Archive for March, 2010

Fast Company: Why Every CEO Regrets Not Attending the Psychologically Healthy Workplaces Conference

Posted by - . 0

I recently attended and spoke at the APA’s Psychologically Healthy Workplace Conference.  The goal of the conference as outlined by the APA’s visionary Assistant Executive Director, Dr. David Ballard (who also happens to have an MBA) was to celebrate and learn from,

“Employers who understand the link between employee well-being and organizational performance strive to maintain a work environment characterized by openness, fairness, trust and respect, even when difficult actions were required.  These employers are positioned for success in the economic recovery and will have a distinct competitive advantage in their ability to attract and retain the very best employees.”

The conference was organized around the core elements of the Psychologically Healthy Workplace Model:

Over the past few days, other speakers and attendees have shared their insightful overviews of the conference in the following posts:

My main takeaway from the two days was simply that…every CEO should regret not attending, both professionally and personally.

Had they participated, they would have learned about strategies to resolve many of their organization’s most vexing bottom line challenges—employee stress, lack of employee engagement, high cost of health care, truly leveraging diversity, etc—issues that directly impact growth and profitability.

CEOs would have heard the former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alexis M. Herman, in her introduction of the winners of the Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award point out the three main challenges facing companies as we move into a “do more with less” era:

  • More role ambiguity as everyone takes on more roles and responsibilities which increases the level of job stress.
  • Increased inter-generational worker tension as Boomers work longer, but graduates can’t find work.
  • Increased worker polarization and isolation as workers who lose jobs can’t find work at the same level of income or status.

But perhaps most importantly, CEOs would have seen how they benefit personally from strategies that create a psychologically healthier workplace.  They would realize that they’re not alone in the isolation of overwhelming work+life challenges and stress which are outcomes of a work+life fit model that no longer suits even for those at senior levels.

A recent CNN.com article, “Why Being a CEO Should Come with a Health Warning,” highlights the research conducted by Steve Tappin for his book, The Secrets of CEOs. From his interviews with 150 CEOs, Tappin learned that: (click here for more)

Why NPR’s Segment Is Really About “Employers Make Room for Strategic Flexibility” (Not Work-Life Balance)

Posted by - . 11

Like many, I let out a little cheer whenever a mainstream media outlet discusses the realities of managing work and life in our new work+life flex normal.   But I am consistently amazed how the real story is often lost behind the traditional language and mindset that’s not kept pace with reality.  The first segment of NPRs three part series, “More Employers Make Room for Work-Life Balance,” is an interesting case in point.

First let me join the chorus of those high fiving NPR for covering the topic!  It’s important.  But it’s also another missed opportunity to update the way we think about work and life, and position flexibility as a strategic imperative for employers and individuals.

Let’s deconstruct, update and reframe the important themes from the first segment…

Theme #1:  It’s About Strategic Flexibility

While the employer interviewed at the beginning of the NPR segment sounds like a very nice person, her real motivation for offering flexibility is that, “People who have lives are much better workers.”   Her focus wasn’t on her employees’ individual work+life fit realities (that’s not her concern), it was on the outcomes—more productivity and retention.  And those outcomes are achieved by offering flexibility, not a particular work-life “balance.”

Why it matters: Our employers can’t give us work-life balance.  All they can do is create a flexible culture and operating model that lets us manage our unique work+life fit in a way that meets our needs and the needs of the business.  No matter how nice an employer might be, there must be a strategic business imperative behind any flexibility or it will be unsustainable.

Also, the business impacts should be as broad and deep as possible up front and go beyond individual work+life fit.  Same flexibility, multiple business and individual benefits that can include working smarter, servicing clients better, managing global teams, disaster preparedness, controlling operating costs, etc.

Theme #2: It’s a Process That Considers the Unique Realities of the Individual, Job and Business

The flexibility discussed in the segment and in the accompanying SHRM study is referred to as a “policy,” or a “benefit.”  But really it’s a process that flexibly adjusts how, when and where work is done.

Every person interviewed in the segment had a different work+life fit that they achieved for distinct reasons.  And their jobs uniquely supported the type of flexibility they pursued.  The only way to determine what type of flexibility is going to work for a particular person and a specific job is through a process that supports the analysis.  Not a check-the-box benefit.

People say, “But what about consistency?”  Consistency comes from having access to the same process to analyze your unique realities and come up with a plan that’s going to work for you and your job.  A good analogy is the compensation.  Same process.  Different inputs.  Unique raises and bonuses.

Guaranteeing the same type of flexibility for everyone with a one-size-fits all policy sounds fair, but doesn’t work.   As the NRP segment notes:  Not every person wants every type of flexibility.  Not every job supports all types of flexibility.  And not every type of flexibility fits neatly into the standard, rigid flexible work options.  What about the person who telecommutes once a week and shifts his or her hours?  Is that two different options or one tailored flexible plan?

Additionally, not every business can accommodate a results-only work environment where there are no hours, and no set meetings.  Again, focusing on results and not face-time is a very important objective, but how an organization gets there in terms of strategic flexibility will look different for each business.

Why it matters: The NPR segment accurately noted, “Experts caution that many flex-work programs appear more generous on paper than in practice.”  I agree.  As long as flexibility is a benefit or policy, it will continue to sit on a website outside of the day-to-day operations.  It will look nice and sound good, but will have limited impact.

The only way flexibility will ever become a real, meaningful part of every employer’s operating model is if it is a tailored, process-based strategy that is developed by the employees and leaders of a particular business.

Theme #3:  It’s a Work+Life Flexibility Revolution

I agree with Phyllis Moen, the highly regarded sociologist quoted in the segment, “We are in the middle of something like an industrial revolution.”  But it’s not a “work-time revolution.”  It’s a work+life flexibility revolution.

Why it matters: We need to shift our mindset and language to acknowledge that work and life are one in the same.   We can’t talk about a revolution in work-time without acknowledging a related and reciprocal revolution in how we manage our time outside of work.   And it’s not just about time.  Yes, there’s an increased need for flexibility in the hours that we work, but there also needs to be flexibility in how we work, and where we work.  Taken together it’s a work+life flexibility revolution.

The deconstructed, updated and reframed takeaways from the first segment of NPR’s three part series are: It’s about strategic flexibility based on a tailored process that considers the needs of the individual, job and business.  And it’s part of a work+life flexibility revolution. Now, let’s see if the remaining segments hit these points more directly.  Here’s hoping!

One last interesting point.  NPR uses the SHRM study of “Flexible Working Benefits Offered By Some U.S. Companies” as supporting data.   However…

  1. Missing from the SHRM study’s list are reduced schedules and day-to-day flexibility.  These are two important types of flexibility that should be part of any organization’s strategy, and
  2. Considering the fact that work+life flexibility is essentially missing from SHRM national conference agenda, how can its research offer a path to a more strategic, forward-thinking conversation about flexibility?  Just a question.

What do you think?  Why don’t we update our language and approach to work and life and flexibility to be more strategic?  Do you think it matters?  Why?

Join me! I will appear live on Friday, March 19th at 4:00 pm ET/ 1:00 pm PST on Maggie Mistal’s radio show on the Martha Stewart Radio Network Sirius 112/ XM 157.  Topic:  How to Manage Your Work+Life Fit Heading Back to Work After a Layoff. Click here to sign up for a free 7 day trial of Sirius/XM and listen.

Fast Company: Was “Changing Nature of Work” as Reason to Uncouple Coverage and Employment Mentioned at Health Care Reform Summit? Results…

Posted by - . 0

Last week on the eve of the Health Care Reform Summit, I wondered if the changing nature of work, the real driver underlying the need to reform our current employer-sponsored health care system, would be mentioned.  I even created a brief survey asking you to place your bets, on “How will the ‘changing nature of work’ as key health care reform driver show up in tomorrow’s summit?”  The responses were split:

  • 50% said, “It will not be mentioned at all,” and
  • 50% said, “It will be mentioned, but tangentially.”

No one picked the other option which was, “It will be front and center.”

So, who was right?  Well, after reading the complete transcript from the day provided by Kaiser Health News (via Dr. David Ballard at the American Psychological Association), both groups were correct to a degree.  The increasing flexibility in the way we work as the powerful reason “why” we need to reform our health care system did come up, but very briefly and very tangentially.

Specifically, there were SIX references that linked nature of work and coverage.  Only six, out of a six-plus hour summit.  To be fair, there was a great deal of discussion about the need for exchanges where individuals and small businesses could purchase insurance, and the requirement to extend coverage of dependent children under their parents’ policies up to 25 years old.

But there was little explanation as to “why” there were so many millions of people either on their own, working in a small business, or without insurance in their early 20’s.  Answer: the change in work which involves more flexibility in type of employment beyond the traditional 1950’s “right out of school, work full-time for a big company for life” model.

Here are the six most specific references (I am not identifying the speaker or the political affiliation, if you are interested please review the transcript):….(Click here for more)