All posts by Mark McGraw

Homing in on Behavioral Health

Just over two years ago, we posted a piece on this site highlighting findings from a Disability Management Employer Coalition study on behavioral health in the workplace.

The DMEC’s research painted what HRE described at the time as a “somewhat incongruous picture.” For example, more than 60 percent of the 314 employers polled said the stigma surrounding mental health issues at work had either stayed the same or gotten worse in the past two years. On the other hand, 37 percent of those same companies said that management had “become more open” about assessing behavioral health in that time. In 2012, 25 percent of respondents said the same, according to DMEC.

Here we are in 2017, and the findings of a new Willis Towers Watson survey suggest that the picture is starting to come into focus for employers, the overwhelming majority of which say they plan to keep upping their efforts to address mental health issues among the workforce.

The firm’s 2017 Behavioral Health Study, which polled 314 U.S. employers, finds 88 percent of respondents saying behavioral health is an important priority for their organizations over the next three years.

More specifically, 63 percent count locating more timely and effective treatment of behavioral health issues as an area of primary concern in that same span. Sixty-one percent said the same about integrating behavioral health case management with medical and disability case management. In addition, 56 percent said their organizations are concentrating on providing better support for complex behavioral health conditions, and 52 percent of employers are looking to expand access to care for mental health issues between now and the year 2020.

Beyond increasing and improving the level of care received by those with behavioral health issues, the survey also found that organizations intend to address the root causes of these issues. More than one third of respondents (36 percent) say they have already addressed and taken steps to reduce stress and improve resiliency, while 47 percent are planning or considering action designed to do so over the next three years. Twenty-eight percent currently provide educational programs that touch on the warning signs of behavioral health issues or distress, and 41 percent are planning or considering such programs.

These employers are also showing more interest in mobile apps to help employees manage behavioral health needs, according to Willis Towers Watson. The survey finds the percentage of companies including mobile applications in their service offerings on the way up. For instance, 11 percent of those surveyed already offer stress reduction or resiliency apps; a number that is expected to increase to 38 percent within three years, the study finds. And, while just 7 percent provide apps designed to help curb anxiety, 31 percent of respondents said they plan to offer such applications between now and 2020.

However they plan to reach workers with mental health needs, “employers are concerned about behavioral health issues because of the impact on costs, employee health and productivity, and workplace safety,” says Julie Stone, a national healthcare practice leader at Willis Towers Watson, in a statement.

“The seriousness of the issues—both for employers and employees—has led to a deeper understanding of the problem and greater resolve to take action.”

Employers are now more committed than ever, says Stone, to “improving access to treatment, providing employees with better coordination of care across various health programs and reducing the stigma that could be associated with behavioral health through educational programs.”

Adapting in the Digital Age

A recent Deloitte survey finds nearly 90 percent of business leaders saying that building the organization of the future is their top priority.

That’s good.

Less encouraging is the number of companies—11 percent—reporting they are ready for this undertaking, which will require them to “completely reconsider their organizational structure, talent and HR strategies to keep pace with digital disruption,” according to Deloitte.

In its 2017 Global Human Capital Trends report, the New York-based provider of audit, consulting, tax and advisory services polled more than 10,000 HR and other business leaders. Many of them feel that the human resource function is indeed struggling to keep up with technological progress, with just 38 percent of HR professionals rating their department’s digital capabilities as “good” or “excellent.”

I recently asked Josh Bersin, principal and founder of Bersin by Deloitte, how HR might have fallen behind in this department.

“What I think happened is that, especially over the last three to five years, the way people get work done has radically changed,” says Bersin. “Yet the way we write job descriptions, the way we functionally set up the organization and so on is a throwback to the 1950s or ’60s.”

HR functions that hope to keep pace in 2017 and beyond must “operate in a digital way, and be more innovative and creative,” says Bersin. “[HR must] deliver solutions that are focused on productivity, not just programs.”

There are signs within the Deloitte report, however, that suggest a growing number of companies—and their HR functions—are adapting to the digital age.

For example, the survey finds that 56 percent of firms are redesigning their HR programs to rely more on digital and mobile tools, with 33 percent saying they already use some form of artificial intelligence applications to help create a more technologically advanced work environment.

“HR and other business leaders tell us that they are being asked to create a digital workplace in order to become an ‘organization of the future,’ ” says Erica Volini, principal at Deloitte Consulting and national managing director of the firm’s U.S. human capital practice, in a statement.

“To rewrite the rules on a broad scale, HR should play a leading role in helping the company redesign the organization,” says Volini, “by bringing digital technologies to both the workforce and to the HR organization itself.”

One way CHROs can achieve this goal is to “start redefining HR as a ‘productivity enhancement department,’ ” adds Bersin.

“Culture is important, and it’s important to have a solid employment brand, and it’s important to recruit the best talent. But the bigger problem most CEOs and CHROS have is getting their organizations to function and operate in a more networked world. And when HR rolls out programs that [employees] don’t feel enhance their productivity, workers don’t use them.

“There are certain things—regulatory training, compliance, for instance—that HR has to do,” continues Bersin. “But outside of those things, if an HR program or initiative isn’t something that helps employees add value to their jobs, you have to rethink whether it’s the right thing to do.”

Sacrificing Safety or Creating Jobs?

The fate of an Obama-era piece of legislation designed to improve worker safety appears to be anything but safe.

On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted by the slimmest of margins—49 to 48—to eliminate the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule, which was created to “limit the ability of companies with recent safety problems to compete for government contracts unless they agreed to remedies,” as the Washington Post reported this week.

Signed by then-President Barack Obama on July 31, 2014, the executive order required prospective federal contractors bidding on federal deals worth more than $500,000 to disclose their violations of certain workplace protection laws before receiving a contract. The rule also obligated federal agencies to work with noncompliant contractors in an effort to address existing safety-related issues.

The regulation was put on hold, however, by an October 2016 court order determining that it exceeded congressional limits. A measure to abolish it has since made it through the House, and this week’s Senate vote all but assures that will now happen. President Donald Trump is expected to sign off on rolling back the rule—just one of a handful of worker safety regulations the administration is eyeing for elimination.

“This is the opening salvo of the Republicans’ war on workers,” Deborah Berkowitz, senior policy adviser at OSHA, told the Post. “It sends a signal that Congress and the administration is listening to big business and their lobbyists and they are not standing up for the interests of the American workers.”

Meanwhile, groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable contend that the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule hampers businesses’ ability to compete for government contracts, which subsequently reduces jobs.

“Any changes in employment laws proposed by the employer community [are] disingenuously described [by Democrats] as an attack on workers,” Randy Johnson, the U.S. Chamber’s senior vice president for labor, immigration and employee benefits, told the Post. “The left has never seen a regulation they don’t like, no matter how many jobs it kills.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) doubts that the motives behind wiping out this particular rule have much to do with saving or generating jobs.

“Instead of creating jobs or raising wages, they’re trying to make it easier for companies that get big-time, taxpayer-funded government contracts to steal wages from their employees and injure their workers without admitting responsibility,” she said in a Senate floor speech ahead of Monday’s vote.

As the Post points out, the eradication of the Safe Workplaces rule is likely just the first phase of a Congressional movement to “kill Labor Department regulations.”

The “Volks rule,” for instance, could be next.

Adopted in January, the rule was meant to “give OSHA authority to issue citations and levy fines against companies for failure to record illnesses, injuries and deaths that date back as far as five years,” according to the paper.

U.S. Representative Bradley Byrne (R-Ala.) has introduced a measure that would do away with the rule, which he has described as an overreach.

“If you are determined to be a bad actor, you’ll be a bad actor,” Byrne told the Post. “I don’t think this is going to encourage noncompliance. I think OSHA is being lazy on getting its investigations done.”

For their part, Congressional Democrats maintain that rejecting the rule would undermine OSHA’s efforts to enforce safety reporting requirements.

For example, Rep. Robert C. Scott, of Virginia, says doing so would “create a safe harbor for those employers who deliberately underreport.”

The arguments coming from both sides of the aisle with respect to such workplace-related regulations are nothing new, and are sure to continue. But it seems every bit as certain that we’re going to find out what sort of impact taking these rules away will have on workplace safety.

HR Automation is on the Way

We might never see the human touch completely leave the HR suite—it is the human resource department, after all—but new research suggests that automation is still going to significantly touch the function in the years to come.

The pace of automation in HR might be a bit slower than in other departments, though. In a survey of 719 HR managers and recruiters, CareerBuilder finds that, while more companies are turning to technology to address time-consuming and labor-intensive talent acquisition and management tasks that are susceptible to human error, a “significant proportion” of firms still rely on manual processes. For example, 34 percent of respondents said their companies don’t use technology automation to recruit candidates, while 44 percent don’t automate onboarding and 60 percent said they don’t automate human capital management activities for employees.

So, what is being automated within HR? According to the CareerBuilder study, most automation is centered around messaging, benefits and compensation, “but there is room to increase efficiencies across a variety of basic functions.” Among employers reporting that they automate at least one part of talent acquisition and management, 57 percent said they are automating employee messaging, with 53 percent and 47 percent saying the same about setting up employee benefits and payroll, respectively. In addition, 47 percent indicated that their organizations have automated background screening and drug testing.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority (93 percent) of those whose companies have automated part of their talent acquisition and management processes say they’ve saved time and increased efficiency by doing so. Another 71 percent feel their organizations have improved the candidate experience by automating some processes, with 69 percent saying they’ve reduced errors and 67 percent reporting they’ve saved money and resources.

As organizations expand and add employees, “there’s a certain tipping point where things can no longer be managed efficiently and accurately by hand,” says Rosemary Haefner, CHRO at CareerBuilder, in a statement.

In order to successfully turn certain HR-specific tasks over to technology, “automation needs to be incorporated,” says Haefner, “so the HR team is free to focus on strategies versus tasks, and focus on building relationships with employees and candidates.”

As certain functions on teams become more automated, she says, “we’ll see those workers’ roles evolve and concentrate on the strategic, social and motivational components of HR that technology cannot address.”

 

 

Googlers Pass on Massive Payouts

Can you have too much of a good thing?

A handful of Googlers working on the company’s self-driving car project seem to think so.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based tech giant’s car unit—which in December 2016 spun off into a standalone business known as Waymo—has seen staffers exiting in noteworthy numbers, and walking away from potentially huge paydays in the process, as Bloomberg reports this week.

The unit “has been a talent sieve” for at least the past year, according to Bloomberg, “thanks to leadership changes, strategy doubts, new start-up dreams and rivals luring self-driving technology experts.”

But the business’s “unusual compensation system that awarded supersized payouts based on the project’s value” has helped contribute to its retention struggles, notes Bloomberg. “By late 2015, the numbers were so big that several veteran members didn’t need the job security anymore, making them more open to other opportunities, according to people familiar with the situation. Two people called it ‘F-you money.’ ”

Indeed, “a large multiplier” was applied to compensation packages toward the end of that year, “resulting in multimillion-dollar payments in some cases,” Bloomberg reports, adding that one member of the team had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years, for example.

The same article points out that the system was revamped when the autonomous car unit morphed into Waymo late last year, and replaced with a more uniform pay structure that treats all employees equally. By that time, however, “the original program got so costly that a top executive at parent Alphabet Inc. highlighted it last year to explain a jump in expenses.

“The payouts contributed to a talent exodus at a time when the company was trying to turn the project into a real business,” the article continues, “and emerging rivals were recruiting heavily.”

Part of the issue at Waymo “was that payouts snowballed after key milestones were reached, even though the ultimate goal of the project—fully autonomous vehicles provided to the public through commercial services—remained years away.”

While reports have underscored rumblings within the car division, ranging from questions surrounding the unit’s leadership and strategy to engineers’ designs on starting their own self-driving vehicle companies, “the big payouts exacerbated the [turnover] situation because team members had less financial incentive to stay,” according to Bloomberg.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the company would start losing talent by paying them too much? When was the last time your organization had this problem? If there’s a lesson here for HR and compensation professionals, it might be that over-the-top rewards might end up having unintended consequences, and that massive lumps of cash don’t necessarily guarantee employee loyalty.

Millennials on the Move?

For years, employers have been led to believe that millennial workers are habitual job-hoppers with one eye always on the door.

That perception—if it was ever accurate in the first place—might be increasingly off the mark.

Consider the 2017 Millennial Survey conducted by Deloitte. In a poll of roughly 8,000 millennial-age workers from 30 countries, 38 percent of respondents said they would leave their jobs within two years if given the opportunity. That number stood at 44 percent when Deloitte carried out the same survey last year. Additionally, 31 percent anticipate staying in their present roles beyond five years, compared to the 27 percent who said as much in 2016.

Some of the circumstances driving Generation Y to seek more stability in the workplace, it turns out, have little to do with work. For example, the survey sees the effects of terror attacks in Europe, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union and—no surprise—a brutally contentious political climate in the United States leading millennials to cling more closely to the security of their current jobs.

Such matters are the main source of anxiety among millennials in mature markets such as France, Germany and the U.S. Meanwhile, a majority of Gen Y workers (58 percent) in emerging markets like Argentina, Brazil and India see crime and corruption as an even bigger threat, with 50 percent saying the same about hunger/healthcare/inequality.

“Millennials, especially those in mature European economies, have serious concerns about the directions in which their countries are going,” according to an executive summary of the findings. “They are particularly concerned about uncertainty arising from conflict, as well as other issues that include crime, corruption and unemployment.”

Indeed, the specter of unemployment lingers from past surveys, according to Deloitte, as this year’s poll finds 25 percent of millennials fearing the prospect of being out of work.

“Having lived through the ‘economic meltdown’ that began in 2008, and with high levels of youth unemployment continuing to be a feature of many economies, it is natural that millennials will continue to be concerned about the job market,” according to Deloitte.

Taken together, these factors are conspiring to create a real sense of fear among millennials, many of whom fret for their futures. In mature markets, for instance, just 36 percent of millennials predict they will be financially better off than their parents. Only 31 percent feel they’ll ultimately be happier.

“This pessimism is a reflection of how millennials’ personal concerns have shifted,” says Punit Renjen, Deloitte’s global CEO, in a statement. “Four years ago, climate change and resource scarcity were among millennials’ top concerns. This year, crime, corruption, war and political tensions are weighing on the minds of young professionals, which impacts both their personal and professional outlooks.”

Still, while many millennial workers question their ability to affect significant societal change on their own, these same employees feel they can make a difference with their employer’s help. The good news is that the corporate world is helping them do just that, with more than half of the millennials polled saying they are able to contribute to charities and worthwhile causes in their workplaces.

Of course, the organization also wins when employees get involved in such efforts.

“The survey’s findings suggest those given such opportunities show a greater level of loyalty to their employers, which is consistent with the connection we saw last year between loyalty and a company’s sense of purpose,” according to Jim Moffatt, Deloitte global consulting CEO.

“But, we are also seeing that purpose has benefits beyond retention. Those who have a chance to contribute are less pessimistic about their countries’ general social [and] political situations, and have a more positive opinion of business behavior.”

 

No Movement on Maternity Leave

Despite a host of factors that would suggest otherwise, the number of U.S. women taking maternity leave has changed very little in the last two-plus decades.

So says a new study from Ohio State University, which finds that, on average, roughly 273,000 women in the United States took maternity leave each month between the years 1994 and 2015, “with no trend upward or downward,” according to an OSU statement. Fewer than half of those women were paid during their leave, the same statement notes.

Pointing to variables like an economy that has grown 66 percent in that time, and the number of states implementing paid family leave legislation over that 22-year span, study author Jay Zagorsky, a research scientist at OSU’s Center for Human Resource Research, “expected to see an increasing number of women taking maternity leave. It was surprising and troubling that I didn’t.”

Zagorsky did, however, find the number of fathers taking paternity leave tripling between 1994 and 2015, “although the numbers are much smaller than those of women taking time off.”

More specifically, the number of men taking paternity leave rose from 5,800 men per month in ’94 to 22,000 per month in ’15.

In addition, Zagorsky’s study—based on data culled from the Current Population Survey, a monthly poll conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau—found that most women taking maternity leave were not paid. Less than half (48 percent) were compensated for leave in 2015. And, paid maternity leave is increasing, but only at a rate of less than one percentage point per year, according to Zagorsky.

“At that rate, it will take about another decade before even half of U.S. women going on leave will get paid time off,” he says. “This is a very low figure for the nation with the world’s largest annual gross domestic product.”

By comparison, more than 70 percent of men taking paternity leave in 2015 were compensated for their time off, says Zagorsky, who reasons that “one possible reason for this gender gap is that few men are willing to take unpaid leave to care for a newborn.”

Given that the inflation-adjusted gross domestic product went from $9.9 trillion a year in 1994 to $16.4 trillion in 2015, “it would have been reasonable to expect that some of the benefits of this large economic expansion would have gone to working women with newborn children, but that’s not what I found,” says Zagorsky.

He was equally startled by the effect, or lack thereof, that new paid family leave laws in California, New Jersey and Rhode Island have had on maternity leave numbers, noting that those three states comprised 16 percent of the U.S. female labor force in 2015.

“If the laws were effective, some impact should be seen in national data,” says Zagorsky. “These results suggest we have a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the world as far as providing for new mothers and their children.”

 

Commander-in-Chief or CEO?

From Truman to Trump, a handful of U.S. presidents have made their way to the Oval Office via the business sector.

If a recent Korn Ferry Institute survey offers any clues, it might be a while before we see another commander-in-chief who’s taken that route.

In a poll of 1,432 corporate executives, an overwhelming majority of respondents showed no signs of aspiring to the highest political office in the land. Given the choice, 85 percent of executives said they would rather be CEO of their own organization than lead the country, according to Korn Ferry.

While recognizing the similar requirements for both roles—the ability to drive growth, manage crises, think strategically and manage finances, for example—most business leaders allow that the president has even more hats to wear.

Indeed, 81 percent of the executives polled said they think the U.S. president has a more complex job than they do.

“In a way, you could consider the U.S. president [to be] the national CEO,” says Rick Lash, senior partner at Korn Ferry Hay Group, in a press release summarizing the findings. “While serving as a corporate CEO is generally considered a very challenging role, executives acknowledge the U.S. president faces hurdles that are much higher than those faced by a leader in corporate America.”

In addition to complexity, you can put compensation on the list of reasons why your CEO isn’t likely interested in leading the free world.

Seventy-one percent of executives, for example, reported feeling that the U.S. president—at $400,000 annually, as determined by Congress—is underpaid. Nearly half (48 percent) said the president should receive at least $10.4 million per year; the current average compensation for a CEO at an S&P 500 company. And exactly 0 percent cited salary/compensation as the top reason someone would want the job of U.S. president. But money, or a lack thereof, isn’t the only thing deterring executives from someday pursuing a presidential run.

The position of U.S. president “comes with extra scrutiny as well,” according to Korn Ferry.

Donald Trump, for example, “has been president for less than a week and he’s been questioned about his every action, from the serious (the words he used during his inaugural speech and his choice of cabinet members) to the silly (whether the dance with his wife, Melania, at an inaugural ball was ‘awkward’),” notes the aforementioned release.

“A corporate CEO may be questioned on his or her firm’s stock price and business strategy, but usually isn’t scrutinized for dancing ability.”

Language Matters in Job Listings

In the New York Times this week, Claire Cain Miller wonders why more unemployed men aren’t going after jobs in the industries that are growing the most, such as healthcare.

One key reason behind “one of the biggest economic riddles today,” she writes, is that “these so-called pink-collar jobs are mostly done by women, and that turns off some men.”

Seattle-based software provider Textio recently dug a bit deeper into this conundrum, examining the terminology used in listings for the 14 fastest-growing jobs between the years 2014 and 2024. Their analysis found the way the descriptions of these roles are worded has led to an overabundance of unemployed men and plenty of jobs going unfilled at least partly because they’re perceived as being “women’s work.”

I’ll stop here to point out that the software Textio provides is designed to, in the company’s own words, “optimize job listings for more qualified and diverse applicants.” And, I’m not exactly sure how Textio is defining terms used in job listings as being “masculine” or “feminine.”

All that said, they found some interesting evidence to support the idea that language matters in job listings.

In its analysis, Textio found that the descriptions for these quickly-growing positions “used feminine language, which has been statistically shown to attract women and deter men,” according to the Times.

Consider home health aides, the number of which is projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to grow by 38 percent by the year 2024.

Currently, females hold 89 percent of these positions, according to the BLS. The job listings for home health aides—which Textio found to be the most “feminine”-sounding—commonly contain key words such as “sympathetic,” “care,” “fosters,” “empathy” and “families,” and are more appealing to female applicants, according to Textio’s analysis. Textio found the job descriptions and requirements for many other predominately female-held roles—nurse practitioner, genetic counselor and physician assistant, for instance—frequently include similar key words and phrases.

On the other hand are cartographers, who find themselves in “one of the few fast-growing jobs that is male-dominated,” according to the Times, noting that cartographer jobs are expected to increase by 29 percent in the next seven years. (Men currently represent 62 percent of the profession.) In evaluating the wording typically used to advertise these jobs, Textio found “masculine” terms like “manage,” “forces,” exceptional,” “proven” and “superior” were often thrown around.

But health aides need to be “exceptional” and “proven” too, writes Cain Miller, adding that the reverse is not automatically true.

“Cartographers don’t necessarily need to be ‘sympathetic’ or ‘focused on families’ to excel,” she says. “That might be one reason that women have historically entered male-dominated professions, like law or management, more than men have entered female-dominated ones, like teaching or nursing.”

As Cain Miller points out, some healthcare employers have tried to use more manly language in an effort to reverse this trend, “like talking about the ‘adrenaline rush’ of being an operating room nurse.” Rather than rewriting “feminine” job descriptions in hopes of appealing to male candidates, or vice versa, Textio suggests using more gender-neutral lingo.

The latter approach is more effective, according to Textio, which says replacing words such as “world-class” and “rock star” with terms like “premier” and “extraordinary” improved the candidate pool for a software developer position, for example. Textio also claims that more gender-neutral wording enables employers to fill jobs 14 days faster in comparison to posts with a gender bias, in addition to attracting a more diverse collection of applicants.

That makes sense. And, while the Textio analysis focuses primarily on the healthcare sector, it’s probably safe to say that taking this kind of tack could deepen the candidate pool in any number of industries—at a time when finding the necessary talent is becoming more and more difficult.

An Extreme Twist on Team-Building

Tired of the same old activities designed to create a spirit of trust and teamwork among your employees? Survival Systems USA has an extreme experience to offer that could literally teach your workers how to sink or swim together.

The Groton, Conn.-based safety and survival education provider has taught underwater egress training and water survival techniques since 1999, delivering instruction to, among others, employees of the Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the New York Police Department and the National Guard, as the New York Times recently reported.

In imparting survival skills to those who might have to use them on the job, “we’ve seen residual effects along the way: improved morale, self-esteem, capabilities people didn’t know they had,” Survival Systems USA President Maria C. Hanna told the Times. Until recently, she said, “we’ve never stopped long enough to say, ‘You know, this is something that can appeal to a market in a different way, using the tools from aviation to help people develop themselves.’ ”

The company has begun putting those tools to work in hopes of attracting corporate customers searching for drastically different team- and morale-building exercises.

In November, for example, Survival Systems conducted a one-day aquatic survival training program for a group of three university students, four personal trainers and the owner of a paving company, according to the Times.

These individuals—who ostensibly had no work-related reasons to undergo such training—spent the first part of the six-hour program jumping from a 14-foot platform into an indoor pool. With life vests inflated, they were then given a matter of minutes to find a way to stay warm while floating. Another task required those taking part to work together to board an inflated life raft under the direction of one member of the group.

Program participants spent the next part of their Saturday strapped into Survival Systems’ Modular Egress Training Simulator, which the Times describes as “a plastic and metal craft that can be arranged to resemble the cockpit of almost any helicopter or small plane on the market.” Meanwhile, other pieces of equipment duplicated the downwash from rescue helicopters and generated rain, darkness, smoke, fire and winds of up to 120 miles-per-hour.

Once inside the simulator, these brave souls were submerged and flipped into a pool as part of an exercise that includes three rounds. First, participants must reach for the simulator’s window frame, unfasten their seatbelts, pull themselves out and swim to the surface. The second round adds a degree of difficulty to the task, by closing the aforementioned window. In the third scenario, individuals must pretend their window is stuck and escape by holding onto the simulator’s seats and making their way to an adjacent, open window.

An instructor remains nearby at all times, “ready to whisk [participants] to the surface if anything goes wrong,” the Times points out, adding that “though no one has drowned during the training, the primordial fear remains.”

The same article notes that the curriculum for this program is still being fine-tuned, and this particular group was offered the training for free, in exchange for their feedback. The experience, however, will soon retail at roughly $950 per person; a price that Survival Systems says is in line with that of its other one-day programs.

Greg Drab, owner of Advantage Personal Training, has sent multiple employees—including the four trainers taking part in the November session—through the program at no cost, but sees the $950 as a bargain.

“You get to see how people handle stressful situations,” Drab told the Times. “This unifies the team.”