Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on January 1, 1998July 10, 2018

60 HR Predictions for 2008

W

orkplace Flexibility


  1. Collaborative cultures will be the workplace model.
  2. Creative employment contracts will support more time off, flexibility in hours and work location, technological job aids and more pay at risk with significant upside potential.
  3. Company intranets will become a major tool for communication, training and benefits administration; HR will play a leading role in developing this important tool.
  4. Intelligence through knowledge transfer capability will separate the best employees from the rest.
  5. Employees will have more and more choices about work arrangements, allowing them to meet their individual needs.
  6. Work hours scheduling will become less important as organizations focus on performance and results.
  7. Company facilities will become “virtual” through work-at-home, telecommuting and outsourcing.
  8. The workweek will be less structured—employees will still work 40-plus hours, but at varied times and places other than the office.
  9. Legislation will lead to greater portability of health, welfare and retirement benefits.
  10. Free-lance teams of generic problem solvers will market themselves as alternatives to permanent workers or individual temps.

Global Business


  1. The role of corporate HR will change to that of creator of overall values and direction, and will be implemented by local HR departments in different countries.
  2. Technology, especially the Internet, will enable more businesses to enter the global marketplace.
  3. HR professionals will have advanced acumen in international business practices, international labor laws, multicultural sensitivities and multiple languages.
  4. HR professionals will need to be knowledgeable of other cultures, languages and business practices to help their companies find and enter more markets.
  5. HR people will have to understand other cultures and help people work with, and transfer among, various cultures.
  6. Megaglobal business alliances will grow in number and scope, requiring great finesse on the part of the HR professional.
  7. There will be an explosive growth of companies doing business across borders, and it will be the most significant change for the economy in modern times.
  8. Cultural understanding and sensitivity will become much more important for the HR professional of the future, whereas multiple language ability isn’t going to become a necessary competency.
  9. The continued emergence of a world marketplace will require development of an international workforce.
  10. Small teams of HR professionals will focus on providing performance improvement consulting services to a variety of locations around the world.

Work and Society


  1. Family and life interests will play a more prevalent role in people’s lives and a greater factor in people’s choices about work—there will be more of a “work to live” than a “live to work” mentality.
  2. Employees will demand increases in workplace flexibility to pursue life interests.
  3. Dual-career couples will refuse to make the sacrifices required today in their family lives and more people (not just women) will opt out of traditional careers.
  4. Families will return to the center of society; work will serve as a source of cultural connections and peripheral friendships.
  5. Workers will continue to struggle with their need for work/ life balance, and it will get worse.
  6. Integration of work with quality-of-life initiatives will create solutions to problems formerly seen as the responsibility of government.
  7. Community involvement and social responsibility will become part of an organization’s business vision.
  8. “Cocooning” will become more popular as workers look to their homes for refuge from the pressures of a more competitive workplace and depersonalized society.
  9. Just as defined-contribution plans have begun to take over from Social Security, companies will take on responsibility for elder care, long-term care and other social needs through cafeteria-style benefits programs.
  10. Those people who refuse or are unable to adapt to new technologies will find they’re working harder and accomplishing less.

Workforce Development


  1. Lifelong learning will be a requirement.
  2. The focus of training/learning activities will be on performance improvement and not just on skill building.
  3. Employees with varied skills and competencies will be valued more highly than those with a depth of expertise in a single area.
  4. Problem solving and decision making will become a required curriculum with practical work problems as the training medium.
  5. Training will be delivered “just in time,” wherever people need it, using a variety of technologies.
  6. Companies will demand constant personal growth, and employees will respond positively to higher expectations.
  7. It will not be possible to survive in the workplace without basic computer skills.
  8. People who can learn new skills/competencies quickly will be highly valued in a faster changing world.
  9. Team projects and special assignments will be a major factor in personal development.
  10. As the computer-savvy generation is more assimilated into the workforce, employees will become much more productive in complex tasks and less dependent on other people and departments.

Definition of Jobs


  1. Organizations won’t pay for the value of the job but for the value of the person.
  2. Versatility will be the key factor in determining employee value with strategic thinking, leadership, problem solving, technology and people skills close behind.
  3. Compensation systems will be linked to business outcomes.
  4. All jobs will require higher levels of computer skills.
  5. Positions will be organized in teams focused on a task, not organized around a hierarchy.
  6. Positions will be defined by the competencies needed to be performed.
  7. Employees will be more independent, moving from project to project within their organizations.
  8. Many jobs will be redesigned to be much broader in scope, especially in management positions, resulting in leaner head counts.
  9. Employees will be increasingly measured by how much value they contribute to the business, not by whether they fulfilled predetermined objectives.
  10. Work will be more challenging, and jobs will become increasingly complex.

Strategic Role of HR


  1. Successful HR departments will focus on organizational performance.
  2. HR’s value will be to have the right people ready at the right time: recruiting leaders to join the company’s mix of talent and keeping the “bench” full of enabled, competent workers.
  3. The focus of the HR function will be human capital development and organizational productivity; HR may be renamed to reflect this.
  4. HR will evolve from strategic business partnership to strategic business leadership (driving change and results, not just monitoring them).
  5. A key HR role in the future will be multidisciplinary consulting around individual, team, business unit and corporate performance.
  6. Managers will grow to depend more and more on HR professionals as they realize that good people management can be the strategic advantage in the next decade.
  7. Leading change will become HR’s greatest contribution to the corporation.
  8. More and more businesses will use HR as a strategic partner.
  9. HR will have a “seat at the table” as part of the top management team and report directly to the CEO in most companies.
  10. A key HR role will be managing increasingly scarce human and intellectual capital.

Workforce, January 1998, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 50-51.


Posted on January 1, 1998July 10, 2018

Getting Ahead By Going Abroad

While you’re busy managing human resources for your organization that’s going global, you might think about the value of international experience for your own career. Even if you don’t want to specialize in international HR, there are some important advantages to getting international experience. You might find yourself with a surprising amount of authority, for example, and you’ll get lots of hands-on experience that you can apply back home in the United States.

Besides, with more American companies looking to overseas markets for growth, there’s a high demand for people with international expertise, so it’s a good way for an inexperienced HR person to get a foot in the door. But it’s also a good idea for mid-career or experienced HR professionals who want to deepen their knowledge of their firms’ overseas markets and the HR issues involved.

From HR neophyte to expert.
Take Edward Barrall, who’s the international HR manager for Houston-based Hines, an international real estate and property management company. Barrall’s first HR experience was in 1993. Fresh from the master’s program at Indiana University, Barrall wound up in Moscow working for a small import-export company. He had studied the culture and history of Eastern Europe and Russia, mastered Russian and had a number of business courses under his belt.

In less than a year, he then landed a job at Hines, a firm that manages approximately $8 billion in real estate assets and has developed such high-profile projects as the Gallerias of Houston and Dallas. “It was an easy choice for them, hiring me,” says Barrall, “because they needed someone who spoke the language and knew the laws.” There weren’t many Americans who fit the description in the newly capitalistic Russia.

The Moscow job with Hines involved setting up a new HR department from scratch — quite an assignment for a 31-year-old right out of graduate school and with less than a year of experience. This put him right in the middle of what he regards as the core of the HR job: disseminating culture. With Russia on the threshold of capitalism, his workforce was eager to learn the ways of the West. Barrall’s job was to articulate Hines’ culture and to try to blend Hines’ and the Russian workforce’s cultures, which made working there seem like working in lab, he says.

It also gave Barrall the chance to shine. Whereas he might have been a cog in the wheel at this stage in his career had he started out in America, in Moscow, he was the HR department — or half of it — and designed the HR strategy practically from the ground up with a Russian colleague. “What we did was take Western management concepts and adapt them to the Russian legal and cultural environment,” Barrall says.

Now, Barrall is back at corporate headquarters in Houston, as the new HR manager for international operations, overseeing HR for all of the company’s nearly 400 employees overseas, expatriates and local hires alike. Because of his experience in Moscow, he brings much to the business table. For example, lately he has been trying to sell some of Hines’ newer overseas managers on adopting comp and benefits programs, rather than just taking care of people individually. He already has been down this road with the Russians he helped manage back in Moscow.

“There are so many basic skills you need to manage HR that are easily country-adaptable.” What you learn abroad, translates back in the United States — where the international HR agenda also is growing.

International exposure helps at home.
Bruce Currin, director of HR for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, believes knowledge of international cultures is advantageous for those in his field. “We have people from all over the world who end up in Nebraska working for us, and we’re trying to build a more diverse workforce,” he says of the 24,000-student, heartland university. “It’s important for us to know, understand and be sensitized to the values of each of those cultures,” Currin says, concurring that international experience is helpful to HR professionals in such a setting.

Simply having experienced other cultures helps HR managers with the myriad issues that arise in integrating a melting pot of international workers at home. According to Dennis Briscoe, professor of international HR management at the University of San Diego and author of “International Human Resource Management,” (Prentice Hall 1995) HR professionals increasingly have to develop a corporate glue that holds their firms together. But it’s difficult to figure out what glue will work if you don’t know what it needs to fix.

Global skills you need.
A recent Armonk, New York-based IBM Corp. study of HR practitioners worldwide identified a number of skills that will be increasingly important for future HR managers. They also identified these capabilities as showing the widest gaps between current HR abilities and those that are needed in world-class organizations. Some of these capabilities include:

  • Educating and influencing line managers on global HR policies and practices
  • Anticipating internal and external changes, particularly in finding and training workers worldwide
  • Exhibiting leadership for HR of the future and communicating that to the HR department and to the rest of the organization.

How do you get these increasingly necessary skills for both domestic and international HR managers? “One way is to study books here at home,” says Philip R. Harris, president of Harris International, an international management consulting firm in La Jolla, California, and author of “Developing the Global Organization: Strategies for Human Resources Professionals” (Gulf Publishing 1993). “Or, you can go abroad and learn firsthand. The immersion does much to advance one’s awareness.”

What’s the point in all this for HR leaders? “You learn how to become a transformational leader for the 21st century,” says Harris. That means: leadership on the cutting edge of change, innovation and entrepreneurship. “Transformational leadership is necessary to enable employees to tear down their psychological walls and transform their mindsets about the new multicultural workforce,” says Harris in his book. HR managers who can transform their HR departments with a global view can make their businesses more successful and usually advance their careers.

But if you go abroad, realize that you may catch the international bug — you may want to keep going back. Your company — and your career — could benefit from the increased exposure.

Global Workforce, January 1998, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 10-11.

Posted on January 1, 1998July 10, 2018

Don’t Get Burned By Hot New Markets

The numbers practically sizzle off the page. Just look at this: U.S. direct investment abroad skyrocketed from $467.8 billion in 1991 to more than $796 billion in 1996, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. corporations have invested more than $10 billion in China alone, another $23.6 billion in Brazil, $16 billion in Thailand and $12.5 billion in Indonesia. Many of these hot markets are growing at a robust GDP (gross domestic product) of 7 percent, or 8 percent a year.

One after another, American companies seek — and seize — new opportunities in rapidly growing yet unfamiliar markets. China, India, Brazil, Russia and many others offer untold opportunities with their megamillion populations and growing consumer classes. And U.S. firms are right there, offering everything from light bulbs to power plants and selling their expertise about manufacturing, marketing and managing global operations.

The ventures into these new territories can be profitable. But, they also can be risky. New entrants must navigate gingerly over a hotbed of coals that will singe those who are unprepared for myriad laws and regulations, unfamiliar political and social structures, and unpredictable infrastructures, all of which manifest themselves in workforce issues. That’s why HR’s role is central to strategizing, planning and ultimately helping to choose new business destinations.

It’s clear that the critical issues to success in new markets often revolve around typical HR concerns: hiring, training, compensating and managing people — but in a multiplicity of environments and a maze of legal and political circumstances. These are complex and multilayered business issues, to be sure, but they are, nonetheless, issues that require understanding and thorough business, labor, legal and social analysis through an HR perspective.

HR must participate in a business analysis of proposed locations.
“We increasingly see whole new industries going out — information technology, telecommunications, specialized pharmaceuticals, agriculture, insurance — and we’re also seeing companies that have been established internationally for many years going into new markets,” says Bill Sheridan, director of international compensation services at the New York City-based National Foreign Trade Council.

Sure, there’s money to be made. But what makes global executives choose certain destinations as most receptive or at least worthy of the difficulties firms must surmount? The decision must always begin with the business objectives.

“Before we venture into new markets, we now start with a detailed strategic market analysis. We look at our markets over the next five to 10 years and try to determine where we need to be in four or five years’ time,” says Patrick Morgan, human resources manager, Latin America Region for San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., the construction giant. “It’s important to actually think through what it is you’re going to do, where your market is, what your relative chances are of being successful, and then begin to prioritize where you want to go after that.”

Morgan is always a key member of the management team that assesses the big picture. The cost-benefit analysis factors in: the position of competitors, infrastructure as it relates to personnel (such as telecommunications), regulatory and trade barriers, and the tax situation (both corporate and individual). Ideally, the new market would be a country where there’s an untapped need for your products or services; a quality, skilled labor pool capable of manufacturing the products; and a welcoming environment (governmental and physical).

Are there such countries? Indeed, each has its pluses and minuses. While Singapore has an educated, English-speaking labor force, basks in political stability and encourages foreign investment, it has a small population. While Mexico shines as an excellent example of a country that has aggressively lowered its income tax rates (from 60 percent in 1988 to 35 percent today) and attempts to alleviate other governmental hurdles in an effort to attract foreign investment, it has severe pollution. Many countries in Eastern Europe possess an eager, hungry-to-learn labor pool, but their infrastructures create difficulties. And, while India holds enormous promise, conducting business there is complex and difficult.

India’s promise lays in its attributes. According to “Venturing in India: Opportunities and Challenges,” a 1996 Conference Board report, India’s impressive economic reforms have made it quite attractive for corporate investors. Because of its British roots, it has a strong legal system, developed technology and a growing financial sector. Known for its well-educated workforce, world-class scientific, engineering and management talent, and business schools that churn out excellent job candidates, India offers a labor pool that values education.

These positive attributes can be outweighed by potentially negative ones, however. India has an inadequate infrastructure, for example, with problems such as frequent power outages and crowded, unpaved roadways. And most daunting is India’s political environment and highly bureaucratic and protectionist government that stir the flames of anxiety among multinational business leaders. For HR, the Indian business environment requires adroit management of people amid mountains of regulations.

For instance, the government wrought havoc with Houston-based Enron Development Corp. for five years. Enron (along with Bechtel and General Electric Co., both of which had been successful in India with other projects) was in the midst of building a $2.8 billion power plant. It was the first foreign-owned power plant in India and one of the largest foreign investments ever. When a new regional government was elected, officials shut down construction of the plant and entangled the company in a judicial quagmire of 24 lawsuits for 16 months. Knowing situations such as these are probable, HR must determine which issues (staffing vs. regulations) are more compelling.

Consider the quality and availability of the local labor force.
The greatest challenge in entering a new market is often the workforce, specifically, senior management. “After you determine that you have a marketplace that’s going to utilize what you’re producing, you need to see if there is the capability and talent in the local workforce to support the endeavor,” says Richard Bahner, human resources head at New York City-based Citicorp. “You really need to do a total balanced evaluation. Some of these places offer less-expensive labor, but if they don’t have the capabilities you’re looking for, it may not be a savings because you’ll have to supplement it with a large amount of computer support, training or expatriates.”

The extent of the staffing challenges depends on your industry. “If you’re distributing Pepsi (TM), you can manufacture it locally and teach people how to sell it easily enough, but if you’re in global banking, you’ve got a lot more restrictions,” Bahner explains.

Citibank has experienced this in the Asia-Pacific region. With relationships in China and Hong Kong for almost a century, it had an advantage when it looked to expand into Indonesia and Thailand. But it was hampered by the need for an educated workforce. Citibank developed the market in Indonesia and taught the people about electronic banking — eventually generating millions of Citibank Visa cardholders. But the HR issues were daunting.

“The biggest problem is the dearth of qualified locals,” says Bill Fontana, formerly of Citibank in Indonesia and now vice president of international HR for the National Foreign Trade Council. It’s a big, big problem. There are so few qualified people who can take senior positions (among 200 million Indonesians), that other U.S. companies will bid for this unique individual. “It jacks up the cost of your senior local person, and then you begin to pirate people away from other companies because they speak English, they’ve worked at another multinational organization, and therefore, you would pay almost anything to get them onto your payroll. It leads to spiraling inflation in the workforce.”

As an example, Fontana was recruiting for a treasury head at Citibank in Indonesia. The position was staffed with an expat, and he wanted to fill it with a local. It took more than one year to identify a qualified person. Citibank offered the man $150,000 and a guaranteed base of $100,000. “He turned me down,” says Fontana. “He told me that the Bank of Bali was offering him more money! And the expatriate was only making about $115,000.”

The situation is similar in other parts of the region. Experienced, multilingual Thais and Taiwanese can look to their talented colleagues in Hong Kong and China for ways to bid-up their going wages. As these countries develop, the competition for talent is becoming ferocious. Local companies are vying with foreign firms for the same employees.

One obvious solution is education. In addition to the traditional training that internationally experienced firms such as Motorola, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s have conducted for years, there are now joint ventures between universities and businesses. For instance, Baltimore-based Johns Hopkins University has paired with Nanjing University in China. Based in the city of Nanjing, 100 students each year participate in a bicultural business program and living experience (a Chinese and an American student are roommates) that prepares them for senior-level management positions.

The receptivity to education varies by location. Eastern Europe is different from Asia-Pacific. “The work ethic is very strong, and equally important, there’s a strong interest in learning,” says Fontana. “When we went into Eastern Europe, the question [from employees] was, ‘When do I get my next training course?’ The thirst for training and knowledge is staggering.” Training can rarely keep pace with need.

Evaluate laws and regulations.
The next thing you need to think about is whether the government has created an environment receptive to foreign businesses. The question is: Do the laws enhance or inhibit the chance of success?

No matter where in the world your company ventures, as economies develop and competition increases, local companies become stronger, and they often exert pressure on local governments to tighten regulations regarding foreign firms. For example, work permits for expats aren’t as easy to obtain in many parts of the world as they once were. Mandated workforce practices can either aid or decrease your company’s opportunities. Labor law and its effect on compensation and benefits requires research and comprehensive understanding.

One of the first questions must be: How restrictive is the labor law? “As an example, generally, in countries where the British flag has flown, the labor code is simple, straightforward and employer-friendly. Where the Napoleanic code has predominated, you find labor legislation that’s complete, complex, confusing and expensive,” says John de Leon, regional director of international HR consulting services for Deloitte & Touche LLP, based in Wilton, Connecticut. “In Asia-Pacific, generally speaking, labor law (although very different from the U.S.) isn’t as restrictive and permits companies greater freedom to make decisions.”

These restrictions refer to the presence of work councils that get involved in activities Americans would consider purely management decisions. They may restrict part-time and temporary employees. They will have provisions that affect termination. For example, in the United Kingdom, although there’s a cost associated with terminating employment, it’s far less expensive and less complicated to calculate than in most parts of Latin America.

You can’t assume you’re operating with a U.S. frame of reference. In many countries, the labor code includes a concept called acquired rights. The code says you can’t take away anything from an individual. So, for example, job content, responsibilities, pay and benefits must remain constant. Another concern is strong labor unions. And, still another difficulty is that many rapidly growing countries spur growth by being less restrictive when a company enters the country to set up business. “It’s at the back end where you get a lot of intervention,” says Fontana. “I let go of nine people in Indonesia at a cost of $1.2 million in severance pay.”

And then there’s compensation and benefits. Social costs, medical-care costs, pension and social security costs differ greatly from one country to another. And often, the ways in which salaries are quoted and designed are significantly different. “Until recently, India capped the base salary for executives at a pretty low level in hard currency because of the socialist mindset,” says Sheridan. “So, firms offered myriad allowances — cars, drivers, servants, clothing. American companies saunter in and want to roll it all into one basic salary, and they aren’t seeing the other factors involved.”

In other words, if you aren’t discerning, country-specific labor laws and regulations can begin to eat severely into profits. Or, if you’re not careful, you may get burned because you’ve unwittingly trespassed legal boundaries.

Ask yourself, “How hospitable is this country to the business?”
Beyond the more narrowly defined and obvious HR issues, receptivity and overall friendliness to foreign business are major factors in selecting a destination country. How protectionist is the environment? What types of bureaucratic, regulatory and economic constraints exist? Is there political tension or security risk? Corruption? A workable legal system? Economic stability?

All of these issues complicate the ability to staff your operations. For instance, if your company faces political security risks, how will that affect the expatriation of employees? If it’s a highly bureaucratic and regulated country, what will that do to your ability to hire and fire employees? If there’s gross corruption in the local business environment, how will you train your staff to handle the situation?

How do all these elements interact? Latin America, for example has always ranked prominently in international operations for Farmington, Connecticut-based Otis Elevator Co. Worldwide. The company had maintained escalator factories throughout Latin America at one time, and then it consolidated most of the operations in Brazil (as well as small operations in Argentina and Uruguay). “Even though the business climate was kind of ‘iffy’ because of the hyperinflation (at the time), we chose Brazil because we were still making money. We had invested in a factory; we had a good relationship with the government so we could repatriate funds, and the labor market was good,” says Jim Defau, director of compensation and benefits for the firm. “Overall, it’s a conducive environment for doing business.”

Defau explains that a receptive government provides a foundation from which to start the assessment of the business climate. The intangible quality of hospitality is a mixture of distinct factors. Is the legal and ethical environment one that your company can handle? Is the location a place that will attract or repel managers and workers from other countries? Will the government help or hinder your day-to-day concerns? Overall, is the country a place where all the factors combine so you’ll be able to help your employees do the best job for the company and where your company can thrive?

Success depends on so many elements. It requires more skillful management of every aspect of the organization when you edge into new markets. There are so many hot spots and fumaroles, and the unprepared will surely get burned. HR is part of the holistic picture. “The functional silos that once existed are no longer in place. We’re all business partners — HR, legal, finance, engineering, and, every aspect of the business affects every other aspect,” says Defau.

If ever HR was core to business success, it has never been more obvious than in the pursuit of these active, hot markets.

Global Workforce, January 1998, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 12-22.

Posted on January 1, 1998July 10, 2018

HR 2008 A Forecast Based on Our Exclusive Study

January is always a time when human resources professionals think about the future. It’s a time to plan, envision, prioritize and set goals for the new year. Although management, by its very nature, demands that HR professionals look ahead, it can be difficult, if not downright daunting, to see beyond the veil of 1998 and into the years beyond.


So we set out to help you do just that—get a picture of what the workplace, HR and jobs themselves will look like 10 years from now. Earlier this year, we handpicked 10 leading HR directors, vice presidents and consultants, and invited each of them to make some educated guesses in six specific areas Workforce editors thought would undergo the most upheaval over the next 10 years: workplace flexibility, global business, work and society, workforce development, the definition of jobs, and last, but not least, the strategic role of HR.


The process went like this: Workforce determined through a strategic analysis of HR and the workplace what the six areas of greatest change might be in the next 10 years. Then we painstakingly selected 10 panelists who were former Workforce Magazine Optimas Award winners or who’ve been leading consultants to the HR profession.


Once we selected the panel, we asked them to brainstorm individually what developments they think will occur in these six areas. Next, we asked them to rank the importance of these developments. Then we fed the rankings back to them for more ranking. Finally, we chose their top-60 predictions to report to you.


This process is what futurists call a Delphi study. Futurists, however, use the technique of iterative polling to generate discussion and critical examination. Workforce has used it here to create a consensus, to get a feeling for what this particular profession anticipates for itself in the next decade.


This is a picture of HR and the work environment in the year 2008 that’s decidedly confident in the status of HR.


The result is a picture of HR and the work environment in the year 2008 that’s decidedly upbeat and confident in the status and influence of HR professionals. Perhaps we might have expected that, given the status of our panelists. But their predictions are by no means “predictable.” Although they collectively paint a picture of HR moving further along already established HR paths in some areas, our panelists forecast some completely unexpected twists and turns in other areas, such as envisioning the end of job descriptions and job titles, and the advent of HR professionals as organizational performance experts. Their suggestions are compelling.


But this study isn’t so much about predicting the future as it is about surfacing the assumptions that will guide the behavior and decisions of HR professionals over the next decade. Workforce predicts you’ll think about this year, and indeed the next 10, with a new perspective. Here, we discuss the highlights and give you insight about how the predictions might affect you, your workforce and your organization by the year 2008.


Workplace Flexibility: Collaborative work in a virtual office.
Our panelists believe the future workplace will be characterized by creative, flexible work arrangements. Specified work hours and schedules will have little or no importance, and information technology will even free the employee from a specified work location. Work will become much more collaborative, and the government will support the flexibility by increasing benefits portability.


According to panelist Evelyne Steward, senior vice president of HR for the Calvert Group in Bethesda, Maryland, organizations don’t have very much choice about this. “We need to change our business paradigm,” she says. “The employee is in the driver’s seat. We need to meet employee needs if we’re going to have a competent workforce.”


Several panelists said they thought the study’s predictions about workplace flexibility confirmed their personal beliefs. “I have always thought the hours of work would become less important and there would be increasing emphasis on performance and results,” says panelist Bonnie Hathcock, vice president of HR and development for US Airways in Arlington, Virginia. “What we’re seeing is the elimination of the traditional command-and-control structure and the creation of the virtual workplace.”


According to panelist Tharon Greene, director of HR for the City of Hampton, Virginia, employees are [able to meet the challenges and] demands that will be made on them by the massive redesign of work. “Employees respond to their jobs,” she says. “Design a big job, you get big work.”


The No. 1 prediction in this area emphasized “collaborative cultures,” so we contacted futurist and consultant Joyce L. Gioia. She suggests this trend is well under way. “We’ve been seeing more managers who spend nearly all their time managing work teams. These are self-created and self-sustaining cross-functional teams that take their objectives from management but work with a great deal of autonomy. They recruit their own members and plan their own strategies. They may even have virtual structures, communicating via e-mail and teleconferencing.” Gioia is president of Herman Associates Inc., a Greensboro, North Carolina-based firm that offers strategic consulting and training to help organizations handle HR issues and prepare for the future.


It may sound paradoxical that jobs are going to be both more autonomous and collaborative. But if you’ve ever participated in a chat group on the Web or on one of the online services, then you know it’s possible to create and maintain a community or a team even across time zones. Chat groups are fairly primitive compared to some of the software (known as groupware), such as Lotus Notes, that facilitates teamwork.


If there’s a single, large implication from our panelists’ 10 predictions in the area of workplace flexibility, it’s that we can all expect to attend fewer meetings in the future. It’s true we can have face time through videoconferencing, but millions of self-employed people and telecommuters function perfectly well (and productively) without them. Their example suggests that offsite workers (who some studies say eventually will be two-thirds of an organization’s workforce in the next century) will likely spend far less time in videoconferences than they spend with their e-mail.


Can you shape employee behavior without face-to-face meetings? For that matter, can you sustain a corporate culture without the thousands of subtle signals that reinforce it in an office “neighborhood”? These are particularly important questions for HR professionals, who in many organizations are the cultivators and keepers of corporate culture. But the experience of successful inter-company task forces and standards committees (not to mention virtual organizations) shows that you may not need a full-blown culture to establish values. HR professionals should be studying the employees their companies assign to inter-company work groups, as well as telecommuters and other offsite workers, so they can understand the most important variables in independent work arrangements, because these will be more the rule than the exception in the near future.


Incidentally, we may not regain all the time that may be wasted in meetings. Human nature is surprisingly constant in different arenas and media. Anecdotal evidence suggests many groupware users waste time prettying preliminary and interim work products because it’s visible to other group members. Team leaders will have to learn how to manage this tendency the way they have always had to learn how to contain grandstanding and preening at meetings.


Our panelists clearly believe work is going to occupy a smaller part of people’s emotional lives in the future.


There are some things that must or ought to be done in person—counseling, performance reviews, company softball games—and there probably always will be a small core of employees who habitually work at a central office, a core that may include at least some HR professionals. Perhaps this also suggests we’ll move further and further toward the decentralization model of human resources organizations that we’ve been moving to in the past several years.


At the very least in the future, most of us probably will see our Federal Express couriers more often than we see our supervisors. And how human resources professionals will help manage that eventuality will be necessary to address.


Global Business: Borderless business requires a global workforce.
As could be expected, our panelists see major growth in world trade, the world marketplace and the development of an international workforce. Because of this, they see organizations relying on HR professionals as the facilitators of work across borders and among different cultures.


But panelist Russ Campanello, an independent HR strategy consultant in Arlington, Massachusetts, said this prediction is just part of the picture. “Globalization is a given,” he says. “But we haven’t said much about the implications of that. Globalization, for example, means that business goes on 24 hours a day. This has profound implications for the way work is done. Look at the Internet commerce company Verifone, which has attempted to design the work to be handed off from time zone to time zone, so that it follows the daylight around the globe. What does something like that do to the organization’s acquisition and location of talent?”


Workforce sought the advice of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for International Economics, where Visiting Fellow J. David Richardson (author of “Why Exports Really Matter!” and “Why Exports Really Matter More!”; National Association of Manufacturers 1995) confirmed that globalization means the world won’t work in the old way. “Cross-cultural adaptation is becoming more necessary,” he says. “I can tell you that as an educator, I see changes in the relative values of different kinds of preparation for students. We’ll see more emphasis on language, history and geography and less on natural science. You can hire science.” Richardson, who’s also a professor of economics at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse, New York-based Syracuse University, sees an interesting effect of globalization among his master’s degree students. “Other things being equal,” he says, “the students who are most successful in finding jobs are the ones from cross-cultural families or who have some kind of experience with another culture in their backgrounds.”


Richardson didn’t quite like the wording of prediction No. 6 (“Megaglobal business alliances will grow in number and scope, requiring great finesse on the part of the HR professional”), saying that “mega-alliances” have very little to do with the growth of global business. “There’s a great deal of growth in international business among small firms in the form of international supply chains, representation deals and a lot of creative arrangements,” he says. “When you look at the number of American firms that have become exporters over the past 20 years, there has been almost no growth among those with 500 or more employees. But among smaller firms, the number of exporters has grown 20 percent.”


Is Richardson hopeful about the role of HR in global business? “I think most people have a stereotype of HR people,” he says. “They are thought to be maintainers —they maintain peace, mental health, employee career momentum and so on. Looking to the future, they need to be adventurers rather than maintainers. That’s not the stereotype, but that’s who will succeed in HR in the global marketplace.”


If you have any doubts about the need to prepare for globalization, they can easily be dismissed by a glance at current headlines. Last fall, real estate lending in Thailand led to a financial crisis in Hong Kong, which caused the Dow Jones average to plummet. This globe-circling shock wave alone is enough to show us that national economies are becoming increasingly irrelevant. There’s only one economy, and it spans the world. But the picture of a great, booming world economy that emerges from our panelists’ predictions may be a little too rosy. The Hong Kong stock market crash and its aftermath are proof that adjusting to globalization may not always be easy.


Nevertheless, it’s increasingly unlikely that American business can or will turn back from the rush to globalize. If most companies maintain a presence in other countries, either through local branches or international business alliances, they cannot leave the intercultural work issues to chance, and our panelists suggest it’s the HR function that will manage this beat.


At the most mundane level, this may mean support services in obtaining visas for border-crossing employees. At the deeper levels, however, someone will need to maintain written and unwritten corporate policies for transportability to other cultures. It’s clear that our panelists think HR professionals will have to step up their global skills and competencies in the next 10 years.


But we must not assume that human resources professionals’ roles will just be another exercise in managing multicultural diversity. The global landscape is littered with companies that have been forcibly ejected (or decamped in disgrace) from countries that found their work offensive. Manage your domestic diversity badly and you may get a morale problem or a lawsuit. Manage your affairs in another country badly and you’ll have a market disappear or employees taken hostage. The first order of business is to keep top management informed of the costs of not paying attention to the transnational issues.


Our panelists suggest that corporate HR will keep in touch with local HR departments in different countries. It will maintain a corporate culture that works for both the domestic company and its international presence. This will require an understanding of foreign cultures. Local human resources departments can help with that, but communicating clearly with them (in both directions) will be corporate’s responsibility. Our panelists may be whistling in the dark when they suggest human resources professionals will not need to learn foreign languages. They will certainly have to have foreign language speakers on staff.


The proposition that small teams of human resources professionals will take performance improvement consulting services to different global locations is one of the most exciting propositions to come out of the study. Although human resources managers might not have to know local languages in depth, it’s unlikely you could be on such a team without understanding the language of those whose performance needs to be improved. The members of these teams will have to be steeped in the values and assumptions of the other culture before they enter it. There may be a role for corporate anthropologists in this arena. Not only will human resources directors have to think outside the box in determining how they deal with global workforce issues, they’ll have to make sure they remember the proverbial business box is getting increasingly bigger and more complex.


 


Work and Society: Working to live, not living to work.
In this area, our panelists foresee a workplace that will free up employees to pursue life interests and family obligations. They also anticipate a growing involvement in the community by business organizations, which will take increasing responsibility for social needs.


“We’re starting to see signs that people are questioning how much of their lives must be dedicated to work,” says panelist Dave Pylipow, director of employee relations for Hallmark Cards Inc. in Kansas City, Missouri. “Companies need to consider the fact that this questioning is going on if they want to remain competitive.”


Says panelist Greene: “The issues in this section struck a responsive chord with me, not just around child care, but around elder care as well. In our office of nine, we have four people dealing with this. It must be the same all over. These are tough issues, and they have changed a lot even in just the past five years.”


As with the global business area, panelist Campanello thought the predictions on work and society didn’t go far enough. “It looks to me like the focus is on 1980s and 1990s backlash,” he says. “It sounds like we’ve all decided we’re done killing ourselves with work. That’s true, but I was disappointed that the real possibilities didn’t show up here. I think telecommuting may spark a resurgence of home and community that’s even more powerful than what we suggest here. People may begin sharing information in communities, for example, the way we now do in organizations.”


Panelist Bob Peixotto, vice president of total quality and HR at L.L. Bean Inc. in Freeport, Maine, pointed out that the first four predictions, which emphasize how employees will realize more fulfillment in their personal lives, are at odds with the fifth prediction, which says that the struggle to balance life and work will get worse. “I think prediction No. 5 is more realistic,” he says. “While I’d like to see [predictions] one through four come true, (these forecasts all involve families and workers’ personal lives taking on a greater role and work itself taking on a lesser role) this trend could reduce U.S. competitiveness. As long as people in other world economies are willing to invest in education and work harder for less pay, we’ll have a difficult time unilaterally working less. This pressure may be equally strong for both blue-collar and white-collar workers.”


The emphasis on families prompted us to call the Families and Work Institute in New York City and speak with Research Associate Jennifer Swanberg, who’s on “The National Study of the Changing Workforce.” She confirmed that the nation is enjoying an increased focus on family life. “There appears to be an attitude shift under way,” she says, “and it’s showing up in how people spend their time. Since 1977, we’ve seen an increase in the amount of time men spend on home chores and on child care. Among women, we’ve seen a decrease in the amount of time spent on chores and no change in the amount of time spent on child care.” But the institute’s research also seems to underline Peixotto’s remarks about the struggle to attain balance. “Both men and women are spending less time on themselves,” she says.


Our panelists clearly believe work is going to occupy a smaller part of people’s emotional lives in the future. Some people will adjust to this easily, because they already have family and life interests standing ready to fill in the gap. But others will doubtless feel a little lost, which may cause them to demand more support from their employers or lead them to bring more of their personal and life interests—such as family, community or even spirituality—into the workplace. Of course, if they are working at home, they may not have very far to go.


“HR 2008” panelists say the prevailing attitude of “live to work” will shift over toward one of “work to live” as people devote more attention to family and life interests. But are people fleeing the workplace to pursue personal interests, or are they simply finding that new patterns of work allow them to attend to those interests more closely? The rise in self-employment and telecommuting is allowing people to decompartmentalize and integrate their lives. When workers’ offices are in a corner of their bedrooms or right off their family living rooms, work becomes just another thing they do rather than another world they travel to. In the future, work will be more like an ongoing transaction and less like participation in a culture.


In any case, modern industrial culture separates people’s work lives from their personal lives fairly rigidly, and anything that pierces the barrier between them is bound to impact human resources management significantly. Does this mean you will have to deal with employees on a much more personal level than you’re used to? Not necessarily. Although employees will be integrating their personal and family lives into their work more, it’s difficult to imagine our ideas of workplace privacy changing significantly. Nor will employees necessarily seek more support from their employers for personal problems, since they’ll have access to this support from their communities. But they will expect greater flexibility from their employers regarding personal issues, and this may affect the way managers (with human resources’ directors’ instructions) do evaluations, performance reviews and career planning.


Workforce Development: Constant learning in a just-in-time format.
Our panel foresees a world in which employees will learn constantly, and the nimbleness with which they learn will set their value to their organizations. They will have basic computer skills, and they will use technologies as training vehicles, acquiring both skills and learning only when they need them. The firms they work for will train them for performance, not for skill building.


According to panelist Pylipow, the ability of employees to learn quickly and repeatedly has implications beyond training and will affect other areas in the purview of human resources management, namely recruiting and HR planning. “It’s the critical piece in talent sourcing,” he says, “the ability to learn over and over again.”


We sought advice in this area from the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), based in Alexandria, Virginia. “Your predictions seem consistent with what we’re seeing,” says ASTD President Curtis Plott, “but I think there’s an area you’ve missed—that intellectual capital is no longer just something to talk about. Wall Street has discovered it. Recently, Smith Barney, and Montgomery Securities have developed investment lines in training and education, and the interest has been so high that they’re oversubscribed.”


A new focus on performance measurement is shifting emphasis away from skill building. Our predictions picked this up, and Plott says it will alter the structure of the training industry. ASTD’s research indicates that companies will transform into learning organizations—one of the 10 major trends the organization says its members need to understand.


Plott says prediction No. 5 falls slightly short in not mentioning learner control (a major issue in just-in-time, technology-delivered training) and prediction No. 3 (“Employees with varied skills and competencies will be valued more highly than those with a depth of experience in a single area”) seems to sell expertise short. “Varied skills and depth of expertise may be valued equally in the future,” he says.


Another implication the study didn’t surface in workforce development, according to futurist Gioia, is the learning an organization’s managers will have to undergo. She thinks most work will be accomplished by teams that will require more leadership than management. “The leaders of such teams need first to have a high level of trust,” she says. “Second, they need to ensure that the required skills and abilities are present. And third, they need to know how to appreciate individual team members. It’s going to be up to HR people to help managers learn to behave this way, because for many of them it’s not natural.”


Our panelists’ prediction No. 5 (“Training will be delivered just in time, wherever you need it, using a variety of technologies”) suggests that future workers might never have to go to a class again. But there’s already a movement afoot to make training virtually unnecessary. Given the ubiquity of powerful desktop computers with multimedia capabilities, it’s theoretically possible to build into the applications employees use whatever they need (training, guidance, advice) to get a job done. The example that partisans of this approach, known as electronic performance support (EPS) systems, like to point to is the applications software Quicken™. The manufacturer says if you know how to write a check, you know how to use Quicken, and it’s pretty much true. If all our systems at work could be made to function in an intuitive, user-friendly way, it could eliminate a great deal of the training burden for corporations.


That EPS systems are possible, however, is no guarantee they’ll happen on a broad scale. They face enormous political problems because their development is interdisciplinary—involving information systems, training, documentation and line functions. There are questions of ownership and control that are seemingly insurmountable in many organizations. HR undoubtedly will have to be involved in sorting out the issues and implementing solutions.


Definition of Jobs: Jobs get bigger and broader.
The predictions show our panelists believe that as organizations become more flexible, employees will have to be more flexible as well. Their jobs will be broad, generalized, challenging and independent. They’ll be required to produce results rather than just put in time, and they’ll be prized for their versatility and for skills that are more generic than specialized. The panelists felt this area of the study had the strongest consensus. “The commonality was remarkable,” says Campanello. “It’s good to know there’s consensus in the field about these issues.”


Over the two centuries of the Industrial Revolution, both employers and employees have come to rely on the job description. But if work goals change constantly, and work-group membership shifts from assignment to assignment, a formal job description becomes more of a hindrance than a tool. In the next 10 years, job descriptions, even job titles, may go the way of bureaucratic hierarchies. Companies will continue to shed the trappings of military-style command-and-control mechanisms and become much more collegial.


If jobs have fewer specifically defined responsibilities and there’s less emphasis on specific technical skills, it will doubtless affect personnel planning. It may be that organizations will recruit less for particular skills and more for organizational fit. The idea of a finite job description is rooted deeply in our culture, and many organizations will have a great deal of difficulty adjusting to the ambiguity of tomorrow’s jobs. This certainly has implications for employment law, given the fact that it’s difficult to measure work for hire, if that work is a moving target. We can probably expect a great deal of litigation between now and then. The HR profession should be mounting a formal effort to educate the rest of society on the flexible jobs of the future and how to prepare for them.


This need for preparation is true for more than just the managerial and professional jobs. Blue-collar jobs are increasingly being automated, and the people in them often have to be “up-skilled.” The factory worker of the future (or even the present) isn’t simply expected to master a set of steps required to run a machine, but must grasp the workings of a system in a way that was never expected in the past.


We’ve learned that computerization doesn’t dumb-down jobs. It makes them increasingly complex, and it requires greater judgment, discrimination and even imagination on the part of the worker. In short, the worker increasingly will define the job, rather than the other way around.


Strategic Role of HR: Becoming leaders, not just partners.
Our panelists see a growing importance for the human resources profession and HR professionals over the next 10 years. HR will focus on organizational performance, and it will move into a leadership position as organizations come to understand how much they depend on it.


This area, understandably, generated some of the greatest excitement among our panelists. “The nature of HR is changing,” says Steward. “We’re finally getting a seat at the table. The reason is simple, really: People are important.”


Says Peixotto: “The focus on organizational performance and human capital development is critical. I see it as a move away from a service role and toward a consulting role.” He adds, “I think we’re approaching a time when HR people who don’t understand the organization’s business will have a hard time succeeding.”


Workforce editors think that many predictions in this area will be realized in our panelists’ organizations, because our panelists are among the foremost practitioners and activists in the profession. However these new roles and responsibilities won’t be handed to HR professionals on silver platters. No function in an organization gains new responsibilities without first gaining influence. As the changes outlined in the first five areas of our study take place, HR leaders will have to watch for opportunities to acquire influence within their organizations and to make people understand that the importance of human capital isn’t just a slogan; it’s a competitive advantage. In many firms there will be a great deal of inertia to overcome.


How do you spot the opportunities to make yourself more strategic to your company? An important first step, as Peixotto’s comment implies, is to understand your company’s business. The top prediction in this area is that “successful HR departments will focus on organizational performance.” Such a focus requires a knowledge of your company’s industry that’s deeper than many HR professionals are used to. What are the principal issues your company faces in the areas of materials supply, production, quality control, distribution and sales? Find out. Then address the workforce capability gaps.


Note that Peixotto’s position combines responsibilities for both HR and total quality assurance. It’s an arrangement that seems prescient, given our discussion about job flexibility and redesign. It also foretells HR’s increasingly collaborative role, just like every other job in the workplace. It means HR pros’ core competencies will need to change along with their roles.


The Value of Predicting: Having a vision and a way to achieve it.
We have put some of the best minds we could find to work on creating a vision of HR a decade from now, but we can’t say for sure all their predictions will come true. Even such intelligent and well-informed people give us a description of the future that is, at best, secondhand. Like the rest of us, our panelists can visit the future only in their imagination. No one crosses the moving line of the present, which means there must always be uncertainty on the other side.


Yet HR professionals have an enormous opportunity to influence the future of jobs, the workplace and the human resources profession. If you can see it (as the saying goes) even in your mind’s eye, you can achieve it. HR leadership is all about envisioning and engaging the power of a creative, capable, global workforce. If you see something in the future that doesn’t look right, change it now. You’ll be 10 years ahead of the pack.

Workforce, January 1998, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 47-60.

Posted on January 1, 1998July 10, 2018

Be Careful in What You Say

Defamation suits can crop up at any stage of the employment cycle. Performance reviews, investigations, demotions, terminations and references can all seed the ground for a nasty legal battle. Yet these are essential HR functions. Marlene Muraco, an attorney for San Francisco-based employment law firm Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff, Tichy and Mathiason, talks about how to do your job in the most legally defensible manner.


Can you begin with an overview of defamation law?
To have a claim for defamation, plaintiffs have to prove at least three and possibly four things, depending on exactly what the claim is. First, the key to the defamation claim is it has to be an untrue [statement]. Second, it has to be a defamatory statement of fact about the plaintiff. And the third thing is it has to be published to a third party by the defendant—the person being sued for defamation. Publication would be a statement. It could be in writing; it could be orally. I want to emphasize [the importance of the] third party. In other words, if you and I are alone in a room and I say to you, “You’re a thief,” that’s not defamation. I haven’t said anything to a third party. The possible fourth thing [to prove] would be injury to the plaintiff or damages. [Plaintiffs] have to be able to prove damages. They don’t always have to prove [they suffered] monetary damages, because some types of statements are considered to be so bad that plaintiffs are allowed to collect damages [for harm] to the[ir] reputations without proving that they actually suffered monetary loss.


What would be an example of that kind of statement?
Certain kinds of statements are known as defamatory per se. They’re the [three] following kinds of statements: accusing somebody of having committed a criminal offense, accusing somebody of being infected with a “loathsome communicable disease” such as AIDS, or accusing a person of an inability to perform the duties of his or her job. But it has to be something more than “he messed up his project.” It really has to be he’s totally incompetent, and he just can’t do something that’s really an essential function of his job.


Because so many defamation suits stem from the termination process, how should a company conduct a termination to avoid a suit?
To avoid any implication of defamation when you’re doing a termination, there are a couple things to think about. If somebody’s being terminated, he or she is being terminated presumably because the person did something wrong—poor performance or some kind of misconduct. So there are all kinds of things leading up to the termination, [such as] your investigation into whatever it is the employee did or the counseling procedure if somebody had poor performance. All of those [types of] activities have the potential for a defamation claim.


What’s an example?
For instance, if an employer gives an employee an evaluation, and it has statements in it that accuse the employee of criminal conduct, dishonesty or incompetence, there have been situations in which the employer has been found liable if in fact those statements and evaluations were false, and the person who wrote them down knew they were false when he or she wrote them down. Or [the individual] should have known they were false. For instance, I accuse you of theft in your evaluation, and I should have had reason to know that in fact you weren’t the one who stole the computer. So the first thing [managers] want to do when writing employee reviews, obviously, is be very careful that anything that’s in there is objectively verifiable and not somebody’s wild guess about what’s going on. Statements of opinion can’t be defamatory, so anything that’s the supervisor’s opinion, as opposed to something that’s a statement of fact, wouldn’t be actionable as defamation. But to the extent the supervisor says, “You did this and you did that,” you want to make sure that it’s a fact. This is why a lot of times companies have policies that their HR departments review employee reviews before they give them out, to make sure everything in there is OK.


In what other ways do defamation suits arise?
Another way [defamation occurs] is when you fire somebody, and then other people want to know why the person was fired. For instance, there are a couple of cases in California in which somebody was terminated for sexual harassment. And then the employer went back to the workforce and said, “Just to re-emphasize our policy on sexual harassment, we want you to know that we recently terminated somebody for sexual harassment.” So then the person [who was] fired sued for defamation. I think in most jurisdictions the conclusion is that discussions within a corporation are going to be protected, that employers won’t be held liable for them as long as the communications are made in good faith and are essential to the termination. In other words, they’re communicated to people who have a need to know, like the person’s supervisor, or perhaps the other people in the department. But even communications within a corporation that aren’t necessary—in other words, the supervisor is working late one night, and the janitor comes in and asks, “Whatever happened to Jim?” [And the supervisor replies,] “Oh, we fired him because we caught him sleeping on the job.” That kind of thing could be defamatory. Basically the bottom line is the employer wants to make sure that communication about the reasons for the termination, even within the corporation itself, are really limited to the people who have a business need to know.


The employer wants to make sure communication about reasons for termination are limited to people who need to know.


What should HR keep in mind when conducting an investigation—say on sexual harassment—to ensure the employee being investigated isn’t defamed?
In the event that HR is investigating somebody’s conduct, HR wants to compartmentalize the investigation as much as it can. So only give information out to those people who need to know and who are participating in the investigation. And only tell them what they need to know. If there’s a written report made because of some kind of investigation, they don’t want to circulate the written report beyond the people involved in the discipline process, who have a need to know. The same thing applies if you’re meeting. A lot of times employers will have an extra person in a meeting [who is] with an employee [under investigation]. If the extra person there is an HR person, that’s OK. Obviously though, you wouldn’t want it to be a co-employee whom you just want to have there for a witness. That could create [cause for] a defamatory suit.


What about escorting terminated employees from the building—there have been several defamation lawsuits around that.
I don’t think there’s any problem with escorting somebody out of the building. That’s OK, as long as nothing’s said. If you’re escorting the person out of the building, and other employees stop and say, “What’s going on?” and they’re given a full explanation, that could be defamatory provided it turns out to be false.


What should HR know—and advise managers—about giving performance reviews?
The best protection against defamation is always that it’s the truth. It’s an absolute defense to defamation. So again, the best protection and the safest way to defend a statement is to put down the truth. And the second-best defense is to act in good faith. In [some states] there’s what’s called a qualified privilege for the information that you put down in the performance review. That means that as long as the person who makes the statement is acting in good faith, he or she won’t be able to be held liable for defamation, even if what he or she wrote down ultimately turns out to have been false. It’s a recognition that these people need to do business, and that if they’re at risk for defamation every time you take a business action, they’re going to have a problem—because most people don’t agree with what’s on their performance reviews all the time.


How can an employer safely give references on a former terminated employee?
The safest thing to do is to have a policy that says you’re just going to give name, rank and serial number. One of the reasons that’s advisable is that it protects you against claims of self-compelled defamation.


If you give a reference, and you give a good reference, even if it’s false you can still get nailed for defamation.


What’s that?
This is unbelievable. Here’s the theory. You terminate somebody and give him or her a false and defamatory reason for his or her termination, such as that the person you [terminated] harassed somebody or stole [something]. The employee then [interviews with] a prospective employer. The prospective employer’s going to say, “Why’d you leave your last employ?” And [the former employee is] going to feel compelled to say, “Because they accused me of stealing.” Courts in many jurisdictions have found that [this] can be actionable defamation, even though the employer’s not the one making the statement.


So it’s really ridiculous if you think about it. It puts the employee in charge of when the cause of action arises. That’s because there’s a statute of limitations for all claims. But with a self-compelled defamation claim, the person could think, well my statute of limitations is about to run out. I know, I’ll go out and tell somebody—now I have a whole new claim!”


So how does an employer get around that?
Give only name, rank and serial number. Then the employee can’t feel compelled to tell another employer why he or she was let go. If the reference is checked, the new employer will just get name, rank and serial number. So you want to have that kind of policy and publicize that you have that kind of policy. However, if employers do choose to give references, they have to give accurate ones. You don’t have an obligation to speak, but if you do speak, you better speak completely. If you choose to give a reference, and you say something that’s false, clearly that can be defamatory. If you choose to give a reference, and you give a good reference even, you can still get nailed.


How’s that?
There was a case in California recently. What happened in that case was that a school administrator was going to get a new job. He applied to the school, and the school called his previous employer. The previous employer gave a glowing representation, talking about this guy’s good rapport with students. So the guy gets hired and gets caught engaging in sexual misconduct with one of the students. During the course of that lawsuit [the school officials] find out that there was this glowing reference given by his previous employer. They also find out that in fact the previous employer had been fully aware that this guy had problems with female students. At his previous employer he had been engaging in sexual misconduct, and in fact had been forced to resign from a previous school because of complaints lodged against him. [The school officials] knew this. Despite that, they gave a glowing reference. The court said, “Although policy considerations dictate that ordinarily a recommending employer should not be held accountable for failing to disclose negative information regarding a former employee, nevertheless liability may be imposed if the recommendation letter amounts to an affirmative misrepresentation presenting a foreseeable and substantial risk of physical harm to a perspective employer or third person.”


So say you have an employee who was terminated for something that was harmful to a third party—violence or sexual harassment—and someone calls for a reference. The employer gives a positive reference and doesn’t mention what they know about. The employer can be held liable to any third party who subsequently gets injured. The people that just give the name and rank will be OK, because they didn’t make an affirmative misrepresentation.


Workforce, January 1998, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 109-112.


Posted on December 1, 1997July 10, 2018

What If They Don’t Retire

By profession, Dawn Moran is a compensation manager in southern New Jersey. By birth status, Moran is a late baby boomer (born in 1962). “At the current age of 35, I can’t imagine ever retiring. I haven’t saved enough money, even though my husband and I make in excess of $125,000 per year,” says Moran, despite the fact that her job requires her to be a financial whiz. “We’ve been so busy putting kids through school and paying bills, housing expenses and so on, that we’ve saved very little. We understand the realities of Social Security and that it probably won’t be around for either one of us.” Moran’s husband, 46, is also a boomer. Moran says that although she thinks she’ll be working the rest of her life, or most of it, anyway, she’d still enjoy a shift in “traditional” work as she gets older.


Moran’s vision of semi-retirement, somewhere between a full-time worker and a nonworking retiree, is an expectation shared by many baby boomers. Because a significant slice of the boomer population—72 percent, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Employee Benefit Research Institute’s (ERBI) “1997 Retirement Confidence Survey”—think their future economic reality will require them to keep working beyond age 65, Workforce urges human resources managers to do some serious thinking now about both the problems and the opportunities that a nonretiring or semi-retiring workforce may create for their businesses. Because what HR professionals do now will be the reality that their companies, and their workers, will have to live with when the traditional retirement age begins to beckon.


Obviously, no one knows for sure what the future holds for employers, boomers or jobs. However, there’s enough information available today to make educated predictions about the employment areas that are most likely to change if boomers don’t retire in the traditional sense starting in the year 2011 (the year in which the oldest boomers will turn 65), and beyond. These issues include: the employment contract, health care and other benefits, staffing, and skills and training.


The employment “contract” may need to change.
Topping the list of issues that organizations should consider now is the employer-employee contract or compact. This refers to the implicit or implied rewards that employers promise workers for the work they do. It’s a subject that has undergone much discussion in the HR arena over the past year, and it’s a key boomer agenda item. Traditionally, employers have not cut the proverbial cord when they retired their workers. They often provided rich pension and health benefits that, in conjunction with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, left employees so well taken of in their retirement years retirees usually had little to worry about. The future workplace contracts and social contracts probably can’t afford to be so generous.


As time marches on, health and pension benefits in particular will continue to cost employers even more, leaving them with little choice but to ask employees to bear the greatest burden for these benefits themselves. It’s a continuation of the trend toward employers offering less and employees contributing more.


In fact, employers may need to consider going even further by whittling benefits down to a small core of offerings, rather than continuing down the current path of offering just about everything under the sun—from onsite massages to concierge services.


The primary platform HR managers will need to formulate is: How paternalistic should their organizations be? Do companies want employees to continue to rely on them for their personal needs, creating expectations of entitlements? In fact, HR professionals should consider whether offering health and other benefits actually might encourage employees not to retire. If workers fear that employer-provided benefits are better than what they could get on their own, there won’t be much incentive for them to leave full-time positions for traditional retirement or for part-time careers—even if they preferred to do so.


By providing benefits, employers may be unnecessarily keeping boomers tied to them—while boomers may grow increasingly resentful that they have to work at all. Will employers really be getting the best out of them in this scenario? Probably not. The best idea might be for employers to begin thinking of themselves as mentors that help workers toward their goals, rather than as paternalistic entities that simply dole out the American dream in unlimited quantities.


Clearly, HR professionals need to design their employment contracts and compensation strategies carefully, starting with health care.


Boomer health-care coverage will be a challenge.
It’s no surprise that experts predict health-care costs will keep rising and employers will continue to struggle with cost containment. So far, employers’ strategies have included capping coverage, moving employees and retirees from indemnity plans to HMOs and sharing costs with employees.


On many levels, these strategies have worked. However, topping the list of the health-care problems of the future is that, just like Social Security, active employees have helped pay the costs of employers’ retiree health-care coverage. It’s a pay-as-you-go system. So, current workers will bear a growing financial burden for the health-care needs of an increasingly large retiree population, or semi-retiree population, if employers keep their health plans the way they are. This is especially problematic with a Medicare system that’s also financed primarily through taxes on current workers’ wages.


According to Sylvester Schieber, vice president of Bethesda, Maryland-based Watson Wyatt Worldwide, and co-author of Watson Wyatt’s 1996 report, “From Baby Boom to Elder Boom: Providing Health Care for an Aging Population,” employers will be pulled in different directions in the future if the federal government curtails Medicare and Medicaid. “Employees are going to push employers to expand their benefits because they’re losing government benefits,” says Schieber, a health-care expert and an early boomer, at age 51. “My guess is if push comes to shove, employers will eliminate their retiree health benefit programs or they’ll move to defined-contribution (DC) type plans, in which employers contribute X dollars toward retiree health care, and if there are costs over and above that, it will be the employee’s problem [to make up the difference].”


Watson Wyatt’s boomer report also suggests that the government in the future might allow employees to save post-tax earnings in Health Security Accounts, so they’ll have money for future health-care premiums and out-of-pocket expenses in retirement. (For more information on Watson Wyatt’s study, see the end of this article.)


What other strategies might employers consider? David M. Walker, a partner and global managing director of Arthur Andersen’s human capital services practice based in Atlanta, has one: “Provide an opportunity for individuals to purchase health care at group rates.” That means: Offer employees access, but don’t pay for it. Walker proposes this strategy in an article titled “The Looming Retirement Crisis” published in Employee Benefits Journal, June 1997. Simply, his idea is that employers figure out which health-care coverage is a good value for workers and allow employees themselves to buy coverage at group rates through their employers.


Workforce has another radical suggestion that moves HR strategy beyond the traditional paternalistic mode: Just pay boomers—and everyone in the workforce, for that matter—more, rather than giving them benefits, and let them purchase their own health care. If human resources managers implemented Walker’s idea, employees would have access to purchasing health care. This way, workers would have continuous coverage, whether or not they work part time and don’t get paid coverage from their employer of the moment.


If boomers of the future will be changing jobs periodically or working in nontraditional work arrangements, they’ll be vulnerable to health-care gaps between jobs. “For people moving from job to job, or looking at their employment as a short-term event, simply receiving more money in place of other benefits can be pretty appealing,” says Laime Vaitkus, editor of IOMA’s Report on Salary Surveys, published by the Institute of Management & Administration Inc. (IOMA) based in New York City. “Many people prefer to stay with the same doctors on the same plan, and having them provide their own coverage would allow them to do so more easily—regardless of what company they’re working for at the moment.”


Not everyone is crazy about this idea, however. “Personally, I wonder about the amount of money you’d have to pay people to make it worth their while to forage for their own coverage; it could be prohibitive,” says Ann Podolske, a boomer with compensation expertise living in Southampton, Massachusetts, who also recently tried to get health coverage on her own. “I became self-employed last year and found it a bit of a challenge to find decent, affordable coverage at the grand old age of 37 because of a couple of pre-existing conditions. Unless the future is a much kinder and gentler place for aging human beings, odds are older workers will have their share of health baggage, too. So they could face an even more challenging marketplace.” She worries that employees might be tempted to “go bare” without insurance and pocket the extra income, leaving them and their families at risk for catastrophic illness or disability.


This is a sentiment shared by Charlotte Anderson, manager of work/life initiatives at Silicon Graphics, based in Mountain View, California. “I’d say if we were to give employees X amount of dollars and say, ‘Go buy what you need.’ Would they do it? Probably not,” says Anderson whose firm employs 11,000 people worldwide with an average age of 35. It could be risky business. But then again, Anderson admits: “It’s an interesting idea.”


The new provisions around the portability of health care, however, may make the idea of employees buying and maintaining control over their health-care coverage a workable possibility for many organizations and boomers. But health care isn’t the only benefit HR pros should think twice about.


Other benefits may also need to change course.
Pension-plan management will be a big HR focus in the next 15 years as boomers age. Defined-benefit (DB) plans are being scaled back, and DC plans, especially 401(k) plans, have become much more popular. At many organizations, DC plans are the only retirement plans.


“One interesting phenomenon we’re observing in terms of plan design is the emergence of hybrid retirement vehicles like the cash-balance plan, a DB plan that looks an awful lot like a DC plan,” says Paul Yakoboski, a research associate at ERBI, specializing in retirement income security issues. “On the flip side, age-weighted profit-sharing plans are also growing in popularity for DC plans.” These plans favor older employees just joining a workforce. (See the end of this article for information on obtaining an article on hybrid pension plans.)


The trend is to get employees more involved in their retirement planning, and in sharing the cost. Realizing this, investment firms are making it easier for workers. Last year, for example, Boston-based Fidelity Investments started offering a new kind of lifestyle pension fund called the Freedom Funds that have maturation dates attached to them like 2020 or 2030. An investor simply chooses the fund that most closely relates to the year in which he or she wants to retire, and the fund automatically follows an allocation strategy that becomes increasingly conservative as the fund nears its target maturation date. It’s perfect for boomers who are in a state of denial about getting older. They don’t have to acknowledge when it’s time to move their assets into a fund meant for workers closest to retirement.


A self-perpetuating retirement fund is something Dennis Gallagher, a 50-year-old baby boomer and a detective for the City of San Diego’s Eastern division, could have used. He’s considering retiring from the police force next year—with 25 years of service. At 51, that would be considered early retirement. Gallagher is retiring to pursue other job interests. However, he admits that even if he wasn’t looking for new challenges he’ll have to keep working five to 10 years, or more, because he won’t yet have the income level he wants to satisfy the lifestyle he, and his wife Carole, would like in their retirement years.


Why? Even though Gallagher’s employer has offered a deferred-compensation plan since he joined the police department in 1973 (which actually was fairly progressive for a public employer) and has offered a 401(k) plan for approximately 10 years, he says he wasn’t given enough information or encouragement about how to use those benefits until two years ago when he attended a city-sponsored retirement seminar, and therefore, hadn’t taken full advantage of them. “It was too little information, too late,” says Gallagher. “You shouldn’t get this information only a couple of years before you retire. You need to be shown what these benefits can do for you much, much sooner.”


Besides better pension education and pension redesign, HR managers also are thinking about adding long-term care and more elder-care services to their benefits menus, such as subsidies for elder-care and bill-paying services employees can purchase for their elderly relatives.


Health and wellness programs are also gaining popularity among benefits managers who realize that promoting healthy lifestyles usually helps reduce health-care costs. This is exactly what HR managers at Redondo Beach, California-based TRW Space & Electronics Group did. With a workforce of 10,000 employees, they put in a fitness center to help offset rising health-care costs and to promote health and wellness. “We find that if you have counseling and fitness programs, people tend to come,” says Mary Lackides, benefits and health services manager for TRW.


What’s driving these benefits changes? “Instead of trying to be the employer of choice, progressive employers are trying to attract the ’employee’ of choice,” says Peter Burki, managing partner for Dependent Care Connection, a dependent-care services provider in Westport, Connecticut. And when those employees are boomers, employers are going to have to figure out how to give them what they want and need, while keeping costs from skyrocketing. Still, attracting and retaining boomers is a more complex staffing issue HR managers will need to think about, complicated by a diverse population whose benefits needs aren’t always cut and dried.


Boomer staffing issues will be complex.
Some experts say America’s baby boomers already are clogging the workplace pipeline and blocking the advancement of younger workers—Generation Xers (born between 1965 and 1977) and Millennial babies (1978-2003). The Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Indianapolis, estimates in its 1997 study on future workplace issues, “Workforce 2020—Work and Workers in the 21st Century,” that workforce rates for men and women aged 55 to 64 could be as much as 14 percent higher than current forecasts, adding 11.5 million workers by 2020.


A March 24, 1997, Business Week article predicts a bottleneck of older workers who will take jobs away from younger workers, or who will hold onto jobs so long that younger workers will be less experienced and less skilled when boomers finally do retire. The article says employers may have to counter a “graybeard ceiling” of senior employees by creating part-time slots for them so these experienced employees can make way for promising younger workers. The article further suggests that because the generations that follow the boomers are far smaller in number, the nation may face a shrinking, less-skilled workforce after 2020—a phenomenon that could dampen economic growth.


And the glut of baby boomers in the workforce suggests performance measurement standards may need to change. For example, James Bailey, who lives in Senath, Missouri, and who’s soon to be in HR, recounts his experience while working for one company for 31 years: “When Emerson Electric Co. started 36 years ago in Kennett, Missouri, it established standards that were achievable by most employees. Over the years, the workforce has aged, but unfortunately the standards have been raised. This makes it increasingly difficult for older employees [to achieve an adequate performance level].” He suggests companies begin to look at changing work standards and performance expectations for an aging workforce.


Perhaps organizations will increasingly need to take age into consideration when they assign people to jobs that are time-sensitive. However, such standards will have to be written and administered carefully since age-discrimination problems could arise from plans that aren’t carefully thought out.


On the positive side, however, boomers who want or need to keep working offer employers an opportunity: To keep employees working beyond the traditional retirement age, or to bring back retired workers as part-timers, contingent workers or second-career professionals after they retire. Travelers Insurance Co. based in Hartford, Connecticut, for example, already is using this strategy. Its TravTemps program has been in place since the mid-’80s. TravTemps is the company’s internal temporary agency that fills positions throughout the organization with workers who’ve been employed by the company before, such as retirees, or with employees who simply want to work part time.


In 1987, Travelers estimated that it saved more than $1 million by hiring back retired workers instead of paying fees to temporary agencies. The firm no longer tracks the savings because managers know the program continues to save money. “The way the program got started was we had a number of retirees who had unique skills or extensive experience in the company and who wanted to return to work on a part-time basis,” says Keith Anderson, a spokesperson at Travelers. The benefits of bringing employees back from retirement who already have experience at an organization are numerous. They can jump in quickly on a project because they already know the company’s inner workings and objectives. They already have contacts in the organization to get a project done efficiently and proactively. And they already fit into the culture—a big consideration, especially for quick-moving, global organizations.


Other companies also are using this strategy, and are taking it a step further. For example, Louisville, Kentucky-based Kentucky Fried Chicken, now known as KFC Corp., brings retired employees back as part-time workers and managers on an ongoing or occasional basis working 20 to 30 hours a week with prorated benefits. And Toro Co., a lawn and snow products company in Bloomington, Minnesota, prorates benefits, bonuses and incentives for part-time workers.


These types of staffing strategies help companies get the people they need and help older workers continue working, if they want to, or need to. But training older boomers, especially those who work part-time in the future, will be another challenge to think about.


Plan for skills and training issues of roving retirees. Many experts think older workers not only will be able to keep up, but many of them actually will drive organizational changes. For example, futurist Alvin Toffler thinks boomers probably will be the change agents for many of the high-tech developments he sees looming on the American horizon, according to a 1995 interview published in the AARP Bulletin, the monthly membership newsletter for the American Association of Retired Persons, based in Washington, D.C. This reasoning runs contrary to the popular belief that middle-aged and older workers resist technological advances. Toffler reminds us that boomers were actually the first generation to grow up with TVs and later to buy and to use the first personal computers and electronic devices.


American Society for Training & Development President Curtis Plott agrees that boomers can learn new technologies, especially computer systems, just as well as their younger counterparts. And they recognize the need to be technoliterate in today’s—and tomorrow’s—workplace. Boomers also bring various other skills to the workplace that many employers will be happy to retain, either on a full-time or a contingent-worker basis.


“Older workers know a lot,” says Plott. “And they have a vast amount of experience.” But he suggests that some of what they know is becoming antiquated quickly as the half-life of skills gets shorter every year. “Boomers are struggling like all the rest of us to keep up with the changing knowledge and skills we’ll all need in the future,” says Plott.


Many boomers also bring a highly valued mindset to the workplace—the ideal of challenging assumptions. In the same way that many boomers protested everything from war to “the establishment” in the ’60s, Plott predicts boomers will continue to be catalysts in organizations, even if they aren’t full-time staff members. “The power [in organizations] will move to the periphery [of the employee hierarchy], rather than being centralized [in one spot],” says Plott. In short, knowledge workers will continue to be highly valuable, regardless of whether they’re full time, part time or telecommuters. “This will mean [firms will] need more people with higher skills, greater abilities and more independence in decision making, and stronger interpersonal skills overall.” These are all things that many boomers are good at, or at least are eager to learn.


The ways in which employers will train boomers in the future will parallel current training trends, says Plott. For example, training will move toward more technology-based training, such as distance learning, electronic support systems and use of the Internet. These training mechanisms will support the goals of future boomer worker-learners who may increasingly want jobs with more flexibility (such as telecommuting, distant staffing or job sharing), so that their work lives are just one part of their lives, but don’t dominate their entire lives.


And while it’s debatable whether baby boomers will retire at age 65, 70 or never (or some variation thereof), a few things are certain: The boomer wave is going to wash over American business with a mighty splash. If HR managers aren’t prepared for the challenges and opportunities, it could hit as an unexpected tidal wave.


Those HR professionals who have prepared by setting in motion the right employment practices, however, will both drive boomers’ future retirement choices and impact the very nature of their organizations’ workforce capabilities and financial stability. There are 76 million reasons to start strategizing right now.


Workforce, December 1997, Vol. 76, No. 12, pp. 54-60.

Posted on December 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Learning How To Develop Entrepreneurs

Doris Drucker believes it’s never too late to start one’s own business. As an eighty-something inventor and co-founder of Claremont, California-based RSQ LLC, the wife of management scholar Peter Drucker is a former employee turned entrepreneur. She and Obie O’Brien formed their company in order to market Visivox, a portable battery-operated device that helps public speakers determine their voice projections. Without any previous management and ownership experience, Drucker has paved new ground in her mature years. She appreciates the value of perseverance, good health and goal-setting. HR can get a glimpse of her entrepreneurial mindset and encourage some retiring employees along a similar path.


Q: In your earlier career days, what did you do?
A:
I obtained an advanced degree in physics while my children were in school. Afterward, I thought I would go for a doctorate. But then I realized that at age 50, there was no chance of getting an interesting job as a woman. The only field I could see myself in then was teaching. But temperamentally, I’m unsuited for it. Then I saw an ad in the paper for a patent attorney who wanted someone with a math or science degree to write patent applications. I did that for five years.


Q: What skills did you acquire in that occupation?
A:
The job requires writing very concisely and paying great attention to what the various parts of a product are called. If a part is misnamed, it could be a fatal error because someone might pounce on it and contest the patent. So the job taught me to be very precise.

You can’t be an entrepreneur without some financial security. You have to make sure your cost of living is paid

Q: How did you eventually become an inventor?
A:
After I looked at some of the inventions of other people, I thought, “My gosh, I can invent too.” One of my ideas was a product that would quickly heat food. But by the time I had developed the design, the microwave oven already had come out. Then, because my husband gave so many speeches and I’d sit in the back of the room and shout out when his voice couldn’t be heard, I thought there must be a better way to let him know. And then I thought of [the idea that has become] Visivox. [The device monitors a speaker’s voice and flashes light signals showing the speaker immediately whether he or she is being heard.]


Q: What has been the most difficult part of running your business?
A:
Inventing is easy. I get lots of ideas through serendipity — in the morning. Somewhere between sleep and wake, the ideas just come. It’s the marketing that’s hard. Inventors have to find a distributor for their products. I’m looking for distributors in rehab facilities, universities and [companies in] industries that do a lot of speaking and training. Selling is a hard point because you have to get others to see they need your product. That’s hard.


Q: What kinds of attributes are necessary to be an entrepreneur?
A:
That’s a difficult question. Everyone has different gifts and talents. But one of the important attributes [of an entrepreneur] is perseverance. Being an inventor can be very discouraging. Very often, you’re alone. You also have to be in good health. I work out by playing tennis three times a week, if I can. I also go to the health club and work out, do track walking, run and mountain climb in the summer. I’m in good shape physically.


Q: Should HR professionals encourage baby boomers to own businesses after retirement?
A:
It depends on one’s financial situation. Many people who’ve been downsized can’t start a business. They have to eat. You can’t be an entrepreneur without some financial security. You have to make sure your cost of living is paid. During the first year or two, you won’t make any money. You’re lucky if you come out even. And if you’re a single person, I’d say it’s very risky .


Q: What role can HR play in helping employees think like or become entrepreneurs?
A:
People often say they want to find something that interests and engages them. But the idea doesn’t go anywhere. So HR [professionals] can encourage those people to focus their interests in very specific areas by asking specific questions related to their interests.

Workforce, December 1997, Vol. 76, No. 12, p. 57.

Posted on December 1, 1997July 10, 2018

How the Bank of Montreal Keeps Score on Success

In 1990, when Matthew W. Barrett became Bank of Montreal’s chairman and Tony Comper became president, they had one major goal: To focus the entire workforce on success. It’s a simple idea, but not so easy in execution. How would they get entry-level tellers to think of their work not just as a means to a paycheck, but as a direct contribution to BMO shareholders? How would they remind corporate executives that their jobs were not just to boost the bottom line, but to charm entire communities?


The answer was what BMO executives call a balanced scorecard approach. To be competitive, executives decided, the bank had to meet the needs of four stakeholders: BMO shareholders, customers, employees and communities.


Executives translated that idea into four goals: shareholders needed a return on equity, customers needed good service, employees needed to feel loyal and satisfied, and communities needed to feel the bank made a difference in their neighborhoods. Return on investment would determine satisfaction for shareholders; surveys and feedback would determine satisfaction for customers, employees and communities.


So far, so good, but every single department and every employee in every department had to understand how their work contributed to the success of those four goals. So each employee’s and department’s performance ratings now are dependent on their contribution toward each goal. Employees in the customer-service department, for instance, are rated by their return on equity (judged by their cost-effectiveness), their customer satisfaction (judged from customer feedback), and their community involvement (judged by any outreach programs or increase in customers).


Departments may be assigned a specific stakeholder. HR is in charge of the employee piece, ensuring competent, committed workers in a cost-effective way. Harriet Stairs, senior vice president of HR, uses training and education to ensure competency, and work/life and career-development programs to help commitment. Knowing she’s rated on the cost-effectiveness of all this, she also keeps her eye on the price tag. “It encourages everyone to do his or her job with the exact same issues in mind,” Stairs says.


At the end of the year, the scores from everyone’s performance ratings are translated into indexes, ratings from one to 10. The index for the employee stakeholder piece would be determined by ratings for competency, commitment and cost-effectiveness. The four indexes — for BMO shareholders, customers, employees and communities — are then rolled up into one figure of merit. At the end of each year, Barrett presents this to the board of directors, who use it to determine his bonus.

Workforce, December 1997, Vol. 76, No. 12, p. 36.

Posted on December 1, 1997July 10, 2018

Baby Boomers Are Redefining Retirement

At age 71, Michelangelo was appointed chief architect of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome—work he supervised until his death at age 89. Adolph Zukor was chairman of Paramount Pictures until he was 91. And George Abbot, the great Broadway actor, writer, director and producer, brought “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” to Broadway at age 75. He then topped that with the revival of his first hit, “Broadway,” when he was 100 years old.


These later-life achievements used to be the exception to the rule. For the last 60 years or so, the majority of working Americans have chosen to retire at age 65, buy a condo in the sun and invest an absurd amount of money in golf club memberships and vacation cruises. Productivity? Forget it. Retirement was a time for leisure—period. Only a small minority of people remained gainfully employed in life’s later years.


But it’s all changing now as baby boomers—that teeming mass of humanity that popularized rock ‘n’ roll, the sexual revolution and recreational drug use—hurtle toward retirement age. Thanks to the sheer number of them, baby boomers have profoundly affected American life at every step along the age continuum.


When boomers hit school age in the 1950s, classrooms couldn’t be built fast enough and many schools went into double sessions. When they went off to college, the number of college students nearly tripled to 9 million and 743 new colleges were opened. As corporate employees, they made casual dress the rule and demanded more flexible work arrangements and family-friendly benefits. Now, with the first boomers set to hit early-retirement age within the next four years, they will no doubt redefine the nature of that time-honored institution as well.


“Boomers make up 52 percent of the working population and are of an age at which they’ve reached managerial and executive positions,” explains Rebecca Chekouras, vice president of research services for marketing solutions and information provider Age Wave Communication Corp. in Emeryville, California, and a baby boomer herself. “As the adult governing population, we’re in charge. What we do sets the tone for corporate life,”—and for corporate retirement.


With one boomer turning 50 every eight seconds, a rate that will continue for the next 10 years, retirement issues are being pushed to the forefront of the national consciousness. But how will retirement be redefined? And why should it? Aren’t a nice pension check and loud Bermuda shorts the goal of all burnt-out corporate employees?


Well, yes and no. Sure, we all want more leisure time, but not everyone can afford a fat and happy retirement. Furthermore, not everyone will want to stop working at age 65, especially boomers who derive a significant part of their self-esteem from their jobs. But regardless of what boomers decide to do about retirement, these aging workers will have a tremendous impact on corporate human resources. In fact, they already are. From recruitment and retention to compensation and benefits, every facet of HR management is being challenged as the average age of workers continues to rise, and the first boomers stand on the precipice of their retirement years.


Why the structure of retirement is changing.
In the “old days”—which still exist to some extent—Americans spent the first part of their lives, from birth to their early 20s, educating themselves in preparation for work. This period of education was followed by employment, often with just one or two companies, that lasted until workers were eligible for full pension benefits at 62 or 65. Upon retirement, Americans settled into a time of leisure and inactivity.


“This model of the life cycle is rapidly becoming obsolete,” explains Richard Judy, a senior research fellow with the Hudson Institute Inc. in Indianapolis, and co-author of the 1997 study “Workforce 2020-Work and Workers in the 21st Century.” In the not-too-distant future, Americans will be more likely to combine work, education and leisure throughout their lives, instead of breaking them up into three distinct periods.


This is happening for several reasons. First, people are living longer, healthier lives. When Congress set the official retirement age at 65 in the 1930s, the average life expectancy was only 61.7 years. But today, men can expect to live to 81 and women to 85—and these are just averages. Millions of Americans will live far beyond these mileposts.


Because older Americans today are healthier, by and large, than their parents and grandparents were, they’re physically able to do more in later life. When he was 70, Jack LaLanne completed a 1 1/2 mile swim in Long Beach Harbor, handcuffed and shackled, towing 70 boats full of friends and reporters. LaLanne may be an extreme example—after all, plenty of 25-year-olds couldn’t complete this feat—but he shows what the body is capable of when it’s treated right. Boomers, who led this country’s health revolution, will be physically capable of working and producing much later in life than any previous generation simply because they’ve taken care of themselves.


Of course, the ability to live and work longer has been helped significantly by advances in medical science that have virtually eliminated the life-threatening nature of many diseases. And as Judy says, “Because medical science isn’t standing still, longevity may continue to increase even more.”


With all those years standing in front of them upon retirement, many boomers will want to remain productive, especially because “purpose” has always been a driving force in their lives. “This generation has always sought meaning in their lives and in their work,” explains Helen Dennis, director of the Andrus Institute of Gerontology at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “Boomers will look at retirement as a time of personal reinvention,” she says. Instead of getting out of the rat race altogether, boomers will search for new opportunities—be it in employment, volunteer work, education or perhaps even starting a business.


It will be easier for boomers to pursue new opportunities not only because they’re healthier, but also because increasingly, the work that’s available relies not on physical power but on cerebral strength. Our burgeoning knowledge-based economy means that people will be able to work longer because the work itself isn’t so exhausting. “People will find they can still be on the top of their professions in later years, unlike manual laborers who are simply fed up by age 55,” Judy says.


But the picture isn’t all rosy. While many aging baby boomers will be eager and healthy enough to continue some form of productive work well into their 70s or 80s, many boomers will have to remain working because of significant financial pressures. At this juncture, the future of the Social Security system has never looked so grim. Fortune reports that Social Security will be paying out more than it brings in by the year 2013—just 15 years from now—and will run out of money altogether by 2030. This is because the 76-million strong baby boom was followed by just 59 million baby busters, or Generation Xers as people in this group have come to be called. Because it takes approximately 3.2 workers to support each retiree, there will be far fewer workers than necessary contributing to the system.


But Social Security is not the only support system that’s in jeopardy-pensions also are imperiled as more and more companies realize they simply can’t afford the high cost of providing retirement income to their employees.


Because the crumbling pillars of federal aid and fat pensions can’t be counted on for support, retiring boomers increasingly will have to rely on their personal savings. For many boomers, that won’t be enough. The national savings rate dipped to an all-time low in 1993—just 2 percent of gross domestic product, down from 8 percent 20 years earlier—and it has only recently started to rise. Given their longer life spans, boomers have a lot of catching up to do if they hope to have even a bare-bones retirement income.


Put all this together and you begin to see what a good thing it is that boomers will want, and be able, to work in their later years. If current projections come true, they may not have a choice.


How retirement will be redefined.
So how, exactly, will retirement be redefined? Many different scenarios aren’t only possible, but likely, to occur depending on the needs of workers and their employers. The first crop of baby boomers to reach early retirement in the next few years will be in a better position financially to take full retirement if they so desire. Why? Because they’ll still be able to take advantage of company pensions and a relatively intact Social Security system.


But because they’re still healthy and energetic, the more likely scenario is that boomers will choose to leave their place of primary employment when their employers say they have to (usually around age 65), and then they’ll take whatever pension they have and direct their skills and energy toward more meaningful employment opportunities elsewhere.


“It sounds like a contradiction, but increasingly, employment is being seen as a viable option in retirement,” says Dennis. Her opinion is supported by a 1993 survey conducted by the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, Maryland, that revealed nearly three-quarters of older workers would prefer to retire gradually, phasing down from full-time to part-time work instead of retiring abruptly as many now are forced to do.


In the next 20 years or so, there’s likely to be a great number of boomers working as independent contractors or consultants, taking part-time positions, starting small businesses or even working full-time for their existing employers if the companies will allow it.


Taking a longer-term view, the entire work/life cycle is likely to undergo a major shift, suggests Roger Herman, a strategic futurist and CEO of Herman and Associates Inc., in Greensboro, North Carolina. “I’m forecasting a series of mid-career retirements in which people work for eight to 10 years and then take a year off to pursue additional education, travel, open a new business, or [start] new careers,” he says. “By interspersing work and leisure time throughout their lives, people can continue this pattern until well into their 70s or even 80s.”


Boomers will impact HR.
But retirement or not, the aging baby boomers are going to have a significant impact on human resources in the next few years-just as they’ve affected every other facet of American life they’ve come in contact with thus far. Depending on their actions, they could:


  • Create a crippling labor shortage
  • Swell corporate benefits costs
  • Make flexible employment arrangements the norm
  • Ease the scarcity of knowledge workers
  • Revamp the traditional retirement structure
  • Create massive changes in this country’s health insurance system.

And these are just the beginning.


In fact, there’s no single element of human resources management that won’t be affected by the stampede of baby boomers heading toward retirement. The only way to minimize the effect of those changes is for HR professionals to begin now to analyze their companies’ workforces, anticipate the problems they’ll face and then develop strategic long-term strategies to combat those problems.


A key advantage HR pros have in meeting this massive demographic shift head on is that many—if not most—of this country’s top human resources executives are themselves members of the baby-boom generation. As representatives of their companies and of their generation, they’re in an ideal position to accommodate the retirement desires of their compatriots while also meeting the business needs of their employers. But it will require our nation’s HR managers to make some of the most difficult decisions they’ve ever had to tackle because it will bring into question the very nature of what employers can and should provide, what workers want and need, and what society will support. The social impact will be enormous. But the HR opportunity will be equally monumental.


George Burns, who performed as a comedian right up until his death at age 100, once had this to say about retirement: “Retirement at 65 is ridiculous. When I was 65 I still had pimples.” As the baby boom fast becomes an elder boom, no doubt many members of this energetic and rebellious generation would agree with Burns. Boomers know what they want out of retirement. It’s now up to business to decide what it can provide.


Workforce, December 1997, Vol. 76, No. 12, pp. 42-47.


Posted on December 1, 1997July 10, 2018

10 Ways To Evaluate Your Financial Education Programs

Investment education is one of benefits managers’ top priorities. In addition to helping employees take responsibility for their personal financial security, these programs also should increase participation in company-sponsored benefits offerings — adding value to the benefits package without adding benefits costs. Here are some questions to help you evaluate your current program:


  1. Is the financial education curriculum broad-based or topical in focus?

  2. Does the curriculum address generic financial concepts or vendor-specific products?

  3. Does it provide an overview of retirement options or can it be customized to your company’s specific retirement plans?

  4. What is the instructor’s background, training and experience?

  5. Is the program varied in its delivery with applicability for adult learners?

  6. Is it convenient for employees to attend at the workplace?

  7. Are spouses/personal guests encouraged to attend?

  8. Does the program provide an opportunity for participants to meet with the financial educator/ adviser to translate knowledge into action?

  9. How is the financial educator/adviser compensated?

  10. How does the program provide ongoing education to all employees?

SOURCE: Rick Storms, assistant vice president; ReliaStar Life Insurance Co., Minneapolis


Workforce, December 1997, Vol. 76, No. 12, p. 52.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 542 Page 543 Page 544 … 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