Are Your Workers Stretching to Prevent Ergonomic Injuries?
Originally posted by Jennifer Busick on May 6, 2015 on safetydailyadvisor.blr.com.
Overexertion, slips, trips, and falls cause 60 percent of lost-time occupational injuries in the United States and cost employers over $30 billion in direct workers’ compensation costs in 2013. One strategy you can use to control these costly injuries is an effective worksite stretching program.
The aging workforce is one factor that increases the likelihood of falls: the U.S. workforce is aging. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one out of three individuals over age 65 will fall every year, and the incidence rate of falls begins to accelerate at age 45. You can improve the work environment—lighting, flooring, housekeeping—to prevent these types of injuries, but if you’re already on top of all of that, the next step to take may be to address worker factors like poor motor coordination and balance problems that increase the risk of falling.
Increased flexibility can decrease MSDs
An inverse relationship exists between flexibility and risk for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)—that is, as flexibility improves, employees reduce their chance of developing an MSD. Improved flexibility and range of motion in these three body parts will have the greatest impact on workers’ ergonomic risk:
- Hamstrings. Hamstring flexibility relates closely to the ability to lift properly without injury. Individuals with flexible hamstrings can use the powerful muscles in their legs to bear the brunt of lifting heavy objects, while those who are less flexible often lift with their backs, putting them at greater risk for injury.
- Shoulders. A larger range of shoulder rotation can help workers avoid injuries from reaching and pulling.
- Trunk. Restricted trunk rotation is a common cause of chronic lower back pain, and a larger range of motion helps workers bend and twist without injury. Employees who have a range of motion less than 90 degrees are at increased risk for injuries, as are those with more than 30 degrees of difference in range of motion between left and right trunk rotation.
Tips for a successful stretching program
These three tips will help you establish a successful workplace stretching program.
- Measure and provide feedback. Evaluate employees’ shoulder rotation, hamstring flexibility, and trunk rotation before the program begins, and compare their results to averages for their age and gender. Periodic reassessment can help them see their improvement.
- Increase the challenge. As employees improve their flexibility and range of motion, the exercises in a stretching program should become more difficult; try for 3-month intervals. Not only will this encourage employees to keep improving their fitness, it will also stave off the boredom that can ensue when people repeat an exercise routine.
- Make it mandatory. If you make stretching part of your voluntary wellness program, you may get limited participation. But stretching is value-neutral—it’s not likely to be seen as punitive or discriminatory, like weight-control programs or some other wellness initiatives—so you can require workers to stretch before their shift, during required “stretch breaks,” and at the end of their shift in order to ensure that they receive the benefits of stretching.
Most Cyber Attacks Due to Trick Emails, Errors, Not Sophisticated Hacking
Originally posted by Joseph Menn on April 14, 2015 on insurancejournal.com.
When a cyber security breach hits the news, those most closely involved often have incentive to play up the sophistication of the attack.
If hackers are portrayed as well-funded geniuses, victims look less vulnerable, security firms can flog their products and services, and government officials can push for tougher regulation or seek more money for cyber defenses.
But two deeply researched reports being released this week underscore the less-heralded truth: the vast majority of hacking attacks are successful because employees click on links in tainted emails, companies fail to apply available patches to known software flaws, or technicians do not configure systems properly.
These conclusions will be in the minds of executives attending the world’s largest technology security conference next week in San Francisco, a conference named after lead sponsor RSA, the security division of EMC Corp.
In the best-known annual study of data breaches, a report from Verizon Communications Inc. to be released on Wednesday found that more than two-thirds of the 290 electronic espionage cases it learned about in 2014 involved phishing, the security industry’s term for trick emails.
Because so many people click on tainted links or attachments, sending phishing emails to just 10 employees will get hackers inside corporate gates 90 percent of the time, Verizon found.
“There’s an overarching pattern,” said Verizon scientist Bob Rudis. Attackers use phishing to install malware and steal credentials from employees, then they use those credentials to roam through networks and access programs and files, he said.
Verizon’s report includes its own business investigations and data from 70 other contributors, including law enforcement. It found that while major new vulnerabilities such as Heartbleed are being used by hackers within hours of their announcement, more attacks last year exploited patchable vulnerabilities dating from 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
Another annual cyber report, to be released on Tuesday by Symantec Corp., found that state-sponsored spies also used phishing techniques because they work and because the less-sophisticated approach drew less scrutiny from defenders.
Once inside a system, however, the spies turned fancy, writing customized software to evade detection by whatever security programs the target has installed, Symantec said.
“Once I’m in, I can do what I need to,” said Robert Shaker, an incident response manager at Symantec. The report drew on data from 57 million sensors in 157 countries and territories.
Another troubling trend Symantec found involves the use of “ransomware,” in which hackers encrypt a computer’s files and promise to release them only if the user pays a ransom. (Some 80 percent of the time, they do not decrypt the files even then.)
The new twist comes from hackers who encrypt files, including those inside critical infrastructure facilities, but do not ask for anything. The mystery is why: Shaker said it is not clear whether the attackers are securing the information for resale to other spies or potential saboteurs, or whether they plan on making their own demands in the future.
RSA Conference
At next week’s RSA Conference, protecting critical infrastructure systems under increasing attack will be a major theme. Another theme will be the need for more sharing of “intelligence” about emerging threats – between the public and private sectors, within the security industry, and within certain industries.
While many of the biggest breaches of the past two years involved retailers, the healthcare industry has figured heavily in recent months. Former FBI futurist Marc Goodman said that both spies and organized criminals are likely at work, the former seeking leverage to use in recruiting informants and the latter looking to cash in on medical and insurance fraud.
Verizon’s researchers said that to be most effective, information-sharing would have to be essentially in real time, from machine to machine, and cross multiple sectors, a daunting proposition.
Insurance
Another section of the Verizon report could help security executives make the case for bigger budgets. The researchers produced the first analysis of the actual costs of breaches derived from insurance claims, instead of survey data.
Verizon said the best indicator of the cost of an incident is the number of records compromised, and that the cost rises logarithmically, flattening as the size of the breach rises.
According to the new Verizon model, the loss of 100,000 records should cost roughly $475,000 on average, while 100 million lost records should cost about $8.85 million.
Though the harder data will be welcome to number-crunchers, spending more money cannot guarantee complete protection against attacks.
The RSA Conference floor will feature vendors touting next-generation security products and anomaly-spotting big-data analytics. But few will actually promise that they can stop someone from clicking on a tainted email and letting a hacker in.
High-Deductible Health Plans Cut Costs, At Least For Now
Originally posted on March 26, 2015 on www.npr.org.
Got a high-deductible health plan? The kind that doesn't pay most medical bills until they exceed several thousand dollars? You're a foot soldier who's been drafted in the war against high health costs.
Companies that switch workers into high-deductible plans can reap enormous savings, consultants will tell you — and not just by making employees pay more. Total costs paid by everybody — employer, employee and insurance company — tend to fall in the first year or rise more slowly when consumers have more at stake at the health-care checkout counter whether or not they're making medically wise choices.
Consumers with high deductibles sometimes skip procedures, think harder about getting treatment and shop for lower prices when they do seek care.
What nobody knows is whether such plans, also sold to individuals and families through the health law's online exchanges, will backfire. If people choose not to have important preventive care and end up needing an expensive hospital stay years later as a result, everybody is worse off.
A new study delivers cautiously optimistic results for employers and policymakers, if not for consumers paying a higher share of their own health care costs.
Researchers led by Amelia Haviland at Carnegie Mellon University found that overall savings at companies introducing high-deductible plans lasted for up to three years afterwards. If there were any cost-related time bombs caused by forgone care, at least they didn't blow up by then.
"Three years out there consistently seems to be a reduction in total health care spending" at employers offering high-deductible plans, Haviland said in an interview. Although the study says nothing about what might happen after that, "this was interesting to us that it persists for this amount of time."
The savings were substantial: 5 percent on average for employers offering high-deductible plans compared with results at companies that didn't offer them. And that was for the whole company, whether or not all workers took the high-deductible option.
The size of the study was impressive; it covered 13 million employees and dependents at 54 big companies. All savings were from reduced spending on pharmaceuticals and doctor visits and other outpatient care. There was no sign of what often happens when high-risk patients miss preventive care: spikes in emergency-room visits and hospital admissions.
The suits in human resources call this kind of coverage a "consumer-directed" health plan. It sounds less scary than the old name for coverage with huge deductibles: catastrophic health insurance.
But having consumers direct their own care also requires making sure they know enough to make smart choices. That means getting vaccines and skipping dubious procedures like an expensive MRI scan at the first sign of back pain.
Not all employers are doing a terrific job. Most high-deductible plan members surveyed in a recent California study had no idea that preventive screenings, office visits and other important care required little or no out-of-pocket payment. One in five said they had avoided preventive care because of the cost.
"This evidence of persistent reductions in spending places even greater importance on developing evidence on how they are achieved," Kate Bundorf, a Stanford health economist not involved in the study, said of consumer-directed plans.
"Are consumers foregoing preventive care?" Bundorf asks. "Are they less adherent to [effective] medicine? Or are they reducing their use of low-value office visits and corresponding drugs or substituting to cheaper yet similarly effective prescribed drugs?"
Employers and consultants are trying to educate people about avoiding needless procedures and finding quality caregivers at better prices.
That might explain why the companies offering high-deductible plans saw such significant savings even though not all workers signed up, Haviland said. Even employees with traditional, lower-deductible plans may be using the shopping tools.
The study doesn't close the book on consumer-directed plans.
"What happens five years or 10 years down the line when people develop more consequences of reducing high-value, necessary care?" Haviland asked. Nobody knows.
And the study doesn't address a side effect of high-deductibles that doctors can't treat: pocketbook trauma. Consumer-directed plans, often paired with tax-favored health savings accounts, can require families to pay $5,000 or more per year in out-of-pocket costs.
Three people out of 5 with low incomes and half of those with moderate incomes told the Commonwealth Fund last year their deductibles are hard to afford.
As in all battles, the front-line infantry often makes the biggest sacrifice.
Don't Eat the Marshmallow
Originally posted by Troy Hammond on April 14, 2015 on www.linkedin.com.
Having more self-control than a preschooler can lead to more rewards.
Fifty years ago, psychologists at Stanford University conducted an experiment on preschoolers. During this test, researchers placed youngsters in individual rooms and asked each child to sit down in front of a tray containing one marshmallow. The child was given a choice: He or she could eat this marshmallow immediately or wait a little while for the researchers to place a second marshmallow on the tray—an opportunity to enjoy two treats instead of just one.
What did the kids do, what would you do, and what does the ability to delay gratification mean for future retirement success?
While encouraging kids to eat more candy wasn’t the goal of this multi-year study, it eventually led to a powerful conclusion: Children who “passed” the marshmallow test had greater competence and success later on as adults.1 Kids who successfully waited for the second marshmallow showed self-restraint and understood that not all needs require immediate gratification. This example is directly applicable to behavioral finance: Controlling spending now may lead to significant benefits in the future.
Patience is not just a virtue—it may create its own success
There are a few steps you can take today that potentially could lead to greater retirement success tomorrow. They include:
- Enrolling in your 401(k). By setting aside money from each paycheck before you ever see it, you avoid unnecessary spending.
- Making a habit of saving and increasing your plan contributions. Some experts say you should save 15% of your pretax income each year for your retirement, including your 401(k) and IRA. If your plan offers any employer matching contributions, take advantage of these as well.
- Knowing when you may need professional advice. Those who lack confidence in their ability to manage their investments may be more prone to “cash out” at the worst time—at market lows—and wreck their retirement plan. Unless you are comfortable making your own investment decisions and making changes to your account as your retirement date nears, consider tapping professional advice that may be available to you within your employer’s retirement plan.
Self-control in retirement planning is key: By avoiding impulse spending and investing consistently over time to pursue rewards, you may move that much closer to securing your financial future.
1 Walter Mischel, The Marshmallow Test: Mastering Self-Control (New York: Little, Brown & Co., 2014).
Disclosure: This material was created for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as ERISA, tax, legal or investment advice. LPL Financial and its advisors are providing educational services only and are not able to provide participants with investment advice specific to their particular needs. If you are seeking investment advice specific to your needs, such advice services must be obtained on your own separate from this educational material.
EEOC Issues Proposed Rule on Employer Wellness Programs
Originally posted by Rick Montgomery, JD on April 20, 2015 on thinkhr.com.
On April 20, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule that would amend the regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as they relate to employer wellness programs. The proposed rule amends the ADA regulations to provide guidance on the extent to which employers may use incentives to encourage employees to participate in wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations. The EEOC will accept public comments on the proposed rule until June 19, 2015, following which final regulations will be issued.
The EEOC has released a series of 10 questions and answers which outline the issues at hand, define terms involved in the proposed rule, and explain how wellness programs interact with regulations such as the ADA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and other federal nondiscrimination laws.
Employers do not have to comply with the proposed rule at this time; however, until final regulations are formulated, employers should take a careful look at their wellness programs to ensure compliance with the ADA, as many of the requirements set forth in the proposed rule are already requirements under the law.
At this time, employers should not:
- Require employees to participate in a wellness program.
- Deny health insurance to employees who do not participate in a wellness program.
- Take any adverse employment action or retaliate against, interfere with, coerce, or intimidate employees who do not participate in wellness programs or who do not achieve certain health outcomes.
Further, employers should ensure that all employees are equally able to participate in any wellness programs or incentives offered, and that those employees needing reasonable accommodations to participate are offered those accommodations.
AASHTO Introduces Toward Zero Deaths Plan to Reduce Roadway Fatalities
Originally posted by Tony Dorsey on March 10, 2015 on www.aashtojournal.org.
WASHINGTON - The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) joined the National Strategy on Highway Safety Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) effort, a vision of eliminating fatalities on our nation's roadways.
The Toward Zero Deaths effort was created by a steering committee cooperative that includes numerous organizations committed to reducing annual US traffic fatalities from more than 33,000 to zero. The TZD Plan rolled out today provides organizations in the fields of engineering, law enforcement, education and emergency medical services (EMS) with initiatives and safety countermeasures designed to save lives.
"This national effort is a perfect example of why partnerships are so critically important," said Bud Wright, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. "The TZD National vision brings together a wide range of organizations and individuals under a unified commitment to transform our nation's traffic safety culture. Everyone has to be part of the solution -- including the nation's educators, roadway designers, engineers, law enforcement officers and motorists."
"We embrace the vision of Toward Zero Deaths; it provides an overarching and common vision that drives and focuses our efforts to achieve our shared goal to eliminate injuries and fatalities on our roadways," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "The U.S. Department of Transportation will do our part by aggressively using all tools at our disposal - research into new safety systems and technologies, campaigns to educate the public, investments in infrastructure and collaboration with all of our government partners to support strong laws and data-driven approaches to improve safety."
The National Strategy includes initiatives that are known to be—or are expected to be—effective in addressing specific factors contributing to roadway crashes, have the potential to make a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries nationally, or address areas of growing concern.
The TZD plan includes initiatives spanning from engineering to education with the intended result of achieving:
- Safer drivers, passengers and pedestrians
- Safer infrastructure
- Safer vehicles
- Enhanced emergency medical services and response
- Improved management of traffic safety programs
AASHTO and State Departments of Transportation across the country are working to accomplish the TZD vision by:
- Leading research and other activities to promote a culture of traffic safety in America.
- Identifying new safety partners and promoting a collaborative, multidisciplinary, data-driven approach to safety related policies and programs.
"As leaders in the transportation industry, we have a duty and a responsibility to do what we can to accelerate the efforts to save lives on our nation's roadways," said Rudy Malfabon, P.E., director of the Nevada Department of Transportation and Chair of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highway Traffic Safety. "Our mission is to one day rid the nation of all traffic fatalities and the TZD National Strategy will help us reach that goal faster."
For more than five years, organizations representing transportation, safety, law enforcement, engineering, and state and local government agencies--with the technical support of the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—have been working together to identify and prioritize the leading initiatives that will reduce traffic fatalities over the next 25 years.
These organizations are leading the TZD effort:
- American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
- American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
- Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA)
- Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA)
- International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
- National Association of County Engineers (NACE)
- National Local Technical Assistance Program Association (NLTAPA)
- National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials (NASEMSO)
For more information about the Toward Zero Deaths National Strategy on Highway Safety, visit TowardZeroDeaths.org.
Employer HSA contributions falling
Originally posted by Kathryn Mayer on March 25, 2015 on benefitspro.com.
This last year may have seen another big increase in the number of health savings accounts. But it also saw a drop in the amount employers are contributing to those accounts.
Employees saw a 10 percent decrease in their average single HSA employer contribution from the previous year, according to new data from United Benefit Advisors. In 2013, employers contributed an average of $574 per employee but last year that dropped to $515, the report says.
Average family contributions also fell 7 percent during the same period, from $958 to $890.
UBA said the survey results reveal a correlation between enrollment in HSAs and consumer driven health plans, linking higher HSA contributions to increased enrollment in the cost-saving plans.
“Employer HSA funding strategies have changed in recent years in response to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its impact on employer-sponsored health insurance plans,” says Brian Goff, president and CEO of Insurance Solutions, a UBA partner firm.
“When HSA products were new, the employer could take the premium savings and fully fund the deductible. Now, however, premium reductions are not as great as they once were,” Goff said. “As premiums increase, employers naturally opt to put their contributions toward premiums first and will slowly reduce their HSA funding to the point where, in some cases, it becomes entirely the employee’s responsibility.”
The deductible amount, the employee premium contribution, the out-of-pocket maximum, and whether there are other types of plans offered will also impact an employer’s HSA contribution strategy, says Mark Sherman, Principal of LHD Benefit Advisors, another UBA partner firm.
Devenir said last month that the number of health savings accounts jumped 29 percent as of the end of 2014, reaching 13.8 million.
UBA found that smaller firms are the most generous when it comes to HSA contributions.
Smaller employers (those with 1 to 50 employees) are exceeding the average HSA contribution for singles, while larger employers (50 to 1,000-plus employees) have been less generous, UBA said. Even larger employers, those with 1,000-plus employees, show the lowest average contribution at $426. Similarly, for families, HSA contributions by smaller employers tend to be above the average $890 contribution, while large employers fund an average of $760.
The trend, Goff said, likely stems from smaller companies to make more personal decisions about their employees and benefits.
The UBA survey also found:
- California has the most generous HSA contributions ($808 for singles and $1,316 for families) yet the lowest enrollment in CDHPs: only 11.3 percent of plans in California are CDHP plans and only 8.1 percent of employees are enrolled in them.
- New England, which typically has the most generous health care packages overall, sees average HSA contributions of $685 for singles and $1,342 for families.
- By industry, construction, health care/social assistance, mining/oil and gas extraction, retail and wholesale provide the lowest HSA contributions for singles and families. Government employees have the most generous HSA contributions ($791 for singles and $1,431 for families).
For its research, UBA surveyed 9,950 employers sponsoring nearly 17,000 health plans nationwide.
New HHS Regulations “Clarify” that Health Plans Covering Families Must Have “Embedded” Individual Cost-Sharing Limits
Originally posted by Stacy Barrow and Damian A. Myers on March 18, 2015 on www.erisapracticecenter.com.
On February 27, 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its final HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2016. The lengthy regulation covers a wide range of topics affecting group health plans, including minimum value, determination of the transitional reinsurance fee, and qualified health plan rates and other market reforms applicable to the group and individual insurance markets.
Within the portion of the regulation’s Preamble explaining insurance issuer standards under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), HHS formally adopted a “clarification” to the application of annual cost sharing limitations. By way of background, the ACA requires that all non-grandfathered group health plans adopt an annual cost sharing limit for covered, in-network essential health benefits for self-only coverage ($6,600 in 2015 and $6,850 in 2016) and other than self-only coverage ($13,200 in 2015 and $13,700 in 2016). Until HHS’s clarification, many group health plan administrators applied a single limitation depending on whether the employee enrolled in self-only or other than self-only coverage (e.g., “family” coverage). That is, if an employee enrolled in family coverage, the higher limit applied to the family as a whole, regardless of the amount applied to any single covered individual.
HHS, however, now requires group health plans to embed an individual cost sharing limit within the family limit. For example, suppose an employee and his or her spouse enroll in family coverage with an annual cost sharing limit of $13,000, and during the 2016 plan year, $10,000 of cost sharing payments are attributable to the spouse and $3,000 of cost sharing payments are attributable to the employee. Prior to the HHS’s clarification, the full $13,000 would be payable by the covered individuals because the $13,000 plan limit had not been reached on an aggregate basis. However, with the new embedded self-only limitation, the cost sharing payments attributable to the spouse must be capped at the self-only limit of $6,850, with the remaining $3,150 being covered 100% by the group health plan. The employee would still be subject to cost sharing, however, until the $13,000 plan limit is reached.
The HHS clarification is not effective until plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2016. It is important to note that, at the moment, it is unclear whether the HHS clarification is intended to apply to self-insured plans. The 2016 Benefit and Payment Parameters are rules related to the group and individual insured market, including the Marketplace, and the Preamble section under which the clarification is found is titled “Health Insurance Issuer Standards under the Affordable Care Act, Including Standards Related to Exchanges.” Additionally, all previous cost sharing guidance applicable to self-insured plans have been issued jointly by the HHS, Department of Treasury and Department of Labor. As of the date of this blog entry, the Departments of Treasury and Labor have not issued a similar clarification. Nevertheless, although the HHS clarification is potentially unenforceable with respect to self-insured plans, employers and plans sponsors with self-insured plans should be prepared to adopt an embedded cost sharing limit should the other two agencies follow suit.
IRS Begins Preparing Cadillac Tax Regulations; Public Input Requested
Originally posted February 24, 2015 on www.ifebp.org.
In Notice 2015-16, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) outlines potential approaches for future proposed regulations regarding the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage under section 4980I, also known as the Cadillac tax.
The notice is intended to initiate and inform the process of developing regulatory guidance regarding the excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage under section 4980I of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 4980I, which was added by the Affordable Care Act, applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
Under this provision, if the aggregate cost of “applicable employer-sponsored coverage” provided to an employee exceeds a statutory dollar limit, which is revised annually, the excess is subject to a 40% excise tax.
The issues addressed in this notice primarily relate to:
- the definition of applicable coverage,
- the determination of the cost of applicable coverage, and
- the application of the annual statutory dollar limit to the cost of applicable coverage. The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and IRS invite comments on the issues addressed in this notice and on any other issues under section 4980I.
This notice describes potential approaches on a number of issues which could be incorporated in future proposed regulations, and invites comments on these potential approaches.
Treasury and IRS intend to issue another notice before the publication of proposed regulations under section 4980I, describing and inviting comments on potential approaches to a number of issues not addressed in this notice, including procedural issues relating to the calculation and assessment of the excise tax.
After considering the comments on both notices, Treasury and IRS anticipate publishing proposed regulations under section 4980I. The proposed regulations will provide further opportunity for comment, including an opportunity to comment on the issues addressed in the preceding notices.
How NOT To Motivate And Reward Employees
Originally posted January 21, 2015 by Bernard Marr on LinkedIn Pulse.
When a newspaper company had to cut costs it made their entertainment writers redundant. To fill the entertainment review columns it came up with what it thought to be a novel way to both deliver reviews and motivate the remaining employees. The newspaper offered free tickets to staff for theatre, music and cultural events, but with the condition that they write reviews. The writer of the best review each month would be rewarded with a bonus of $100.
Not only did the staff immediately see that this was a way for the company to cheaply replace what it had chosen to forgo, through redundancy, by asking the remaining staff to carry out extra work essentially for free. The artists and organizers connected of the events also soon realised they were being short-changed. As the tickets are generally offered free to media outlets, on the understanding their artistic endeavors will receive professional coverage in return, they were often a little surprised to see the newspaper’s advertising sales rep, or office manager, turning up to “review” their play, concert or exhibition.
Needless to say, this “motivational measure” was widely ignored by the paper’s staff, adding to the growing sense of disconnect between staff and management during already turbulent times.
If you are thinking about how to best motivate your employees, to ensure they know their efforts are appreciated, here are a few mistakes to avoid, if you don’t want it to backfire.
Don’t just reward results
Effort is often just as important – while a select few may be responsible for a winning “result” (a big sale, or a major project for a client completed on time), don’t let those working behind the scenes feel underappreciated. Big projects may take a long time to come to fruition and it is important that you keep employees engaged and feeling appreciated for the duration.
Do not promote a “superstar” culture
Motivating and incentivizing should be carefully balanced so individual success does not appear more beneficial to the business than the work of the team as a whole. If staff feels that one “superstar” employee is constantly rewarded for the performance of the group, then motivation will suffer. Success can be recognized at individual, departmental and company-wide level – and it should always be recognized at all three.
Don’t directly and permanently link KPIs to reward
While this may be a great tactic for a one-off or short-term campaign, for example to increase sales in a certain sector which is flagging, it can lead to box-ticking behavior if implemented in a heavy-handed way, and even encourage attempts to “game the system”. KPIs should be there to check that the company is moving in the right direction, not to incentivize (or de-incentivize) staff.
Don’t delay rewards or praise
Studies show there is a direct relationship between how quickly someone is praised or rewarded for their efforts, and how appreciated they feel. It’s easy to think that you will get round to sending out congratulatory emails (or gifts) at some point in the near future, but every second you delay is another second that someone (or your whole team) may be feeling unappreciated.
Don’t become predictable
Vary the rewards and incentives you offer your staff from time to time. Familiarity breeds contempt, and once something becomes routine, it is an expectation and no longer a great pleasure. Put some time and imagination into coming up with ways to make your team feel valued.
