"Lost" Opportunity

It is interesting to have the historic vote on health care in the background as I muse about this. Many opponents of the model being proposed by the Administration talk about the trillion dollars it will cost to fund the program. As a counterpoint I look at the following situation:

My readings and research tell me that we "lose" $5 trillion annually to the direct costs of employee turnover. Additional research indicates that we lose another $200 billion annually to "presenteeism"; the spending on health benefits related to stress, lost productivity due to employees dealing with personal issues at work, and the difference between contributions from employees operating at full versus marginal productivity. I saw research recently that said in addition to those costs we send over $100 billion annually on training and development in corporate America and yet less than 10% of those dollars result in meaningful and sustained change.

My math has never been my strength, but it would seem that the "lost" opportunity that these costs represent approaches five and a half trillion dollars in the U.S. economy annually. So if we addressed some of these we could pay for health care five times over and have money left over to address other critical issues like maybe education, homeless folks, and other similar societal issues. So what am I missing?

Our current economic system has retreated in a way to a kind of capitalistic feudalism. The industrial revolution was largely based on "dumbing down" tasks and activities to make them simpler and therefore more "efficient". The skills required to perform these tasks decreased and correspondingly so did the wages. Technology provide even further assistance, machines and "systems" can do what people used to do cheaper, faster, and many times more efficiently. In exchange for "compliance" we offered employees a certain degree of economic security. Then a world economy happened. Other economies began using "our" systems combined with their own enhancements and lower wages and we lost our competitive advantage. Our solution in many cases was outsourcing to these economies. At the root we forgot to include people in our "solutions", and now we are paying for it.

Research about engagement demonstrates that the U.S. economy is operating at about 30% of its potential efficiency. Before other economies gloat too much I would point out that this puts us in the top quartile.

Organizations that have a well developed engagement strategy enjoy significant advantages in productivity, profitability, and sustainability. Those terms sound pretty capitalistic to me.

Engagement is not measured exclusively by employee "satisfaction" or tenure. It is not a short term strategy or for the faint hearted. It also requires to examine and rebuild our relationships between: employer and employed, "vendor" and customer, and organization and community. We need to examine how we hire, how we train, how we reward, how we communicate, and most importantly how we relate to and value one another. The upside is that properly executed we can recapture some of those trillions and address compelling issues and not spend anymore money.

Is is just me or does that "value proposition" sound interesting? So I would ask again:

• If not now when?
• If not us then who?

Looking forward to your thoughts......

Looking Forward ..and Back

This New Year's Eve will be a bit different than many we have celebrated. It is the end of the first decade of the new millennium among other distinctions.

It seems somehow alomost surreal to think that 10 years ago we were in a panic about what Y2K would bring. Kind of turned out to be a non event. 2001 distinguished itself largely because of 9/11 and has changed our lives and shaped foreign policy and the role of government intervention in our lives. 2008 elected the first African American president and 2009 brought the worst financial recession in generations and the effective demise of several major institutions.

It has been an interesting decade for me as well. My children entered "adulthood". I spent the bulk of the decade in a "new" career as an executive in the financial services industry, specifically in credit unions trying to help re-shape our approach and go back to our roots. I can honestly say that some of my greatest career achievements occurred with some of the work I did in those organizations. I feel that in several cases we made things not only better for our employees and "members", but actually contributed to positive social change and bettering the communities we served.

I wrote and published my first book, which was a significant personal milestone and learned to embrace social media. I also began hearing about and writing about a phenomenon called engagement that I had described as moving from compliance to commitment which still represents a personal passion for me. I have to admit that I have been frustrated with my ability to articulate this model in a way that causes more organizations to embrace it. I truly believe it is a far superior model for organizations and their members to interact whether those organizations are businesses, communities, educational institutions or any other entity that brings people together.

It has been a decade of revelation and introspection for me. I have enjoyed some of that much more than other parts. In truth I didn't care much for 2009, I am not sorry to see it go.

Starting on Friday we begin a new decade. I will be curious to see what we do with it and whether or not it provides opportunity and promise or more disappointment.

So I will be curious to hear from you as to what stood out for you in the first decade of the millenium and what you hope to see as we move into 2010.

Cautious Optimism

I just read a post on MSN that causes me to be cautiously optimistic. In the post it describes President Obama's desire to reposition much of the bailout strategy to community banks and small businesses. I think that would represent an excellent move.

I run a small business and work with many others. While I have seen many of the large financial institutions benefit from the bailout and in fairness pay back much if not all of the bail out money I can't say I have seen enormous quantities of the money "trickle down" to small businesses or lenders loosen up and provide loans to help refuel a real recovery.

As a "little guy" while I am pleased to see the stock market creeping back up I am not quite ready to declare the recession over. I live in a world of intimacy. I deal with my clients one on one. I see them continue to struggle. The community I reside in still has high unemployment and relatively low affordability, the ability for people to buy a home relative to their income. There is no grand strategy to deal with this issue in our local economy that I have seen.

I am not going to blame all of where we are on the "big banks" and the Administration. I have felt and still feel that the recession represented and continues to provide an opportunity for community banks and credit unions to step up and play a bigger role in their communities and how people see them. I have been pretty underwhelmed by the innovation and risk taking I have seen to date.

I hope that if the President is successful in this new direction smaller banks and credit unions "invest" in their communities rather than follow the example of the mega banks. At least in theory we are part of these communities. I am a big believer in the concept of think globally, but act locally.

So I will be curious to see what happens. For those in the "community" banking world if these funds come through it will be our opportunity and responsibility to step up. It has been easy to hide behind the excuse that we didn't benefit from the first round, but what will we do with our turn at bat if we get it?

A Case for Civility

I spend some time discussing a lot of different issues with people. I like to think of myself as reasonably open minded and tolerant, perhaps erroneously. I actually posted a question on LinkedIn a few months about anger and got some interesting reactions.

This last week has provided several interesting illustrations for me about the anger and energy that is out there.

The first are the comments and vehemence of reactions to President Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize. Although a lot of the reaction has been that it represents a non event or that it has been awarded prematurely if not inappropriately other reactions have been angry and frankly nasty.

I responded to a poll on LinkedIn indicating my thoughts, the award was premature, but that being an optimist I was hoping perhaps it was awarded proactively as a catalyst and got back a response telling me how wrong I was. When I responded that I hadn't actually endorsed it the person wrote me back again telling me I was wrong for not being more strident in my denunciation of all things Obama.

If you really want to see an exercise in venom , my second example involves the blogs/comment streams regarding various sportscasters predictions and comments about everything ranging from college football to professional golf. It is some nasty stuff.

I read earlier this week about a Delaware school districts decision to transfer a six year old to reform school for six months because he brought an eating utensil to school. The utensil includes a blade which makes it a weapon under the school's zero tolerance policy. In the interests of "consistency" and the concern about perceived potential racial bias the policy does not take into consideration the circumstances, academic record of the student, etc. As you might suspect I think this policy is not well conceived or administered. I wonder if the folks who crafted it are available for further consultation on the Le Garrett Blount incident (sarcasm intended).

What was really striking was the comment stream initially directed at the school district, but then involving the parents, racial profiling, and even managed to blame President Obama for this one.

Several felt that the mother is criminally negligent and should be incarcerated for as a substitute for her child's suspension, others accused people of protesting the punishment of being racially biased, comparing the issue to a child who brought a handgun to school and killed a classmate. Quickly the discourse devolved into name calling aimed at each other and incorporating the right to bear arms, etc. Pretty nasty.

Perhaps I am overly tolerant of others viewpoints. Has "social media" eliminated all the rules? Have we lost our ability to "agree to disagree". Do we need laws and "policies" to "explain" to us what appropriate dialogue is with each other.

The school's defense of their policy was "consistency". Those of you who know me recognize this is one of my least favorite words because in our new vernacular it means I don't have to use judgement as long as I follow "policy".

I will freely admit to being opinionated, intense, and maybe even at times overbearing and appearing arrogant. I strive for and will continue to be civil.

Is it just me or have we become desensitized to civility kind of like sex and violence? Your thoughts appreciated.

Why Are We So Angry?

My brother recently sent me an awesome slide show titled Tips that may bring you a beautiful life- there were a number of "tips" that really struck me in the elegance and simplicity of their message, but one that especially spoke to me was " life is too short to waste time hating anyone" another equally profound and difficult for me was "make peace with your past so it doesn't mess up your present".

I read a lot. I will admit that aspire to one day be a positive force for change and a "lighthouse" for showing people a different way to interact with one another, especially in the workplace. As an "aspiring" writer and change agent people who can craft important messages with words, art or music humble me and make me wistful.

Some of what I read these days causes me to posit my question. I have read things ranging from Tiger Woods performance as a golfer to Michelle Obama's decision to wear shorts on a journey to trek the Grand Canyon and the solutions suggested by the CEO of Whole Foods to a less invasive way to deal with the health care crisis. The point isn't that people have strong differing opinions, it is the vehemence and the anger I see reflected in the words they choose and the personalization. Can't we disagree without demonizing?

Ted Kennedy's death has "officially" ended the Camelot era. I can't say that I agreed with his political positions terribly often and I am old enough to remember some of the more "colorful" episodes in his life. I do think that he contributed to many things that many of us have benefited from and and that he truly earned his mantle as "the great lion of liberalism".

I don't live in a surreal world. I have personally felt the effects of our current economy and no many others that have as well. I can't say that I blame any particular individual or party for where we are. I feel there has been plenty of "contributory negligence" on the part of many people including individual American consumers.

I mentioned in a previous blog that I am concerned that as the financial markets improve we declare the recession over! I still hope that we learned some things. A recovery that doesn't include much higher employment rates, the foundation of some solutions to the health care issues we face, and some means of dealing with the anxiety faced by many families seems a little empty to me. Maybe I am just feeling melancholy as summer begins to wind down, but I don't think so.

It seems to me that right after 9/11 we were angry, but we were also resolved and willing to put aside some of our differences and stand together. When we band together only in anger I get concerned. I have seen that movie- in Germany, in Palestine, and in other parts of the world. I don't like the way the movie turned out.

So I guess I will leave you with another "quote" from my brother's slide show-" Live your life with the 3 E's -Energy, Enthusiasm, and empathy and the 3 F's- Faith, Family, and Friends". I don't know about you, but I think that sounds way better than anger.........

A "Healthy" Debate

I have been following the discussion and debate around our health care crisis and alternative solutions with particular interest. As a human resources practitioner and consultant I have probably been involved with health care in one fashion or another for thirty years.

The discussion of whether or not we should have a national plan is particularly interesting, as is the general debate on where the "fault" is for where we are at today.

I used the word crisis because I believe we really do have a crisis. Although I think we have some of the most sophisticated systems and processes in the world we have huge issues with our delivery system. It is also interesting to me how little the average person understands or aspires to understand the health care system.

I had a chance to listen to a HBR (Harvard Business Review) Idea Cast with Dr. Richard Bohmer the other day. It was probably one of the most succinct discussions of the issues with health care that I have heard in years. Dr. Bohmer points out that there are really are three major issues with our health care system in his mind: how we define a service, how we finance health care, and how we deliver health care. I found his discussion really valuable. He also gives a great explanation of the difference between managing health care which deals with defining and delivering services as opposed to "managed care" which he refers to as an insurance or financing model. I won't bore you with all the details, but I will tell you it is a value added 13 minutes to listen to his interview.

Health care is delivered and defined in his opinion currently as a series of separate events beginning with diagnosis and then proceeding through treatment and "follow up". He argues that health care delivery and costing should be based on outcomes rather than the way we currently track and price it. It is kind of like lean manufacturing or total quality; success is determined by outcome not process.

What I found interesting is most of the debate I hear is about providing access to care and financing, I hear very little about outcomes.

The other thing I find I hear very little about is the individuals responsibility in their health care. I don't mean just paying for it, I mean accountability for lifestyle choices and related activities that directly and indirectly affect health care costs.

Most of us have historically had our health care provided through our employer, our spouses employer, or in some cases the government. We pay a fraction of the real cost and understand the way it works like we understand Cantonese. The insurance industry doesn't make it much easier. For years health care was considered like paid time off a "fringe benefit". Then we noticed that the cost of that particular fringe benefit continued to go up at double digit rates long after wage inflation receded. By that time we had created an entitlement.

When this becomes particularly interesting is when we start to track connections. Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford believes (and I agree) that much of our health care related costs connect directly or indirectly to our work environment. If you are stressed about your job it effects your health. If you are stressed about your home life it effects your work. Some studies say it costs us $200 billion annually! In a shaky economy when you are concerned about losing your job and your health care benefits the problem accelerates.

I also believe at least at this stage there is little about personal accountability in health care delivery. We are suing Big Tobacco successfully for misleading advertising and withholding information about the addictive and health risks of smoking, but we are reluctant to reduce or deny care to smokers.

We want to label the calorie content in food, but do we want to deny or reduce coverage to those who have bad eating or exercise habits? Are we ready for employers to require wellness programs and screening as a function of company provided health care insurance?

Do companies educate their employees about things they can do to affect their health and the companies costs? Not many in my experience. Should we allow "tiered" coverage for people who deliberately practice behaviors that could or actually affect their health?

I don't mean to imply that as Dr. Bohmer points out "fixing" health care is a complicated issue, but should we be addressing personal accountability along with delivery, definition, and financing?r

To me this speaks of respect, engagement, and personal competency. What do you think?

Imagination

In my dream the angel shrugged and said ...this time if we fail, it will be a failure of imagination and then she gently placed the world in the palm of my hand.

Brian Anderson



I have to admit that this particular quote is one of my all time favorites. It has been an interesting week, we are halfway through the first month of 2009. The economy is still very rocky, but I saw some interesting things as well.



Earlier this week a pilot skillfully landed an aircraft in a frozen river and 155 people walked away. There were no casualties. Listening to the stories from the survivors it was uplifting to hear not only about the captain, but about passengers helping each other and the courage and action of the ferry crews and others.



A friend shared a sad story about a hate crime that occurred over 20 years ago because of anger and ignorance and fear generated from tough economic circumstances and a desire to blame it on others because of their nationality. I hope we are past that.



Another colleague talked about how we let people like Madoff becomes heroes or "rock stars" and who is responsible for changing it and how long will it take. I responded that we have to address it individually and role model the appropriate behavior for ourselves, each other and our families.



Dr. King gave his "I have a dream" speech over 45 years ago. On Tuesday we will inaugurate an African American president. The energy around that inauguration is a palpable force. The "audacity of hope" and opportunity for change energy he brings seem to have captured not just the imagination of the United States, but the world. I had an opportunity to watch some of the inaugural festivities today. I have to tell you that whether you voted for him or not the energy that this president brings is something to behold. At the Democratic convention former President Clinton indicated that the United States is at our best when we demonstrate the power of our example rather than the example of our power. I felt proud of the example I saw today.



As many of you know I am deeply committed to the spirit of engagement, that asking your employees, your customers, and your community to "join up" with you in supporting a common vision built on a foundation of trust is a profoundly better way to lead organizations. I have decided to make it my commitment to try to spread that concept and model to as many organizations as I can through my consulting, my writing, and my speaking. One of the people who read my book was kind enough to accurately synthesize my intent in writing it in her review. It is not a how to manual, it is a journal of my experiences and a model of a system and a path I have committed myself to. I don't get it right all the time and I am not setting myself up as an example, rather I am attempting to share my experience.



So I have decided that I am going to accept President Obama's invitation to join him in the audacity of hope. I am going to take responsibility for my actions and my journey and also to try to create environments of engagement and commitment rather than compliance and fear wherever I can.



Where will your imagination take you over the course of this year?