According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2003 American businesses lost earnings due to influenza illnesses and loss of life was $16.3 billion. What does this figure mean in a day to day business context? In 2005, the average per-employee cost of absenteeism was $660 a day in lost productivity according to CCH incorporated (a leading provider of human resources and employment law information). How can companies eliminate this loss of money, this waste?
The single best way to prevent seasonal flu, according to the CDC, is to get a yearly flu vaccine, but good health habits and antiviral medications are other measures that can help protect against the flu. Studies have shown that American companies have had some success reducing the number of sick days taken by workers by offering the flu vaccine at the plant or office, not only is this more convenient for employees but it also reduces the time employees have to take away from work to receive the vaccination.
Whether the flu vaccine is offered through an employer sponsored event or off site one of the biggest barriers for employees to taking the flu vaccine is lack of information/understanding about the flu and flu vaccine. Some misconceptions regarding the flu vaccine are that you can get the flu from the vaccine itself or you are protected from the vaccine you received three years ago. One of the company’s measures to prevent seasonal flu should always include educating the employees on what the flu is, how it can hurt you and how the flu vaccine can help.
Companies should always educate employees on good health habits and strategies to prevent the spread of germs.
The CDC has put together a FREE toolkit for businesses and employers that provide educational material that can be used to fight the seasonal flu and help companies eliminate the loss of money caused by the flu (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/business/).
When implementing Lean transformation projects one concept that I have always included in the training material is R=Q X A:
(R)esults = the (Q)uality of the solution times the (A)cceptance.
Recently I have worked on a large transformation project that includes a significant quantity of classroom training and Rapid Improvement Events (RIE) over several months. In the past there have been some disappointing experiences with companies that seem to want to implement Lean only to go through the motions - and ending up in a place where they could not sustain the improvements they made. The culture of the company that I am currently working with is very traditional and relatively resistant to change. The management is knowledgeable of the benefits that can be achieved by using Lean practices but they are reluctant to make significant changes. My working partner and I are helping the RIE teams develop Lean processes. We agree the changes the teams have come up are low risk and are very doable. In fact, since we began working with this company we have always agreed that common Lean techniques such as cellular flow could be applied to almost all the customer’s value-streams.
However my partner and I do disagree significantly on our approach.
Since this organization has proven to be very conservative, I have taken the approach of supporting the limited changes they approve whereas my colleague continues to try and persuade them to embrace larger changes. In some cases his approach has intensified their resistance. I see it as a “human relations” issue. I agree that the company will get better results with more significant changes, but since management is very conservative I support their limited approvals. So far this has worked well and is continuing to improve. Once the employees gain experience with the limited changes they are taking more initiative to continue improving their processes. The teams have actually continued the changes to some processes to the point we originally estimated could have been achieved by making the larger change initially. I think either approach could be the most appropriate depending of the situation. I would like to hear from others who have had similar experiences and your success using one or the other approach:
A) Accepting a limited amount of change to begin with, relying that the small successes will help continuous change become part of the culture
B) Pushing for higher expectations and risk that larger changes will be resisted or not approved.
Which has worked better for you?
How to get Results: R=Q x A
Last month, TMACer Pat Boutier, presented a webinar overview on the topic of Training Within Industry (TWI). For those of you who may have missed the presentation or were unable to attend, we’d like to give you the opportunity to view the recorded webinar.
If you were able to attend the webinar and would like a copy of the slides used in the presentation you can download them here.
To sign up to receive notifications about our webinars and other events TMAC is hosting, subscribe to our newsletter or give us a call. We’d love to hear from you!
Managing people is always about politics, isn’t it?
It is, if we believe interpersonal relationships are always someone else’s responsibility.
“I’ll ignore it for now; it will stop being a problem soon.”
We tend to think that our involvement requires too much time and uncomfortable discussions with people.
”I’m just too busy to spend my time on little stuff like that.”