Cultivating Love over Materialism

             On October 8, 2023, Fr. Romke delivered the homily that follows this brief introduction, centering on the parable of the tenants. In his reflections, he underscores a profound truth: our calling is to LOVE people and USE things, steering clear of the perilous pitfall of loving THINGS and using PEOPLE. While this lesson is intended for everyone, it has a particular pertinence for leaders who, amidst the many pressures they face, may inadvertently reduce individuals to mere tools for achieving their goals.

Nonetheless, amidst this challenge, the Church's social teaching provides a steadfast reminder, expressed succinctly by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in its 2014 Vocation of the Business Leader. Drawing on the teachings of  Pope John Paul II in Laborem Exercens, it states that “the subjective dimension of work acknowledges its dignity and importance. It helps us to see that work is for the person and not the other way around. Employees are not mere ‘human resources’ or ‘human capital.’” With this backdrop, Fr. Romke's homily follows.

There is really nothing that I love more than spending time visiting the grade school here at the parish. . . it’s pretty much my favorite non-sacramental thing to do as a priest because kids are awesome.  They’re fun, they’re usually pretty kind, AND you never know what crazy kinds of things they could say or do at any moment!  They are like a bomb of hilarity that is ready to go off at any moment!

I’ll never forget one day when I visited a classroom of 5th graders at my previous parish.  As I entered the room I could tell that the room was buzzing with excitement and energy.  I quickly found out why: The teacher was revealing the results of some academic competition that all of the students had participated in, and in order to have a little fun with the kids, she was counting down the top 10 scores.  She began with 10 students standing in the front of the room, and when she would give the results starting with 10, then 9, then 8, the kids would sit down.  At the point when I walked in there were only 4 kids left, and I immediately noticed not only that the braniac from the class was up there, but a kid who usually struggled in school was up there as well.  Number 4 was read, and then number 3, and the know-it-all as well as the kid who struggled were the final two standing.  Their faces were complete opposites of each other at this point: He had the biggest smile that I had ever seen on his face, as he was surprised that he had made it this far . . . she, on the other hand, looked as pale as a ghost as she worried about not being number one. . . . the teacher paused for a moment to allow the suspense to build, and then excitedly announced that the boy, after years and years of struggling in school, had achieved the highest score for their class!

Here’s where it got good . . . and I’ll tell you in advance that I had to walk out of the room in order to keep myself from laughing:  The girl shot the boy a nasty look, then she burst into tears, ran up to the teacher and said: This can’t be happening, . . . how is this going to affect my college options . . . will this limit my scholarship opportunities???? 

In the midst of one of the happiest moments of the boy’s life, all that this girl could think about was how some meaningless competition would affect her scholarship opportunities 8 years down the road!  All that she thought of in that moment was herself and how SHE would be affected.  It was ALL about her.

I mention this today in light of a teaching from St. John Paul II about the way in which we are called to go about loving the people who are in our lives.  He teaches that there are 2 main approaches that anyone can take when it comes to interacting with others.  The first is the utilitarian approach, which looks at everything in the world simply as something to be used, and as a result, judges the value or usefulness of a thing based on the results one can get from it.  This of course would make sense when we’re trying to figure out the value of a screwdriver or a car . . . or any other object . . . BUT, I’m sure we can see how this could be a problem when it comes to looking at people in this manner: simply as an object for our use.  People of course have an inherent value and dignity that is not at ALL based on our usefulness for them and how they affect us, our ideas, and our plans!

This is precisely the point that St. John Paul II highlights when he promotes the 2nd approach to encountering and interacting with people, and he calls the 2nd approach the personalist approach - which says that it is perfectly OK to use things, but that we never ever ever use people.  In other words in every relationship we have we NEED to seek to see the value and the dignity of the other person in themselves, and not simply for how useful they may be for benefiting us for our own sake.  In other words, to sum it all up: we are called to LOVE people and USE things, and to avoid the trap of loving THINGS and using PEOPLE!  And just what does it mean to LOVE another person?  It means that we desire their good . . . which of course is the opposite of desiring to USE them for MY good. . . St. John Paul II actually says that the opposite of LOVE is NOT hate . . but rather that the opposite of love is "use."

This of course is a very brief overview, but the whole book seeks to teach the idea that love must be rooted in the value of the person and not in how they benefit me.

I wish in the situation that I witnessed at school, that the girl could have perceived the JOY of her classmate, because it was a truly BEAUTIFUL thing . . . I deeply wished she could have perceived this, and as a result, been able to rejoice at his achievement.  But in the end, she got upset and simply viewed him as an obstacle in her way, and the look that she shot him made it clear that she wasn’t finding him very useful NOR valuable at that moment!

I mention all of this in light of the parable of the landowner, his vineyard, and the tenants to whom he leased his land.  If we glance at the different pieces at play – we can see that the vineyard in itself is a THING to be used – to cultivate and bring about good in the world and produce a product that brings joy!  So too, the tenants of course were able to use the vineyard to make a profit for themselves.  They certainly LOVED this vineyard and there’s not a problem with that.  It is GOOD that we enjoy the things and opportunities that God presents us with.  And now that we’ve considered the “thing being used” – we turn our attention to the “People who ought to be loved” – and these people, of course, are the servants who were sent – the first servant was beaten. . . the second was killed . . . and the third was stoned . . . now, last time I checked throwing stones at another person with the intent to harm them ISN’T loving . . . even if the rocks being thrown are in the shape of HEARTS – isn’t not loving!!!!  The tenants saw them as THREATS to their own comfortable way of life – and suddenly didn’t find these people very useful – so they wanted to do away with them – and that’s what they did!  

This is BAD . . . REALLY REALLY BAD . . . but it gets worse!  Because the landowner sent His Son . . . we’re told that He thought that they would RESPECT His son . . . RESPECT is a sign of love – but they didn’t choose to love the son – rather, they came to the same conclusion that he wasn’t very useful to them, and so they killed him too.

Let me say for just a moment that I’m VERY VERY glad that the girl at school didn’t make an attempt on the boy's life!  But she did attempt to kill the joy within him.  My question that I want all of us to honestly consider in our hearts is this: How often do I value THINGS, SITUATIONS, and CIRCUMSTANCES in my life over and above the PEOPLE who are in my life?  How often do I treat people based upon how they affect my own benefits, opportunities, and comforts?  And ultimately: How often do I love things and USE people rather than humbly and even sacrificially choosing to use things and love people?  The most powerful vantage point to view this from requires considering what LOVE really is:  Love IS being willing to sacrifice or pour one’s own self out for the good of another – in other words: love is more than just a feeling!!!!  Love is nothing less than sacrificing for the good of another.  So – the question becomes REAL when it’s phrased in light of this definition of Love:  Do I sacrifice things in my life for the sake of the good of another . . . . OR do I do the opposite – do I at time sacrifice the good of another for the sake of myself?  It is a hard question to honestly answer because it seems so harsh – but if we’re completely honest with ourselves I imagine that in some ways we all fall into this trap sometimes!  

Here is what it ultimately boils down to: the tenants who killed whatever threats came against their own perceived benefits that they wanted to cling to – we’re told that they would be put to a wretched death and that the vineyard would be given to others who would give the produce to the landowner at the proper times. . . the first thing that I would say is that the evil tenants were already dead on the inside . . . clinging with a death-grip to their things essentially was choking the life out of them.  But even more important to notice is that when Jesus applies this parable to our lives – He explains that the kingdom of God will be taken away from these people and given to those who will produce its fruit . . . at first glance it seems as if this is a direct comparison to the parable . . . BUT there’s actually a HUGE shift that happens.  You see – the evil tenants produced physical fruit in the vineyard – and then simply wouldn’t hand it over . . . they did in fact PRODUCE it – they just wanted to cling to it . . . but at the end, when Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of God – He says that the Kingdom of Heaven will be given to those who PRODUCE its fruit.  It’s taken away from those who fail to produce the fruit in the first place!  🡪 What’s happening here is that within the Kingdom of God – which is at hand and is among us right here and right now – the produce ISN’T the physical things around us . . . the produce in the Kingdom of God isn’t comprised of things to be used . . . . the produce of the kingdom of God are the souls of those whom He loves!  And we need to treasure THIS produce . . . we need to LOVE the people around us – because if we don’t, then our hearts die and we lose the kingdom that God desires to have vibrantly alive within us.

So, I want to invite you today to take some time in prayer to truly and DEEPLY examine your heart and your conscience – not just on the surface – but to be honest with yourself on the level that matters and can actually make a difference in your own life . . . . ask yourself what areas in your life need to be revived?  What places in your day-to-day life do you find that you not only shortchange people but even shortchange yourself by using people and love things . . . where do you at times sacrifice the good of others for your own benefit?  And what opportunities present themselves each day to truly LOVE another person whom God places in your path . . . to LOVE them when circumstances seem to present them to you as nuisances and obstacles to your own plans or your own good?  Ask God to help you to see every person as the produce that He desires for you to cultivate, nurture, and to help grow.  Be the worker in God’s vineyard and God’s Kingdom that He's calling you to be.  Be grateful for what you’ve already been given – in realizing that you’re blessed to have been called to work in God’s vineyard in the first place . . . and realize that in letting go – and not using people – that you won’t be left wanting because God will give you everything that you need . . . and know that growing in God’s love certainly won’t limit your scholarship opportunities!

About the Author

Fr., Keith Romke is a Roman Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Rockford.  He was ordained in 2011 and has served in multiple parishes throughout Northern Illinois and is currently the Pastor of Saints Peter and Paul Church in Cary, IL.  He is passionate about helping people claim and receive the Love that God has for them, and enabling others to understand that their value comes in who they are in God's eyes rather than being based upon the results of what they do.

Servant-Leadership and Catholic Social Teaching: Intersections and a Response

[Originally Published in Update - a publication of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities, Spring 2019]

By Patricia M. Bombard, BVM, D.Min., Director, Vincent on Leadership: The Hay Project, DePaul University

“Leaders are not trained, they evolve.” —Robert Greenleaf

Today, a number of publicly held companies are proving the leadership development model first described by Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970 as “servant-leadership” can produce results that make even shareholders happy, including The Container Store, Southwest Airlines, and Starbucks.1 Greenleaf described the servant-leader as someone with “the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first.” It is this feeling that draws an individual into wanting to lead by serving others.2 

For me, Greenleaf’s ideas raise two questions: (1) What is the origin of this “natural feeling”? and (2) How, as faculty and staff of Catholic universities, can we cultivate that feeling more strongly in ourselves and in our students? 

I have the same questions about the body of writings known collectively as Catholic Social Teaching (CST). As I consider Greenleaf in light of CST, it seems to me there is an important intersection between these two sets of teachings that might help answer my questions. 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops lists seven themes found within CST on its website. One of these is an “Option for the Poor and Vulnerable.” The basic moral test of a society, this theme suggests, is “how our most vulnerable members are faring.” The Gospel story of the Last Judgement (Mt. 25:31-46) compels all Christians to be attentive to the needs of the hungry, thirsty, homeless, sick and imprisoned. 

Greenleaf also suggests there is a “best test” for the servant-leader within institutions and organizations: “I prefer to say that all of those persons who are touched by the institution are served and, while being served, they grow as persons; they become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants. Furthermore, whatever the action, the least privileged in society will benefit, or, at least, not be further deprived.”3 

There is yet another point of intersection between CST and Greenleaf: the call to build community. Larry C. Spears, former president and CEO of The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, says, “The servant-leader senses that much has been lost in recent human history as a result of the shift from local communities to large institutions as the primary shaper of human lives.” He goes on to say, “Servant-leadership suggests that true community can be created among those who work in businesses and other institutions.”4 Greenleaf himself advised: “All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable form for large numbers of people is for enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each servant-leader demonstrating his [or her] own unlimited liability for a quite specific community-related group.”5 

Greenleaf’s admonition to servant-leaders to build community echoes another theme of CST: “the Person in Community.” The authors of Catholic Social Teaching: Our Best Kept Secret speak to this point, suggesting that, “Human dignity can be recognized, developed and protected only in community with others.”6 

While CST and Greenleaf certainly point the way, I have long believed that no statements of principles, guidelines, teachings, or commandments from outside oneself will create a caring human. I have written elsewhere about how we are wasting our most needed human resources by not attending adequately to developing the potential for good in each person alive on the planet. I want to quote here the spiritual teacher and author, Eknath Easwaran, who called for a new Manhattan Project dedicated to understanding human development. Referring to the research project that led to the atomic bomb, Easwaran wrote: “We study how to remake the world, but not how to remake ourselves.”7 

Along these lines, we might note that Hamilton Beazley, writing in the foreword to The Servant-Leader Within: A Transformative Path, suggests that servant-leadership is a concept more “caught than taught.” He explains: …” the teaching of servant-leadership requires a practice component as well as formal instruction because servant leadership is largely experiential, it is intellectual only in its foundation.”8

 Now we are at the crux of the answer to my questions. Cultivating a servant-leader must happen through experiences and reflection on those experiences. It must be modeled and encouraged. What might a university do to provide such opportunities for experience, reflection, and role-modeling? Certainly, the growth of service-learning has been one response to both CST and Greenleaf. Yet I have another thought: Might a Catholic university become a model of servant-leadership by focusing its efforts first and foremost on serving “the least privileged” on its campus? 

Who are these least privileged? You may be surprised to learn, as I was some four years ago, that hunger and homelessness now are widespread among students on college campuses. A recent survey published by researchers at Temple University and the Wisconsin HOPE Lab and reported by National Public Radio revealed that more than a third of college students “don’t always have enough to eat and lack stable housing.” 

As an example of a servant-leadership response to this crisis, I want to tell a story unfolding at DePaul University in Chicago. DePaul has as its namesake St. Vincent de Paul, who founded the Congregation of the Mission (also known as Vincentians), who in turn founded DePaul University in 1898. The university is part of the larger “Vincentian Family” that includes other organizations connected to the legacy of St. Vincent de Paul, such as the Daughters of Charity (DC) and the St. Vincent de Paul Society. 

The issue of homelessness among DePaul University students was highlighted by a university staff member at the fall 2014 Vincentian Family gathering in Chicago.  It was estimated at that time that there were approximately 50 homeless students every quarter. 

Following that initial revelation, members of the Vincentian Family in Chicago responded. A core group of DePaul University faculty and staff began meeting voluntarily to understand more fully the challenges and opportunities facing DePaul’s under-resourced students, especially students facing hunger and homelessness. The group invited students and representatives from various DePaul student services departments to provide input and join in our explorations. We learned a lot in the process about our own assumptions and the struggles students face within the university community, while also growing together in our desire to serve. 

Meanwhile, the staff of Depaul USA, another Vincentian Family organization focused on ending homelessness, also responded. They created the “Dax Program,” named after the French village where St. Vincent de Paul lived as a college student. The program is coordinated by Sister Judy Warmbold, DC, who regularly visits frontline campus departments and students. 

The success of the DAX Program in just three years has been remarkable. Nine students have graduated from DePaul after receiving housing assistance in host homes, rented apartments, rented rooms, donated dorm rooms, and a Dax House. Twenty-one students remain enrolled in school. About half of the 21 found stable housing and no longer need assistance. The program was featured in January 2019 on the CBS News Sunday Morning show as one of several responses to the thousands of homeless college students in the United States. 

There is still a lot a university can do to be of help, and perhaps in the process build a stronger community wherein faculty, staff, and students cultivate and practice servant leadership. Responding to the “least privileged” among us must happen both inside and outside the classroom. Beazley suggests that in addition to teaching servant-leadership, role modeling to illustrate servant-leadership principles and an environment designed to facilitate its learning are critical elements. 

One of our core group’s learnings over the past several years has been that, while the university has many resources available for students, many of the truly needy do not or are not able to seek them out. One reason is the stigma of being homeless. For example, one of the first students to be helped reported being bullied by other students in the dorm after they found out he was there because he was homeless. 

What small step could you take to help model the way toward building a university community more deeply steeped in servant-leadership and CST? Perhaps Greenleaf’s final words in his 1970 essay say it best: “In the end, all that matters is love and friendship

1 James W. Sipe and Don M. Frick, Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership: Practicing the Wisdom of Leading by Serving (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2015), 3. 

2 Larry C. Spears, “Understanding the Growing Impact of Servant Leadership,” in The Servant-Leader Within: A Transformative Path, Robert K. Greenleaf (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003), 16. 

3 Robert K. Greenleaf, The Servant-Leader Within: A Transformative Path (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003), 132. 

4 Spears, “Understanding the Growing Impact of servant leadership,” 19. 

5 Robert K. Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1977), 39. 

6 Edward P. DeBerri and James E. Hug, with Peter J. Henriot and Michael J. Schultheis, Catholic Social Teaching: Our Best Kept Secret (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2003), 23.

7 Eknath Easwaran, The Compassionate Universe: The Power of the Individual to Heal the Environment (Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, 1989), 60. 

8 Hamilton Beazley, foreword to The Servant-Leader Within: A Transformative Path, by Robert K. Greenleaf (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003), 3.

Easing the Burden of Health Insurance for Part-Time Employees

 By Gary Miller

[This article was originally published in the Summer 2020 issue of  Update, a quarterly publication of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities]

I remember my first experience teaching a class on employee benefits in the graduate school of business. At the end of the first class, a student came up to me with some encouraging words, saying that it seemed like it was going to be an interesting course. Then she thanked me for not complaining about not having any benefits from the university. Apparently, adjuncts were not reticent about sharing their disappointments with students. I had benefits, being a full-time member of the staff, as well as an adjunct.

This student's statement, however, caused me to do a little research. It did not take much digging to discover that many adjuncts across the country were struggling with being able to find affordable health insurance. I’d probably complain as well, or at least worry a lot, if I had a medical condition I couldn’t afford to treat or thought I could go bankrupt because of a necessary medical procedure that had to be paid out of pocket.

Adjuncts are particularly vulnerable to being uninsured or having to resort to low-cost limited health plans that leave them exposed to significant coverage gaps. As part-time employees, sometimes working for multiple universities, many simply are not working the equivalent of 30 hours per week, which is the eligibility threshold for many university benefit plans. This threshold happens to be the Affordable Care Act “shared responsibility” standard, which requires large employers to offer health insurance to full-time employees, that is, those who work at least 30 hours per week.[1]

Many university administrators wrongly assume that most part-time staff and adjuncts can easily acquire an affordable comprehensive major medical plan on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplace, also referred to as the insurance exchange and Obamacare. While it’s true that the Marketplace can be a good option for those without access to an employer’s group medical plan, these plans can only be purchased each year during the open enrollment, typically November 1st through December 15th or during a special enrollment period if there is a qualifying event. While the limited enrollment period may be an obstacle for some, the real challenge with Marketplace plans is that they are no longer affordable for many individuals and families.

Major medical plans purchased via the Marketplace or on a state exchange, where available, offer premium subsidies (technically referred to as premium tax credits) for those who qualify, typically those with household incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. These subsidies make it possible for many Americans with household incomes below the U.S. median to afford a comprehensive Marketplace plan. The extremely poor, those below 138% of the federal poverty level, generally now have access to Medicaid, thanks to the ACA.

Many of the people who are now in a difficult place, however, are those who earn too much to receive a premium subsidy, but not enough to afford the unsubsidized premium cost of a Marketplace plan. To get an idea of this cost, in Cook County, Illinois, an unsubsidized Marketplace Silver PPO medical plan with a deductible of $6,600 and an annual out-of-pocket cost exposure of $16,300 (not including premiums) will run a couple, age 45, earning $70,000 with no children $1,198.70 per month.

A Life Issue

The precepts of Catholic Social Teaching, foundational to the mission and strategic direction at most Catholic universities, draw a strong relationship between human dignity and healthcare. The U.S. Bishops captured it concisely: “Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons who are made in the image of God.”[2] As a life issue, healthcare is a prime concern for universities, not only for the communities beyond its borders, but also for their own internal communities of faculty, staff, and students.

One underlying premise of the ACA rests on the relationship between health insurance coverage and adequate healthcare. An abundance of research supports this premise: Those without health insurance are more likely to suffer premature death. This is not surprising, given that people without health insurance are more likely not to take the medications necessary to treat chronic conditions or address major health concerns.[3]

Beyond the moral consideration of health insurance as a life issue lies some practical ones: What is the impact to the university of classes being taught by adjuncts who may be experiencing serious medical debt, have untreated illnesses conditions, or who are not taking the necessary medications to control chronic conditions? Is there a negative impact on the university’s brand, student retention, or quality of teaching? Such negative outcomes could far outweigh any savings that come from limiting participation in the group health plan.

Beyond the moral consideration of health insurance as a life issue lies some practical ones...

It is unlikely that this affordability gap will be addressed by the nation in the foreseeable future. In fact, next year, the Supreme Court will rule on yet another challenge to the ACA’s constitutionality, possibly even dismantling the entirety of this important safety net. In the meantime, there are practical ways that universities can help their contingent faculty and part-time staff who need insurance. While some options are apparent, such as simply broadening health plan eligibility, these may not be feasible because of restricted budgets. The recommendations below are either low-cost or cost-neutral.

What to Do — and What Not to Do

Perhaps the best starting point is to understand the extent of the problem by surveying the adjuncts who are ineligible for the group plan. Are they finding ways to secure major medical insurance? This information could be used to gauge whether a coverage gap exists for a university or campus; if a gap is found, the findings could be used to develop a customized solution. It may be that most of the adjuncts at a university have other full-time positions or are covered by a spouse’s plan and a solution is needed only for a few individuals.
Do Not Endorse Limited Health Plans

Try a web search on “low-cost medical plans” and you will find plenty of carriers offering to sell limited medical plans. Most of these plans have pre-existing condition limitations as well as extensive policy exclusions. A particular type of limited medical plan, short-term medical, has an additional risk. In many states, these policies must have expiration dates. In Illinois, for instance, policies can be issued for a maximum of six months. A serious health condition developed during a six-month coverage period could make it impossible for an individual to renew for the next period. While limited plans can provide helpful reimbursements for some medical services, because of their coverage gaps, annual maximums, and other limitations, they also put the adjuncts who purchase them at risk of serious medical debt. While there are legitimate uses for some of these plan types, they are not ideal as standalone coverage.

Not endorsing limited benefit plans means making no mention of them on any university website or in any official university communication, unless they are used to supplement the university’s comprehensive group medical plan. For instance, an accident or hospital plan could be used to help faculty and staff offset major medical plan high deductibles. If used in such a fashion and paid for on a pre-tax basis by employees, then they would also have to be listed in the university Section 125 plan document, as well as ERISA documents.

Even worse than endorsing a standalone limited medical plan as an alternative to major medical insurance would be to incorrectly describe it as “comprehensive.” I am aware of a limited benefit student plan that is currently described on a university’s website as a “comprehensive health plan.” This misinformation could possibly create liability for that university. Even the insurance company that provides this policy advertises it as a limited health plan.

Avoid the Family Glitch

Universities that cover adjuncts and part-time staff should be aware of the ACA Family Glitch.[4] This applies when the group plan requires employees to make little or no premium contribution but requires disproportionately higher contributions for spouses and children. An employee with low annual earnings, such as an adjunct, may only be able to afford employee-only coverage. When the spouse turns to the Marketplace for coverage, he then finds that he is not eligible for a subsidy and cannot afford these plans either.

Families that have access to an affordable major medical employer health plan are not eligible for a subsidized Marketplace plan. The glitch is created by how the ACA determines whether an employer’s group plan is affordable. If employee-only coverage is less than 9.78% of household income, then the group health plan is considered affordable not only for the employee but also for the person’s spouse and children. Because the plan is considered affordable based on the employee-only premium, none of the family members are eligible for subsidized insurance on the Marketplace.

Consider a family of two adults and two children, with a household income of $75,000, an income that would qualify for a substantial Marketplace subsidy. Assume that only one of the adults was employed and had access to a group medical plan. If the parent with the group medical plan had a required premium contribution of $150/month for employee-only coverage, the employer plan would be considered affordable by the ACA because the annual employee contribution would only be 2.4% of the family’s household income, well under the ACA threshold. Even if the addition of the non-covered adult and children caused the family’s premium contribution to increasing to $1,200 per month, 19.2% of the family’s household income, the non-covered spouse and children would still not be eligible for a Marketplace premium subsidy. That’s because the ACA determines affordability based on the employee-only premium contribution amount. Thus, the disproportionately high family premium, in this case, would likely have put comprehensive health insurance out of the financial reach of this family.

Take away: Group health plan premium contributions should be structured in such a way as to keep the medical coverage affordable for spouses and children. Even creating a separate plan for part-time staff and adjuncts that excluded spouses would, in many cases, be a better alternative for the employees’ families than to require a disproportionately higher premium contribution for spouses and children.


Overinform Faculty and Staff of the Marketplace Option

Given the variability in many adjuncts' teaching schedules, those who are covered by the university’s medical plan may have periods of ineligibility. When adjuncts lose coverage, they are entitled to continue coverage at their own cost through the provisions of COBRA. Such continuation can be very costly, and the Marketplace may be a more affordable option because of the availability of premium tax credits. Unfortunately, employers are only required to notify employees of the Marketplace option at the time of hire.

Adjuncts who lose group health plan eligibility after participating in a university's plan for a period may not remember there is a Marketplace option. As a result, they may elect the extremely expensive COBRA continuation option and may likely find it unaffordable after a couple of months. Compounding matters, the ACA stipulates that the COBRA election disqualifies them from enrolling in a Marketplace plan until the next open enrollment period.

To help adjuncts avoid this pitfall and ensure they are aware of the possibly much more affordable Marketplace option when losing university coverage, a notice of the Marketplace option can also be included with the COBRA election form. The Department of Labor model COBRA election letter includes such notice. But even this extra step has a problem.

If a person enrolls in the Marketplace before her/his university coverage ends, then the Marketplace coverage will begin the first of the month following the date of loss of group coverage. Otherwise, if they don’t enroll in a Marketplace plan until they receive the COBRA election notice, possibly longer than a month, they can’t enroll in a Marketplace plan until the first of the month after a Marketplace plan is elected. The problem is that Marketplace coverage is not retroactive to the date of termination, like COBRA. The person could be forced into COBRA just to pay medical bills incurred in the gap period.

The simple solution is to provide more notice of the Marketplace option than is required by law. Ideally, a separate notice should be provided as soon as a person is informed that they are going to be terminated or become ineligible for the university’s medical plan. This will give them time to enroll in a Marketplace plan before terminating and allow for the earliest possible news coverage date.


Provide Tax-Advantaged Assistance to Adjuncts Not Eligible for the Group Health Plan

As of January 2020, a new way for employers to help employees with health insurance became available, the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Account (ICHRA).

These HRAs can be implemented for just a single class of employees, for example, part-time faculty and staff not eligible for the group health plan but teaching a set number of courses or hours per week. Through an ICHRA, a university can make tax-free payments to the adjuncts to reimburse a portion of the cost of individually acquired health insurance. Not only would these reimbursements be tax-free to those eligible, but they also would not be considered pay and therefore would not create additional payroll taxes for the university.

One caveat: If an adjunct not eligible for the group plan finds that she is eligible for a premium subsidy on the Healthcare Marketplace, she would need to opt-out of the ICHRA to qualify for the subsidy. She would not be able to obtain assistance from the employer and from the Marketplace simultaneously.

A Macro Approach

A final suggestion: Given budget constraints caused by the pandemic, perhaps this would be an appropriate time for universities to consider pooling resources for the purpose of providing benefits. Collaborative arrangements among Catholic universities could potentially save millions of dollars.

What if universities collaborated to: 

• Share legal and consulting expertise, develop best-practice plan design options, and centralize administration?
• Contract with a company specializing in helping adjunct and part-time staff not covered by the group plan to understand their insurance options and help with their billing challenges? This service would not be excessively expensive and would be a much-appreciated employee benefit. This benefit could be extended to all employees who are recipients of surprise medical bills.
• Create a separate self-funded third-party health insurance program established among participating universities for adjuncts and part-time staff not eligible for the universities’ regular medical insurance? Perhaps the fund could be partially funded by grants as well as limited employer contributions and adjunct contributions.

Continuing to diminish health benefits for cost reasons with the justification that such changes are a competitive practice is reactive. Such a reactive approach does not address the underlying issues and ultimately will make high-quality plans unaffordable for many Catholic universities. Benefits issues can often fly under the radar of senior university officials. That is unfortunate because of the missed opportunities: significant savings to the university and its faculty and staff, the potential to improve faculty and staff retention, and most significantly, access to medical insurance for all employees.

Gary Miller is an employee benefit, human resources, and organizational consultant who works with both universities and businesses.


[1] For more information on the employer Affordable Care Act requirements, see this summary from the Society for Human Resource Management.


[2] NCCB/USCCB, “A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform: Protecting Human Life, Promoting Human Dignity, Pursuing the Common Good,” Pastoral Letters and Statements of the United States Catholic Bishops, Volume VI, 1989-1997 (1998): 519-526.


[3] Regarding the relationship between lack of healthcare and mortality and morbidity, see these sources for starters: (a) https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2014/05/12/health-insurance-and-death-rates and (b) https://news.gallup.com/poll/269138/americans-delaying-medical-treatment-due-cost.asp.


[4] For a more detailed explanation of the glitch issue, see https://www.verywellhealth.com/aca-family-glitch-1738950.

Mindset Matters: How Leaders’ Attitudes Sustain Organizations

by Gary L. Miller

In 1806, one of the most enduring and successful companies in America was founded as a soap and candle company. Ranked 445 on the Forbes Global 2000 list, this business has paid dividends every year since 1895, even during the world wars and recessions. Forbes has ranked it as the 61st most valuable brand in the world. Colgate-Palmolive, despite not being a sexy, cutting-edge Silicon Valley tech firm, stands out as one of the premier businesses in America.[1]

Colgate has been successful within a highly competitive business environment in which innovation and flexibility are crucial to survival. At a time when Catholic colleges and universities are coming under increased economic pressure, the experience of Colgate and other prosperous corporations may offer some lessons in sustaining success within a challenging environment.

Givers and Takers and Candlestick Makers

Sustainable organizations develop leaders who create an internal culture in which employees are respected, recognized as key value-creators, and are treated extremely well—from top executives being on a first-name basis with frontline employees, to an expectation that managers act with integrity.[2] Current Colgate CEO Ian M. Cook, who has been honored with the Yale School of Management Legend in Leadership Award, acknowledged the importance of these values when he said, "This is a world where I believe values and integrity are more important than ever before….In the end, it is the quality of the leaders and the culture of the company that drive long-term success."[3]

Based on the research findings of Zeynep Ton, Cook’s statements are right on target. Leaders’ beliefs regarding employees, whether conscious or not, have significant bearing on organizational sustainability. But not all leaders have a mindset like Cook’s. In researching the retail industry, Ton found that many leaders think about employees mainly as cost drivers, resulting in significant uninterrupted negative implications for store operations, sustainability, and staff development: “Seeing labor as a cost to be minimized is so common that some retailers even do self-destructive things to minimize cost.”[4]

In his book Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success, Adam Grant presents another common mindset akin to the “labor-as-cost” perspective: the “taker” mentality. Simply put, takers like to get more than they give. “They feel that to succeed, they need to be better than others. ...They self-promote and make sure they get plenty of credit for their efforts.”[5]

Takers value wealth, power, pleasure, and winning. Grant reports that as CEOs, takers tend to be self-absorbed and view themselves as superior to others. Because they are so self-focused, they can be very destructive to an organization or department. He cites Ken Lay of Enron as an extreme example of a taker. While the example of such a notorious leader gets the point across, the real threat for most organizations come from those who are not so excessively destructive, but tend to emphasize short-term results while failing to exert the time and effort to unleash the full potential of their staff.

The taker mentality is something that Pope Francis has addressed in the context of care for creation. In Laudato Si’, the pope wrote, “To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.”[6]

Not only is this approach bad business for society, but a growing volume of research suggests that it’s just plain bad business. So, it’s not surprising that many successful companies, like Colgate, tend to have a culture in which employees are viewed as important resources and a key source of value. As Ton found, such organizations invest heavily in employees and a “giver” mindset prevails among leaders. Grant describes givers as those who value responsibility, social justice, and compassion, and says that effective givers make more sustainable contributions.

In examining how long it takes for effective management practices to be adopted by industry, Stanford Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer once boiled the hurdle down to two organizational problems, one related to knowing and the other related to doing. He identified those problems as: (1) not implementing what organizations know they should be doing based on experience or insight; and (2) not acting on the basis of the best available evidence.[7] In his research, Pfeffer found that “one factor looms large as an explanation for the difficulties: the mental models or mindsets of senior leaders.”[8]

While adopting best practices and improving processes to maximize performance are useful management actions, they are not the key to sustainable success. Pfeffer offered Southwest Airlines as an example. Its exceptional success “is not simply a result of not serving meals or flying only 737s on short hauls, something many other airlines have imitated. Instead, the key to Southwest’s performance is great service and outstanding productivity produced by (a) a strong culture built on a value system that puts employees first, customers second, and shareholders third, and (b) a way of thinking about and treating employees that has built loyalty and commitment even with a heavily unionized workforce."

Mindsets and Mission

In looking at companies like Colgate, the overwhelming research evidence from the last decade supports the premise that treating employees and managers as value-creators contributes to long-term sustainability. Yet, many organizations do not promote a culture consistent with this knowledge. This is a classic case of a problem involving knowing and doing.

A generation ago, few Catholic colleges and universities would have needed to consider the underlying mindsets of their leaders. And while the unspoken cultural norm at most institutions holds human dignity in high regard, an emphasis on short-term results and labor-as-a-cost prevail in the wider society. As a result, Catholic higher education is wise to assess organizational mindsets to ensure that mission-based values are infused throughout the management of each institution—in both what it knows and what it does.

Pfeffer concluded, “Human resources must be concerned with the mental models and mindsets of the people in the company, particularly its leaders. Because what we do comes from what and how we think, intervening to uncover and affect mental models may be the most important and high-leverage activity HR can perform.”

As Catholic college and universities face mounting budget pressures, an increasing number of under-resourced students, and business model disruptions resulting from technology and competition, campus leaders must be formed in the mental models that foster outcomes of sustainability, innovation, and student success. These outcomes are only possible if leaders see all faculty and staff as value-creators, and those value-creators are committed and engaged.

Certain core mindsets, especially those that relate to organizational sustainability and the common good, should be nurtured among leaders. This nurturing could take the form of increasing self-awareness by helping leaders become cognizant of their own perspectives in light of a higher mission that values human dignity.

 The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

1 “The World’s Most Valuable Brands.” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/companies/colgate-palmolive/. Colgate-Palmolive has paid uninterrupted dividends on its common stock since 1895 and increased payments to common shareholders every year for 52 years; see http://investor.colgate.com/div_history.cfm.

2 A number of inventories have been done to assess what makes company culture attractive to employees. See, for instance, “The Best Companies for Work-Life Balance.” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2015/07/17/the-best-companies-for-work-life-balance-2/.

3 Yale School of Management. “Colgate-Palmolive CEO Ian Cook on Leadership,” http://som.yale.edu/news/2014/11/colgate-palmolive-ceo-ian-cook-leadership.

4 Ton, Zeynep. The Good Jobs Strategy: How the Smartest Companies Invest in Employees to Lower Costs & Boost Profits (Boston: New Harvest, 2014), pg. 51.

5 Grant, Adam. Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success (New York: Penguin Books, 2014), pp. 21 and 35.

6 Pope Francis. 2015. Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html, see paragraph 128.

7 Pfeffer, Jeffrey. “Changing Mental Models: HR’s Most Important Task.” Human Resources Management, May 20, 2005, pp. 123-128. See http://homepages.se.edu/cvonbergen/files/2013/11/Changing-Mental-Models_HRs-Most-Important-Task.pdf.

8  Ibid., p. 124.

Tweet

Servant Leadership and Overcoming Organizational Blind Spots

by Gary Miller, Director of HR Process Transformation at DePaul University

To overcome blindness to operational realities, leadership must embrace a mindset focused on empowering the frontline.

-------------------------------------

“Most ailing organizations have developed a functional blindness to their own defects. They are not suffering because they cannot solve their problems, but because they cannot see their problems.” -John Gardner[1]

Attitudes and beliefs, if not grounded in reality, can cause this blindness at the individual level as well. Consider the case of Hiroo Onoda, a Japanese soldier in World War II who didn’t get the message when Japan surrendered and didn’t believe those who tried to persuade him. For almost three decades, he hid in the jungles of the Philippines, foraging for food and stealing from local farmers. In 1974, he returned to civilization after his former commander finally convinced him of the truth.[2]

Mindsets can have a strong grip on societies and communities as well. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea of scientific revolutions and paradigms.[3] He explained how better interpretations of research findings can take a long time to become influential because of the tenacity of prevailing attitudes and beliefs associated with prevailing scientific theories.

In 1972, the social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term groupthink to describe the tendency of leadership groups to make bad decisions because of being “blind” to certain realities often obvious to many on the outside. The term became famously associated with the narrow and errant mindset of American auto industry executives who failed to “see” changing consumer preferences. “Over time, they [the auto makers] cultivated leadership and a culture that believed that not only were Americans the undisputedly best automakers in the world, but that these companies knew exactly what the American population wanted,” reported one article.[4]

Universities seemingly do a lot to counter groupthink, with some seeking broad representation from all segments of the communities they serve. Further, many seek diversity among board members, administrators, faculty, and staff and have ongoing outreach initiatives, even beyond the federally required affirmative action regulations. Faculty and staff councils bring additional eyes to senior leadership, helping broaden the collective mindset of the institution and making sound strategic decisions more likely.

Yet, depending on the individual mindsets that senior administrators and managers bring to their leadership role, which can vary widely across a college or university, they could be blind to significant organizational problems and inefficiencies. Some who really know the ropes bring insights from having a detailed knowledge of the work and the strengths of the people who perform the work. As Craig Mousin pointed out in his column in the winter 2016 edition of Update (page 9), “A leader who has learned the ropes can be trusted by others in the team to know all the ins and outs of a skill or a profession and lead well.”

In today’s complex organizations, however, with rapidly changing technologies, greater competition, new opportunities, and changing student demographics, few leaders really know all the ropes. Consequently, boards and senior executives are now more dependent than ever on the experiences and insights of faculty and student-facing staff. These frontline professionals — the face of the university to students — are the ones who know their institutions’ strengths and weaknesses at the operational level. They know what is needed to improve the student experience, eliminate frustrating bureaucracy, and streamline processes. The quality of efforts meant to unleash the potential of these frontline professionals varies from college to college and across departments.

Failure to empower these individuals may have significant negative consequences. David Graeber’s article in a recent edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that some senior administrators are completely oblivious to what’s happening among their staffs. He cites survey results, albeit from Britain and Holland, that show 37 to 40 percent of all workers are convinced that their jobs make no meaningful contribution to the world. He claims that higher education is no better, describing testimony he’s received from staff: “Many… don’t end up doing much; some administrative staff will inevitably end up sitting around playing Fruit Mahjong all day or watching cat videos. But it’s generally considered good form to give all staff members at least a few hours of actual work to do each week.” Graeber further claims that some senior administrators view staff’s role as serving them: “They must be provided with a tiny army of flunkies” to feel “appropriately impressive and powerful.”

Leaders who view their role as being the boss and the staff’s role as primarily there to help them look good do not value the insights of the frontline nor do they empower them. Consequently, these leaders are unaware of the opportunities and challenges in their areas. As Gardner observed, their units will suffer because they cannot see their problems.

The Mindset that Brings Sight

In order to bring operational and service challenges — as well as opportunities — into sight, leaders must empower the frontline. This means that university boards and senior executives should emphasize the development of a leadership culture whereby those in positions of authority over others view their role primarily as serving the organization, faculty, and staff. Mindset must shift from being boss to being servant, as Adam Grant might put it, from being a “taker” to being a “giver.”[5]

The approach to leadership that is consistent with the giver mindset and unleashes the power of the frontline is that of servant leadership, which has long been recognized as a best practice. Carol Walker’s 2015 Harvard Business Review article argued the importance of a servant leadership philosophy for new managers. She wrote:

Robert Greenleaf coined the term [servant leadership] 35 years ago, but the concept is still vital and empowering. Granted, “servant” doesn’t sound nearly as powerful as “boss,” but it has the potential to deliver far more of what most of us are really after: influence. The reason is simple. When you have a servant mentality, it’s not about you. Removing self-interest and personal glory from your motivation on the job is the single most important thing you can do to inspire trust. When you focus first on the success of your organization and your team, it comes through clearly. You ask more questions, listen more carefully, and actively value others’ needs and contributions. The result is more thoughtful, balanced decisions.

The power of servant leadership flows from a right view of the use of power and position, as depicted by the Catholic Social Teaching principle of subsidiarity. “On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.”[6]

The guiding principle of subsidiarity underlies organizational and societal efforts to create equal opportunity for all, especially the under-resourced. It underlies the laws, policies, and practices to promote diversity and inclusion. The principle stresses the development of persons and groups to enable their success. Vocation of the Business Leader puts it this way:

The principle of subsidiarity offers business leaders great insights. It encourages them to use their power at the service of everyone in their organization and prompts them to question whether their authority serves the development of all their employees…. For business leaders on every level, from team leader up to chief executive, this is very demanding but rewarding. Working under the principle of subsidiarity calls for restraint and a humble acceptance of the role of a servant leader.[7]

A leadership culture that embraces the philosophy of servant leadership and, consequently, the giver mindset and the subsidiarity principle, in which senior administrators and managers see their role as serving others and the organization, is key to unlocking the full potential of an institution. Such a prevailing culture would help avoid many of the organizational ills described by Graeber. Faculty and frontline staff so enabled by leadership, who know they can make a difference and that their opinions are valued, and who understand clearly how their work contributes to the mission of the university, will remedy the functional blindness organizations may have to their own defects.

[1] Bibeault, D. B. Corporate Turnaround: How Managers Turn Losers into Winners. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981).
[2] Onoda, H. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. (Tokyo/New York: Kodansha International, 1974).
[3] Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015).
[4] See examples of the Groupthink impact at https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311864.
[5] In his book Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success, Adam Grant presents a common but destructive leadership mindset: the “taker” mentality. Simply put, takers like to get more than they give. “They feel that to succeed, they need to be better than others.... They self-promote and make sure they get plenty of credit for their efforts.” See Adam Grant. Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success (New York: Penguin Books, 2014), p. 21, 35.
[6] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), sec. 186. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html.
[7] Naughton, M.M & Alford, H. J. Vocation of the Business Leader: A Reflection. (Vatican City: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2014). Obtain a copy from https://www.jesuitdigitalnetwork.org/authoring/8731-vocation-of-the-business-leader/view.

Building Organizational Excellence on the Foundation of Human Dignity

by Gary L. Miller

In the spring 2014 edition of Update, Craig Mousin recommended that Catholic colleges and universities provide “a workplace that is an effective laboratory of CST [Catholic Social Teaching] in action.” But how can that be done? Mousin observed that the contribution of Catholic Social Teaching to the reduction of precarious work in the 20th century does not seem to be recognized by contemporary business leaders. He suggested, “Catholic colleges and universities would seem the best place to breach the barriers [between scholars and business leaders/management authors] by providing a workplace that is an effective laboratory of CST in action. CST’s foundation in the dignity of each person—who is not a commodity, but a member of the human community created in the image of God—provides one starting point. Above all considerations, the dignity of each person—each student, staff, and faculty member—should influence daily decisions about allocating resources and determining employment policies.”

The vocation of the Business Leader (VBL)  also recognizes respect for human dignity, as well as the common good, as a starting point. It describes these concepts as “foundational principles which should inform the way we organize the labor and capital employed, and the processes of innovation, in a market system” (38). For CST to be recognized for its contribution to good work and organizational effectiveness, employers need to be able to translate the concepts of CST into present-day management practices and language. Further, to show relevance in a results-oriented culture, the connection between CST-aligned management practices and organizational success must then be demonstrated.

Significant resources are available to Catholic university leaders for taking CST beyond the foundation of dignity (and even beyond CST-grounded policies and philosophy statements) to actually bringing about good and productive work. In fact, “organizing good and productive work” is one of the objectives organizations should have, according to the VBL, in order to promote human dignity and the common good. The document even provides several practical considerations in its discernment checklist: provide employees with appropriate and genuine autonomy (in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity), design jobs that allow employees to use and develop their skills and knowledge, train employees appropriately to enable their success, clearly define responsibilities so that employees know what is expected of them, ensure safe working conditions, provide living wages, and give clear and honest performance feedback.  A large volume of organizational and management research sheds much light on how to do all of these things effectively.

Regarding translating CST concepts into contemporary management language, consider the CST idea of “human flourishing.” The VBL points out that “the way human work is designed and managed has a significant impact on whether . . . people will flourish through their work” (44). What does it mean for employees to flourish? In contemporary management-speak, it means that they are engaged.  Engaged employees tend to be more enthusiastic about their work than those who are not.  They identify more with their employers, feel more valued, and have a greater sense of wellbeing.

A large body of research supports this notion that employees who are engaged, flourish. For instance, the American Psychological Association’s 2014 Work and Well-Being Survey  found that “In predicting well-being, engagement and trust accounted for 50.8% of the variance.” Also, it found that “Workers that feel valued were significantly more likely to report having high levels of energy, being strongly involved in their work and feeling happily engrossed in what they do.”

CST and Organizational Success

Does treating employees with dignity and creating work environments in which they can flourish support organizational success? Again, picking up on the growing volume of engagement research findings, the answer is clearly yes. Unlike employee satisfaction research, which has generally shown little effect on business outcomes, engagement research has found a significant impact. For example, customer retention (could disengaged part-time faculty be hurting student retention?), loyalty, profit, and customer satisfaction are generally found to be much stronger in organizations where employees are engaged. Several studies that show the relationship between engaged employees and positive organizational outcomes are cited below.

To be true to mission values, Catholic colleges and universities must place the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, as Mousin suggested in his column, at the forefront of management considerations. Beyond being the right thing to do, creating workplaces that are effective laboratories of CST in action could help confront mounting financial pressures through better engagement of faculty and staff, especially those in part-time classifications. Making CST principles operational can be done by incorporating CST-aligned best practices, understanding contemporary management expressions of CST concepts, and finding the tools to measure the success of these workplace experiments.

We invite you to respond to this column through the Human Resources and Mission blog. We also invite you to post links to your mission statements, as well as HR and compensation philosophy documents if you would like to share them with our readers. This will permit a fuller discussion of how mission and CST influence the employment process.  The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

[1] Information about the Vocation of the Business Leader as well as a link to the document can be found at https://www.catholic.org/news/business/story.php?id=45927.

[2] For instance, Dr. Michael Naughton, University of St. Thomas (MN), has done considerable work in this area. See a list of selected articles at http://www.stthomas.edu/catholicstudies/faculty/naughton.htm.

[3] See https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/employee-distrust.aspx.

[4] A sample of studies that show the relationship between engagement levels and positive business outcomes include: Harvard Business Review Analytic Services Report: http://www.yorkworks.ca/default/assets/File/analyst-insights-HBR_Achievers%20Report_TheImpactofEmployeeEngagementonPerformance(1).pdf; 2013 Gallup Engagement Survey Results (see the summary on page 9):

http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx; Specific Best Practice Employers Engagement Findings: http://www.apqc.org/sites/default/files/files/Link%20Engagement%20to%20Bus%20Outcomes.pdf; and Towers Watson 2012 Survey: http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2012/07/2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-Study.