Diversity
Executive Vice President for
Medical Affairs
Senior Staff Meeting
February 6, 2001
1
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.
2
Agenda
Presentation 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
3
Demographic Profile
Strengths:
– We for the most part represent the population of
the communities we serve
Challenges:
– Dispersion of ethnic diversity across job
families
4
A Comparison of the Workforce
with Census figures
Western
Wayne
County
Ann Arbor
PMSA
HHC
Med School
Mcare
American Ind/Alaskan Native
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.5
1.5
Asian/Pacific Islander
1.5
4.1
3.5
17.4
1.8
Black
7.8
11.2
14.4
5.5
7.5
1.7
2.2
2.0
79.7
74.4
87.2
Hispanic
White
90.4
84.2
5
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
6
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System 1995
79%
0%
6%
2%
13%
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%)
7
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System 2000
78%
1%
7%
2%
12%
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%)
8
Comparison of the workforce by
race and job family for UHS.
Job Family
P&A
Nurses
House Officers
Res. Fellows
Allied Health
Office
Service/Maint.
*
Am.
Indian
*
1%
*
*
1%
1%
1%
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
8%
4%
23%
53%
3%
2%
5%
7%
4%
5%
2%
10%
15%
56%
2%
1%
3%
2%
2%
2%
3%
82%
90%
68%
43%
84%
80%
35%
< 1%
9
In the P&A job family non-whites
are less likely to stay.
Employee Group
Percentage of P&A who left
UMHS between ‘96-‘00
White
Non-white
36.4%
49.5%
10
Current Status UMHHC
1996 Diversity Report
Recommendations
Actions/Initiatives
 UMHS Program for Multicultural
Enhance patient care diversity
through communication,
Health
education, and accommodation.
Continue the integration of
diversity efforts in local areas
through open communication
and education.
 Departmental Task Teams
 Valuing Differences (Finance)
 OE Interventions
 Training (MTV, ERTP)
 MWorks
 External consultants/HRD
11
Current Status UMHHC
1996 Diversity Report
Recommendations
Actions/Initiatives
 Recruitment at National Meetings
Continue to improve the
demographic mix within the various (Black Nurses Assoc., NAAHSE)
 Focused advertising
job families.
 Local recruitment directed at
future workforce. (Ex. Youth
Mentoring Program, Project
Hope.)
12
Current Status UMHHC
1996 Diversity Report
Recommendations
Actions/Initiatives
Improve employee problem solving
process.
 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
13
Current Status UMHHC
Focus the Light of Diversity Retreat
April, 1998.
• 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
14
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.
15
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
16
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
17
Current Status - M-Care (cont.)
• Participated in December 2000 Health System
Employee Opinion Survey
• Work to implement additional initiatives in
progress
18
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
19
Options for Strategic Initiatives
• Invest in supervisory development
• Improve employee problem solving
• Implement strategic mentoring
20
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
21
Invest in Supervisory Training
and Development
Rationale
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
22
Invest in Supervisory Training
and Development
Program 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
23
Invest in Supervisory Training
and Development
Outcomes
•
•
•
•
Staff Development
Staff Satisfaction
Leadership Development
Creation of a workplace better adapted to recruiting and
retaining a diverse workforce
• Enhanced Organizational Performance
24
Improve Employee Problem
Solving
Percentage of employees who strongly agree that they are
satisfied with how their workplace concerns are addressed.
Area
UMHS
Employee Opinion
Survey
Nov. ‘99
Employee Opinion Survey
Nov. ‘00
9%
7%
HHC
7%
MCare
12%
Medical School
9%
25
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
26
Improve Employee Problem
Solving
• Enhance employee communication skill and selfawareness 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
27
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
28
Implement an
Institutional Mentoring Program
What 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
29
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
30
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.
31
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.
32
APPENDIX
33
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
Professional/Administrative 2000
83%
0%
8%
2%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
I
7%
N = 16 out of 3234 (0%)
N = 272 out of 3234 (8%)
N = 228 out of 3234 (7%)
N = 54 out of 3234 (2%)
N = 2664 out of 3234 (82%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
Nurses - 2000
90%
1%
4%
1% 4%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
II
N = 18 out of 2234 (1%)
N = 90 out of 2234 (4%)
N = 82 out of 2234 (4%)
N = 26 out of 2234 (1%)
N = 2018 out of 2234 (90%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
House Officers - 2000
69%
0%
3%
23%
5%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
III
N = 3 out of 708 (0%)
N = 166 out of 708 (23%)
N = 38 out of 708 (5%)
N = 23 out of 708 (3%)
N = 478 out of 708 (68%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
Research Fellows - 2000
43%
2%
2%
0%
53%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
IV
N = 1 out of 375 (0%)
N = 198 out of 375 (53%)
N = 9 out of 375 (2%)
N = 7 out of 375 (2%)
N = 160 out of 375 (43%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
Allied Health - 2000
84%
1%
3%
10%
2%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
V
N = 16 out of 2467 (1%)
N = 83 out of 2467 (3%)
N = 241 out of 2467 (10%)
N = 45 out of 2467 (2%)
N = 2082 out of 2467 (84%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
Office - 2000
80%
1%
2%
15%
2%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
VI
N = 16 out of 2099 (1%)
N = 47 out of 2099 (2%)
N = 313 out of 2099 (15%)
N = 37 out of 2099 (2%)
N = 1686 out of 2099 (80%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Health System
Service/Maintenance - 2000
35%
3%
1%
5%
56%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
VII
N = 6 out of 872 (1%)
N = 46 out of 872 (5%)
N = 491 out of 872 (56%)
N = 27 out of 872 (3%)
N = 302 out of 872 (35%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for HHC
2000
1995
78%
79%
1%
1%
3%
2%
4%
16%
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%)
2%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
VIII
14%
N = 54 out of 8271 (1%)
N = 291 out of 8271 (4%)
N = 1190 out of 8271 (14%)
N = 143 out of 8271 (2%)
N = 6593 out of 8271 (80%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for MCare
2000
1995
91%
87%
1%
1%
6%
1%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
N = 1 out of 162 (1%)
N = 2 out of 162 (1%)
N = 10 out of 162 (6%)
N = 2 out of 162 (1%)
N = 147 out of 162 (91%)
IX
1%
2%
1%
9%
AMERICAN IND./ALASKAN NATIVE
N = 4 out of 384 (1%)
ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER
BLACK (NOT HISPANIC)
N = 4 out of 384 (1%)
N = 33 out of 384 (9%)
HISPANIC
WHITE (NOT HISPANIC)
N = 8 out of 384 (2%)
N = 335 out of 384 (87%)
A comparison of the workforce
by race for Med School
1995
2000
78%
75%
0%
14%
2% 6%
1%
17%
2% 5%
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%)
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%)
X