care within the network comes as a result of unique cost management measures and contractual agreements with dentists, saving group purchasers and subscribers $2.6 billion in 2001 alone.


Delta Dental’s comprehensive dentist network access enables you to meet your group’s needs consistently, whether your employees are in the same state or spread across the country.


Something for Everyone
Delta Dental offers a variety of programs that range from managed fee-for-service and preferred-provider programs (PPOs), to dental health maintenance organizations (DHMOs) and point-of-service (POS) offerings. Customized programs can also be created to meet your needs.


As America’s leading dental plan, Delta Dental can help you maximize the value of your dental program through well-designed programs with an emphasis on prevention, flexible product options, unrivaled network access and easy-to-read reporting.


DeltaUSA Delivers for Multistate Employers
Businesses with employees located in different parts of the country need a dental plan that can adapt to their business geography. DeltaUSA, Delta Dental’s national dental benefits program, makes managing dental benefits easy, regardless of where your business is located. From coast to coast and everywhere in between, Delta Dental takes the hassle out of national account administration for customers. That’s because we have years of experience delivering quality national programs to our groups and subscribers.


With DeltaUSA, you get uniform benefits from state to state and access to the nation’s largest network of contracted dental providers, along with savings and satisfaction for both you and your employees — no matter where they live or work.


DeltaUSA groups range in size from 11 subscribers to hundreds of thousands of individuals working in a variety of companies and organizations. Clients include everything from national trade associations and unions, to health care systems and Fortune 500 companies.


Through years of experience delivering national programs to a diverse group of multistate employers, your group program can be tailored to meet local needs and concerns. DeltaUSA offers four core products for our national program clients.


DeltaPremier USA, our national, managed fee-for-service program provides a comprehensive package of benefits, coupled with Delta Dental’s cost management techniques. DeltaPremier features:


  • A provider network with more than 105,000 contracted dentists practicing in 128,000 office locations.
  • The freedom to choose any dentist.
  • A variety of incentives and lower out-of-pocket cost options when Delta Dental participating dentists are selected.
  • Dentists’ fees are pre-approved against specified fee criteria for cost effectiveness.
  • No balance billing. Contracting dentists accept agreed upon fees.
  • No paperwork for patients to file.

DeltaPreferred Option USA, our national preferred provider program (dental PPO), is the solution for groups seeking lower cost advantages while providing subscribers with a high level of freedom of choice in selecting providers. DeltaPreferred Option USA offers:


  • A growing national network of more than 38,800 contracted dentists practicing in more than 47,000 locations.
  • Freedom to choose either a participating dentist or, for a higher out-of-pocket cost, any non-network provider.
  • Considerable cost savings when using a dentist who is a preferred provider in the Delta Dental network.
  • No paperwork for patients to file.
  • No balance billing. Contracted dentists accept agreed upon fees.

DeltaCare USA, our dental health maintenance organization (DHMO), extends subscribers access to a select group of DeltaCare dentists, with even greater cost savings for employers and the elimination of deductibles and annual maximums for subscribers. DeltaCare USA is the choice for groups seeking lower costs, an emphasis on prevention and a pre-selected network of dentists from which to choose. DeltaCare USA offers:


  • An increasing network of over 10,000 contracted dentists in more than 5,600 offices that are assessed for experience, range of service, location, accessibility and the ability to accommodate new patients.
  • Minimal and/or no patient co-payments for preventive care.
  • A quality, affordable dental benefits program.
  • Multi-year contracts with annual rate ceiling guarantees.
  • Detailed program management reports.

DeltaSelect USA is an excellent option for employers seeking a group voluntary (enrollee-paid) product. It offers a national network of dentists who have agreed to accept regional fee schedules and program policies.


Of course, we can easily combine our fee-for-service program with a dental PPO, dental HMO or both. Such dual- or triple-option programs can further lower costs and give subscribers a wider range of choices.


More information about DeltaUSA can be found at deltadental.com


Protecting Your Interests
Purchasers for groups of all sizes are seeking efficient cost management and streamlined administrative procedures that provide real, short-term and long-term savings. Delta’s understandable management reporting means you receive easy-to-read actuarial, accounting and administration reports that are customized to meet your needs.


Delta Dental offers these advantages even in the most basic of program designs through efficient claims service, flexibility in program design, competitive prices and an extensive and effective network of participating dentists.


Among all major competitors, benefits decision-makers ranked Delta Dental highest in these critical areas:²


  • Customer service
  • Fast quality claims processing
  • Quality of care
  • Ease of plan
  • Number of dentists
  • Service reputation
  • Rate stability.

For more than 45 years, Delta Dental has led the way in controlling costs and savings for both employers and employees, year after year. To learn how you can maximize quality, value and performance with Delta Dental benefits programs, contact your broker, consultant or Delta Dental representative.



DELTA DENTAL
Visit our Web site at
deltadental.com



¹Source: Taylor Nelson/Sofres Intersearch
²Source: The Long Group, 1998

Posted on

Incentives and the Art of Changing Behavior

For many well-meaning managers, getting employees to change their behavior isa frustrating, challenging, confounding task. Employees often don’t see thevalue of performing their jobs differently or taking on new roles, or they don’ttrust the reasons for change in the first place, says Chris Butler, president ofThe Performance Engineering Group. “If they don’t support the change, theywon’t alter their behavior and the project can’t succeed.”

Whether it’s getting people to use a new software system or changing thecompany’s approach to knowledge-sharing, employees want to see immediate andobvious personal payoffs before embracing a new system. The quickest way to makethat link is to tie a reward and recognition program to the appropriateperformance. “Adults are like children. If you reward the behavior you want tosee, it will get repeated,” says Diane Allessi, director of trainingdevelopment at the American Bankers Association in Washington, D.C. For maximumbenefit, the reward and the acknowledgment have to be immediate and public, shesays. “By recognizing employees in front of their peers, it not onlyreinforces the behavior in the individuals, it telegraphs to everyone aroundthem that this is the conduct you expect and value.”


It can be a casual approach, in which managers make a point of praising thosewho perform the new behaviors, or a formal incentive program that rewardsemployees with gifts every time they perform a new task. The important thing isto send the message to everyone that they will benefit from supporting thechange initiative, Butler says.


To most effectively use reward and recognition to support a changeinitiative, define the new behaviors in as much detail as possible, Allessisays. For example, you can’t just say that service reps should be friendlierto customers. You have to identify the characteristics of that behavior, such asgreeting customers warmly, asking if they have any other concerns, or addressingthem by name. Once you know what the behavior looks like, translate it in detailto employees and then reward them on the spot for doing it, she says.


“Employees need clarity about what’s expected of them,” says JulieBacon, vice president of marketing at Bravanta, an incentive and recognitioncompany in San Francisco. But they also need incentives to get started. Ifemployees know they will receive something of value when they perform a newtask, they will become personally invested in the initiative. “The rewards andrecognition program gets people motivated,” she says.


“Once they incorporate the new behavior into their routine, they will beginto see the intrinsic value of the change,” says Cindy Hubert, director ofknowledge management and connected learning for the American Productivity andQuality Center in Houston. “Eventually the tangible reward becomes lessimportant and the new behavior becomes inherent to their job performance.”


 The biggest mistake managers make is rewarding the wrong behavior.

The biggest mistake managers make is rewarding the wrong behavior. “Theyfocus all of their attention on those who won’t change, and ignore those whodo,” Butler says. “That sends the message to employees that you don’tvalue the change, and it can cripple your project.”


Butler creates computer-based training courses called QuickLearns, whichinclude short videos of experts performing specific tasks. He was hired tovideotape a group of test technicians at an aerospace company performingproduction-line tasks, but they refused, fearing that the training would deprivethem of their job security, and even threatening to bring in a union lawyer.


Later, when Butler found a night-shift technician who agreed to do the video,he made a point of presenting him with a $100 gift certificate in front of hispeers, and asked the technician’s supervisor to do the same. When the originaltechs saw the payoff, they realized that their negative behavior had backfired,Butler says. And now, as the company considers layoffs, they have new reason tofear for their jobs. “They saw that a willingness to cooperate and shareknowledge was valued and rewarded. It’s a lesson they won’t soon forget.” 


Workforce, November 2002, pp. 80-82 — Subscribe Now!


Posted on

Reining in Relocation Costs

Corporate people-moving is becoming so pricey that employers are going togreat lengths to curtail transfers, and to distance themselves from anythingresembling cardboard boxes, moving vans, or For Sale signs. Last year alone, thecost of relocating an employee who is a homeowner jumped 6 percent. The averageprice tag: $60,000.

    For many organizations, of course, moves are a must–and so is substantiallyshaving the cost of big-ticket items like home sales. Experts concur that thesethree techniques are proven ways of curtailing runaway expenses: home-saleprograms, tiering, and cafeteria plans. At the same time, they also are shiftingto cost-containment methods that create a tighter link between the cost of amove and an employee’s long-term value to the firm.


    When large numbers of relocations are unavoidable, cost containment becomesparticularly crucial. Last year, Lafarge North America, a construction materialscompany with 15,500 employees, launched a major restructuring. The company hadto face up to an inevitable increase in the number of relocations. “We began athree-month crash course to centralize our relocation policy,” says BobShepard, director of compensation. “The focus was on updating the policy withcurrent best practices, improving cost controls on home sales, and standardizingthe relocation process by putting it on a national basis.”


Home-sale programs
    In recent years, the Herndon, Virginia, construction firm has grown rapidlythrough mergers and acquisitions. The result has been a decentralized and looserelocation policy. “Employees were negotiating their own relocation deals,”Shepard says. For assistance with its relocation program, Lafarge turned toCendant Mobility, a relocation services company in Danbury, Connecticut, with2,100 corporate clients worldwide. With home prices rising quickly in many partsof the country, home sales are among the most expensive components of arelocation program. “Companies are addressing home-sale programs because theycan have such a huge impact on costs,” says Pete Klein, Cendant Mobility’svice president of consulting services.


    Cendant’s objective is to keep the company from owning the home. That’sbecause the cost to the employer doubles once the home moves into inventory.Consequently, Klein says, companies are adopting the following techniques tohasten the sale process:


  • Mandatory marketing. Companies require the relocating employee to workwith a marketing consultant to help sell the home.


  • List-price requirements. Employers require the employee to list the homeat a price that is within a certain percentage of an appraiser’s value.


  • Selling incentives. Companies offer an incentive, usually 1 to 3 percentof the home’s sale price, if the employee completes the sale within aspecified time.


  • Buyer value option programs. The tax-advantaged status of these programsreduces selling costs and gross-ups, which are the allowances employers pay forthe taxes that employees will owe on reimbursements.


    Lafarge adopted a new policy that requires a home-owning employee to use arelocation company to sell the home and pays the employee a generous incentiveof 5 percent of the sale price if the house is sold within a specified period.”This program has been successful in vastly reducing the number of houses wetake into inventory,” Shepard says. “Carrying a house in inventory is likestepping into a black hole. It costs us 1 to 1.5 percent of the value of thehouse per month, so it’s very advantageous to avoid this.”


Different cost tiers for different employee levels
    Another major trend in relocation cost containment is tiering, which setsdifferent levels of benefits for specified groups of employees. “Companieshave turned to tiering to cut costs and provide flexibility for hiring managers,”Klein says. Today, 61 percent of Cendant’s clients use tiering, up from 34percent five years ago. A typical structure provides four tiers. According toKlein, a tier 1 complete relocation package for executives averages $70,000 permove. A tier 2 package for middle managers carries an average cost of $45,000 to$50,000, and a tier 3 move for all other exempt employees typically averages$35,000. A tier 4 relocation for a newly hired college graduate is commonly a$3,000 lump sum.


    Lafarge doesn’t use a formal four-tier structure but offers two differentpackages for new hires and existing employees. The company typically does notoffer new hires a home buyout or the 5 percent incentive for selling the home,and does not pay the settling-in allowance that is provided for transferees.


    Companies are also capping their payments for specific relocation expenses,Klein notes. For example, for miscellaneous expenses, companies commonly coveredan amount up to one month’s salary, but many are now capping the payment at aspecific salary level. Lafarge has instituted some caps but tries to strike abalance between cost issues and the needs of relocating families. “We havebeen somewhat flexible in areas such as temporary living expenses for familieswith school-age children or a spouse with career needs,” Shepard says.


Cafeteria plans
    The integrated systems sector of Northrop Grumman Corporation, the aerospaceand defense company, is based in El Segundo, California. The group employs12,000 people and relocates about 350 annually. In 1999, the divisioncentralized its relocation program under one department, representing 16 sitesin six states. Before the reorganization, “we were lucky to operate smoothlywith relocations, because our program was so decentralized,” says Mickey Leong,relocation project manager.


    Prior to 1999, the company used a two-tier program with benefits based on joblevel. With centralization, the company introduced a new third option–acafeteria plan with a dollar cap based on tiered job levels that allowsemployees to select the relocation benefits they will receive. “We added thethird option for greater flexibility for the employees and to help control andpredict costs,” Leong says. Program constraints and requirements determinewhether the original two-tier plan or the cafeteria plan is utilized for aspecific relocation.


    In a recent group move that involved transferring 40 employees from Floridato Georgia, all of the employees were offered the cafeteria plan with a dollarcap. The program manager negotiated the budget with the customer. “It was verysuccessful,” Leong says. “The cost savings were so significant that therelocations came in under budget, so Northrop Grumman was able to raise the capby 10 percent and allow the transferees to select additional benefits.”


    Northrop Grumman works with GMAC Global Relocation Services in Warren, NewJersey, to achieve effective relocations. Rita Triano, client relations manager,says company relocation consultants work with Northrop Grumman’s transfereeson a one-on-one basis to help them assess their needs, evaluate benefit options,and give them an approximate dollar value for the benefits in the cafeteriaplan. GMAC Global Relocation Services also tracks and reviews all reimbursementsso that Leong can communicate to program managers exactly what they are spendingfor relocation-program expenses.


    “The move to the cafeteria plan with the dollar cap has been verybeneficial for employees because they select what they need,” Leong says. “Ifan employee does not have a home to sell, the employee can choose other benefitsthat are more useful for renters. The program is also beneficial for programmanagers because they can budget costs and come up with solid numbers. They knowthat they may come in under budget, but they will not go over budget because ofthe cap.”


    Northrop Grumman also converted its home-sale plan with direct reimbursementto a buyer value option plan, which eliminated the costly gross-ups needed tocover tax consequences. “This change, instituted in 2000, has already savedthe company almost $1 million,” Triano notes. Leong reviews the NorthropGrumman relocation policy annually, with careful attention to benchmarking andcost containment.


Monitoring results
    Any company that installs new cost-containment programs must measure theireffectiveness and monitor employee reactions. Hewlett-Packard Company, the PaloAlto-based technology solutions giant, tracks relocation cost containmentresults carefully. The company relocates more than a thousand employees annuallywithin the United States. In 2000, it outsourced its domestic relocationprograms to Prudential Relocation.


    “After successfully managing our relocation programs for a number of yearsin-house, it was determined–after significant research and cost analysis–thatit would be more cost-effective to outsource to a third-party company,” saysRegina Richardson, domestic vendor program and policy development manager.Hewlett-Packard also simplified its programs by reducing the overall number andinstituting cafeteria plans.


    To measure its cost savings, Hewlett-Packard regularly reviews the costsassociated with administering the programs as well as those related todelivering the provisions within each program. “These costs are measuredagainst our anticipated targets for a given quarter or year,” Richardson says.To date, the cost-savings targets have been met. “To ensure that our managersand transferees are receiving satisfactory services, we conduct an annualinternal survey,” she says. “In addition, the third-party company conductsits own survey at the close of each relocation. Both surveys are used to monitorand enhance service levels.”


Employee and managerial acceptance
    Companies that install cost-containment programs are running into littleresistance from employees because they see cost-cutting trends across the board,Klein says. “Now cost-containment policies are so common that employeesgenerally find them acceptable.”


    Communication is, of course, still important. At Lafarge, Shepard reports,”the change in relocation policies has not been smooth because the companyimplemented the changes so quickly and did not solicit as much input frommanagers and other employees as it normally would have.” The shift from loose,decentralized rules to a tightly written policy roiled some managers, but didnot create major disruptions in the relocation process. The new policy hasreceived solid support from senior executives, many of whom have personallyexperienced relocations under the new program.


    Under the old relocation policy, hiring managers had a free hand innegotiating deals. Now they don’t. “But they are adjusting,” Shepard says.”These adjustments required a lot of face-to-face discussions, but the companyhas been fairly firm about the need to centralize and formalize the relocationpolicy.”


    He stresses the importance of fast and efficient relocations. “If you arespending a significant amount of money to move someone, complete the relocationrapidly to maximize the employee’s efficiency and productivity,” he says.”Balance the need to control costs with the need to re-establish the employeeand his or her family quickly in the new location.”


Workforce, November 2002, pp. 34-38 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on

Seven Steps Before Strategy

HR deserves a seat at the table. HR must be the champion of change.

    How many times have we heard these tired phrases?


    In recent years, human resources professionals have been told that theirrightful place is as a senior company officer at the top of an organization.Tasks associated with what once was known as “personnel administration” havebecome the objects of scorn, while activities thought to position HR managers as”strategic partners” have been encouraged and applauded.


    Many in HR have taken this message to heart. They are striving to focus onstrategy, to participate in decision-making at the highest levels of theirorganizations, and to elicit respect from other members of the senior managementteam.


    Unfortunately, they are failing. Despite their best efforts, many are stillblocked from the head table or only grudgingly given a seat. They findthemselves too weak politically to be champions of organization transformation.And they find themselves in a constant battle to prove their worth and to haveany influence in key decisions. While this is due, in part, to slow-to-changeattitudes toward HR from other areas of the organization, HR also must acceptresponsibility.


    The recent emphasis on strategy at the expense of operations has hurt HR. Intheir rush to become strategists, HR executives and managers have dropped theball on some fundamental aspects of HR. This has allowed those predisposed todiminishing the role of HR to point to shoddy basics as evidence of limitedabilities.


    Does this mean that HR professionals should abandon strategic activities andreturn to the days of “administrivia”? No. It simply means that HRexecutives and managers must try harder to find the delicate balance betweenday-to-day operations and big-picture initiatives. While HR professionalsultimately should be focused on strategy, they must make sure that the basics ofthe job are taken care of first.


    Ultimately, there is a hierarchy of roles and priorities that must befollowed–moving from the smooth execution of the basics of HR to theassumption of a seat at the table to, finally, becoming a champion of change.Following this path lets HR professionals avoid the fate of one executive whotried to advise an internal client about manpower issues. The line managerreacted with scorn, asking, “How about getting my open-position requisitionsfilled before giving me advice on strategic staffing issues?”


The seven steps
    Taking care of the basics means taking steps to increase efficiency,streamline operations, link individuals and activities to organizationalobjectives, and establish sound relationships with multiple stakeholders. Thefollowing seven steps will help assure that both the basic and strategic HRneeds of organizations can be met:


  1. Get rid of what’s unnecessary
  2. Automate
  3. Assess stakeholder satisfaction
  4. Communicate regularly with stakeholders
  5. Redefine “strategic”
  6. Practice what you preach
  7. Spread the word

Step 1: Get rid of what’s unnecessary
    A common complaint from HR managers juggling basic HR operations andstrategic thinking is that there isn’t enough time to do both. With staff andbudget cuts forcing organizations to do more with less, this balancing act isbecoming even more difficult.


    The solution is simple. Get rid of HR programs and practices that aren’tadding value to the organization’s bottom line.


   We recognize that this is easier said than done. Jettisoning HR programs andpractices requires HR managers to know which activities are contributing toshareholder value and which are not. It means they must have the courage toadmit that certain practices do not work. And it means recognizing that justbecause a program is touted by conventional wisdom as a “must-have,” thatdoesn’t mean it’s right for their organization.


    The availability of new research is making this process less complicated. TheWatson Wyatt 2001 Human Capital Index establishes exactly which human-capitalpractices have the greatest impact on shareholder value. For example,effectively implementing a specific set of recruiting practices is associatedwith a significant increase in shareholder value. Among the practices includedin this category are those associated with hiring people who can hit the groundrunning, involving employees in the hiring process, treating peopleevenhandedly, and approaching recruiting and retention as mission-critical.


    On the other hand, the HCI study also throws a cautionary flag in front ofsome popular HR practices. Three practices in particular–360-degree reviews,developmental training, and the use of HR technologies with “softer” goalsin mind such as culture change and enhanced communication–were associated inthe study with a decrease in financial performance. While there may be nothinginherently wrong with these practices, many organizations implement them in waysthat decrease, rather than increase, shareholder value.


    HR executives and managers must take a hard look at their programs andpractices to evaluate which ones are adding value and which ones are not. Byfocusing only on core practices proven to add value, HR professionals free uptime and resources previously invested in delivering programs that bringmarginal returns.


Step 2: Automate
    Forty years ago, HR staffers kept employee records on index cards.Fortunately, those days are gone. Today, HR should be using technology toautomate administrative transactions and to provide efficient, user-friendlyself-service systems to employees and managers alike.


    Achievement of these goals is dependent on good execution of carefullycrafted HR technology plans. When HR technologies first became widely availableseveral years ago, many companies implemented as many eHR applications as theycould and made them available to as many employees as possible through e-mail,voice mail, Interactive Voice Response systems, the company intranet, the publicInternet, and HR service centers. The assumption was that the faster anorganization moved its traditional HR services into an eHR environment, the moreefficient HR would become and the more satisfied employees would be with HRservices.


    However, our research shows that getting results has more to do with aproperly focused eHR strategy than with the speed or extent of an organization’seHR progression. Technology must be implemented with a clear objective in mind,and that objective must be tied to hard business outcomes. Using HR technologiesto reduce costs is associated with an increase in shareholder value, forexample. Similarly, using HR technologies to upgrade service or improvetransaction integrity or accuracy also can boost the bottom line.


    Unfortunately, implementing HR technology for “softer” reasons has theopposite effect. Using HR technologies toenhance communication, for example, is associated with a decrease inshareholder value, as is using technology to promote culture change.


    The task for HR is to figure out what can and should be automated, establishquantifiable objectives, draw up a plan to meet them, and carefully execute theplan. Specific steps in this process should include:


  • Understanding and leveraging the link between eHR and business strategy.HR services and systems must be viewed in the context of helping to achievecompany objectives.


  • Quantifying the current cost of delivering HR services. HR groups mustknow where they are today before they can identify opportunities for costcontrol and project expected cost-savings.


  • Defining how eHR will change the delivery of HR services. This meansestablishing a vision and articulating what that vision will mean in terms ofpeople, process, and technology.


  • Working closely with the finance side of the organization to develop therequired analysis. Typically, this includes a business case containing acombination of measures, such as net present value, rate of return, and paybackperiod.


  • Establishing measures/targets to maintain focus and assess progress. Asthe saying goes, “What gets measured gets done.”


Step 3: Assess stakeholder satisfaction
    Just because an HR group believes its activities are going well, that doesnot mean others share the same view. Consider data from the Watson Wyatt WorkUSA2002 study of employee attitudes and opinions. Only half–48 percent–ofparticipants rated the effectiveness of their organizations’ HR functionsfavorably.


    HR executives and managers at every organization should know where they standin the eyes of their stakeholders, including senior executives, line managers,and employees. What are they doing well? Which areas need work? How are theyviewed by the majority? As administrative implementers? Strategic planners?Facilitators? Obstacles to progress?


    Armed with this information, HR professionals can evaluate their roles in thecontext of what their organizations want and need from their HR departments.


Step 4: Communicate regularly with stakeholders
    The truth is that most stakeholders in an organization don’t really carewhether HR has a seat at the table or not. They just want their HR needs met.


    Consider line managers. They want to see their staffing requirementsfulfilled. They want the HRMS to be accurate and up-to-date. They want acompensation system that is easy to understand and lets them reward (and keep)their key talent. In short, they want to see the trains running on time.


    When you make changes to the HR process that appear to eliminate HR duties ,you might at the same time create confusion and concern among line managers andothers in the company. Who will take care of the duties? How will the work getdone? In addition, line managers often are unaware of the importance of specificHR processes. A program or practice they dismiss as a waste of time may actuallybring significant value to the organization.


    The solution is frequent and effective communication. By communicatingregularly with stakeholders, HR executives can show them why certain practicesand programs are essential. They can explain to stakeholders why changes such asautomation of the performance-management system or introduction of self-servicebenefits administration are being made. And they can make the business case forthem–pointing out advantages related to cost, efficiency, accuracy, and easeof use.


    By making communication with stakeholders about proposed changes de rigueur,HR managers and executives can alleviate any concerns the stakeholders mighthave and develop a contract with HR’s customers that covers the organization’shuman-capital priorities.


    Ultimately, the key to establishing trust in the HR function is helpingstakeholders understand the competitive and strategic human-capital issuesfacing their organizations and explaining the rationale behind change-relateddecisions.


Step 5: Redefine “strategic”
    Let’s face it. It’s just not realistic for every person working in HR tobe focused solely on strategy. If every HR executive, manager, associate, andassistant eschewed administration for strategy, the result would be certaindisaster.


    Still, everyone wants to be seen as a strategist. With the mantra “thinkstrategic” echoing in their ears, few HR managers are willing to definethemselves as anything but strategic partners.


    The solution to this problem lies in broadening the definition of “strategic”to encompass both the formulation of strategy and the execution of strategy toaccomplish organizational goals. During the past few years, many of the peoplewho focused on strategy at the expense of operational success did so becausethey saw no connection between their operational duties and the success of theirorganizations. They wanted to “make a difference” and believed the only wayto do so was to become part of the decision-making process.


    To solve this problem, organizations must clearly define roles andexpectations for people in HR-related positions. The percentage of each person’stime likely to be spent formulating strategy versus executing it should becalculated, and it should be made clear that meeting operational objectives isconsidered a top priority.


    At the same time, steps should be taken to clarify for HR professionals inall positions how their work affects the bottom line. We call this “line ofsight”–showing employees that their individual contributions do have ameasurable effect on their companies’ ability to meet business goals.


    The best way to accomplish line of sight is through a strategy-mappingprocess. In the first stage, assess the primary business strategies. What arethe business objectives of the organization? The division? The department?


    Next, identify the operational plans necessary to execute these objectives.How will the business strategies be carried out? By whom? With what resources?In what time frame?


    After the objectives and processes have been established, you can determinethe human-capital requirements for executing the plans. Questions to askinclude: What type of culture will we need? What type of work experiences willwe have to offer in order to acquire top talent? How will our compensation andbenefits practices change? Once you know the HR requirements, technologicalresources can then be evaluated and allocated to support the needed HR programsby reducing administration and maximizing existing resources.


    With this knowledge, HR executives can show members of the HR staff wherethey fit in and how they can contribute to the achievement of businessobjectives.


Step 6: Practice what you preach
    Getting the HR house in order is important from an efficiency standpoint, butit also is crucial for establishing credibility within the company. Few linemanagers are going to be willing to test out new practices such as flexible workarrangements or automated performance-management systems if the HR group exemptsitself from practices it asks others to accept.


    By modeling behaviors and processes that can be implemented throughout thecompany, HR can be a testing ground to work out the kinks in new activities andas a showcase for good employment practices.


Step 7: Spread the word
    While the HR literature may be filled with articles and editorialscelebrating the importance of human capital and its management, few peopleoutside the field of HR are widely exposed to that message.


    There are some signs that this is changing. Key newspapers and nationalbusiness magazines regularly feature pieces on the handling of human-capitalissues. And companies are finding that it pays off to position themselvespublicly as good places to work.


    HR executives and managers should emphasize this growing respect for humancapital by showing line managers, senior management, and investors the stronglink between superior human-capital practices and increased shareholder value.Three key findings from the HCI study can be used to make this case:


  • Superior human-capital practices are leading–not lagging–indicatorsof financial performance. This means that effective human-capital practicesdrive positive business outcomes more than positive business outcomes lead togood HR practices. Changes made now will help companies recover more quickly andemerge stronger when the economy rebounds.


  • Shareholder returns are three times higher at companies with superiorhuman-capital practices than at companies with weak practices. During the boomyears of the late 1990s, that difference was significant, but not nearly aslarge. It’s even more important to focus on human-capital superiority in toughtimes.


  • Not all human-capital practices are created equal. Some create a lot ofvalue. Others actually diminish it. Companies must examine programs andpractices to ensure they are adding to shareholder value.


    Just because HR experts say HR executives and managers deserve a seat at thetable, that doesn’t make it so. HR professionals must evaluate for themselvestheir track record in meeting stakeholders’ operational expectations. Nomatter how brilliant their strategic thinking, unless the basic HR needs oftheir organizations are satisfied, HR professionals will not be viewed as fullmembers of the organizational team.


Workforce, November 2002, pp. 40-44 — Subscribe Now!


Posted on

Sample At-Will Employment Statement

One example of employment-at-will language:

    If hired, I agree as follows: My employment and compensation is terminableat-will, is for no definite period, and my employment and compensation may beterminated by the Company (employer) at any time and for any reason whatsoever,with or without good cause at the option of either the Company or myself.


    No implied, oral, or written agreements contrary to the express language ofthis agreement are valid unless they are in writing and signed by the Presidentof the Company (or majority owner or owners if Company is not a corporation).


    No supervisor or representative of the Company, other than the President ofthe Company (or majority owner or owners if Company is not a corporation), hasany authority to make any agreements contrary to the foregoing. This agreementis the entire agreement between the Company and the employee regarding therights of the Company or employee to terminate employment with or without goodcause, and this agreement takes the place of all prior and contemporaneousagreements, representations, and understandings of the employee and the Company.


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


    This material is used by permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  Reprinted with permission from Hire With YourHead, by Lou Adler, copyright2002 John Wiley & Sons. This was taken from a chapter by Robert J. Bekken.


Workforce Online, November 2002 — Register Now!

Posted on

iThink Twice-i It’s Their Debt But It’s Your Problem

Unless you’ve got dead batteries in all your radios, you know what the hotadvertisements say these days: “Get Out of Debt.” Advertisers are floodingthe airwaves because they’ve crunched the numbers and found that there’s abig market for their services. People are broke.

This problem dwarfs other money issues. Nearly four times as many employeescall Financial Finesse, a financial-education provider, about debt as call aboutstock options. You hear a lot about college costs rising, but 40 times as manyemployees call about debt. Eight times more people call about debt than aboutmortgages. Personal debt is hotter than Winona Ryder’s new clothes.


You’re thinking: Why should I care? What am I supposed to do, be myemployees’ parent? Are their personal lives really my business?


You shouldn’t be their parent. It shouldn’t be your business.Unfortunately, personal debt is not a personal issue. It’s a business issue.


Tom Garman is one of the leading experts on employee debt. For 25 years atVirginia Tech, he has studied how employees’ money woes end up haunting thecompanies they work for.


“Financially distressed workers are like a poison poured on the floor ofthe workplace,” Garman declares. “You can’t see the poison, but it’sthere. It permeates more than just the employee who has a problem. It permeatesthe workforce. And most employers don’t give a damn.”


About a third of employees say that financial problems are affecting theirjob performance, he notes. He has found this to be true with clerical employeesin Virginia, chemical workers in Louisiana, and white-collar employees in threemidwestern states. These employees are more stressed, less productive, andabsent more often than others. They make more personal calls about money, theysend more personal faxes, and they talk about the issue longer with coworkers.Their physical health is worse. They waste about 20 hours of work time a monthdealing with money problems, according to Garman’s research on employees in 25states.


Another study, by the Military Family Institute, shows that employeefinancial problems cost the U.S. Navy about $250 million annually (mainlybecause of the stress these problems bring).


Bill Pomeroy is president of The Edsa Group, a company in Baton Rouge thatprovides financial education to employees. He says that debt not only costscompanies money, but specifically causes a strain on HR departments. Whenemployees are in debt, HR spends more time garnishing wages. HR and benefitsprofessionals also spend more time handling 401(k)s, because employees borrowfrom themselves more often.


Pamia Guttenberg, a financial planner at Financial Finesse, compared thenumber of calls her company received in the third quarter of 2002 to the numberit received in the first quarter of the year. There were 40 percent more callsthat concerned debt.


Could debt cause turnover? Guttenberg says that some of her callers arespending work time looking for new jobs. “They’re just convinced a littlebit more money will help them out.”


You can do something about debt. Talk to the financial-education vendor thateducates your employees about 401(k) planning. Chances are good that they haveworkshops and materials about money management, and they’d be glad to hostbrown-bag lunches at your company.


If your vendor doesn’t offer workshops, you could switch vendors. Or keepusing Fidelity or T. Rowe Price or whoever handles your 401(k), but hire anadditional vendor that works exclusively on financial education.


Let your employees know if your employee assistance program providesfinancial advice. Bill Arnone, a partner at Ernst & Young who calls debt a”dirty little secret” no one wants to talk about, says that before you relyon the EAP, be sure the program has experienced financial experts on staff.


There are also nonprofit credit counseling programs available, and yourcompany’s credit union may be a good source of information.


Education will pay off. Research by Jinhee Kim of the University of Maryland’sDepartment of Family Studies shows that four months of financial education andone-on-one advice results in improved employee health and work performance.Dorothy Bagwell, an assistant professor at Texas Tech, found a relationshipbetween a year of credit counseling and higher job productivity.


You could wait to deal with the issue of employee debt until the economypicks up. Then again, bankruptcy filings jumped 150 percent from 1983 to 1990,during a long expansion of the American economy. This tells us that it makessense to act now.


Workforce, November 2002, pp. 96 — Subscribe Now!


Other columns by Todd:


Posted on

LMS Needs

With a world economy floundering and travel costs mounting, one drug companyknew it must cut training costs aggressively, and discovered that the bestglobal classroom deal is on the Web.

Kendle International Inc., a pharmaceutical research company in Cincinnati,employs researchers throughout the globe who must be trained before everyclinical trial. Scaling back on training without compromising quality, the1,800-person firm knew, would require high-powered software–technology thatcouldn’t be maintained in-house–to launch an effective online program. Sothe company embarked on a hunt for an emerging technology known as a learningmanagement system, or LMS, a vehicle that is used to automate the administrationof online training programs.


The system can register users and track courses, record data on a student’sprogress, and forward reports to management–work otherwise conducted byon-site trainers. Brandon Hall, LMS guru and head of a Sunnyvale, California,e-learning consulting firm, defines the system as “the foundation of moste-learning programs.”


But it is also the most expensive tool involved in establishing an e-learninginitiative. In a 2001 report, Hall estimated that the average LMS system costs$550,000 for 8,000 users over a five-year stretch, and the price tag isincreasing. For human resources professionals, training executives, and otherswho are involved in making such an investment, picking the right system canresult in saving an organization huge amounts of money while advancing workforcedevelopment.


Making the right pick, however, isn’t easy. There are several factors toconsider when making a choice, including the company’s in-house ITcapabilities, the expectation for return on investment, the nature ofcustomization needs, and the dizzying array of models and vendors. Choosing avendor is perhaps most important, because LMS investments are often multi-yeardeals. You’ll want to know that your vendor will be around for the duration,although there are no guarantees in the swiftly changing marketplace.


Two years ago, there were at least 200 players in the LMS business; todayonly half as many still exist. Much of the dramatic reduction is related to thetroubled economy. “It’s complex and expensive software to deploy, and withIT budgets down lately, there’s only so much business to go around,” saysNate Swanson, a Minneapolis-based e-learning analyst with ThinkEquity.


But the shakeout also is related to the fact that the burgeoning industry isstill weeding out its weakest links. Vendors that marketed viable products andgenerated customers quickly were able to establish themselves and grow revenuebefore venture capitalists closed the spigot on all things Web-related. Thosethat were less established were left behind.


The LMS market is growing, but it is doing so in the hands of fewer and fewervendors. For those in HR, that means it’s essential to do your homework beforeshopping for a vendor.


Sherry Gevedon, Kendle’s director of global training and development, and asmall team of assistants spent nine weeks in 2000 interviewing more than 50vendors. They knew that they wanted to be able to customize the software andlater add to it. They eventually whittled the list down to three companies, andprice became a significant factor. They selected California-based Saba Software.


Before the selection process began, Gevedon and her crew had to make surethat top management really wanted the system and supported the move. They alsohad to determine if the IT department could ensure the necessary infrastructureto make the new system work, and that the LMS could get the kind of return oninvestment that would make the program self-supporting.


“Be prepared. Make sure the support is there,” Gevedon says. “We madethe case, and the support just flowed down from the top. That’s why it hasworked for us.”


In May of 2001, the company went live with its eKendleCollege, an onlinecorporate university that caters to hundreds of associates at 21 differentdomestic and international locations. In its first 15 months, associatesaccessed more than 5,000 online courses. In-person training sessions once heldat corporate headquarters in Ohio became history.


To illustrate how much the company has saved, Gevedon uses this example:About 300 Kendle associates had to get up to speed on the basics of a new trial,such as its size and information about the drug. Before the advent of the LMS,they needed four two-hour training sessions. Most participants had to travel toreceive instruction, and would spend three days in the program. The onlineuniversity made it possible for all 300 employees to complete the training in amatter of hours without leaving their offices.


The savings: $500,000 in travel and hotel costs alone. “This has gone very,very well,” Gevedon says. “The training programs now are running moreefficiently than they did before, and staff development has been bolstered.”And the company’s savings on e-learning programs has already offset the nearly$2 million that was invested in an LMS.


  “Managers and human resource people have to think about [LMS] as more than a training thing.It’s also about the management and alignment of human capital across the organization.. 

“Managers and human resource people have to think about this as more than atraining thing,” says Brook Manville, Saba’s chief learning officer. “It’salso about the management and alignment of human capital across theorganization.” That leaves HR leaders to answer the most fundamental question:Is there truly a compelling business need for an LMS? Do you have to invest in acomprehensive e-learning program to speed up training or make it more efficientand less costly by cutting back on travel expenses?


If so, HR must work to make certain the whole organization is on board andthinking about the same goals. Gevedon and other decision-makers boil theprocess down to four areas of advice:


• Think hard about ROI. This is, after all, what any major business move isall about. How will you measure the success of the system? How quickly do youneed it up and running? Do you want the system to pay for itself within a year,five years, eight years?


The largest companies are more likely to look for shorter contracts,expecting to make upgrades or other changes–perhaps with a different vendor–inthe near future. Xcel


Energy, the power behemoth created by the merger of Minneapolis-basedNorthern States Power Co. and New Century Energies in Denver, earlier this yearneeded a new LMS to consolidate and track a range of compliance training effortsinvolving 13,000 employees.


It had to quickly set up dozens of courses covering everything fromregulatory compliance to on-the-job safety, and it had to be able to track whocompleted the courses and when. Most pressing, Xcel wanted its costs covered inthe first year. The firm signed a deal with Plateau Systems in Arlington,Virginia, to get that specific training initiative handled fast to “get anaccurate picture of where we stand as an enterprise,” says Daniel Marshall,project director of Xcel’s e-learning department.


By contrast, smaller companies with 5,000 employees or less are much morelikely to view an LMS as a long-term investment, which would, by extension,stretch their ROI expectations out over several years.


• To get any meaningful return on an investment, you have to make sure itis necessary. What are your business needs and how will an LMS help? Are youlooking to create an enterprise-wide e-learning program? Or do you simply want aprogram to automate the administration of a certain training program? Will theLMS be integrated with existing systems such as customer relationship managementsoftware? Or will it stand alone?


The answers to these questions will help determine whether you should makein-house IT investments before signing any deal with an LMS vendor. They alsowill help you determine which vendor will match up best with your IT resources.


“In the end, you need to find out what the problem is that you’re tryingto fix or the issue is that you’re trying to address,” says MassoodZarrabian, chief executive of OutStart, an e-learning services company inBoston.


Then, you have to decide what kind of help you need outside your own company.He stresses that all parts of the company that may be involved in the traininginitiative must have a say in LMS decisions.


When Cisco Systems needed an LMS that could manage a multi-language supportsystem and a variety of content-delivery types for 40,000 employees in 75countries, the Silicon Valley Internet networking company sought input from allof its business units. That meant dealing with dozens of offices in many places.But the result is an LMS that sets and tracks learning requirements,certification levels, and development plans. And it elicits feedback on progressagainst those plans–all things that the entire enterprise agreed werenecessary. The company says the result has been a successful training programthat employees buy into.


• Closely study an array of vendors: their size, history, and stayingpower. You can do this by talking to other clients, following a vendor’smarket value, and researching what analysts have to say about a vendor’sfinancial viability.


Then, of course, consider size and price. There are many choices here thatvary according to the functions you need. The least expensive costs $3,000–againusing Hall’s example for a five-year implementation with 8,000 users. The mostexpensive system can cost $5 million.


If you’re a small company in need of simply managing a small administrativecomponent, a small vendor may work fine. Hall found in a study of 200 LMScustomers that big was not always better. While the larger players certainlyhave a plethora of services to offer, smaller companies often responded fasterto clients’ concerns and were more flexible when it came to structuringcontracts.


But for some companies, especially those with far-reaching LMS needs, sizecan be important. Amazon.com in Seattle employs only about 8,000 people, but itneeded an LMS that would cover all aspects of its business–from training newemployees to managing records and sharing learning content across severaldecentralized facilities that had their own training departments. Amazon wentwith a large vendor for “more flexibility, control, and browser-based access,”says Gerrett Stokes, the company’s senior project manager for global HRsolutions.


• Get all the answers you need on customization. Some companies like Amazonwant an LMS that can perform many functions right off the bat. But no LMS can doeverything. At some point, customizing will be necessary. As vendors develop newproducts and capabilities, they often lobby their clients to customize. Somebuyers will want to; others won’t. Either way, they will want to know from thestart how much future customizations are likely to cost.


Ask about the specific abilities of the LMS you’re buying, and whether the vendor will charge for future customization or the fee is built into the initial investment.

Ask about the specific abilities of the LMS you’re buying, and whether thevendor will charge for future customization or the fee is built into the initialinvestment. Also, be sure you’re not paying up-front for current or futuregadgets and gizmos that you won’t need.


“People don’t care about all the bells and whistles anymore,” saysScott Saslow, director of product development for Siebel Systems, a seller ofe-business applications software based in San Mateo, California. “They want itup and running, and they want it to fit their specific needs.”


Count Silicon Valley heavyweight Hewlett-Packard among those that know whatthey want. When the company was on the lookout for an LMS last summer, it wasnot seeking a complete solution to all its e-learning management needs. Itrequired but one important component, an LMS to standardize certain trainingefforts across its international operations during its assimilation of Compaq,which it had acquired for nearly $19 billion.


HP was in the market for a system to track its training investments to makesure that salespeople received the same training on new software andcustomer-relationship management–not every component of its e-leaning effort.And it wanted to be able to customize as it went along, adding new courses anddropping redundant ones.


It was still a huge investment. But why invest in more than you need when allyou want is a piece of the puzzle, says John Seniuk, technology manager forworkforce development at HP.


James Lundy, an e-learning analyst with Gartner, an Internet analyst companyin Stamford, Connecticut, estimates that by 2005, 70 percent of largecorporations will own learning management system applications. Gartner projectsthat within three years, the overall e-learning market will top $33 billion, afigure based on the strong productivity gains of the late 1990s.


During the boom years in the late 1990s, many economists concluded that thenew economy had evolved because information technology caused the productivitygrowth rate to shoot up. During that time, the U.S. Department of Labor reports,productivity grew 2.5 percent, up from 1.4 percent in the previous 20 years.


This data is meaningful because it essentially measures the revenue that thenation’s workers produce. When output increases, revenue grows, and thatrevenue can be invested back into company growth, creating jobs and fuelingsalary increases. Many companies such as Kendle are banking on e-learning to bea big driver of technology in years to come.


Kendle plans to continue expanding its e-learning programs, and will use itsLMS to make that happen. It will establish an individualized online trainingprogram for each associate, to be tracked, assessed, and personalized via itsLMS. And the company expects that cost-savings on time and travel, plus training that is faster and more worker-specific, will morethan offset the expense.


“There are a lot of companies that want to do what we’ve done,” Gevedonsays. “What I can tell them is that while this has been a very big success forus, it wasn’t easy. You have to make sure you know what you need. You have tomake sure you have top management on board. With all of that, you could get ahuge payoff.”


Workforce, November 2002, pp.52-58 — Subscribe Now!


Posted on

Top 25 Corporate Staffing Sites for 2002

Listed below are CAREERXROADS’s top 25 corporate staffing sites for 2002.The list was compiled from a study of employment sections on Fortune 500 Websites. In order to create the top 25, Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler formed achecklist of five factors to help them assess each site: readiness, navigation,image, relevance, and feedback.

    One of their main priorities was how user-friendly the Web sites were; forexample, how the site motivates or intrigues visitors to apply for jobs orinteract with the site. Also taken into consideration: the amount ofinformation, and the ease of navigation through the sites.


Apple – www.apple.com


Capital One – www.capitalone.com


Corning – www.corning.com


Dell – www.dell.com


Kodak – www.kodak.com


EMC – www.emc.com


Exxon – www.exxon.mobil.com


Federated Stores – www.federated-fds.com, www.retailology.com


General Motors – www.gm.com


Intel – www.intel.com


Kellogg – www.kelloggs.com


Eli Lilly – www.lilly.com


McDonalds – www.mcdonalds.com


Micron – www.micron.com


Microsoft – www.microsoft.com


3M – www.3m.com


NCR – www.ncr.com


Nike – www.nike.com


Proctor & Gamble – www.pg.com


Robinson (CH) – www.chrobinson.com


Rockwell Int’l – www.rockwell.com


Southwest Airlines – www.southwest.com


Sun – www.sun.com


TI – www.ti.com


Xerox – www.xerox.com


Workforce Online, October 2002 — Register Now!

Posted on

Weed Out Bad Board Members

While chief executive officers have been taking most of the heat created byEnron, WorldCom, Adelphia, et al., there has been some significant scorchingacross the country toward boards of directors as well … and deservedly so.

Shareholder confidence in board governance is at an all-time low. Analysts,investors and even employees today are asking questions like:


“What are they doing to prevent something like Enron from happening here?”


“What qualifications do they have? How are they chosen? How, if at all, are they evaluated?”


“How are they compensated?”


“Does the way they’re compensated tempt them to do something bad?”


Bottom line: A board of directors is a protector of shareholder interests.Board members should not be “partners” with management. They should not beclients of management. Rather, they should be professional and independent inevery sense of both words.


In a lot of cases, they do not have the qualifications to serve on thecommittees to which they’ve been assigned. This has got to change. Boards needto become much more multi-functional, with representation from legal,information technology, and human resources sitting right next to moretraditional finance and operational groups.


With the implications of new regulations, new listing standards from NYSE andNASDAQ, and the new penalties associated with corporate failures, whatshareholder wouldn’t want a multi-functional team with the required corecompetencies in place–thereby ensuring their investment is being properlyprotected?


It’s an unprecedented time in corporate governance. Shareholders will needto quickly separate the wheat from the chaff in directors who presently aresupposedly representing them. They’ll need to find directors who areindependent and up-to-date on true benchmarking analysis. They’ll also needboard members committed to creating and sustaining company values and areinterested in strategic planning and willing to make the time commitmentsnecessary. Gone are the days where board members come in the night before, havedinner, and then attend a one-hour committee meeting, a two-hour board meeting,and quickly hop on a flight back home by noon.


Despite the corporate cultures of greed and bad board members we’ve seenand read about of late, there is no shortage of ethical board members andcandidates to protect shareholders from the type of inappropriate behavior thathas led to all of these recent corporate failures.


The remaining bad board members will need to be weeded out and those guiltyof such behavior will need to serve the time befitting the crime.


Those most qualified to serve as guardians will need to ask a simplequestion:


“Is it worth it?”


To attract, retain and motivate these guardians, shareholders will need to bemore willing to pay what is necessary.


However, even pay packages for directors will need to be designed to maintaina true “guardian” status. Cash for retainers and meeting fees shouldcertainly go up–and I believe that board members should own stock. However, Istrongly believe the use of options should be discouraged, with the use of stockawards being their replacement. I also believe better SEC reporting for boardmembers is in order to once again minimize specific temptations that arise as aresult of lax or weak disclosure. Finally, we need limitations on how manyboards are feasible for a person to sit on and be productive as a guardian.


Times have certainly changed. I remember when you had lines as far as the eyecould see of board member wannabees. Today, the pickings are much scarcer–butnever has this been as important a decision as it is today.


Workforce Online, November 2002 — Register Now!

Posted on

Optimas Health Partners Delivers Training that Works

It was October 1999, and inside the offices of Health Partners, the360-person workforce was anxious. The nonprofit organization, which administersMedicaid and Medicare coverage for 130,000 patients in the Philadelphia area,had spent two and a half years and $3 million building and installing a majorupgrade to its data-processing system. Technicians finally were poised to flipthe switch.

To the company, the new system was a godsend–a software tool sophisticatedenough to cope with the mountains of data on doctor visits, wheelchairauthorizations, and other services that Health Partners had to make sense of. Toemployees, however, the unfamiliar program, with its complicated commands andmultiple windows, was a monster waiting on their desktops to devour them.


There was a certain bitter irony to this, because Health Partners had paidtens of thousands of dollars to outside training consultants. However, becauseof delays in the installation of the system, those lessons now were a distantmemory in most employees’ minds. Obviously, a second round of instruction andfollow-up support was needed, in addition to a motivational campaign to boostslumping corporate morale.


But how could the HR department provide all that without burning a hole inthe company’s tight budget? And how could the workforce find the time to takemore instruction without losing days of work time and dangerously disrupting thecompany’s business?


Fortunately, Vicki Sessoms, Health Partners’ vice president for humanresources, had somewhere to turn for help. She called upon the HR department’sOrganizational Learning Center, a three-person team that she had created just afew months earlier to beef up the company’s in-house training and supportcapabilities. OLC’s leader, HR professional Bill Austin, analyzed the problemand then rolled out an innovative, multi-faceted initiative that relied oningenuity rather than more spending.


Instead of outsourcing the training, OLC identified a handful of employeeswho’d been top performers in the initial training course and persuaded them tobecome part-time instructors and support resources for the rest of the staff.Instead of presenting grueling daylong crash courses, OLC broke the traininginto a longer series of 45-minute sessions that employees could fit into theirwork schedules, and offered plenty of chances for employees to retake thetraining and reinforce their skills.


Rather than organize the curriculum by tasks, OLC organized it by department,and invited staffers from other departments to attend, too, so that they couldget a better understanding of how the entire company utilized the system. Lastbut hardly least, OLC devoted a portion of the training time to talking withemployees about the inevitable stress of going through changes in the workplace–andthe benefits that might be gained from successfully weathering it.


It worked. Within weeks, managers reported that their staffers, who had beenstuck pondering screen menus for 10 minutes at a time on day one, were able toclick through in a third of the time after taking the courses. The initial waveof complaints from client hospitals and administrators about logjams just asquickly dropped to virtually nil. And the palpable sense of dread among theworkforce had been replaced by an eagerness to sign up for refresher courses.


Given such a smashing initial success, it’s little wonder that HealthPartners kept turning the OLC loose on other corporate challenges. And in thethree years since its launching, the program has proven to be invaluable. OLChas enabled the company to provide extensive training to its workforce in a widerange of areas, from the basics of giving a PowerPoint presentation to theintricate nuances of patient-privacy regulations.


By recruiting instructors from its own workforce, OLC is able to deliver training for a typical cost of just $50 per student, less than half of what it might spend for outside trainers.

Although the company hasn’t attempted to calculate OLC’s complete impacton the bottom line, it’s clearly a money-saver. By recruiting instructors fromits own workforce, OLC is able to deliver training for a typical cost of just$50 per student, less than half of what it might spend for outside trainers. Byproviding short on-site sessions that fit comfortably into employees’workdays, OLC minimizes the distraction from work at hand that often is thedownside of training initiatives.


In the information-systems conversion, for example, Austin estimates that thelearning center saved the company $25,000 in lost productivity. And although OLCgets the job done cheaply, it still provides effective high-quality instruction.In post-training surveys, more than 90 percent of the employees who’ve takencourses rate their own knowledge of the subject material as good or excellent.


Beyond that, the program has contributed to making the Health Partnersworkforce happier and more cohesive. Turnover, once a worrisome 19 percent, hasdropped to just 8 percent, and employees often mention OLC’s training coursesas a key reason for their improved job satisfaction. In addition to providingemployees with new skills and the chance to develop contacts with experts inother departments, OLC helps employees to perceive the corporate culture asteamwork-oriented, supportive rather than critical, and responsive to theirneeds.


Health Partners’ OLC program provides a salient example of how a companycan reach out to its employees and raise their skill levels while lowering theiranxiety–and at minimal cost. For that reason, Health Partners receives thisyear’s Optimas Award for Service.


Gathering internal intelligence and keeping in touch
    In the case of the data-management system upgrade, OLC was able to step inand stave off what could have been a corporate disaster. In large part, this wasaccomplished because Austin and his team previously had been assigned bymanagement to monitor the workforce’s initial training by outside instructors.Not only did they possess firsthand knowledge of the software interface, butthey also had met extensively with the instructors and had access to employees’training results. They understood the potential problems that employees faced,and also could identify individuals within the workforce who’d achieved somemastery of the new system. OLC’s resulting success impressed upon Austin thevalue of good internal intelligence.


He has since taken that information-gathering to an even higher level. Hetries to pick up signs of future training needs even before OLC receives aformal request. “We don’t have the resources to spend a lot of timequantifying employees’ performance,” he says. “So instead, I’ve made ahabit of walking around the organization every morning and talking to people,just trying to keep my finger on the pulse of what’s going on.”


He and OLC staffers Bonnie Smyczek and Lisa Cosentino routinely sit in onvarious departments’ planning meetings, trying to maintain a continuouslyup-to-date sense of what different parts of the organization are up against–andhow the OLC might help. “It’s sort of like we’re training the trainers,”says Health Partners vice president Barbara Rebold. “They’re with us all thetime, working to understand what we do–listening to our ideas and trying tofigure out how to get them out to the employees.”


That background knowledge gives Austin and his team a running start inresponding to departmental requests to create new training programs. Minimizinglead time is critical, Austin says, because one of the core tenets of OLC is “just-in-time”training.


He knows that when managers ask him to provide instruction to their staffers,they’re usually trying to deal with a looming problem or challenge rather thanpeering into the future. “They don’t want to hear something like, ‘Well,we can do some research, draw up a design, and then you’ll need to approve it,’”he says. “They won’t tolerate someone who’ll get back to them next month,because by then, their needs may have changed. What they want to hear is, ‘Wecan have something ready for you next week.’ We emphasize quick turnaround. Bydelivering on that consistently, we’ve been able to win managers’confidence.”


That, in turn, has enabled OLC to obtain a high degree of cooperation frommanagers–in terms of both encouraging their staffs to participate in thecourses and making subject experts on their staffs available to the OLC when theneed arises.


Finding teaching talent and expertise internally
    While Austin does hire outside training consultants, he does so sparingly.Usually he develops expertise within the Health Partners ranks by turningtrained employees into volunteer instructors. “I found a business-writingconsultant within our price range,” he says. “I used her six times to teachcourses. But we’ve got enough people who’ve mastered the material that fromnow on, we can teach it in-house.”


“There’s more of a comfort level when you’re learning from someone you see every day. And you know that if you need help down the line with something, you can go up to that person in the hallway or the kitchen and casually get the advice you need.”

One obvious reason that OLC relies on employees to teach courses is cost. Butin addition, Austin says, “there’s more of a comfort level when you’relearning from someone you see every day. And you know that if you need help downthe line with something, you can go up to that person in the hallway or thekitchen and casually get the advice you need.” And because they understand thecompany’s business, employee-trainers tend to be able to make the knowledgethey impart directly applicable to their students’ work.


Austin says he has relatively little difficulty lining up in-house trainers,even though they are not paid more for the work. “One thing I try to do ismake it as easy as possible for someone to teach a course,” he says. “Forexample, there was one guy I wanted, a manager who was perpetually busy and keptsaying that he didn’t have time. I said, ‘I’ll have one of my peopleinterview you, get inside your mind, and we’ll put together some slides basedon that.’ After he taught his first class, it turned out that he enjoyed it somuch that he came up and said, ‘If you need me again, just let me know.’”


Besides capitalizing on the satisfaction that comes from teaching, OLC worksto retain instructors by making sure that they are recognized within the companyfor their efforts. Austin and his staff have organized an annual appreciationday, at which time trainers are treated to dessert and presented with gifts.Beyond that, managers note that volunteer instructors’ performance andsatisfaction level in their regular jobs often seems to improve.


To fill the company’s training needs, Austin and his staff are always onthe lookout for quick learners who’ve mastered a skill that the rest of thestaff must learn. “One of Bill’s secrets is that he’s really persuasive,”says company VP Rebold, who herself has taught courses on data integrity andother subjects. “Once he’s got you to teach once, he keeps coming back withways to use you again, any way that he can.” OLC’s staff works withprospective trainers, helping them to write their programs and critiquing theirpresentations in advance to give them more polish.


Providing learning that doesn’t clash with employees’ work obligations
    Instead of taking employees off-site for intense day- or weeklong courses,the OLC team prefers to deliver learning right at the company’s Philadelphiaheadquarters, and in shorter segments–never longer than an hour and a half,and often as brief as 45 minutes. “When you give information to people inlarge blocks, they tend not to retain that much,” Austin says. “It’sbetter to give them a quick, digestible amount of information and then let themgo back to their desks and put it to use.”


“When I sign up for a training course at 9 a.m., I know that by 10 a.m., I can be back at my desk,” says quality management nurse Laura Brown. “The phone and e-mail messages aren’t going to be piled up when I get back.”

By offering shorter classes, OLC also eases employees’ worries aboutcatching up with work they’ve missed. “When I sign up for a training courseat 9 a.m., I know that by 10 a.m., I can be back at my desk,” says qualitymanagement nurse Laura Brown. “The phone and e-mail messages aren’t going tobe piled up when I get back.”


Additionally, OLC likes to schedule numerous repeat classes, to giveemployees another chance to reinforce the material if they feel they need it.When OLC trained employees to use the new data-processing system in 1999, forexample, it offered them a chance to sit in on the course again when it wassubsequently offered to other departments. That not only helped employees todevelop more mastery, Austin says, but it also gave them a chance to meet peoplein other departments and learn about how they utilized the system in their jobs.As a result, day-to-day cooperation among workers in different parts of thecompany seems to have improved. “When you do training across departmentallines rather than keeping everyone separate,” he says, “you help to shatterbarriers, rather than helping create more of them.” 


Using training to build morale
    In OLC’s initial challenge of helping employees cope with a newdata-processing system, perhaps the most immediate problem was employees’sinking spirits. In response, Austin and his team focused on providing workerswith reassurance as well as new skills. “We concentrated on getting as faraway as we could from the ‘you’ve failed, you’re not getting the concept’sort of pressure,” he says. “If they were ashamed because they couldn’t doit, they wouldn’t want to come back for more training. Instead, we tried toproject the message that this wasn’t their fault, that the company recognizedthat the timing of the rollout had gone awry, and that we were there to supportthem with the help to which they were entitled.”


To that end, OLC also provided a non-technical motivational program toaugment the software nuts and bolts. The course was based on Dr. Spencer Johnson’sstorybook-manual on coping with change, Who Moved My Cheese? Employees liked theprogram so much that OLC now offers it on a quarterly basis to both new hiresand veteran employees who feel that they need a lift.


“One of the things the course accomplishes is to give the employees acommon language to describe what they’re going through,” Cosentino says. Itwas particularly helpful when they recently got a new CEO and went through acorporate reorganization. “We would hear people jokingly comparing themselvesto Sniff and Scurry, the mice in the book. One person took it further andstarted calling herself Velveeta, saying that her cheese had been shredded. Itwas a great way to reduce the tension.”


OLC continues to work hard to stay abreast of Health Partners’ continuallyevolving training needs, offering courses ranging from medical privacy to amonthlong, four-session class on leadership for top executives and managers.Austin considers it a measure of success that even people at the top of thecompany are finding time to squeeze OLC’s courses into their schedules. “It’s45 minutes, in and out, zip,” he says. “And when they say that it isn’tlong enough–well, that’s a criticism that I really welcome.”


Workforce, November 2002, pp. 60-64 — Subscribe Now!