I love basketball.
I love playing basketball. I love watching basketball. I love reading about basketball.
Anyway, I was reading about basketball the other day and saw an article about how the owner of the Golden State Warriors, Joe Lacob, praised Monta Ellis as the “core, franchise player” and said he’d like to see more out of Stephen Curry. Lacob then went on to discuss the possibility of trading players, including Ellis and Curry.
Now, you don't have to know anything about basketball to understand this post, but for a little background, Stephen Curry is a second year player who nearly won Rookie of the Year last year. Both Curry and Ellis are great players. In employment performance terms, these guys would both be top performers.
And that is what made me think to write this post. It is a relatively normal practice for basketball teams to trade top performers. Rumors of these trades have a bigger impact that just losing the player, as they also impact the play of other individuals.
I am from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and my "home team" is the New Orleans Hornets. In the off season, they traded Darren Collison who, along with Marcus Thornton, kept the franchise afloat when All-Star Chris Paul was injured. Collison was so good, even I considered what we could get for Chris Paul in a trade (shame on me). Instead the franchise traded Collison and completely remade their roster.
The impact was an 11-1 start that made most analysts eat their words.
Then a strange thing happened. The Hornets traded their back-up point guard, Jerryd Bayless for Jarret Jack, who was considered to be an upgrade at the position. After the trade, the Hornets went 10-17.
So, if Jarret Jack was an upgrade, I had to question why the Hornets got worse?
I am sure there are many reasons that impacted the record, but one reason is that trading Bayless when things were running smoothly was a statement that no one was safe in his position. Players can be producing at a good level, but they do not have job security. The impact of improving one position by breaking up a team had negative value.
Follow the Carmelo Anthony story as well. He is a perennial All-Star. When the rumors of the Nuggets trading him to New Jersey were all the sports media could talk about, his performance dropped significantly. The Nuggets were losing as well. When the Nets called off the trade, the Nuggets started winning big.
Of course, professional sports is a strange industry. Players make millions and are guaranteed this money based upon contracts. Job Security is found in the contract, but you may be relocated and possibly be playing for a worse team without a chance to win. For all that is worth, it beats the situation most employees face.
The concerns of most employees relate to the ability to pay the bills, maintain employment, and move forward in their careers. When the organization sends a clear signal that the employee is replaceable, the stress can mount exponentially. A statement like the one made by Joe Lacob not only impacts the main target (Stephen Curry in this case), it also impacts all the other players who see that a top performer is not safe.
I recently heard the edict, "hire slow and fire fast." While that is certainly a valid point of view, I would edit it to say, hire slow and address issues quickly. Sometimes addressing the issue means firing a top performer. If that is the case, then termination is the way to go.
I once had a manager who, frankly, was not given all the tools necessary to succeed. She worked hard and tried her best. Unfortunately, when a subordinate refused an order, the manager threatened violence. I hated to terminate this individual, but we had no choice. Her violation was too severe to allow her to remain employed. She was a good worker and could have been a great manager with training and time. We never saw that come to fruition because of her mistake. I was upfront with her when we conducted the termination and let her know that we valued her work but that we could not maintain employment.
Treating employees in a way that they feel safe, secure, and valued can help prevent negative interpretations of events. Likewise, employees should be told what is expected and what will not be tolerated. My experience has shown me that open, honest communication can help take the sting out of disciplinary action. In the situation above, the employee was thankful for how we handled the termination and that we addressed it quickly. She was not blindsided (like Stephen Curry was). She did not have to guess where the problems were.
My advice is to address performance issues with the employee before his or her actions become an issue. Show the employees that you value their input. Show them you respect them as individuals. Help the employees find ways to improve performance. Taking this perspective with employees makes it easier to give bad news.
...and it's certainly a lot better than reading about it in the news paper!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Healthcare Reform - Penalties and Mandates
I have been working on a presentation for the Small Business Development Center regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereafter PPACA, to help prevent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome). Basically, the presentation will provide an overview of what the requirements are from an HR perspective and when these requirements take place. I am also trying to address a few strategical considerations, for instance, at what point does it behoove a company to discontinue offering health insurance? Once we get the class scheduled, I will post. I encourage you to attend.
With the changing of the guard in Congress, there may be some alterations to the PPACA, but for the most part, we need to proceed as though the PPACA will be the same as it was before the elections. The purpose of this post is not to get into the details of what the requirements are in total (you can find a good summary here: ).
What I want to discuss on this post is the mandate for individual health care and the penalties for not having health care.
I was debating this issue with friends of mine (all of whom will certainly benefit by having access to healthcare, as their current jobs do not provide any). Despite many of these individuals being relatively liberal in their politics, almost all felt the individual mandate was wrong and seemed to be most swayed on the topic of the PPACA by this fact.
Insurance is a strange beast of a product. The idea is that everyone puts in money, and then that pool of money is used to pay for expenses. In order for it to be sustainable, it has to take in more money than it spends (including the money spent on administration/operations/etc.). So for insurance to be successful, people have to pay more money than they are getting in benefits. In the employer sponsored group health model, the profit on premiums for healthy employees offsets the loss on premiums for employees who are ill or injured.
Universal Coverage would mean that everyone is covered under insurance, which is likely provided by the Government. Universal Access means that everyone can get coverage - presuming they can pay for it. When drafting the PPACA, Congress preferred the idea of Universal Access but recognized that creating Universal Access means that there is a reduced incentive for people to enroll in health insurance before they get sick. The logic is, if I am guaranteed to be able to purchase insurance when I need it, then why pay premiums for all those months that I don't need it?
One of the main benefits of having insurance is to reduce the possibility of an individual going bankrupt due to a medical condition for which they could not get insurance coverage. The American Journal of Medicine published a study in 2007 that indicated that 62% of bankruptcies were due to medical reasons with 92% of that group going into bankruptcy due to medical bills.
Having seen the impact of catastrophic illness (my sister is a cancer survivor who fortunately had insurance), I am very much in favor of Universal Access. Individuals who work hard and struggle to make ends meet cannot afford to deal with a catastrophic illness or injury. It can mean lost income in addition to high medical bills. Universal Access means that they will be able to get insurance and at least mitigate the costs of such a tragedy.
Ok, here is my argument for why it is a good thing to have individual mandates and penalties for not having insurance. With Universal Access I can purchase insurance when I find out I am sick. If everyone did this, then insurance companies would go bankrupt, and we would have an entirely new issue to resolve. If there is a mandate and subsequent penalty (only $95 in 2014 or 1% of income, and $695 in 2016 or 2.5% of income) then those who enroll while healthy will be contributing to the sustainability of the insurance companies, and those who don't will be contributing to the costs of the uninsured via the penalty.
A study by Families USA indicated that about 37% of the cost of healthcare ($42.7 Billion in 2008) for uninsured individuals is paid for by the insured through higher premiums. The penalty and mandate are designed to help reduce this burden and stave off rising medical costs. It is a good thing, not only for the insured and insurance companies.
Back to my conversation with friends. My point to them (and the point of this post) is that the penalty and mandate are beneficial to you, even if you remained uninsured. To explain, let's take an example:
Numbers: According to a study by the University of Colorado, the average cost of cancer treatment is around $59,000. America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) did a survey of their member groups and determined the 2009 average annual premium for an individual was less than $3,000. For the purposes of our example, let's presume that the cost of insurance for an ill person purchasing insurance for the first time is 3x the 2009 average annual premium.
Example: With Universal Access, a person who was diagnosed with cancer would face nearly $60,000 in medical bills, or he or she could purchase insurance at a high premium for $9,000 a year. Even with a large deductible of $10,000, the individual will save nearly $40,000.
To continue with the example, if the average insurance premium is $3,000 a year for a healthy individual, and the penalty for not having insurance is $695, then this individual saves $2,305 a year by paying the penalty as opposed to paying for insurance. My suggestion is that the penalty can also be viewed as the cost of the privilege of purchasing insurance after becoming sick.
As I see it, Universal Access with a mandate and penalty is beneficial for the system and for the individual. I do not recommend ANYONE going without insurance. We have no idea what the world has in store for us, and shopping for insurance when you are sick or injured is less than ideal. At least with the passage of the PPACA, you will be assured you CAN purchase insurance when you are sick or injured...and that is a good thing.
With the changing of the guard in Congress, there may be some alterations to the PPACA, but for the most part, we need to proceed as though the PPACA will be the same as it was before the elections. The purpose of this post is not to get into the details of what the requirements are in total (you can find a good summary here: ).
What I want to discuss on this post is the mandate for individual health care and the penalties for not having health care.
I was debating this issue with friends of mine (all of whom will certainly benefit by having access to healthcare, as their current jobs do not provide any). Despite many of these individuals being relatively liberal in their politics, almost all felt the individual mandate was wrong and seemed to be most swayed on the topic of the PPACA by this fact.
Insurance is a strange beast of a product. The idea is that everyone puts in money, and then that pool of money is used to pay for expenses. In order for it to be sustainable, it has to take in more money than it spends (including the money spent on administration/operations/etc.). So for insurance to be successful, people have to pay more money than they are getting in benefits. In the employer sponsored group health model, the profit on premiums for healthy employees offsets the loss on premiums for employees who are ill or injured.
Universal Coverage would mean that everyone is covered under insurance, which is likely provided by the Government. Universal Access means that everyone can get coverage - presuming they can pay for it. When drafting the PPACA, Congress preferred the idea of Universal Access but recognized that creating Universal Access means that there is a reduced incentive for people to enroll in health insurance before they get sick. The logic is, if I am guaranteed to be able to purchase insurance when I need it, then why pay premiums for all those months that I don't need it?
One of the main benefits of having insurance is to reduce the possibility of an individual going bankrupt due to a medical condition for which they could not get insurance coverage. The American Journal of Medicine published a study in 2007 that indicated that 62% of bankruptcies were due to medical reasons with 92% of that group going into bankruptcy due to medical bills.
Having seen the impact of catastrophic illness (my sister is a cancer survivor who fortunately had insurance), I am very much in favor of Universal Access. Individuals who work hard and struggle to make ends meet cannot afford to deal with a catastrophic illness or injury. It can mean lost income in addition to high medical bills. Universal Access means that they will be able to get insurance and at least mitigate the costs of such a tragedy.
Ok, here is my argument for why it is a good thing to have individual mandates and penalties for not having insurance. With Universal Access I can purchase insurance when I find out I am sick. If everyone did this, then insurance companies would go bankrupt, and we would have an entirely new issue to resolve. If there is a mandate and subsequent penalty (only $95 in 2014 or 1% of income, and $695 in 2016 or 2.5% of income) then those who enroll while healthy will be contributing to the sustainability of the insurance companies, and those who don't will be contributing to the costs of the uninsured via the penalty.
A study by Families USA indicated that about 37% of the cost of healthcare ($42.7 Billion in 2008) for uninsured individuals is paid for by the insured through higher premiums. The penalty and mandate are designed to help reduce this burden and stave off rising medical costs. It is a good thing, not only for the insured and insurance companies.
Back to my conversation with friends. My point to them (and the point of this post) is that the penalty and mandate are beneficial to you, even if you remained uninsured. To explain, let's take an example:
Numbers: According to a study by the University of Colorado, the average cost of cancer treatment is around $59,000. America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) did a survey of their member groups and determined the 2009 average annual premium for an individual was less than $3,000. For the purposes of our example, let's presume that the cost of insurance for an ill person purchasing insurance for the first time is 3x the 2009 average annual premium.
Example: With Universal Access, a person who was diagnosed with cancer would face nearly $60,000 in medical bills, or he or she could purchase insurance at a high premium for $9,000 a year. Even with a large deductible of $10,000, the individual will save nearly $40,000.
To continue with the example, if the average insurance premium is $3,000 a year for a healthy individual, and the penalty for not having insurance is $695, then this individual saves $2,305 a year by paying the penalty as opposed to paying for insurance. My suggestion is that the penalty can also be viewed as the cost of the privilege of purchasing insurance after becoming sick.
As I see it, Universal Access with a mandate and penalty is beneficial for the system and for the individual. I do not recommend ANYONE going without insurance. We have no idea what the world has in store for us, and shopping for insurance when you are sick or injured is less than ideal. At least with the passage of the PPACA, you will be assured you CAN purchase insurance when you are sick or injured...and that is a good thing.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
The Case for Casual Mondays
If you had to guess what day of the work week is most despised, what day would that be?
Garfield knows. It's Mondays. I firmly believe this without having any supporting documentation whatsoever.
If you had to guess which day of the work week is most appreciated, what day would that be?
Friday. Again, no support, but I bet we could take a survey and prove that I am right.
What day of the week is usually "Casual Day" at work?
Friday again...which begs the next question.
Why do we enhance the greatest day of the work week by allowing employees to dress casually, while we allow Mondays to be mundane?
I don't know. I just don't know. The concept of Casual Friday as an employee benefit has taken hold and many companies have gone with it. I am a fan of Casual Friday, but really, I am a fan of Casual Any Day.
Some companies have embraced the "Casual Any/Every Day" philosophy (the joke is that Google's Dress Code is: wear clothes), but other companies believe that much of business is about impression. These companies want to present an image of professionalism and need employees to dress in a manner that reflects well on the company.
Enter the commonly accepted business practice of Casual Fridays. Many companies that need to reflect a professional environment have recognized the benefits of Casual Fridays. These benefits include improved morale at no cost (employees feel comfortable), monetary savings for employees (suits, dry cleaning costs are reduced), and a sense of unity (less visible pecking order).
Whatever the reasons, Casual Friday is fairly common these days, and I am pro-that.
However, I am proposing a swift and orderly change. Fridays are already great. Let's go with Casual Mondays. Call it socialism for days of the week, I just don't care. It is time we fixed the inequity.
Seriously, think about it. You wake up on Monday morning tired and struggling to overcome the inertia from the weekend. You have to shower, shave (perhaps), pull out your business attire, make sure it is ironed, make sure you look nice and professional, then go to work and start the drudgery.
What if you could at least skip the suit part and instead put on some comfy jeans and ease your way into your work week?
Man, oh, man, would that be sweet.
When I worked in an office, I would often go into work on Sunday, work for maybe 3 or 4 hours, accomplish the same amount of work I would in a regular 8-hour day, but I would be comfortable, in jeans, t-shirt and a hat. When I came in on the following Monday there was much less inertia to overcome because I had already started my work week. Not everyone can (or cares to) give their employer 3 or 4 hours of their Sunday to make their Monday easier, and I have a solution that just might work.
I argue that there is more business sense in Casual Monday than there is in Casual Friday. Personally, I already feel good about a Friday. Generally speaking, on Friday I am thinking of "quittin time" and considering my weekend plans. Being in jeans only exacerbates this condition. It is a light case of "senior-itis," that unfortunate disability that causes many seniors to finish their education poorly. Without the external cues reminding us that we are in the workplace (specifically, business attire), the likely result is a flare-up of"senior-itis," equaling less productive employees.
Mondays, on the other hand are full of reminders of our tasks at hand, coupled with memories of the fun, relaxing weekend to taunt us. Looking at an inbox full of emails, countless voice-mail messages, projects with deadlines approaching, meetings, and whatever "to-do" items we have yet "to do" can be overwhelming. Just writing that makes me want to crawl back into my weekend.
By allowing employees to dress casually on Mondays, employers can keep the benefits of Casual Friday (i.e. improved morale, etc.) while minimizing the detriments (i.e. "senior-itis"). I know this is revolutionary thinking, but I think it is time we take the sting out of the weekend's taunts with a nice comfortable, casual Monday. Ease into the week, I say. If we cannot reduce the amount of work we have to do for the week, then at least we can start tackling it while in comfy attire!
Garfield knows. It's Mondays. I firmly believe this without having any supporting documentation whatsoever.
If you had to guess which day of the work week is most appreciated, what day would that be?
Friday. Again, no support, but I bet we could take a survey and prove that I am right.
What day of the week is usually "Casual Day" at work?
Friday again...which begs the next question.
Why do we enhance the greatest day of the work week by allowing employees to dress casually, while we allow Mondays to be mundane?
I don't know. I just don't know. The concept of Casual Friday as an employee benefit has taken hold and many companies have gone with it. I am a fan of Casual Friday, but really, I am a fan of Casual Any Day.
Some companies have embraced the "Casual Any/Every Day" philosophy (the joke is that Google's Dress Code is: wear clothes), but other companies believe that much of business is about impression. These companies want to present an image of professionalism and need employees to dress in a manner that reflects well on the company.
Enter the commonly accepted business practice of Casual Fridays. Many companies that need to reflect a professional environment have recognized the benefits of Casual Fridays. These benefits include improved morale at no cost (employees feel comfortable), monetary savings for employees (suits, dry cleaning costs are reduced), and a sense of unity (less visible pecking order).
Whatever the reasons, Casual Friday is fairly common these days, and I am pro-that.
However, I am proposing a swift and orderly change. Fridays are already great. Let's go with Casual Mondays. Call it socialism for days of the week, I just don't care. It is time we fixed the inequity.
Seriously, think about it. You wake up on Monday morning tired and struggling to overcome the inertia from the weekend. You have to shower, shave (perhaps), pull out your business attire, make sure it is ironed, make sure you look nice and professional, then go to work and start the drudgery.
What if you could at least skip the suit part and instead put on some comfy jeans and ease your way into your work week?
Man, oh, man, would that be sweet.
When I worked in an office, I would often go into work on Sunday, work for maybe 3 or 4 hours, accomplish the same amount of work I would in a regular 8-hour day, but I would be comfortable, in jeans, t-shirt and a hat. When I came in on the following Monday there was much less inertia to overcome because I had already started my work week. Not everyone can (or cares to) give their employer 3 or 4 hours of their Sunday to make their Monday easier, and I have a solution that just might work.
I argue that there is more business sense in Casual Monday than there is in Casual Friday. Personally, I already feel good about a Friday. Generally speaking, on Friday I am thinking of "quittin time" and considering my weekend plans. Being in jeans only exacerbates this condition. It is a light case of "senior-itis," that unfortunate disability that causes many seniors to finish their education poorly. Without the external cues reminding us that we are in the workplace (specifically, business attire), the likely result is a flare-up of"senior-itis," equaling less productive employees.
Mondays, on the other hand are full of reminders of our tasks at hand, coupled with memories of the fun, relaxing weekend to taunt us. Looking at an inbox full of emails, countless voice-mail messages, projects with deadlines approaching, meetings, and whatever "to-do" items we have yet "to do" can be overwhelming. Just writing that makes me want to crawl back into my weekend.
By allowing employees to dress casually on Mondays, employers can keep the benefits of Casual Friday (i.e. improved morale, etc.) while minimizing the detriments (i.e. "senior-itis"). I know this is revolutionary thinking, but I think it is time we take the sting out of the weekend's taunts with a nice comfortable, casual Monday. Ease into the week, I say. If we cannot reduce the amount of work we have to do for the week, then at least we can start tackling it while in comfy attire!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
