1

Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs

Senior Staff MeetingFebruary 6, 2001

D i v e r s i t y

2

The University of Michigan Medical Center will achieve and sustain an

environment which recognizes, respects, fosters and fully maximizes the strengths

and differences among its employees to be the employer and of provider of choice.

3

AgendaPresentation Team: Cathy Frank, Joe Katulic, Shelley

Morrison, Leslie Stambaugh, Laurita Thomas

Purpose: To share status of Health System Diversity Initiatives for staffing and determine a priority for future direction

• Present Demographic Profile Strengths and Challenges

• Summarize Status of Recent Initiatives

• Outline Three Options for Future Focus– Mentoring

– Problem-solving Strategies

– Supervisory Skill Development

• Select 2001-02 HS Strategic Initiative for Diversity

4

Demographic Profile

Strengths:– We for the most part represent the population

of the communities we serve

Challenges:– Dispersion of ethnic diversity across job

families

5

Mcare

American Ind/Alaskan Native 1.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 1.8

Black 7.5

Hispanic 2.0

White 87.2

Med School

0.5

17.4

5.514.4

1.7

79.7

2.2

74.4

7.8

90.4 84.2

11.2

A Comparison of the Workforce with Census figures

Western Wayne County

0.2

1.5 4.1

0.4

Ann Arbor PMSA HHC

0.7

3.5

6

A Comparison of the Workforce with Census Figures• Western Wayne County:

– City of Belleville– Northville Township– Canton Township– City of Plymouth– Plymouth Township– City of Dearborn Heights– Redford Township– City of Garden City– City of Romulus

– Huron Township– Sumpter Township– City of Inkster– Van Buren Township– City of Livonia– City of Wayne– City of Northville– City of Westland

• Ann Arbor Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area:– Lenawee County– Livingston County– Washtenaw County

7

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System 1995

13%2%

79%

0%

6%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 51 out of 10994 (0%)

ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 662 out of 10994 (6%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 1416 out of 10994 (13%)

HISPANIC N = 204 out of 10994 (2%)

WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 8661 out of 10994 (79%)

8

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System 2000

7%

12%2%

78%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 77 out of 12206 (1%)

ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 915 out of 12206 (7%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 1418 out of 12206 (12%)

HISPANIC N = 221 out of 12206 (2%)

WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 9575 out of 12206 (78%)

9

Comparison of the workforce by race and job family for UHS.

Job Family Am.Indian

Asian Black Hispanic White

P&A * 8% 7% 2% 82%Nurses 1% 4% 4% 1% 90%House Officers * 23% 5% 3% 68%Res. Fellows * 53% 2% 2% 43%Allied Health 1% 3% 10% 2% 84%Office 1% 2% 15% 2% 80%Service/Maint. 1% 5% 56% 3% 35%* < 1%

10

In the P&A job family non-whites are less likely to stay.

Employee Group Percentage of P&A who leftUMHS between ‘96-‘00

White 36.4%Non-white 49.5%

11

Current Status UMHHC

1996 Diversity ReportRecommendations Actions/Initiatives

Enhance patient care diversitythrough communication,education, and accommodation.

UMHS Program for MulticulturalHealth

Continue the integration ofdiversity efforts in local areasthrough open communicationand education.

Departmental Task Teams Valuing Differences (Finance) OE Interventions Training (MTV, ERTP) MWorks External consultants/HRD

12

Current Status UMHHC

1996 Diversity ReportRecommendations Actions/Initiatives

Continue to improve thedemographic mix within the variousjob families.

Recruitment at National Meetings(Black Nurses Assoc., NAAHSE)

Focused advertising Local recruitment directed at

future workforce. (Ex. YouthMentoring Program, ProjectHope.)

13

Current Status UMHHC1996 Diversity Report

Recommendations Actions/Initiatives

Improve employee problem solvingprocess.

Interest-based problem solving pilots. Pre-3rd step grievance facilitation Nursing CEU’s granted for Mutual

Gains Training program SPG language enhanced to permit

peer review. Consultation and Conciliation

Services.

Continue to track progress MCHRD data collection

14

Focus the Light of Diversity RetreatApril, 1998.

Current Status UMHHC

• Leadership is needed at all levels– Identify institutional champions

– Develop concept of unit liaisons

– Need for diversity coordination

• Education is key – build supervisory skills

– support mentoring

– increase staff awareness

15

Hospitals and Health Centers Institutional Objectives FY 2001

Goal:

Improve customer satisfaction in all groups.

Strategy:

Improve relationships, respect, and understanding of employees between different subgroups or employee population, around issues of diversity and differences.

16

Current Status - Medical School

• Past Efforts

• More Recent Efforts– Diversity and Career Development Committees

Established – Staff Opinion Surveys and Focus Groups– Corrective Measures Proposed and Approved

17

Current Status - M-Care

M-Care is in the beginning stages of program development and implementation

• Diversity leadership training workshop: late 1999• Action Steps

– Developing supervisory training program– Conducting analysis of turnover data and departmental profiles– Conducting exit interviews– Establishing a diversity council

18

Current Status - M-Care (cont.)

• Participated in December 2000 Health System Employee Opinion Survey

• Work to implement additional initiatives in progress

19

Issues that Remain

– Perception of unfair and/or discriminatory behavior

– Frustration related to: promotions, pay rates, career development

– Higher turnover rates for minority personnel

– Scarcity of minorities in higher-level positions

– Belief that problems are not addressed effectively

20

Options for Strategic Initiatives

• Invest in supervisory development

• Improve employee problem solving

• Implement strategic mentoring

21

Criteria for Selection

• Number of people positively impacted over short term

• Potential to save time/money and/or improve performance

• Demonstrates significant responsiveness to diversity

• Significant contribution to UMHS culture and ability to achieve its mission

• Leadership commitment to the strategy

• Feasibility

• Impact on issues

22

Invest in Supervisory Training and DevelopmentRationale

Strengths or competencies which comprise a good supervisory development program

contribute significantly to a successful diversity effort and to building and transitioning an

organization’s culture

Development of the supervisory staff results in business gains on a personal and

professional basis

23

Invest in Supervisory Training and DevelopmentProgram Goals: Improved skills and abilities in:• Relationship building• Strategic Communication• Leadership• Teamwork• Influencing others• Business Knowledge• Customer Service• Analytical Ability• Change Management• Employee Recognition/Retention• Organizational savvy• Diversity

24

Invest in Supervisory Training and DevelopmentOutcomes• Staff Development

• Staff Satisfaction

• Leadership Development

• Creation of a workplace better adapted to recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce

• Enhanced Organizational Performance

25

Percentage of employees who strongly agree that they are satisfied with how their workplace concerns are addressed.

Improve Employee Problem Solving

Area Employee OpinionSurvey

Nov. ‘99

Employee Opinion SurveyNov. ‘00

UMHS 9% 7%

HHC 7%

MCare 12%

Medical School 9%

26

Improve Employee Problem Solving• Improve Grievance Process

– offer ADR pre-3rd step grievance– implement peer review process for non-bargained for staff.

• Support use of interest-based problem solving (IBPS) in resolving departmental and interdepartmental issues.– Build and develop leadership competency– Facilitate complex issues w/ internal mediators– Integrate IBPS into change initiatives

27

Improve Employee Problem Solving• Enhance employee communication skill and self-

awareness of conflict resolution style.– Evaluate training options for staff

• Difficult Conversations, Stone, Patton, Heen, Harvard Negotiation Project.

• Resolving Conflict in a Diverse Workplace, Sybil Evans.

• Others

28

Improve Employee Problem Solving• Anticipated Outcomes

– Improved employee perception of fairness of grievance process

– Reduction in number of non-bargained-for 3rd step grievances

– Increased employee satisfaction per EOS

– OCI data reflects increase in constructive styles

– Reduction in litigation against employer

29

Implement an Institutional Mentoring ProgramWhat is mentoring?

It is a process of guiding & teaching others based on a strategic intent or long-term business and academic goals and objectives.

• Survey responses to the question of whether supervisors know how to mentor staff development:

60% Do Not Agree

30

Advantages of Implementing a Mentoring Program

Expected Outcomes:• Creates staff development opportunities

• Identifies leaders within the organization and creates opportunities for them to share knowledge and experiences

• Increases staff satisfaction

• Increases the organization’s ability to successfully recruit staff

• Increases the organization’s ability to retain the talent pool

• Facilitates interdepartmental collaboration and enhances organizational performance

31

How do we implement a successful mentoring program? The Chrysalis Process • Refine the strategic intent or business reason for developing

the program

• Determine expected outcomes and measurement criteria

• Publisize the program and identify champions.

• Select mentors and mentees

• Conduct education and orientation programs

• Link mentors and mentees

• Monitor the progress of the mentees and the impact of the overall program.

32

How committed are we, as an organization, to diversity?• Responses to 1999 Medical School staff survey diversity

question regarding staff belief that personnel decisions (hiring promotions, etc.) in (their) department reflect a commitment to diversity indicated:

– 9% Strongly agreed

– 31% Agreed

– N=1196

The program is only as successful as the organization’s willingness to embrace it.

33

APPENDIX

I

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

Professional/Administrative - 2000

8%

7%

83%

2%

0%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 16 out of 3234 (0%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 272 out of 3234 (8%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 228 out of 3234 (7%)HISPANIC N = 54 out of 3234 (2%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 2664 out of 3234 (82%)

II

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

Nurses - 2000

4%4%

90%

1%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 18 out of 2234 (1%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 90 out of 2234 (4%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 82 out of 2234 (4%)HISPANIC N = 26 out of 2234 (1%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 2018 out of 2234 (90%)

III

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

House Officers - 2000

0%

23%5%3%

69%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 3 out of 708 (0%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 166 out of 708 (23%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 38 out of 708 (5%)HISPANIC N = 23 out of 708 (3%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 478 out of 708 (68%)

IV

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

Research Fellows - 2000

0%

53%

43%

2%

2%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 1 out of 375 (0%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 198 out of 375 (53%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 9 out of 375 (2%)HISPANIC N = 7 out of 375 (2%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 160 out of 375 (43%)

V

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

Allied Health - 2000

3%

10%2%

84%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 16 out of 2467 (1%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 83 out of 2467 (3%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 241 out of 2467 (10%)HISPANIC N = 45 out of 2467 (2%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 2082 out of 2467 (84%)

VI

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

Office - 2000

15%2%

80%

1%

2%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 16 out of 2099 (1%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 47 out of 2099 (2%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 313 out of 2099 (15%)HISPANIC N = 37 out of 2099 (2%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 1686 out of 2099 (80%)

VII

A comparison of the workforce by race for Health System

Service/Maintenance - 2000

56%

3% 35%

5%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 6 out of 872 (1%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 46 out of 872 (5%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 491 out of 872 (56%)HISPANIC N = 27 out of 872 (3%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 302 out of 872 (35%)

VIII

A comparison of the workforce by race for HHC

2000

4%

14%2%

79%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 54 out of 8271 (1%)

ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 291 out of 8271 (4%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 1190 out of 8271 (14%)

HISPANIC N = 143 out of 8271 (2%)

WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 6593 out of 8271 (80%)

1995

3%

16%2%

78%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 43 out of 7601 (1%)

ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 223 out of 7601 (3%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 1197 out of 7601 (16%)

HISPANIC N = 122 out of 7601 (2%)

WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 6016 out of 7601 (79%)

IX

A comparison of the workforce by race for MCare

1995

91%

1%6%1%1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 1 out of 162 (1%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 2 out of 162 (1%)BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 10 out of 162 (6%)HISPANIC N = 2 out of 162 (1%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 147 out of 162 (91%)

2000

87%

2%9%

1%

1%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 4 out of 384 (1%)

ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 4 out of 384 (1%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 33 out of 384 (9%)

HISPANIC N = 8 out of 384 (2%)

WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 335 out of 384 (87%)

X

A comparison of the workforce by race for Med School

2000

1%

17%5%2%

75%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 19 out of 3548 (1%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 620 out of (17%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 195 out of (5%)HISPANIC N = 70 out of (2%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 2644 out of (75%)

1995

0%14%

6%2%

78%

AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE N = 7 out of 3222 (0%)ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER N = 436 out of (14%)

BLACK (NOT HISPANIC) N = 209 out of (6%)HISPANIC N = 80 out of (2%)WHITE (NOT HISPANIC) N = 2490 out of (77%)