I'm Not Absent But I'm Not Totally Present Either

The majority of companies large and small have some type of applied policy regarding absences in the workplace.  Undoubtedly, the policy outlines some sort of threshold on what constitutes abuse and may even outline the measures that will be taken to address and curb abuse.  Having such a policy is part of Human Resources 101.  Any experienced manager can name which employees are reliable and which ones can't seem to get to the office on time on a regular basis.  It is easy to list the effects of employee absenteeism: you've got your usual negative affect on productivity, the cost of paying out sick leave while also having to incur the cost of another employee covering the absent employee's workload, and there are the associated administrative costs.  It can be fairly safe to say that much of what affects employee absenteeism is employee health.  The more health issues an employee has, the more likely (not in all cases but in the majority) that the employee will have a higher frequency of call-outs.  After watching an episode of HBO's documentary series The Weight of the Nation, I was reminded of another, greater, impact on a company's bottom-line......presenteeism.

               Presenteeism is defined by Dictionary.com as:  "the practice of coming to work despite illness, injury, anxiety, etc., often resulting in reduced productivity"   This definition can also be expanded to include the loss of productivity that occurs when employees come to work with general limitations as a result of their health status.  For example, WebMD cites a study that indicates presenteeism is a cost of obesity.  According to the 2010 study, "the health-related cost of obesity among U.S. workers is $73.1 billion a year - enough to pay the salaries of 1.8 million new workers".  Staggering figures, right? Remember, this is over and above costs to a company connected to absenteeism. 

What I think the great take-away here is that the importance of company health plans cannot be stressed enough.  Specifically those that have intertwined health tools, incentives, and strong support.  

Snacking the Way to Higher Health Costs?

You can now add into the cost of a bag of chips an additional premium to your health insurance.  More companies are looking for ways to offset the rising costs of healthcare and, after cutting benefits to "alternative" treatments such as chiropractic and massage, they are looking for more ways to save.  Enter the age of the healthcare penalty premium.  Here's how it works: your company requires to to submit to a health evaluation (which may consist of anything from weight and blood pressure screening to a complete work-up of your daily habits).  Then, your company evaluates the results and determines whether you meet predetermined markers for health.  If you do not you can be charged a higher rate for healthcare premiums or will be asked to participate in a program to address your healthcare issues to hold the increased rate in abeyance.  

Or, your company may want to mirror the policy CVS has enacted.  "A new policy by CVS Pharmacy requires every one of its nearly 200,000 employees who use its health plan to submit their weight, body fat, glucose levels and other vitals or pay a monthly fine" according to Steve Osunsami of ABC News.  That fine is $50 per month and employees that agree to submit their health stats through a work-up by their doctor will not see an increase.  Think of it as an opt out program.  The idea is similar to that of companies who automatically enroll all eligible employees in a retirement savings plan and force employees to take an action to opt out.  

This, of course, creates quite a push back from not only individual employees who see this as an unfair practice and an invasion of their privacy but also from groups like the Patient Privacy Rights.  Founder DR. Deborah Peel states: "The approach their taking is based on the assumption that somehow these employees need....to be penalized in order to make themselves healthy". 

The practice, though, of passing along a "surcharge" for an unhealthy lifestyle is not relatively new. But what about offering a carrot to those employees who participate in company wellness programs?  Surely that must be okay, right?  In fact, industry experts like benefits consultant Towers Watson, predict a significant rise in the number of companies that implement the practice.  In the New York Times article The Smoker's Surcharge, Reed Abelson points to a concern.  "Some benefits specialists and health experts say programs billed as incentives for wellness, by offering discounted health insurance, can become punitive for people who suffer from health problems that are not completely under their control".   

So....what to do?  Let me throw one final thing out there to think about.  Choice.  How much of an employee's health is related to the choices they make?  Choices in the foods they eat, the level of activity they have, etc..  Where do you draw the line of personal and governmental responsibility (for allowing the phenomenal rise in artificial ingredients and food processing)?

Okay....off my soap box now...

Go Ahead - Try It!

I like to learn. No, maybe that's not entirely true.  I like to have knowledge but I'm not always amenable to the process of leaning.  I tend to want the knowledge to somehow download into my brain like Neo learning kung fu (yes, that was a complete nerdy Matrix reference I am proud to say). What I also know, though, is that the best way for me to learn is to process the knowledge in smaller pieces. This way I reduce my chances for frustration and increase the chances that I will retain what I have learned as it is easier to apply a bit of knowledge at a time rather than large volumes of data.  It's just how most of our brains work. 

Reducing the learning process to a shorter period of time is also a great way to introduce yourself to something new.  Matt Cutts, an engineer at Google, would agree.  In this short TED talk he mentions the various 30-day "experiments" he completed where he committed to trying new things for 30 days.  It is surprising how little time you need to practice something before it becomes ingrained as habit.

Check out the talk below and go out there and try it!

Your Nose is Growing...Lies in the Workplace

I once had a co-worker, let's call this person Pat, who certain acrimonious people in the office referred to as "The Parrot".  Pat received the moniker by tending to nod her head and agree with people concerning topics she did not have a high comfort level with.  In other words, Pat would agree or disagree on these topics purely based on the general consensus.  You might say that Pat's mimicking essentially meant Pat lied to disguise a lack of knowledge on the given topic.  You would likely be right.  How terrible - what an unethical way to conduct yourself, right?  Possibly, however, Pat is not alone in her missteps at navigating office culture and politics.  According to Christopher Bonanos' article The Lies We Tell at Work, Pat is part of the majority who lie in the workplace.  Some of those lies have darker motives and, as usually is the case, result in the loss of gainful employment for the deceitful.  

The better news is that most of the workplace tall tales fall more into the "light' lies category.  These tend to be in the interest of getting work done and avoiding conflict - so, don't feel too bad.  If you decide not to give an honest opinion when a co-worker asks if you like her new haircut it's because telling her the new do makes her look like a standard poodle is not important enough to disrupt office harmony.  

What you need to look out for, states psychology professor and The Liar in Your Life author Robert Feldman, "the greater the deception, the more workplace culture is likely a factor".  In other words, employees easily pick up on what is and is not acceptable in any organization.  It's good practice to do a bit of a culture check once in a while - survey your employees and "walk and talk" the floor.  Listen to what they are saying and observe what they are doing.  

In the end certain workplace lies are okay - protecting company secrets (e.g. "the secret formula") because it provides your company a market advantage, fostering interpersonal relationships ("that lunch you've brought from home smells great"), or in cases where you promise less then deliver more.

Hiring for Culture or Qualifications?

Okay - admit it.  You've conducted an interview with a potential candidate and allowed, at least in small part, your own cultural biases to help make the hiring decision.  It's okay - many have done it and, to some degree, it is even preferred that you use company cultural markers to factor into the hiring process.  In fact, many companies are preferring to hire for cultural fit rather than add a new staff member based purely on qualifications.  Sure, it sounds like a bunch of human resource managers asking "Google-type" interview questions like "What is your favorite food?" and hiring candidates who like the same foods as them.  Not so. Think about what the typical interview is like (I mean the old standby, classic interview).  Usually you ask questions designed to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate are and ask questions designed to determine whether the candidate can back up their claims.  Is that the best way to find the most creative candidates, though?  Is it the best way to find candidates who will enjoy working with your current employees; e.g. someone who will be a great contributor?

According to Logan Hill's Bloomberg Businessweek article Only BFFs Need Apply, the answer is yes.  Companies are increasingly hiring for cultural fit which does not necessarily mean the most qualified candidate is being chosen.  As a marketing executive states "I once hired a woman who really didn't have the right background or experience...and because we got along so well, I was able to train her easily, and she ended up doing great things for us".  A recent Inc.com article by Ilya Pozin lists passion and commitment as one of the top qualities his company looks for and lists relevant experience as fourth.  Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, in an interview with Inc.com, states that they have passed on hiring people who are smart and have the necessary qualifications but who do not seem to fit the company culture. Zappos even bases 50% of their reviews on whether the employee is inspiring the company culture. 

What is driving the move to cultural fit as being as important (or more important) than requisite qualifications?   Blame millennials according to Dan Schawbel, author of Me: 2.0.  Millennials have priorities that differ from previous generations.  "They'd rather have meaningful work over more pay....they want a culture that's less hierarchical, more flexible, and more understanding of differences" states Schawbel.