Finding Talent Increasingly Difficult

March 5 2008 - Two-thirds of HR professionals in North America (USA - 66%, Canada - 65%) believe that tougher
national immigration policies force their organizations to devote more resources to recruiting and retaining local
talent.

This finding comes from 2008 Global Talent Sourcing in the U.S. and Canada, a report released by the Society for
Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Canadian Council of Human Resources Associations (CCHRA). The
report also looks at how and why foreign staff are recruited.

Susan Meisinger, president and CEO of SHRM said:

"Human resource professionals value the local labor pool but know that sometimes the most highly qualified talent is
found in the foreign workforce.

37% of Canadian organizations are likely to hire foreign nationals over the next year, compared to 17% of U.S. firms.
When asked the converse question - if their organizations 'most likely will not hire' foreign workers in the next 12
months, almost twice as many U.S. HR professionals (47%) agreed as Canadian HR professionals (25%).

35% of Canadian HR professionals surveyed and 25% of their colleagues in the U.S. said that the main reason for
recruiting foreign nationals is the difficulty in attracting local employees with the required skills. This is particularly
difficult in sectors such as health care needing highly scientific or technical skills.

Lynn Palmer, CCHRA CEO said:

"A tightening labor market is forcing organizations to increasingly rely on immigration as a source for new talent.
Governments and corporations alike must ready themselves to take on this challenge."

Seven key actions were reported by respondents to the survey:

• Increasing efforts to recruit and retain citizen and legal-resident workers (U.S. 66%,
Canada 65%).
• Recruiting foreign students pursuing education in the employer country (U.S. 19%,
Canada 24%).
• Deciding not to outsource internationally (U.S. 18%, Canada 14%).
• Hiring foreign nationals under different types of visas due to unavailability of preferred visa
types and/or delays in document processing (U.S. 16%, Canada 22%).
• Deciding to outsource internationally (U.S. 11%, Canada 16%).
• Hiring local nationals into foreign subsidiaries first then transferring when possible (U.S.
11%, Canada 12%).
• Setting up international virtual teams (U.S. 6%, Canada 5%).

Respondents also reported that hiring foreign nationals was now more time consuming than two years ago with the
time to process papaerwork being highlighted.
 Most Americans Satisfied With Their Jobs
August 31 2007 - New research from the National Opinion Center at the University of Chicago has found that most
Americans are satisfied with their jobs.

Part of the General Social Survey, this study was based on interviews conducted between 1972 and 2006 with a total
of 27 587 randomly selected people representing an accurate cross-section of the population. The study found that
86 per cent said they were satisfied at their jobs, of which 48 per cent said they were very satisfied. Only four per cent
reported being very dissatisfied.

Researchers found that job satisfaction increased with age, with workers over 65 among the most satisfied. In
addition, those with more education, those earning more money, and workers in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee were the most satisfied. Blacks, Hispanics and people
doing unskilled labor were the least happy.

The study found that 71 per cent of those still working after age 65 said they were very satisfied at their job compared
to 42 per cent of workers under 29.

Workers in the least prestigious 10 per cent of job categories (unskilled manual and service occupations) reported the
lowest level of satisfaction, with 35 per cent very satisfied compared to 57 per cent in the most prestigious 10 per cent
of occupations.

The study found that 40 per cent of respondents earning an annual salary of less than US$12 500 said they were
very satisfied compared to 68 per cent of those making over US$110 000.

African Americans are less satisfied with their jobs than whites are (40 per cent compared to 53 per cent) and
Hispanics have lower job satisfaction than non-Hispanics (46 per cent compared to 51 per cent).

A related study published in April 2007 found that professionals involved in caring, teaching, and protecting report the
most job satisfaction.

Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey commented:

"The most important of the factors contributing to more job satisfaction in descending order of importance are holding
a job with high prestige, being older, being non-black and earning more from a job. Job satisfaction is especially high
among those 65 and over because most people working at that age are not those forced to still work due to financial
reasons, but those who choose to do so because they like their jobs."
'Bad Apples' at Work

A study from the University of Washington Business School published in Research in Organizational Behavior in
2007 examined how negative behavior by one person in an organization can impact on teams and groups.
Researchers describe these individuals as "bad apples" acting like a virus within teams, with the capacity to "upset or
spoil the whole apple cart".

Together with Terence Mitchell, a professor of management and organization and UW psychology professor, William
Felps, a doctoral student and lead author, decided to investigate the effect of a negative co-worker on workplace
atmosphere after his wife experienced the phenomenon. She characterized her work environment as cold and
unfriendly but this changed when a co-worker described as "particularly caustic" and "always making fun of other
people" was away ill for several days.

William Felps explained:

"And when he was gone, my wife said that the atmosphere of the office changed dramatically. People started helping
each other, playing classical music on their radios, and going out for drinks after work. But when he returned to the
office, things returned to the unpleasant way they were. She hadn't noticed this employee as being a very important
person in the office before he came down with this illness but, upon observing the social atmosphere when he was
gone, she came to believe that he had a profound and negative impact. He truly was the 'bad apple' that spoiled the
barrel."

The researchers analyzed about two dozen studies focusing on workplace team and group interaction, with specific
reference to the impact of individuals whose negativity may be expressed in various ways: not doing their fair share of
work, being "chronically unhappy and emotionally unstable", or being aggressive and bullying. They found that it only
takes one such "toxic" team member to provide the catalyst for organizational dysfunction. In a follow-up survey, they
found most people they could identify at least one "bad apple" from their own workplace experience.

The researchers reviewed various working environments (including manufacturing, fast food, and universities) where
tasks and assignments were performed by groups of approximately 5 -15 individuals with interdependent jobs or
where significant interaction was necessary. They explain that employees in such circumstances tend to be less
tolerant and are more likely to challenge negative behaviors.

In one study of about 50 manufacturing teams, they found those with a disagreeable or irresponsible member were
significantly more likely to perform poorly, experiencing conflict, poor communication and lack of cooperation between
team members.

Terence Mitchell commented:

"Most organizations do not have very effective ways to handle the problem. This is especially true when the problem
employee has longevity, experience or power. Companies need to move quickly to deal with such problems because
the negativity of just one individual is pervasive and destructive and can spread quickly."

The study identified three ways in which group members may react to a negative member. Motivational intervention,
where concerns are expressed and the person asked to change; if this proves unsuccessful rejection may follow
where the individual is removed from the situation. These strategies require team members to have sufficient power;
lack of power leads people to become frustrated and distracted. This leads to the third strategy, being defensive -
common coping mechanisms include denial, social withdrawal, anger, anxiety and fear. Researchers explain that as
trust weakens along with the positive culture, members physically and psychologically disengage themselves from
the team. The study concluded that negative behavior has a greater impact than positive behavior.

Terence Mitchell said:

"People do not expect negative events and behaviors, so when we see them we pay attention to them, ruminate over
them and generally attempt to marshal all our resources to cope with the negativity in some way. Good behavior is
not put into the spotlight as much as negative behavior is."

The researchers differentiate between the negativity of "bad apples" and innovative challenging employees "who
think outside the box" and may not always be appreciated as a result. If negative individuals emerge after selection
screening, researchers suggest that organizations should allocate them to independent work positions where
possible; or the only option may be to let them go.

William Felps commented:

"Managers at companies, particularly those in which employees often work in teams, should take special care when
hiring new employees. This would include checking references and administering personality tests so that those who
are really low on agreeableness, emotional stability or conscientiousness are screened out."

Work And Sleep

September 25 2007 - Research from the University of Pennsylvania published in SLEEP has found that work time is
the largest influence on how long an individual sleeps on both work and leisure days. The more hours worked the
less sleep achieved.

Dr Mathias Basner analyzed a telephone survey of 47 731 respondents between 2003 and 2005 to the American
Time Use Survey (a continuous study sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and conducted by the U.S.
Census Bureau). The survey asked people how they had spent their time in the 24 hours up to 4.00am on the day
interviewed.

Analysis revealed that the majority of waking activities were inversely related to sleep time. Compared to the average
sleeper, respondents who slept up to 4.5 hours worked an average of 93 minutes more on weekdays and 118
minutes more on weekends and those who slept a minimum of 11.5 hours worked an average of 143 minutes less on
weekdays and 71 minutes less on weekends. The report highlights expert recommendations that adults get seven-to-
eight hours of sleep a night.

Mathias Basner said:

"These cross-sectional results in a nationally representative sample suggest that compensated work time is the most
potent determinant of sleep time, in which case work time should be considered an important factor when evaluating
the relationship between sleep time and morbidity and mortality."

Another key finding was that travel time (including commute to work) on both weekdays and weekends unexpectedly
proved to be the second most significant factor after work time. The author suggests further research is indicated into
how sleep time is affected by earlier starts and/or later returns as people travel longer distances or cope with
inadequate transport infrastructure and traffic congestion. In addition little is known about the impact of non-commute
travel on sleep time.
The study found that there was a moderate relationship between short sleep and time spent on socializing, relaxing
and leisure. Respondents in this category also spent more time on education and household activities and those with
very short sleep times spent more time watching TV. Waking activities decreased with increasing sleep time with the
exception of watching TV.

The study found little difference between work and non-work days except that compared to respondents with average
sleep times, short sleepers spent less time watching TV on weekends, and long sleepers spent less time on
socializing, relaxing and leisure activities. The balance between sleep time and waking activities was influenced by
age and gender. Work time was maximal for respondents aged 45-54 years; sleep time increased for younger and
older age groups.

Helping Depressed Employees

September 27 2007 - A study by Dr Philip S. Wang and colleagues from the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that employees with significant
depression who participated in a program including a telephone outreach and care management service
demonstrated fewer symptoms, improved work productivity and greater job retention than those receiving standard
care.

Thomas R. Insel, NIMH director, said:

"This study provides compelling evidence of the importance of workplace depression screening, outreach, and
enhanced treatment. It is in the interest of workers' health and the company's bottom line to ensure depressed
employees are effectively treated."

The researchers point out that depression is one of the most costly health problems for employers. Many workers
remain untreated or fail to access effective treatment programs. Employers purchasing corporate health benefits
often do not invest in depression screening-treatment programs because of lack of confidence in their cost-
effectiveness.

The team conducted a randomized controlled trial with 604 employees covered by a managed behavioral health plan
diagnosed with significant depression during Web-based and telephone screening. Just over half (n=304) were
offered a telephone outreach and care management program that encouraged them to enter outpatient treatment
(psychotherapy and/or antidepressant medication), monitored their progress, and made recommendations to
clinicians caring for them. Those reluctant to enter treatment were offered structured telephone cognitive behavioral
psychotherapy. The remaining 300 hundred employees received standard care, including feedback about their results
and advice to seek help from their usual health care provider.

The researchers found that the severity of depression was significantly lower in the intervention group measured at 6
and 12 months, and that these patients were 40 per cent more likely to have recovered (26.2 per cent compared to
17.7 per cent). Similarly, employees in the intervention group worked an average of two more hours per week and
were 70 per cent more likely to stay in work (92.6 per cent compared to 88.0 per cent).

The researchers estimated that the value of the additional hours worked by an employee in the intervention group
was approximately US$1800 per year, far exceeding the average program cost of US$100-US$400 per person.

They concluded:

"The results suggest that enhanced depression care of workers has benefits not only on clinical outcomes but also on
workplace outcomes. The financial value of the latter to employers in terms of recovered hiring, training, and salary
costs suggests that many employers would experience a positive return on investment from outreach and enhanced
treatment of depressed workers."

Philip Wang, director of services and intervention research at NIMH added:

"For many people, a large chunk of their lives is devoted to work. Depression affects not only a person's health, but
also his or her ability to work. Employers should consider a depression screening and intervention program as a
healthy, win-win investment."

In an accompanying editorial, Kenneth B. Wells and Jeanne Miranda of the University of California, Los Angeles
commented:

"Exactly how programs to improve depression care are implemented may affect the distribution of benefits - an
important issue given evidence of disparities in quality of depression care and the potential for practice-based
programs to overcome disparities in depression outcomes. Developers of interventions and policies should consider
implications of their design for inclusion of underserved groups who may not seek behavioral health care. Despite the
extensive efforts by Wang et al. to reach general employees, the majority of persons had already inquired about
outpatient care. Learning how to optimize personal and societal gains by improving access to quality depression care
across diverse communities through employer, practice, and community-based programs and policy changes is a
next agenda for evidence-based action. As a community participant in the Witness for Wellness program recently
stated: 'Depression is everybody's business.'"