While no detailed and independent data exists on the cost of suicide and suicidal behavior to the Australian economy, every death does have a financial impact. A cost estimate produced by Mendoza and Rosenberg in 2010 proposed a plausible estimate to the Australian economy of $17.5 billion per year. This figure included estimated productivity costs.
Research conducted by SuperFriend and IFS Insurance Solutions estimated that, in 2012, death claims paid out in Australia by group life insurers in superannuation where suicide was the “known” cause of death amounted to more than $100 million. For some SuperFriend partner funds, suicide death claims account for more than 20% of their total death claims administered.
There is a relationship between stress and work-related suicide. While suicidal behavior is an extreme outcome of stress, significant productivity gains are to be had by managing workplace stress. Medibank private-commissioned research found that stress-related “presenteeism” (showing up at work but at far less than 100% capacity) and absenteeism cost the Australian economy $14.8 billion a year, with 3.2 days per worker lost each year because of stress.
Work-related mental stress claims are the most expensive form of workers’ compensation claim, as they are often associated with long periods of absence from work. Given that only 70% of workers who report that they have experienced work-related mental stress actually apply for workers’ compensation, the potential cost of worker stress is much higher.
Measures taken to reduce or eliminate work stressors will contribute to suicide prevention while providing the additional benefit of lowering costs.
Suicide in Australia
Suicide prevention is a substantial issue for Australian society. Official figures put the lives lost from suicide at about 2,300 people each year in Australia (population: 23 million); the true figure is more likely around 3,000 deaths each year. About 75% of these deaths are among males. Each death gravely affects families, friends and communities.
Suicide becomes more prevalent in adolescence and rises with age, peaking at around 45 years old in men and 40 in women, then declines, before becoming more prevalent again in those over 80. Most deaths by suicide in Australia are in people of working age (data is not routinely collected on employment status at the time of death).
It is estimated that approximately 2.1 million adults in Australia have had serious thoughts about ending their lives, and 500,000 adults have made a suicide attempt. Approximately 65,000 suicide attempts occur every year.
Work and Mental Health
Nationally, about 12.3 million people are in the labor force, with 11.6 million employed at December 2012. Roughly speaking, a third of these will be self-employed or working in small businesses of fewer than 20 people, a third will be working in medium-sized businesses of 20–199 people, and a third will be working in large businesses of 200 people or more.
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that adults spend a third of their waking hours at work. The workplace provides a unique opportunity to reach working age adults and provide key health information and intervention.
The impact of mental health problems on work functioning and performance is at least comparable to the impact of physical injury.
Mental health problems in the workplace typically manifest themselves as performance issues, such as:
Increased employee turnover
Increase in short- and long-term disability days
Increased disability claims
Employers are increasingly recognizing that mentally healthy staff are more productive and that there are cost benefits to addressing mental health issues in the workplace.
Most deaths by suicide are among people of working age. Suicide is the leading cause of death for males aged 25–44 years and females aged 25–34 years. The proportion of suicides that are work-related is unclear. One Australian study found that 17% of suicides in Victoria from 2000–2007 were work-related. Applying this estimate to deaths across Australia, approximately 3,800 suicides over the decade to 2011 may be work-related.
Adults spend about a third of their waking hours at work. The workplace provides a unique opportunity to provide key health information and intervention. Suicide Prevention Australia (SPA) sees the workplace as playing a vital role in the creation of a suicide safe community.
The World Health Organization suggests worker suicide is a result of a complex interaction between individual vulnerabilities and work-related environmental factors that trigger stress reactions and contribute to poor mental well-being. Employers have a legal responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace, including managing psychosocial stressors.
Suicide Prevention Australia believes urgent action is required to address a range of systemic issues including managing unemployment, workers compensation and coronial processes. In addition, we call on organizations of all sizes to implement workplace policies and programs that promote a mentally healthy workforce and prevent suicide behaviors.
Understanding of the cost of workplace stress is continuously building and includes productivity losses because of “presenteeism” (the act of coming to work despite sickness, physical or mental) and absenteeism as well as workers’ compensation claims. No detailed and independent costing exists on the cost of suicide and suicidal behavior to the Australian economy.
A plausible estimate was calculated to be $17.5 billion per year, including productivity costs. Death claims paid out by Group Life Insurers in Superannuation for suicide exceeds $100 million per year. Monetary value aside, suicide cuts lives short and leaves scars.
Suicide is mostly preventable, yet significant gaps exist in our understanding of the relationship between work and suicide, limiting prevention efforts. SPA has reviewed the existing evidence, and we believe urgent action is required to address a range of systemic issues including managing unemployment, workers’ compensation and coronial processes. In addition, we call on organizations of all sizes to implement workplace policies and programs that promote a mentally healthy workforce and prevent suicide behaviors.
We ask employers to draw on the information provided in this document and call on them to:
Promote a workplace culture that is inclusive, de-stigmatizes mental health problems and encourages help-seeking. Sharing stories about personal experiences with suicide and mental health problems can be a powerful way to address stigma. In appropriate settings and with support and informed consent of all parties involved, leaders are encouraged to share their own stories, highlighting positive coping strategies and sources of help.
Prioritize psychosocial workplace safety. This includes identifying ways to reduce work-related stressors.
Understand and value the person as a human being rather than a resource. This includes understanding the interactions between what happens within the workplace and other aspects of life including family, relationships, cultural background, health, etc. This will help facilitate an understanding of the meaning of work for people and the impact of stress, loss or failure of work on their lives.
Promote mental health and suicide awareness within the workplace, paired with clear and communicated pathways to support for those in need.
Establish mechanisms for the recognition and early detection of mental health and emotional difficulties in the workplace.
Provide employees with access to appropriate self-help or professional interventions and treatment, for example via employee assistance programs linked to external community health resources. Pathways to care should be well promoted within the workplace, making sure employees feel encouraged to draw on these supports and understand the confidential nature of services. This will help overcome potential fear of breach of privacy.
Frame suicide prevention programs in a manner that respects the cultural backgrounds and needs of the target audience, taking into account factors such as cultural and linguistic diversity, indigenous status and diverse sexualities and genders.
Be prepared for suicide to touch the lives of your employees and to respond appropriately. Lived experience of suicide can include having thoughts about taking one’s own life, making a suicide attempt, caring for someone who is suicidal, being bereaved by suicide, witnessing a suicide or being exposed to suicide in some other way. These experiences will take on different meaning and importance for every person and can have lasting impacts.
To assist individual employers to achieve this, we ask that industry and employer groups:
Establish relationships with key suicide prevention and mental health organizations.
Develop industrywide guidelines for suicide prevention.
Invest in the development of multifaceted suicide prevention programs tailored for the industry. This is especially urgent for industries characterized by relatively ready access to suicide means, elevated risk of suicide or a high proportion of male workers.
Government plays a vital role in suicide prevention. Action
is required by government to address systemic issues that contribute to work-related suicide. We call on government to:
Promote policies and practices that encourage employment, as this will give more people protection against one of the more significant risk factors for suicide.
Invest in both labor market programs and suicide prevention programs (including mental health promotion) during times of economic downturn.
Provide access to counselling services (via employment pathway services) for individuals unemployed for more than four weeks.
Provide suicide intervention skills training for front-line staff working with the long- term unemployed.
Fund research into the relationship between work and suicide to inform suicide prevention activities.
Review the role of the workers’ compensation system in suicide prevention, minimizing harm and maximizing opportunities for intervention with those vulnerable to suicide. To achieve this, workers’ compensation claims databases require improvement, and research is required to better understand the relationship between workers’ compensation and suicide.
Give coroners adequate resources to ensure that coronial investigations include the role of work in suicide deaths.
Develop guidelines for suicide prevention in line with the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022.
The proposed harmonized workplace health and safety regime increases focus on duty of care including mental health. We call on state and territory governments to implement recommendations under the proposed regime.
Invest in mental health and suicide prevention in the workplace.
We’ve all experienced it – the jigsaw puzzle scattered across the kitchen table. Each time we walk by, we’re tempted by the loose pieces. The family rivalry of who will solve the puzzle continues, as weeks go by trying to complete the 1,000-piece brain buster.
For payers, solving the indemnity payment puzzle in the quickly changing landscape of workers’ compensation has become the ultimate brain buster.
Today, indemnity payments represent a significant portion of workers’ compensation spending – anywhere from 40% to 60% of claim costs. While they don’t receive much attention, increasing administrative burdens and processing fees associated with traditional payment methods are thwarting payers’ abilities to manage total claim costs.
So, what are these changing pieces? How can payers find the most appropriate payment solution to solve the indemnity payment puzzle and reduce their total costs per claim?
New Workforce Dynamics Means Added Complexity to Payment Processing
While most of us still head to the office, factory or job site daily, this number continues to decline, as an increasing number of employees opt to work from their homes, on the road or in a remote location.
In fact, the Census Bureau states from 2005 to 2012, the number of remote workers increased by 79%. Further, 25 million Americans are currently unbanked or underbanked, according to the FDIC.
Should these individuals become injured on the job and eligible to receive indemnity payments, sending a check may prove to be a challenge. No convenient or stable access to a bank or lack of a permanent address could result in escheatment issues or lost and stolen payments.
Claim Severity and Duration Equals Harder-to-Manage Payments
Claim severity is on the rise. Thus, the more severe the injury, the more likely that an injured worker will receive indemnity and for a longer duration. For example, an Aon study found that in the healthcare industry alone, indemnity payments average more than $18,000 per worker each year.
This increase in total indemnity payments results in a greater threat of missed, duplicate or incorrect payments.
Changing Business Climate Drives Additional Look at Revenue Cycle Processes
Traditionally, indemnity payments have been issued via checks. However, as the cost of writing and managing checks continues to rise in tandem with data breaches and corporate fraud making daily headlines, it’s imperative to place more stringent controls on workers’ compensation payments. As businesses look to streamline costs, it’s safe to say these traditional processes are no longer our answer.
While EFT is increasing in popularity as a viable option, streamlining difficulties still occur as this error-prone solution requires a bank account number and can create delays in reaching bank accounts in a timely manner.
So how does the payer solve the indemnity payment puzzle?
Just as workers’ compensation claims have increased in complexity since the first lost wages legislation was passed in 1911, transaction methods have also changed. According to a Federal Reserve study, card payments increased by $17.8 billion while non-card payments decreased by as much as $3.1 billion between 2009 and 2012.
Consumers are increasingly more comfortable using a card-based solution, thanks to its bank neutrality, no need for a permanent address and convenience in receiving faster and more efficient payments.
In addition, card-based solutions help payers navigate today’s complex landscape by lowering operational expenses, reducing errors, decreasing escheatment, ensuring accurate and timely payments for all workers, mitigating internal and external fraud, letting adjusters focus on critical priorities and protecting the payer from payment liabilities.
As you explore a card-based solution look for a bank neutral partner that will manage injured worker calls about lost or stolen payments, offers protection through a card issuer like MasterCard and maintains its technology and processes in-house.
Outsourcing indemnity payments will enable you to focus on more important priorities, such as helping the injured workers get the care they need while reducing total claim costs. After all, there’s no better feeling than putting the final piece of the puzzle into place.
Because of the recent and hugely public spate of cyber “events,” the world of cyber security and subsequently cyber insurance is firmly in overdrive. According to the UK Department for Innovation & Skills, 81% of large businesses and 60% of small businesses suffered a cyber-security breach in the last year, and the average cost of breaches to business has nearly doubled since 2013.
We have all seen the headlines, from Sony last year to British Airways earlier this month to the French TV Channel TV5Monde. The severity and importance of each of these has material impacts on not only their ability to do business but also their brand and reputation as a customer, employee and partner.
Sony was clearly hugely public, by far one of the biggest and most public I have seen hit the news for a long time. It was all over most news channels, causing outcry from customers and employees, some of whom threatened to sue their employer or former employer for failing to protect their data. Sony, of course, has had many attacks, including one taking down its PlayStation online platform for days on end. As for BA, the first I heard of this was an email saying, “Someone has accessed your account.” Please come change your password! This is the brand that I trust with my personal details, my location and much more.
Finally, TV5Monde seems to be particularly worrying to me. In a scene that reminded me of the wonderfully played Elliot Carver from 007’s “Tomorrow Never Dies,” the media giant was quite simply disabled, their TV taken off air, their public online presence taken over and more. An attack of this scale and power to me simply highlights what Hollywood has been portraying for years (remember “Die Hard,” where the bad guys take over the airport by hot wiring a few cables nearby?). Interestingly, subsequent reports again point to human error here – for instance, a TV interview showed passwords stuck to Post-It notes.
If we are under any doubt by the frequency, scale and impact of attacks, I found a great website (www.informationisbeautiful.net) recently that visualizes some of the data breaches by year, industry and size, reason and more; see here for the full interactive chart.
Cyber threats have been defined by many; however, as with many other critical business issues, lots of other things are being added to the overall “cyber” definition. The recent report from the UK Government on UK cyber security: the role of insurance talks through both the threat and, importantly, the opportunity for insurers.
The World Economic Forum in its 10th Annual Global Risks Report has cyber risks up with water crisis and natural catastrophe and ahead of WMD, infectious disease and fiscal crisis (in terms of likelihood of occurrence). Given what we have all experienced in the last recession, I don’t think we could have a stronger wake up call.
– Top Global Risks According to the World Economic Forum
For now, and certainly as I write today, there is a small correlation between cyber-attacks and loss of human life. However, as we become ever more connected with IoT (Internet of Things) or IoE (Internet of Everything), future devices will all be connected. In the latest report, the government said that 14 billion objects are already connected to the Internet, 40 million of them in the UK. By 2020, it could be as many as 100 billion worldwide.
The upside of being able to monitor your heart pacemaker or your insulin levels from an app are already upon us; “wearables” is the buzzword for 2015. When these devices move from monitoring to controlling, the threat just increases. A cyber-attack at a local level, shutting down a hospital, airport, city traffic system, taking over a driverless car or airplane – it’s far too easy to paint a picture here.
What’s the role of the insurer in all of this?
The insurance provider has a huge role in this, not only to pick up the pieces when an event occurs, but also across the entire lifecycle. At the outset, we have an opportunity to better educate the market on cyber risks in general, in creating insurance capacity for the event and ultimately better prepare ourselves for the continuing advancement and frequency of attacks.
This goes far beyond the cyber essentials to better prepare small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and large enterprises alike. This is not collecting a badge; this is time to get ready for a battle. Not just a battle against cyber threats, but a battle for your reputation and brand. A brand that says to your employees, customers and partners, you can trust me with your information – I have a plan in place that’s tried and tested! The government scheme has covered the bare minimum essentials, which is like passing your driving theory test. We need expert drivers here to navigate roads no one has previously seen.
The UK, and London market specifically, is already well-placed given its deep experience in insuring against specialty risks, but capacity in the market will continue to increase as the threats and frequency of events increases, giving rise to new, more tailored products and opportunities for the entire market. How long will it be before we all have our own personal cyber Insurance policy?
Move to prevention rather than cure
We need to better help organizations truly understand the cost of putting this right after the event. As an example, some estimate that the cost of the Target breach in the U.S. has cost them north of $100 million to correct. In the early earnings call post the event, Target executives said, “The breach resulted in $17 million of net expenses in the fourth quarter…, with $61 million of total expenses partially offset by the recognition of a $44 million insurance receivable.”
Hindsight is wonderful, but perhaps a fraction of this upfront would have saved this money and, importantly, provided time to focus on the business strategy, not remedial work.
Reputation, Reputation, Reputation
It’s already been widely discussed, but insuring an organization’s reputation is challenging for a number of reasons. Of course, almost anything can be insured, but defining what the impact is and then working out what you need to be covered for will no doubt bring additional challenge for something that most would describe as intangible. The Insurance Times has a good piece here on this.
More importantly, what’s the short-, medium- or long-term impact and value on the reputational damage? Take your favorite or most-used retailer, give it all your personal financial data and shopping habits. It then suffers a breach – how likely are you to use or recommend the retailer again? Maybe you would forgive it for one breach; what if it happened again? It’s too easy to move. I read that in the UK you are more “likely to suffer a theft from your bank than a physical burglary” these days.
Does this affect your future choice? How long does it take you to re-establish trust with your customers, employees and partners?
Typically, reputation risk is around 5% to 20% of cyber cost. However, in reality, it’s the gift that can keep on giving, that no one really wants.
What if you are an online-only business? What if you were the ones who disrupted your market through technology and now that has been taken away from you. You don’t have the luxury of physical outlets as a backup or alternative part of your business plan. Dealing with other breaches such as shoplifting has been an occurrence since retail began, but these were isolated to the individual locations.
SMEs, especially, are not as well-equipped. On one hand, digital makes access open to anyone to create a new business, but on the other hand we must now factor in the cost of doing business online, of which cyber is a now business-critical.
What do you think?
Are we prepared and doing enough across the sector?
Is this at the forefront of your business continuity strategy?
Have you a plan in place to protect your employees, customers and partners?
Do you have adequate cover that is well-enough defined?
Are you investing ahead of the curve to prevent it?
Most of us have heard the phrase: “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” It could be restated as, “Your actions speak louder than your words.” This means that management can dream up any strategy they want, but their behaviors and actions are what create the culture of an organization.
Culture drives how efficient an organization’s processes are. Culture drives the success or failure of an organization. Culture is the product of leadership decisions or the lack of decisions.
The best-articulated corporate vision and strategy are of no value if they cannot engage the hearts, minds and work habits of employees at all levels and convey a purpose beyond just profit.
A vision states where an organization wants to go; a strategy defines the path to get there; and the work culture describes how business processes are actually executed along the path toward the vision. The health of a work culture can range from a contagiously high-performance work culture to mediocre or all the way down to a disruptive, confrontational culture that can’t get much done on time or done right the first time. A disruptive culture can trump the best vision and strategies every time. On the other hand, if a work culture is nurtured and groomed to align with a carefully crafted vision and strategy, the positive momentum could be unstoppable.
Figure 1 shows possible scenarios of vision, strategy, culture and performance alignment and misalignment. Business process performance (small white arrows) is more correlated with the work culture (small red arrows) than with the vision or strategy (big blue arrow) of an organization. Work culture — not vision or strategy — culture drives business performance. The challenge presented by this dilemma is that the work culture is an invisible force that is hard to measure. It shows its good side when you watch it and only displays its bad sides when you look away. The work culture is the product of complex cascade effects inside an organization and is as much affected by leadership actions as it is by the lack of appropriate actions. If left unattended, it will create its own random world of hidden agendas, which will probably not be aligned with the priorities of the organization.
Figure 1 – 3 Possible scenarios of vision, strategy, culture and performance alignment
Corporate visions and strategies are usually rolled out in formal three- to five-year plans. Work culture management and monitoring is too often not in sync with that plan and referred as an “HR thing,” even though it is the gate-keeper of business performance. If you do not understand and actively manage the work culture, it will manage you.
Measuring Cascade Effects Risks
It would be wonderful if we could just plug a measurement device into an organization to check its health and the risks of cascade effects (Figure 2). The work culture defines how employees work with each other through communication, coordination and cooperation. It generates multiple slow-motion and rapid chain reactions, ripple effects and cascade effects that greatly affect the mood and attitude of the organization. It predestines an organization for success or failure.
Figure 2 – The challenge of measuring work culture health and risks
How can we measure the health of invisible cultural chain reactions that can drive the success, mediocrity or failure of an entire corporation? I suggest a series of management and employee surveys and brainstorming assessments to test for the presence of 56 different elements of risk that can be present at any level in an organization. (See Figure 3 for a partial view of the survey.) The culture assessment tool shown in Figure 3 should be used for at least three different levels of management in an organization. These three levels of perception will offer triangulation data points, which will show how common or diverse the perceptions are that describe the organizational culture.
Figure 3 – Partial view of a gamified organizational health survey
The Organizational Force-Fields That Drive Success or Failure
Chain reactions, domino effects, ripple effects and snowball effects are similar in that they are defined by the single acts that created them. Once triggered, they will play out their effects depending on the amount of resistance the system presents against them. Cascade effects are different. They are fueled by a hierarchy of multiple interacting triggers at different levels in the system. Time delays between cause and effect are common, making the direct correlations between cause and effect more difficult to identify. Each element of the cascade effect can create dramatic outputs involving as many as three degrees of separation, rippling through an organization. There are three types of organizational cascade effects:
Destructive tsunamis of non-cooperation and negativity
Expanding groups of status quo herd followers
Constructive waves of cooperation, empowerment, motivation and positivity
If all of the cascade effects are present in an organization at the same time, the result will be conflict, employee frustration and lack of momentum in the right direction. A random mix containing equal parts of motivated, frustrated, positive and cynical employees co-located for 40 hours a week is not a formula for success; it is a recipe for mediocrity or even disaster.
Positive Organizational Cascades
These are acts of positivity that multiply and can also spread from person to person. In 2010, researchers from the University of California, San Diego and Harvard published the results from their experiments in an article titled: “Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks.” They showed that cooperative behavior can be just as contagious as bad behavior. They showed that positivity can spread from person to person to person by displaying random acts of cooperation, generosity and other positive behaviors. This creates a cascade of cooperation that influences dozens of people who were not involved in the initial trigger event.
Mediocrity and Consensus Cascades
These cascades are the result of contagious personal decisions to blend in with the crowd and not make any waves (also known as “group think”). Many researchers, including those from the computer science department at Carnegie Mellon University, have confirmed this phenomenon. Forces in organizations and society like peer pressure, blending in, the herd mentality and the band-wagon effect can cause an individual to follow the herd, even if that violates personal preferences and value systems of what is right and what is wrong. This is often done to save one’s reputation in a group and gain acceptance. Efforts to achieve team consensus can create the same phenomena, resulting in conclusions that might not always be the best ones. Teams can assign a “devil’s advocate” role to a participant to deliberately challenge “herd decisions” to counter this cascade effect.
In 2013, Forbes wrote an article titled: “Brainstorming is Dead…,” which summarized recent criticism by many about how creative people can get suppressed by other personalities during brainstorming events when the main priority is to get consensus on all brainstorming conclusions. Forcing consensus is as useful as it is dangerous. To avoid ineffective and dangerous group-think cascade effects, group decisions should build on each other’s ideas, when possible, to create innovative hybrid solutions and not pick one idea and totally discount another idea that might have a flicker of genius.
Negative Organizational Cascades
These are acts of negativity that multiply and spread from person to person in an organization. Risky, combative and uncooperative behaviors all have the unfortunate ability to multiply and spread to three degrees of separation from the original act. This can have a negative impact on dozens and even hundreds of downstream people not involved in the initial negative triggering acts. Negative human interactions can break the bonds of humanity and teamwork. These cascades can destroy the work culture, effectiveness and performance of an entire organization.
The Broad Influence of Cascades
Behavioral researchers have demonstrated with team experiments that positive, mediocrity and negative cascades can all have affect three degrees of separation (friends of friends of friends). Other researchers and computer models have determined that only three to four degrees of separation is what separates everyone in the USA, and only six degrees of separation separate everyone in the world. Exceptions to this rule are the secluded tribes in the Amazon jungle and other remote places. Yes, the world is smaller than we think, and actions really do speak much louder than words. Actions and behaviors can reach beyond the horizon and into different time zones.
The Organizational Forces Survey
The Organizational ForcesSurvey tests the health of the individual organizational forces that drive chain reactions, cascades and other behavior propagation phenomena. This survey asks participants to assess the presence of positive and negative organizational forces shown in Figure 4 by identifying the forces they believe to be present. This survey is given to all levels of employees and management.
Figure 4 – The Organizational Forces Survey used to assess the health of the work culture.
Figure 5 shows an example of survey responses, using the form in Figure 4, that were attained from the survey for three different levels in an organization: top leadership, middle management and non-management. One sign of healthy communications between management and employees is when organizational risk assessments are similar between different levels in the organization. However, that is not the case here.
In this survey response example, top leadership rated the health of the work culture as overwhelmingly positive (green). They perceived their environment to be a Grand Organization in the making. Unfortunately, non-management employee responses to this survey were at the opposite end of the scale (red). They rated the forces in the organization as overwhelmingly negative, filled with high risk and knocking on the door of a Grand Disaster. Middle management rated the work culture as mediocre (yellow), with some responses slightly positive and others slightly negative. This group of employees was apparently influenced by perceptions of top leadership and non-management.
Figure 5 – The range of survey responses from various levels in this organization shows major discrepancies in their perception of the health for the organizational work culture.
Grand investigations are often done after a loss of life disaster occurs, such as a NASA space shuttle disaster, a passenger airplane crash or an accidental employee death on the job. However, it is hard to find this level of effort and analysis applied to prevent such disasters. Deep and thorough disaster investigations often find flawed undisciplined leadership practices and organizational cultures at the root of the problems. It is also common to discover a zealous ambition to grow the business without really ensuring that a healthy work culture foundation is put in place to safely support such expansion.
Huge opportunities for organizational productivity improvements still exist today by cultivating a high-performance work culture. Breakthroughs can be made when organizations appreciate the fact that “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” a phrase coined by Peter Drucker, a famous management consultant, educator and author. True organizational greatness can be achieved when organizations look beyond trying to just manage the bottom line and learn how to manage, analyze and monitor the cultural forces and cascade effects that drive success or failure.
A grand vision and strategy can only revolutionize a company when the work culture is healthy, engaged and aligned with those concepts. Taboos on talk must be broken. Open, frequent and candid communications must exist between all levels in the organization. Employee issues and concerns must be addressed in a timely manner as proof that a functioning communication and countermeasure system are in place. Only then can an organization really have a chance to break its barriers to greatness.