Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Not All Coaches are the Same

I have been struck by what happens at the end of each NFL season. In am not talking about the playoffs: I am referring to the coaching firings. This year coaches in San Francisco, Carolina, Oakland, and Cleveland were fired at the end of the season. This is in addition to Dallas, Denver, and Minnesota where the axe fell during the season.

Why do NFL coaches get fired with such regularity? One word—RESULTS. NFL coaches define the team’s system, craft game plans, make all key playing time decisions, execute in-game moves and clock management calls, and basically live their role 24/7. These coaches don’t really coach, as much as run, the team. Players are given assignments, told what to do on each play, and are provided reminders of the failures made during the games over the following week of practices and film sessions. In fact NFL coaches spend an inordinate amount of time “fixing” weaker players. They can easily dispense of players and change the lineup. In the end, while coaches need talent to produce, they are completely accountable for the success of the team; if a coach’s team doesn’t win, then he gets fired. That’s how it should work, right?

I work with many successful and skillful business coaches. And I can confirm that these coaches do not work the same way as NFL coaches. Business coaches are often engaged from outside the organization by companies to provide help to selected individuals. They can observe independently and aren’t ruled by the existing system. Good coaches help their clients uncover the best paths to success, meet their goals, and take accountability for their actions. The results are not immediate, but the change and impact are lasting. It’s more about asking questions than providing answers. Today’s best coaches tap into the motives and values that drive behavior and RESULTS. Coaches, whether in the NFL or in business, have that in common. Getting those things to happen isn’t haphazard. Business coaches provide a well thought out process, assessment, and structure to each highly customizable situation. Some coaches have taken the step toward merging consulting and coaching into a Power Coaching model. I have seen a trend in this direction. With the commitment of the hiring company, the coaching subject, and the coach, sustainable talent improvements are the norm; and long-term achievement of stretch goals become less of a reach.

Now this all sounds good. But companies don’t have an unlimited budget. Focusing on successor candidates and high potentials maximizes the impact on the organization in the most efficient way. I have seen how the involvement of a coach has accelerated the leadership succession process and has provided a valuable resource for the promoted leader. Talent management once again is a higher profile priority for companies. Jumpstart the new year for your organization and its key people by engaging the right coaching resource. Ask me for a recommendation on a coach that will fit your culture and situation.

Maybe NFL coaches themselves would benefit from having their own coaches.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Weathering the Economic Storm

Have you ever experienced a bad hurricane? Most of those who have say that the storm seems to last forever. Banging and crashing outside, power losses, flooding, debris, and even potentially damage to your home occur. It requires courage, patience, quick thinking, and the flexibility to adapt to the situation. Even after the storm, there are challenges of daily living that require coping and creativity. Hurricane preparedness experts preach one main thing—“HAVE A PLAN”.

Well the same advice applies to companies weathering the economic storm we face today. I gathered some helpful tips on preparing for hurricanes and the similarities are striking. In addition, the actions taken during the storm can position you for a move favorable recovery afterwards.

The bolded planning steps come from the National Hurricane Center, but I adapted them for companies facing our present economic situation:

Before and During the Storm

Discuss what hazards you might face
  • Companies must be prepared for changes in the economic environment. Developing a plan for good and bad times will allow your firm to be better prepared than your competition.
Locate safe areas in your home or evacuation zones
  • Companies must realize where they have particular strengths—market position, access to capital, a pipeline of talent. These all can be viewed as safe areas upon which to rely.
Be familiar with evacuation routes
  • Sometimes companies must change direction in order to survive. Downsizing workers, eliminating expenses, and focusing on core markets may be necessary.
Have an out of town contact to ensure all parties have a single point of contact
  • Having outside resources can provide support and expertise not available inside a company. Experts can provide solutions to the unique issues faced by a firm and to improve operations.
Establish emergency contact numbers
  • Communicate, communicate, and communicate. This goes for shareholders, customers, vendors, and employees. Getting these interested parties to support and understand your needs and actions during challenging times will increase the chance of survival.
Check your insurance coverage
  • Risk management on contracts, lending arrangements, future commitments, and ways to support the business after the storm must be evaluated.
Stock up on non-perishable emergency supplies
  • Human capital will get companies through tough economic conditions. Determining the right talent that must be retained in a time where layoffs may be required is critical. While the “war for talent” might be on hiatus, talent management should not be ignored. The remaining employees must be acknowledged as your greatest asset, but they can be damaged if left unsupported in this environment. Innovations and new product development in anticipation of the end of the storm also are never more important.
Take first aid, CPR, and disaster preparedness classes
  • Training and development focused on the right areas still must occur. Assessing your employees and developing their skills will position your company for any future adversity or opportunity. Succession planning remains a critical function during an economic downturn.

After the Storm

Avoid dangerous conditions
  • Make ROI a priority. Examine business processes, cost structures, and organizational issues and use this information to improve. Lean on experts to provide ideas and resources. At the same time business instincts and judgment are essential at this phase.
Check for damage
  • Gauge your financial strength, market opportunity, and talent. Reexamine your resources. Now is the time to focus on total rewards and talent management. Employee benefits saving opportunities should be exploited.
Cope with lost resources
  • Hire selectively. While hiring for need is often the default, companies should entertain adding more rounded “athletes” to provide the most flexibility.
Communicate with others
  • Communicate, communicate, communicate. Tell all the same constituents of your latest plans, direction, and goals. Reengaging and retaining shareholders, customers, employees, and vendors will require focus.
Cleanup
  • Make decisions—and quickly. The biggest mistake is to wait for the perfect moment to act. At some point hunkering down no longer works, and companies run the risk of never cleaning up from the storm.
Rebuild
  • Seize new business opportunities. Look for new markets, new products, and areas where competition was irreparably damaged by the economic hardships. The sales force must aggressively attack the market—give them the tools and support to win business.
While we are still in the economic storm, companies can increase their chances of thriving during the recovery. Following a plan and accessing the right advisors can make the difference.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Are things getting better?

People ask me all of the time, “How is business and do you think the economy is getting better?” Based on my interactions with professionals and leaders and through my assessments of their businesses, I believe activity certainly has picked up. Managers are focused on making things happen at their companies. Many companies have already shown improved results from last year and expect better profits year-over-year. And many tell me they would describe 2010 as a “good” year.

Yet I am still hesitant to say, “Yes, the economy is improving”. There is still a guarded sense about making decisions. Even when decisions are made, the process is elongated. There is an uncertainty regarding the sustainability of their positive results. My personal observations seem to match the economic polls which measure consumer confidence. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® which had been on the rise for three consecutive months, declined sharply in June. My financial advisory clients are disturbed by the continued high stock market volatility. The specter of higher taxes, a growing budget deficit, and continued high unemployment levels shapes perceptions of my clients, prospects, and friends. I also meet with executives in transition all of the time and several have landed good jobs recently (but new members of the clan are still joining). New college grads (including my son and most of his friends) are unemployed in droves. And almost nobody (I know one lucky person) is leaving a job for a better opportunity.

All of these factors conspire to temper good results and positive signs with the overall malaise of uncertainty. As a result, decision-makers just don’t feel good about the present situation and the challenges facing the economy. Yet, companies are starting to make investments and take on projects important to their success. This year I have worked with companies on initiatives to review business processes, institute training programs, enhance employee self-service, focus on population health, craft benefits offerings, formulate communications strategies, refocus on client engagement, enhance sales productivity, expand to new markets, develop new product offerings, and educate on financial issues. While not all these projects are in place, companies are realizing now is the time to reinvest in their businesses and move forward. So are things getting better? Definitely maybe.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Short-term thinking has gotten more short-term

Immediate gratification seems to be drive individual decision-making these days. Saving for a rainy day or even retirement are lesser priorities. So why would businesses which cater to societal desires be any different? When I worked in corporate planning for a Fortune 500 company, we drafted 5-year strategic plans. No corporations do 5-year plans anymore. Not only does the market change faster than that, so do the members of senior corporate management. According to Spencer Stuart the average Fortune 1000 corporate CFO’s tenure is 4.1 years, so why would he/she care about a 5 year forecast? Strategy has given way to a stream of Tactics. Weekly stock market results, quarterly earnings announcements, and daily news are the normal time parameters for business. Compensation plans no longer reward long-term performance, just pay for short-term performance over a longer time period. Long-term thinking has become a lost art. Return on investment payback periods have shrunk. Companies are looking for fast ROIs. But how can companies succeed over the long-term, if they mainly focus on the here and near? The key is sustainable returns--implementing ideas and changes that have an immediate effect and remain sustainable over the longer-term. Layoffs without changing the underlying work do more damage than good after the initial benefits are realized. Changing and redesigning processes can take out costs and provide lasting benefits. I have encountered several solutions providers who have created ways to help companies recognize immediate benefits with lasting results. These companies are reinventing how to merge short-term thinking and long-term benefits in the areas of process mapping, employee productivity, and revenue generation.

Saturday, May 22, 2010

I'm Back Part 2--Winners, Losers, and Winners/Losers in Healthcare Reform

WINNERS
Sick patients-Coverage will be expanded to 32 million people who lack insurance. Not all of them wanted or needed this coverage, but for those who needed it and couldn’t obtain it this change will be a big win. Many of the healthcare system horror stories have focused on this group and the legislation fixes this problem.

Future sick patients—What if I don’t want coverage? Starting in 2014 those who opt not to purchase coverage will be subject to annual fine of $695 based on coverage at the end of the prior year. However there is nothing to stop someone from waiting to sign up for coverage until they get sick. No fine and only premiums paid during the months after signing up make this ripe for games like signing up in December to avoid the fine (and likely some scrutiny in the final regulations).

Early retirees—Many under age 65 retirees had been left out in the cold as more of their former employers eliminated early retiree health plans due to cost concerns. The elimination of pre-existing conditions and the ability to purchase coverage is a major help to this population. Medicaid eligibility will be expanded, as well. Subsidies for purchasing care from the exchanges will be available to those making 4 times the poverty level.

Medical schools—The need for doctors just expanded, so while it has always been competitive to get into medical school, the new system will amp this up. The need for more and larger medical schools will increase. Expect to see increased medical school enrollments and an acceleration of new medical schools.

Lawyers—The legislation yielded double bonus for attorneys. The cry for tort reform to decrease the cost of malpractice insurance (and a relief from the defensive medical practices by physicians who order extra tests and provide unnecessary care to cover their behinds) was unheeded. This means lawyers still get to sue and share in not only large judgments but settlements in frivolous suits. In addition this legislation will spawn all kinds of new disputes to litigate. Big winners.

Consultants—Companies are going to be confused and looking for answers. Anyone who can help sort out the mess will benefit from additional business.

Solutions Providers—These specialized experts who can help companies come up with creative ways to offset cost increases in the face of the new order will be winners. Employers will get little help from Washington on cost issues. Developing a new healthcare strategy with supporting tactics will become paramount. There are many interesting and effective offerings and solutions available on the market in areas such as value-based benefits, data management and analysis, performance standards, wellness, disease and care management, medical record interoperability, virtual care, onsite clinics, and contract management. Look for more innovations to come.

Life Insurance companies—The prospect of higher income taxes makes life insurance an even wiser vehicle for saving in a tax advantaged way. Knowledgeable financial professionals will be advising their clients to find ways to avoid the higher taxes, often through variable annuities and life insurance. Life insurance companies will be more aggressively marketing the tax savings of their products and adding revenue from an aging population.

LOSERS
All taxpayers—Where will the money come from to pay for this? Because the bill focuses on revenue in the early years and pushes out the big spending to later years, the costs have been underestimated. Initial estimates are an incremental 3-5% over healthcare trend over the next 3-5 years. And these are the lower cost years! This will be a huge drain on the treasury and therefore on future taxpayers. The initial tax increases focus on the wealthy, but the wealthy cannot fund this themselves. Get ready for income tax rate increases for most taxpayers and maybe a VAT to offset these costs.

The Middle Class—After the wealth transfer associated with the taxes, the shrinking of the middle class seems inevitable—and not because they are getting wealthier.
Healthy people—Some people really didn’t want health coverage. Now these people will be required to participate or pay a penalty. This is an inevitable result of any broadening of access. The issue is the penalty is really too low to dissuade people from opting out. Look for the penalty for those who can afford it to increase dramatically over time.

The economy
—The cost of healthcare, growing budget deficits, and the disincentives for job growth among small businesses give pause for concern over the economy’s growth prospects. The deficit will be a choker for the economy for years to come. The adverse impact on employers (see below) can only hurt the economy too.

Future Members of Congress—The game isn’t over. Future members of Congress will be left holding the bag to clean up the issues caused by the new legislation.

WINNERS/LOSERS

Health Insurance Companies—A dramatic increase in insured Americans could be viewed as good business for health insurance companies. Their administrative capacities are still needed to run the system. However they will inherit a poorer risk pool and mandated coverages making their book of business less profitable. Health insurance companies will be subject to new excise taxes under the rules. As we have already seen in the vilification of the insurance companies in Massachusetts because of higher medical costs, being able to pass on price increases to offset the higher costs will be difficult but it will happen.

Prescription Drug Companies
—Simple demographics plus expanded insured populations will expand usage of their drugs tremendously. The additional fees imposed on them starting in 2011 will be offset by their business growth long-term, but the pricing of the product is a big question mark. Cutbacks in reimbursements, as is the case with the health plans, will limit the upside for pharma companies. This uncertainty over pricing and certainty over fees does explain the reduced financial outlooks given by these companies to Wall Street for the next couple of years.

Large Employers
—Starting in 2014, any employer with over 50 employees must offer health coverage or will be subject to $166.67 per month penalty per employee (excluding the first 30). Mandates on cost sharing and spending requirements will ensure coverages are credible, plans must have no pre-existing condition exclusions, and maximum 90 day waiting periods. And administering this will be tough, especially in the beginning. So where is the winning status? The penalty is actually so low relative to the cost of coverage that employees would likely opt out of coverage and pay the penalty. Many anticipate the penalties to increase in advance of 2014; expect to see changes as soon as the initial regulations are promulgated on this point to avoid the incentive for employers to drop their plans. And when that happens some employers who paid far less for the benefits of some employees (especially in the hospitality, retail, and staffing industries) will be faced with dramatically constrained margins. These companies will need to increase pricing, amend their business model, or close shop. Even in other industries healthcare costs will continue to erode employer profit margins. On second thought, maybe they are really just losers in this reform.

Small Employers
—No employer mandate of coverage exists and there is no consequence for employers with less than 50 full-time employees who don’t offer coverage. Employees will get their coverage from the exchanges. Tax credits will be available to small firms. And some of the fallout from large employer failures may benefit smaller firms. So where is the loser status? There will be a disincentive for the small firms to grow beyond 50 employees.

Over age 65 retirees—In addition to starting to plug the Part D doughnut hole in 2010, starting in 2011 brand name drug discounts will be available to reduce their costs. However Medicare reimbursement rates to providers will fall making it more likely that doctors may choose to stop taking Medicare patients. Finding a doctor with an avalanche of new Medicare eligible participants coming as the baby boomers age will become increasingly difficult. The concern raised prominently during the Bush presidency does not disappear; Medicare funding will run out in the foreseeable future without changes or cutbacks.

Hospitals—Fewer write-offs and higher bed occupancy would be a boon to hospitals, but the reimbursement levels will fall. There will likely be have and have-not facilities depending on their clout over health plans.

Doctors—While consumer demand will increase for care with a rising population, there are too few doctors to provide the care, especially primary care physicians. In addition the new legislation makes it even less attractive for a doctor to enter primary care. Nurse practitioners may fill some of the gap of basic medical services, freeing up doctors to perform more sophisticated care. However lower Medicare reimbursements and nothing done to counteract malpractice rates make this profession a labor of love over economics.

Brokers—If costs are cut and plans are mandated, it is possible that third parties will be looked at as a cost rather than a value-add. With people browsing online for prices and purchasing directly from exchanges, the role of the middleman decreases. There will still be complexity in the purchase process, but look for broker commissions to be less attractive and for the brokers to transform themselves.

Obama—There was a large cost to this fight, he did accomplish his goal of passing this major legislation. This could become his legacy or his downfall. A one term President? That doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

I'm Back!

I have been watching from the sidelines while the various parties have fought it out over healthcare reform. I had ideas about better ways to approach the problem, but this process degenerated into a political battle versus an answer in the best interest of the long-term for everybody. Both political parties can take credit and are at fault for the result after a “Battle Royale”.

Democrats adopted a win at all costs approach. They took an ideological view that providing broader access to healthcare was a moral obligation; lots of long-standing agendas crept into the final bill. With victory in sight, the Democratic leaders became more arrogant and went for the kill. Unfortunately the long-term realities of the bill were ignored for the sake of the “greater good”. The experts were ignored and shouted down. We will see a major transfer of wealth to pay for this bill like we have never seen. But greater access to healthcare for all was achieved with the introduction of health insurance exchanges. Individuals who had no way to purchase health insurance now could. And we are not talking about emergency care in a hospital setting.

Republicans realized they couldn’t win so they stopped making constructive suggestions. In seeing defeat early, they reverted to “no” for everything. Branding the mandate for participation in the new plans as socialism did make headway on public opinion, but didn’t make the bill better. If the Republicans use the November elections as a reversal referendum, they will lose again—at least in the minds of many Americans.

We are now in the position to try and take the good and fix the bad in this legislation. The original bill was over 2,500 pages long. Now comes the hard work with an anticipated 100,000 pages of regulations expected to be drafted. Hopefully the middle ground will fall back to the three legged stool of issues in our present healthcare system: access, cost control, and quality.

But we won’t have to wait too long for the regulations because the law kicks in soon. Interim high risk pools are coming in mid-June. The effective date of the initial reforms is 9/23/10. Any employer with a plan year following that date will need to incorporate the elimination of pre-existing conditions for children, elimination of lifetime maximums, coverage for those under age 26 on a parent’s plan, mandated coverage of preventive care, external review processes for employer health plans, a $250 senior subsidy to plug the Medicare part D subsidy, and the banning of canceling insurance for individuals. Some of the major health plans have already implemented the last item.

Here are some of the other plan highlights. By 1/1/11, small businesses will be eligible for tax credits and temporary reinsurance will be available for early retiree medical plans (to persuade companies to still offer the coverage until the exchanges are put in place). For 2011, employers will need to show the value of their plans on employee W-2 forms and offer a voluntary government long-term care plan to employees. Those employers with more than 200 employees will move to auto enrollment for healthcare. And over the counter medications will be eliminated from FSA and HSA accounts.

In 2013, a $2,500 cap will be put on flexible spending accounts. What might be an indicator of things to come is the introduction of new taxes for those earning over $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 as a joint filers (0.9% of wages and 3.9% of unearned income). The elimination of the medicare part D tax exclusion (which was originally put in place to encourage employers from keeping their retiree prescription coverages when part D was introduced) has already prompted companies to take GAAP charges for the anticipated future liability changes. For a couple of weeks the White House and Congress viewed this as a political statement by companies until someone reminded them of accounting rules—pretty scaring that this was unanticipated.

So while the target is still moving as the details of round one get sorted, who are the anticipated winners and losers?
(See my next blog entry to find out)

Sunday, November 29, 2009

We need healthcare reform, but is this it?

I have been closely following the ups and downs of the healthcare debates. I have spoken to lots of people. Clearly the media coverage and the rhetoric have influenced the thinking of the general public and the consumers. Everyone seems to be thinking about things from a different perspective. Medicare members think everything is fine. Employees still don’t understand how little of the cost they bear. And those who need to buy insurance have wars stories about declinations, exclusions, and prohibitive costs. Interestingly, most of the people I consider experts think the politicians (especially the House of Representatives) have gotten this one wrong.

Let’s start with some points where everyone seems to agree:
#1 The healthcare system is broken and needs fixing.
#2-Making healthcare accessible to all is a desirable goal and the right thing to do.

On point #1, the healthcare system is broken in four main areas—
• Too many people are uninsured and lacking access to healthcare.
• Medical inflation and overall medical costs are too high.
• The quality of care can and should be improved.
• Information is not shared effectively between the various healthcare providers and patients.

The proposed legislation (every version) has focused on point #2, making healthcare accessible to the masses. Unfortunately the other areas where the system is broken have not been adequately addressed.

Everyone does have access to, at least critical care. If an uninsured person gets into a car crash and is lying in the road, the ambulance driver still takes the person to a hospital. The person still receives care whether they can pay or not. The hospital absorbs the charges and increases the cost of care to everybody else. This appearance of inaccessibility worsens to the other broken areas of the healthcare system.

Lots of discussion has occurred on the “public option”. Note that this does not address any of the areas where the system is broken. Mandating access can be accomplished without a “public option”, but many of the supporters of this approach don’t seem to understand this point. To the public option fans, being against a public option means being against access to care. Not true. Our present system is dominated by government-provided (to government employees) and employee-based care. The marketplace for individual purchasers of healthcare is weak. This could change with the right legislation and refinements to the present insurance options. The key to having a system that works is that everyone must be in the system. This will require employers to provide medical benefits to their employees and for other individuals to purchase their own insurance. No opt outs to the young and healthy should be allowed. Or else we end up with a poor risk pool. But high surcharges to those who don’t want to participate is “politically unacceptable”. For those who cannot afford coverage, subsidies should be provided. But everyone must be in the system.

So how about the other broken areas? How do we control the future cost of care? How do we improve the quality of care? How can we use data more effectively? I have some ideas. (Check out a blog in the near future on these topics).