We Have Moved

We have moved to http://www.g2leadership.org which can also be accessed through http://www.MBAissues.com!

Three Huge Problems with Obamacare and Ideas to Fix Them

     The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released to the news the updated impact the Affordable Care Act (ACA) aka “Obamacare” will have on the economy. The TEA Party which is really the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party can stand on her soapbox and shout “We told you so!”. 

     Background comes from the Washington Post (hardly a conservative newspaper) “Wonk Blog” which gives the ugly truth of the ACA. Sarah Kliff writes:

Sarah Kliff Washington Post

“Last, but certainly not least, there’s a sizable chunk of the CBO report dedicated to the health-care law’s impact on labor markets. This is one of the more detailed analyses that the agency has done on this front, and it forecasts a much more negative impact on jobs than previous reports. One of the big factors that the CBO looks at here is what happens when Americans, who typically rely on employers to gain insurance coverage, can suddenly gain coverage through government-subsidized programs.

     The CBO thinks that Americans will work less, and the health-care law will reduce full-time employment, in 2024, by 2 million people. The health-care law creates certain disincentives to work higher hours. Workers would see their subsidies reduced or eliminated altogether, for example, as their salary increases.

     “For some people, the availability of exchange subsidies under the ACA will reduce incentives to work both through a substitution effect and through an income effect,” the agency wrote. Prior to 2014, getting a job was a primary channel to gain health insurance.

     This is the flip side of reducing what health wonks call “job-lock:” when people stick around in their jobs solely because they need the health insurance that the employer provides. The health-care law takes off that lock in really significant ways, by ending pre-existing conditions and subsidizing low-income buyers on the individual market. When workers have that crucial link between employment and coverage broken, the CBO thinks they’re going to work significantly less.”

This is troubling on many fronts. Here are few reasons why.

One:Conservatives and Libertarians have warned repeatedly that tinkering with the free-market has unintended consequences. Forcing employers to cover any worker that works more than 30 hours will create a nation of under-employed 29 hour per week employees. The law of economics supports this. Employers will only pay great wages and benefits based on the need of the service of the employee but are forced to reduce these wages and benefits when coupled with high taxes. 

The fix? Relieve our employers from providing all insurance coverage and implement State level single-payer catastrophic insurance exchanges with tax-free interest savings accounts provided by employers (or Medicaid for the poor) thus opening up the free market competition at the points of service.  Medicare and Social Security would remain in effect although raising the age would make it more solvent in the long run.

Two: The current system of income taxes on human capital is making companies eye automation and robotics to perform services faster, more reliably, and thanks to tax shields on depreciation as well as tax deductions on business goods, combined with no health costs of machines, we are literally taxing human workers out of the job while subsidizing automation. 

The fix? Revert our entire tax code to consumption taxes on all goods sold and consumed except food. A state and federal sales or consumption tax would eliminate all loopholes for businesses, the need for a huge IRS (big enough to enforce and collect from businesses), and very few could cheat the system to include drug dealers, prostitutes, illegal immigrants etc. In order to keep a modest progression, the welfare system would be in fact the rebate with any purchases from an EBT being tax free.

Three: Government dependency creates more government dependency and broken homes. Let’s face it. No one will vote against “free” (really borrowed from China) money. But what it has created is a false notion that it only takes one parent to raise children. In reality, single parenthood has used the courts for disciplining the children, Obamacare/ Medicaid to provide for health care coverage, Section 8 to help with the rent, child care subsidies to watch the child while the lone parent is at work, SNAP and TANF to feed and clothe the child and so much more. In reality, social policy has cushioned the fault for unplanned families increased by the message of free-will sex from Hollywood that there is no real consequence individually for poor choices. 

The fix? Civilly (not criminally) enforce civil and marriage unions with a return of civil at-fault divorces which are really a breach of contract for any person civilly united (or married) with the at-fault party (e.g. cheater, alcoholic, spouse abuser) losing all but 5% of the assets. Currently under no-fault divorce, a man can cheat and still walk away with 50% of the non-cheating spouses marital assets. 

      In addition, any two adults that procreate a child would be deemed civilly-united and must petition the courts for a breach-of-contract hearing to find an at-fault party for purposes of child custody and child support. In no case will long-term welfare be given to any family that does not establish paternity/ maternity and the maximum allowed child support is automatically deducted. Further, priority of welfare will be given to married couples so as not to force nor entice parents to remain single which raises the likelihood of dependency. It is less costly to maintain one home, one set of bills, sharing food as a family than this crazy model we are currently employing now where 41% of children in 2011 were born to a single parent.

     The final result of this fix is that invariably less people would participate in the workforce creating a new demand for workers with higher wages especially affecting the bottom rungs. In order for this to be effective, we must reform immigration to allow shrinking work forces in cities like Detroit to regain vibrancy while eliminating illegal immigrants competing for jobs and crowding the welfare system. Each State should get greater weight on the amount of Visas requested for temporary and permanent workers based on the needs of that State.

    In closing, there are (sometimes unpopular) but beneficial fixes to Obamacare and how we operate our economy without infringing on anyone’s rights. Whether it is tax-reform or the social policy reform of forcing free-people to freely take responsibility for their freely made actions (civilly not criminally) or states finding a common ground on basic insurance coverage, collectively State by State America can prosper once again without destroying innovation.

         

Glengarry Glen Ross and Military Recruiting

This movie hits near and dear to my heart as I had worked in the recruiting business for the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) for 12 years “selling” the lifestyle of the Army in regular recruiting (high school and junior college graduates) all the way to very specialized recruiting (targeted professionals such as Catholic Priests) with graduate and post-graduate degrees[1]. The reason it hits near and dear to my heart is that I have been able to witness a complete change in recruiting practices where tactics used in Glengarry Glenn Ross were not only the norm, but were celebrated to new recruiters as exactly the way recruiting was to be performed to where ironically it may have gone too far to the other side of sales as mentioned in Bowie and Werhane’s Management Ethics chapter on the ethical treatment of customers (Ch. 4) concerning David Holley’s middle-ground approach to sales. This will be shown later.

In the earlier part of my recruiting career, the sales model was to present enough benefits through “cold-calling” (telephone prospecting off of high school and college enrollment lists[2]) to get a customer (potential recruit) to agree to sit with us[3]and learn more about the opportunities of the Army. Although “text-book” recruiting was very ethical, the closing techniques (overcoming objections) that were employed unofficially involved everything this movie showed such as the role-playing as was displayed by “the machine- Levine” and “Ricky Roma” when the client had “buyers-remorse” and in the beginning of the movie where a high pressured manager came from “down-town” to yell and scream about “A-B-C… Always be closing”. 

One major difference was A-I-D-A was not our acronym. But the unofficial motivational speeches from First Sergeants, Master Trainers and higher were exactly like this monologue from the leaders “downtown” in the movie:

“Attention, Interest, Decision, Action. Attention— do I have your attention? Interest — are you interested? I know you are ’cause it’s f__k or walk. You close, or you hit the bricks! Decision— have you made your decision for Christ?!! And action. A-I-D-A. Get out there!! You got the prospects coming in. You think they came in to get outta the rain? A guy don’t walk on the lot lest he wants to buy. Sitting out there waiting to give you their money! Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?”

The old style of recruiting was ethical in and of itself. It was taught to the Army by such heroes of the day as Zig Ziglar, Bryan Tracey, etc. It was as the Management Ethics book put it a day when the seller had more information than the buyer.  The process was straight forward and still used today for the most part. That was as the official Army’s Recruiter Journal (February 2002)[4]put it:

“The five basic sales skills found in USAREC Pam 350-7 and used by all of us – military, civilian or contractors – are:

1.       Establishing rapport

2.       Determining needs and interests

3.       Presenting features and benefits

4.       Closing and handling objections

5.       Determining qualifications”  

     The first three were straight forward and ethical. The last two were officially to be done in the most ethical manner possible, but it was common knowledge that under the intense pressure of “making numbers” from the Commanding General’s staff on down, the rewards for high achievers could mean extra money such as Recruiter Incentive Pay (RIP) similar to commission for civilians and Special Duty Allowance Pay (SDAP)[5]contrasted with the grueling mental and time-wasting punishments like “low-producer” or “zero-roller” training on weekends and possible career ruining relief boards especially for the middle manager called “Station Commanders” (which would be Kevin Spacey’s character “John Williamson” in the movie) for those that were in a slump. This pressure was enough to make such monikers popular in recruiting like “If you aren’t cheating your aren’t trying” pushing individual recruiters to steal leads, contracts, and even recruiting stations “poaching” contracts from each other’s areas in addition to “qualifying” unqualified applicants for service.

  

                The two most unethical areas of recruiting were also the unethical areas of the movie- specifically one that relates to the movie that being “closing and handling objections”. In recruiting, we used a process called FEBA- facts, evidence, benefits, and agreements which was refined more succinctly with FEBWAC (Facts, Evidence, Benefits, [paint in the customers mind a] Word picture, Agreement and Close) which was used to close the deal with applicants and influencers (parents). If they did not close, we were to resort to ORJ which stood for a phrase we were to use to get to the prospects “real objection” and overcome it by stating something similar to this example from the same Recruiter Journal (February 2002):

                Closing: Asking for a commitment to enlistment

“Are you ready to join our great Army Team?” The type of close your applicants need will vary. In USAREC Pam 350-7, you have good, clear examples of closes to master and add to your arsenal:

The trial close. It is nothing more than a temperature check, asking for an opinion or feeling about the Army or specific Army program and analyzing the reaction. Never ask for a decision!

The two-choice close. Gives the applicant a choice – Monday or Tuesday.

The single-question close – Simply ask the applicant to enlist.

The already-enlisted close – This close must start at the beginning of your presentation because you assume all the way through that your applicant has enlisted. (Sally, while at basic training, you will … )

The challenge close. This closing method works best with younger men. You must be careful how you use this one. You must be on friendly terms with your prospect or this may backfire. (John, you don’t have the guts to jump out of an airplane.)

The weighted close. This close involves the buyer weighing the pros and cons of an enlistment, then making a decision based on the outcome. In this technique, placing the pros and cons on a piece of paper so the applicant can visually compare helps. Use the five senses to reinforce the pros and cons.

There are many types of closes, but the ones listed above are the most common. It is important to recognize that knowing when to close is as important as knowing which type of close to use.

Handling Objections: Identifying and dealing with questions or requests for more information.

First you will need to determine if the objection is a true objection. Simply state as an example, “So if you didn’t have to leave home, then you would join the Army? Is this correct?” In many cases the prospect will conceal the true objection. Handling objections is covered in USAREC Pam 350-7 para 5-3e. As stated there, you cannot overcome an objection, you can only make it appear less important. Remember, never … ever … challenge the applicant’s beliefs!

The following is a nine-step process to help handle the true objection.

1. When you close, if the applicant says yes, congratulate him/ her on becoming a part of the Army team, then continue on with the process.

2. When you close, if the applicant says no, using your established rapport, ask the applicant for his/her reason.

3. Once he or she states the reason, restate the reason they gave to ensure both parties understand clearly.

4. Using your rapport, ask the applicant if the reason he or she said no was discussed, removed or dealt with, would they agree to join the Army.

5. If he or she does not want to join the Army then, it is a smoke screen, (go back to step two), and state, “It’s obvious you have another reason, do you mind if I may ask what the reason is?”

6. If applicant says he or she would join the Army, you have found the true objection (go to step seven).

7. Handle the true objection. A common method is the feel, felt, found method.

Example: John I understand how you feel about leaving home. A lot of my friends have felt the same way. John, they found out that after they left home, they had time in the Army to come back home and visit. They also met new friends who quickly became their family away from home. I remember using my 30 days’ vacation with pay to travel with my newfound friends across America. You will also have the opportunity to visit home and this will be one good reason to get your red Corvette. You can drive home too. Now John, don’t you agree the Army can assist you in achieving …?

8. If the applicant says yes, see step one.

9. If the applicant says no, go back to step two.

This nine-step process will help you stay on line and not be afraid to handle what amounts to nothing more than an unanswered question or request for more information.

Obviously the example used above was an “official” example and on the ethical side of recruiting. But it was common knowledge that you said whatever it took to close the deal and get this guy to the independent processing station called the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) where testing (mental and physical) were completed and was so hated by recruiters it was called getting the applicant past the Military Entrance Prevention System (MEPS). This included some recruiters illegally performing as ringers for the ASVAB entrance test, employing drug screening using chemicals to alter samples, falsifying documents such as diplomas, hiding dependents from the record (i.e. single parents) and so much more[6].

Fast forward to a time of high unemployment and now a drawdown of the forces and the Army has seized on this opportunity and reformed recruiting- almost to the other extreme. The Army transformed to “team” recruiting where individual recruiters are not held to account for numbers, rather the office manager (now called Center Commanders) are held to mission success for the entire team. Unfortunately, now the Army has missed parts of its mission due to no consequence for missing goals repeatedly. This contrasts with the civilian free-market where bottom performers are retrained and only retained if their rolling average is increasing to the company average. 

This is where I feel the book has a good middle ground approach mixing ethics of utilitarianism (greater good) for sales employees with those of Kants ethics of “rights” such as being told the honest truth and allowing the customer to decide with less pressure and no dishonesty.  This also goes to the ongoing stockholder vs stakeholder debate and the middle ground where businesses (or the military) achieves its goals for the stockholders (taxpayers for military) and the stakeholders (also taxpayers for the military). 

The book correctly states that there are two areas that no sales entity should enter using Kant’s ethical approach to dealing with clients. The book quotes a Kant scholar named Christine Korsgaard for which I will partially quote (the quote). “According to the Formula of Humanity, coercion and deception are the most fundamental forms of wrongdoing to others…” Deception and coercion (above normal ethical closing) violates the trust of the community and hinders long-term growth of the corporation as a whole. This is why Arthur Andersen is now Accenture and why (my opinion) Amway later changed its name to Quixtar and then later back to Amway. The brand names themselves were ruined by deceptiveness.

Bestselling author Daniel Pink on Salesforce.com gave some key takeaways from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. He states that the best sales companies serve first and sell next. The new ABC’s of selling according to Pink is:

• Attunement- Get out of your head and learn to see things from the customer’s perspective. 
• Buoyancy- Learn what to do before, during, and after your sales encounters to remain afloat in the ocean of rejection.
• Clarity- Instead of being a problem-solver, become a problem-finder that can sort through massive amounts of information to ask the right questions and uncover challenges your customers don’t know they have.

The bottom line takeaway is that sales and business climate in general has changed. Business has to move to a more ethical middle of the road stockholder and stakeholder approach. They must sell knowing that the customer has a wealth of information at her fingers, be socially responsible in practices beyond business (e.g. the environment, charity etc.), and be seen as a net positive rather than a greedy corporation not to be trusted all while increasing sales and providing meaningfully employed taxpayers for society. 

Recruiting has begun to change its image but must still find the middle approach so as to stave off any future drafts while providing employment, training, and education to millions of volunteer service members and to do this is to remain a trusted institution wisely using the taxpayers money to provide for the common defense of the United States reliably and ethically without resorting to sales tactics that hurt the image at the very beginning stage of an all-volunteer military…the recruiting process. 

References

Bowie, N. E., & Werhane, P. H. (2005). The ethcal treatment of employees. Management ethics (pp. 40-60). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub..

Eschenburg, A., & Pink, D. (2013, July 16). 3 Key Sales Takeaways from Daniel Pink. Salesforce.com Blog. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://blogs.salesforce.com/company/2013/07/sales-takeaways-daniel-pink.html

               

---

[1]Professionals would also include lawyers, doctors, surgeons etc.

[2]These lists were provided to us by any public educational institution or private institution receiving certain education funds under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Solomon Amendment of 1996 or they risked losing these funds.

[3]Although I am speaking as a private person (unofficially) in reference to the Army, “us” can be used loosely to refer to all the services under the Dept. of Defense to include the US Coast Guard as their practices (especially the Marine Corps) are very similar to ours.

[4]For complete article, it is available publicly on the net at http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/download/RJ/feb02.pdf

[5]RIP pay has since been rescinded and SDAP is currently being phased out)

[6]Although known to be happening, Recruiting Command did punish those that were blatant and made news (embarrassing the Army) such as this news story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuoMkuY3yAMor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkZexBvOk3k