Category: Archive

Posted on

PSE&G Create Job Orders, Not Pink Slips

There were no pink slips. There were no security guards standing by to make sure employees towed the line. There was no confiscating of company property, keys or badges. There was no escorting of employees out of the building. Although employees were shocked and disappointed to learn the company would be eliminating 575 jobs at Public Service Electric and Gas Co. (PSE&G), based in Newark, New Jersey, for the workers whose jobs were being eliminated, it could have been worse—much worse.


Rather than simply laying people off on the same day as the mid-June announcement in 1993, PSE&G—a regulated utility serving more than 1.9 million electric customers and 1.5 million gas customers in New Jersey—took a more strategic approach to people management. Not wanting to lose the investment it had made in these workers (PSE&G’s average employee tenure is 16 years), the company instead gave them the chance to serve the organization in new ways. Many of them first went into a temporary worker pool, then became redeployees who took jobs in other areas of the firm.


As yet another corporate entity facing deregulation of the utility industry, PSE&G wanted to restructure before it faced big problems. “We weren’t waiting until we were completely in a crisis to see where we could trim some staff,” explains Carol Marcelli-Cioban, PSE&G’s career-development manager. “What we did was trim staff in preparation for deregulation and competition.”


A benchmarking of other utilities pointed to areas within PSE&G that could be streamlined. The analysis even suggested that the firm’s human resources organization—in addition to other jobs in the company—needed trimming. PSE&G not only looked outside for help about what work to cut, it also used internal task forces to find answers.


Task-force teams (of four to eight employees each) examined every job within the organization. They dissected thousands of work processes to find inefficiencies and duplication, and gave recommendations to senior managers about what work was superfluous. Senior managers then determined some positions—that once were highly valued—no longer carried the same weight they once did. It was time for cuts—but not at the expense of people’s dignity or welfare. A wholesale downsizing, managers reasoned, wasn’t the solution to rectifying their problems. They committed to redeploying workers into the restructured firm.


Moving people into a transition mode.
As soon as possible after the announcement, managers met with employees (called associates) to let them know their status. Those associates whose jobs were eliminated were encouraged to apply for other jobs in the company—often entirely different jobs than people previously had before. They were given until November 30 (six months from notification) to find a new job or be separated from the firm.


A redeployment task team, made up of five professionals from human resources, had already decided on a plan. With the advice of Scottsdale, Arizona-based Marshall-Qualtec Group Inc. (a firm specializing in organizational change), the task team helped transition workers from their old jobs to new ones, or on to other jobs outside the firm. “We had looked at the traditional outplacement [process], and said, ‘Maybe there’s a better way to get at this,'” says Marcelli-Cioban. “What we did was develop an inplacement process.”


Unique to PSE&G’s transition process was the fact that it used 47 people (from the firm’s total population of 11,000) inside the company to serve as transition counselors—volunteers from all levels of the organization such as engineers, line people, secretaries and general managers. “We really thought our associates would feel better [talking] with somebody from the company,” says Marcelli-Cioban. “Nobody knows the lay of the land and internal politics like an in-house person.”


Counselors had to be people who had good interpersonal communication skills, who could empathize with people in difficult situations and who were relatively stable in their own personal and professional affairs. Counselors spent an average of 16 hours a week over the course of six months helping transition co-workers. “The counselors really helped people evaluate their skills and abilities, helped them to present themselves for jobs, to put their best foot forward and most of all, helped them manage their emotions when they were down in the dumps or angry,” says Marcelli-Cioban.


But workers also had access to resume-preparation training and interview-skills training at a career center located at the company’s headquarters, where they could meet with traditional outplacement counselors from Lee Hecht Harrison, an outplacement firm based in New York City. “And, [employees] were provided with assessment which let them know what their strengths and weaknesses were,” says Peter Mellett, vice president human resources for PSE&G and head of the transition team that got employees thinking about their options and deciding what to do next.


Using various self-assessment tools, employees determined where their skills, interests and abilities laid. They also pinpointed where new skills and competencies could make them more employable and more valuable to a hiring manager.


In addition, workers had access to a retraining program developed by the firm’s training and development department. The curriculum included:


  • A menu of basic in-house retraining courses in areas such as computer skills or business management
  • A selection of training opportunities to improve math or writing skills
  • Pre-assessment for bargaining-unit and first-line supervisor candidates to help them gauge whether they had the skills to pass qualifying exams
  • A waiver of tuition expenses for courses identified as necessary to help the employee achieve competency in a specific area before he or she filled an open position—reimbursed for as long as one year after taking a job.

“We did more than most companies that have undertaken similar efforts to support people in getting the skills and competencies they need to succeed in a new position,” explained Rick O’Leary, the former manager of corporate training and development, as quoted in a company newsletter during the transition phase. To help boost hiring managers’ commitment to hiring the redeployees, PSE&G made a rule that if an applicant had 75% of the competencies needed for a job, he or she should be considered a strong candidate. “Our goal was to have [redeployees] be among the best prepared for a job even if they started a new position with only 75% of the competencies,” O’Leary said.


He added: “As people began to examine their abilities and interests, they [often found] that there were 10 jobs they might qualify for if they brushed up on their skills in a couple of areas.”


Workers became short-term “temps” while looking for other jobs.
“We provided workers with what we call a transition [job], in which they were given 90 days to look internally for another position,” explains Mellett. Many employees went into this transition mode right away. Others hopped from job to job, as the company needed them to do so and as their job-searching progressed.


Robert B. Marshall, president of the Marshall-Qualtec Group explains why putting employees into temporary jobs is such a good idea: “Allowing people to participate as fully as they can in the process is a much better solution to just going up to people and saying, ‘You’re outta here.'”


People need something to do while they’re exploring other options. He says that many companies, when they’ve just restructured and cut jobs, simply take people off their old jobs and just send them off to a career center where they’re 100% occupied with a job search. “The best way [for people] to find a job within a company is to stay productive, so while they’re in transition, they’re assigned a job,” Marshall explains. People get time out for career seminars and job-search activities, but they have a job in the meantime.


It’s hard for some companies to do this, Marshall explains. The reason? “Company executives are overwhelmed that they have more people than jobs. The key to this approach is the leadership of the organization in recognizing they must manage this process of redeployment transition as carefully as they manage any other aspect of their business—which they’re usually not willing to do,” says Marshall. “Usually executives have no patience, no tolerance and no stomach for this, so their solution is just to let people go. Or, they send them across the street so they don’t have to look at them every day.”


Putting workers into a temporary pool was a good idea, but there was also a down side. “One thing you have to be careful about is putting in place a nomadic group of temporary people who go from temp job to temp job, because then you just move the workforce around and not necessarily put them in places where they optimize their potential,” says Mellett. He also warns that it isn’t good to keep workers on temp status too long because it might delay managers in making hiring decisions necessary in a competitive environment.


Managers were asked to hold up on posting new jobs for a month after the announcement while employees got settled with the reality of losing their old jobs and taking interim temp jobs. “Before these postings [were released] to the general population, the people who were in jeopardy had first crack at them,” says Marcelli-Cioban. “It would have created a lot of ill-will otherwise.”


If a redeployee applied for another job, and got a job offer, he or she had 72 hours to accept it. If the employee rejected the job, separation from the company was mandatory. Many employees who took new jobs in the company said the decision provided them with the chance to stay with the company, gain new skills and perhaps then move on to a different position.


By November 30, 445 of the original 575 employees (77%) found other jobs in the organization and 100 more decided to retire. Only 30 people couldn’t find suitable jobs. Although most associates who stayed made lateral moves, some took lower positions. “And we protected their pay rate,” says Mellett. “So if they went for a lower-paying job, we didn’t reduce their base pay.” This even applied during the temp phase. “They may not have gotten any raises for awhile,” added Mellett, “but their pay was never reduced.” Employees who couldn’t find jobs in the firm received financial support from the organization for up to six months while they looked elsewhere.


The HR department ran a survey of the employees who took other jobs in the firm. “Most of them said [the redeployment process] was a really strong wake-up call,” Marcelli-Cioban reports. Some said the change in jobs was actually the best thing that ever happened to them. And managers said they were generally satisfied with the workers’ abilities in their new jobs. “So it was really a win-win,” she adds.


Since this first wave of reorganization, PSE&G has had to reorganize and cut more jobs, but has continued to run the transition center for the past three years to help redeploy workers into other jobs. “I think most people in this company have come to the conclusion that their destiny is in their hands and that the company will do a lot for them to help and support them through whatever career growth or career transition they’re experiencing. But ultimately, it’s up to them,” says Marcelli-Cioban. “Many people up to now haven’t updated a resume in 25 years. I think most people now have one. I think the culture has changed—I really do.” It has been a struggle for an organization whose culture has gone from paternalistic to entrepreneurialistic.


But it has made the transition in a humanistic way. “If you hire people one at a time, you better let them go one at a time,” says Marshall. Your reputation, and possibly your business, may depend on it.


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 97-99.


Posted on

Tips for Going Flexible

Managers often are uncomfortable negotiating and supervising alternative work arrangements. Guidelines and examples of effective procedures help educate them about their benefits and help them negotiate terms and supervise effectively. Below are some practical tips.


Role of the Employee


  • Think through which option makes sense and whether that option provides the flexibility you need
  • Seek counsel from other individuals who areworking flexibly
  • Consider how the arrangement might impact your work and the work of your colleagues
  • Talk to your manager
  • Write your proposal
  • Iron out the details
  • Send a copy to the appropriate people
  • Communicate the new arrangement to appropriate co-workers
  • Evaluate the arrangement periodically with your manager

Role of the Manager


  • Address business needs
  • Assess department needs
  • Staff creatively
  • Consider each proposal on its own merits
  • Seek counsel from colleagues, especially those experienced with flexible work options
  • Ask for assistance or guidance from human resources
  • Be a coach
  • Communicate the new arrangement to other staff in the department
  • Monitor the arrangement

Role of the HR Manager


  • Identify internal issues and needs surrounding flexible work arrangements
  • Identify specific training needs
  • Resolve employee-manager conflicts
  • Serve as an internal resource
  • Communicate and advise on organizational guidelines

SOURCE: Catalyst


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, p. 36.


Posted on

Proactive People Planning Helps Nuclear Unit Thrive

Harnessing and directing nuclear power is one of the most powerful processes on earth. It’s also one of the most sophisticated. But harnessing the right talent to work on this process has become increasingly more difficult as new technologies require employees to apply advanced skills and abilities.


For Duke Power Co.’s nuclear businesses (three nuclear stations with seven reactors), taking a new look at workforce planning has made a lot of sense in staffing for the future. “In the past, we’d basically say, ‘I’m short four operators.’ And we’d go to human resources and say, ‘I need some people.’ There really was no planning for the workforce at all other than needing a certain amount of people,” says Mike Tuckman, senior VP of nuclear generation for Duke Power. Now, thanks to the company’s new workforce-planning model, more thought is given to how the business will get the right people when it needs them.


A key reason why the nuclear units needed a better handle on staffing has resulted from the business’s downsizing over the past five years. In addition to downsizing its other businesses, Duke has reduced the number of staff in the nuclear business from 5,800 to 4,350 people since 1991. But when the company tried to transfer some downsized workers from other areas of the company into it’s nuclear operations, it fell upon some interesting problems. For example, while internal applicants were willing to try new career paths, they tended to be mid-lifers who would be retirement age before they could reach supervisory level. The typical term between entry-level and supervisor of nuclear operations is 10 to 19 years—too long to wait for most career-changers.


“Using the workforce-planning model, we did a detailed analysis of the work that needed to be done—its physical and mental requirements with some [other] characteristics we were looking for in supervisors,” says Tuckman. They looked at the demographics of the workforce and projected the loss rate—when people would either retire or leave the organization. “We came to the conclusion that even though the company as a whole was downsizing, we wouldn’t meet our needs by continuing to transfer people in at an entry level within operations,” he adds.


The solution? Rather than continue to hire high-school grads, who typically had filled nonlicensed operator positions in the past, the company decided to recruit and hire technical school graduates or ex-Navy nuclear operators instead. These were people who already had some advanced experience or affinity for nuclear operations. The plan is expected to significantly shorten the training path from nonlicensed operator to licensed senior reactor operator. By the end of 1996, Duke will have hired a total of 45 employees in this way since 1994—being careful to build the workforce with a diverse mix of individuals.


In addition to looking at its nuclear operations through the lens of the new workforce-planning tool, Duke’s management team also has been paying closer attention to management development. “Previously, each site typically promoted from within and there was very little interaction [between staff at the three nuclear sites], or looking at individuals’ management capabilities,” says Tuckman. So, about three years ago, the nuclear units began to change that practice. The senior managers and human resources professionals from each site, along with corporate HR and vice presidents, began to sit down to examine every employee—from two management levels down in the nuclear organization down to entry level. “We wound up categorizing everybody relative to their performance, their potential as well as their development needs,” explains Tuckman. “We made a series of planned moves of people to get them that experience.”


What resulted has been a sharing of talent between sites and a much more aggressive development of high-potential employees over the past three years. “It really has had some good effects in broadening each station’s perspective as well as in developing future managers,” says Tuckman.


An important consideration for a business whose primary competitive advantage, in addition to its advanced technological capabilities, will be its people. “The company has a tremendous amount [of money] invested in capital equipment—pumps, valves, buildings, etc.,” says Tuckman. “But the performance isn’t so much tied to the equipment as it is to the knowledge and expertise of the people who run it. I view it as a strategic advantage.”


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, p. 50.


Posted on

Brooks Beverage Share Thy Neighbor’s Workers

Have you ever loaned something to a neighbor for safekeeping? Your home, maybe, while you were out of town on vacation? You relaxed comfortably in the sun knowing that everything was being well taken care of and that when you were ready to return you’d find your plants had been watered, your fish had been fed, and your stereo and computer were safe and sound. It’s so much easier than holding your breath and hoping.


Two innovative companies in Michigan have been using a similar idea as a creative technique for avoiding layoffs. When production is slow, Brooks Beverage Management Inc. (BBMI), a soft drink bottler based in the city of Holland, temporarily loans employees to its corporate neighbor down the street. When things pick up again, it knows its workers haven’t been lured away to other jobs and will be happy to return. Also, like the neighbor you paid to take care of your home, the corporate neighbor in this exchange situation benefits significantly.


For the last three years, BBMI has faced a seasonal dip in demand for its new line of alternative beverages: teas and flavored juices. Typically, as September and October hit, Americans return to what they traditionally have consumed in the colder months—usually coffee and other hot beverages. This part of the cycle lasts until early in the new year.


In the fall of 1994, the company knew what to expect. So as marketing geniuses scrambled to come up with ways to overcome the trend, Dennis Eade, VP of HR, and others at BBMI worked to develop a strategy to keep people working during the slowdown between September and March. There were 55 employees in the alternative-beverages production center who specifically would be impacted. “The primary goal was to avoid losing these highly trained, qualified, prescreened employees. We’re in a 3% unemployment market. The minute we would have laid these folks off, I’m certain other companies in our area would have hired them on the spot,” says Eade.


Plus, layoffs have been uncommon throughout the company’s 64-year history, and BBMI didn’t want that to change. Eade says: “In the soft drink business we typically staff to the low periods and then supplement for the high-demand periods—so we don’t have a history of a lot of layoffs. Therefore we’ve cultivated [a reputation for] being a good employer… and that image is important to attracting good new people to the company.”


BBMI forms a task force.
Faced with the slowdown, BBMI formed a team of representatives from manufacturing, legal, finance, production and HR. Members brainstormed possible solutions to this staffing dilemma. One was to keep the employees and find projects for them to work on, like painting the walls and ceilings. This option was ruled out because the plant had been operating only for a year, and there weren’t many fix-up jobs to do. Another idea was to send the workers out to blitz the marketplace—washing shelves and doing resets at retail outlets—providing an unusual level of service to customers. Yet another idea was to acknowledge that layoffs would be costly, but to do them anyway—with plans to save money in the months before they would need to recruit and train again.


Then someone suggested: “Can’t we just loan these people to somebody for a while?” Immediately everyone agreed this was the best choice—if the company could make it work. This alternative would preserve the sizable investment BBMI already had made in training. Much of the company’s equipment is state-of-the-art machinery run by computers, and employees receive three months of instruction before operating it on their own.


Eade says, “We figured if we made the accommodations—which were to offset the employees’ difference in pay, continue their insurance benefits and continue their 401(k) matching—that had a fixed cost. But compare that to what it would cost to retrain a new workforce, and suddenly it was a third of the expense to make the accommodations than it was to be faced with having to replace those people.”


Eade called Randy Evans, his counterpart at Haworth Inc., an international office furniture manufacturing company also based in Holland. Haworth was Eade’s first choice because he knew the company was growing. Plus, Haworth offered two additional benefits:


  • Proximity:
    Haworth is only two miles from BBMI, meaning less aggravation for workers in terms of dislocation
  • Availability of multiple shifts:
     If an employee worked the second shift at BBMI, he or she could work the second shift at Haworth—without upsetting child-care arrangements or other scheduled activities.

Evans was extremely receptive to the idea because Haworth had been having a difficult time recruiting enough qualified workers. Aggressive business development efforts by the state and the automotive industry’s solid performance in recent years has created a strong Michigan economy. And this has a serious impact on unemployment rates. John Berrett, VP of corporate communications for Haworth, explains: “The counties surrounding Holland have some of the lowest unemployment levels in the country. We’ve been under 3% for the better part of a year. And that has been a real challenge for companies located here.”


Add to that the fact that Haworth also deals with its own cyclical trend: Corporate America buys more office furniture at the end of the year, creating a peak demand that lasts through the beginning of the next year. Also, the U.S. government’s fiscal year closes at the end of September, and many of its purchases happen around that time.


“We try to hire people on a temporary basis to expand our production capability at the end of the year. When you’re in an area that has an extreme shortage of skilled labor because of low levels of unemployment, plus… you have a higher level of demand, it becomes a problem,” Berrett explains. And the problem is compounded when you need special skills. “The most important requirement [for factory workers] is that they’re able to work with machinery, some of it computer-controlled,” says Berrett. “Many of the employees available from Brooks were [workers with these skills].”


A three-way partnership is born.
Because of the good match in skills, Evans expressed interest in the loan, but also some concern. He was, in fact, planning to hire 150 temporary workers—50 of them immediately. But he was worried he would have trouble with approval from his legal advisors. His primary concerns included:


  • Which company would handle workers’ compensation exposure?
  • Which company would handle unemployment compensation?
  • How would employees maintain benefits continuity?
  • When the workers were recalled, would it leave Haworth in a bind?

Haworth usually hires temporary workers through Kelly Services, with the help of two onsite Kelly employees. So, Evans felt it made sense to bring Kelly in as a partner for this project; Eade agree. Claudia Wallace, a Kelly Services supervisor located at Haworth, went over to BBMI and worked with Eade to handle the administrative details of registering the 31 workers as Kelly employees.


Eade found that one benefit of working with Kelly was that the quality control (QC) employees with chemistry degrees had the option of pursuing positions in QC at other Kelly client companies. So far, however, the BBMI employees have preferred to stick together at Haworth.


In hammering out a written agreement between BBMI, Haworth and Kelly Services, the following points were made:


  • Kelly would pay the rate normally offered to Haworth’s temp employees
  • BBMI would pay the difference when the Haworth rate was lower than employees had earned at BBMI
  • BBMI would sponsor the insurance benefits and 401(k) plans
  • Kelly Services would cover workers’ compensation and unemployment
  • BBMI agreed to give Haworth a 48-hour notice when recalling employees
  • Haworth agreed not to solicit BBMI employees for permanent jobs.

BBMI shares the plan with its employees.
When all the details were settled, BBMI called a meeting to announce the temporary reduction in force and the options the employees had—including the Employee Loan Program. “I think the greatest satisfaction I had was when we made the announcement. At the same time that we announced we were going to need to cut back, we also talked about the provisions we’d made. I looked at those eyes and saw the fear leave immediately… as if people were thinking, ‘Wow! We’re realists, we see it—production is down. But, boy, the company sure thought of everything.'”


Workers chose whether or not to participate in the Employee Loan Program. BBMI simply provided the information to help them decide. Employees learned that not only would their compensation and benefits remain intact, but also they would retain their seniority accrual. They were told they would be invited back for a holiday luncheon and other special occasions. They also learned HR had created a special biweekly newsletter, with updates on current events, to help them continue to feel connected to BBMI while they were working at Haworth. And if they still felt apprehension, they were given the opportunity to visit Haworth for a tour and to meet the supervisor they would be working for. In the end, 31 people accepted the offer to transfer to Haworth, and the remaining 24 took the layoff.


These two privately held companies were able to move forward quickly. After six weeks of preparation the workers began to transfer over, staggered according to demand at the BBMI site. Since the duration of their employment at Haworth was uncertain, they were placed into assembly line positions with limited on-the-job instruction. At this stage Wallace played an active role in orienting the workers to Haworth and keeping everyone on both sides of the exchange informed of the status of the program. She also served as the main contact for BBMI when it came time to recall workers.


When March and April rolled around, all but three employees returned to BBMI. One was left behind at Haworth to pursue an outstanding career opportunity—with BBMI’s blessing. The other two accepted jobs at other companies. All parties involved deemed the 1994 exchange a positive experience, so BBMI, Haworth and Kelly agreed to try it again in 1995.


The 1995 program was nearly identical to the first one. This time, because BBMI had improved at adding new products and generating additional business, only 10 employees were transferred over. Also, BBMI agreed to accommodate Haworth with a longer recall time. “We said we would certainly live by a two-day notice, but that informally we would give them at least a week’s notice from when we wanted our people back,” Eade explains.


As for the future, Eade expects that as consumers develop brand loyalty for the alternative beverages, they will begin to look for the product regardless of the season, and the cycle will be broken. In the meantime, it can count on an invaluable relationship with the company next door.


So if the shoe were on the other foot, would Haworth consider sending employees over to BBMI? “Oh, absolutely, absolutely—to hang on to trained, qualified people…. It’s a win-win situation,” says Berrett. And how would BBMI feel about taking on some of Haworth’s folks? “Out of respect and admiration for their cooperation, I think I’d jump through hoops. We’d find something for them to do,” Eade says. Now that’s what being a good neighbor is all about.


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 81-84.


Posted on

Glossary of Training Technology Terms

Computer-based training and reference:
CBT allows learning to take place at the desktop, on demand, without the expense and delay of travel.


Testing software:
Provides the means for learners to self-assess their progress or mastery, for instructors to ensure a “level playing field,” and for management to measure training effectiveness. Testing software can be provided via generic testing packages, or built into other computer-based training systems.


Electronic performance support tools:
The performance support point of view states that rather than attempting to fill people up with knowledge and skills and then put them to work, companies should instead put them on tasks much sooner and provide the supports that allow them to perform while they develop personal competency. Performance support “tools” are task-focused and modest in scope, but big in impact.


Electronic performance support systems:
Like “tools,” only bigger. Performance support systems apply the performance support point of view to major, mainstream business computer systems for customer service, sales, etc. By building coaching and reference support directly into the software application, employees have all the assistance and information they need while doing their jobs. The best systems can actually detect when employees make mistakes and give them immediate feedback and suggestions.


Distance learning:
In addition to satellite broadcast, many other approaches to long-distance learning have emerged recently. Most significant among these is the World Wide Web and its corporate “Intranet” sites.


Interactive direct broadcast television:
There’s nothing better than direct broadcast to reach a large, dispersed audience in a short time. But for training purposes, the approach has suffered by not interactively engaging participants. Using a remote-response keypad system of individual keypads and microphones, such as One-Touch, changes all that. Now, when an instructor asks a question, everyone has the opportunity to answer it.


SOURCE: Prepared with the assistance of Stanley E. Malcolm, founder of Performance Vision, Marlborough, Connecticut.


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, p. 124.


Posted on

1996 Financial Impact Optimas Award Profile Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

Business initiatives often bear a striking (and unfortunate) resemblance to New Year’s resolutions — those vows of change we solemnly pledge and really do mean to uphold, but then somewhere along the way… well, you know. In January, we’re fired up, steadfast. In February, our commitment wavers a bit. In March, we make excuses. By April — forget it. Our resolutions become nagging memories of what might have been. Life sometimes has a way of getting in the way.


Business initiatives too often follow the same lines. When we set forth a plan, we’re champing at the bit to roll it out and get it going. But all that energy and excitement diffuses months down the road. We lose the snap of the earlier stages. We lose interest and lack time.


If this scenario hits home, you may be in for a pleasant surprise. You don’t have to get stuck in the morass of unfinished business. You don’t have to be bogged down in multiyear projects with minimal results.


We know one organization that won’t stand for it. Since 1993, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) has been solving problems and creating solutions at blistering speed. The San Francisco-based utility is setting the pace for change at a new level, not just for its industry, but for business as a whole. Basically, PG&E is moving at a rate most companies hope to hit decades from now.


The company’s blur of activity is due largely to its action-forum process, which bites off problems in three-month, easy-to-digest portions. The process allows anyone in the company, at any level, to suggest areas for change. As long as the issue in question can be dealt with in 90 days, it can be the focus of an action forum. You’d be surprised at how much gets done when you have momentum on your side. PG&E was. The company knew that picking off smaller issues — the “low-hanging fruit” of business — would keep some cash in its coffers. It just didn’t realize how much. In the past three years, PG&E has hosted almost 80 action forums — and has saved more than $270 million in cycle-time reduction, productivity and performance improvement, cost avoidance, revenue enhancements and actual cost reductions. Not bad for a company that had to enforce a massive 1993 downsizing to keep itself viable.


A new way of working revitalizes an old-fashioned utility.
It was in the spring of 1993 that PG&E, in response to industry changes such as deregulation, embarked on a downsizing that would eventually cost it 7,000 employees. Morale was low. Insecurity was high. The message from the top: Do more with less — and do it quickly.


But the company didn’t look like a mover and shaker. It was more like a sleeping giant, suddenly roused. The managerial ranks, which had been reduced by 3,000, sat stunned. Despite warnings of increasing competition and imminent change, most had remained assured that the status quo would get them through. Such, obviously, was not the case.


So there they were, reeling from staff reconfigurations and budget cuts of 10% to 30%, expected to grab the ball and run with it. One line manager, for instance, had been heading a group of 35 people. He inherited 1,300 employees from 10 parts of the organization. Where to begin? The top-level people knew these managers needed a special tool to carve out their niche in the new environment. The officers looked to HR for help in identifying this tool.


It just so happened HR had an idea, based on some benchmarking it had been doing against General Electric. That company was employing a problem-solving initiative called Work-Out. It was similar to the approach PG&E was looking for: a method of quick, no-nonsense brainstorming in which all the stakeholders worked together to create the best solution. Robert Haywood, PG&E’s senior vice president for customer energy services, attended the meeting at which HR first explained the proposal. “They outlined what the Work-Out was, and what impressed me was there was no emphasis on the negative [aspect] of a problem,” he says. “And it had a lot of roles and pieces, like a jigsaw puzzle.”


With senior management’s blessing, HR began to shape the idea into a model that would fit the company culture. That model became the action-forum process, a means of partnering PG&E decision makers with employee experts to forge business change. The structure is fairly simple. As a hypothetical scenario, say an employee wants to change the company appraisal process. He or she would suggest an action forum and, assuming the topic was neither too big in scope nor too narrow, the process would get under way.


It has three phases:


  • Framework — six to eight weeks
  • Action forum — two to three days
  • Accountability manager — 90 days.

The framework phase is basically an intense planning period. First, the management team involved tightens the focus and clearly defines the issues to be worked on. They speak to all stakeholders involved — employees and customers — to ensure they have the data they need to proceed. Then the key players are identified. Who needs to be in on the forum? Obviously, the solution requires input from a number of viewpoints. In a case such as performance appraisals, participants might include employees who had recently completed the process, professionals from the legal department, leaders from industrial relations, along with folks from HR who created the appraisals. Whenever appropriate, a workgroup’s external clients or vendors are also invited to participate. A key element of the framework stage is to ensure the focus topic is believed by all concerned to be critical to PG&E’s business goals.


Several other important decisions are made in this stage. First, a cross-functional leadership team is identified. These people will be in charge of greenlighting a plan created by the action forum — or sending the team back to the drawing board. Secondly, a champion is identified — someone who feels passionately about the topic and who can rally the troops effectively. “In these preliminary sessions, you’re basically doing the casting for the action forum,” says Carol Gorski, director of organizational performance and planning, who acts as an internal HR consultant for many action forums. “I ask, ‘Are you the right people to lead this team? Are we missing anyone — industrial relations? Legal? Do we have all the expertise we need for this issue?'”


Framework is a period for team members to gather absolutely all the data they’ll need for the action forum. That way, when the rubber hits the road, the team is ready to roll — no last-minute, frantic fact-checking or confusion. Says Luther Dow, manager of GRID maintenance and construction and a veteran of 10 action forums: “The framework is about identifying the problem, getting the teams together, getting the background work that needs to be done so the information is available for the team,” he says. “You have to get the right people who know the business or you don’t get the right solution.”


For the actual two- to three-day action forum, participants usually head out to PG&E’s San Ramon Learning Center, 30 miles east of San Francisco. The offsite meeting place offers a more focused feel than just packing into a company conference room (see “PG&E’s Learning Center Provides Facilitation, Inspiration — and Recreation,”). Here, the participants address the problems identified in the framework phase. They may tackle the issue in one to five different teams depending on its dimensions. For instance, an appraisal-process action forum might have one group focusing specifically on providing feedback, another on management training, a third on the various types of appraisals available.


As many as 70 people can be involved in these mini think-tanks. They’re like no-holds-barred brainstorming sessions, at which team members work fast and furious to prioritize problems and then develop action plans to make improvements. They scribble ideas down on Post-it™ Notes, notecards and flip charts and slap them up on the wall so everyone can look them over. All improvement ideas have that 90-day implementation deadline hanging over them.


Throughout the action-forum session, the flame of urgency is fanned by trained facilitators — usually HR professionals like Gorski — who keep participants focused and moving toward the development of action plans. Teams are repeatedly reminded that they will be presenting their plans to the leadership team at the end of the session — which gives the day a sharper edge than a typical business meeting. “There’s drama, energy and excitement here,” says Haywood. “It’s very creative. You see your whole world in a different perspective. There’s a real joy in working with a team with one goal who all believe the company will benefit from their work. It’s very inspirational.”


The last few hours of the action forum are spent in a “report out” session, when employees present their action plans with set time frames. The leadership team members must work as a unit — despite belonging to disparate organizations within PG&E — to make pro or con decisions on the spot. “It’s culture breaking,” says Haywood of the pro-or-con mandate. “Before the action forum, you could say ‘no’ to an [idea] because you’re the boss. The position of power disappears for the employee. But with 60 people in the room, if you’re the manager saying no, there’s a certain risk. You’d better have a good reason.”


If the leadership team denies approval, it must explain its thought process. Although some plans are rejected, they often resurface with a few nips and tucks and are deemed acceptable. But the forum won’t close until a course has been set. Says Gorski of her role as facilitator: “I’m like a sergeant. If the leadership team says ‘maybe’ [to a plan], I say, what do you need to make this a yes or no? I tell them they must get back here by 3 o’clock with that decision, or they can e-mail it to me. I leave no loose ends.”


Once action plans have been greenlighted, the final phase — accountability manager — begins. At 30, 60 and 90 days, the action-forum teams meet with the leadership group to review the status of their action plans and make any necessary changes in strategy. This accountability phase was included in the process specifically to ensure that the teams own up to their commitment. Immediately upon their approval of action plans, leadership teams are locked into this series of highly visible meetings. At these meetings, they must support the plan by providing the necessary resources, or they must offer reasons why they have chosen to withdraw support. The visibility is a key factor in ensuring continued management commitment to the action plans.


The accountability phase is the biggest difference between PG&E’s action forums and the GE model, and Gorski believes it’s a crucial difference. “I’ve had people tell me [our version] is a little more rigorous and robust,” she says. “I think that’s what gives our process its teeth. It forces us to walk the talk.”


During this period, the importance of the team champion resurfaces, because that person is key in keeping the hype and excitement up. “The champion of each team is going to be the person who says, ‘I really believe this thing can be solved,'” says Dow. “He or she has the dedication and the willingness to keep the cause alive.” Dow knows of one team champion from an action forum held three years ago who still considers himself on call should anyone have questions or concerns about his action-forum topic.


At 90 days, if all has gone according to plan — and that’s almost always the case — the group meets for a final report and a celebration.


But while the process sounds fairly straightforward on paper, it wasn’t the easiest to pull off the paper into three-dimensional use. HR staffers had to deal with concerns from line management, continued staffing aftershocks and a union flare-up before their baby really got its feet.


A funny thing happened on the way to the forum.
In the summer of 1993, the officers of PG&E were ready to give action forums a whirl. The line managers of PG&E were a slightly different story. For one thing, they were a little wary of any program that centered on creating efficiencies, saving money or boosting productivity if those results might work them out of a job. After seeing thousands of their fellow workers dismissed in the previous months, their jitters were pretty understandable. Add to that HR’s image at that time as a creator of soft-serve, cute-but-not-crucial programs, and you had a buy-in dilemma.


To ease line managers’ worries — and skepticism — top officers made three things very clear:


  • Action forums weren’t mandatory. No one had to attend education on them, nor use them
  • Action forums would never be targeted to get rid of jobs. They were designed to help make the business better — to safeguard jobs
  • Any cost savings resulting from an action forum would not affect that workgroup’s budget. If your department saves $1 million a year from a new process, your budget wouldn’t be cut by that amount.

In addition, a change team was formed, comprising PG&E officers and managers, corporate communications and HR. The change team worked to spread the word about action forums by positioning it as a serious business tool, not another flirtation with fad. Throughout this communication period, HR worked primarily behind the scenes so the program wouldn’t be written off by cynical employees.


In the beginning, PG&E brought in an outside consultant, Sunnyvale, California-based Implementation Partners, which had worked with GE on its program. Ord Elliott, president of the consulting group, further dispelled any aura of flavor-of-the-month programming. A former Marine Corps captain in the Vietnam war, Elliott had a take-no-prisoners approach that caught employees’ attention. As Haywood says: “This is a man who faced death daily. He’s not going to tolerate going through the motions. He’s extremely serious about what he does.” Haywood remembers that in one of the first introduction seminars for the action forums, Elliott marched up to him and said, “This is going nowhere. Your people are resisting. I’m sending everyone home and you won’t get a bill.” The approach worked at PG&E. It delivered a strong message to line management: This is not something you have to do. It is not mandatory. But if you’re going to do it, do it right.


Despite action-forum education and coverage of action forums in the company newspaper, most line managers were sold on the process through good, old-fashioned word of mouth. “We had our CEO and senior officers supporting and advocating forums,” says Gorski. “They were telling people, ‘This tool can get you through turmoil and change. It can help you keep your business thriving.’ It would take an unwise manager not to step up to the plate. But still it was very scary. I think HR’s role was to make it as easy and safe as possible.”


At that time, HR resurfaced on the scene, reframing itself as an internal consultant. Action forums offered many openings for an HR presence: Each forum has one senior consultant who heads up all participating workgroups. In turn, each work team has its own facilitator.


HR professionals began developing capabilities to lead action forums so they could wean the company off the external consultant. The department initiated its own training for members on the proper facilitation of action forums — how to smooth conflicts, guide discussion and play devil’s advocate when necessary. “This is the toughest consulting anyone can do,” says Gorski. “But I like the challenge. I like the tougher teams; they’re the most fun. My goal is that everybody walks out and wants to be a facilitator. That’s when I know I’ve done a good job because I’ve made it look easy.”


Because many lower-level employees have never participated in group problem-solving, any work area going through the action-forum process for the first time receives some basic training on team-building.


In the early action forums, it became apparent how much employees were in need of empowerment. Many participants became extremely emotional at finally getting their ideas heard. Haywood says one of his most powerful experiences from action forums came early on. An employee, an exlineman, tapped into the pulse of his entire workgroup — and probably the entire PG&E workforce. Almost in tears, he talked about how long he’d been trying to get his idea through the thick layers of PG&E management, and how good it felt to be able to voice it and have it be responded to. “That was a very powerful moment for me,” says Haywood. “I got the sense of the incredible amount of knowledge [our employees] have. These people have a sense and feel for the real issues. They are more in touch. We need these people — without them, there’s nothing left.”


With each group’s success came more calls of interest, and pretty soon, top executives no longer had to promote the program themselves. “People started to do it and had such good experiences that they became the best ambassadors of the program,” says Haywood.


However, there was still a problem. PG&E has a bargaining unit that comprises 70% of the total population of company staff. Of the 150,000 customer contacts each day, 99% are handled by union employees. Obviously, it was imperative that PG&E had bargaining unit support if the action-forum process was going to have any impact. But the union wasn’t sold on action forums.


Fortunately, PG&E and its bargaining unit had a vehicle that allowed for employee participation, a section in the agreement called labor-management cooperation. The contract also provided for enablers that permit the union and management to meet before the next round of negotiations if necessary. So David Bergman, PG&E’s chief negotiator for industrial relations, sat down with the bargaining-unit representatives and, over the course of many months, hammered out an agreement that was suitable to both sides. “The biggest problem we had was convincing them we would really allow them to be a part of it,” says Bergman. “After that it was [convincing them] that they’d be appropriately represented to the point at which they could pick their own participants.”


In 1994, PG&E initiated the action-forum process with the bargaining units of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) by agreeing that the union would be an integral player in the process. The union itself — not just the collective bargaining members — would have the right to suggest topics and possible joint ventures. “I think it’s rare to get the union to agree to these kinds of programs,” says Bergman.


Through 1993 and 1994, the action-forum process raged, pouncing on issues as diverse as safety, women’s issues and plant efficiencies. Then it hit a block. In 1995, PG&E still believed it had a staffing glut, primarily within the union workforce, so it started the wheel turning on an 800-person downsizing. The layoff’s effect snowballed quickly. First, because the union is structured by seniority, the 800 people were bumped down to lower jobs, which displaced those several levels beneath them. Says Haywood. “One person effects five or six; so 800 [laid off] may affect 3,000. That’s pure turmoil.”


The turbulence was exacerbated by a series of unexpectedly violent storms in spring 1995. PG&E was being beaten up by the media for what the community deemed slow reaction in returning service. And during those 150,000 customer contacts every day, union members were explaining that possibly it was due to the downsizing.


However unpleasant, the storms did help put things into perspective for PG&E. Bergman remembers one union worker in particular: “Here was a guy who during February and March, in all these storms, was working seven days a week, 10 or 12 hours a day. Yet at the same time he had in his back pocket his layoff notice — for lack of work.” On April 5, 1995, PG&E did what few companies would have the guts to do: It pulled a chair up to the bargaining table and admitted it had been wrong. The company called off the downsizing, and committed to a new labor-management partnership.


PG&E even went so far as to invite the union to assist in determining the size of the company’s workforce. (Amazing as this may sound, it’s true. When I visited the industrial relations office, Bergman was wrapping up a meeting with union bargaining employees and management — the group had been debating the size of the workforce for 1996.)


Now, more than a year later, the union is still feeling the burn. But things are getting better. Action forums will be key in rebuilding the union-management relationship. For instance, the union could institute an action forum to decide some of the headcount issues — useful because they have the built-in 90-day accountability. The action forums, along with the labor-management process, will play a major role in keeping problems from festering. “It’s very unrealistic for us to say bygones will be bygones,” says Haywood. “We need to rebuild. Action forums can do that. Working together is the best way to help the cause.”


Despite struggles, the gains have been great.
When one of your initiatives saves more than $273 million in greater efficiencies and higher cost savings, your response isn’t usually, “Well, what else?” But if you did ask PG&E that question, you’d hear plenty of answers.


For one thing, the quick-footedness inspired by action forums has become ubiquitous throughout the company. Luther Dow and his department approach their general workdays like one continual action forum. They’ll call up one-day mini forums when necessary, but in general, they apply the principles to everything they do. He says this is typical throughout PG&E. After almost 80 action forums in three years, the ideals have become ingrained. “We have worked to integrate action forums into our business,” he says. “We have tried to train the directors and superintendents in those principles and how to use those on a day-to-day basis.”


PG&E is fast where it used to be slow, proactive where it used to be reactive and empowered where it used to be paternal. Action forums truly turned the culture upside down. Employees have been given power over their destinies, and they’re running with it. “You now have people who are either preoccupied with the future, or asking themselves ‘What can I do today? When I come in this morning, what can I do that makes a difference for the company?'” notes Haywood.


Gorski says PG&E is no longer trapped in analysis paralysis. “I hear it everywhere,” she says. “‘Yes, I have a full plate. Yes, I have a ton of issues to resolve, but this one is right here.’ It used to be we couldn’t come up with a business solution unless it was perfect. Now we ask ‘Will this get us 80% of what we need to get? Let’s do it!'”


That let’s-do-it attitude has knocked PG&E out of its downsizing slump. Action forums help employees take all their negative emotions — fear, confusion, frustration — and channel them into proactivity. They really can see the differences they’re making. Before, employees would have to wait months to hear if an idea of theirs was approved. It would sift down from layer to layer until all the energy and power was diluted. No more. “It’s a continual challenge to me to see a saddened employee and hear him or her demoralized by frustration at solving a problem,” says Haywood. “You don’t want people to feel they aren’t being recognized, that they aren’t being heard. We’re working on changing that…. If [employees] feel they can do something, the negative emotions shrink. There’s at least something positive to hang onto.”


Sure, every so often, an action forum has failed. Gorski says the gap has usually been in the follow-up. Maybe the topic was just too broad. Or key people have left the company. For the most part though, Gorski says the general employee attitude is, “I’ve wanted to solve this problem for seven years, and I have finally done it with action forums.”


Action forums also foster teamwork and cross-functional interaction. Gorski has seen groups of people who’ve never worked together quickly meld into a cohesive team during the three-day meetings. So dramatic have the results been that she has had many people approach her to initiate an action forum just so they can teach their workgroups about teamwork. She has to explain that team-building is the byproduct, not the focus.


But who can blame these hopefuls? Action forums encourage employees who’ve never made public presentations before to give speeches, employees who have never done cost-benefit analysis to pull out their calculators. Employees who worship rank must seek advice from those two or three levels below — and line workers who resent the top-level people must interact with them on a personal level. Only at an action forum would you see the top executives in the finance division going head to head with the folks that climb the poles. “People get charged up, and rank has no meaning,” says Haywood. “That was no small thing for us.”


Employees also benefit from seeing other areas of the company in a new light. Says Dow: “I think action forums have helped us bring across boundaries the people who can help solve the problems. The result is we see each others’ problems better. I think the action forums actually create a willingness to try to solve the problem.”


Why do action forums work? Dow says simplicity is a big part of their success — they’re easy to understand and easy to do. “The people who know the work are making the recommendations,” he says. “They’re getting immediate feedback, and they’re implementing their ideas. It’s their product. It’s not my product. They have ownership — it’s their solution, their implementation.”


Just as important to action forums’ success is that employees truly see them as useful. Gorski conducted a pulse survey a year ago, and the response was overwhelming — action forums get results. In addition, secondary research has shown that employees who participate in an action forum score higher on surveys in terms of employee commitment, team-building and understanding the company’s business.


And don’t think HR hasn’t reaped a few rewards of its own. Imagine the effect at your company if a department once thought extraneous at best leads a stampede of change resulting in millions and millions of dollars saved. The action-forum process became the funnel that HR needed to channel itself into a business partner. HR can now focus on its most powerful role — as an internal consulting partner to the company. “They come to us now to learn about the utility business, not just how to make meetings work or how to be a better supervisor,” says Gorski. “They don’t bash HR anymore at PG&E. I think we’re the best in the business.”


With its guidance of the action-forum process, being the best in the business is definitely one resolution HR at PG&E can keep.


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp.100-108.

Posted on

Global InpatsDon’t Let Them Surprise You

A computer company is preparing to introduce a new type of European software into the United States. Sales potential amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars—if the company can be the first to launch the product. All it needs is to find a specialist in this new type of software.


But qualified candidates are hard to find. After strenuous efforts, the HR department can locate only three. None, however, are interested. The HR manager is at the end of her rope. The company is on the verge of making millions in sales, but it will lose its edge if the search takes much longer.


Fortunately, the HR manager has an idea—if the software was created in Europe, why not recruit someone from Europe? Responses from qualified applicants pour in. Unfortunately, now HR has another problem—choosing the best inpat. How can HR be sure about personal backgrounds, work history and educational credentials? How do HR people research the backgrounds of foreign workers, and how do they compare their credentials to those of U.S. workers?


Some of these issues will be familiar to those who hire nationals overseas. But most are unique to the United States. They are questions a lot of HR people don’t stop to ask until they’re embroiled in a frantic international candidate search—when they need to know the answers already. Take the time now so you can be ready when the call comes—because even if your firm doesn’t dabble in international employment matters today doesn’t mean it won’t have to tomorrow.


Sometimes the best—or only—candidates are found outside the United States.
It’s true that few companies go out of their way to hire foreign workers. It’s generally easier to hire domestically. There are numerous costly and time-consuming immigration restrictions to clear when hiring outside our borders. For one thing, the Department of Labor (DOL) encourages U.S. companies to hire U.S. citizens whenever possible. To be approved by the Attorney General for importing a foreigner as an “H-2 worker,” (the label for a temporary employee) a petitioner must apply to the Secretary of Labor for a certification that:


  • There are not sufficient workers who are able, willing and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services involved in the petition, and
  • The employment of the alien in such labor or services will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.

If you want to hire an employee permanently, you must jump through even more hoops. To hire anyone who is an immigrant, you have to first bring that person to the United States on a temporary visa.


If the person isn’t employed with an affiliate of the overseas company, the employer must also show that U.S. workers aren’t qualified to take the job. Basically, the only way a company can prove this is by making a dramatic—and expensive—effort to recruit U.S. citizens. If the organization can clear that hurdle, the foreign candidate still must be interviewed for permanent residence status by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS)—a process that in jurisdictions such as Chicago are backlogged more than a year.


So why would a company put itself through this rigmarole? Sometimes foreign nationals are simply the best—if not the only—candidates for certain industries. High-tech and computer-software firms are prime examples. Even when they can find qualified domestic candidates, those candidates may not be willing to leave their current jobs or homes.


Allentown, Pennsylvania-based Air Products and Chemicals Inc., an international manufacturer of industrial gases, chemicals and environmental and energy systems, hires a small number of foreign-born entry-level scientists and engineers from American universities. Approximately 2% of the company’s new hires last year required special employment authorization because of their immigration status. “Many of the people looking for technical jobs are foreign nationals,” observes Valerie Moyer, immigration administrator. “Foreign nationals are hired [only] when we can’t find suitable U.S. citizens because it can be a grueling process.”


International Computer Services, in Houston, also uses immigrant workers. Because the companies it serves are largely international, the firm sometimes needs people who have experience with European software. Obviously that talent pool is deepest in Europe.


So how do organizations that must regularly hire foreign employees conduct their screening? To tell the truth, a lot depends on the situation and the company. For International Computer Services, the screening process is a thorough one. “I look for people with skills with certain software,” says Teryle Morrow, director of client services and contract employment. “We do preinterviews, technical interviews and reference checks,” she explains. “We verify employment history and degrees. If they’ll be working with our clients, they may go to client offices for personal interviews. They’d know better [than us] whether each candidate would be doing a specific project onsite, and what skills that may require.” These clients have the final say as to whether the candidates will fit the jobs or not.


Since family members of foreign employees may not be happy with the move, Morrow says her HR department also explores the ramifications of that possibility. They talk to the family, particularly each candidate’s spouse. Some, for instance, may reveal that they won’t join their spouses to avoid uprooting the children from their own school systems. “Because we’re aware of things like that, we try to learn everything we can about each person’s life-style, such as whether they’re able to travel,” says Morrow. That way the company knows the issues its candidates are dealing with and can proceed accordingly.


Like many companies, Air Products depends partly on government criminal and medical background screening of foreign nationals seeking permanent residence. “During the application process,” says Moyer, “applicants are asked about convictions in or outside the United States. They’re also required to submit medical exams and fingerprint charts. That’s part of the process of getting a green card.”


Many companies set up a time line for their search process. This may be a very short period, or take several months, depending on the intensity of the screening and the position being hired for. For instance, if a company needs to petition the INS for employment authorization for a prospective employee, the process can take two weeks to two months, depending on the type of authorization needed. A “J” visa status—used to admit business trainees—generally is obtained within two weeks. An “H” status—used to admit people in specialty occupations—can take as long as two months because approval must be obtained from both the INS and the U.S. Department of Labor.


As far as your actual screening goes, it can be as intense as you want, if you know how to conduct it correctly. For companies who need to dip into the foreign-employment pool, the screening process can be boiled down to three areas:


  • Educational verification
  • Work-experience verification and criminal checks
  • Culturally effective interviewing.

Screen a candidate thoroughly in these three areas, and you’re that much closer to a good hiring decision.


Know the ABCs of checking educational credentials.
When hiring a person from the United States, you’d want some verification that your candidate really did graduate from the school he or she stated, with the degree stated. Likewise, you should check foreign employees’ educational backgrounds.


For companies such as Air Products, the screening process is often easy because many candidates are recruited from U.S. college campuses. “Hires must have at least the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree,” Moyer explains. “If their course work wasn’t equivalent, then we’d need to evaluate their experience. But we haven’t had to do that yet.” For applicants holding degrees from foreign universities, the company has the candidate’s credentials assessed by an outside credentials evaluation service.


To get around overseas educational idiosyncrasies, Fairfax, Virginia-based Mobil Corp. conducts its own screening tests. “Where we feel educational standards are different, we develop our own tests and use them to select people,” says Derek Harvey, manager of planning and administration for corporate employee relations. “[But] you have to normalize the tests for the culture you’re dealing with.” For instance, Mobil developed a test specifically for a project in Indonesia, because there was no other method of gauging candidates’ mechanical aptitude or their ability to learn. “To do that in Indonesia, we went to experts at the American Psychological Institute and to Cambridge University in England to help us,” says Harvey. “If you want a test to do what you want, you need to construct it appropriately in the first place. And if you don’t have a valid test, why use it?”


But Mobil has had extensive overseas experience—and Harvey admits the company rarely has to screen because of its general practice of hiring from affiliates. So how do more mainstream companies like Air Products and International Computer Services screen and compare educational credentials? With some assistance. Researching and evaluating the educational backgrounds of foreign applicants is more complex than evaluating those of Americans. That’s why these companies, and others like them, usually turn to outside educational consultants.


Educational evaluations address several fundamental questions. First, is the applicant telling the truth about his or her credentials—did the candidate attend the institutions and earn the degrees indicated on his or her resume? Second, is the institution comparable to American institutions of higher education? Finally, how does a university’s overall training compare to training in the United States? Were courses comparable? Did the applicant take an ample number of liberal arts courses? How do the grading systems compare—is an A in France comparable to an A in America? Is a bachelor’s degree from Burma comparable to the same degree in the United States?


New York City-based World Education Services Inc. evaluates the educational credentials of foreign-born job applicants on behalf of universities, corporations and immigration attorneys. “This has become a large field,” says Nancy Katz, director of the Midwest office, in Chicago. “There are approximately 500,000 foreign students in the United States. Our immigration numbers for employment allow approximately 140,000 people to get nonimmigrant working visas. A lot of them study in the United States and continue to work here.”


The organization’s services can also be useful for companies seeking employees licensed in fields such as physical therapy, teaching, chemical or medical technology, architecture, engineering or other fields requiring certification. “For example, civil engineers in California need to have certain courses before they can be licensed,” Katz explains. “They may need courses in earthquake technology. [Universities in] some countries may offer that, while other countries don’t. So we look into that.”


Katz evaluates each subject’s credentials in depth, determining whether the degree is equivalent to a bachelor’s, master’s or a Ph.D. “We also try to determine document authenticity. You can ask potential employees to have transcripts sent from their universities to their prospective places of employment. But someone from India, for example, may only have a certified copy, or something that doesn’t look like a transcript. Potential employers may wonder about its authenticity. Our job is to find out. If we have questions, we’ll write to the home institution.”


Corporate clients that seek Katz’s help do so because they lack both the time and the special resources necessary to do the job properly. For instance, the organization has a library of a few thousand books about foreign educational equivalencies—not to mention experts in the foreign education field. Katz herself recently co-authored a book on the educational system in Thailand.


Erika Popovych, director of Evaluation Service Inc. in Albany, New York, provides similar services, including in-house translational capabilities. She offers HR departments several precautions in undertaking an educational background check. First, she warns against using translators who are unfamiliar with the technical idiosyncrasies of education. “The translation profession tends to be creative,” she says. “Educational translation requires an understanding of its very own language.”


Popovych also discourages harboring any false assumptions about educational institutions. “Take Harvard,” she says. “Some departments are sterling, and others are coasting along. You have the same situation in other countries. Therefore, you can’t say that because you have a degree from a certain country, that it’s a superior degree. Although most foreign educational systems are patterned after U.S. institutions, some bypass liberal arts and are more specialized. So education isn’t necessarily superior, but different.”


Work-experience and criminal checks round out the screening.
Consultants are also useful in areas outside of educational-credential screening. Again, because they have greater resources and experience, they can complete work-experience and criminal checks more efficiently than most companies. For instance, Fairfax, Virginia-based Knowledge Company evaluates work-related experience of immigrant job applicants, using university-based experts who are published scholars. “We require a detailed evidentiary record that can be corroborated by colleagues from abroad about work projects and the problems they solved,” says Irving Spitzberg, president. “For example, we’ll ask an engineer to submit drawings and plans, and our experts will use that information to compare their knowledge with that of an American university graduate.”


Spitzberg says that he’s amazed more corporations don’t use screening services. “Whether I were hiring at a Fortune 500 corporation, or for a Mom and Pop business, I’d want to know the applicant’s exact qualifications.”


Employers—or their authorized representatives—can encounter certain unique problems in the process of verifying background information on foreign-born job candidates. For instance, Paul Barada, president of Barada Associates of Rushville, Indiana, who specializes in employee background checks for his corporate clients, says that language barriers can be a common problem. “Most of the time,” he reports, “we find that people seeking employment in this country are bilingual, and they tend to provide references who are fluent in English. But the trick is often getting past the receptionist who doesn’t speak English.”


When language is a problem, Barada taps into a broad base of local language experts who service his needs from time to time. “They may get us past the gatekeepers who don’t know English. Or sometimes it may become a three-way phone conversation.”


Nadine Stollenmaier, president of the Honolulu-based Dunhill Professional Search of Hawaii, says that existing laws sometimes present her with a problem when she screens foreign applicants. “We can ask about languages [candidates] speak fluently, but that’s [legal] only if it’s a bona fide occupational qualification,” she says.


Other unlawful inquiries include:


  • The applicant’s nationality, lineage, ancestry, national origin, descent or parentage
  • The nationality of parents, spouses, or maiden name of applicant’s wife or mother
  • What language the applicant commonly uses
  • If an applicant is able to read, write or speak a foreign language not directly related to the job.

“Be sure to follow guidelines for pre-employment inquiries,” Stollenmaier urges. “Be aware that foreigners know they can sue U.S. companies.”


So how does Dunhill Professional Search screen foreign applicants? “The same way we screen American citizens,” Stollenmaier replies. “I recently interviewed a woman from Japan who was here on a student working visa. I contacted her former school and employer in Japan, and spoke to someone who spoke English who could send relevant documentation.”


After educational and work-experience screening pan out, HR people still have one more area of inquiry: criminal background. HR professionals should know about law as it pertains to foreign hires, advises immigration lawyer Scott Cooper, partner with Chicago law firm Fragomen, Del Rey & Bernsen.


The criminal screening may be the trickiest part of the process, due to lack of sources. For one thing, there’s no requirement for a police or security check on someone who comes on a temporary visa. Secondly, even if an agency does conduct a check, that doesn’t guarantee all undesirables will be screened out. “The INS has a lookout list containing hundreds of thousands of names,” says Cooper. “A number of agencies feed information into that database, which is then accessed by U.S. embassies and consuls abroad, or by the INS at a port of entry. [But] anybody who hasn’t been arrested and convicted won’t be caught.” Also guaranteed to slip through criminal checks are people who are convicted of a crime overseas that wouldn’t be so regarded here—for example, someone convicted of treason for criticizing their country’s dictator.


However, the main problem with these criminal background checks, says Cooper, stems from the dearth of information that the United States has on crimes committed in foreign countries. “We don’t have that much information exchange on criminal activity, except with Canada. So that lookout list is intended to deal only with serious criminals from the few countries with whom we do exchange information.”


Another problem in checking criminal histories is that certain countries may maintain poor records or may impose legal restrictions. For instance, the United States maintains an open exchange with Canada on criminal activity. This isn’t as helpful as one may think, however, because Canadian law forbids employers to question candidates on criminal backgrounds. So if a foreigner is hired by a Canadian company, that company won’t know of any criminal background that employee may have. “I’ve seen situations in which people are hired by Canadian companies that can’t ask questions about criminal background,” says Cooper. “Then when they’re at a U.S. port of entry, immigration officials don’t let them in.” If a U.S. company hires a foreign employee from a Canadian company, the firm should conduct its own criminal check.


Foreign nationals who seek permanent residence, Cooper says, are a different matter. “They would go through an arrest record check if they were in the United States for any time. If they haven’t been, then most must present letters or police certificates from the countries they’ve lived in for six months or more.”


But Cooper suggests that HR also should be aware of potential legal problems concerning the criminal backgrounds of foreign candidates. Even if an applicant has no official arrest record, there could still be problems surrounding some of his or her actions. For instance, HR people should know not just whether a person has been arrested or convicted of a crime, but whether he or she has admitted to the essential elements of what would be a crime here. One example would be a violation of the American Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which bars U.S. entry of foreign businesspeople who might have bribed government officials in their home countries—even if that isn’t against the law in those countries.


Other rules can also bar someone’s entry. For instance, a person can be excluded if he or she admits to something for which the potential sentence is more than a year imprisonment. Cooper offers an example: “A president of a company subsidiary in Canada, who was to be transferred to the United States, took some wood from a construction site trash pile for his trellis. Canadian police arrested him for taking $40 worth of wood. The man returned the materials and [ended up] paying a fine. But because the potential sentence was more than a year imprisonment, he was inadmissible to the United States forever. Luckily he was married to a U.S. citizen, and they could waive that kind of minor crime.”


What can a company do if something minor like this bars a candidate’s entry? Unfortunately, not much. That’s why it’s important to do pre-hire checks, so you don’t end up with a costly fiasco—a new employee who never will be allowed in the United States.


Keep cultural differences in mind when interviewing.
Cultural considerations also can be an important—and complicated—area in the screening process. “You may have language barriers,” Morrow notes. “They may speak English, but when they get into technical situations with clients, it can be hard to be sure they’re comprehending instructions. You can lose some things in translation.” To avoid this problem, Morrow recommends bringing the technical managers into the interviewing process. Project managers or supervisors are better able to tell during the technical interview whether the candidates know what they’re talking about.


Because cultural differences may also affect work methods, HR departments should evaluate work style during the screening process. Employees conduct themselves very differently depending on their cultural orientation. For instance, some cultures don’t communicate much. The employees might come in and put their heads down to their work. Americans often want to get more feedback from people. Just recognizing cultural differences can smooth potential problems. You can sit down with the candidate pre-hire, explain the U.S. work culture, and see if he or she will be able to make the necessary adjustments to be functional in the workplace.


Experts also warn HR professionals to be aware of cultural barriers that may keep the screening process itself from being effective.


For instance, human resources professionals should be aware that some interview questions considered standard in the United States may be completely taboo to foreign-born candidates. “You should know about the interviewee’s culture before you do the interview so you know what’s inappropriate,” advises Randy Chastain, HR director for Ball Corporation’s packaging division, in Broomfield, Colorado. “But also, you should preface your interview with the point, ‘I’m doing this from an American perspective, so if I say something that’s inappropriate, let me know.'”


Chastain also urges HR professionals to do their homework. One of the best ways, he says, is to consult those who are experienced in dealing with foreign-born workers. Chastain, for instance, talks with human resources managers in the areas in which the company is recruiting. He asks them how they interview, what some of their experiences have been and what to watch out for.


Ian Payne, vice president of global services for Prudential Relocation of Shelton, Connecticut, urges HR managers to make no assumptions about other cultures. “For instance, there’s more similarity between British and Chinese culture than between British and American,” says Payne, who is a British national in residence. The assumption that the two countries share similar lifestyles probably leads to the fact that U.K. and U.S. transfers statistically suffer the highest failure rate. “The important thing about culture is that what you perceive as right or wrong, good or bad, is perceived differently around the world,” warns Payne. “As a result, you find both attitudinal and behavioral differences. You need to understand what drives those differences. Then you’ll have insight into why people think and act the way they do.”


A final word of advice: Keep it all legal. “It’s essential that judgments about education and work experience are carefully crafted to follow the requirements of the law,” Spitzberg comments. “Many evaluations are done by people who… don’t know immigration law, and don’t understand learning systems in other countries.”


Human resources people who aren’t specialists in evaluating foreign job candidates can stay on the right side of the law by seeking advice from people who teach or work in the field or from professional societies. “Generalists are not qualified to evaluate experiential learning,” says Popovych. “Contact your nearest college and consult someone in the department related to your applicant’s area of specialization. These people are professionals and should know variables in the field.”


Stollenmaier also urges HR managers to use outside assistance in the screening process. “HR professionals have to worry about many other things. These agencies can be helpful because they’re specialized in this kind of work and can provide a second line of defense. You’ll have two sources screening the applicants, instead of just one.”


So what ever happened to that computer company and its European software launch? Well, the firm whittled its list down to several foreign candidates. HR conducted educational, work-experience and criminal background checks. The company invited the finalists in for culturally respectful interviews—and hired a new employee in time to launch the line. By following its lead, you can have a similar success story.


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, pp. 54-64.


Posted on

Could You Detect Forged Credentials

Bogus credentials-work documents, diplomas and the like-are not a widespread problem, according to most experts. On the other hand, fraudulent documents aren’t unheard of, particularly among foreign nationals eager to trade turbulent or restrictive homelands for the United States. Although HR professionals can’t be expected to be expert detectives, they can be expected to handle the basics. New York City-based World Education Services Inc. offers the following tips:


  1. Don’t be rushed into accepting a credential about which you have reservations.
  2. For every copy of a document, there has to have been an original. If you have questions about a copy, try to get the original.
  3. Confirm the existence of the institution through reference sources such as the “International Handbook of Universities” or the “Commonwealth Universities Yearbook.” If the institution isn’t listed there, call the appropriate foreign consulate or embassy, either in New York City or Washington, D.C. In addition, large international organizations such as the Institute of International Education or AMIDEAST also might have information.
  4. Make sure a program actually is offered by a particular school or university. Write to the institution named, enclosing a copy of the document submitted for verification. Address the letter to the office of the person who signed the credential, not the individual.
  5. Examine photocopies with great care. Look at the background for signs that paper may have been pasted over an original section. If a document looks suspicious at all, ask to see the original. If the document can’t be sent, write to the official body involved for verification.
  6. Note that transcripts, diplomas or other credentials must always be on school letterhead.
  7. Familiarize yourself with the appearance of credentials you encounter most frequently.
  8. Compare dates of birth and dates of graduation for logical progression.
  9. If forced to accept documents from countries not diplomatically related to the United States, such as Cuba, have the applicant sign a form declaring the information contained in the document is true and ask that his or her signature be notarized. This is more of a deterrent than you may think.
  10. Even if the student is transferring from another U.S. school, always request to see his or her original foreign credentials. Don’t rely on someone else’s verification of authenticity.

World Education Services also provides the following telltale signs that may indicate fraudulent credentials:


  • Poor copies or copies containing smudges or other marks
  • Stains or burns covering key information, such as names
  • Records stamped “confidential” or “not to be released to student”
  • Applicants claiming to have lost original records
  • Different type styles on same document
  • Type erasures
  • Handwritten additions to typewritten materials
  • Typed material that’s slanted or added on an angle
  • Evidence of substituted names that are different than on originals
  • Unrealistically high grades or course loads
  • Credentials consisting of a solitary letter
  • Supposedly foreign documentation that seems very American in character
  • Credentials received too late to make proper verification possible
  • Letters of verification issued by U.S. institutions.

Although preliminary precautions are encouraged, most employers dealing regularly with foreign workers have experienced little or no trouble with forged documents. Valerie Moyer, immigration administrator for Allentown, Pennsylvania-based Air Products and Chemicals Inc., says her experience has been positive. “No one has tried to pull something over on us,” Moyer says. “We had one employee who was too embarrassed to reveal that his spouse had a criminal record when he applied for permanent residence. The issue was resolved with the immigration service and didn’t affect the individual’s employment status.”


Nancy Katz, director of the Midwest office of World Education Services, says that based on her experience, there’s cause for caution, but not alarm. She estimates credentials fraud to be low among foreign job applicants. “Out of 14,000 applications [reviewed],” she reports, “less than 1% were determined to be fraudulent.”


But Katz warns that applicants who come from nations embroiled in turbulence may be tempted to submit fraudulent credentials to get out of their countries, and into the United States. “You get problems when you have civil wars or revolutions,” she notes. “It’s not that they don’t actually have degrees, but that the documents they often present aren’t produced in their home countries. Before the Soviet Union opened up, some applicants used diploma mills. Vietnam and Afghanistan were also problems. And from the former Yugoslavia, we might start to see some weird stuff.”


Bottom line: A little proactivity goes a long way.


Personnel Journal, June 1996, Vol. 75, No. 6, p. 60.


Posted on

One Assignment, Two Lives

To the outside observer, even to friends and acquaintances, Carol Leigh looked fine. But she remembers the day problems began: It was during a small luncheon with six other expat wives. As they sat around the table introducing themselves, every woman gave her name, then her husband’s title, then the name of his company. Nothing else.


This was not Leigh’s way of doing things. A financial analyst who worked 60-hour weeks, she’d left a thriving career in New York when her husband was offered an international opportunity in Tokyo. Although she wanted to continue working, she quickly discovered the legalities of acquiring a new job internationally were almost insurmountable.


After helping her family settle into school and work, establishing the household and getting into the rhythm of the new city, Leigh realized she needed something more to occupy her time. At first she was happy to explore and meet other expat wives. But, day after day, she began to feel the erosion of her identity; her self-image was so connected to her work (which no one seemed to care about) that she didn’t quite feel herself. Her self-esteem began to suffer and she found herself becoming less confident and a little angry. First, there was the introduction at the luncheon, then cocktail parties at which people talked about work and paid only passing interest to her ideas, then an encounter with a colleague of her husband’s who said all she needed was a “good cry.” She started to go back to bed in the morning after she’d sent the kids off to school. She began complaining to her husband that they hadn’t received the same generous benefits package some of his colleagues had.


And then her friend from New York came to visit. Brimming with news of the office goings-on, delivering gossip about chums, Leigh learned her friend had received a well-deserved promotion. Filled with envy and sorrow at what she had left behind, she increasingly became annoyed about her situation. Why should all the focus be on Jack’s career? On his work? Why was he the only one with a paycheck? She knew she could always have her old job back at home, and she began to feel like she was wasting time and wasting away while Jack (and her friends at home) were in high gear. She began to harangue Jack about returning early to the States.


Help spouses find meaning in their lives, too.
Carol Leigh isn’t unique. Her tale is repeated in various guises by expatriate spouses around the world. She may be a stock broker who’s unable to trade on a foreign exchange, an architect who can’t work because local customs prohibit women from doing so, or a secretary unable to obtain a work permit. And increasingly, she is a he, a male accompanying partner following his expat wife.


No matter what the reason-or the gender-after the scramble to help their families settle-in settles down, spouses confront an emptiness based on their own lack of routine, lack of network and lack of job. They must create a new life, often with a frequently absent partner and regularly without the prospect of employment for themselves. They face isolation, a loss of identity and diminished self-esteem. This isn’t only because they’ve relinquished their career (or at least paid employment), but also because they encounter stress every day in the new environment-stress that makes them question if they can do anything competently anymore.


The dilemma of expatriate spouses, particularly dual-career spouses, is a growing and difficult one for HR managers. It not only rears its head during the selection of candidates (when many turn down assignments because of the spouse’s career), but it also affects the success of the assignment and the ability for spouses and families to successfully repatriate. Consequently, if global managers want to help the Carol Leighs (and the assignments their husbands are on), they’re going to have to design practices to help spouses find meaningful ways to spend their time during international assignments. In some cases, this may mean helping the spouse find employment or navigating through a maze of foreign immigration technicalities; in other cases it means helping him or her contact organizations to find out about volunteer work and educational opportunities; in still others it means simply connecting the spouse with a worthwhile network of peers. No easy task with one-size-fits-all solutions. Nevertheless, global HR managers must face this problem, head-on, and attempt to tackle some of these myriad issues with innovative approaches.


“We began to realize that the entire effectiveness of the assignment could be compromised by ignoring the spouse,” says Steve Ford, manager of corporate relocations for Hewlett-Packard Co. based in Palo Alto, California. “Lots of things have changed in recent years,” he says, “but one of the most significant is the growing percentage of working spouses and a realization that sending a family on a foreign service assignment isn’t that simple. The assignment could be unsuccessful because of issues related to greater stress or unhappiness with the spouse (or other family members). And, from the company’s point of view, a foreign service assignment is very expensive.”


Indeed, statistics support Ford’s claim that the number of dual-career couples is growing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that in 1995, more than 65% of all married couples with children were dual-earner families (up 9% in 10 years). Women comprise 46% of the U.S. labor force. Furthermore, simply talk to global HR managers, and they’ll tell you the spouse’s career is becoming more and more an impediment to overseas relocations. In fact, this is the biggest factor when employees refuse to accept an international assignment. They decline because they can’t afford to lose the income or they worry it may derail the spouse’s career entirely if he or she is out of the workforce for a few years. It’s becoming such an important issue that some organizations are beginning to consider redefining the length of assignments so they’re much shorter (and thus, less disruptive to a spouse’s career), and some are willing to consider international commuter marriages as alternatives. And these issues will become ever-more complex as greater numbers of men are the accompanying partner.


Already, we see this domestically. The Employee Relocation Council stated that in 1992 women constituted up to 15% of corporate moves (an increase from 5% in 1980). The Wall Street Journal estimates approximately 25% of accompanying partners will be males by the year 2000.


Here are some of the obstacles accompanying partners of either gender say they encounter in their quest to find meaningful work, whether that be paid or unpaid:


  • Immigration regulations that bar foreigners from working
  • Language
  • Lack of transferable skills to meaningful available work
  • Scarcity of volunteer opportunities
  • Cultural barriers that don’t allow women to perform certain jobs-paid or voluntary
  • Lack of knowledge about educational opportunities.

As daunting as the challenge may seem, companies and their global HR managers know it’s critical to tackle these issues, and some are making inroads. Companies such as Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP), Shell International B.V., Medtronic Inc. and Monsanto Co. take a two-pronged approach: First, they help the spouse overcome cultural and emotional hurdles as well as the loneliness of a new location by offering cross-cultural counseling and connecting them with a network of spouses in the host community; and secondly, they offer a variety of options to begin to address the dual-career dilemma.


These services don’t have to cost a lot of money. “At the outset, what’s most important is a commitment from the company that it’s willing to provide some support and acknowledgment that expatriate spouses are an important issue,” says Eleanor Haller-Jorden, managing director of Zurich, Switzerland-based Paradigm Group and an authority and frequent lecturer on this topic. An expatriate herself, Haller-Jorden says companies can provide a variety of simple services that address the problem directly. For example, they can consolidate data, creating a clearinghouse of information and resources; they can set up a conference room and phone line for spouses or a small room to serve as a resource library with materials on the local community; they can create a directory of expatriates (especially those who would be willing to speak with newly arrived expatriates). For firms that feel they can get more involved, they can create a job hotline in which project-based jobs are available or they can create a consortium of companies and pool resources in a specific location or within an industry and create a job bank. Moreover, they can always help with acquiring work permits and offering career counseling. Finally, she says, companies could take stock of what they’re currently offering and get feedback from expatriates-what’s useful and what’s not.


Indeed, that’s precisely where Shell International, based both in London and The Hague, began its initiative to support spouses. With more than 5,500 expatriates, Shell possibly has the most expatriates of any company in the world. In 1993, the giant oil and petroleum multinational conducted a survey to discover the details of its expatriate community. The company discovered one of the greatest impediments to employees’ mobility was their partners’ reluctance to move. It also discovered that spouses felt they weren’t being utilized enough and their expertise wasn’t valued.


Quickly, the company moved into action. Once the main operating companies supported the findings and conclusions, it appointed a Spouse Employment consultant who advises spouses and partners on a broad range of employment issues (either directly or by referral to external agencies). For example, a partner may come to Shell’s consultant, Kathleen van der Wilk-Carlton, because he or she has only a vague idea of what’s available in a destination country, or the person may have a very defined career path in mind and speak with her about ways to promote that career. Van der Wilk-Carlton first conducts a thorough assessment that will ultimately lead to career planning. Then she helps to either locate employment, aid in work permit acquisition or-when paid employment is impossible-find appropriate educational and volunteer activities that interest the person and help him or her keep on track. This can be very difficult because many expatriates in Shell go from one international location to another, and thus one area may be conducive to paid employment whereas the next destination may have only a few opportunities.


Apart from the area of employment, Shell also recognized the strong desire on the part of expatriate spouses to have greater recognition and contribution to the company. As a result, it created a network of briefing centers for expatriation around the world. It’s for the entire expatriate family and it’s run by spouses and becoming a spouse information center. The model is in The Hague Center in The Netherlands, which has a paid staff of expatriate spouses as well as volunteers. Each center serves a different community, and thus offers somewhat different activities, but each is generated by the interest of spouses.


Keep support consistent with company culture and values.
Hewlett-Packard’s Ford concurs with Shell’s approach of promoting independence. “My belief is that HP people like to take ownership for their own lives and their own careers. What they want is to have us provide an environment in which they can do that. We try to make people as self-reliant as possible and to allow them to channel their energies in some productive way by giving them ideas and giving them access to counseling, education or whatever,” he says. HP prepares for this predeparture through counseling sessions that explore a variety of opportunities for the spouse.


HP’s awareness of the dual-career problem, however, doesn’t mean the company will do just anything to solve the problem. Solutions must be consistent with its fundamental principles about foreign assignments and its corporate culture. In keeping with that idea, the company doesn’t approve of commuter marriages. “HP has a very strong philosophy about keeping the family together so we actively discourage commuter relationships in [our] international policies,” says Tee Hitchcock, international relocation specialist. “In fact, it could be the basis for nonselection of a candidate,” she says.


The firm also won’t try to replicate the spouse’s income. “It’s not under consideration,” she says. But, she continues, “We understand that asking a family to relocate these days [involves] talking about two-career families, so we try to create policies that reflect that concern.” The following are HP’s policies that affect dual-career spouses:


  • One-day session of spouse-specific training that’s either career-related or interest-related (it could be academic or it could be a hobby). Usually the counselor researches beforehand what’s available in the host country and also gives contact names.
  • Financial assistance for the spouse by which HP shares the cost of all types of educational activities up to $2,000 annually (this can include host-location career-counseling).
  • Assistance with resume preparation and payment for visas when work is a possibility in the destination country.
  • Three days of cross-cultural counseling and orientation for the whole family that’s designed to cover local customs (business and social; history) as well as ways to become more quickly accustomed to the local environment.
  • Language training.
  • If the spouse is an HP employee, there’s often a leave of absence with a guarantee of work upon return.

Obviously, the policies HP developed and implemented demonstrate the value the company places on spouses, whether they’re leaving a paid career or not.


HR can channel spouse contributions toward volunteer work.
Tamara Homburg is a spouse who took the international relocation as an opportunity to create something exceptional. On assignment with her husband for St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., Homburg was always optimistic and enthusiastic about the international opportunity. The chance to move to Brussels, Belgium with Monsanto came when Homburg, a practicing lawyer, was pregnant with her and her husband’s second child and she was eager to take a break in her career. During the first year in Brussels, she taught business law classes. Nevertheless, Homburg (who had been on assignment once before) felt antsy to do more involved and challenging work.


Luck intervened. When Marena Rahusen, the HR manager in Brussels who’s responsible for expatriate policies, initiated the idea of a Spousal Sponsor Network and asked for assistance, Homburg’s hand shot up as the volunteer to lead the effort. At first, it began as a regular gathering for coffee and sharing of relocation horror stories-things such as learning to use gasoline station pumps, marketing in less than three hours, and other relatively minor situations you laugh at afterward that are “… huge events in… your life that can move very competent people to tears… ” These were the basis for lively, continuing discussions.


Soon after, the group decided to formalize the network as a way to be sure newcomers could learn from their experiences. Monsanto provides a place to meet, facilities for group gatherings, postage and copying services. Well-known for its responsive international relocation policies, the company not only attempts to sustain the spouse, but actually recognizes his or her contribution to the company. “We value spouses. In fact, we let them know it’s not just employees’ knowledge we value, it’s theirs as well,” says Carol Jones, global development director for Monsanto. As an example of this belief, Rahusen helped the group begin and maintained a sense of sponsorship and offered resources. But the company wants spouses to assume ownership of the organization. It also pushes for the group to be autonomous to assure it avoids the possibility of spouses being involved in company politics.


Today, the Spousal Sponsor Network has created a databank of families who have lived in Brussels at least a year. These people (both expatriate and local families) must meet specific criteria similar to the core competencies the company identifies for successful, adaptive expats. Before new expats come on the network’s house-hunting trip, they receive a package from the Brussels office with a letter from the network describing the program and asking if they’d like to participate.


“The Spousal Sponsor Network began as a gathering for coffee and sharing of relocation horror stories, such as learning to use gasoline station pumps and marketing in less than three hours.”


The family provides a profile (who the kids are, whether they’ve had previous global assignments, what their interests are) and then they’re matched with one of the sponsor families. During the family’s house-hunting trip, the sponsor makes contact and invites the newcomers over to their home for dinner during the weekend to become acquainted.


The sponsors actually undergo a competency development workshop so they’re able to be helpful to the newcomers, understand the stress they’re undergoing, and respect confidentiality. Sponsors are proactive. After an initial needs assessment, sponsors are encouraged to keep in touch with the people and make certain they’re doing well. “The whole purpose of the sponsor program was to get people integrated as quickly as possible so they had a network or support group to go to,” says Homburg.


Provide financial support and creative employment assistance.
Monsanto utilizes financial resources to help spouses identify their transferable skills and assists them with finding opportunities in the host country. The company has a clear dual-career policy with three tiers. One is for predeparture: a one-time dislocation payment that’s 33% of the last six months of gross taxable earned income. Another tier applies during the assignment: a payment of up to $5,000 of pre-approved expenses for higher education that’s career-related (job search assistance, immigration help, travel to the country-of-origin for professional meetings, payment for professional certification fees and professional magazine subscriptions). The third tier is for repatriation: a $1,000 allowance for re-entry job-search assistance, resume preparation, interviewing techniques and skills analysis. These policies apply to people who work full time or part time. They can be self-employed or employed by a company.


Another company that offers financial assistance is Minneapolis-based Medtronic Inc., makers of heart pacemakers and other cardiac-related devices. The firm generates 44% of its revenue from overseas.


Possibly the most innovative way the company recognizes the needs of all the family members of its 25- to 30-member expat group is its Flexible Reimbursement Account. It’s a matching account in which the family can spend up to $6,000 per year on personal development and the company will reimburse 50% of that. The policy statement offers examples: Dual-career spouses can use the money for travel expenses to conferences outside the foreign location or for other educational expenses. It also can use the money for any other expense that will make the relocation easier on any family members, such as additional telephone calls home or flying grandparents to see the expatriates. The intent? The company recognizes expatriates have needs in addition to what they would have if they were in the United States. But, clearly, as beneficiaries of money, expats share the expense.


In addition to financial support, Medtronic helps dual-career families by networking with the spouse’s company and trying to arrange innovative opportunities. In the past, the company has worked with the spouse’s employer to find a position in the same country, to alter the timing of the expat’s assignment-speed it up or slow it down-if the spouse’s career was positively affected, and to help with work-related legalities such as acquiring visas and paying union dues. Furthermore, Medtronic has attempted to find ways to help the spouse maintain a long-distance relationship with the employer, such as a long-distance telecommuting relationship.


The following key policy features are ways in which Medtronic tries to impact the spouse’s experience:


  • Flexible Reimbursement Account
  • Predeparture cultural orientation for expatriate, spouse and children, if appropriate
  • Automobile (including special lease rates if a second car is desired for the spouse)
  • Language training prior to and during the assignment
  • Outsourced settling-in services to assist expats in finding their way to the bank, the grocery store and other activities of day-to-day life
  • On-the-ground, in-country follow-ups by a third-party to be sure the expatriate family is doing well.

The company also has defined ways to improve personnel responsiveness. It comprehensively assesses cultural adaptability for the entire family before the assignment to identify any red flags. It establishes closer ties with expatriates throughout the duration of the assignment by talking with them at specific intervals. At the same time, the company creates a network of global managers at other companies to determine what is state-of-the-art assistance. It also continuously measures the effectiveness of current services. For example, it asks families how useful settling-in services, cultural counseling and predeparture training are to them, and what may be missing.


Monsanto, HP and Shell show that although the dual-career dilemma may be a difficult one, it’s not impossible to solve. They’re trying to support spouses in so many ways: Helping them identify transferable skills that will assist their adaptation in the destination; encouraging career development discussions before relocation; telling them about volunteer and educational opportunities that will further their careers; counseling them about such possibilities as taking a leave-of-absence and returning to the job for specified periods of time during the assignment; providing long-term career counseling and development support; providing names of local spouse centers and counseling facilities; and even exploring collaborations with other global firms for job possibilities.


To be sure, it’s not simple. Indeed, it may be one of the most thorny aspects of expatriation. But the needs of the accompanying spouse must be adequately addressed or there may be no assignment at all.


Personnel Journal, May 1996, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 36-47.


Posted on

Masterminding Group Moves

Mary Ann Schleyer wasn’t surprised at her male employee’s request. The Californian was spoiled by sunshine and the Pacific Coast Highway, where he could ride his motorcycle with a T-shirt flapping against a tanned torso. But when faced with the option of giving up his job or moving to Chicago, he opted for the latter—on one condition: Would the company pay the moving expenses for four of his Harley-Davidsons?


“Typically, we wouldn’t move all those bikes,” says Schleyer, manager of relocation services for Sears, Roebuck and Co. in Tucker, Georgia. “But as a concession for him not having any furniture, we shipped his motorcycles. That was important to him.”


Now multiply this one employee’s request by 500, and you can well imagine the responsibilities HR relocation managers face during a group move. “God only knows what they sneak onto the moving vans that we don’t know about,” she says. And household goods are just the tip of the iceberg.


Although far less common than individual moves, group relocations are on the rise, according to Chris Colley, executive vice president of the Washington, D.C.-based Employee Relocation Council. “We seem to be getting more inquiries,” says Colley. “HR managers need to talk to their peers in other industries who have managed group moves, so they can anticipate the issues that will arise.” Clearly, in an era of downsizing, a drive for lower costs and efficiencies, and access to improved technology, HR managers may face a group move at least once in their career. If your prayers are answered, will you be prepared?


Anticipate the jitters of first-time transferees.
While most individual moves are prompted by a new job opportunity or a promotion, group relocations usually involve a lateral move. They uproot employees whose positions don’t historically transfer and who therefore have deep roots and family ties in their communities. Most are likely to be first-time transferees.Without much choice, they’re told their job is moving—with or without them.


The reasons for group relos can vary, according to Jan Dickinson, of Dickinson Consulting Group in Portland, Oregon: contraction or expansion; facility expense reduction to control rental fees or the tax burden; proximity to manufacturing operations, suppliers or the marketplace; improving employee commuting and quality of life; mergers or acquisitions. How companies respond to corporate needs also vary. Some companies may want to realign several regional offices into one location. Another may want to centralize one function or division under one roof. Yet others may want to establish a function in a separate state from corporate headquarters, or even move an entire organization from one site to another. Regardless of the reason or solution, HR professionals must be involved in relocation planning from the very beginning, preferably once a decision to move has been made. To facilitate a smooth transition, survivor, Bloomington, Indiana-based State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., recommends: plan a group relocation far in advance, develop enhanced group benefits and introduce employees to local service providers at the point of destination. Others, such as the American Psychological Association in Washington, D.C., learned that any group move will spell disaster if employees aren’t involved in each phase of a move—especially if you’re faced with reluctant candidates who increasingly worry about their quality of life and their familial obligations to aging parents, young children and teens. So keep in mind the human factor: You’re not just moving boxes and Harleys. You’re moving people—emotions, warts and all.


Be an early-bird planner. About six years ago, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. made a decision to expand its services to California. The company already had three regional offices in Southern California. It wanted to open a fourth by 1994. “A decision to open another regional office typically is made five years earlier,” says Larry Ingrum, staff assistant for relocation services. Land purchasing considerations forced some early planning. The decision also prompted the need to place experienced personnel onsite by opening day.


But in the midst of such plans, the political climate in California changed unfavorably for insurance companies. Many companies threatened to pack up their bags and leave the state as a result of its Proposition 103, which mandated reforms in the insurance industry, such as rollbacks for customers. State Farm, however, reassessed its situation and shifted gears. Instead of bearing higher costs by opening up a fourth regional office, it announced in 1994 that it would realign the three regional offices in Costa Mesa, Westlake Village and Santa Rosa by moving them to Bakersfield, California. The grand opening was scheduled for late 1995. In addition, State Farm announced it would streamline its life/health function and move that division to Bakersfield as well. About 800 employees were affected. “For a majority of them, it was a first-time move,” says Ingrum.


When the company was planning to open a fourth office, the move was presented as optional and voluntary. With the realignment, the scenario changed. “Our employees were faced with the [issue] of their jobs moving,” says Ingrum. They had to make a decision to lose their jobs or relocate to this 100-square-mile city—located on the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley. About 40 HR personnel also were included in the transfer.


Most companies about to face a similar situation normally would hire a third-party relocation company. State Farm didn’t have to outsource. It utilized its own in-house relocation group. Ingrum says the company created the service group in 1987. “We felt we’d provide better employee services by having our own relocation operation.” The division, he adds, is part of the human resources department, under benefits and services. During the realignment process, Ingrum served on a corporate team with members from various departments. The team worked through all the issues of the relocation. HR, he explains, began to work in conjunction with other departments to move management into Bakersfield before the grand opening. In addition, the relocation services group administered and counseled employees on the relocation benefits. Ingrum was one of four relocation coordinators who reported to the relocation group and lived in Bakersfield for several months to prepare for the transfers.


“Employees had to make a decision to lose their jobs or relocate.”
Larry Ingru, staff assistant for relocation services,
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.


After the decision to realign its California offices, State Farm also set up a Start Team whose mission was to staff the office, build relationships in the community, and set policies and procedures for the new operations. Ellen D’Andrea, senior HR specialist, not only was pivotal on the Start Team, the New Jersey native was a first-time transferee herself.


D’Andrea says she was undaunted by the challenge and opportunity of working on a project of that scale. “I didn’t know anything about it at the time. It was scary. But I knew I had the ability to learn as long as somebody was good enough to teach me,” she says. That individual was Ingrum, who arrived in Bakersfield on temporary assignment one month after D’Andrea.


Together, they and others on the Start Team had their own individual missions. D’Andrea was in charge of the Welcome Center and the relocation process in Bakersfield; another individual was in charge of the selection process of employees from other regions. Two others were in charge of recruiting local new-hires. Ingrum oversaw the team and served as the point of contact for anyone who had questions about benefits for the group move.


Enhance group benefits as an incentive to prospective transferees.
Getting employees to move from prime areas, such as Costa Mesa, Westlake Village and Santa Rosa, required State Farm to develop a fresh approach to the benefits package. Without one, State Farm wouldn’t be successful in persuading its employees to relocate. Ingrum says the company created a few new enhanced benefits. For example, because the employees wouldn’t be moving for a promotion or better salary like individual transferees, State Farm provided a lateral move bonus—a flat fee of $1,000. Homeowners and renters were both given appropriate allowances. Renters were given up to $500 for the first month’s rent and a reimbursement of the security deposit—also up to $500. Homeowners, on the other hand, also were protected by State Farm. “We enhanced our California loss-on-sale policy,” says Ingrum. If the buyout was less than what the employee paid for the home, the company covered a portion of that loss. Normally, with individual moves, the cap is $20,000. With the group moves, State Farm covered a portion of losses beyond $20,000 because of the weak returns on home sales in California.


What the Start Team didn’t expect, however, was that 73% of those wanting homes in Bakersfield wanted to build their dream house. That created a lot of builder-related issues. If the homes weren’t completed, HR assisted in finding temporary living arrangements and expected productivity to dip until the employees’ families were settled comfortably.


Even before building a new home, consider the trauma first-time transferees face when they have to put their home up for sale. Someone who may have had a home with a leaky basement may have lived with it for years. It doesn’t bother them. “But it’s a necessity to get the home in the right condition [before sale] and remediate any problems,” Sears’ Schleyer says. HR has the delicate responsibility of educating its new transferees along the way. “People who have never moved don’t understand what the big deal is.”


HR must also help employees decide whether they want to rent, purchase or build a new home. Owning one’s home or land always has been part of the American culture. However, as perceptions of the traditional home change, so will the lifestyle and needs of the relocatee. To assist employees in evaluating their options, HR should have them prepare a list of pros and cons for each option, says Beverly D. Roman, publisher of “Relocation… 2000.” “They need to know the existing real estate market, the available interest rates and the types of rental units in the area,” she says. People choose rentals for several reasons: They desire the flexibility that renting affords; they may have lost money on a recent home sale and choose not to repeat the mistake; they’re encouraged by employers to rent because it’s less hassle to move them; or they simply don’t want the responsibility of owning a home. Those desiring homes, on the other hand, usually choose that option for two main reasons: They prefer larger and more private living quarters or they want or need the tax advantages of home ownership, says Roman. In either case, HR relocation managers need to provide the information and resources so employees can make the right decisions.


Make community relations user-friendly.
HR also should cultivate ties with the local business and service agencies far in advance. Not just to assist the incoming transfers, but to help establish local businesses’ mutual interest in the move. For example, many transferees will arrive as couples and families who will interact with local businesses, service agencies, schools, churches and civic groups. These employees will become new residents and patrons of their new community. Then again, others in a small town may not welcome the additional burden of more children in their overcrowded classrooms and apartments. Therefore, the local media also should be approached by HR to inform the community about the merits of a company’s grand opening or expansion. For example, if a company is opening up a new facility, the community might be more likely to welcome the arrival if locals were to be recruited for some jobs. By ensuring an early buy-in, the adjustment for employee and community will be that much smoother. That’s why State Farm’s relocation was well-received by the city of Bakersfield. “We had meetings with builders, realtors and lenders to explain our benefits package, so they’d know what they’d be encountering with our transferees. At the same time, we explained our expectations in working with them—that they’d be fair and [professional] with our employees,” says D’Andrea. “[That being established] people in Bakersfield was excited.”


As HR laid the foundation between State Farm and the community, the next step was to alleviate the fears of prospective transferees. State Farm, therefore, set up a Welcome Center. Headed by D’Andrea, the center became a place to bring one’s questions, meet the various financial lenders, school representatives and other community service providers. The company provided a three-day visit to Bakersfield, which included food and accommodations. On the first day, the employees were given a presentation about relocation benefits, what they needed for a loan, how to begin the appraisal process for their current homes and what kind of administrative services for moving household goods would be available. Employees were then divided up into two groups—those that wanted to tour the residential areas in order to buy a home or those that wanted to go on a rental tour. On the second day, about 35 community representatives or organizations participated in an information fair. Here, the employees were able to seek answers to their specific questions about the Bakersfield community.


“We explained our expectations – that they’d be fair with our employees.
Ellen D’Andrea, senior HR specialist,
State Farm Mutual automobile Ins. Co.


Had the employees lived out of state, the insurance company could also have used the Internet to introduce employees to the place of destination. The Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, for example, created a Web site (http:// www. bbol.org/) that presents its city’s mission and vision statements; calendar of Chamber events; an historical overview, demographics, weather information and employment statistics—with a list of the top employers of the community. Moreover, users can click to the Bakersfield Californian to read some of the newspaper articles online. By giving their employees several opportunities to learn about Bakersfield, the State Farm relocation went smoother than most because the employees’ anxieties were mitigated. “They know their lives are in an upheaval, and they’re hungry for information. Don’t leave employees on hold,” says Ingrum.


Involve your employees in the relocation process.
Imagine being told your entire organization is going to be moved. Not to another city, necessarily. Just to another spot within the same metropolitan area. That’s what happened to the 400-plus staff of the American Psychological Association (APA) in Washington, D.C. In January 1992, the APA relocated from three locations in the greater D.C. area to a newly constructed headquarters near downtown. Aside from the cost benefits of selling its property, the APA’s move brought everyone under one roof. “Even though we weren’t far apart, we could never have the staff together in one space. It also took awhile to get back and forth between buildings and there was duplication of office services,” says HR Director Judy Maggard.


Once the decision to move was made, Skip Calvert and another colleague spent an entire two years planning the relocation. “We talked to many other groups that had relocated, learning from their experiences,” says Calvert, director of operations and office services.


He and other APA managers also correctly anticipated the emotional trauma associated with the move. Being a psychological organization seemed to work to its advantage: The people factor remained in the forefront of executive decisions. For example, the staff became involved from the time the move was decided. In the summer of 1990, it reviewed current and future space needs. Department heads made lists of their staff members and of current files, workrooms and equipment. They verified and updated current information, and then projected their space needs in the new building. The interior design firm asked department heads which departments they interacted with the most. The APA Monitor, for example, had to be on the same floor as the executive offices because the newspaper staff frequently spoke to the top-level managers.


Another example of employee involvement was the Coordinated Committee for Administration and Management, or CCAM. This group developed the new policies and procedures and recommended them to the executive staff. It was composed of representatives from each of the eight directorates, including the director of human resources, says Calvert. “CCAM’s premise was that we needed input to the decision-making process from all segments of the organization,” he says.


APA maintained communication with its employees in a variety of ways: focus groups, a newsletter, a moving team and through counseling with the EAP. The focus groups in each division discussed their needs within workstation configurations. For example, they tested five lines of chairs and chose one manufacturer. “We never reached consensus, but active participation went a long way toward achieving acceptance of the final decision,” says Calvert. Because face-to-face communication wasn’t always possible, the APA published a newsletter to minimize rumors and quell anxieties. With more than 400 employees in three locations, little issues magnified instantly. The newsletter was created about 10 months before the move and was published every six weeks—and in the last few months every three weeks. Staff from all levels contributed articles to address all kinds of worries: whether the move would impact salaries; when computers would be shut down; and if the new location was safe.


Then six months before the relocation, the APA recognized the need to create the Move Committee to handle the logistics: creating file spaces, packing and marking boxes, and implementing CCAM decisions. In addition, a cross-departmental group composed of seven people from each building was formed to develop team spirit. “The committee brought together people who never had worked previously as a team,” says Calvert.


Anticipating employee anxieties, the APA enlisted the support of its EAP provider. The EAP executive director attended all of the Move Commitee’s meetings and functioned as a resource on stress. She also helped HR develop a staff questionnaire eliciting employee concerns about the move. The survey identified these issues: commuting time and costs, security, postal services, shopping and restaurants. When necessary, the EAP representative also met privately with the employees to discuss their concerns as well. The counselor also was on call immediately following the relocation. That went a long way toward achieving a smooth transition, says Calvert.


Planning and executing the move was successful overall. But the APA didn’t drop its relocation responsibilities after the move. “The biggest adjustment,” says Maggard, “was nothing official. It was the unofficial aspect. We were now all in one building together. We didn’t have the barriers we had before in communicating.” The APA staff now had immediate access to each other. And yet, when employees moved into their offices, they didn’t interact with those on other floors. HR had to encourage the staff to visit each other’s floors and hold “open houses” so individuals would begin to feel comfortable with the new working environment. “Now we have a lot of all-employee activities and brown-bag get-togethers. People are mixing more freely and getting to know each other,” says Maggard. Did being psychologists help the relocation? The APA thinks so. “We did a good job. In today’s economy, there’s mistrust, and people overreact. The main thing is to involve your staff as much as you can,” she says. By involving employees, HR managers can better understand their concerns and minimize problems.


Put yourself in the employees’ shoes.
When Chicago-based Sears, Roebuck and Co. centralized its merchandise replenishment function five years ago, the company relocated approximately 100 employees from Los Angeles, Dallas, Philadelphia and Atlanta to its headquarters in Illinois. It wasn’t easy because the “windy city” was different from the climate, culture and lifestyle of the other cities. Sears’ HR, therefore, had to anticipate how these disparities would influence employees’ transfer decisions.


“You have a more emotional transferee in these situations,” says Schleyer. One employee, she recalls, decided not to move from Dallas. The employee owned a farm and raised horses. “We don’t move livestock,” she says. He also was helping raise his grandchildren so that was another reason for declining the transfer.


There’s also the issue of cost of living and the disparity between employees’ home equities. Those from Los Angeles were able to buy better homes than those from Atlanta because of Los Angeles’ higher property values. “If you’re living in a $70,000 home, and you’re sitting next to someone living in a $250,000 home and both earn the same amount of money, it’s human nature [to be envious].” Few from Atlanta, she says, ended up making the move. “Once you live in Atlanta, you don’t want to leave. To go to Chicago with its intense winters—that’s a lot to adjust to, as well as the cost of living.”


But Schleyer doesn’t measure the success of a relocation by numbers only. She expects a small percentage of employees to bid farewell to their jobs because of family ties, lifestyle choices, cost of living and other personal reasons. What she uses as her gauge is something more qualitative—how those who actually move learn to adjust and become productive again in their new environment. She believes it begins with understanding: “I truly believe you need to experience a move to empathize. If you can walk in their [transferees’] shoes, you can better relate and assist them because you know where they’re at—because you’ve been there,” she says.


Personnel Journal, May 1996, Vol. 75, No. 5, pp. 64-72.