Article Portfolio SelectionsGroup 10

Employee Development, Performance, and Protection

Health Care Breaks Proving Ground with Private Insurance Excchange(10/2014)

Public Employee Motivation Requires a Cross-Generational Approach(10/2013)

Successful Teamwork Calls for Visionary, Organized Employee Training(10/2013)

Honing a Public Workforce Requires Awareness of Generational Diversity(07/2013)

Effective Teamwork Calls for Focused Strategies, Leadership, Respect(07/2013)

Successful Project Partnering Requires Commitment, Teamwork, Patience(10/2012)

Responsible Public Use of Social Media Requires Leadership, Discretion(04/2012)

Congress, White House Push Legislation to Protect, Strengthen Employee Pensions(05/2002)

Health Care Breaks Proving GroundWith Private Insurance Exchange

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

IN what could serve as a future healthcare benefits model for other profes-sional and trade organizations, theAssociated General Contractors ofAmerica recently unveiled a first-of-its-kind private insurance exchange toserve the commercial construction in-dustry.

Appropriately coined as “The AGCAlternative,” the association began inlate August offering competitivequotes to its member firms, featuringcomprehensive health insurance cov-erage from Aetna, MetLife, and GroupVision Service as part of its introduc-tory suite of benefits. The private ex-change was developed in collabora-tion with Willis North America, a unitof Willis Group Hold-ings, a recog-nized global risk advisor and insur-ance and reinsurance broker. AGC se-lected the program’s insurance provid-ers based on their experience withsimilar private exchanges, strongbrand recognition, and a nationwidenetwork of physicians and health careproviders.

Stephen Sandherr, AGC’s chief ex-ecutive officer, notes that the new pri-vate exchange was designed by Willisfor AGC to reduce costs and the ad-ministrative burdens for associationmembers that provide insurance bene-fits for their employees. “Because theexchange offers a broader range ofoptions than are typically available toindividual firms, employers and theiremployees will get more of the ben-efits that meet their particular needs,”he emphasizes.

The new exchange will allow em-ployers to define the coverage para-

meters they will provide to their em-ployees for health and other insurancebenefits and then direct their em-ployees to an online store where theywill have more options than prev-iously offered. Sandherr points outthat AGC’s new private exchange —unlike many public exchanges — willprovide employees with the guidanceand support they need to make gooddecisions. Willis of Maryland Inc. willact as the broker of record for all in-surance products offered on the newprivate exchange. The coverage quotesfor the exchange policies are expectedto go into effect as early as January 1next year, and AGC officials say theyplan to add additional coverage op-tions.

Commenting on AGC’s new venture,Jim Blaney, CEO of Willis HumanCapital Practice, says, “We are thrilledto partner with AGC to deliver thisunique solution to its members. As or-ganizations face rising health carecosts and increasing regulatory de-mands, this unique, customized ap-proach is an effective tool for firmslooking for a new way to deliver mar-ket leading health and other insurancebenefits to their employees.”

There are still challenges, though,that lie ahead for both AGC memberfirms and the general constructioncommunity that are interested in priv-ate exchanges. For instance, a recentMetLife survey found that only 36percent of employers are “very satis-fied” with employee participation involuntary benefits. An analysis ofMetLife’s 12th Annual U.S. Em-ployee Benefit Trends Study con-tends that the disconnect betweenemployees’ positive views on bene-fits and their enrollment actions

highlights the need for more tailorededucation aimed at increasing em-ployee knowledge and confidence inthe benefits enrollment process.

“Healthy enrollment rates are a goodindicator that an employer’s benefitsprogram is working effectively, andthe study found that 62 percent of em-ployers say enrollment rates are themost important criteria for evaluatingthe success of their program,” saysMichael Fradkin, senior vice presidentfor markets and growth strategies atMetLife. According to the study, nearly60 percent of employees are very in-terested in a greater variety of benefitsfrom which to choose. “However, withmore choice, there may also be con-fusion,” Fradkin adds. “If employersadd to their benefits offering but aren’tseeing the employee participation lev-els they anticipated, this may indicatea need for better education and com-munications relating to benefits, ratherthan a lack of interest on the part ofemployees.”

In fact, MetLife’s study indicatesthat employees may be having trou-ble navigating the different benefitoptions available to them, with 38percent reporting they are not veryconfident they made the right deci-sions during their last annual enroll-ment. More than half of the employ-ees responding (53 percent) agreethey need more help understandinghow their benefits work or how ben-efits meet their needs.

On a different front, a recent WillisHuman Capital Practice survey showsthat although health care reform is atop concern for U.S. employers, mostorganizations have not selectivelymeasured its cost impact. Only 37percent of respondents have iden-

tified the cost impact of health carereform on their health plans this year.While this is an increase over the 28percent of respondents identifyingthese costs in a 2013 survey, Willissays it demonstrates that for manyorganizations, determining an accu-rate assessment of these figures isstill a challenge.

Also, the Willis survey indicated thatdespite some reports in the media tothe contrary, employers generally donot plan to eliminate group medicalbenefits as part of their compensationpractices, even though group medicalcosts for employers continue to rise.Sixty percent of respondents said theywere “extremely unlikely” to moveaway from benefits engagement, andanother 17 percent said that they were“somewhat unlikely” to do so.

The Willis survey further finds thatcost-shifting is only part of the solu-tion to rising costs. The majority of

respondents experienced an increasein their health plan costs from 2013 to2014, but of those who reported a costincrease, almost a quarter kept em-ployee contributions the same. Notsurprising, nearly one-third of respon-dents have already implemented orplan to expand existing wellness pro-grams to help control rising groupmedical costs. Ironically though, de-spite the fact that one of the goals ofhealth care reform is to expand cover-age, the survey data suggests that cov-erage has been reduced for some part-time employees. Fourteen percent ofrespondents have already eliminatedcoverage for part-time employees thisyear, and another 8 percent plan to doso moving forward.

Willis notes that the use of privatehealth care exchanges, an option thatwas unheard of just a few years ago, isbeing considered by a surprising num-ber of employers, although actual

adoption remains low. Still, the oppor-tunity to control costs through a de-fined contribution approach while pro-viding greater choice to their work-force is an attractive strategy for manyorganizations.

As an overall approach, businessesseeking to increase employee partici-pation and engagement in their healthcare enrollment programs should ad-dress five key elements, according toMetLife: focus on the tools and tac-tics that matter most to employees;deliver benefits education when andwhere employees want it; boost com-munications by doing the basics bet-ter; be aware that online and mobiletechnology “talks louder” than paper;and get goal-oriented, with measur-able results.

October 2014

Public Employee Motivation RequiresA Cross-Generational Approach

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

AS discussed previously, engineer-ing managers and supervisors in thepublic workplace can help improvetheir staff performance by tapping thegenerational diversity of their em-ployees. To that resolve, managementconsultants and behaviorists have con-ducted considerable research into thedistinctions and motivational interestsof the four generational workforces:the Silent Generation (also called Tra-ditionalists), Baby Boomers, Genera-tion X, and Generation Next (alsoknown as Millennials, Generation Y,and the Net Generation). Amid thoseworkforce distinctions, however, therecan be consensus and shared motiva-tions, particularly in public service.

One of the most effective motiva-tional crossovers is the traditionalwork retreat. It has, though, experi-enced a renaissance in recent years.Due to broad agency cost-saving mea-sures and increased public scrutiny,retreats are no longer characterized asexpensive weekend excursions in re-mote locations. Many of today’s or-ganizational retreats have evolvedinto more scaled-down mini-retreats.Their venues are now hotel meetingrooms, food courts, movie theaters,trade shows, health clubs, restaurantdining rooms, museums and outdooramphitheaters. The underlying moti-vation still exists, however. Get theemployed staff out of the office wherethey are free of distractions and at easeto constructively brainstorm and pro-vide knowledgeable feedback.

Because retreats are an excellenttool for combining both teamwork andindividual creativity, the ground rules

for mini-retreats remain the same astheir traditional counterpart. Manag-ers, supervisors, and team leaders musthave a clear understanding up frontof what needs to be accomplished.Motivational consultants generallyrecommend an agenda that focuseson only one or two primary objec-tives. Equally important, staff mem-bers must not be coerced into attend-ing a retreat, nor should participationby all employees be mandatory; itshould be optional. A feasible strat-egy is to invite key employees, in ad-dition to those who will add value tothe retreat — as well as implementagency development strategies andprojects back in the workplace.

Finally, retreat facilitators shoulddocument all action items during theretreat. Activities should never be con-cluded without summarizing and writ-ing down specific steps that each par-ticipant needs to address upon return-ing to work. The retreat may be the endof one exercise, but it should also laythe groundwork for following exer-cises. In other words, the retreat is notthe end of the planning process; it isthe beginning. Employee training anddevelopment programs are best imple-mented through strong leadership anda system of built-in accountability.

Although many organizations areshifting from an individual to a team-based approach to address a diver-sified workforce, teams may not al-ways be the most practical motiva-tional vehicle for all public agencies,depending upon their size, office lo-cation, work hours, and telecom-muting policies. Actually, attractingand retaining members of anyworkforce generation is more of anart than a science, requiring creativ-

ity, customization, and sometimes alittle innovation. In fact, careful ob-servation of behavioral and motiva-tional traits can be quite effectivewhen staffing an agency.

What someone from the SilentGeneration or a Baby Boomer val-ues is not necessarily what a youngergenerational employee favors in theworkplace these days. And whilethere is generally a set of commonvalues shared by all generations atlarge, what constitutes a motivatedwork environment can differ greatlyamong Gen Xers, Gen Nexters, andtraditional employees. For instance,younger employees may be less in-terested in hearing about agency tra-dition and public responsibility andmore attracted to creativity and in-novation. They may also be less en-thused about rigid organizationalpolicies and more energized inlearning about a shift toward flex-ible work schedules and career de-velopment.

As another example, retirementplanning or long-term health care maybe attractive to Baby Boomers andsome Gen Xers, but those same moti-vations will not retain Gen Nexters inthe short term. Also, an informal andrelaxed work environment may totallyplease Gen Xers and Nexters, but it hasno appeal to Baby Boomers. Motiva-tional gaps always require attentionwhen reviewing employee retentionprograms. Retaining a Gen Nexterwho may view work as a hobby re-quires a different approach than hold-ing on to a Baby Boomer who livesand breathes work for recognition.

Knowing what motivates therange of talent and experience of adiversified workforce is a vital tool

for engineering managers and su-pervisors, in addition to having theflexibility to adapt any recruitingand retention efforts to individualgenerational workers within theiragency. Choice, access, and person-alization can be very powerful moti-vators. Remember, though, there arecore motivational values that remaincross-generational. Some of theseinclude:

! Meaningful Work. Employeeswant to believe they are contribut-ing to something beyond themselves,perhaps a greater good, and thatthey are succeeding in their mission.! Job Flexibility. Whether to carefor young children, aging parents orrelatives, or to pursue additional edu-cational opportunities, flexibility isof value to all workforce genera-tions.! Workplace Respect. Respectamong employees and managementcannot be overstated, whether itmeans appreciating diverse opin-ions, having the right to challengethe status quo, or showing apprecia-tion for talent and ideas.

! Teamwork. Being part of what anagency is trying to accomplish, aswell as feeling accepted as a valuedteam member, crosses all age groups.! Peer Recognition. Being recog-nized or praised for performance infront of peers is a reward that appealsto everyone.

Results of recent employee train-ing programs and survey question-naires reveal some of the more at-tractive motivational cornerstones,such as improving safety and secu-rity practices in the workplace, giv-ing employees as much control overtheir jobs as possible, and provid-ing upgraded equipment and sys-tems to keep pace with a rapidlychanging, competitive workplace.Other motivators include avenuesfor maintaining technical and pro-fessional competence and fast-trackprograms of career developmentthat allow younger employees to ad-vance into management leadershiproles more quickly.

Moreover, management consult-ants have found that helping em-ployees design their jobs to be as re-

warding as possible and fosteringteamwork rather than a hierarchylead to better overall performance,in addition to rethinking the bottom-line value of rigid workplace rulesand regulations for creative employ-ees. For example, allowing employ-ees to telecommute some of the time,where applicable, and encouragingemployees to talk freely, use socialmedia properly, and engage in spon-sored leisure or recreational activi-ties, are considered excellent moti-vational vehicles in the public work-place.

Of course, the motivational im-portance of equitable salary policies,employee feedback, and job perfor-mance recognition cannot be over-stated, either. Among the continuousadvancements in technology, whichalways draw the brightest spotlightthese days, the contributions of pub-lic employees should never be re-

garded as merely routine.

October 2013

Successful Teamwork Calls forVisionary, Organized Employee Training

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

AS often noted, many companieschoosing to utilize team concepts doso with the goal of sustaining andimproving various operations withintheir organization. Successful enter-prises also realize that through hon-ing and expanding employee teamstrategies, the challenges of inte-grating organizational change canbe better addressed, and any nega-tive consequences or resistance tochange can be reduced greatly.

Working as a team during train-ing systematically guarantees suc-cess because everyone is encour-aged to practice together and sup-port one another. It is, in some form,built-in mentoring. When all teammembers under the direction of anengineering manager, supervisor, orteam leader are learning new proce-dures together, the chances of trans-ference and employee satisfactiondramatically increase.

In a group or team environment,employees are able to share theirexperiences, increase familiarity,and motivate each other across gen-erational divides or cultural differ-ences. These results are often diffi-cult to obtain from webinars, prere-corded training, or canned presen-tations. The best starting point forteam training is with a small groupof employees that can work togetherand discuss or brainstorm resolu-tions to challenges. Of course, theobjective should always be to equatetraining success with actual businessperformance.

A key point in maximizing train-ing effectiveness is to ensure that

team members remain actively in-volved in relevant learning — notsitting back passively. Active par-ticipation can be achieved throughpersonal interaction, asking ques-tions of the facilitator and each other,practice exercises, and self-definedactivities such as selecting one ormore aspects of the training for pos-sible implementation in the work en-vironment.

When developing team-buildingprograms, a core set of elements mustalso be defined. These include suchspecifics as the theme of any exer-cises, the measurable objectives andachievable standards to be set, the rel-evant processes required, and a timeframe for conducting exercises,whether an hour, a day, or several days.Equally important, all participants inteam-building programs must un-derstand the necessity for aligningtheir performance with the estab-lished overall performance goalsand management systems of theircompany.

Additionally, it is a good idea toassign an individual to a team-build-ing or training exercise to be solelyresponsible for keeping all partici-pants updated with any relevant in-formation. This will help guaranteecontinuity and smoothness amongteam participants during their train-ing, especially if it is conducted overan extended period of time.

Nearly all team-building programsbegin with simple problem-solvingexercises. These can be fictitiousscenarios, but they should havesome applicability to actual work-place situations. They should alsoadhere to the same structural format,such as the following:

! Clearly state the issue and why itis a problem;

! Draft well-defined goals for ad-dressing the problem, including thepotential benefits for a successfulresolution;

! Identify and prioritize all barri-ers to the goals;

! List the activities, methods, orapproaches to be used in develop-ing probable solutions to the prob-lem; and

! Define benchmarks for the mea-suring success of the team exercise.

A cooperative “buy-in” among allteam members is a necessity beforeany activity commences, as this oneelement can derail any problem-solving exercise if overlooked. As-suming everyone’s cooperation is athand, the team leader carries out theexecution of the exercise, makingsure that all team members are shar-ing an interactive role in the final out-come. Periodic checks should alsobe conducted to ensure that the ex-ercise is kept on track, and that thedefined problem is effectively re-solved, or at the very least, progressis being made toward understandingthe issue and addressing it.

Proper evaluation of job perfor-mance during any planned companychange or transition requires construc-tive and timely feedback from indi-vidual employees on a regular basis.The same holds true for a team man-agement system, and the most usefulfeedback comes from building teameffectiveness. This process all beginswith organizational leadership, focus-ing on five elements: vision, commu-

nicating the vision, trust and confi-dence, self-improvement, and chal-lenges.

Effective team leadership beginswith a company vision or reachablegoal for employees, and that visionshould encompass some facet ofchange that an organization is tar-geting. Several questions need to beanswered while developing a teamvision: What are the objectives inthe change process? What is theblueprint for action? How is thestrategy and performance evalu-ated? Team participation, involve-ment, and continually inviting feed-back from every member will helpanswer these questions, but neverassume that goals remain static. Vi-sions and goals often require occa-sional updating.

Communicating a vision requirescommitment, but it must always beon a one-to-one basis among team

members — and in a comfortable orfamiliar environment to them. Teamleaders should not be authoritative,but instead, listen. Use keywordsand phrases to help create positivereinforcement and feedback. Ques-tions such as “What can we do?” or“What do you think?” will go a longway toward instilling a continualfeedback mechanism.

Moreover, managers and supervi-sors must avoid being lulled intothinking they are the only ones whoevaluate. A team constantly evalu-ates its leader, and a team’s trust andconfidence in its leader must beearned the old-fashioned waythrough hard work and dedication,not authoritative control. Earning ateam’s respect will not happen untilteam members know that its leadermeans them no harm. In other words,a team needs participation from itsleader, not another boss.

Finally, organizational leadershipmust keep in mind that no one wantsto be on a team that is doing nothing;people want to be on a team that isreaching. When one challenging taskhas been successfully completed,those who contributed to the team’ssuccess should be praised. Then thenext challenging project should becreated. The best ideas for new tasksusually originate from a company’sown employees or team members.Managers or supervisors should askfor suggestions to be e-mailed or sub-mitted directly to them. One sure wayto guarantee constant feedback is topersonally acknowledge every com-ment, idea, or suggestion that is sub-mitted, and then immediately requestanother.

October 2013

Honing a Public Workforce RequiresAwareness of Generational DiversityBy Steven J. Storts

Dublin, OhioONE of the ongoing challenges forengineering managers and supervi-sors in the public workplace is main-taining productivity among bothtechnical and nontechnical person-nel and stimulating interest in newprojects. While there is no magicalsilver bullet that can target workobjectives with 100 percent accu-racy, management consultants andbehaviorists continually advocate akeen awareness of the basic per-spectives and motivational interestsof the four generational workforces:the Silent Generation (also calledTraditionalists), Baby Boomers,Generation X, and Generation Next(also known as Millennials, Genera-tion Y, and the Net Generation).

Today, most government agenciesstaff few Traditionalists. More than90 percent of them are retired or ofretirement age in their 60s, 70s, and80s. However, for those currentlyserving the public in a supervisory,management, or high-ranking sup-port capacity, they continue to dis-play a strong work ethic and devo-tion toward high ambition andachievement. The Silent Generationis touted as the one that helped cre-ate American prosperity — startingwith nothing.

Predominantly in their 50s and 60sapproaching retirement, with some intheir late 40s, Baby Boomers accountfor more than 75 million people in theUnited States, with some estimates atnearly 80 million. Lauded as a gen-eration representing optimism andexploration, Boomers were the firstto break ground for personal mobil-

ity in the home and workplace. Theyare characterized as work-centric, in-dependent, goal-oriented, and com-petitive.

Accustomed to long work weeks,and in many cases, thriving on ex-tended hours or project durations,Boomers are motivated by accom-plishment, financial rewards, publicrecognition, and job positions and re-sponsibility. Their competitive natureis often directly linked to their self-esteem, which is driven by their ca-reers and workplace environments.They are generally accepting of newmanagement or public sector policies,especially if they have an individual-istic or independent slant allowinggreater creativity and greater rewardsfor achievement.

Generation X, the smallest of thegenerational groups, comprises about46 million Americans in their 30s and40s. As a whole, this workforce gen-eration is more ethnically diverse,more formally educated, and moretechnically proficient than the BabyBoomers, with greater than 60 percenthaving attended institutions of higherlearning. Sometimes described as cul-turally reactive, alienated, disenfran-chised, or having a lack of identity,Gen-Xers are not considered as in-tensely competitive or overachievingas their Baby Boomer counterparts inthe workplace.

Often viewed as prolific entrepre-neurs in an era of emerging technolo-gies, Gen-Xers embody a “work-smarter-not-harder” mindset. Theyalso have a different vision of theirpreferred workplace environment.Proclaimed as independent, resource-ful, and self-sufficient, they valuefreedom and responsibility but not

structured work hours. They also shyaway from organizations with micro-management philosophies and want aslittle hands-on, over-the-shoulder su-pervision as possible.

Composed primarily of children ofBaby Boomers and Gen-Xers, Genera-tion Next embodies a workforce nowin their teens, 20s, and some enteringtheir 30s. They currently representone-third of the U.S. population, withnumbers estimated from 75 million tomore than 80 million. More impor-tantly, they are the most racially andethnically diverse of any generationalcategories, comprising significantnumbers of Asians, Hispanics, African-Americans, and Native Americans.Middle Eastern, Indian, Pakistani, andcultures from developing African na-tions are also represented.

Having watched their parents orolder siblings face potential downsiz-ing and restructuring among their em-ployers in both the public and privatesectors, Gen Nexters often view workfrom a prism of uncertainty. They ap-pear to be less committed to employ-ers because they perceive employersas being less focused on long-termloyalty to their staff. Although theyexhibit some workplace skepti-cism, Gen Nexters are also quite op-portunistic on demand and ex-tremely tech-savvy and tuned-in tothe digital age, more so than any pre-ceding generation.

Many Gen Nexters are still emerg-ing into adulthood; they are not yetfully independent or self-sufficient;their set of life experiences is some-what limited; and they can seem im-patient at times. For some publicagencies, however, this characteriza-tion can translate into a distinct ad-

vantage because these younger em-ployees will, hopefully, embrace anorganizational structure that sup-ports personally tailored careerguidance and mentoring programs.The end result could be a higher re-tention rate — not an early exit tolook for more satisfying work envi-ronments.

While Gen-Xers and Gen Nexterswill exert a significant influence inthe public workforce in the foresee-able future, the still-productivevalue of Baby Boomers and Tradi-tionalists should not be overlooked.Their motivation can be spurred byappreciating their resourcefulness,sense of loyalty, and civic-mindednature. Key management strategiesshould be a blend of traditionalbrick-and-mortar-style training,such as hands-on forums and lec-tures, and some newer online tuto-rials or Web-based learning exer-cises. A good motivational approachspecifically for Boomers is that of

providing guidance on how they mayretire into more leisurely pursuits orperhaps another career — some-thing less stressful.

An effective motivational strategyfor Generation X that public agen-cies can employ is the expansion oftelecommuting opportunities, if fea-sible. This generation is technologi-cally adept and quite comfortable us-ing PDAs, cell phones, laptops, note-books, smartphones, e-mail, instantmessaging, and other forms of digi-tal communication to work fromhome or other remote locations.

Gen-Xers also value long-term ca-reer opportunities and often seek outemployment that will build upon andimprove their individual talents andskills. A useful approach for court-ing these employees is to embedmore personal mobility and portabil-ity into their job roles. Gen-Xers maybe less inclined to move on to an-other employer if they feel more se-cure with their job assignments, can

accomplish organizational goals ontheir own terms, and can fuse somefun or humor into their workplaceactivities.

A simple tool for motivating GenNexters to exceed expectations is toutilize the team concept wheneverpossible. This generational groupseeks input and affirmation fromothers, and it values teamwork, ac-tually preferring to work on teamsrather than individually. Engineer-ing managers and supervisors shouldalso note that Gen Nexters cravefeedback and attention and seekconstant praise and reassurance.Still, these young employees are con-fident, highly creative, ambitious,and have a thirst for tasks that chal-lenge their skills and talents.

July 2013

Effective Teamwork Calls for FocusedStrategies, Leadership, Respect

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

SINCE the expanded quality move-ments of the 1970s and 1980s, theteam concept has been a valued toolfor industrial organizations aimed atimproving their productivity, meetingthe challenges of fluctuating economi-cal markets, and helping to navigatepolicy changes. Although teamwork iswidely practiced today, younger en-gineering managers and supervisorsmay occasionally require a basic ori-entation or additional guidance re-garding the deployment of teams.

Generally, most companies thatchoose to utilize the team conceptdo so with the intent of sustainingand improving various functions ofthe organization. Functional teamscan be aligned with task forces, pro-cess improvement or quality circles,or study groups. In a group or teamenvironment, employees can freelyshare their experiences, increase fa-miliarity, and motivate or even teacheach other.

Most important, though, any teamsuccess should always equate to ac-tual business performance, with es-tablished benchmarks for evaluationand feedback.

While teamwork among employ-ees is usually considered a companycardinal rule, the actual formation ofteams as an endgame does not nec-essarily ensure success. It is helpfulfor managers and supervisors to notethe following:

! There is always the possibility forteam formation wherever any orga-nizational interfacing occurs, par-ticularly when facilitating change.

! Teams can frequently achievetasks that may not otherwise get com-pleted through individual job func-tions.! Teams are much easier to formthan problems are to solve.! Team consensus is not always thecorrect way to do business.! A team must not degenerate intoineffectual committee behavior, withlittle or no direction.

Another key point in team trainingand development is that managerial orsupervisory roles must shift towardthat of a coach, leader, and facilitator.All team meetings should focus on astructured agenda: constructive newsreports or announcements; discussionof recent performance; problem solv-ing; news and information of value tothe team’s mission; and planning forthe next event.

Contrary to some management theo-rists, meetings are not the problemwhen it comes to facilitating team-work. In fact, team meetings can beone of the most effective communica-tion tools for businesses when con-ducted properly. The problem is poormeetings! Without tight structure, pur-pose, and planning, team meetings willnever become a contributing factorin confronting organizational chal-lenges. Also, employees tend to re-spond better to what is measured andrecognized. Companies need to takethe time to identify where team objec-tives have been fulfilled, or where theymay not be quite satisfactory. Andeven small victories should be cel-ebrated.

“So, what’s in it for me?” Manag-ers and supervisors have heard thiscountless times in the workplace, but

it’s true. Employees often respondfavorably and will more actively par-ticipate in team training and devel-opment when they know it will pro-fessionally benefit them. As withother business endeavors, outliningthe benefits of teamwork can assumemany forms, including:

! Helping employees succeed in anewly changed environment;! Increasing job satisfaction andvalue to the organization;! Preparing employees for a pro-motion or new career opportunities;and! Encouraging licensing or pur-suit of required credentials.

It is also a good practice for organi-zations to develop staffing proceduresthat encourage voluntary team par-ticipation, which allows for a platformwhere only interested or enthused par-ticipants form a team. Randomlythrowing together a group of individu-als and expecting them to work as ateam is not good management strat-egy and can be costly and counterpro-ductive. Strong leadership and a sys-tem of built-in accountability are re-quired for implementing viable teamtraining and development programs.After all, an effective team attitudealso improves employee motivationand job satisfaction, which contrib-ute to productivity, innovation, andretention.

However, consensus should neverbe regarded as a dynamic objectivewhen involving collaboration andteamwork. If consensus becomes theend rather than the means, stagna-tion may result. Teamwork is a use-ful vehicle for many projects, but to-tal agreement among team members

is not necessary on all issues. More-over, someone’s view or opinionshould never be ruled out just be-cause that person is not a teamplayer — or does not appear to be.

Team leaders must encourage allparticipants to express their point,even it seems to be out of step withthe team at the time. It could be animportant element, and if not heard,the team may collectively lose anasset. As a training rule, it is never ateam member’s obligation to agree.If a team sets out to block dissen-sion or controversy, it may also blockout the one person who has the bestidea at the table.

The lesson here is that team mem-bers can disagree without being dis-agreeable, and much responsibilityrests on the team leader’s shoulders.A team member should never be in-timidated when stepping forwardwith suggestions if he or she sees thegroup straying off its appointedcourse. Remember the importance of

maintaining a balance and be will-ing to listen to those who go againstthe grain of conventional wisdom.

The bottom line strategy for team-work is to first listen and learn andthen synthesize the best ideas out ofthe team pool. The other ideas canbe put on hold for future discussion.Leaving it up to one person to makeall the decisions does not necessar-ily result in the right decisions.Shared decision-making is whatmakes the team concept so effective.

Protocols for guiding team in-teraction obviously vary from oneorganization to another. Overall,though, the less complicated the pro-tocols are, the better. The key com-ponents that prove most effectiveinclude the allocation of ample timeto discuss issues and explore differ-ences, encouragement of respect forall team members, and taking respon-sible action on all decisions made.In terms of motivation, it is also vi-tal to provide important and mean-

ingful work assignments, increasethe team’s visibility whenever pos-sible, and link recognition or re-wards to the collective goals of allparticipants.

Teams that are successful in satis-fying their mission always create anenvironment of respect that allaysany fears of reprisal for disagree-ment or conflict. At the beginning ofeach new project, team membersopenly discuss their challenges andthen establish their shared goals.Each member’s role and expecta-tions must be clarified, and a systemmust be in place for measuring andrecognizing results. Through thisapproach, participants can greatlyreduce the potential for any nega-tive consequences or resistance tofinal outcomes.

July 2013

Successful Project Partnering Requires

Commitment, Teamwork, Patience

By Steven J. Storts

Dublin, Ohio

THE formal management process

known as partnering is touted by the

U.S. General Services Administra-

tion and many public sector stake-

holders as a team-based approach to

project development and problem

resolution aimed at eliminating or

mitigating conflicts, litigation, and

claims.

GSA and transportation agencies

in Arizona, California, Illinois, Ohio,

Texas, and other states cite further

benefits of partnering: on-time com-

pletion, increased customer (public)

satisfaction, better value for the tax-

payer dollar, reduction of paper-

work, enhanced communication, and

improved relationships among all

project parties — owner, design pro-

fessional, contractor, subcontractors,

and suppliers.

Not to be confused with joint ven-

tures or public-private partnerships

for managing and operating infra-

structure, partnering is not a soft

strategy for improving project over-

sight. On the contrary, this structured

process requires considerable effort

to initiate and diligence to maintain.

All parties to a project must volun-

tarily agree at the outset to adopt a

cooperative attitude and commit to

the purpose of achieving specific

objectives by maximizing the effec-

tiveness of each participant and

available resources.

Additionally, emphasis must be

placed on team building, clearly de-

fining common goals and objectives,

developing synchronized systems

for resolving conflicts quickly, and

conducting regular evaluative ses-

sions regarding the progress and ef-

fectiveness of the program.

Although detailed partnering

structures may vary from agency to

agency, all programs generally be-

gin with a facilitated team retreat

involving all project stakeholders —

anyone who can impact a project. At

this initial workshop session, the

partnering team establishes a mis-

sion charter and guidelines for ef-

fective communication, identifies

criteria for evaluating progress and

performance, and agrees on methods

for resolving disputes and promot-

ing cooperation. All team members

sign a formal partnering agreement

to ascertain their commitment to the

program, and follow-up workshops

are conducted periodically for the

duration of the project as agreed

upon by the participants.

It is important to emphasize that

partnering does not replace the need

for standard contract documents to

define the relationship between

project parties under legal param-

eters. Also, partnering principles are

not legally binding unless partici-

pants stipulate such intent during the

charter’s documentation. If the prin-

ciples are to be non-binding, as is

usually the case, then the language

used throughout the partnering

documentation must clearly reflect

that intention to remove any doubt.

GSA notes that partnering partici-

pants in a majority of its public build-

ing projects report lower stress lev-

els than in non-partnered projects

because traditional adversarial atti-

tudes lose favor and are replaced by

a sense of mutual accountability and

trust. Studies by other federal and

state agencies show further that part-

nering fosters improved safety, re-

duced construction time, and greater

value engineering savings because

of the cooperative environment.

Partnering, of course, is not for

everyone, but it is a value-added in-

centive for public agencies that wish

to subscribe to quality, trust, and

cooperation in project management.

However, the process often requires

high-level management commitment

to be successful and, consequently,

a small project may not always jus-

tify such level of management in-

vestment. The key for newer partici-

pants is to steer clear of an “instant

gratification” mindset. Successful

partnering is not a one- or two-day

event; it takes time and dedicated

effort and must be cultivated through

shared challenges.

The National Aeronautics and

Space Administration points out that

most industry professionals realize

that teamwork will produce a better,

more efficient, safer, and cost-effec-

tive project. Likewise, these profes-

sionals generally understand that

most construction problems are

caused by a lack of teamwork. “They

would also rather work with than

against the other players,” accord-

ing to the NASA Partnering Desk

Reference. “Partnering provides

them the opportunity, the framework,

and the process to do what they

should do and want to do — work

together.”

The NASA guide also cites surveys

by the Construction Industry Insti-

tute and others indicating a strong

desire for repeating the partnering

experience. Equally notable, partner-

ing has probably not realized its full

potential yet. NASA says partnering

veterans generally agree that the pro-

cess improves with experience; the

fifth partnered project is likely to

have more benefits than the first.

Moreover, partnering is not a pana-

cea for all problems; it does nothing

by magic, but it may salvage a di-

sastrous project or make a mediocre

one excellent.

Another recognized attraction of

partnering is its versatility of ar-

rangement: project specific or stra-

tegic. The former is simply applies for

the duration of an individual project,

whereas the latter is longer term for a

specific period of time, usually ad-

dressing a number of projects. Stra-

tegic partnering can provide ex-

panded opportunities for continued

improvement in support of Total

Quality Management initiatives or

an enhanced quality control/quality

assurance program. Engineers have

an old saying: “If you can afford to

do it twice, you can certainly afford

to do it right the first time.” When

effective, partnering exemplifies the

TQM experience and can advance

zero-defect goals if uniformly adopt-

ed by all project stakeholders.

Finally, in terms of measuring per-

formance, the Illinois Department of

Transportation, in its model partner-

ing agreement, recommends the fol-

lowing objectives:

n Construct project within the in-

tent of plans and specifications;

n Promote highest quality work-

manship;

n Utilize cost-reduction incentive

proposals;

n Handle necessary work changes

expeditiously;

n Meet all environmental commit-

ments;

n Provide safe passage of the pub-

lic through the project;

n Promote positive public relations;

n Provide a safe, enjoyable work

environment;

n Construct and administer the con-

tract so that all parties are treated

fairly;

n Finish project on time, within bud-

get, and with a fair profit for the

contractor;

n Complete the project without un-

resolved disputes; and

n Issue final paperwork to represen-

tative parties within a specified

number of days after completion

of the project contract.

October 2012

Responsible Public Use of Social Media

Calls for Leadership, Discretion

By Steven J. Storts

Dublin, Ohio

UP until a few years ago, many pub-

lic agencies or their employees were

still reluctant to engage in online

social networking activities in the

workplace, particularly at the state

and local levels. In some instances,

agencies were blocking access to the

more popular Web 2.0 sites such as

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube or

banning their office use during busi-

ness hours. To a certain extent, this

reluctance was due to a lack of prop-

er guidance on the use of social me-

dia by employees; for others, the

anxiety was simply a matter of feel-

ing uncomfortable at sharing infor-

mation with an unfamiliar online

audience.

Attitudes are changing, though,

almost as fast as social media tech-

nology itself. Today, law enforce-

ment and emergency preparedness

officials across the United States,

and some federal agencies, too, have

become the pioneers in social me-

dia advancement in the public sec-

tor for the expressed purpose of

safeguarding the citizenry.

Engineering professionals who

work in the public fields of transpor-

tation, energy, environmental pro-

tection and infrastructure are also

using social networking more fre-

quently in their business activities

to link with information sources and

additional expertise outside the gov-

ernment environment.

Contrary to popular opinion, social

networking is not a “millennial

thing,” as often touted. Pingdom, an

online business monitoring service,

reports that the average user of a ma-

jor social media site is 40 years old.

The average age breakdown for us-

ers is as follows: LinkedIn, 44; Face-

book, 38; and Twitter, 39. More than

60 percent of Facebook users are 35

or older, and nearly 65 percent of

Twitter users are beyond age 35.

For engineering managers in mu-

nicipal government, civic engage-

ment has become a critical factor not

only in providing traditional ser-

vices but also in finding new ways

to meet rising challenges in grow-

ing communities. Social media are

now serving as viable communica-

tion tools for getting the local pub-

lic involved in a timely manner to

help shape the policies and decisions

that will impact their lives.

While some officials acknowledge

that community outreach via online

social forums can occasionally be

risky, they also contend that failure

to not make the social connection on

vital public issues can have far worse

consequences.

Nevertheless, if a public agency

chooses to use social media on a

wide or limited basis, it must be pre-

pared to encounter both positive and

negative content, regardless of how

favorable or unpopular the message

might be toward the agency or its

mission. Most public officials agree,

though, that any content from users

that is ugly, offensive and com-

pletely out of context should not be

posted or deemed worthy of consid-

eration.

State governments have not been

“socially” idle, either. Less than two

years ago, the National Association

of State Chief Information Officers

conducted a survey of social media

adoption by governments in 43 states

and territories, representing nearly

80 percent of the U.S. population.

NASCIO’s research examined adop-

tion trends, current applications and

expectations of social media tech-

nologies, the extent to which imple-

mentation is governed by formal

policies, and perceptions of risk as-

sociated with social media use.

Not surprising, the survey results

reflect that social networking is be-

ing actively adopted and used

throughout state governments across

the country as a means of increas-

ing transparency and opening dia-

logue with public constituents. How-

ever, the report also notes there is a

“parallel lag” between social media

use and policy or governance mecha-

nisms at the state level. NASCIO cites

cautionary concern in the areas of

acceptable use, security, and legal

terms of service that currently gov-

ern use of the free social media tools

that state governments are now em-

ploying.

The Institute for Local Govern-

ment, too, echoes potential concern

for legal implications involving

agency use of social media. These

could include First Amendment is-

sues relating to government restric-

tions on free speech or the use of

public resources for both personal

and political purposes. Other legal

obstacles could evolve over restric-

tions on employee use of social me-

dia, both on behalf of the agency and

personally, or challenge the more

contentious issues surrounding the

management and disclosure of pub-

lic records.

Of those states responding in the

NASCIO survey, only one-third cur-

rently have enterprise policy frame-

works addressing social media, but

a sizable number of states have indi-

cated the need for acceptable social

networking practices or are in the pro-

cess of drafting or adopting stan-

dards. Also in its report, NASCIO

notes that many state governments,

even in the absence of any formal

policies, are still providing leadership

and guidance informally to agencies

regarding social media initiatives.

NASCIO points out that at first

glance, it may appear that state gov-

ernments are relying on individual

responsibility or individual lines of

public business to determine their

own policies or the extent of social

media use. Upon closer scrutiny,

however, it is possible that some state

agencies have some level of comfort

or trust that individual units have

valid reasons for compelling use of

social media and are operating with-

in broader legal policy context for

acceptable use.

To help allay the legal concerns for

advancing a fair and reasonable so-

cial networking framework in the

public sector, the Center for Technol-

ogy in Government recommends

eight essential elements that should

be considered as best practices in any

policy adopted: employee access,

account management, acceptable use,

employee conduct, content, security,

legal issues and citizen conduct.

And for those professional engi-

neers who may be seeking a little

more exclusivity in their selection of

social media, there is a free mem-

bers-only online community that is

steadily gaining popularity: Gov

Loop. Launched in 2008, this net-

working site encourages sharing of

information in a professional man-

ner among public employees and

officials at all levels of government

and has expanded its membership to

more than 50,000.

April 2012

Congress, White House Push LegislationTo Protect, Strengthen Employee Pensions

By Steven J. StortsDublin, Ohio

IT’S been more than 25 years sinceany notable laws governing employeepensions were passed by Congress. Atthat time, workers had much less con-trol over their retirement savings. Thatwas then. Today, about 42 millionAmerican workers own 401(k) ac-counts totaling more than $2 trillionin assets. The recent passage of sweep-ing pension reform legislation by theHouse indicates a major shift towardprotecting and strengthening workerretirement security.

Both White House and congres-sional officials have admitted theyhave an obligation to identify anyproblems in current pension and re-tirement system laws that may haveexacerbated the problems resultingfrom the Enron collapse. The passageof H.R. 3762, the Pension Security Act,supports the president’s four-pointpension protection plan, which callsfor giving workers more freedom todiversify; creating more parity betweensenior corporate executives and rank-and-file employees; providing work-ers better information about their pen-sions; and expanding workers’ accessto investment advice.

The House bill builds upon the pres-ident’s plan, including new safeguardsand options to help workers preserveand enhance their retirement security,and greater accountability from com-panies and senior corporate executivesduring “blackout” periods when rank-and-file employees are unable to makechanges to their retirement accounts.As in the White House proposal, thePension Security Act also bars seniorcorporate executives from selling their

own stock at times when their employ-ees cannot make changes to their401(k) accounts. “If it’s O.K. for thesailor, it ought to be O.K. for the cap-tain,” Bush noted in February, whenhe unveiled his reform plan.

A step back into congressional his-tory provides a benchmark for the cur-rent Washington agenda. Under theEmployee Retirement Income Secu-rity Act of 1974, companies can forceemployees to hold company stock intheir 401(k) plans for extended peri-ods of time. Also, under current law,when 401(k) plans are controlled byworkers, employers are not responsiblefor the results of workers’ investmentdecisions. Further, ERISA only requiresemployers to provide retirement orpension financial statements to work-ers on an annual basis.

H.R. 3762, sponsored by Reps. JohnBoehner (R-Ohio), Sam Johnson (R-Tex.), and Ernie Fletcher (R-Ky.),eliminates this “safe harbor” from em-ployer liability during a blackout pe-riod. During these times, employerswould be responsible for the conse-quences of their workers’ inability toindependently control their invest-ments if they violated their duty to actin the interests of the workers whenthey created the blackout. Boehner,who chairs the House Education andthe Workforce Committee, says the billis the first real step towards a consen-sus product that can eventually besigned into law.

Neither the president nor Congresshesitated to move on their reformplans. The president had already ap-proved the findings of a cabinet-levelretirement security task force, whichrecommended specific legislativemeasures to better protect workers’

pensions. The administration says itwill work with Congress on a biparti-san basis to ensure that these reformsbecome law.

Moreover, both the task force andcongressional committee membershave targeted specific concerns. Forexample, they point out that employ-ers should be encouraged to make gen-erous contributions to workers’ 401(k)plans, including the option to usecompany stock to make matching con-tributions. However, H.R. 3762 pro-vides that employees must be free tochoose how to invest their retirementsavings.

Further, the House legislation al-lows employees to sell company stockand diversify into other investmentoptions after they have participatedin the 401(k) plan for three years.While many companies already allowrapid diversification, others imposeholding periods that can last for de-cades or until retirement, the WhiteHouse notes.

To ensure that blackout periods arefair, responsible, and transparent, thepresident’s plan would ensure thatemployees have ample opportunityto make investment changes througha provision that they be given a 30-day notice before any blackout pe-riod begins.

Also, to enable workers to make in-dependent, informed decisions, em-ployers would be required to givethem quarterly benefit statements thatinclude information about their indi-vidual accounts, including the valueof their assets, their rights to diver-sify, and the importance of investmentdiversity.

Last November, the House approvedH.R. 2269—the Retirement Security

Advice Act—with strong bipartisansupport. The legislation, parts of whichare also included in H.R. 3762, encour-ages employers to make investmentadvice available to employees throughqualified financial advisors who actsolely on behalf of the employees theyadvise. Typically, senior executiveshave had access to professional invest-ment advice regarding their retirementsavings, but rank-and-file employeeshave not.

The House leadership emphasizesthat the Retirement Security AdviceAct could have helped at least someof Enron’s employees preserve theirretirement savings, but the Senatefailed to act last November. Bush isnow calling on the Senate to pass themeasure as part of the overall reformpackage.

May 2002