Coronavirus Research

Survey Results: Will Delta Derail Return to the Office? (i4cp login required)

Mon, 23 Aug 2021 18:37:00 GMT

With the Delta variant surging across the U.S and across the world, plans are having to change rapidly. The return to the office is no different, companies' plans are constantly in flux as new reports come in and the variant continues to spread.

i4cp's recent pulse survey that explores the impact of the Delta variant on return to office plans, employee vaccine mandates, and more. As you know, i4cp has been studying the business impact of COVID-19 since February 2020, and the results of this latest survey make clear that the situation remains volatile:

Over 50% of companies are now mandating or considering mandating vaccines for employees—up from ~8% just a month ago
Nearly three quarters (73%) have adjusted or are considering adjusting their return-to-office plans due to Delta
67% said overall health and well-being of employees is one of their most pressing returns, which is driving this sudden shift

From Cube to Cloud™ Key Findings: APAC Region (i4cp login required)

Thu, 19 Aug 2021 11:50:00 GMT

58% of firms in Southeast and South Asia believe the flexible work arrangements they implemented over the past year have been highly successful. While promising, this number still pales in comparison to what is being reported in other parts of the world.

This year, i4cp-in partnership with HRM Asia and SHRM APAC-launched its From Cube to Cloud study to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic drove radical changes in the ways in which we work—and what that means for the next era of work.

Download this complimentary research brief that highlights differences between Southeast and South Asia and other parts of the world.

From Cube to Cloud™ Key Findings: European Union (i4cp login required)

Thu, 05 Aug 2021 10:51:00 GMT

Since the pandemic, 79% of firms in the European Union have changed their views of flexible work to be more accepting and encompassing; making them poised to capitalize on the shift to flex work.

In the spring of 2021, i4cp-in partnership with Top Employers Institute and iVentiv-launched a From Cube to Cloud study to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic drove radical changes in the ways in which we work—and what that means for the next era of work.

Download this complimentary research brief that highlights differences between the European Union and other parts of the world.

New i4cp Survey: Despite Vaccinations, No Rebound for Business Travel (i4cp login required)

Fri, 09 Jul 2021 12:00:00 GMT

Despite widespread COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. and other countries, business travel—both domestic and global—won't see a resurgence anytime soon, according to nearly 500 business and talent leaders surveyed by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) for its late-June 2021 Getting Employees Vaccinated research series.

As of July 4th, the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) reported that 157.3 million people in the U.S., about 47% of the total population, were fully vaccinated; about 55% had received at least one vaccine dose. The BBC reported June 20 figures for the European Union, noting that about half of adults in the EU had received at least one dose, and 28% were fully vaccinated. However, the i4cp research found that those levels aren't sufficient to restore (or grow) pre-pandemic levels of travel for most organizations.

Asked about their expectations of business travel for their employees in the coming 12 months, a combined 62% of those surveyed anticipated that domestic levels will be below or significantly below those seen pre-pandemic. For global travel, that combined figure was 48%. Further, 24% of survey participants (half of whom represented global or multinational organizations) said they anticipated no global business travel for their employees in the coming year; 5% expected no domestic business travel.

While the survey data clearly skewed toward less travel, just over one in five respondents anticipated that their organizations' domestic business travel would match or exceed pre-pandemic levels; only 8% said the same of global travel.

By way of comparison, when i4cp posed a similar query (not specifying the 12-month timeframe) to business leaders in April 2021, 41% said they were planning to resume business travel for fully vaccinated employees, though more than half of those respondents did not expect travel to equal pre-pandemic levels.

Significantly cutting back on business travel suggests that organizations may need to strengthen their strategies for building and sustaining relationships with customers, prospects, suppliers, and other affected stakeholders via video, phone, social media, or other interactions.

Some companies, such as agribusiness and food production leader (and i4cp member company) Land O'Lakes—have already taken steps to redefine traditionally travel-intensive sales jobs, looking for components of the work that can be performed differently. At the same time, Land O'Lakes and other organizations acknowledge that the traditional in-person aspects of selling, customer relations, and other business imperatives aren't going away.

Because the term business travel encompasses broad applications, the projected decrease can also have ramifications for employee and leadership development as fewer individuals journey to conferences and other learning events. Talent acquisition efforts may require rethinking due to dampers on sourcing-related travel. Marketing, purchasing, research and development, community relations, and other functions easily can see the effects of curtailed travel, too.

Write-in comments from participants in the June i4cp survey raise additional points and serve as reminders that even when companies don't restrict travel, other factors can. One respondent cited unexpected travel "freezes" that result from spikes in COVID-19 virus levels or surges in variants that make travel to affected areas inadvisable, if not impossible. Another noted that some countries still limit incoming travel.

A business leader in a Canadian manufacturing firm added that her organization experienced challenges when suppliers, vendors, and strategic partners restricted employee travel, resulting in adverse effects on service delivery.

The i4cp research makes it clear that the coming year will see varied fallout attributable to business travel constraints. And that diminished travel will challenge organizations to do more of what they've been doing since the onset of the pandemic—find new and different ways of accomplishing the activities that keep companies not only in business, but growing.

For more information, download Getting Employees Vaccinated —the latest in our ongoing examination of vaccination and COVID-19-related business concerns and responses.

Carol Morrison is an i4cp senior research analyst

Survey: Two-Thirds of U.S. Business Offices Anticipate Reopening by Fall (i4cp login required)

Thu, 29 Apr 2021 13:30:00 GMT

Commutes may be a little longer during the summer and into fall of 2021, according to new data from the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), a human capital research firm. With over half of adults in the U.S. having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and the numbers rising steadily, businesses are solidifying their plans to reopen workplaces—if they haven’t already.

Nearly two-thirds (61%) of the 405 HR professionals surveyed in i4cp’s monthly series tracking vaccine and return to work trends report that employees have already begun to return to the workplace or will by summer. That is an increase from the 53% that reported the same in March. Specifically:

24% say employees have already returned or have begun returning to the workplace
37% plan to return employees to the workplace by the end of September

While 6% the respondents, half of whom represent global or multinational organizations, don’t anticipate reopening offices until the final quarter of the year and another 5% until 2022, only 10% reported that they have yet to decide on next steps.

Of course, “returning employees to the workplace” does not mean a return to pre-COVID levels of people working closely together. Hybrid and flexible schedules are expected to remain in place at many organizations for the foreseeable future; exactly what this means is a matter and debate and something i4cp is analyzing as part of its From Cube to Cloud™: The Next Era of Work study.

More findings from April’s Getting Employees Vaccinated survey will be available soon.

Workplace Flexibility Business Case Template from Samsung Semiconductor (i4cp login required)

Mon, 01 Mar 2021 05:00:00 GMT

After over a year of mandated remote work, the talent landscape in the US has shifted. This template, provided by Samsung Semiconductor, leverages employee sentiment, productivity data, and external benchmarks to make the case for a flexible, hybrid, return to office model.

February Employer Insights: Most Encourage Employee Vaccinations, Some Offer Incentives (i4cp login required)

Thu, 18 Feb 2021 13:00:00 GMT

Just-in results from the latest i4cp survey confirm that employers continue to prefer encouraging, and not requiring, employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations.

Most of the just over 400 respondents (62%) surveyed last week say they encourage employees to be vaccinated or plan to; only 4% require or plan to require the injections. In both cases, 30% of leaders say they're still considering their options.

In January, i4cp's first survey on this topic—The COVID-19 Vaccine & The 2021 Workplace—explored business leaders' opinions about vaccinations for their workforces. With our post-outbreak world shifting so rapidly, and vaccination debates challenging individuals, businesses, and governments, alike, we're updating our research frequently to provide insights on the evolving situation.

As the year began, few leaders (5%) had an appetite for mandating that their employees be vaccinated (though four in 10 said they were thinking about it). At the same time, two-thirds of those surveyed in January planned to encourage vaccinations when widely available to the public, and another 19% were considering it. Overall, it was clear that many were in no rush to make decisions, instead choosing a wait-and-see approach. The same holds true a month later.

When it comes to formal policies on vaccination, the January survey found 48% of business leaders discussing policies, but undecided. In February, that figure has declined to 38% reporting that they are still in discussions, while an additional 18% say they've decided not to set a policy on vaccinations.

Formal policies are in place in three in 10 organizations represented in the February survey. Those are almost evenly split between a single policy applicable to all employees globally (16%) and distinct policies for countries/regions of operation (14%).

In organizations that have policies in place, 26% address vaccination accommodation requests, and 16% already or will include provisions related to adjusting job or work requirements such as locations or work teams. Minimal numbers of respondents (fewer than 8%) reported policies that referenced proof of vaccination for employees returning to workplaces, regular testing requirements of unvaccinated workers, or workplace adaptations to separate workspaces of vaccinated and non-vaccinated employees.

Organizations Are Experimenting with Incentives

With encouragement of employee vaccinations continuing to be the chosen path of most organizations at present, employers are curious to know how their peers are accomplishing that strategy.

In both surveys, i4cp asked about six types of incentives organizations might use to promote vaccinations. Consistently ranking top-of-list (and increasing from 39% to 50% of respondents implementing or about to) is a relatively easy-to-accomplish effort—providing education or educational material on the merits/efficacy of vaccination.

Beyond that leading action, the new data reflects shifts in choices about incentives, with paid time off for workers to be vaccinated (31% of respondents already implementing or planning to) and onsite vaccination solutions rising in rank while linking vaccinations to companies' existing well-being programs declined significantly as a favored strategy.

Communications Efforts Are Becoming More Organized and Expansive

Effective internal communications are critical to the success of any business objective, and actively encouraging employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 is no exception.

Not surprisingly, the January survey—which fielded concurrently with the advent of vaccine approvals by the FDA—found companies most likely to report that they were leveraging the fastest option at their disposal: one in four respondents were adapting existing employee communications assets about flu vaccines to provide messaging about COVID vaccines instead.

After nearly a month during which vaccines gradually became more widely available (albeit with ongoing supply issues) and businesses had time to begin more expansive approaches, the top choice of communication strategies to encourage vaccination shifted: 38% of survey participants say their current (or planned) top effort is creating an internal pro-vaccination communications campaign that centers on employee health and well-being.

Adapting existing communications materials remains an ongoing effort, but the broader focus is reflected by 35% of respondents who say they are, or will be, putting together FAQ guides for managers' use in responding constructively to workers' vaccination concerns.

Top 5 communication strategies organizations are using to encourage employee vaccinations

Source: Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp)

While i4cp's second vaccination survey reveals some subtle changes in only a month's time, we anticipate more shifts in employers' strategies as greater numbers of people receive the vaccines and the social and business landscapes continue to evolve.

As we have since the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020, i4cp will continue to monitor and explore emerging trends and their implications for business leadership and organizational performance.

Carol Morrison is a Senior Research Analyst at i4cp

How the Pandemic Changed What it Means to Be a Leader (i4cp login required)

Tue, 09 Feb 2021 13:00:00 GMT

Scholar, author, and researcher on organizational leadership Warren Bennis often said, "managers do things right, leaders do the right thing."

The past 12 months have truly tested that mantra; 2020 found us all careening from one crisis to another: A pandemic that has killed more than two million people worldwide, global economic crisis that has left ten-of-millions of the most vulnerable unemployed, social upheavals that put a spotlight on the harsh reality of racial inequality, and political turmoil that tested the democracies in many countries.

Indeed, at times it has felt as if society were having a collective nervous breakdown. All of this upheaval has forced a multitude of changes to society, education, work, and business. It has also driven distinct changes in the ways in which leaders guide their organizations, according to research by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp).

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), i4cp began facilitating weekly crisis response calls open to leaders of organizations worldwide. These calls grew over time to number hundreds of online events that also served to drive data collection via weekly pulse surveys. During these calls, we heard numerous stories of leaders doing the right thing—guiding their organizations through the turmoil with humanity, humility, and compassion.

So, what did these courageous leaders do differently?

Was there a consistent set of leadership behaviors that became more important in 2020?

To answer those questions, i4cp recently conducted a comprehensive global study—Leadership Redefined—that asked respondents to compare the importance of a multitude of leadership behaviors at the beginning of 2020 to now. As part of this research, we have also reviewed numerous articles citing alarming increasing in stress and anxiety in the workforce, which leads to drops in productivity and engagement.

With all this in mind, the study aims to determine if a consistent set of leadership behaviors become more important in organizations that saw increased levels of engagement, healthier organizational culture, strong alignment with their purpose/mission, and increased market performance (revenue growth, profitability, market share, and customer satisfaction) in 2020 versus 2019.

While the data is still being analyzed, five themes have begun to develop:

Leaders are more focused on employee well-being. Leaders gained an unfiltered view into their employees' lives outside of the office in 2020 and observed all the demands employees were dealing with. In response, effective leaders demonstrated authentic empathy and compassion to their employees, and actively worked to ensure that they were providing their workforces a psychologically safe work environment.
Transparency became a key ingredient for success. Leaders focused on clear and frequent communication in the early days of the pandemic. They worked hard to make sure everyone was informed on matters that affected them, but more importantly, their communication strategy was designed to create a sense of community, connection, and belonging.
Leaders sought to understand. For many leaders, active listening became more important than giving direction. They listened to the workforce and respected others' points of view and concerns and paid attention to their opinions and feelings.
Leaders became more agile. As strategies and priorities seemed to change overnight, leaders quickly identified and prioritized new opportunities. They also broke down silos and shared learning and best practices across the organization to create a more agile environment.
They developed a digital mindset. With work suddenly disrupted and remote in many cases, leaders were required to use new platforms to communicate and collaboration. In parallel, they had to accelerate employee adoption of and preparation for new technology and digital processes.

The question at hand is whether the changes in leadership behavior experienced in 2020 were simply the result of responding to the numerous crises, or whether they will remain changed going forward. When asked this question in the recent leadership behaviors study, two-thirds of the respondents indicated that changes their organization adopted in 2020 will "strengthen its ability to achieve its strategic goals in 2021 and beyond."

It's naïve to believe that just because we turned the calendar to 2021 everything will or has changed. The pandemic still rages (although there is hope with new vaccines). But there are new variants of the COVID-19 virus emerging as well as upticks in infection rates in regions of the world that had previously seemed to have contained spread. And as we all well know, the economy will not recover until we conquer the pandemic.

And even once the pandemic is behind us, other critical challenges remain. Realistically, we cannot snap our fingers and reverse hundreds of years of racial inequity or close decades of deep political divisions. As a result, courageous leadership behaviors will be needed more than ever.

One thing is certain: as we start to come out of these multiple crises, we will not view the leadership behaviors that became priorities in 2020 as novel, but rather as standard, effective, and necessary ways to lead successful organizations into the future.

About Leadership Redefined

The multiple crises of 2020 have significantly altered what it means to be a successful leader. In our Leadership Redefined study, we examine the leadership behaviors that both increased and decreased in importance—and what this means for leadership in the years to come. Through a series of data analyses, case studies, infographics, and tools, this study will help shine a light on behaviors organizations should emphasize when hiring, developing, and promoting the leaders who will guide their organizations into the future.

What the Pandemic Revealed about Employee Well-being: An Interview with Author and i4cp Thought Leader Jeffrey Pfeffer (i4cp login required)

Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:39:00 GMT

In mid-2020, well into the COVID-19 pandemic, the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) partnered with Dr. Jeffrey Pfeffer on research to identify vital organizational stakeholders, their responsibilities, decision-making criteria, and other key aspects of the healthcare ecosystem.

Pfeffer, a longtime i4cp Thought Leader Consortium member and the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business, has taught at Stanford since 1979 and is regarded as one of the nation's most influential business and management visionaries. In addition, he is the author or co-author of numerous widely published articles, and his 15 books include 2018's Dying for a Paycheck, a landmark examination of employee health, stress, and the toxic work environments and management practices that are leading contributors to those problems.

The goal of the 2020 i4cp/Pfeffer healthcare research?

We sought to uncover insights to help employers achieve stronger outcomes with their healthcare programs and ultimately, to contribute to the higher levels of employee well-being that enable both individuals and businesses to perform optimally.

Because U.S. employers now pay for or provide half of the nation's healthcare services, optimizing the efficiency, effectiveness, and affordability of that care is a critical imperative—one made even more apparent by the pandemic. But Pfeffer says employers are still missing the mark when it comes to the well-being of their workforces.

Recently, Pfeffer sat down with i4cp's well-being research lead, Carol Morrison, to discuss the collaborative study and the ongoing commitment he shares with i4cp to identify and support high-performance strategies to improve workforce well-being.

The pandemic has "made everything worse" and exposed the "inadequacies of our systems"

Morrison: In Dying for a Paycheck, you called attention to the staggering effects of workplace stress on well-being—that of individuals and the organizations that employ them. In your view, how has the added challenge of the COVID-19 health crisis affected work-related stress?

Pfeffer: COVID certainly has made everything worse. Surveys I've seen this year—and there have been many by i4cp and others—are consistent in showing that stress is much worse.

According to the American Psychological Association, politics and the election became a high-profile source of stress. Other research by a company that links mental health providers with organizations' employees also found that stress has increased this year. Those are just a couple of examples.

Not only is the stress more pronounced, but the pandemic has really exposed the inadequacies in many of our systems. For instance, COVID made it really evident that we have not done very well as a country with respect to providing enough work/family support. Women, including talented college-educated women, are leaving the workforce in enormous numbers. That will disrupt careers, of course, but it also will eventually create talent shortages.

I have a friend who heads a company, and she said to me, ‘I am a CEO, but I also run a daycare center. I run a school, too.' Because she has a preschooler and a first or second grader at home, she now has three jobs. And the number of women leaving employers suggests she isn't the only one experiencing such overload. So the health crisis has shown the inadequacies of our work/family support structures.

I think that the pandemic has also illustrated the inadequacy of the healthcare system in this country. Because we have an employer-based health system, if you no longer have an employer, you no longer have health insurance.

So COVID-19 has exposed all the weaknesses: It has made stress worse, and it has revealed where we are not very adequate in dealing with situations that confront and seriously challenge people in their lives.

For an employer who realizes those challenges are happening, is there a starting place you would suggest? Can they do something right now to make a positive difference for their workforces?

Sure. A friend of mine runs a company that connects people with mental health providers, mental health apps, whatever they need. I think it behooves employers to explore the ecosystems around work/family support and around mental health. Maybe even insurance benefits administration, too. In other words, try to do things to find better, more progressive, more helpful providers.

I think it would also benefit employers to actually do something which, for the most part, they do not do. And that is: Evaluate the providers of those health and supportive services and hold them accountable. Ironically, this is a very important moment for HR. It is a time in which, I think, companies and their senior leaders understand that business as usual is not going to cut it. So, along with measurement and accountability of benefits providers, I think there is an opportunity for HR to do innovative things—if HR wants to.

"HR practitioners have thought that less is more"

To your point, i4cp research confirms that companies are placing greater emphasis on employee mental health because of the pandemic (and expect that to increase in coming months). Have you seen organizations taking actions to support better mental health that have particularly impressed you or struck you as being especially innovative?

I think companies are reevaluating what they are doing, but it is late. It is a true fact that 61% of the counties in the United States have not one psychiatrist. So basically we have a system in which access is seriously limited. And don't even get me started on health benefits administrators. My general comment to them is that they had better hope there is not reincarnation!

But HR people are responsible for this. HR practitioners have thought that less is more. But less is not more. The idea that you would constrict people's ability to see mental health professionals belies the fact that mental health is a predictor of physical illness.

We have done a study that shows the use of an antidepressant prescription—taking antidepressants—is a marker of depression. You can look longitudinally (which we did, using United Health prescription data) and see how the risk goes up so that the person taking those drugs will subsequently be taking drugs for cancer, diabetes, and/or heart disease. In almost all cases it goes up by about 50%. So mental health predicts physical health.

There are empirical realities underscoring the mind/body connection. If you spend some time looking at the medical literature, there are two mechanisms for this. One is obvious—if you have mental health problems you are probably not going to engage in health-enhancing behaviors. You are probably going to drink more, smoke more, do more drugs, and exercise less.

Secondly, medical researchers have also demonstrated connections between such things as stress and depression, and actual inflammatory responses in the endocrine system.

So HR functions ought to hold their mental health providers and their health insurance providers more accountable and stop rewarding them for providing less care. The reason why health care in the United States is so expensive is because of price and administrative overhead, not because of overutilization.

Is that part of organizations' inability or unwillingness to measure the factors that could tell them whether their well-being programs are really effective? In our research, i4cp certainly found that too few companies (less than half) assess either the effectiveness of their well-being programs or the actual levels of well-being of their employees.

That is exactly correct. People do what's easy, and it is easy to put barriers into utilization—utilization of physical health care, mental health care, alternative medicine, physical therapy, whatever. It doesn't make sense, but they do it.

"The self-imposed barriers in organizations are unbelievable"

You've recently written (in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine) that companies also put limitations on themselves, consciously or not. What do you think it will take to move organizations to measure well-being effectively?

I really have no idea. The decisions that get made on a daily basis are incomprehensible to me. For the article that you mentioned, it was unbelievable to me that we could go out and interview some of the most resource-rich, leading-edge companies that are trying to build cultures of health. Only to hear them say they know that high-deductible health plans really discourage the kind of health-promoting use of medical services that they want to encourage. Yet companies are choosing those health plans. They can't complain about having a high-deductible health plan when that was their own choice.

Sometimes organizations we interviewed would also complain that benefits administrators were not innovative. Yet, again, the companies were the ones choosing which benefits administrators to use. The self-imposed barriers in organizations are unbelievable.

Your article also noted that many companies aren't exactly authentic when it comes to their motivations about offering well-being benefits and pursuing cultures of well-being. Specifically, you said that many firms do those things because they anticipate bottom-line business benefits, and not because they believe that supporting greater employee well-being is the right thing to do.

And the interesting thing is that they don't even get the payoff. Because they don't do what they need to do—measure, eliminate barriers to utilization, demand innovative benefits administration, etc.

Do you think that the ruling from the SEC on disclosure of human capital metrics is a step in the right direction, or that mandated reporting eventually will help give businesses a positive push toward more disciplined measurement?

I think that the move toward ESG (Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance) measures puts organizations' focus more on people and not so much solely on the physical environmental measures. That will help because measurement is the first step. It is not the only step, because we measure many things we don't put much priority on. So without measurement we will never get better, but measurement by itself probably is not going to be sufficient.

Will the attention focused on physical and mental health by the pandemic also serve as a driver for change?

I think so. But it depends upon how long that focus lasts post-pandemic—whether this is going to be a temporary thing or whether it is going to change practices. It is hard to say, but I think that the health crisis has really highlighted the work/family and physical and mental health areas in which there are huge deficiencies.

It will take time to overcome those deficiencies. We are not going to create a tremendous number of mental health practitioners overnight, nor will we create overnight the resources necessary to provide people the support they need in order to have a job and have their health.

Historically we have not been very good at doing things that require time and patience. Sustained attention to things tends not to be a strong suit for many people, but maybe this will be different. I hope so.

In other words, the question is, will businesses be able to sustain progress that has been made because of their response to well-being during the pandemic? Will they be able to sustain that long enough to make a difference? Some will point out that the younger generation thinks differently, particularly with respect to mental health issues. They really want mental health support and will choose jobs on that basis. So that puts pressure on businesses. We will see.

"We need a much more holistic view, not only of well-being, but of how people live their lives"

In your opinion, how important is it that organizations pursue the holistic, or whole person, approach to workforce well-being that i4cp research has featured? (i4cp uses a six-element model that includes physical, mental, financial, career, social, and community well-being.)

I think it is very important. The friend I mentioned who is a CEO—and a daycare and school provider as well—said to me that one of the things COVID has demonstrated is that every day is Bring Your Child to Work Day. While a child may not be physically at work, their well-being, what they are doing, and how well they are faring is in your head as a parent.

So basically the idea that somehow you are going to come to work and your family issues, the well-being of your children, and what's going on with your spouse or significant other is going to be left behind is just insane. We need a much more holistic view, not only of well-being, but of how people live their lives. If someone is ill, or struggling financially, or a child isn't doing well, you do not leave that at the door.

This is not new. This is what SAS Institute (a U.S.-based multinational analytics software developer) figured out close to 30 years ago. The company had hired, trained, and retained many successful software engineers; its leaders understood that enabling those engineers to be productive meant that SAS needed to provide support that would help those employees reduce or appropriately handle family-related concerns.

So the company provided very generous benefits of all kinds and resources to help employees address the problems they and their families faced. When challenges arose, as they inevitably did, employees had the ability to handle them and disruption to their work was minimized.

When organizations take that kind of action, it means that people can deal with situations so that they don't have to quit. SAS figured this out decades ago, and it is just astonishing to me that more companies don't see the benefit of doing this.

Yet, companies don't. The huge statistics that we see now about the pandemic driving women out of the workforce confirms that. And especially when companies talk now about their commitments to diversity and inclusion, they need to create a work environment that permits people to survive.

In July of 2020, i4cp partnered with you on a Benefits Administration survey. In that, you asked HR and business professionals how engaged their current CEOs and CFOs were in decisions about health benefits—such things as copays and deductibles, company versus employee contribution levels, plan design, administration, choice of benefits consultants, etc.

Only 28% of respondents said their CEOs were extremely or very engaged. Meanwhile, 49% reported limited or no CEO engagement.

For CFOs, the percentages were higher: 41% of survey participants said their CFOs were very or extremely engaged; a third said their CFOs showed limited or no engagement.

Given the high costs to organizations for employee healthcare, what is your reaction to those findings and why it is important for those C-level executives to be more engaged in benefits-related decisions?

I think they need to be involved in the right way. As Dying for a Paycheck pointed out—and this is not a big surprise—the health of your workforce affects things like presenteeism, absenteeism, missed workdays, turnover, and productivity. So if you really want a productive workforce you need a healthy workforce—one that is both mentally and physically healthy.

On the one hand, that is common sense. On the other hand, there is a ton of data which has accumulated over decades that demonstrates that. Therefore, you ought to be concerned about building a culture of health in the workplace. Toward that end, companies are spending a fortune on healthcare costs because most of the large firms (and many of the mid-sized ones) are basically self-insured.

So they are spending a fortune on health benefits, but they are oftentimes administering those programs in ways that just upset people and create barriers to accessing the benefits companies are supposedly providing. Essentially that means organizations are shooting themselves in the foot. So to both produce a culture of health and enable people to take advantage of benefits that are very important to them, executives should be much more involved in this.

Business leaders "have a responsibility"

You've reported that some business leaders offer excuses for opting out—they aren't willing to invest in well-being benefits for employees because workers won't stay with the organization, or they feel that what employees do on their own time, specifically as it relates to their health and well-being, is not the business of an employer. What do you say to those executives?

I would quote somebody like Bob Chapman, chairman and CEO of Barry-Wehmiller [a St. Louis-based manufacturing firm], who has co-authored the book Everybody Matters: The Extraordinary Power of Caring for Your People Like Family. He said that when people show up at your workplace, they have entrusted their well-being, both physical and psychological, to you, and you have a responsibility.

If you think about it, companies slowly—and by the way, with a lot of legal pressure which, I think, is what it's going to take for well-being, too—moved away from saying they didn't care about the physical environment years ago. And now they believe that they are stewards of that environment. In fact, many of them are issuing environmental reports and talking about what they are doing in terms of recycling and utilization of resources. They came to understand that they have a responsibility to steward the physical world, which they do.

Companies also have a responsibility to be good stewards of the human beings who have entrusted their lives to them. One of my friends calls attention to that by asking: ‘Why do we care more about polar bears then we do about human beings?' So companies are going to be good stewards of the physical environment, but they need to be good stewards of the human environment as well

The Benefits Administration survey on which we collaborated also asked respondents to rate the importance of eight criteria in organizational decisions about which company (or companies) would administer their firms' health benefits (benefits administrators were illustrated by examples including Anthem and Blue Cross Blue Shield).

Of the top five items respondents rated extremely important, two center on cost, the other three on access/employee experience (ease of locating providers, ease of administrator's website use, market share in employer locations).

What insights do these findings suggest to you about organizations' priorities in health benefits decision-making?

I think the reason why the employee experience and access factors ranked highly Is because one of the things that HR people try to do is avoid noise. To the extent that employees cannot get access to the doctors they want, they make noise; and HR doesn't like all that noise. So it doesn't surprise me that those features ranked highly.

I would also say that I think that cost gets too much attention. And if I were going to give advice, I would advise benefits decision-makers to worry much more about some of the stuff that didn't rate highly.

For example, I am on the Stanford committee for faculty and staff human resources. That is the committee that oversees our health insurance. The benefits administrators come in, and for the most part, they do not report on population health. Companies are paying a ton of money for this. I would hold those administrators responsible, not just for causing employees aggravation in getting access to things but, at least to some extent, for the health of the population.

At the end of the day, my role on the committee is about health and insurance. So I would like to hear about health. We are offering physical and mental health benefits in order to produce a healthier population that misses fewer workdays, that is less stressed, and that is more likely to remain with the employer because they believe the employer cares about their well-being. That is what we ought to be assessing ourselves on.

Companies don't measure their experiences with benefits administrators

The survey asked participants what they were held accountable for related specifically to their job responsibilities associated with health benefits. Their top responses:

Your employees' opinions about your health benefits
Absolute level of spending on health benefits
Mental/emotional well-being of your organization's workforce

Do those factors suggest to you that companies are holding benefits professionals accountable for what they should be?

I don't believe it. How can I be held accountable for the well-being of the people in my organization when i4cp research has found that most organizations don't measure that? Of the three things noted in these findings the one thing that is measured is cost. I don't think that the other two are typically measured.

My informal sense from talking to benefits consultants is that most of their clients do not measure their experience with the benefits administrator. So if you do not measure the experience with your benefits administrator, and if you do not measure the physical and mental well-being of employees, then two of the three things for which benefits administrators are supposedly being held accountable, they are not accountable for. Because no one has actually gotten any data that would permit those individuals to be held accountable.

Should they be held accountable for these things? Absolutely. And it is not that hard. Most companies do employee surveys. It would not be difficult to put on the employee survey questions that would assess the employees' mental and physical well-being and their experience with their benefits administrators.

When it comes to well-being and benefits, what would you have business leaders thinking about or doing differently?

Here's the analogy I make: If you had a piece of expensive capital equipment, and you had employees who were systematically not maintaining that equipment or were doing things that would harm it, you would probably get rid of those employees. You would not let people destroy machinery you have spent a fortune installing.

I would argue that some of the most expensive assets that companies have are the human beings they have spent money to hire, train, and develop. Organizations ought to worry as much about the maintenance of their human capital as they do their physical capital.

. . . .

Visit his website for more on Dr. Jeffrey Pfeffer's work in employee well-being.

Access i4cp studies and resources on workforce well-being here.

Carol Morrison is a Senior Research Analyst at i4cp

Four Priorities for Chief Diversity Officers in 2021 (i4cp login required)

Mon, 18 Jan 2021 13:30:00 GMT

COVID-19, widespread social unrest in the wake of the death of George Floyd, global demands for racial, social, and economic justice, and rising divisiveness in politics worldwide combined to make 2020 an unimaginably tumultuous year for everyone.

The cumulative effect has been even greater for those who work in the field of DE&I. These unparalleled challenges have had the added impact of the uneven weight placed on underrepresented groups and women, which will persist into 2021.

The pressure to move from rhetoric to real change has never been more acute than in 2020. Meaningful progress is the expectation for 2021. The call to publicly disclose diversity data and goals will become more pressing in 2021, only increasing that pressure.

Most DE&I executives are shoring up cultural elements, with ongoing organization-wide DE&I education and the need to build up communities in a virtual setting being two prominent challenges. Many are also ramping up metrics, transparency, and accountability, with particular emphasis at the leadership level and in choosing DE&I metrics to disclose publicly.

The new year will see increased emphasis on the talent acquisition process, with the expectation of improved diverse representation at all phases. And not surprisingly, many CDOs are looking at structural changes to their functions to adapt to both the urgent underscoring of racial and social equity and the shift of large segments of the workforce to working remotely.

The following priorities and predictions are excerpted from our 2021 Priorities & Predictions report, based on guidance from our Chief Diversity Officer Board.

CDO Priorities & Predictions

1. Organization-wide DE&I enablement

While most organizations provide DE&I training (which is mandated by many), ensuring ongoing education and better effectiveness is a 2021 focal point for over half of the members of i4cp's CDO Board. More organizations are improving their bias training programs and also facilitating peer-to-peer dialogue and town halls on issues of race and inclusion. Other enablement initiatives include bias audits of all talent management functions and strengthening development programs for underrepresented groups.

2. Build and maintain cultural cohesion

As unrest related to racial and social inequities boiled over in 2020, organizations turned to employee/business resource groups (ERGs/BRGs), which were instrumental in advising on and guiding meaningful response in both their organizations and the communities in which they operate. This has compelled some companies to look at restructuring and empowering employee groups to be more effective and rewarding going forward for participants and leaders alike (i.e., dedicated on-the-clock time, administrative support, greater visibility, more resources, leadership training). There is also a small but growing movement towards compensating volunteer leaders who dedicate their time and passion to supporting their organizations while raising the visibility and engagement of their groups.

3. Metrics, accountability, and transparency

Strengthening and refining metrics has been a focus of CDOs for many years, but 2020 accelerated the need for greater transparency, effectiveness metrics for equity initiatives, and accountability for leaders at all levels. While rules and guidance regarding non-financial metrics vary by country and range from sweeping (e.g., the EU's General Data Protection Regulation) to imprecise, such as new human capital disclosure requirements from the U.S. SEC, it is clear that organizations that tout diversity as a strength will be required to disclose evidence to support those claims. Forward-looking metrics implemented in some high-performance organizations include talent bench diversity, inclusion scorecards for managers and employees, deeper analysis of candidate sourcing and hiring, and participation in ERG/BRGs. Increasingly, companies are examining executive compensation ties to diversity goals.

4. Structural changes to increase effectiveness

In line with the need for greater accountability, many organizations are reexamining DE&I governance. This includes a clear model for reporting DE&I actions and outcomes to the C-suite and board. Areas being redesigned include supplier diversity, a revamped ERG/BRG model, alignment of DE&I committees throughout the organization, building diverse partner relations (i.e., community, education, business organizations), and changes to the overall DE&I team structure.

For more insights from Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officers, download our 2021 Priorities & Predictions report.

As COVID-19 Vaccines Roll Out, Business Leaders Aren’t Rushing to Require Them (i4cp login required)

Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:30:00 GMT

Fervently hoped-for COVID-19 vaccines are making their way to frontline workers and beyond, but many business leaders remain undecided about their organizations' policies on vaccinations for employees, suppliers, and other stakeholders.

Data from The COVID-19 Vaccine & The 2021 Workplace, a new pulse survey by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), shows that corporate decision-makers are more comfortable with encouraging (versus requiring) employees to get vaccinated. And many company leaders simply aren't ready to rush into vaccination policies.

Only 5% of surveyed business leaders said their organizations would require employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine once it was widely available to the public. In contrast, more than two-thirds—68%—planned to encourage workers to be vaccinated. Large percentages of respondents reported discussions taking place, but no firm plans yet.

Throughout the short survey, we're-considering-it responses consistently emerged as the favored approaches. About half of participants reported that they were engaged in discussions about vaccination policies. In some cases, well over half said that they were still considering what would constitute the content of such policies, how to encourage vaccinations, and how to communicate effectively with employees about vaccines.

Caution Doesn't Belie Intent—Especially When Stakes Are High

Although some may think that business leaders are dragging their feet, taking a thoughtful and cautious approach to questions about the vaccine doesn't imply indecision or avoidance of action. Instead, it signals that executives are working to make strong decisions and devise effective strategies as organizations emerge from the long shadow of 2020.

Savvy business leaders realize that requiring (or even just encouraging) the COVID-19 vaccine for employees and others involves many variables. Even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and other government entities have issued statements and provided information about COVID-19 vaccinations, knowledge about the vaccines and their effects is early-stage and still evolving.

Perhaps one of the most critical factors affecting corporate policymaking is leaders' understanding that vaccination is one more new and ambiguous step for employees who may continue to struggle with the emotional fallout of adjusting to months of uncertainty and profound change.

The marked increase in organizational support for workers' holistic well-being—and especially mental well-being—is testament to an appreciation of the personal toll the coronavirus has taken.

One recent AP/NORC poll reported that about half the people in the U.S. don't want to be vaccinated for reasons ranging from mistrust to health conditions to religion-based objections and more. That resistance means that employers seeking to fulfill their mandate to provide safe work environments must navigate potential legal fallout if they choose to require employees to be vaccinated in order to return to, or continue gaining access to, company facilities. Indeed, the EEOC has said employers can require vaccinations, however, exceptions (for health, religious, and other conditions) apply.

So balancing concerns for individual and workplace well-being is a core challenge for organizational decision-makers. Some of the other compelling issues that warrant the careful consideration business leaders are investing:

Will companies require all employees to be vaccinated, or just certain groups?
Should a vaccination policy apply to remote workers, too, if they aren't accessing company facilities?
Should the organization partner with a healthcare provider to make vaccinations available?
If employees don't agree to vaccination, must they be tested regularly for COVID-19 before they can enter workplaces?
How will the organization communicate about and accommodate the exceptions that apply to some employees?
What, if anything, must be done to adapt workplaces to accommodate employees who are and aren't vaccinated?
How will the organization confirm that an individual actually has received the vaccine?
How does the organization's vaccination policy align with company culture?
Will vaccination policies affect the organization's ability to acquire talent, the engagement levels of current employees, and other factors that contribute to performance?

Clearly, there are many more things to think about than those listed above. And there is variation—and sometimes special challenges—by industry, organizational size, location, and other factors.

That plethora of considerations underscores why seasoned and responsible business leaders aren't making snap decisions about COVID-19 vaccination policies. They understand there is much at stake and many perspectives to contemplate. A careful, measured approach to decision-making—especially in the still-roiling wake of a chaotic year—is a sign of solid leadership and a key strategy for ultimate success.

In the days ahead, we'll share more results of i4cp's The COVID-19 Vaccine & The 2021 Workplace survey. Check back for insights into the policies and strategies leading organizations are considering as we move into a new and hopeful year.

Carol Morrison is a Senior Research Analyst at i4cp

Survey Results: The COVID-19 Vaccine & The 2021 Workplace (i4cp login required)

Mon, 11 Jan 2021 19:29:00 GMT

The new COVID-19 vaccines present new challenges for business leaders. Namely: will you require your employees to vaccinate? Can you?

Over 70% of major CEOs polled at a recent Yale summit said they should be required at work but, when asked if they would be requiring it, most hesitated and acknowledged that doing so will be highly controversial.

64% Say the Coronavirus Outbreak has Affected Their Company’s Productivity (i4cp login required)

Fri, 06 Mar 2020 17:34:00 GMT

Companies have reported an increased impact on productivity related to the coronavirus since mid-February, according to a new survey of 650 HR decision makers conducted by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp).

This week's survey found 29% of participants reporting that the coronavirus outbreak has negatively affected productivity in their organizations from a moderate to high extent; and 35% reporting that the coronavirus outbreak has affected productivity in their organizations to a small extent.

Three weeks ago, a combined 70% of those surveyed reported that the coronavirus outbreak had had a small or no impact at all on productivity in their organizations.

Travel restrictions

Among the survey respondents (most of whom represent organizations with global or multinational operations and workforces of 1,000+ people), over a third (36%) reported that they are currently allowing employees to exercise their own judgment in making business travel decisions.

But modifications to business travel policies are on an uptick in response to the growing number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 (coronavirus) across the U.S.

Specifically:

28% reported that only essential business travel outside the U.S. is currently permitted.
24% reported that only essential business travel inside the U.S. is permitted
Seven percent of organizations have suspended all business travel, both within and outside the U.S. (not including routine daily commuting).
17% said that they have not addressed business travel policies in response to the coronavirus outbreak in any way

In terms of the duration of travel restrictions, the majority of survey respondents said their companies have not set an end date—a combined 66% said a determination has not yet been made or that no end dates have been set.

Beyond the travel issue, and despite notable headlines, well over half of survey respondents (57%) said that their companies have not cancelled events or other activities due to the coronavirus.

Organizations are making travel and other policy decisions based on advisories from health organizations such as the CDC, the WHO, or the National Institute of Health (86%). Other information sources relied upon include:

The advisories from the federal government (62%)
State and local advisories (55%)
Recommendations of internal crisis management team (45%)

Beyond travel modifications, response strategies that companies are looking at include:

Implementing a "split operations strategy" in which employees are divided into teams or groups and physically separated from one another for weeks or more at a time in order to prevent potential intraorganizational spread.
Providing geo-specific information links and channels to supply real-time information to employees based on regions.
Revisiting supply chain designs.

While we typically only make the full results of our research available to i4cp member organizations, due to the nature of the outbreak and its implications for individual health, the full benchmarking report is available for download here.

We are actively working with our members to encourage idea sharing among HR leaders--go here for more coronavirus resources.