Good Company Blog

Psychologically Healthy Workplace Conference Brings Employers, Experts Together

2010-03-10T03:20:59Z

Our 2010 Psychologically Healthy Workplace Conference covered a range of topics including workplace heath promotion, wellness communication, employee recognition, work-life issues, engagement, work stress, diversity issues and more.

Thanks to our attendees, presenters and cooperating organizations for making the event a success.

It was wonderful to see some old friends, meet online connections in person and spark new relationships that are sure to produce some exciting collaborations in the future.

Stay tuned to this blog, as well as the April issue of our Good Company E-Newsletter for coverage of the conference.

Congratulations to APA's 2010 Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award Winners

2010-03-07T23:56:55Z

Creating a psychologically healthy workplace takes a firm commitment even in the best of times, and as the recession hit full swing, many organizations (even healthy ones) had to make some difficult decisions. In a 2009 survey conducted by the American Psychological Association, 68 percent of employed Americans reported that their employers had taken steps such as putting a freeze on hiring or wages, laying off staff, reducing work hours, benefits or pay, requiring unpaid days off or increasing work hours as a result of the weak economy.

Yet while the damage mounted, reports surfaced of surprisingly high employee satisfaction and engagement. Did these accounts represent a workforce committed to helping their employers through tough times, or were employees simply hunkering down, counting themselves fortunate to still have jobs and afraid to make waves? Only time will tell, but whatever dynamic is at play in your organization likely has a lot to do with how employees feel they were treated when the chips were down.

Employers who understand the link between employee well-being and organizational performance strived 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.

To highlight those organizations committed to creating a culture of health and productivity, the American Psychological Association just presented its 2010 Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards (PHWA) and Best Practices Honors.

The five PHWA winners described here have implemented a comprehensive set of workplace practices designed to optimize outcomes for both employees and the organization. The ten Best Practices honorees, that you can read about here, highlight a variety of approaches that effectively meet the unique needs of an organization and its workforce.

We congratulate our winners and hope that their examples help showcase the power that a healthy workplace has to drive positive change and help individuals, organizations and communities thrive.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2010-02-21T23:30:33Z

A good friend of mine is cleaning out her office this week. You guessed it; yet another victim of recession induced cost cutting measures. But no – (thankfully) she hasn’t lost her job. Just her space.

Late last year her employer evaluated every job in the company to identify who truly needed and who did not need a desk in company-owned buildings. By reallocating unnecessary workspace, the company will save millions by leasing out the newly available office space. As a knowledge worker and manager, it was determined that my friend no longer needed a company-supplied office. So although she lives just 2½ miles from the corporate headquarters, she will be working from home on a full-time basis.

This latest trend seems to take a new angle on telecommuting/workplace flexibility discussion. Seeking greater autonomy, employee advocates have long argued for the right to work from home. Scores of websites coach employees on building the case for telecommuting. Benefits to the company are frequently cited, ranging from productivity increases to corporate responsibility/environmental impact. This fervor for the right to work where and when you choose has lead to the popularity of books like Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It and its case for building a Results Only Work Environment (ROWE).

It is true that employees ask for this. In the employee survey business, we frequently see requests from employees for the opportunity to occasionally work from home. Many state they would love to work one day a week from home or to be able to telecommute when they are home with a sick child.

But now, it seems, the tide has turned. As employers realize that knowledge workers can in fact work just as effectively from home, many companies are choosing to eliminate the extra expense of providing office space for these employees.

There is certain appeal to the idea of working in one’s pajamas, avoiding office politics, not to mention cutting the daily commute. But as the opportunity to work from home becomes an expectation to work from home, it seems to change the dynamics of the equation. And as the opportunity to report to the office becomes a privilege or a perk, perhaps we should pause to think about what we lose. Camaraderie, collaboration, mentoring, a sense of community and belonging – can these truly be replicated from a distance? And what about the boundaries between work and personal time? As one friend put it “You never get a snow day when you’re working from home. There’s really no reason for you not being available – all the time!”

So what do you think? What has been your experience with working from home? Positives? Negatives? Unintended consequences? I’d love to hear how it’s playing out in the organizations where you work.

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevharb / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Don’t Always Believe the Hype: Ask for Sound Numbers (and Promises)

2010-02-11T12:33:40Z

I was on my way into work one morning when I heard an ad on the radio. The company guaranteed that it could save its clients up to 50% on the cost of its product or service. Something about the ad made me uneasy, and then I realized that it was the “up to 50%” element of that guarantee. They are hedging on their guarantee. Essentially, the company promises to save its clients somewhere between 0% and 50% on their costs.

Yet, this seems to be the mode of today’s guarantee. Claiming that improved engagement can result in up to 20% improvement in productivity or that the use of social media can improve your customer contact by as much as 60% only implies that you will likely see some improvement, but there’s really no guarantee. Yet, these kinds of claims are made all the time about a variety of interventions.

Now, that is not to say that engagement initiatives and social media are bad ideas. The problem is that a whole lot of consultants, researchers, and companies are trying to convince you that you are guaranteed to see results by using their product, implementing their pet program, or relying on some magic bullet technology. Yet, if you read the fine print and pay attention to how the message is delivered, you can see what the seller is really “guaranteeing,” which often isn’t much.

There are lots of factors that influence the effectiveness of an organizational intervention, whether it is employee involvement, work-life balance, recognition, growth and development, or health and safety. In addition, some of the predictive power of interventions is actually really weak, but they don’t put that in the press release. Instead, they say things like, ‘our measure of engagement is significantly associated with organizational performance’ – even if their measure of engagement only accounts for .001% of organizational performance and is only (statistically) significant because it’s based on a sample of 30,000 people. In situations like that, it’s almost impossible NOT to find “significant” results.

What does this mean for organizations and managers interested in the latest “research” on healthy workplace practices? Well, it means a few things:

Be skeptical of what you read on the web, especially when it comes in the form of a press release. A press release is not the most effective foundation for a decision. Read the full report with a critical eye.
Become a better consumer of statistical results. Just because something is significant in a statistical sense does not mean it is meaningful in a practical sense. I iterated this point in a previous posting on health care consumers, but it deserves a mention here as well. Lots of things can lead to “significant” effects, with the most powerful driver being sample size. And, given that lots of consulting firms provide reports using sample sizes in the tens of thousands, statistical significance really takes a back seat to practical meaningfulness. Financially, it doesn’t make sense to spend $100,000 on an intervention that will result in only $20,000 in cost savings. Having an understanding of the real power of an effect is key to interpreting its practical meaning for your organization.
Finally, be wary of advocates who push a particular type of intervention, regardless of the circumstances, especially when use of that practice will produce greater profit for that person or organization. Many of the reports and so-called studies released by consulting organizations are conducted and released strictly to sell their own products.

There are a lot of competing perspectives, interventions, and approaches for developing a healthy work environment. Many of them have true scientific and/or practical merit, but some are really a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Organizational decision makers would be wise to consider all of these programs with a healthy dose of skepticism, making informed, data-driven decisions. Most of all, organizations should avoid any “guarantee” that doesn’t come with a firm lower threshold of improvement.

We wouldn’t let academic institutions get away with guaranteeing that students with a degree will earn up to 200 times more money, or let doctors get away with guaranteeing that by using their services, people will live up to 50 years longer. Why do we let consultants and management fad salespeople get away with selling us a different fictional guarantee?

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/phunk / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Working Well with Others

2010-02-10T21:34:25Z

What impact do our personalities have on our co-workers? How do our personal approaches to problem solving help or hinder our ability to accomplish our work? How can we be more effective communicators?

Our personality and behavior influence how we act at work and how we get along with others, so understanding ourselves and why we process information the way we do can help us work better with others. Are you a visual learner but your boss likes to spend hours in meetings giving long, verbal explanations? Take notes – it will help you organize the information in a way that makes sense to you without putting pressure on your boss to change her communication style to meet your specific needs. Instead of explaining to your team how you think and process information, take the opportunity to understand yourself and your needs, yet listen and learn from others about how to most effectively operate within your organization.

Oftentimes employees expect the system or people around them to change, to accommodate their needs, but realistically, that’s not going to happen. I notice this especially with younger employees just starting out in the workforce. Tammy Erickson’s book, Plugged In: The Generation Y Guide to Thriving at Work really resonated with me – she does an excellent job presenting oodles of research to show how different Gen Y is and where we’re coming from. Tammy also points out how much Gen Y has to contribute to the workplace and how our ideas about doing things differently are great, but not always realistic. The point of the book, in my opinion, is to help Gen Y employees learn how to fit in and get their ideas heard by working within the system before they can best navigate ways to change it. There are so many different personalities, age groups, and management styles at play in the workplace. Since you cannot change the people you work with and oftentimes cannot change the rules, figure out how you can tackle issues by adjusting your method – this will bring more results than struggling to do things your way.

Approaching a difference of opinion without taking it personally can take practice, but it’s worth it. If you are open-minded and really try to understand the other person’s point of view, you could come away with a broader understanding of the problem, which will only help you implement the best solution (even if it’s not your solution or is a hybrid of it). By taking a deep breath and being open to new ways of thinking you may find it spurs your creative thinking and is more effective than digging your heels in and sticking to your own ideas. Learning more about how we as individuals learn and interact with others and then approaching difficult relationships like a challenge (e.g., “How can I make this work?” or “how can I adjust my style so this person better understands me?”) benefits employees and the organization. Knowing thyself is the first step, but working well with others is essential.

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/clspeace / CC BY 2.0

Focusing on What Really Matters - Extra Cheese

2010-02-09T16:18:34Z

Last year many organizations had to make some pretty difficult decisions in order to stay afloat. Pay was slashed, employees were let go and benefits were cut to the bone. To their credit, some employers are trying to support employees and keep spirits up, even under these difficult circumstances, but I wonder -- where's the line between morale boosters that employees actually appreciate and trivial niceties that come across as superficial and in some cases offensive, given the hardships many employees have faced?

The Onion captured this issue nicely in its May 2008 article, Potential Employee Uprising Quelled With Free Pizza, where they write:

A massive employee backlash over low wages and increased workload was narrowly averted this week when company management arranged to have eight large pizzas delivered to the design firm Cobalt Media, instantly quelling months of mounting resentment and dissatisfaction.

The story goes on to make the point with a quote from a fictional employee:

"Everyone's been fed up and ready to explode at management for weeks," production designer Carolyn Wurster said. "But then all those pizzas showed up, and it just didn't seem like the right time to start demanding a legitimate healthcare plan or salary raises that reflect the amount of work we do."

Okay, so sometimes good intentions go awry, but other times its clear that an organization is simply doling out little perks to gloss over the real issues. I grew up in Texas, where we love our idioms, and know good and well what you can't polish (figuratively anyway), but assuming an employer really does have the best interests of its employees at heart...

How can an organization maintain a positive climate and build morale during tough times, without coming across as superficial and condescending?

What has your organization done and how have employees responded?

Special thanks to Dr. Sheila Gardner, who heads up New Hampshire's State-Level Psychologically Healthy Workplace Awards, for bringing this article to my attention.

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/su-lin / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Keynote Speaker Announced for 2010 Award Ceremony

2010-01-19T20:08:34Z

I'm thrilled to announce that we've confirmed the keynote speaker for APA's 2010 Psychologically Healthy Workplace Award Ceremony [drum roll, please...]

The Honorable Alexis M. Herman

Former U.S. Secretary of Labor

We were fortunate enough to have Secretary Herman deliver the address at our inaugural event back in 2006 and given what's been going on in the economy since then, we thought it was a great time to bring her back.

Alexis M. Herman was America’s 23rd Secretary of Labor and the first African American ever to lead the United States Department of Labor.

As secretary, she focused on a prepared workforce, a secure workforce, and quality workplaces. With that mandate in mind, she consolidated the Department’s wide array of skills development programs into a simpler, more efficient system. She led the effort to institute a global child labor standard; moved people from welfare to work with dignity and launched the most aggressive unemployed youth initiative since the 1970’s. Under her tenure unemployment in the country reached a thirty-year low and the nation witnessed the safest workplace record in the history of the Department of Labor. Herman’s actions as secretary were a reflection of her understanding of the needs of America’s workers and the challenges they faced as this nation approached the 21st Century.

A successful businesswoman and authority on the evolving workforce, Secretary Herman will speak to today's issues, including competition, work-life issues and the importance of creating a healthy workplace as we head into the economic recovery.

Four Minutes Closer to Sustainability

2010-01-13T21:24:57Z

After reading Adam Werbach’s book Strategy for Sustainability I was impressed with his writing style, use of examples, and how easy it would be for any manager to take something away from it. I actually used the book in a recent e-newsletter article, Sustainability: Achieving the Competitive Advantage. Here’s a video of Adam, CEO for Saatchi & Saatchi S, explaining how strategy for sustainability must be driving the organization’s bottom line and how imperative it is to get employees engaged. He also touches on whole-systems thinking and the examples he uses are very relevant.

Check it out – it will only take four minutes of your day and have you thinking about it long after.

A Systemic Approach to Creating a Psychologically Healthy Workplace

2010-01-09T21:27:58Z

I came across a couple of interesting articles this week. One was on gainsharing, and the other was on creating a flexible workplace. On the surface, there appears to be no real similarity between the two topics. However, when you start to drill down a little deeper, there is one key theme that ties the two articles together.

In the gainsharing article, the author discusses gainsharing as a practice that, for all intents and purposes, ties employee involvement practices to employee recognition practices. In the flexible workplace article, the author ties work-life balance practices to health and safety practices. There are likely numerous other examples in which practices from the five psychologically healthy workplace practice categories (which also include employee growth and development) are integrated to create more comprehensive organizational programs.

All too often, it seems that organizations want to emphasize what they have accomplished in one area, rather than looking to see how the five areas overlap and influence each other. For example, many organizations hold up their wellness programs, with an emphasis on health risk assessments, weight loss and smoking cessation, as a sign that they care about the health and well-being of their employees, but they then do little to give employees more autonomy in the workplace, input into decision making, opportunities for career development, recognition for their accomplishments or opportunities for workplace flexibility.

Each of the five workplace practice categories can have a positive contribution to employee health and well-being and organizational effectiveness. However, each also meets a specific set of needs that employees have. Employee involvement practices meet employee needs for autonomy and input, and work-life balance practices meet employee needs for personal resource allocation (especially in allocating resources to work and non-work life). Recognition practices meet employee needs to feel accomplished and valued, while health and safety practices meet physical and mental health needs. Employee growth and development practices meet employee needs to expand one’s professional repertoire and advancement options.

The five categories of practices all meet different types of employee needs, so excelling in one type of practice is insufficient in creating a comprehensive psychologically healthy workplace. As we move into a new year, I hope that more organizations will take a systemic approach to creating a psychologically healthy workplace. This approach requires combining individual practices from each of the five categories and aligns them with them organization’s vision, structure and culture. There is no better way for an organization to create sustainable competitive advantage than by creating practices, processes and programs that leverage the uniqueness of that organization.

‘Tis the Season to Be Eating

2009-12-16T11:30:24Z

It’s that time of year again. The season for sharing, giving and spending time with family and friends. Oh yeah – and let’s not forget eating.

In light of the current economy, many are scaling back this year. Yet plenty of food will be consumed and wasted this holiday season. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that nearly 100 BILLION pounds of food go to waste each year in the United States. That’s literally tons of food every day. Up to 27 percent of the edible food available.

In the interest of sustainability, Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota, has taken steps to reduce that waste. At a school which prides its self on nurturing community service and instilling social responsibility, student food service employees were appalled by the amount of food that was wasted every day. Like many college cafeterias, Concordia’s meal plan offers a variety of foods – all you can eat – for one fixed price. Too much food was being left on the trays to be discarded.

So when students returned to school this fall they noticed something missing from the cafeteria. Trays were gone. As part of the college’s “campus roadmap to sustainability” the dining services cafeteria had become trayless.

The impact was huge. Based on food waste studies, the college estimates a decrease in food wasted of around 24 percent. That’s nearly 150 pounds of food per day – enough to feed nearly 120 people. Add to that the water and utilities saved by not washing trays, means substantial savings in financial costs and environmental impact.

Could trayless cafeterias also be the solution for the infamous “freshman fifteen?”

I suspect that the policy probably will have positive health impacts as well. I’m a big fan of the work of Brian Wansink – consumer psychologist, marketing professor and author of the book Mindless Eating. Dr. Wansink’s research shows that portion size, plate size, variety and convenience of food access all impact how much we eat. People eat 20 to 25 percent more from larger packages. They drink 25 to 30 percent more from a short wide glass compared with a tall thin one. They dish up an average of 31 percent more ice cream when provided a 34 oz compared with a 17 oz bowl. They’ll eat 59 percent more Chex Mix served from a gallon sized bowl compared with Chex Mix served from a half gallon sized bowl. Although students and staff are still free to eat as much as they like, I’m guessing many take less and eat less when they can’t use a tray.

Dr. Jim Aageson, who led the trayless dining initiative at Concordia, said they hadn’t tested that hypothesis. But he agreed that there could be an impact. "When I have a tray I take more food, and when I have more food I most often eat more than I need," said Aageson. "Going trayless is certainly a plus for the responsible use of food, the environment and me."

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/freakgirl / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Congressional Briefing on Flexible Work Arrangements: Working for America’s Employers and Employees

2009-12-11T14:01:19Z

Employers, employees, and union representatives will highlight flexible work arrangements that have been critical to their success.

Monday, December 14, 2009, 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Capitol Visitors’ Center, SVC-208 & 209, Washington, DC

(Senate and House staff are both invited to attend this briefing.)

Flexible work arrangements have played a key role in helping employers attract and retain employees, reduce absenteeism and turnover and improve productivity. Likewise, flexible work arrangements have enabled many workers (both hourly and salaried) to hold down jobs while caring for family members, addressing their own health conditions, pursuing job training, and addressing other life circumstances that arise -- everything from military deployments to domestic violence.

At this briefing, employers, workers and union representatives will describe why flexible work arrangements have been effective business and workforce strategies, and the hallmarks of successful flexible work arrangements programs.

Speakers

Ellen Galinsky, President and Co-Founder, Families and Work Institute
Amy Richman, Senior Consultant, WFD Consulting
Nina Madoo, Senior Director of Workplace Strategies, Marriott International, Inc.
Deb De Marco Bee, Customer Care and Sales Specialist, Marriott International, Inc.
Fiona Grant, Senior Director--Human Resources, Accenture
Katherine Sleep, CEO, List Innovative Solutions, Inc.
Kris Rondeau, Founder and Organizer, Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers
Janice Hallman, Web Designer, AARP

This is the second in a two-part briefing series sponsored by the following organizations:

American Association of People with Disabilities
AARP
American Psychological Association
Corporate Voices for Working Families
Family Values at Work Consortium
Legal Momentum
National Military Family Association
National Partnership for Women & Families
New America Foundation
Society for Human Resource Management
United States Chamber of Commerce
WorldatWork
Workplace Flexibility 2010

Please RSVP to Bill Margeson at wam32@law.georgetown.edu

Interviewing Disaster Prevention

2009-11-24T22:17:23Z

Over dinner this week a friend described a recent recruiting fiasco. She overheard a co-worker ask a potential hire, “So, are you married? Do you have kids yet?” If you are cringing right now, I can relate, but obviously the employee did not know there was anything wrong with this type of “icebreaker” questioning.

Employees that interview potential hires often go into interviews without any background or training in HR or employment law, which can end disastrously. Employers that train employees before they enter situations that can ultimately put the organization at risk will find that it is worth the effort. Just because an employee is capable of managing a team of analysts, doesn’t mean that employee should be representing your organization at the interview table.

As an employer, you wouldn’t hire someone who isn’t adequately prepared to do the job, and as such, it does not make sense to send an employee who’s unprepared to conduct an interview. Take the opportunity to train your employees before you send them out to represent your company. First impressions are important and often an interviewee’s first exposure to your organizational culture, so impress them, don’t leave them wondering if they have been discriminated against.

What questions your employees ask during interviews is important, but the questions they don’t ask are crucial. That’s why we developed a tool -- Interview Questions: Are Yours Legally Sound? -- (yes, it’s actually a quiz) to help everyday employees who find themselves having to conduct interviews.

Readers – what about you? What’s the most bizarre, inappropriate or illegal interview question you’ve been asked?

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/helenk/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Why Doing Things Right Doesn’t Always Produce Desired Results

2009-11-04T17:37:15Z

The Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program emphasizes the need to utilize systematic processes to develop and implement workplace initiatives. In fact, the program specifically addresses the need to rely on effective communication methods so that initiatives meet employee and organizational needs.

However, even after a systematic process for developing and implementing initiatives, sometimes they don’t work as they were intended. Believe it or not, economic decision-making theories may play a role in understanding why. The underlying disconnect may be the result of bounded rationality.

Bounded rationality argues that people are inherently limited in their ability to make rational decisions. People lack the time and cognitive ability that is required to make fully informed, rational choices. An organization may ask employees about their desired level of autonomy, but asking such a question actually assumes employees can fully comprehend all of the implications of their response.

When providing input into new initiatives, then, employees’ input is based on their best guess, rather than on a complete assessment of the situation. Sometimes, that best guess sounds better in theory than it does in practice.

Take for example a new initiative that would provide employees with the ability to telecommute two days each week. Employees are asked how willing they would be to take advantage of such a practice. Most employees would respond in the affirmative, thinking that it would save them commuting time costs, along with the ability to have more flexibility. However, these same employees may not think about the technological requirements, the difficulty connecting with others also working from home, the need to learn how to shut out distractions, and the need to self-manage. As these unconsidered consequences begin to surface, fewer and fewer employees may be willing to participate in the telecommuting option.

Even if a lot of these issues were addressed prior to the implementation of the program, the theory of bounded rationality argues that people are incapable of fully processing all of the relevant information. We rely on selective perception, filtering information that we find to be “most relevant” and relying on heuristics, intuition, and biases to “fill in” the remaining information. An article in a recent issue of Personality and Individual Differences even suggests that spending too much time and energy in decision making all but guarantees dissatisfaction with the final decision.

So, what can organizations do to limit the potential negative consequences of bounded rationality? Well, for starters, the more information that can be provided up front about the possible benefits and disadvantages, the more likely employees will be to make more informed (though not perfectly informed) decisions. Remember, though, that organizational decision makers and survey designers also suffer from bounded rationality.

Perhaps the best suggestion is to remember that for large-scale initiatives, such as the introduction of a telecommuting initiative, survey input is not the place to stop. Rather, survey input should be used in more qualitative forums, such as formal, small-group feedback sessions or focus groups, so that a variety of perspectives can be leveraged to identify as many issues and implications as possible. Then, managers can integrate as many of these perspectives as possible into the program development and implementation phases, and employees can have a greater selection of issues to choose from when deciding whether telecommuting is a viable option for them.

Lastly, organizations need to rely on continuous evaluation and refinement of initiatives and programs to ensure that they remain viable. This continuous, on-going process can identify and address unintended negative consequences that detract from the utility and effectiveness of the initiative.

The bottom line is that organizational decision makers should not be surprised that a program does not automatically produce the expected results. From a bounded rationality perspective, managers and employees are flawed in their ability to make fully rational decisions, so our best guess, even when it is based on the available evidence, does not guarantee success.

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/geekgirly/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Understanding the New Mental Health Parity Law

2009-10-20T16:13:40Z

In 2008, Congress passed legislation that requires private health insurance plans to provide equal coverage for mental and physical health. The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act) was passed with the intent to improve access to appropriate treatment for people suffering from mental health disorders and extend equal coverage to all aspects of health insurance plans. The act preserves existing state parity and consumer protection laws while extending protection of mental health services to those not protected by state laws. The Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act was designed to include mental health coverage for both in-network and out-of-network services. The law applies to groups with more than 50 employees and goes into effect January 1, 2010

Click here for more information and our Employer’s Guide to the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

In the presentation, below, Ron Bachman, President and CEO of Healthcare Visions, Inc., reviews the basics of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 and what it means for employers.

Understanding the New Federal Parity Law

View more presentations from Psychologically Healthy Workplace Program.

Ronald E. Bachman, F.S.A., M.A.A.A. is president and CEO of Healthcare Visions, a thought leadership firm dedicated to advancing ideas and policy initiatives that are transforming the U.S. healthcare market. He is a Senior Fellow of the Center for Health Transformation (CHT) and a Senior Fellow at the Wye River Group on Health. Mr. Bachman is an actuary with extensive experience in healthcare strategy for payers, providers and employers. He is a retired partner from PricewaterhouseCoopers where he consulted to a broad range of clients including: employers, HMOs, hospitals, physicians, indemnity carriers, BlueCross BlueShield plans, as well as State and Federal Agency clients. He has served as a designated expert on actuarial issues to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Congressional Budget Office, the Department of Labor, the National Institute of Mental Health, and was an expert resource on mental health policy to several members of Congress, including Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Pete Domenici. Mr. Bachman was instrumental in providing technical and market advice on mental health that resulted in the passage of the 2008 Wellstone-Domenici Parity Act.

Faulty Assumptions in Creating a Psychologically Healthy Workplace

2009-10-07T11:49:33Z

A few days ago, I came across an interesting article focusing on the dumbest practices used by U.S. companies. That got me thinking about some of the faulty assumptions that sometimes drive workplace initiatives that focus on employee health and well-being. So, I reflected on some of the postings on this blog and others, some of the summaries in the psychologically healthy workplace database, and some of my general experience working with organizations.

Through all of that, I generated a list of my top five faulty assumptions that can drive certain initiatives in organizations. Drum roll please!

Assuming that what works in one organization will work in our organization: A whole lot is made of “best practices” within an industry. Organizations can receive recognition for their family-friendliness, work environment, or even for innovative practices that promote a psychologically healthy workplace. An organization that receives this type of recognition typically has made a strategic decision to invest in something meaningful to that organization and its employees. As a part of that strategic decision, the organization has created a structure and a culture that supports that investment. Other, less recognized, organizations may try to imitate the specific policies or practices of these recognized organizations, but unless those policies and practices are aligned with the structure and culture of the organization, those practices will not be nearly as successful. So, rather than trying to be as good as the next competitor, by offering the same types of workplace programs and initiatives, try to be different than your competitor by offering programs and initiatives that only your organization could offer.
Assuming that the results of national studies apply to our employees: This is a common misconception that is easily propagated as more and more of these national studies are conducted. What are employees truly craving? Is it compensation? Is it work-life balance? Is it recognition? Is it job security? The answer, of course, all depends on who is doing the survey, when it is conducted, and who was surveyed, among other factors. If your organization’s initiatives are based on surveys that do not even assess your employees, you may want to re-think your approach to workplace initiatives. Instead of basing any initiative on the results of a national survey, try using national surveys as input into your own employee surveys.
Assuming that one type of initiative will solve all of our problems: When all you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. I have written about this issue recently with relation to employee engagement. But the same could be said for any type of initiative: work flexibility initiatives, wellness programs, training and development programs, and many, many others. The hallmark of a psychologically healthy workplace is that it offers a system activities and initiatives that promote a positive relationship between organizational effectiveness and employee well-being.
Assuming that technology will make us more efficient: This is becoming more and more problematic as more and more workers have access to technology, especially mobile technology. The problem is that many employees don’t know how to effectively utilize that technology, which can actually be creating inefficiency within the system. You can’t just make the technology available to make workers’ lives more flexible or efficient, you also have to train them on how to effectively manage that technology (so the technology doesn’t end up managing them).
Assuming that people want what we have to offer: This is a typical problem that results when the people at the top make decisions based primarily on their view from the top. Sometimes, senior leadership can come up with a great idea for improving an organization that would be very effective - if only the workers really bought into the initiative, if only the workers felt the initiative was worthwhile, and if only the initiative worked as well in practice as in theory. This is where effective communication and employee involvement mechanisms can be extremely useful tools. Vet your ideas before you spend the money implementing them. You’ll be glad you did.

So, these were my top five faulty assumptions that can lead to initiatives that produce less return on investment than expected. What are your thoughts? What others would you add to this list?

Photo Credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/drinksmachine/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0