Pension Risk Matters : Pension Risk News & Analysis : Investment Governance, Inc. : Pension Risk & Investment

If you haven't yet seen "The Company Men" with Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper and Kevin Costner and don't need a lot of laughs, it's a worthwhile flick about the U.S. economic problems of late. The plot centers on a successful sales executive who gets the boot from a Massachusetts conglomerate that started out as a manufacturer of ships. A wholesale layoff of otherwise talented professionals still leaves the company exposed to a hostile takeover so another round or two ensues, with Affleck's boss ultimately getting the pink slip from his lover, played by a glamourous Maria Bello. (Hey, it's the Hollywood version of Corporate America.)

Similar to "Up In The Air" with George Clooney, this film's message seems to be that management is bad, labor is good and that family is what really counts. While I wholeheartedly endorse the message about counting one's blessings in the form of loved ones, friends and colleagues, I'm agnostic about the general "we versus them" theme and prefer to consider one company at a time.

If we've learned anything from the past decade, it's that production is increasingly mobile across borders. Beyond that, C-level leaders in the United States have a legal duty to their shareholders to create wealth (which is not necessarily the same thing as boosting the bottom line but that's a topic for another day). While I am not alone in opining that well-run companies recognize the importance of human capital (employees, clients, vendors) and that is why they can generate healthy returns for their investors, it is also important that individuals retool as often as is necessary to remain competitive.

In 2002, Daniel H. Pink extolled the virtues of independence in his best selling book entitled Free Agent Nation: The Future of Working for Yourself. The numbers speak for themselves with a continued increase in freelancers, temps, affiliated parties and smaller consulting networks that work from home or close by, create their own revenue path and are happy campers. However, for those who desire more stability and structure by working for larger employers, the concept of free agent is still worth pondering. Specifically, if your industry is changing around you, maybe it's time to take stock of how you stack up against others. My dad, now a retired engineer, went through this process about fifteen years ago when he took it upon himself to study computer assisted design at night since younger hires were facile with the newer technology tools and he was not.

As a young banker, I had a boss who urged me to think of myself as a box of raisin bran. Every year, he told me to figure out how to be "new and improved." I would complete a skills inventory checklist and then commit to improve as needed.

"The Company Men" was an enjoyable cinematic outing and a great reminder that dues paying never stops. Learning and career development is a lifetime endeavor, especially now. With longer lifespans and, for millions of people, the need and/or desire to work beyond 65 years of age, it is critical to stay current with requisite skills and experience.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

Work is a four-letter word so can it ever be fun? According to the Conference Board, maybe not. In a recent survey, nearly half of respondents expressed dissatisfaction about doing work that was neither meaningful nor engaging. In contrast, six out of ten survey-takers declared themselves happy in 1987. Somewhat disturbing for would be recruiters is that angst and disappointment was not unique to any particular age group or income level though persons under 25 expressed "the highest level of dissatisfaction ever recorded by the survey for that age group."

As many on the hiring side know already, finding talent can be time-consuming and sap energy from even the most ardent employers. Now add the challenges of retaining productive workers while adding bright-eyed team members in a sad sack era of layoffs, mistrust and diminished budgets. Besides turnover costs, the bottom line could be impaired if few cheer lead for their company, collecting a pay check and already planning for the next gig.

Click to read more about "I Can't Get No...Job Satisfaction, That Is: America's Unhappy Workers," The Conference Board, January 5, 2010 press release entitled "U.S. Job Satisfaction at Lowest Level in two Decades. Click to read "Where America Stands: The State of America and Its Future," CBS News Poll, January 4, 2010 which echoes the observation that not everyone is optimistic about what the future holds.

In an attempt to end this blog post on an upbeat note, I invite interested readers to take a look at the work conducted by best selling author Marcus Buckingham. Rather than dwell on employees' weak points, he urges organizations to focus on strengths. According to his website, this author of "Go Put Your Strengths to Work" and "Now, Discover Your Strengths" urges that "individuals and teams playing to their strengths significantly outperform those who don't in almost every business metric."

The discussion that needs to take place now is one of responsibility.

• Who should properly motivate and on what basis?
• Do  happy, satisfied workers self-select by joining companies that provide "thank you" goodies such as great benefits, bonuses and opportunities to retool?
• How much should and can employers do to make work fun or at least a place where people want to be for a reasonable period of time each day?
• What can organizations do to overcome the survivor worries that accompany any recession?
• How should benefit plans be modified, if ever, to marry together financial pressures with the part of the bottom line that is attributable to human capital?

We may never emulate Snow White's seven friends ("Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It's Off to Work We Go") but obviously something has to give if one out of every two workers is unlikely to stay put for more than a few months.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Seeking a fun film over the holidays, I persuaded my husband to join me at a viewing of "Up In the Air" with George Clooney.This modern Cary Grant did not disappoint, doing a great job of conveying his own search for the meaning of life as he travels the United States, laying off workers at various companies. In an interesting twist, many of the actors are "real people" who had at one time apparently sat across the desk from a non-Hollywood version of a jobs terminator. 

I recommend the movie but don't expect a romantic comedy. In fact, don't expect to laugh more than once or twice. It is a serious montage of human angst at a time of when unemployment is high and only the adventurous are popping champagne corks to celebrate the end of the recession.

I would however like to offer a counter to this Tinseltown intimation that management is always bad and labor is nothing but pure at heart. In today's mobile, global and less than long-term workplace, it is imperative for everyone to continuously evaluate their skill set, make sure they are adding value and can quickly adapt to change. Be part of the solution, not the problem. This is not to say that layoffs of hard-working individuals, due to incompetent leadership, are less than tragic. It's only to suggest that there are countless opportunities to retool and taking responsibility for one's ability to earn a living is paramount.

A former manager urged me to think of myself as a box of cereal and periodically ask whether I'm "new and improved" enough to compete with the other brands. 

• Are you doing enough to encourage your team to grow and learn?
• Are you focused on being the best you can be in terms of wealth creation on behalf of shareholders and, by extension, yourself?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

As I strolled around the ancient ruins of Rome last week (one of the reasons I did not blog for a few days), I was struck by the reality that so little seems built to last. Notwithstanding the architectural glory of the Forum and Colosseum and other magnificent nods to history, our society seems focused on "new and improved." Discard the old. Bring in the new. While unlikely that benefit plan professionals strategically planned obsolescence years ago, one wonders whether retirement plans were ever built to last.

Someone recently asked me for my opinion about what he deemed the inevitable demise of defined benefit ("DB") plans. I countered "not so fast," asserting that changing workplace demographics are giving benefit design teams pause when considering whether to jettison traditional pensions. One investment committee member told me that their company engineers griped loud enough for management to reverse course and bring back the "old fashioned" but popular DB arrangement.

Unhappy 401(k) participants may likewise eventually vote by migrating to employers who offer or reinstate DB plans. Regulators are considering mandates to force employers to strengthen one part of a wobbly three-legged retirement stool. If individuals save little on their own and Social Security is on its knees, who else to pick up the slack but the private sector?

Don't laugh. If the Hula Hoop can make a resurgence with fitness buffs and even have its own magazine, why not defined benefit plans?

If and when these schemes return and/or new savings products come about (driven in large part by rules, regulations and laws), wouldn't it be great to create with permanence in mind? From a cost-benefit perspective, how much money and angst might be saved by doing it right the first time, whatever "right" turns out to be?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to the U.S. Department of Labor website, Labor Day occurs on the first day of every September and is "dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers." Over 100 years old, the holiday was first celebrated on September 5, 1882 in New York City, due to efforts of several labor unions.

Editor's Notes: Here are a few information sources about labor in the U.S. and elsewhere.

• "100 Years of Struggle and Success," AFLCIO
• U.S. Wage Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics
• Global Labor Statistics, International Labor Organization
• Global Labor Statistics, Global Policy Network

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to 60 Minutes, some 80 million "millenials" are descending on Corporate America with aplomb. Tech savvy and self-obsessed, these 20 somethings are creating all sorts of challenges for button down HR departments. Key questions arise.

• What kinds of retirement plans make sense, especially if your workforce is an age barbell (with more younger and older workers and fewer in between)? 
• How does a manager motivate the "me" moguls in waiting? ("No, you won't be promoted by the end of the week.)
• What kind of financial education must a plan sponsor provide when the younger set overspends and believes in now power? According to acclaimed author of "My Reality Check Bounced: The Gen-Y Guide to Cashing In On Your Real-World Dreams," Jason Ryan Dorsey repeats what many surveys show. Few individuals under 30 think Social Security is a reality for them.
• For parents and their employers, how do you properly plan for looming retirement when grown-up children have returned home to nest for awhile?

Despite a job slump in some industries, the future is going to be grim for those employers who fail to recognize the coming demographic time bomb. Watch "The Age of the Millenials" (May 25, 2008, CBSNews.com) and learn about youth power in the workforce.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several days ago, I wrote about the link between employee happiness and the bottom line. I was pleasantly surprised therefore to read about a new study conducted by Auburn University professor, Dave Ketchen. Acknowledging the importance of incentives, his research results also suggest that "performance improvements are stronger when companies take a systematic approach to human resources rather than implementing one or two practices". He adds that "Executives need to adopt a strategic view of the human resource function and create sets of practices that reinforce each other."

In a related article, published in the August 2006 issue of Workforce Management, Dr. Theresa M. Welbourne echoes a similar sentiment about the strategic importance of the HR function. Author of "Human Resource Management: At the Table, or Under It?", Welbourne describes several of her studies which suggest that HR professionals are not given their proper due. This is a pity since "HR can, through various initiatives that reach out to employees, obtain employee insights and ideas about the business. HR can be the table because HR will have information about the business that no one else in the organization has at present. Employees are the stealth ingredient to creating a realignment culture. If you ask employees for information, and you use their input to realign, they are now part of the change, which means they are much more willing to move forward with the leadership team."

So what does this all mean in pension land? Plan design analysis should take into account immediate cash flow and earnings impact as well as trickle down effects that relate to employee productivity and retention. The expected demise of defined benefit plans may not come to pass if companies decide that attracting and keeping employees requires traditional benefits. Given today's article by New York Times reporter Jeremy W. Peters, labor shortages (and related cost pressurs) could nip defined benefit plan terminations in the bud. (See "Labor Costs Shake a Pillar of Fed Policy", September 7, 2006, New York Times.)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Authors Dan Baker, Cathy Greenberg and Collins Hemingway write about successful organizations in What Happy Companies Know: How the New Science of Happiness Can Change Your Company for the Better. Using real-world case studies, their book "shows readers how to build a company where individuals at every level can apply their diverse strengths towards shared goals that are meaningful, positive, and profitable."

They offer that "motivated employees are the keystone to business success", suggesting that "companies built around people, positive mindsets and long-term goals consistently out-perform unhappy companies." (Click here for a short book review.)

Having just been interviewed by two journalists about significant changes to corporate pension plans and having met Dr. Dan Baker, author of What Happy People Know: How the New Science of Happiness Can Change Your Life for the Better, I started thinking about benefits and job satisfaction.

1. Has the flurry of headlines in recent months, chronicling frozen pension plans, layoffs, wage concessions, rescinded health care benefits and varying levels of job satisfaction, made it hard to implement a smiley face approach to work?

2. Accepting the book's premise that happy companies are profitable companies (something that makes sense to me), are they also generous companies in terms of new and/or continued benefits?

3. Do employees favor benefits that promote self-empowerment or prefer a more traditional, and arguably parental, approach?

4. How often do HR professionals break bread with C-level executives in order to design the optimal benefits mix that maximizes the happiness quotient while controlling costs?

5. Are certain types of workers happy even when the company's culture is sad sack central? (For example, there is interesting research that people who get more sleep are happier in their jobs.)

6. Can a company cherry pick happy individuals during the hiring process and thereby save (make) money in the long run?

7. Will rapidly changing demographics alter the way companies hire, train and retain and what role will benefits play?

8. Do employees react to news of rescinded benefits more negatively than never having had them in the first place?

9. Is happiness a function of how executives get paid versus everyone else, absolute dollars paid to executives, both or neither?

10. Are companies in certain industries happier, and if so, why?

I just ordered my copy of what looks like a very interesting book. If you know of research that addresses any or all of these questions, please let us know.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Do you have happy workers? Productive workers? Loyal workers? So many news stories address the financial dimensions of THE pension issue. While important, ultimately the story is about the employees, isn't it? Ignoring tax considerations, companies provide benefits to protect human capital. Though this asset shows up nowhere on a company's balance sheet, it is nonetheless vital to profitability and growth. This is especially true for countries and industries where intellectual prowess determines success or failure.

According to a recent article in FORTUNE, the new paradigm urges managers to "hire passionate people". Citing research done by Christopher Bartlett of Harvard Business School, employees "want a sense of purpose". (See "Tearing Up the Jack Welch playbook" by Betsy Morris.)

In their best-selling book, First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently, Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman regale the reader with countless suggestions as to how to manage people more effectively, including the need to keep people motivated.

Ironically, at a time when identifying and cultivating human potential is paramount, some leaders are still missing the mark. In today's Wall Street Journal, Erin White describes the disconnect between what companies say their performance reviews are supposed to measure versus what employees describe as their perceived opportunity set to advance and contribute. (See "For Relevance, Firms Revamp Worker Reviews".)

With so many companies shifting away from defined benefit plans, will there be a concomitant change in worker happiness? Do employees really choose a work situation based on benefits? Could plan sponsors be taking a short-term view without acknowledging long-term consequences? Do employees favor a parental approach or is individual empowerment the touchstone (in which case 401K and other choice-focused plans make perfect sense)?

There are no easy answers. People genuinely disagree about the role that benefits (quality, quantity, form) play in attracting and keeping good people.

One thing is certain, however. Corporations everywhere (U.S. and abroad) will be affected by changing demographics (recently described elsewhere in this blog). An oft-discussed dearth of skilled workers compels companies to think long and hard about the link between benefits and the bottom line.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link