Asset-Based Thinking Leads to
Greater Productivity

Dr. Kathryn Cramer is the Founder and Managing Partner of The Cramer Institute in St. Louis, which specializes in organizational change consulting, leadership and team development, and executive coaching. She has a Doctorate in psychology from St. Louis University and is a licensed psychologist and member of the American Psychological Association. She is the author of four books, the latest one being Change the Way You See Everything Through Asset-Based Thinking.

Viewing everyday life in a special way that yields maximum returns on the investment of attention and effort is worth its weight in gold for Human Resources leaders. Asset-Based Thinking (ABT) is a concrete, cognitive process aimed at identifying the assets (e.g., strengths, talents, synergies, and possibilities) that are immediately available in yourself, other people, and any situation. ABT focuses on: opportunities rather than problems, strengths more than weaknesses, and what can be done instead of what can’t be done.

You can use the fundamentals of ABT to inspire and motivate better performance, communication, and leadership throughout your organization. Other special applications are designed for energizing new hires to be valuable contributors starting day one; for making the “truth” motivational – even when it’s hard to say or hear; and for promoting a sense of pride and confidence for outstanding efforts and achievements.

The fundamentals of ABT
Asset-Based Thinking calls for small shifts in the way we absorb, perceive, filter and interpret. It changes the way we see everything leading to dramatic improvements in the way we live. Asset-Based Thinking promotes positive results and fosters personal satisfaction. It is a way of thinking that favors inspiration and aspiration over desperation … and it is contagious!

ABT is not DBT
With deficit-based thinking (DBT) we scan for problems, what is disturbing and not working. DBT works more like a defense mechanism, showing us the problem from a negative angle so we are able to solve or eliminate whatever impedes success. It puts us “on guard,” fostering an anxiety that robs us of confidence, hope, and deprives us of pleasure and productivity.

Even though DBT protects us under dire circumstances, for most of us it has become an addiction that dominates our way of thinking. Unfortunately, a “steady diet” of DBT leads to starvation – depletion in energy – creating suspicion that trouble, problems and disappointment lurk around every corner. We learn then to “keep our back up” as DBT fuels our insecurity. Left unchecked, DBT clouds our perceptions, blinds us to possibilities and limits our options.

Asset-Based thinkers S.O.S.
No matter whether you see yourself as a “glass half full” person or a “glass half empty” person, ABT will expand your effectiveness. With ABT you identify the assets immediately available. It’s your focus on assets that raises the waterline.

S.O.S. is recognized as the universal signal for help. As an acronym it also helps you remember where to look for assets.

• SELF: The first “S” reminds you to look within yourself for your talents, qualities and capacities that are most useful in any given circumstance.
• OTHERS: The letter “O” refers to your focus on the strengths and talents of others, as well as the positive qualities in the relationship you have with each (such as trust, respect, collaboration.)
• SITUATIONS: The last “S” stands for the assets inherent in any situation. Welcome experiences naturally provide assets such as stimulation, opportunity and synergy. Conversely, assets in the form of important life lessons, vital new information, or challenges are often hidden within unwelcome or even tragic situations. Sometimes unwelcome situations can even bolster floundering relationships.

The choice is up to you
Every day the opportunity to engage in Asset-Based Thinking shows up in all kinds of situations, good and bad, large and small. There’s no question that HR professionals are busy. Training your employees (and practicing these principles yourself) will begin to pay off immediately. It can only lead to the thrill of victory, while sidestepping the agony of defeat.

• You sit in a meeting, drained by people who are complaining and blaming others for mistakes, and decide that you will move the conversation in a different direction by asking, “How can this be the best problem we’ve ever had?”
• You sit down to dinner, and the conversation begins with complaints about the day. Then you shift and ask everyone to share the best thing that happened to them that day, encouraging them to relive the high points. Everybody at the table is engaged. Dinner becomes another high point.
• You face a serious setback in your business: Sales are down 20 percent. You bring the team together. Rather than dwell on what possibly could have gone wrong, you choose to build on past achievements and current capabilities that will move the team forward. By shifting from threat to challenge, the momentum builds.

ABT in action
Now let’s take a look at how ABT can help you build a high-performance, can-do culture. These special applications can be adopted and adapted to meet the unique requirements of your organization. Each ABT process has been validated in multiple industries, in local and global businesses.

Everyone starts with an “A”
When Benjamin Zander, conductor of the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra, teaches new students, he begins the semester by giving everyone an “A.” His tangible regard for the skill and potential of each individual propels their learning and expands self-confidence. They are motivated to do what it takes to retain the “A.”

In business, most new hires are treated as novices, even if they are experienced, highly skilled professionals. Instead of getting an “A” from the start, they are given an “incomplete” until they are able to master the company policies, strategies, norms and systems. As a result, during the first 60-90 days, not much is expected of those who are newly hired. They are given time to learn the ropes, and “forgiven” for minor faux pas and cultural transgressions. Although patience during the initial learning curve is a relief to the new hire, it is also unnecessarily limiting.

What if the organization could see the new hire as an asset – someone whom could make a significant contribution from day one? What if others valued the new hire as someone to learn from, someone who has both “fresh eyes” and fresh ideas?

With this ABT view of the new hire in mind, we developed a special ABT approach to supplement existing employee orientation and training programs called “Passports to Success.” The essential ABT ingredients include:

1. Arranging for the new hire to interview senior leaders and managers, peers and direct reports (if applicable) in order to elicit five outstanding strengths of the company (and the new hires function.) The new hire also probes for what’s on the horizon that represents an aspiration of possibilities. After the interviews are completed, the new hire analyzes the patterns in the findings (both strengths and aspirations.) Finally, the new hire hosts a discussion session with her/his immediate boss, peers and other key stakeholders. The goal of this discussion is for all involved to gain new insights into the current reality in terms of synergies and strategies going forward.
2. Giving high-value, innovative challenges to the new hire, with specific deliverables in mind. For example, ask the new hire to conduct a feasibility study complete with recommendations for implementation. Another deliverable could be a request for bench-marking research to discover best practices that could replace existing ones. Ensure that the deliverables involve key stakeholders in the information-gathering phase as well as the delivery of recommendations. (Note: the focus and scope of this process can be scaled to any level of expertise from entry level to the most senior new hire.)
3. Asking the new hire to create a vision of how five of his/her personal strengths will be most useful in contributing to the success of the company and in performing well in their particular new role.

These “passports to success” energize new hires because they see themselves as valuable contributors from the start. They don’t have to wait until they are fully acclimated to have meaningful interactions with people in key roles. When other people treat the new hire’s status as an asset to be leveraged, the new hire’s confidence grows proportionately.

Tell the truth fast for “Courageous Conversations”™

People shy away from telling the truth when it might stir up controversy, hurt feelings, trigger conflict, or disrupt a relationship. We hold back the information, ideas and feedback that could help move things forward, resolve conflict or actually strengthen a relationship because we don’t want the conversation to backfire. We created the program Courageous Conver-sations™ to help people be candid and constructive simultaneously. We have found that many people can benefit from the initial step contained in the more comprehensive program. Here is how it works:

When confronting difficult topics pertaining to poor performance, costly mistakes, or disruptive behavior use ABT to frame the conversation. This fosters speedy resolutions and diffuses negative repercussions. Frame the conversation by following these three steps. (Be sure to rehearse the conversation to start and end positively. Remember – it takes much longer to devise your message than it does to deliver it.)

Step 1: Mentally list 3-5 qualities that you value (and even admire) about the person that are independent of the problematic behavior. This step creates a more balanced view of the person. It helps you step into the conversation, seeing the other person as valuable and worth the investment of time and effort on your part.

Step 2: State the behavior that bothers you clearly and concisely, and state the impact of that behavior on you and the relationship. (e.g., “When you come into my office for chat time, it breaks my concentration and prevents me from getting work done. Then I get frustrated with myself and irritated by the interruption.”)

Step 3: Present the positive vision you have of resolving whatever the issue is. (e.g., “I know that it is not your intention to interrupt or irritate me. Would you be willing to discuss this issue so that we find a way for chat time to work for both of us?”)

The positive note you end on will set the tone for the rest of the conversation. Then, relax and listen closely for how the other person responds to your invitation to create new ways of working and moving forward.

Imitation is the highest form of praise
With ABT, you see the talents and capabilities of others as their true assets, and for you, too. You are drawn to learning from those you admire. The fastest way to learn anything is to imitate a role model. Think about how you learned to walk, speak, write the alphabet, and tie your shoes.

In the early years, learning by imitation dominates. However, by the time we reach adulthood we refrain from imitating others in favor of more cognitive, trial-and-error types of learning. In fact, most people hesitate to imitate others because they see it as a form of “cheating” (e.g., don’t copy someone else’s test answers). Imitating what you admire in others and want to acquire for yourself is actually completely fair, and is in fact, an act of recognition. It requires astute study and observation of excellence - not critical judgment. When you become a student of the assets of human nature you will be able to spot the best of what everyone has to offer. When you see exceptional effort, talent and achievements at work, it’s time to have a conversation about what you have observed.

Begin with the most reinforcing question you can ask anyone after they have been successful - “How did you do that?” The question affirms the value of the accomplishment, but more importantly it allows a person to reflect on what personal assets (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) were tapped in order to succeed. Whenever you recognize or praise someone in that way, it will last. Encourage conversations that begin with “how did you do that?” Then keep probing until you gain new insight.

Take this Asset-Based thought process one step further by asking, “How did we do that?” to a group. No matter what size the group, posing this question helps them to be alert to what’s working to promote satisfaction, inspire collaboration, and produce results. Bring people together in groups to discuss their answers to the question, “How did we do that and that and that and that?” Broadcast the responses. Watch the espirit de corps and collective IQ raise to new levels.

In closing…
Asset-Based Thinkers are motivated to excel. Passion shines through in everything they say and do. They go the extra mile for customers and colleagues. They show pride in what has and can be achieved. HR can create huge changes by promoting ABT within their own department and then throughout other teams and groups within the organization.

When ABT is adopted by multiple functions and groups, businesses benefit from high levels of employee productivity, customer loyalty and satisfaction. Teams become more engaged, energized and focused.

Imagine what would be possible if people at all levels of your organization, from the most senior to brand new hires, focused more attention on strengths, synergies and opportunities than on mistakes, problems and threats. Experience proves that when people learn to zero in on the positive side of life they are less apt to be preoccupied with the negative side. The impact of this shift is amazing and far-reaching – for both the individual and the organization as a whole.

(Editor’s Note: For more information about Asset-Based Thinking and how to purchase the book, Change the Way you See Everything through Asset-Based Thinking, co-authored by Kathryn D. Cramer, Ph.D. and Hank Wasiak (with a forward by James Patterson), contact EG’s Editor, Wendy Taylor, at wtaylor@employersgroup.com.)

Josie Gonzalez is the managing partner of Gonzalez & Harris, a Pasadena law firm that represents employers in all aspects of immigration law. This article originally appeared in the May 2005 Employers Group newsletter, and is hereby updated for 2006

Whether trying to bridge a temporary labor shortage or recruit talented professionals to fill permanent openings, employers are challenged to consider an ever growing list of issues and costs impacting their decision to hire foreign workers.

The H-1B numbers game
Only 65,000 new H-1B petitions, plus an additional 20,000 for individuals with a master’s or higher degree from a U.S. university, can be approved every year, starting on the first of October. Fearing rapid number exhaustion, employers started filing their applications on the earliest possible date, April 1, 2006. Unfortunately, Immigration ran out of H-1B numbers on May 26, 2006, accepting two months worth of H-1B applications. Incredibly, employers must wait for a fresh supply of H-1B numbers on October 1, 2007 and will not be able to file an application until April 1, 2007! Most assuredly, the cap again will be exhausted very early --the only question is how soon. The extra 20,000 H-1B numbers for individuals with U.S. masters also got exhausted early – on July 26, 2006. If filling an immediate opening, waiting to stake claim to one of these new H-1B slots is clearly not practical for most employers.

How much will it cost?
H-1B filing fees are expensive. In addition to the basic fee of $185, Congress recently imposed new, higher fees:

• $1,500 H-1B Training Fee applies to all new applications, changes of employer and the first extension filed by the employer. It must be paid by the employer, who is subject to penalties if any portion is paid or reimbursed by the worker. Employers with 25 or fewer employees pay a reduced fee of $750. Institutions of higher education and related nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations and governmental research organizations are fee exempt.
• $500 Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee applies to initial H-1B and L-1 petitions. It doesn’t have to be paid by the employer. There is no exemption from this fee.

For guaranteed 15-day processing, an employer can pay a premium processing fee of $1,000.

Travel restrictions
If you have a job opportunity that requires frequent overseas travel, think again before you hire a foreign national, particularly nationals born in countries such as Iran, the People’s Republic of China, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. Most foreign nationals face delays in securing travel documents, called visas, which must be secured via an appointment with an American Consulate in the home country. A Canadian is the only nationality that can travel without a visa, but Canadian citizens born elsewhere who are nationals of another country, still might face delays to secure “security clearances,” especially if employed in a field where restrictive export technology laws apply.

Obligation to pay a government approved wage
With the employment of many foreign nationals comes the obligation to pay what the Department of Labor (DOL) calls the “prevailing wage.” This wage is based on the job’s educational and experience requirements and what other similarly situated employees at the worksite are paid. In other words, the employer can’t just pay the foreign national whatever the market dictates, or what other employees are being paid.

This obligation applies to H-1B professionals, H-2B skilled workers, and employees getting their green cards through the Labor Certification route. It is expected that DOL will increase its compliance audits with increased funding from the H-1B $500 visa fraud fee. (See www.computerworld.com - H-1B Fraud Investigations are Expected to Increase.) For more information on how to calculate the correct wage amount, see the DOL’s website at http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/foreign/wageinfo.

I want the “whole enchilada”
Foreign nationals are not generally content with temporary work permits. They want the coveted green card; i.e. permanent residency that will allow them to live and work indefinitely in the U.S. and for whichever employer they select. Significant legal expenses (often totaling more than $10,000) and HR resources are committed to this endeavor. The goal of securing the green card is challenging because one needs to advertise the position, demonstrate U.S. worker unavailability for the particular skill set, and attempt to comply with what may appear to be unrealistically low educational and experience requirements dictated by Department of Labor regulations. Nevertheless, employer commitment to the effort is often required as a condition to acceptance of the job offer by a talented foreign worker whose skills are in demand. To learn more about sponsoring foreign nationals through the labor certification route, see http://www.ows.doleta.gov/foreign/perm.asp

The new fast track PERM Labor Certification Process
On March 28, 2005, a new fast track application entitled PERM (Program Electronic Review Management System), was implemented by the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the Department of Labor (DOL). The application is an attestation-based system requiring an employer to file an application on-line and retain all supporting documentation for five years in the event of an audit or an investigation. The results have been checkered with processing time ranging from several weeks to six months or more. There have been many system glitches resulting in ETA acknowledging that many denials are computer-generated without human review. As of April 2006, over 20,000 applications had been denied – just about one out of four submitted.

The first appeal of the denial of a PERM application was decided on July 18, 2006. (Matter of HealthAmerica, Case No. 2006-PER-1). This author coordinated the amici brief filed on behalf of the American Immigration Lawyer’s Association and the American Council of International Personnel. HealthAmerica’s labor certification was denied because the application erroneously indicated a Monday advertisement date in lieu of the requisite Sunday date. The employer filed a “Request to Reconsider” claiming “harmless error” and submitted the Sunday ad. ETA refused to consider the Sunday ad stating that the appellate record consisted solely of the electronic form, ETA 9089, and that no corrections to the form were allowed. The administrative tribunal (BALCA) reversed and held that the record should consist of all the documents required to be retained by the employer in the event of an audit, including the Sunday ad. Further, BALCA held that it was fundamentally unfair and an injustice to deny the application based on a typographical error without opportunity to correct the record.

Despite its flaws, PERM processing beats the two to four year processing delays in the prior program. Potentially getting an approval in just several weeks has raised the hopes of many foreign nationals that attainment of the coveted “green card” is within reach. Hopefully, the program kinks get worked out and ETA administers the program in a more humane and enlightened fashion.

Is there an ideal candidate?
With the vagaries of the H-1B program, employers need to explore exceptions to the H-1B cap, as well as other immigration classifications. For example, there are no quota restrictions on the following: H-1B transfers to other employers, H-1B extensions, employee transfers from branch or parent offices overseas (L-1s), nationals of foreign-owned companies (E-1s), professionals from Mexico, Canada, Chile, Australia, or Singapore who qualify under the Free Trade Agreement for a work permit, and students with one-year practical training work permits B however, these students will need to grab an H-1B before the work permit expires. The best candidate for PERM green card sponsorship is one in a shortage occupation with years of specialized experience gained either prior to hire or in lower-level positions with the sponsoring employer.

Conclusion
Despite the challenges involved in the hiring of foreign nationals, employers report that they admire the work ethic, intelligence, and loyalty of these workers, and plan to continue to hire them and attempt to overcome government obstacles. If you are one of these employers, you need to tell your congressional representatives how much you need and want to employ them. Without employer advocacy for this minority workforce, restrictive legislation will continue unabated.

Unintended Consequences of Workers' Comp Reform

Paul Palkovic, ARM, CPCU, a Vice President at Bolton & Company, has more than 24 years of experience in the insurance industry as an underwriter, a direct writing producer and broker. Supported by Bolton’s Risk Services Department, he specializes in controlling his client’s total cost of risk by taking a sophisticated service-driven approach to risk management and insurance placement.

Governor Schwarzenegger made a campaign promise to California’s business community to push Workers’ Compensation reform through the legislature. In 2004, the Governor delivered on his promise. To many, SB 899 has been a stunning success. The changes to the badly broken Workers’ Compensation system effected by SB 899 have nearly eliminated litigated claims altogether and unexpectedly reduced the gross number of claims being filed. But while business owners have rejoiced, applicant’s attorneys have found themselves nearly locked out of a system that had once served as their gold mine.

Faced with a protracted battle to counter the new law in the courts, California’s attorneys have been forced to seek alternative sources of income. It appears that they have found an answer in the form of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA is California’s more stringent version of the Americans With Disabilities Act. It has become the vehicle du jour for legal action against employers who fail to engage in a sufficiently “interactive process” with employees seeking accommodation for disabilities from work related injuries.

Exposure to FEHA claims
FEHA’s requirement for employers to engage in an “interactive process” with Qualified Injured Workers (QIW) is not new. Prior to the 2003 & 2004 reforms, insurance carriers facilitated the “interactive process” between employers and injured workers as part of the Vocational Rehabilitation process through the use of specialized Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors. These counselors worked with the employer, the treating physician and the injured worker to determine the ability of a claimant to return to a temporary or modified position, identify any permanent work restrictions for the injured worker, determine what accommodations were reasonable and appropriate and together develop a plan to bring the injured worker back to their modified job.

AB 227 eliminated the use of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors and in so doing transferred the responsibility of the “interactive process” to employers. The effect of this change was not noticed until the subsequent passage of SB 899.

Today, inadvertent failure by employers to perform the “interactive process” may open the door for applicant’s attorneys to seek damages for their clients under FEHA. If successful, the applicant’s attorney can transport the claim from the Workers Compensation system, where awards and legal fees are highly regulated, into the Civil Law system where business is far more lucrative. Many employers are unaware of this new responsibility and often hear of it for the first time when they receive notice from DFEH (Department of Fair Employment and Housing) and/or a lawsuit.

Claim protections
Some companies have purchased protection from FEHA claims through an Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy. However, these polices are limited in scope. While defense costs should be covered by the EPL policy, the employer may be left to pay for a substantial percentage of the FEHA judgment—and they will undoubtedly be required to pay 100% of any punitive damages, which, in California, are uninsurable. Those companies without EPL insurance will find themselves paying for judgments, fines, and all legal fees associated with defending the FEHA claim. These costs can easily run over $100,000 and may exceed the $1,000,000 figure.*

The lengths to which an employer must go to accommodate an injured worker are constantly evolving. The reality is each case is often determined by its own specific facts, adding to the confusion and making it difficult to interpret legal precedents.

Limiting exposure with the interactive process
At this time, there is no way to completely eliminate the exposure to FEHA claims, but employers can limit their exposure to loss by actively monitoring all claims and becoming deeply involved in the interactive process when dealing with employees who have been released back to work. Employers should always obtain a copy of the employee’s physical restrictions from the physician or carrier.

A job function analysis (JA) should be performed by someone well versed in this process and employers should also identify any barriers that would preclude the employee from returning to work. There should be multiple meetings with the worker to discuss and investigate possible accommodations, and those accommodations should be evaluated for reasonableness by several individuals (or a standing committee) within the company.

Employers should work closely with their insurance carrier, insurance broker, and legal counsel to establish, facilitate and manage the “interactive process” as they bring their injured employees back to work. Most importantly, employers should formally document the entire interactive process, as well as their efforts to reasonably accommodate their injured workers. This process applies not only to employees with workers’ compensation claims, but also to employees with non-occupational disabilities.

We encourage employers to review their own policies and risk management program to ensure the business is protected. Having a good risk management and disability management program and using them on a consistent basis should protect the company’s assets and go a long way towards lessening the impact of financial loss in the event of a claim.

*(Editor’s note: It should be noted that EG and Bolton & Company have developed an exclusive program for EPL coverage. For more information, contact Katherin Scott at Employers Group, (213) 765-3949, kscott@employersgroup.com.)

What is the EEOC?

By Dagmar Muthamia, SPHR, Helpline Consultant

The Equal Emp-loyment Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that enforces a number of federal statutes dealing with discrimination in employment. It was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and began operating in 1965. The statutes it enforces are:

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion sex, or national origin;
• Title I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990;
• The Age Discrimination in Employ-ment Act (ADEA) of 1967 prohibiting discrimination against individuals aged 40 and older.
• The Equal Pay Act (EPA) of 1963 prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender where substantially the same work is performed under similar conditions
• Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against federal employees with disabilities

Enforcement activities
There were 75,428 discrimination and retaliation claims filed with the EEOC in 2005 resulting in awards of $271.6 million. More than half of the claims were dismissed as having no reasonable basis. Most of the rest were settled out of court. Only 417 suits were filed by the EEOC in 2005.

From 1992 through 2005 there has been a significant increase in disability discrimination claims and retaliation claims under all the statutes enforced by the EEOC and a slight increase in religious discrimination claims. The chart shows the breakdown and percentages for each type of claim. Many individuals claim more than one type of discrimination, so the totals will exceed the actual number of filings.

EEO-1 Form
Since 1966 the EEOC has required employers in the private sector with 100 or more employees and some Federal contractors with 50 or more employees to submit annual EEO-1 survey reports. EEO-1 information on gender, race, ethnicity and job classifications is used by the EEOC to investigate charges of employment discrimination against employers in private industry and to provide statistical information about the employment status of minorities and women. The data are shared with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), U.S. Department of Labor, several other Federal agencies and state and local fair employment agencies. The EEO-1 is due on September 30th of each year and may be completed online. In fact online filing is preferred.

Changes in the classifications and definitions used for the EEO-1 will go into effect for the 2007 reports. The details are available at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1survey/index.html

EEOC’s 5-year plan
The EEOC is nearing the middle of a 5-year plan (2004 – 2009) to improve its services. Briefly, the plan calls for meeting three objectives through five strategies. The objective of “Justice and Opportunity” is to be achieved first through proficient resolution which will result in more charges being handled within 180 days at predetermined quality standard and meet a public confidence goal.

The second strategy is to increase mediation and alternative dispute resolution by 20% each year of the plan. The third is following a plan for strategic enforcement and litigation. The second objective is an “Inclusive Workplace” that will be pursued by proactive prevention which means more and better outreach and education for employers and employees.

The third objective is to become a model workplace, thus setting the example. The good news for employers is that the plan appears to be helpful rather than threatening.

(Editor’s Note: For information about EG’s AAP services and audits, contact Ahmed Younies, ayounies@employersgroup.com.)

Employee Discipline
10 Most Common Mistakes

By Kimberly Nwamanna, Helpline Consultant

Disciplining employees is difficult enough without contending with the potential for litigation. Many employers find themselves embroiled in legal action because they have made common, but very harmful, mistakes during the employment relationship. Employers may circumvent missteps through thoughtful consideration, common sense and diligence.

Compiled below is a Top 10 list of discipline mistakes to assist employers in avoiding such pitfalls:

1. Rushing to terminate or rushing to an adverse action
Employers who rely heavily on the employment “at-will” agreement are most likely overlooking a “just cause” to the adverse action. Taking the time to thoroughly investigate the offense and base your decision on a just-cause standard is more defensible than strictly adhering to your employment at will statement.

2. Failing to quickly discharge poor performers
Often employers find themselves on the discipline merry-go-round with a poor performer who does just enough to meet expectations only to later fall below expectations again. Employers frequently become frustrated thinking they have to start all over again in the disciplining of this employee. Avoid getting caught in this cycle. In addition to letting the employee know what will happen if they again don’t meet expectations, try adding a statement to the documentation such as “We expect that you will continue to meet our expectations. If you fail to do so, or violate any of our policies or procedures, it will lead to further disciplinary action.”

3. Failing to be even handed in applying your discipline practices
Being sympathetic to one employee because he/she is considered a nice person, while being harsher to another in the same circumstances, exposes the company to discriminatory claims. Conversely, it is appropriate to take into account any prior recorded disciplines, the nature of the offense, tenure, past practice in disciplining, and extraordinary circumstances. It is important and judicious to consistently apply your discipline practices

4. Failing to document infractions
You have probably heard time and again how important it is to document employee infractions. Be diligent and even handed in your approach ensuring that all prior actions are being documented as they arise—not weeks later. It truly is essential in establishing expectations, a good faith effort, and credibility for your company.

5. Over documenting infractions
On the other hand, over documenting can be just as damaging. Leave out the personal comments and conjecture, as well as refrain from scribbling notes in the margins. Focus on documenting only the relevant information that pertains to the issue at hand.

6. Failing to tell employees what to expect
Not letting employees know what to expect when it comes to a discipline action only establishes that the employee might not be held accountable for not meeting expectations. Clearly define for the employee:

• What the expectations are;
• How to meet them;
• Give them reasonable time to meet expectations;
• Allow them to have access to everything they need in order to achieve them and avoid adding barriers that make them more challenging; and
• Most importantly tell them what will happen if they fail to meet expectations.

7. Not telling employees that you are available
State in writing and verbally that you have an open door policy. Employees should walk away from a disciple understanding that you are available to answer their questions.

8. Not leaving it up to the employee to work towards the improvement
Don’t get snagged into having the employee tell you that “you never got back to me on the required training.” Have the employee work towards their improvement goals, resolve the issue or come up with a solution. Avoid getting trapped doing the legwork.

9. Not giving them the option to write a response
Make sure that you give employees the opportunity to respond to the documented discipline. You may be surprised to read that the employee has better ideas of how to meet your expectations. Equally surprising, the employee may write something that they later regret. Either situation, their response reinforces the discipline through their acknowledgement. Additionally, regardless if the employee response is in agreement with the discipline action, don’t let the employee have the last word. Reply back to the employee in writing restating your expectations.

10. Failing to involve legal council
Too often employers do not consult with legal counsel until it is too late. Timely consultation with a qualified employment law attorney can help to avoid costly mistakes and liability.

This list is not all inclusive, but is meant to serve as a reminder that it is wise make a good faith effort with the intent to rehabilitate an employee back into good standing.

By Wendy Taylor, Editor and Legislative Coordinator

By the time you read this article, the 2005-2006 session of the California Legislature will have adjourned on August 31. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has until September 30 to sign or veto all bills from this session. The following is what we had available to report on as of August 22, 2006.

Minimum Wage
On August 21, the Governor agreed that he will sign into law an amended version of AB 1835, which now includes a compromise reached between the Governor and the California Legislature. Originally, the legislature wanted to increase the wage to $7.25 in 2007 and to $7.75 in 2008, with an automatic annual increase based on inflation. The Governor had long voiced his objection to this “indexing” feature. The compromise means that the minimum wage is increased more than initially proposed, but will not include annual inflation increases. The amended AB 1835 now increases the minimum wage to $7.50 on January 1, 2007 and to $8.00 a year later.

Certainly all businesses appreciate the lack of an automatic index increase tied to the minimum wage, but the effect on employers depends largely on the type of business they have. Smaller businesses and those with large, low wage workforces, such as restaurants, are likely to feel the pinch more than employers who normally pay above the minimum wage.

Workers’ Compensation
Designation of Physician – AB 2068: The expectation all along has been that the Governor would veto any Workers’ Comp bills that would roll back his previous reforms. That said, however, the same day the minimum wage compromise was agreed upon, he also agreed to sign AB 2068. This legislation removes the sunset date for physician pre-designation and expands the definition of personal or pre-designated physician to include medical corporations and partnerships, such as Kaiser Permanente. In short, he agreed to continue for two more years the provision under current workers’ comp law that permits employees to pick their own physician. This was an unexpected shift on the Governor’s part because it does not benefit employers.

Public Employers – AB 3026: This bill will only affect public employers. It increases Workers’ Comp costs by removing public employers from the reforms of AB 899. It does not affect private employers. Status: This bill was still being considered by the legislature and has been re-referred to Committee for a third reading.

This bill is supported by public employee unions who continue to oppose the reforms, and who also oppose the Governor in favor of his opponent, Phil Angelides. We would be surprised if the Governor signs this bill, which backtracks on his previous reforms. We cannot, however, predict what he will do in this year’s politically charged atmosphere.

Other “bad” bills still in the queue
As previously reported, there are fewer “bad bills” for employers this year. Still there are some that could be passed by the Democratic-strong legislature.

Unemployment for Striking Workers - AB 1884 would force employers to provide unemployment insurance benefits to workers unemployed during a strike against them. Status: On August 16, the Assembly sent the bill to enrollment, meaning the bill was passed by both the Senate and Assembly. It remains to be seen whether the Governor will veto this bill, but it is hoped that he does.

Unemployment Compensation – AB 2209 creates a financial penalty payment equivalent to all lost wages and benefits that employers must pay to workers unemployed due to a strike. Status: On August 16, the Assembly recommended this bill be passed, but was still reviewing the Senate’s amendments. It remains to be seen whether the Governor will veto this bill, but it is hoped that he does.

Unemployment Insurance Amnesty – AB 2344 (called the Underground Economy and Tax Gap Bill of 2006) would require the Employment Development Department to administer an amnesty program for employers who are not current in their unemployment payments. Status: Nothing has happened (as of this writing) since June 28 when it was in the Assembly and the hearing date was cancelled at the request of the author.

Family Leave – SB 300 would increase the circumstances under which an employee is entitled to protected leave, essentially removing the controls that an employee actually provides the care for a family member and expands the age and dependency elements from the definition of “child.” It also permits employees to take leave for ill grandparents, siblings or domestic partners. Status: This bill is on hold in the Assembly Appropriations “Suspense File.”

Single Payer Healthcare – SB 840 would impose a government-run healthcare system on all Californians whereby the state becomes the provider of all health insurance. The impact on employers could mean fees imposed to pay for at least minimum coverage for their employees. Status: The legislature recommended “do not pass as amended” on August 17. The Governor is not expected to sign this bill anyway.

Mandatory Health Insurance – SB 1414 imposes a tax on employers with more than 10,000 employees to spend the equivalent of 8 percent of their total payroll on health insurance or pay the same equivalent amount to the state. Status: At this point the legislature has recommend “do pass.” Again, it is hoped that the Governor will veto this bill.

WARN & Airport Screeners

By Jim Kuns, J.D., Senior Helpline Consultant

When the federal government took over airport security many security screeners were laid off. Some of them brought suit against their employer, for failure to follow the notification requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). The employees lost their claim in the lower federal District Court, and then appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal court also ruled against the employees because the layoff was caused by the federalization of airport security, see - Deveraturda et al v. Globe Aviation Security Services (2006).

Virgil Deveraturda, and others were full time employees who worked for Globe Airport Security Services, Inc. (company) as screeners at San Jose International Airport (SJC). They were laid off after the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) of 2001 provided for federalization of airport security. Deveraturda and others sued the company because they weren’t given the required 60 day notice under the WARN Act. The lower district court ruled in favor of the company, because the company had no control regarding the takeover. The company had no power to dictate the nature, scope or timing of the takeover. The employees then appealed the decision to the federal Ninth Circuit.

In August of 2002 the company informed the affected employees they could apply for a job with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Those employees, who were U.S. citizens, would be rehired by TSA after assessment testing. Layoffs subsequently occurred and the normal WARN 60-day notices were not given.

Deveraturda argued that the purpose of the WARN Act is to provide “protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of ... mass layoffs. Advance notice provides workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective … loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market.” Additionally, he claimed that there is no general “government takeover” exemption in the Act, and that what happened in this case was more like a cancellation of a government contract issue.

The company argued that the takeover was more similar to the closures of failed savings and loan institutions where the courts determined the WARN Act was not applicable. Additionally, the company pointed out that when the government federalized the private airport screening it was the government’s action, not a layoff ordered by a private employer.

The Ninth Circuit Court noted that the WARN Act does say: “An employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order – (1) to each representative of the affected employees as of the time of the notice or, if there is no such representative at that time, to each affected employee; and (2) to the State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities under section 2864(a)(2)(A) of this title, and the chief elected official of the unit of local government within which such closing or layoff is to occur.”

Deveraturda claimed the courts have considered the Act applicable when the government cancels a contract that is the cause of a mass layoff. The court recognized that that was true; but noted that those cases centered on the “’…unforeseeable business circumstances defense’, …not the question whether the Act applies in the first place.” Also, in those cases an absolute government takeover was not involved, and there was no government-ordered replacement of private employees.

The court conceded that there was no prior case like this one to consider; however, the court determined that the order to federalize airport security is similar to a takeover of a bank. In citing Buck v. FDIC, (8th Cir.1996) the court recognized it as the leading case on whether the WARN Act applies when a bank is taken over by the FDIC. In that case, the FDIC created a ‘bridge bank’ to assume the liabilities and assets of two banks that had failed. Then the assets of the bridge bank were sold to a successor bank.

The court said, “The bridge bank retained the employees of the two failed banks, but after the FDIC sold the bridge bank, the acquiring bank offered employment to only 400 of the 626 employees of the bridge bank. Buck argued that the FDIC, which owned the bridge bank, acted as an employer in letting these employees go and thus had to comply with the WARN Act.

“The court rejected this argument, noting that the WARN Act would not have applied if the FDIC had simply liquidated the banks, so Congress must have intended for the FDIC to be able to take the less drastic action of creating a bridge bank and terminating … less than half the work force five months later without incurring WARN Act liability. Buck, … (explaining that to require the FDIC to comply with the WARN Act under the circumstances ‘could severely hinder the FDIC's ability to resolve bank failures as efficiently and expeditiously as it did here’).

“The court also noted the view of Senator Metzenbaum, the sponsor of the WARN Act, that ‘when the appropriate banking agency moves in to close a bank, the closing is by the Federal Government, not by the employer itself.... The bill on its face simply does not apply.’”

In deciding for the company the court said that the layoffs were the direct result of the government's using federal employees to replace private screeners. “The ATSA, enacted in the wake of 9/11, provides that ‘[t]he Under Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide for the screening of all passengers and property,’ and that ‘[a]ll screening of passengers and property at airports in the United States where screening is required under this section shall be supervised by uniformed Federal personnel of the Transportation Security Administration who shall have the power to order the dismissal of any individual performing such screening. …Thus it was the government, not Globe, that ordered Globe's employees out of work at SJC Terminal C. This being so, the WARN Act does not apply.

Recruitment Migraine?
You are not alone...

Kim Shepherd is the CEO of Decision Toolbox, a recruitment solutions provider based in Southern California with locations across the country. Decision Toolbox has been the only recruitment solution that Employers Group recommends to its members since 2002—and, in fact, has helped EG hire many of its own staff members.

The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling! Or, perhaps if you are a hiring manager: “No candidates for my openings! Critical back-fill positions open! Interview was a no-show! Offer declined!” For once, Chicken Little may have been right. . . that is, if she was an employer referring to the current job market. The sky has indeed fallen on many businesses struggling to fill positions that presented no real challenge in the past.

2006 has brought a huge influx of new positions to the job market, and seemingly overnight for some companies (although it has been a few years in the making), responses to job postings have dried up. You may have been asking “why me?” when no one applied to your opening, or when candidates failed to turn up for scheduled interviews; but rest assured, the candidate drought is universal.

Being in the recruitment business, we have the benefit of seeing an in-the-trenches snapshot of the talent market (we recruit for over 200 positions every month), and the reality is that the job market shifted to job-rich/candidate poor in mid-2005. Clients from Internet start-ups to Fortune 200s, to small and medium sized businesses are all struggling to fill even their “plum” positions. And, we’re likely to be in this job-seeker friendly market for the foreseeable future.

Why is this happening? Consider that California has gained 235,600 jobs (1.6%) since June 2005. This compares to year-over gains of 243,900 jobs (1.7%) in June 2005 and 114,700 jobs (0.8%) in June 2004. Not only has California’s net number of new jobs doubled in the past 24 months, the total number of new jobs added in this same period is almost 500,000!1 Our unemployment has likewise continued in a downward trend, from 6.8% unemployment in 2003 to 5.4% in 2005 to an eye-watering 4.9% in June, 2006.

So – there are no longer hordes of unemployed job seekers combing the job boards for your next opening and creating that landslide of resumes you’ve become accustomed to receiving. But (and here is the good news) a “job seeker” might be unemployed, but a “better opportunity seeker” is most likely employed, and is looking on the job boards. However, rather than submitting their resume for everything under the sun, they are passively reviewing opportunities and are willing to make the leap when their hot buttons are pushed. Here is how we know this (and how you can start to get some of those positions filled)…

Reaching the better opportunity seeker
The Better Opportunity Seeker is employed, but keeps a wandering eye on the buffet of new positions that appear daily on Monster.com, Careerbuilder.com, HotJobs.com, and others. According to CareerBuilder.com, four-in-ten workers plan to change jobs in the next two years, and 28 percent will do so in 2006. Often, when I present these figures at national conferences, the audience shakes its collective head in disbelief. Then, I ask whoever has changed jobs in the last 12 months to raise their hand. Universally, well over half of the people in the room raise their hands. So personally, I would put the number of workers changing jobs at closer to six-in-ten, and this statistic impacts the hiring process in two ways.

First, it means that there are candidates for your opening; they are just employed elsewhere and are being very selective about the opportunities they pursue. Second, it means that up to 60% of your workforce could turnover in the next 12 months, so you had better have solid strategies in place to backfill key positions. Whether it is a new position or backfill, you’ll need to adjust your recruitment strategies to appeal to the Better Opportunity Seekers. You have to do two things: 1) market your position as an “opportunity of choice;” and 2) be responsive and act fast once you have a candidate in hand.

Marketing your position
Marketing your position means just that: visualize yourself sitting across the desk from your ideal hire. What would you tell him or her about the job to sway their decision? What makes it unique? Challenging? That is the content for your job ad – not the bullet list of job requirements. Being responsive requires a slightly more difficult mental shift.

For years we have been paying lip-service to the catch phrase “people are our most important asset.” Sure they are – once they are hired. Job seekers have universally been treated as a commodity and they’re fighting back. Part of the problem, it’s true, is that technology revolutionized the recruitment process so dramatically that some companies are still trying to catch up. We’ve been “shopping” for talent, not recruiting it. But, job seekers are done jumping through hoops only to hear nothing from prospective employers, and they are tired of interrogation-style interviewing tactics. It’s the “Me Inc.” generation of job seekers who feel – and rightly so – that they deserve to be treated with respect at every step in the process. Or, they’ll simply take one of the other two or three job offers they have on the table.

So in addition to treating your candidates like “your most important potential asset,” you need to be responsive to their questions and applications, and move the qualified candidates through your hiring process quickly and efficiently. Shift your interviewing schedule to “now” (not next week) and be prepared to make offers on the spot. Take a few weeks to make an offer and your candidate won’t be around to hear it!

Consider the plight of an executive at one of Los Angeles’ larger and better-known real estate firms. This senior executive was conducting a final interview for a coordinator position, an entry-level role requiring just two years of experience. The candidate calmly announced that he was considering six other job offers and that in order to take this job, he would need a sign-on bonus. Last year, this executive would have shown the candidate the door; instead, the candidate got the job and the bonus.

Times have indeed changed for all of us, and it may be our reality for many months yet. To keep the sky from falling, we need to realize that the market has changed dramatically, adjust to this new reality, and start truly recruiting again!

(Editor’s Note: For information about Decision Toolbox’s services, contact Katherin Scott at Employers Group, at (213) 765-3949 or kscott@employersgroup.com.)

1. Employment Development Department State of California; http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov

Success Rests with your People
EG's People & Productivity Symposium

By Wendy Taylor, EG Editor

Employers Group sponsored its first California’s People & Productivity Symposium on July 19, 2006, which was held to coincide with our 110th Anniversary. Drawing a varied audience, from seasoned executives and operations staff to HR managers and generalists, our intention was to answer these questions: (1) Can employees produce more, better, faster and cheaper results? (2) If so, how can employers make that happen?

The answer to the first question is an unequivocal “yes.” But—as expressed by the symposium’s extraordinary lineup of change management expert speakers –changes in an organizational culture may be necessary to encourage these results. Every speaker delivered his or her unique wisdom about how a company’s leadership can link its people to productivity by setting a corporate “attitude” and establishing the processes to do so. The overall theme was how to recruit, develop and keep “engaged” employees.

As the editor of EG’s newsletters, I was privileged to attend the symposium to report back to our members who were unable to do so. Here’s what the speakers had to say.

Tony Burnham
As the event’s MC, Tony Burnham, EG’s Senior Vice President and Employment Counsel, explained it this way: “Today’s workplace is a study in contrasts, with managers evolving from controllers to coach/facilitators, from sources to resources, from rigid to flexible, from powerful to empowering.”

Tony said the ideal workplace is where employees are aligned with their employer in the “drive” to achieve mutual results. The term “engaged employees” means everyone is on the same page and accountable for their own work. Core values are owned throughout the organization—and everyone reaps the benefits in salaries and profits.

Leslie Hollis
“Highly engaged employees do not have jobs,” said Leslie Hollis, EG’s Vice President of Consulting Services. “They understand they are their own product to their employer—and re-invent themselves to be “new and improved” every year. Leslie offered a Value Formula to use as a gauge: VALUE=ST+A+R.

ST-Strengths are what you excel in (skills, education, training and experience) and what you are passionate about, plus your inner qualities and values. A-Actions are how you demonstrate your competencies and passion. R-Results are the proven “scorecard” or quantified results. Leslie encouraged hiring managers to “look for people with enlightened self-interest and with fire in their eyes!”

Dr. Curtis Crawford
Curtis Crawford, Ph.D. is the President and CEO of XCEO, a consulting firm specializing in leadership and corporate governance, and has been an executive in some of America’s leading technology companies, including IBM, Lucent and AT&T Microelectronics. He is the author of Corporate Rise: The X Principles of Extreme Personal Leadership.

Curtis began his talk with this bold statement: “True leadership is the last bastion of competitive advantage. Talent, technology, distribution—all can be outsourced, except leadership.” What makes great leaders, he asked, and how can organizations develop them? He said the difference between managers and leaders is simple.

“Managers do things right, and leaders do right things. It begins with education and continuous learning. “ He spoke about a recent study, which showed that raising the investment in workforce education by 10 percent increased productivity by 8.6 percent, while a similar increase in capital investment increased the stock value by only 3.4 percent.

In pointing out that strategic job moves are a fast track to an executive office, Curtis emphasized that “…up-and-coming executives optimally strive to achieve 80 percent mastery of a given area—sales, marketing, human resources, finance, etc.—in 18-24 months, then move on to the next knowledge base. Lateral moves groom extreme personal leaders to tackle and manage broader corporate responsibility.” HR professionals can provide an invaluable service by designing these opportunities for their stars.

X Leaders, he said, have the ability to inspire, have the courage of their convictions, demand continuous learning for themselves and others, aspire to do great things, and are committed to being better than expected. “They create opportunities and look at common things in uncommon ways,” he said. They know that they cannot succeed in a vacuum, and they help to create an environment where everyone has the potential to succeed. To them, teamwork makes the dream work.”

Judge Jim Tamm
“True collaboration begins inside an individual and works its way out into the organization,” explained Jim Tamm, Vice President of Business Consultants Network and a former California Senior Administrative Law Judge who mediated more than 1,500 employment disputes. Today, he works with a diverse client base, including the United Nations, NASA and leading global corporations.

When too many people in an organization lack collaborative skills, Jim calls it a Red Zone organization—a very low trust, high blame and combative workplace. These behaviors create lost productivity and vastly affect the bottom line. Because, in his studies, the problem was prevalent among several California companies, his firm teamed up with the Hewlett and Stuart Foundations to teach collaborative skills. They developed five essential skills to change companies into Green Zones and the conflict among the nearly 100 organizations they worked with was reduced by 67 percent, while 88 percent of participants reported more effectiveness in managing differences. The five collaborative skills they came up with are:

1. Non-Defensiveness: Shifting your focus from protecting yourself to “feeling the fear” and changing your ingrained and often unconscious reactions.
2. Truthfulness: Committing both to speak and to listen to the truth, and being able to create an atmosphere where it feels safe to raise difficult issues.
3. Self-Accountability: Understanding the choices you make through action or inaction, and taking responsibility for intended and unintended consequences.
4. Self-Awareness: Committing to knowing yourself deeply and showing a willingness to deal with difficult interpersonal issues.
5. Negotiating: Skillfully negotiating your way through the conflict that is inevitable in any long-term relationship.

In this highly interactive session, attendees thumb wrestled, sketched conflict lifelines and engaged in other activities that underscored the effectiveness of working toward mutual gain, instead of trying to win.

Lennar, a case study
Linda Fitzpatrick, Director of HR for the Western Region of Lennar Corporation, spoke with humor and insight about how Lennar involves its people in its success model. As one of the nation’s leading homebuilders, building homes in 20 states, its founding principles (from 1954) still hold true: Quality, Value and Integrity. And. they apply across the board to their customers, sales associates, shareholders and the community.

Linda said that Lennar’s management recognizes the integral role HR plays in support of the company’s goals and principles. Some of the ways the company engages its people are:

• Sales training constantly evolves, so sales associates are re-educated according to current market trends.
• Conversations are open and honest—even brutal when necessary.
• All associates have the same goal, such as one sale per week!
• Asking associates, “are you making noise or making an impact?”
• Online personal development is provided at the Lennar Success University, as well as providing a Leadership course.
• Liberal advancement policies, “…you can go anywhere you want to in the company.”
• Employees participate in community services, such as Special Olympics. Each division chooses its own community involvement.

Morris Shechtman
Morrie Shechtman is the chairman of Fifth Wave Leadership, an international change management company that has advised hundreds of CEOs and political figures, as well as the author the book, Fifth Wave Leadership, The Internal Factor.

“True accountability is not about to-do lists; it’s about establishing productive relationships--and it’s the secret to success in the 21st century,” said Morrie. “We make money through relationships, not through performing tasks. You have millions of competitors who can perform any task you can perform, whether it is entering data, making widgets or performing plastic surgery. It doesn’t matter if you are a brilliant lawyer or a brilliant surgeon. If you’re not good at relationships, you can and will fail.”

Personalizing business brings increased employee productivity. When you invest in a caring, honest, challenging relationship with someone, you breed accountability. They see that you have confidence in them and that you have their best interests at heart. “Be judgmental,” urged Morrie, “because disappointment is a catalyst for growth. The power of two-way accountability is amazing. It’s also quite lucrative, as productivity and innovation soar in this environment.”

Teamwork, Morrie explained, is not about building consensus. “If I wanted just one idea, I’d only need one person—not a team of people. In a business, I want ideas to be challenged, debated, discussed.” However, total alignment with corporate values is essential to high productivity. “Do you embrace our values or do you want to leave? You can have a mix of styles, but not a mix of values.”

Renee Ward
The day concluded with Renee Ward, a long-time recruitment and staffing executive and an early pioneer of online recruitment solutions. Today, she is the innovator of two successful online career centers, one for people over 50 at www.seniors4hire.org, and one for high school and college age youths at www.teens4hire.org.

Renee spoke about the need for employers to recognize the value of retaining and hiring older workers. She talked about the “brain drain” that will happen as the huge baby boomer generation approaches retirement. Tomorrow’s predicted labor shortage is really a skills and knowledge shortage. Yet, she said, a large percentage of older workers wants to continue working or even start a new career because of (1) necessity, and (2) the desire for a meaningful life. Renee’s premise is that employers need to wake up to the importance of older workers and maintain programs and policies to make it possible to keep them in the workforce.

The last word…
An organization’s success depends on its people; but more than that, a company’s culture must encourage engagement, continuous learning, collaboration, absolute honesty (to oneself and with coworkers), as well as a steadfast commitment to common values. Every symposium speaker helped me appreciate the value and passion I bring to my own work. From the glowing testimonials we received afterwards, I’m not alone in my assessment.

(Editor’s Note: See the back page for information about EG’s next big event, our annual Workplace & Employment Law Update!)

San Diego's "Best Places to Work" Winners Announced

By Jennifer Shin, Research Marketing and Communications Coordinator

Not-for-profit Scripps Health was one of 30 companies to be recognized as a San Diego Best Workplace according to a survey hosted by San Diego Magazine and conducted by Employers Group. In this six-month program, thousands of San Diego employers and employees were asked to share what makes working for their company special. Also included in the medium and small best workplace companies’ lists were e-marketplace Provide Commerce and consulting firm Proffer Financial.

After a detailed two step survey process conducted by Employers Group, 30 companies, ranging from a 40-person web firm to a giant healthcare corporation, were determined as San Diego’s Best Workplaces .

Other companies that topped the list were fueling and lubrication equipment company Western Pump, Inc., Loews Coronado Bay Resort and student loan provider College Loan Corporation

30 companies rise to the top
The San Diego event kicked off with Employers Group contacting over 4,000 San Diego companies to compete in the program. This year’s 30 chosen companies were a surprisingly eclectic sampling from industries ranging from food service to biomedical engineering. At the end, only 10 companies from each of the three employee-size categories (small, medium, large) were chosen as Best Workplaces, and will receive full coverage in San Diego Magazine’s September issue, available August 24.

How best workplaces were determined
Two surveys were deployed to provide the criteria for determining San Diego’s best workplaces. The first was an extensive questionnaire designed to measure company policies and practices in nine categories: work-life balance, employee voice/workplace culture, community involvement, employee turnover, pay, benefits, perks/incentives, training/opportunity for advancement, and diversity. A company’s pay practice although important to an employee is not the sole factor that guarantees a supreme workplace.

Employee satisfaction surveyed
Over 300 companies filled out at least part of the 402-question-survey, and a blind-scoring system was used to tally total the scores of the initial survey. The 104 highest scoring companies became semifinalists. For the final round, Employers Group conducted a confidential Employee Satisfaction Survey on a random sampling of employees at each semifinalist company. The sampling was based on company size, and those companies which did not provide at least 75% of the Employee Satisfaction Surveys requested were disqualified. Using employees’ answers to each of the 12 questions (“Strongly agree,” “Agree,” “Disagree,” “Strongly Disagree”), a final Employee Satisfaction score was determined.

Statements regarding Employee recognition, satisfaction with pay and corporate culture are a few examples of what employees were asked to respond to.

Employee confidentiality
Confidentiality was a major concern during the survey process. Consequently, no information that would identify an employee or specific company was shared with any third party, including San Diego Magazine. In order to determine final scores and ranking, the company score from the initial survey and the employee satisfaction score were weighted equally and added together. Statistical ties were broken using the highest employee satisfaction score

Benefits of the Best Workplace Program
Employers Group’s partnership with a highly well-known publication such as San Diego Magazine ensured winning companies the following major benefits from participating in the Best Workplaces program: better recruitment, recognition among peers, and higher employee morale. All participating companies also have the ability to fine-tune their company’s practices and policies by seeing how they stand amongst their peers. The survey is a useful tool to evaluate and improve a company’s overall efforts, plus as part of their participation they receive a summarized evaluation of the company’s scores compared to the average scores.

For more information on the winners of San Diego’s Best Workplaces, please stay tuned for the September 2006 edition of San Diego Magazine. Please also note in the months to come, Employers Group will be extending the Best Workplaces program in various areas across California. For more information, please refer to the contact information below.

(Editor’s Note: Interested in implementing a Best Workplaces Program, but unsure how? Try Employers Group’s brand new service! For questions or for more information on how to implement a Best Workplaces Program, please contact EG’s Research Services at surveys@employersgroup.com or call Juan Garcia at 213.765.3969. Find out if your company has what it takes to be a Best Workplace!)