Summer 2010 BGSIE

SUMMER 2010

Corporate Wellness

Do investments to “keep the doctor away� make good business sense?

A growing number of companies think so.

Get the eDGe. CreaTe vision. Think globally. Lead globally.

Get the eDGe. Make every day a learning experience.

think globally. Lead globally.

Support future forward thinking.

Think globally. Lead globally.

Introducing

Support future forward thinking.

think globally. Lead globally. CreaTe vision. Get the eDGe. Support future forward thinking.

CreaTe vision.

Support future forward thinking.

Get the eDGe. CreaTe vision. Think globally. Lead globally.

Support future forward thinking.

think globally. Lead globally.

Get the eDGe. Make every day a learning experience. Get the eDGe.

It’s what’s next.

Bloomberg Businessweek’s EDGE is an innovative new leadership development program combining our world-class, insightful content with cutting-edge weekly training tools.

Whether you’re an HR professional, involved in mentoring, or a motivated leader, EDGE can help you grow your greatest asset and develop future leaders. This easy-to-use solution can inspire more enlightened awareness of global trends, highly developed leadership and management practices, broader strategic thinking and a deeper understanding of how decisions impact profitability.

Every successful business needs an EDGE. Get yours with Bloomberg Businessweek.

To learn more, contact: bwgroup@businessweek.com Make sure to mention you read about EDGE in the BGS International Exchange

what’s inside 2

A Message from the BGS President

3

EBL in Action: Shaping the Organizational Culture

4

Corporate Wellness Programs: Bad Investment or Good Business Sense?

8 10 12

BGS Corporate Contributors and Affiliates 2010 Beta Gamma Sigma thanks those organizations that generously support the Society’s programs and services

Beta Level Sponsors ($50,000+)

What Can You Realistically Expect from an Employee Wellness Program?

Bloomberg Businessweek

Gamma Level Sponsors

Q&A: Brad Cooper, Founder & CEO, US Corporate Wellness, Inc.

($25,000-49,999) Bank of America Fortune

Gifts from Friends

GEICO Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC)

BGS International Exchange Beta Gamma Sigma 125 Weldon Parkway Maryland Heights, MO 63043-3101

SUMMER 2010 Volume 9, No. 2 Circulation: 102,427

email: bgshonors@betagammasigma.org phone: 314-432-5650 website: www.betagammasigma.org

KPMG and the KPMG Foundation

Sigma Level Sponsors ($20,000-24,999) The Week

Others 1-800-Baskets.com 1-800-Flowers.com AACSB International AACSB Accredited Business Programs

If you have any questions or comments about this issue of the BGS International Exchange, please forward them to exchange@betagammasigma.org.

Beta Gamma Sigma is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) organization.

Apple Store AVIS Rent A Car System, Inc. Barnes & Noble.com Becker Professional Review BGS Cell Phone Discounts BGS Satellite Television Carperks

Attention BGS Members: Don’t miss a single issue!

Because of increases in postage costs, print editions of the BGS International Exchange are no longer mailed to our entire membership.

Make sure you are on the permanent mailing list for every single new issue!

Send an email containing your current mailing address to: subscriptions@betagammasigma.org

Corporantes, Inc. DiversityInc Enterprise GlobalFit Herff Jones Hotels.com Kaplan Test Prep and Kaplan Schweser LIFE, Inc. LTC Financial Partners McGraw-Hill Professional Pet Assure The PhD Project Princeton Review SIRIUS Satellite Radio SIRVA – BGS Home Benefits The Wall Street Journal bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org 1

A Message from the BGS President

I

t’s always great to look back on successes while keeping firmly focused on the challenges and opportunities ahead. As my two-year term as president of Beta Gamma Sigma comes to a close, I’m reminded that this organization, with its humble beginnings some 97 years ago, faces a future of limitless potential. I am proud to have served in this capacity and played a small role in its success, but I’m more excited to have the opportunity to continue working for all lifetime members as a continuing member of the Board of Governors.

Two years ago, when I expressed my thoughts in my first “Message from the President,” I introduced you to some BGS programs that were just getting started: the BGS Center for Ethical Business Leadership (it hadn’t even been named yet), the BGS Virtual Career and Graduate School Fairs, and the Society’s presence on LinkedIn (which hadn’t yet been fully developed). I’m very proud to say, through the tireless efforts of the Board of Governors and the phenomenal staff at the BGS Central Office, each of these programs has become popular and valuable among our lifetime members.

In addition, I asked for your feedback on items and programs that were important to you. As usual you, our lifetime members, came through. We’ve heard that the Student Leadership Forum is a valuable and “life-changing” experience for those that take part, so we found additional affiliates to assist and ensure that it will be a key benefit to future student members. We heard that our collegiate chapters needed to reward more high achievers at the local level, so we highlighted the Chapter Honoree program and promoted the Professor of the Year award. We were told by lifetime members around the world that it is vital that they have the opportunity to stay connected to and network with other lifetime members, so we’ve aggressively expanded the Alumni Network to include additional locations – Switzerland, New Zealand, Cleveland, South Texas, etc.

As we all know, this has been a very challenging time economically for individuals and businesses, but the list of contributors on pages 12-13 shows that our members continue to value BGS programs. I want to offer a personal “thank you” to each and every individual who has made a gift to Beta Gamma Sigma. Without you the Society could not have the same impact on the world of business as it does today. I trust that members will continue to support BGS and their fellow members through generous gifts in the future.

I wish I could take the credit for all the great things that Beta Gamma Sigma has accomplished over the last two years, but the reality is I’ve been blessed to be part of a great team. The BGS Board of Governors is a very unique group and their dedication and enthusiasm toward Beta Gamma Sigma is truly amazing. I have had the true pleasure to serve on the Board for eight years, and during that time I’ve worked with some of the world’s most talented business school deans and professors, not to mention the distinguished corporate representatives that have helped us reach new heights. I was lucky enough to be chosen

2 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org

president, but each individual serving on the Board deserves our sincere gratitude for his or her service.

Thankfully many of the Board members are continuing in 2010, but there are a few who will be completing their terms BGS President George Stevens (L) presenting Joseph of service. I wanted A. DiAngelo, Dean of the Erivan K. Haub School of to acknowledge their Business, Saint Joseph’s University, with the 2010 Beta Gamma Sigma Gold Chapter Award many contributions by naming them here, and wishing them great success in their future endeavors: • • • • • •

David H. Blake, University of California, Irvine Willie A. Deese, Merck & Co., Inc. Micheál J. Kelly, University of Ottawa Terry S. Maness, Baylor University Beck A. Taylor, Samford University John T. Wholihan, Loyola Marymount University

Few realize the efforts put forth by these individuals over the years as they worked to make lifetime membership more valuable. They have given generously of their time, energy and resources, and I join Beta Gamma Sigma members everywhere in thanking them for their many contributions.

While the end of a presidential term is a convenient time to look back, it’s more exciting to consider the possibilities of the future. As such, I offer my sincere congratulations to Robert D. Reid, Dean of the College of Business at James Madison University, as he takes over as the new BGS president on July 1, 2010. I have had the pleasure to work with Bob for many years and he has earned the respect and confidence of everyone on the BGS Board of Governors. The Society’s leadership is in very good hands.

But most of all I want to thank you – the lifetime members of Beta Gamma Sigma – for your encouragement, support, and continued involvement. You are the real reason for our present success, and it is up to you to ensure that our Honor Society does even more in the future. Bob and the rest of the leadership team will need your continuing support, and with the celebration of the Society’s 100th anniversary right around the corner, you will be asked to help in new and exciting ways. I hope you embrace the opportunity to make Beta Gamma Sigma a stronger organization in the future, for current lifetime members as well as those who will join in the future.

George E. Stevens Kent State University President of Beta Gamma Sigma

Shaping the Organizational Culture Every corporation or organization has a culture. Sometimes it is consciously developed; sometimes it merely evolves. But, no matter how it’s developed culture guides employees’ behavior and how they think and approach their jobs. Beta Gamma Sigma sees culture as a kind of default mechanism for employee actions, for the organization’s culture guides behavior when specific counsel or direction is not available or has not been forthcoming. Culture is conveyed to employees both explicitly and implicitly as it becomes a guide to the “proper” or acceptable way to think, feel, and act.

Along those lines, leadership, no matter where located in the organization, is constantly shaping and reinforcing culture – sometimes consciously and sometimes not, sometimes by specific actions and other times by a lack of action. This is a fundamental and continuing function of leadership – one that cannot be delegated, though it must be shared for effective implementation throughout the organization.

The following interview excerpts provide some insight into how leadership can shape the organizational culture for ethical behavior.

Douglas R. Conant President and CEO, Campbell Soup Company

W. Thomas Chulick Chairman and CEO, UMB Bank, St. Louis

“We have an overall corporate philosophy that’s pretty unmistakable. We value character, competence and team work. We operate within the constraints of our Campbell leadership model and the six sets of expectations. We have the framework that talks about winning in the marketplace; winning in the workplace; winning with integrity. And that’s universal. We challenge all of our employees to operate within those frameworks in all geographies at all times.

“Now clearly there are cultural nuances where different interpretations can occur in Mexico, New Guinea, Russia or China than would occur in Camden, N.J. (our Headquarters office). And we have to display sensitivity to that. But what I have found is people are more the same than they are different. They get it. They understand they have to display character, competence and team work. They understand they have to inspire trust and they understand they have to win with integrity.

“If there is ever a question, they also understand that they need to raise those questions up and have appropriate dialogue. We have processes in place where if there is ever a question that’s possibly compromising our direction, it needs to be thoroughly vetted with the appropriate levels, and what we have done over time is seen that it has been.

“We have had instances where we have had questionable conduct in certain areas, which was consistent with the way things were naturally run in some of those areas. In some cases we have sold the businesses, exited the geographies or we’ve changed the leadership team if that was what it took to make it clear that we meant business. And we do. We think winning with integrity is good business in the long run. If there is ever a question, we are willing to deal with the issues.“

“From an associate standpoint, it’s very clear from the top down that this is the direction we’re going. This is the direction that we’ve been. This is our culture. If you don’t want to be a part of it, please leave.

And that message is pretty clear. “‘Please leave’ is a different thing than saying ‘I hope it works out.’ It’s we’ll manage people up, or we need to manage our associates out. It’s not for just a lack of performance. This is where we’re going.

If you want to be a part of it, please do.

“Mariner Kemper (Chairman and CEO, UMB Financial Corporation) will talk about writing a book about UMB and the ride we’re having. Ten years from now, what’s that story going to say, and how successful are we going to be? And he poses the question to all of our associates...‘Do you want to be a part of that script and do you want to be part of the book?’

It’s very compelling and it’s very motivating, but people want to be part of that success and people want to be a part of that ride.

“There’s no room for unethical behavior. There’s no room for the lack of a moral compass, and there is no room for a lack of responsibility. It all begins with trust, and that’s the foundation of our culture.”

Chung Po-yang (Po Chung) Co-Founder and Chairman Emeritus, DHL International Ltd.

“We promote a lot from within. Viewing the expansion of the company, we don’t hire city managers. We don’t hire country managers.

We promote the supervisor to be a city manager. We promote the city manager to be the country manager. You already have a sense that the person not only can perform, but also would be the right kind of leader to move into that kind of situation.

“We also find that from time to time we run into people who can do the job, but don’t have the right character to do it. We found that people with poor character probably will do damage to the company in the long run. We get rid of them very quickly.“

bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org 3

Corporate Wellness Programs Bad investment or good business sense?

By: Josh McCarty, BGS Communications Associate

W

e all have a budget. Whether we’re counting our mortgage, credit card debt or even money for going to a movie on Saturday night, everything is factored in. When it comes time to pay our bills, if one item stands out as particularly expensive, our first response is to find a way to decrease spending.

While logic would point to this being sound strategy, many companies throughout the world are taking the opposite approach in an attempt to stop the financial bleeding.

With health care expenditures within the United States eclipsing $2 trillion on an annual basis, there is a growing belief that spending more money on prevention and awareness through corporate wellness programs can yield a substantial return on investment.

Corporate wellness programs combine educational and environmental activities with the intention of improving the health of employees and their families. These programs increase awareness of positive lifestyle choices and take measures to reduce the risk of preventable disease.

In a study conducted in February 2009, the Society of Human Resource Management discovered 50 percent of their members had established wellness programs, with an additional 5 percent planning to offer them in the near future.

Sandra Breeding, founder and CEO of Lotusea Wellness Group in Johnson City, Tenn., has been involved with implementing corporate wellness programs since 1990.

She estimates any company using a wellness program will save $450 per person per year in health care costs.

“So much research has been done on the subject,” Breeding said. ” It’s simple common sense. If you put oil in your car often, it’s going to run longer. If you take your pet to the vet, it will live longer. If you live a healthier lifestyle because of frequent medical check-ups, you’ll make fewer trips to the doctor and the company will be spending much less on health care.”

With full-time employees working anywhere from 40 to 60 hours a week, people are spending more time at work than any other aspect of their lives. For this reason, Breeding believes the workplace is the ideal forum for implementing wellness programs. The hope is that employees will become more aware of their personal physical and mental states, learn how to improve those conditions and thus reduce health care expenses in the future.

“Wellness programs are a winning solution for employees, employers and our country’s economy,” Breeding said. “How can we even question whether or not we should be providing wellness in the workplace?”

Breeding is not alone in her enthusiasm for the financial benefit of wellness programs. In a 2009 study, Kersh Risk Management concluded corporations will yield a $3 return for every $1 invested with the reduction of absenteeism, increased

“Wellness is not just physical, but it’s also very mental and psychological. A lot of these programs focus on the physical side, and they’re not fixing many correctable issues that are costing these companies a lot of money.”

Amy Neftzger

Middle Tennessee State University

4 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org

productivity and fewer health care costs.

With such strong evidence favoring these programs, why isn’t every company in the world on the corporate wellness bandwagon?

For starters, many are skeptical of statistics backing these programs.

Amy Neftzger, faculty member in the Psychology Department at Middle Tennessee State University, says it’s impossible to quantify productivity when different jobs call for different skills and results.

“The way productivity is measured makes it difficult to tell if the numbers are accurate or not,” said Neftzger, who specializes in health, wellness and fitness. “A lot of jobs are knowledge based, and not assembly line. If you have managerial jobs, making more decisions doesn’t necessarily make you a more effective manager. You also could be at 90 percent of your health and still at 100 percent productivity. There are a lot of different ways to calculate the return on investment of corporate wellness programs. It all depends on the business and the industry.”

Neftzger also questions the overall wellness these programs strive for.

Depression results in more absenteeism than almost any other physical disorder, and costs employers more than $51 billion per year in lost productivity, according to Uplift Program, a sevenstep program designed to better understand and cure depression.

“Wellness is not just physical, but it’s also very mental and psychological,” Neftzger said. “A lot of these programs focus on the physical side, and they’re not fixing many correctable issues that are costing these companies a lot of money.”

While Neftzger questions the validity of the statistics in favor of wellness programs, others have compiled information stating wellness programs end up leading to more money lost

One such person is Louise Russell, professor of economics at Rutgers University.

Russell reviewed evidence published in medical journals that illustrated cost effective analysis of certain medical procedures. Her findings compared the cost of money spent against the healthy years of life gained.

“I’m not in favor or against wellness programs, but there is absolutely zero evidence that they reduce medical spending,” Russell said. “Over the past four decades, hundreds of studies have shown that prevention usually adds more to medical costs than they save. Many corporations seem to think it’s going to reduce medical costs, but these studies show in general that it won’t. I think it’s relevant for them to consider this information.”

One example Russell provided is when employees suffer from high cholesterol.

In many instances, medical professionals will provide statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug, to these individuals. As Russell explained, the reward is not always worth the price of the investment.

“Encouraging the uses of statins can be extremely expensive, particularly if they’re not carefully focused on high risk groups,” she said. “The cost of giving statins in relation to the extra years of life they’ll gain is enormous.”

Distinguishing between the best and worst investments within the program isn’t the only obstacle companies must consider when attempting to implement corporate wellness. According to Neftzger, many programs are doomed to fail from the outset due to the company’s lack of understanding of its own organizational structure.

“Not every company is ready to take on a wellness program, and it’s up to the management and the human resources department to understand this,” Neftzger said. “Some unionized environments have a hostile relationship between union and management, and implementing a wellness program can cause damage if the union representatives think the organization is trying to look over their shoulder. A lack of trust can cause a lack of production.”

According to Neftzger, the first step in deciding if a company has the

SJU-691 HAUB School BSG:Layout 1

4/26/10

11:25 AM

Page 1

Continued on Next Page

Celebrating the 2010 BGS Gold Chapter Award The Haub School of Business community – students, faculty, staff, and administration – is proud to have the number one BGS chapter in the world. It is an honor that reflects the University’s Jesuit mission and our commitment to academic excellence and ethical business conduct.

The Haub School of Business – preparing undergraduate, graduate, MBA, and executive students to succeed in their careers and in life.

Spirit Intellect Purpose www.sju.edu/hsb

bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org 5

“When I go inside a company, I expect to have 50 percent of the employees join us the first time around. Within three years, I expect 80 percent participation. The only employees who won’t join are those who don’t participate in anything - no matter what you give them.”

Sandra Breeding Founder and CEO, Lotusea Wellness Group

Corporate Wellness (continued from page 5)

foundation to handle a program of this nature is to look at the corporate structure and analyze the relationship between management, employees and the human resources department.

“I would assess their culture first to see if it’s the right time to start a wellness program,” she said. “If there aren’t any demands for that kind of program, or if they sense the participation rates won’t be high, then it’s probably not the best idea to implement a wellness program.”

Neftzger adds that a lot of the problems wellness programs aim to fix are uncorrectable if the workplace environment is poor. For example, a poor relationship between manager and employee can trigger migraine headaches. If a wellness program attempts to prevent migraines, the effort will be unsuccessful if the managerial problem is still in place.

The size of the organization can also be a critical factor in the success or failure of a program. When Lotusea Wellness Group first started implementing wellness programs in 1990, the only companies participating were major corporations – like Coca-Cola Company, Coors and Mattel – that had more resources to ensure the success of the program.

But recently, Lotusea Wellness Group has worked with companies as small as 200

people. While large corporations have on-site fitness centers, walking paths and healthy eating options, smaller businesses have more of a challenge keeping employees on-track and motivated while they are at work.

Employee Participation A company can do all of the necessary research prior to implementing corporate wellness, but a program has no chance of success, and in turn, no opportunity to reduce health care cost, if the participation of employees is low.

Understanding how to communicate the program’s method to the staff is not only the responsibility of management and

“The best business professors in the U.S. are making me a stronger leader.”

As a member of Beta Gamma Sigma, you are part of a global network of business leaders and high achievers.

Jenifer Guimond Darden MBA, Class of 2010

The Princeton Review consistently ranks Darden’s faculty among the very best business school professors in the United

States. Darden develops individuals who go on to lead, create and transform organizations. Visit us in person or online to

learn more about what sets the Darden MBA Program apart.

connect with

Beta Gamma Sigma online.

Facebook

Become a fan of Beta Gamma Sigma www.facebook.com/betagammasigma

LinkedIn

Join the Society’s group of over 21,000 members www.betagammasigma.org/linkedin

Twitter www.darden.virginia.edu 6 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org

Follow Beta Gamma Sigma on Twitter www.twitter.com/bgshonorsociety

the human resources department, but also the first priority of the wellness program provider.

“When I go inside a company, I expect to have 50 percent of the employees join us the first time around,” Breeding said. “Within three years, I expect 80 percent participation. The only employees who won’t join are those who don’t participate in anything – no matter what you give them.”

One factor that can affect employee participation is whether or not they understand the purpose of the program. According to Breeding, most employees don’t know what corporate wellness is and can mistake wellness programs for an attempt to terminate high risk employees due to their elevated health care needs.

“First of all, you need management to participate,” she said. “That sends a positive message to employees. Secondly, you must make it clear that all data gained from these medical procedures will remain confidential between the employee and the wellness provider, and is in no way an attempt to fire the employee.”

Lotusea Wellness Group works in compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability act, which ensures the security and privacy of health data. After receiving their medical checkups, the employee is encouraged to take their results to their physician, which saves the employer and the employee money, since both otherwise would be responsible for paying for the procedure provided by the wellness program.

Being clear about the confidentiality of the medical reports can be a major incentive for employees to join the wellness programs, but the most effective incentive for increasing participation rates is offering financial gain. According to Breeding, most companies offer cash rewards or reduced health care costs to employees in exchange for participation in the program.

“As a society, we have gotten spoiled with incentives,” Breeding said. “If an employee gets wellness benefits and lab testing free, they should not expect any kind of incentive. People love money though. If you offer cash, even $10 for lunch, the participation rates will increase significantly.”

If a company is able to achieve a high participation rate, their chances of success will greatly increase. But the critical participants are those with the most to gain from the program.

According to the Business Knowledge Resource website, the best way to make a corporate wellness program financially successful is to identify high-risk employees and their high-risk health behavior, and set up a wellness program catered to those needs.

Unfortunately, often times the high risk employees are the least willing to participate in these programs.

“That always has to be a concern,” Russell said. “Ideally, you would like to focus primarily on the high risk people and there are plenty of guidelines out there that show who is going to benefit the most, or which group’s participation will help in terms of money spent. Corporations could use this information to tailor a program toward these people, but it can be hard to get them involved.”

Different Wellness Programs When it comes time for a company to set up the structure of their wellness programs, there are a variety of different levels available from which to choose.

Some programs are comprehensive, onsite programs encompassing all aspects of physical and mental health. Others solely focus on physical well-being. According to Breeder, there is a new cost-effective trend in corporate wellness geared toward using a website to take health surveys, and it may not be positive.

“The results from having a website program are absolutely minuscule,” she said. “If an employee has the latitude to go onto the internet and answer a couple of questions, they’re not going to be honest.

They’re not being held accountable by on-site doctors, and they’re generally only

participating in the program to earn the incentive given by the company. That doesn’t help their long-term health, and it certainly doesn’t save the company money. If you want a program that will make a difference, a well-designed, comprehensive on-site program is the way to go.”

For this set-up, the company providing the program will either come in with health-care professionals on a regular basis, monitoring the health of participating employees, or help the company hire a wellness staff to be on-site every day.

Choosing the appropriate program to match a company’s culture can be the difference between a high return on investment and a failed cost-cutting experiment.

Added Benefit While companies view corporate wellness programs as a potential method to reduce health care costs, they also can use them as a recruiting tool for hiring and keeping the best employees.

Breeding believes companies can use these programs as a selling point with employees viewing them as an added health benefit “I ask companies to market that they have a wellness program,” Breeding says.

“It looks good for them to show concern for the long term health and wellness of their employees, and employees pick up on that.”

While Breeding is confident employees enjoy participating in a wellness program, Neftzger said it

Exclusive Savings.

Without the firewall.

BGS members could get an additional discount on car insurance.

Get a free quote today.

Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. Discount amount varies in some states. Discount is not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. One group discount applicable per policy. In New York a premium reduction is available. Government Employees Insurance Co. • GEICO General Insurance Co. • GEICO Indemnity Co. • GEICO Casualty Co. These companies are subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. GEICO: Washington, DC 20076. GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2009. © 2009 GEICO

bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org 7

What can you realistically expect from an employee wellness program?

Well, that depends. Like most things in life, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, so results will vary depending on the type of corporate wellness programs and incentives your organization chooses. The Wellness Council of America describes three different options, which most corporate wellness efforts fall into, and they are broken down below.

Quality of Work-Life Wellness The Quality of Work-Life (QWL) Model of worksite wellness focuses primarily on improving the morale of employees. It is intended to add quality to work-life and to improve camaraderie and relationships between employer and employees. This approach to worksite wellness involves entirely voluntary activities that are generally selected for the positive effect they are likely to have on employees. Activities under this approach are passive and offer information and experiences that are generally desired by most employees. The key word here is “fun.”

• All voluntary programming: The QWL Model is characterized as including only voluntary programming or “use at will” program interventions.

• Very low clinical health risk factor orientation: In the QWL Model, a very limited emphasis is usually placed on clinical health risks, in such areas as hypertension, elevated cholesterol, lipid imbalances, cardiovascular function, percent body fat, etc. These areas are usually dealt with as secondary to other pursuits, which are usually linked more directly to desired personal changes in activity levels, body weight, fitness levels, decreased anxiety, etc.

• Limited direct emphasis on secondary and tertiary prevention: Mental well being, as an area of primary prevention, is emphasized and attitudes, self-knowledge, self-responsibility and empowerment are all primary prevention components of the QWL Model. The traditional clinical areas of tertiary prevention, including helping people manage existing diseases and medical conditions, are rarely addressed under this program model.

• Virtually no integration between various internal program components: Integrated wellness programming rarely occurs under this program model, including individual activities, which are often fragmented in their introduction and spaced out without much intention over time. Events are usually organized with a higher level of concern for the enjoyment and entertainment of employees.

• Limited systems orientation: The QWL Model is not linked to other employee health service areas, such as occupational medicine, health benefits, industrial hygiene, safety, etc. Since the model has evolved from the psychosocial perspective, it has much greater potential linkages to employee health services and to mental health services such as Employee Assistance Programs.

• Limited reach to spouses: In this model there is usually no programming for spouses of employees. Virtually all the wellness program interventions are targeted only to employees.

• Much less reliance on stable work environments and activity conducted during the workday: The QWL Model is somewhat more amenable to dynamic and unstable work environments because it is highly flexible, event-driven and sporadic in nature.

• More limited formal evaluation potential: QWL worksite wellness programs, since they do not rely on as much traditional clinical data collection, have virtually no formal evaluation activities.

• Limited budget and staffing resources needed: This program model is characterized by generally low budget requirements. This model usually does not require a dedicated staff person unless the work force size is more than 1,000 employees. The typical program budget, not including any staffing cost is usually in the range of $10 to $45 per employee per year.

• Virtually no expectations for economic return or health cost savings: In the QWL Model of wellness programs there is usually very little expectation for economic return.

This type of wellness program is not expected to catalyze long term health behavior changes or produce savings in areas such as: health plan claims cost, reduction of sick leave, reduction of workers’ compensation costs, reduction of disability management costs or improvements in “presenteeism.”

Corporate Wellness (continued from page 7)

depends on the individual whether it’s important or not.

“All people are different,” Neftzger said. “Some employees who already take care of themselves see it as a benefit, because it’s just additional tools. There may be some who have wanted to start exercising who also see it as a benefit. There also are many who are not in that stage to make a change, and having somebody mention it could push them further away.

In my experience, I think the majority of employees probably don’t care.”

One growing, but preventable, health concern is obesity. A 2007 nationwide analysis of health screenings by Kronos Optimal Health Company reported 65 percent of employees are overweight or

obese.

Stemming from the problem of obesity are chronic conditions that can affect the health and well-being of people and also affect the health care budget of a company.

“I think this is one of the solutions to the health care dilemma in the United States,” Breeding said. “This promotes prevention and awareness among people, and enables people to take personal responsibility for their healthcare, rather than leaving it to their physician. We have become a society that has become accustomed to being taken care of by the doctor. They give out pills for everything.

This has created a very vicious cycle.”

Finding the root of the problem is the goal for any company looking to

8 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org

decrease health care spending. As companies decide whether or not corporate wellness programs are the answer for their financial quandaries, they must look to their own organization to determine if it’s the right fit for them. As with any investment, these programs could yield a return great enough to pull their budget out of the red, or they could prove to be just another financial sum grouped in with the rising costs of health care.

Share your thoughts on this topic with the editor: exchange@betagammasigma.org

Traditional or Conventional Wellness The Traditional or Conventional (ToC) Model of worksite wellness focuses primarily on the passive offering of a more extensive set of interventions than the QWL program model. It is intended to offer a wide range of activities in a smorgasbordstyle approach. The intention is to offer, on a completely voluntary basis, many different worksite-based wellness activities and to have something for everybody. This approach to worksite wellness usually involves only site-based activities that are entirely voluntary without significant incentives.

• All voluntary programming: The ToC Model is characterized as including only voluntary programming or “use at will” program interventions. No mandatory or required program activities or components are generally used, and individual choice alone determines participation levels in the program.

• Very high clinical health risk factor orientation: In the ToC Model, a very strong emphasis is usually made on clinical health risks, in such areas as hypertension, elevated cholesterol, lipid imbalances, cardiovascular function, percent body fat, etc. These areas are usually emphasized strongly and are the primary focus of virtually all program interventions.

• Heavy emphasis on primary and limited secondary prevention issues: Virtually all programs focus on tobacco use, exercise, nutrition, weight management, cardiovascular disease detection/prevention and stress management. These represent some of the major concerns of primary prevention.

Secondary prevention, in the form of early detection of selected diseases and use of clinical preventive screening tests are also significant components of the ToC Model.

• Limited integration between various internal program components: Integrated programming is generally not the rule, but rather the exception in the ToC Model, with individual activities spaced over time without much integration or linkage. Most programs are introduced as “stand alone” activities.

• Limited systems orientation: The ToC Model usually reflects a stand-alone approach to worksite wellness.

Wellness or health promotion activities are not usually linked in the ToC Model to employer policies, employee benefits or to any other employee health-related functions.

• Limited reach to spouses: As with the QWL Model, there is usually no programming targeted to spouses of employees.

Virtually all the wellness program interventions are usually targeted only to employees.

• High reliance on stable work environments and activity conducted during the work day: The ToC Model works better in reasonably stable work environments because it requires a slow, but consistent build up and development process. Unstable or highly dynamic work environments make it difficult to coordinate wellness activity and to integrate programming.

• Limited formal evaluation activity: Evaluation tends to be much less comprehensive and much more fragmented in nature.

• Moderate budget and staffing resources needed: This program model is characterized by generally moderate budget requirements. This model usually requires a full-time dedicated staff person for every 600 to 1,000 employees. The typical program budget, not including any staffing cost, is usually in the range of $46 to $150 per employee per year.

• Modest expectations for economic return or health cost savings: In the ToC Model of wellness programs there is usually a modest expectation for economic return. This type of wellness program has been proven to catalyze some level of long-term health behavior changes and produce savings in areas such as: health plan claims cost, reduction of sick leave, reduction of workers’ compensation costs, reduction of disability management costs or improvements in “presenteeism.”

Continued on Next Page

Looking for that perfect job? Looking for the perfect graduate program?

Beta Gamma Sigma can help!

Don’t miss the Fall 2010 Beta Gamma Sigma

Virtual Career Fair and Virtual Graduate School Fair This September, Beta Gamma Sigma‘s Virtual Fairs will bring our members, the “Best in Business,” together with the world’s top companies and the best graduate schools in business.

Mark your calendars for

September 15-30, 2010 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org 9

Sometimes companies need to turn to the outside for help, and one place that companies have turned to on the corporate wellness front is US Corporate Wellness, Inc. (www.uscorporatewellness.com).

Founded in 2007, the Littleton, Colo., based firm provides customized employee wellness, corporate wellness and company health promotion programs for organizations of all sizes. BGS recently caught up with the company’s founder and CEO Brad Cooper (BGS, U. of Colorado, 1997) to learn more about this growing facet of business. Below are excerpts from that conversation.

BGS: Since you started US Corporate Wellness, what trends have you seen within the corporate wellness industry?

Brad Cooper: It’s growing. Companies get it. There are very few medium-plus sized companies that do not have some sort of wellness program in place today. Fortunately for us, many of them are not satisfied with what they have. The trend originally was to come in with a very low-cost, internet-focused option. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had my life changed by an email. I’ve never had it changed by a poster. I will refer to these programs as a “poster and a postcard” wellness approach, and their effectiveness is limited. We’re convinced that you have to have a relationship involved to create any kind of behavior change. We all know what we should be doing; very few of us are doing those things. When you tie in a relationship that over time becomes closer and closer, and more and more trusted, you create true change.

We see more and more people realize that and make an adjustment from a very inexpensive or cheap approach, that is having no impact, to investing a little more money and seeing a big impact.

BGS: What size organizations typically buy into your services?

BC: From the beginning it’s been kind of a mix – small companies and big. The one trend that we see is leadership. If the leaders get it – regardless of their industry, regardless of their size – they move forward. If leaders don’t get it – regardless of their industry, regardless of their size – they don’t move forward.

BGS: Are there any criteria, in terms of corporate culture, that need to be in place for a wellness program to succeed?

BC: It depends on the program. If you are talking about a generic, passive web-based program then you have to have a great culture in place for it to have any chance. With a more personalized type of program, they will actually create their own positive culture.

We see relatively high participation across the board so the culture grows itself.

Again, the one thing that you would want is leadership involvement. Our most successful companies have C-suite participation across the board. I don’t mean participation in that they write a memo that it’s important. I’m talking about actual hands on participation, where they are going to the same coaching calls that everyone

else in the company is going through.

From there, the programs will create the culture.

BGS: What is the process you go through when a company decides that it is time to launch a corporate wellness program?

BC: It’s very, very simple. We want to make it as easy as possible for companies.

The HR folks, and the benefits folks, are already busy enough. They have enough on their plate, they are already doing three or four jobs, and they don’t need one more thing.

All we need from them are guidelines and what their incentives are going to be. From there we launch it for them.

The coaches reach out to employees who have said they want to do this, and the program starts to run itself. You start those relationships, you start the contact, and you have the follow-up to get people involved with various contests or resources on the site. You have people starting different “Biggest Loser”-type contests and that kind of thing. You have more people talking about it, so participation in the program and change in the culture continues to grow over time.

Where the rubber meets the road in terms of change, and frankly ROI, is in that relationship that is built between the coach and the individual employee.

What Can You Realistically Expect...(continued from page 9)

Health and Productivity Management Style Wellness The Health and Productivity Management (HPM) Model of worksite wellness focuses predominantly on the proactive offering of a highly structured and substantial set of interventions than either the QWL program model or the ToC program model.

It is intended to provide an infrastructure of health management activities offered to a large portion of the workforce involved and their spouses.

• Some mandatory programming: The HPM Model is characterized by its inclusion of a few mandatory components of programming. These mandatory components usually include such things as annual program orientation sessions, involvement in core incentive programs, receipt of survey documents, involvement in benefit use or health care use workshops, mandatory open enrollment meetings with wellness briefing, etc.

• Very high clinical health risk factor orientation: In the HPM Model, a very strong emphasis is usually made on clinical health risks, in such areas as hypertension, elevated cholesterol, lipid imbalances, cardiovascular function, percent body fat, etc. These are usually emphasized in several ways and are the primary focus of many programs.

10 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org

• Balanced emphasis on primary, secondary and tertiary prevention: Virtually all HPM style programs focus on a variety of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention. This includes dealing with precursors to illness and injury, early detection and improved management of disease conditions.

The approach usually focuses on the prevalence of and costly conditions that are capable of being prevented or better management.

• High level of integration between internal program interventions: Integrated programming is generally the rule with individual activities spaced over time and connected to other linkages. A calendar of events with sequences of various planned events is often a trademark of this particular program model. Most program interventions are introduced with an eye to logical connections to other activities and to referrals to complementary internal or external activities.

• Strong systems orientation: The HPM Model attempts to link health management interventions to employer policies, employee benefits and to other employee health-related functions. The linkage to other workplace activities and policies is usually designed to affect the direct health-related costs of employees, disability costs, absence from work and lost productivity due to health conditions.

BGS: What kind of returns on investment are we talking about?

the incentive gets them engaged, they see the value and it goes from there.

BC: Some studies show a 16-to-1 return, some show a 1.2-to-1 return, some show a 5-to-1, an 8-to-1. Whatever. Pick your number and put a one next to it. The really encouraging thing for companies is that it is always, at a minimum, a 1-to-1 return.

Worst-case scenario, if you have an effective program in place you will get a dollarfor-dollar return on your investment. In the best case you might get a 6-to-1, an 8-to-1, maybe even a 16-to-1. But it’s always something greater than 1-to-1, and you can’t get that with any financial investment today.

BGS: So what do employees go through in these kinds of programs?

BC: It’s really going to depend upon the company and how they go about it. The company may choose to start with relationship building, that building of trust between participants and coaches. Once that trust and culture is rolling, employees may participate in biometric and health assessment (HRA) screenings down the road.

Other companies want that baseline out of the gate, so step one is biometrics and HRA. Simultaneously, coaching may begin to be implemented so testing outcomes can be explained to employees.

I recommend starting with the relationship. Build that trust over a short period of time – maybe over a period of three to six months – then get your baseline. Your biometric baseline won’t change much, but your participation will be higher. And, because HRAs are self-reported, your results will be more accurate because the trust is already there.

BGS: As a third party company coming in, what are the concerns and issues in terms of employee confidentiality?

BC: It’s actually better, at least in terms of employee perception. Insurance companies must be compliant with (Health Information Privacy) restrictions, and they are.

But sometimes employees have the impression that if a program is run through the insurance company or through an internal arm of the employer, that the information is being utilized in different ways. As a third party provider, the employee knows that information isn’t going anywhere. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything that is discussed or documented is just between themselves and their coach.

It goes nowhere else.

BGS: So, is trust the key to maintaining and growing employee participation?

BC: The trust, the value and, frankly, the incentives are big factors for maintaining and growing momentum. Companies have to have some kind of incentive because in a typical company you have 8 to 10 percent who will do it just because it sounds great.

You have 8 to 10 percent who won’t do it even if you’re giving away free cars. It’s that middle 80 percent or so that if you can get them engaged, you’ll get a high ROI. If you don’t get them engaged, you won’t. It’s not that they dislike the program, or that they have any problem with a program like this; it’s that they don’t really care. So

• Full reach to spouses: In this model, unlike the previous two models, there is specific programming targeted at spouses of employees. Spouses are usually encouraged to complete health risk assessments and may also be provided with coaching intervention.

• Low reliance on stable work environments and activity conducted during the work day: The HPM Model works somewhat better in reasonably stable work environments because it requires a slow, but consistent build up and development process. Unstable or highly dynamic work environments can be served well with the virtual components of the program even though they can make it difficult to coordinate wellness activity and to integrate programming.

• Significant formal evaluation activity: HPM style worksite wellness programs conduct a very organized approach to evaluation of such things as participation, participant response and satisfaction levels, risk factor prevalence, patterns of changes in individual health habits or clinical test results, changes in key organizational indicators, achievement of program objectives or collection of anecdotal success stories.

BGS: If a company is interested in installing some kind of wellness program, what‘s the first step?

BC: Contact some companies and find out how they differ. Look at their websites and see what information and white papers they have on the ROI of the programs they offer.

When looking at a program, you have to ask yourself, “Will this change my life?” and if your answer is “No, this won’t have any impact after a few weeks of a contest,” then don’t pay money for it. Find a program that will influence you, and then take someone on the opposite spectrum from you, and ask yourself if it would influence that person. If your answer is yes to both of those questions, then it’s probably a pretty good program.

Brad Cooper Founder and CEO, US Corporate Wellness, Inc.

• More budget and staffing resources needed: This program model is characterized by generally larger budget requirements. This model usually requires full-time dedicated staff or vendor staff in the range of one fulltime employee for every 300 to 700 employees. The typical program budget, including staffing cost is usually in the range of $151 to $450 per employee per year.

• Solid expectations for economic return or health cost savings: In the HPM Model of wellness programs there is usually a significant expectation for economic return.

This type of wellness program has been proven to produce long term health behavior changes and significant savings in areas such as: health plan claims cost, reduction of sick leave, eduction of workers’ compensation costs, reduction of disability management costs or improvements in “presenteeism.”

Source: Planning Wellness: Getting off to a good start Wellness Council of America, www.welcoa.org What did your think about this issue of the International Exchange?

Share your thoughts with the editor: exchange@betagammasigma.org bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org 11

Gifts from Friends

GENEROUS DONORS SUPPORTING BETA GAMMA SIGMA April 16, 2009 through April 15, 2010

Beta Gamma Sigma gratefully acknowledges the support of the following individuals, as well as the organizations listed on page one. Without this assistance, the Society would be unable to continue adding value to the lifetime membership.

Chairman’s Board $2,000 - $4,999 University of Georgia Ogden O. Allsbrook James Madison University Robert D. Reid Marquette University Theodore C. Rogers Ohio Northern University James W. Fenton, Jr. Director’s Table $1,000 - $1,999 Baruch College, CUNY William E. Oakley University at Buffalo, SUNY Paul F. Eckel University of California, Irvine David H. Blake University of California, Los Angeles Edward W. Wedbush Fordham University Bert W.M. Twaalfhoven University of Georgia Carl W. Gooding Loyola Marymount University John T. Wholihan University of Kansas Larry D. Horner University of Massachusetts John F. Smith, Jr. North Carolina A&T State University Bernard J. Milano The University of North Carolina at Greensboro James K. Weeks University of Pennsylvania John C. Hanson University of Pittsburgh Donald R. Beall University of Rhode Island James A. Viehland Sam Houston State University Gary L. Dudley Valdosta State University Kenneth L. Stanley Villanova University Debra A. Arvanites Western Carolina University James A. Valkenaar, Jr. Western Illinois University Vicki C. Klutts President’s Cabinet $500 - $999 University of Alabama Col. Marinda J.C. Wood Baylor University David M. Jacobs Boston University Thomas A. Greenquist California State University, Chico Henry W. Wright University of California at Berkeley Robert R. Kirkpatrick Clark Atlanta University Janice D. DuBose Drexel University Chad W. Tursi Duquesne University James M. Zillian East Tennessee State University Allan D. Spritzer Indiana University Christopher T. Winkler University of Iowa William (Curt) Hunter Margaret Macomber Wendt Kent State University George E. Stevens University of Maryland Curtis L. Scribner Michigan State University Bruce D. Bottomley University of Nebraska at Omaha M. Gene Newport Northwestern University Ronald Neale Paul Ernest C. Styberg Ohio State University Joseph R. Cortese Ohio University Albert J. Weatherhead III University of Pennsylvania Subramanian Sundaresh Purdue University Dennis J. Weidenaar San Francisco State University Kathleen L. McIlwain Santa Clara University Mary Dana Niemiller Seattle University Gary P. Brinson Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Deborah Louise Johnston

Stephen F. Austin State University Brian K. McAlpine Gerald W. Schlief Syracuse University H. Minton Francis Valdosta State University Jerry J. Jennett University of WisconsinOshkosh Hans G. Storr University of Wyoming Donald F. Parker Dean’s Club $250 - $499 Duquesne University Steven R. Berlin Eastern Illinois University Greg Bonnell Fairleigh Dickinson University William C. Kulkens George Washington University John M. Cibinic Georgia Southern University Chenzira Qiana Bohannon University of Houston Emile A. Bussemey University of Illinois at Chicago Daniel J. Phillips Kent State University Richard A. Ferguson Lehigh University Paul Caster University of Louisiana at Monroe Nelson D. Abell III University of Maryland Russell F. Smith University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Susan West Engelkemeyer University of Miami Marianela J. Hernandez Marlies Ledford-Kraemer Ray M. Shaw University of Michigan Philip L. Smith Michigan State University Craig D. Brown James T. Morton University of MissouriColumbia Duncan L. Matteson New York University Hon. Ruth E. Denk Robert C. Larose North Carolina A&T State University Quiester Craig Obrie Smith Ohio State University Norman S. Crystal Oregon State University Joan Austin Ken Austin University of Ottawa Micheál J. Kelly St. John’s University Iris Altilio Vivien M. Hegarty St. Mary’s University Cynthia H. Munch Sam Houston State University Preston Johnson, Jr. San Diego State University Debra A. Ernst Seton Hall University Karen E. Boroff Shippensburg University Brad McMullen University of Southern California Doreen Lee Gee Eugene J. Holt Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Paul J. Baeske Southern Methodist University Cher E. Thomas Jacobs The University of Texas at Arlington Daniel K.C. Wu The University of Texas at Austin Grant A. Fuller Tulane University Lance B. Young University of Virginia George P. Buckey Virginia Tech University Francis L. Leonard Washington University John P. Wareham University of WisconsinMadison Thomas G. Ragatz University of WisconsinMilwaukee Lea E. O’Day Youngstown State University Betty Jo Licata

Century Club $100 - $249 University of Akron Michael J. Berthelot David Leshner University of Alabama Gordon M. Amsler Whit Armstrong Herbert A. Barr Joseph M. Farley Ulysses V. Goodwyn Margaret E. Hudson Gregory B. Jones Bruce A. Moses George R. Rea, Jr. Rance M. Sanders James P. Tate III University of Alabama at Birmingham Lisa Kianoff Jeffrey I. Stone University of Arizona James W. Grantman Bruce C. Mc Alister Robert Mylls James R. Todd Arizona State University Thomas L. Legler William K. Rapp University of Arkansas James L. Ashmore Gus Blass Richard M. Bushkuhl Fred M. Dierks Harry C. Erwin Walter P. Henry Jay Johnston David R. Malone Ward N. Marianos D. Ferguson McNiel Bryan A. Speed Robert P. Taylor Albert G. Vasser Lawrence D. Zollner Auburn University Vicki Leigh Bentley Augusta State University H.M. Osteen, Jr. Ball State University Carl S. Booth Kara Y. Hoover Lenox Philip H. Sprowl University of Baltimore Mary Ann Becker Baruch College, CUNY William Copulsky Lee A. Feldman Seymour Gartenberg Peter Gonedes Burton Kossoff Camille Y. Marlow Doris A. Marshall Edwin B. Morris Ruki D. Renov John V. Restuccio Joseph H. Rubin Samuel G. Ryan, Jr. Walter J. Salmon Jerome A. Seidman Leslie Faye Vermut Joseph D. Weisberg David M. Weiss George Weissman Baylor University Robert A. Fitz Tyann Reichert Robinson Bentley College David P. Demarco Thomas F. Faherty James R. Kearnan Henry K. Kelly James F. Parslow Michael A. Petkewich Richard E. Valliere Boston University Annabelle C. Kellogg Terryl G. King Gitta M. Kurlat, Esq. Richard A. Scheid Charles Siegel Col. Charles M. Wiker Bowling Green State University Michael W. Hoffman University of Bridgeport Rita A. Galgano Rev. Vincent J. Kern University at Buffalo, SUNY Robert D. Glidden, Jr. Calvin J. Haller Daryl R. Nitkowski George H. St. George Kenneth I. Tuchman Business Achievement Award Martin Mintz California State University, Bakersfield Donna J. Goins California State University, Fresno James D. Hallowell Eric G. Juline

California State University, Long Beach Susan Victoria Parsons Susan L. Volmer Russell E. Walker California State University, Los Angeles Darren E. Elliott Suzette D. Nelson George J. Walendowski California State University, Northridge Joseph H. Bayewitch Christopher J. Curry William R. Hollinger California State University, San Bernardino Kimberly J. Hales University of California at Berkeley Leonard Alfred Aplet Christy P. Armstrong James A. Craft Leland E. Leisz Herbert G. Meyer Howard R. Toole Ira K. Vantress, Jr. University of California, Irvine James F. Elliott Lyman W. Porter University of California, Los Angeles J. Kenneth Clancy Irwin S. Field Bernard D. Fischer Irwin D. Goldring Sarah C. Harlan Raynor J. Klaris Jesse D. Miller Ridgway L. Pope Ross E. Roeder Carol L. Rowen Canisius College Gerald C. Saxe Jeffrey G. Wagner Case Western Reserve University Howard A. Glassroth Henry Ott-Hansen Janet E. Ricchetti University of Central Florida Monica Simms Forbes Jacqueline E. Keith University of Chicago Thomas G. Baker Gerald R. Bouwkamp Joseph D. LaRue Richard J. Schaefer Michael J. Wallace Richard J. Weiland University of Cincinnati Robert E. Dobbs Hugh H. Hoffman Clemson University Ronnie L. Jowers Marvin J. Pinson, Jr. Cleveland State University Linda H. Rogalski University of Colorado Paul E. Bartlett Karin Denise Doughty Harvey A. Everett Makoto Fletcher Robert S. Graham Katherine M. Hart Edward C. Mitchell Alfred R. Mosher Thomas Cavett Nelson Pamela Jo Timmerman University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Eileen S. Burnley University of Colorado Denver Joanne R. Casper Colorado State University Richard L. Robinson Steven J. Vander Wal Columbia University Jennifer Noel Bater Peter S. Hadley Cyril H. Hermele Earle W. Kazis John B. Murphy John T. Quinn Diana Mary Sattelberger Bartholomew J. Tortella Concordia University Gary Germeil University of Connecticut Robert C. Burrill Dolores Jeanne Katzenberger Gregory K. Phelps George G. Roller Carl S. Smith Creighton University Adam Langdon Delaware State University John Ridgeway University of Denver Mark Harrod Alldredge Lowell A. Hare Bernard F. Ryan

12 bgs international exchange SUMMER 2010 www.betagammasigma.org

DePaul University Howard S. Goss Gary S. Richman Tucker Tyler University of Detroit Mercy Kathleen Dul Aznavorian Mark R. Carver Jaime F. Encinas E. Daniel Grady Jacob Rehmann Patricia A. Tourney Drake University R. Craig Cavanaugh Erika Chandler Curtis Bruce G. Kelley Frederick N. Peters Daniel B. Peterson Kathleen M. Kiernan Duquesne University William H. White East Carolina University William H. Powell III Eastern Michigan University Charles F. Hoitash James R. Jakubczak Richard H. Moran Emory University Ernest E. Ferguson Katherine Buckman Gibson James E. Herring Solon P. Patterson Homer E. Smith Robert P. Stalder University of Florida John C. Appel Robert A. Miller Louis F. Morr Robert C. Norris Woodrow V. Register John J. Slaboch Walter J. Smith Florida Atlantic University Carlene R. Walker Florida International University Allain Farah Florida State University Mark R. Arrigo Lowrie W. Brown Donald R. Crisp David C. Williams Grady H. Williams, Jr. Fordham University Robert Beck Frank G. Byrne Joseph T. Casey Robert J. Cummins Philip M. Halpern John-Charles Van Essche James R. Weldon Francis Marion University Frank H. Avent George Washington University Edward F. Dube George O. Foster Mary M. Lewis Philip D. Reiff Georgetown University Gregg J. Felton University of Georgia Johnnie L. Clark John J. Ossick Georgia Southern University Ralph M. Andrews Mary F. Hazeldine Lewis M. Stewart Georgia State University W. Daniel Barker Jay A. Bernath Dale N. Davis H. Ronald Miller University of Hawaii Victoria P.S. Brady Herndon Foundation Hofstra University Janet R. Cordano Eric H. Kagan Gregg A. Luckman Robert J. Schwartz University of Houston Dan Jolly Kenneth Y. Rosenzweig University of HoustonClear Lake John M. Kovach Howard University Romallus O. Murphy Idaho State University Robert F. Baim University of Illinois Jeffrey L. Boschert Clifford R. Buys Michael E. Fox Thomas W. Hough Ray L. McGarvey John L. Nuttall Thomas B. Sleeman Henry D. Strunk John M. Tucker University of Illinois at Chicago Mary Smoley Blust Linda Irene Florian Mira Vlajnic

Indiana University Theophilus B.A. Addo Stephen Bodzin Mary E. Bonhomme Terri Lynn Clark Clarence H. Doninger Thomas L. Dusthimer William D. Fischer Ray H. Garrison David E. Greene E. Jan Hartmann Jeffrey A. Hatch Jolaine L. Hill Thomas S. Hoelle Jane Bosart Kinney James M. Krueger Gollakota Surya Kumar Edwin P. Le Croy, Jr. George H. Lentz William B. Meyer Maj. Harley R. Mohr Joseph M. Moricz H. Theodore Noell Mavis E. Pape David B. Pearson Mervyn R. Thede John V. Thomas Thomas F. Veldman Ruth Ann Webb George D. Welch University of Iowa Jeffrey B. Warner Victor W. Wilson James Madison University Susan K. Floyd Joyce W. Guthrie University of Kansas Edward C. Burns Edward J. Healy Kansas State University Patrick R. Robinson Robert C. Salem, Jr. Kent State University Clifford D. Shields Kenneth E. Wertz University of Kentucky John C. Talbott, Jr. La Salle University Fred S. Rodgers Lehigh University Joan B. Cole Sandra Goldfarb R. Neale McMichael Philip R. Peller Mark Schneider Kenneth Schur University of Louisiana at Monroe Saul A. Mintz Louisiana State University Virginia J. Kahnt Louisiana State University in Shreveport Alice E. Green Louisiana Tech University Bruce W. Berry Loyola University Chicago Gerard A. Swick Kenneth R. Weigand Lisa C. Williams Loyola University Maryland Carol Lynn Coughlin Ronald R. Howell David D. Wolf Loyola University New Orleans Brandt J. Dufrene, Jr. Marquette University Steven J. Borkenhagen David J. Hushek Mark W. Loper Paul M. Neylon Richard A. Romano Robert A. Schneider University of Maryland Robert H. Carmack Clark E. Luther Morton H. Offit University of Massachusetts Michael L. Alcivar Patrick N. Keyes McNeese State University Joe T. Miller, Sr. University of Memphis Christopher W. Bear Connie M. Luzwick University of Miami George M. Corrigan Domenic Macrina III Miami University Laura Lasoski Rockenberger University of Michigan A.P. Bartholomew, Jr. Norma Gail Heller John C. Morley Clay E. Ottoni Steven R. Point Sanford R. Robertson Richard C. Slayton Richard C. Viinikainen J.D. Williamson

Michigan State University Col. Richard W. Bergson Dennis W. Duquette Steven J. Frisbie Edward E. Hagenlocker Richard J. Lewis Alexander C. McKeen Ronald J. Patten Andrew G. Sall Stephen P. Stonestreet Terrence A. Tollefson Middle Tennessee State University Albert E. Deprince University of Minnesota Hugh A. Barker James B. Dagnon Fred R. Friswold Douglas W. Kirk Duane R. Kullberg Jed D. Larkin Emily Joy Olson James W. Rustad University of Mississippi Lee W. Randall Mississippi State University Russell Virvile Gatlin Ronnie G. Michaels Ronald D. Niemeyer University of MissouriColumbia Col. Howard G. Sholl, Jr. University of MissouriKansas City Richard S. Loraine University of MissouriSt. Louis Jennifer R. Cole Monmouth University Martin F. Byrne University of Nebraska-Lincoln John L. Kopecky Gary Schwendiman University of Nebraska at Omaha Mary O. McCully University of Nevada, Reno James L. Mercer University of New Mexico Kimberly S. Hallatt University of New Orleans Lisa M. Buchert David J. Mumfrey Ralph J. Onstad Charles E. Price New York University Joseph E. Adiletta Gregory J. Altman Mara Ellen Baror Mario P. Borini Paul H. Einhorn Stuart S. Flamberg Alan P. Gallo Miles M. Glantz William A. Heineman Gerald A. Leboff Richard A. Leibner David M. Levine Joseph P. Martori Bud Mayo Jonathan T. Miller Sanford J. Moster Richard C. Nerod David K. Owens Warren D. Schaub Walter J. Stern New York UniversityGraduate School Mark A. Bienstock Calvin R. Carver, Jr. Anne Chamberlain Michael A. Cibelli Matthew Todd Feldman Donald E. Foley Judith E. Plump Alan P. Sullivan Norfolk State University Santosh K. Choudhury The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Lacy G. Baynes Alan B. Flaschner The University of North Carolina at Charlotte David B. Inscoe The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Devon Marie Isaacs Hawkins University of North Florida Hartley Lord Alvin L. Sack John F. Swietnicki University of North Texas Hugh D. Erskine Lola Lacrosse Gary M. Shultz Northeastern University Charles D. Baker Thomas P. Brady James M. Fowler Nels A. Palm Baker A. Smith Selena Paolai Tan

Northern Arizona University James O. Carnes Daniel F. Stortz Northern Illinois University Denis M. Desmond Michael E. Marciniak Harman J. Ziev Northwestern University Melvin S. Adess Charles R. Enever Kurt L. Janavitz Elaine J. Ksander Edward C. Messinger Irene D. Mulcahy John S. Thode University of Notre Dame Charles B. Ammann Dennis C. McInerney Leo V. Ryan Ohio State University John R. Ervin Barry S. Feldman John F. Flowers Philip W. Glasgo Stephen E. Houck C. Rodney Kinskey James G. McMillan William E. Schlender Press C. Southworth III University of Oklahoma Michael F. Farren Robert Hamilton Sally Kygar Peden Sandy Harland Singleton Elizabeth K. Willard Oklahoma State University Paul A. Porter Old Dominion University Edward B. Bricka David W. Green University of Oregon James C. Lynch Kevin W. O’Neill Oregon State University Lea A. Hart-Chambers Pace University Eric P. Szekrenyessy University of Pennsylvania George Akel David J. Bailey Michael S. Blechman Anthony J. Deleon Frank M. Hatheway Edward R. Koch William V. Ledford Thomas L. Markl Lawrence J. Marks Robert C. Nevin Pennsylvania State University John T. Fogarty James B. Miller Paul H. Yeagle

Pepperdine University Thomas Dudley University of Pittsburgh William H. Alexander Edward W. Kay John C. Lauchnor Donald H. Peters Richard S. Pizzedaz University of Portland Craig Christenson Purdue University Robert G. Gibson Allen R. Merriman Andrew D. Ortstadt Kenneth J. Wilson University of Rhode Island Sean P. McKenna University of Richmond Hector Alonso John D. Robbins Rider University Robert Schimek University of Rochester Ramachandra Bhagavatula Gary P. Johnson Christine M. Palamone Paul R. Ratoff Rollins College David M. Currie Roosevelt University Clara Uche Awe Jacqueline J. Goldberg James F. Obert Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey Camden Debra A. Purfield Michael T. Bucci St. John’s University James F. Giordano Gary J. Glueckert Margaret Mary Healy Christopher A. Pappas William A. Rabl Lorenzo T. Vanore Anne R. Wennington Saint Joseph’s University Mary Lou Quinlan Saint Louis University Ellen Harshman San Diego State University Victoria E.J. Condos Katherine R. Janes Carla M. Kuhns Gene A. Lynes Charles M. Medvitz University of San Francisco George W. Parkerson Louise C. P. Wong San Francisco State University Chris E. Kovach Wesley R. Petit

San Jose State University Dave L. Coles Santa Clara University Robert J. Emmons Jane G. Evans G. Lee Fitzgerald David W. Gervais Anthony J. McKeon Leslie Ann Roberts Savannah State University Michelle Compton Seattle University Bruce E. Eliasen Terrence C. Kabanuck Seton Hall University Ludwell A. Sibley Shippensburg University Marie R. McDonald Michael A. McGinnis University of South Carolina Col. John A. Kardos Harold P. Pruitt Bjorn Bernd Thaler University of South Dakota Amy Caffrey Bruns Laurie J. Duncan Charles A. Jacob University of South Florida John Brkljacic Loretta S. Loftus, MD University of Southern California John G. Acker Arnold G. Anisgarten Robert S. Brezovec Edward M. Casselman Steven D. Crowe Jay H. Grodin Penny W. Halgren Terrence O. Hughes Brigitte E. McBride Jason White Southern Illinois University Carbondale Roy A. Causey Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Arnold G. Franke Robert E. Leckrone Sandra G. Noe Mildred L. Willmont Southern Methodist University Robert W. Calloway Gary E. Fish Robert E. Henderson Christopher C. Loy Stephen A. Titcomb Stephen F. Austin State University Christopher Simard Craig G. Townsend

Suffolk University Susan O. Olivier Susquehanna University Raymond C. Lauver Syracuse University Gustav J. Braun Richard A. Frank, Jr. Frederick H. Weeks Temple University David L. Balint Arnold J. Hoffman Stephen H. Morris Gary Mozenter Philip D. Weinstock John W. Wilchek University of Tennessee at Knoxville David A. Romer The University of Texas at Arlington Mark C. Hensel, Jr. Cindy L. Rasmussen Susan Marie Williams The University of Texas at Austin Donald R. Broadland Donald G. Calhoun Don M. Houseman Vicki G. Keiser Myron H. Newman Susan Sibley Riggs Glen A. Rosenbaum Carol A. Shepherd The University of Texas at San Antonio Deborah A. Pool The University of Texas at Tyler Billy G. Hartley Jack L. Phillips Cadmus Williams Texas A&M University David E. Hairston Jim M. Plummer Randall C. Present Texas Christian University Janeen Marie Lamkin Texas Tech University Edgar E. Akin Coburn A. Buxton Barbara Ann Frankhouser Patrick J. Killman Thunderbird School of Global Management Slobodan Jaksic University of Toledo Borge R. Reimer Susan A. Smotherman Tulane University Charles J. Marsman Rhett L. Weiss

University of Tulsa Jackie D. Loertcher Nancy B. Quigg-Young University of Utah Francis A. Madsen, Jr. Robyn L. Ragsdale Valdosta State University W. Ed Crane Vanderbilt University A. J. Kazimi Villanova University Richard P. Caporaso University of Virginia David E. Houseman William Wooding Sihler Anne B. L. Stone George C. Williams, Jr. Stephen C. Adams Virginia Commomwealth University David B. Wright Virginia Tech University James A. Hixon Edward M. Mazze James E. Pearman, Jr. John E. Wilson University of Washington Philip R. Bogue Gerald W. Christensen Lorin H. Wilson Washington & Lee University Reid T. Campbell Robert C. Gammon Washington University Frank E. De Pauli B.C. Downs Howard E. Lovely Rowland Ricketts, Jr. Henry L. Seifert John K. Wallace Stephen Waltman Bernard W. Weitzman Wayne State University Debra L. Bernstein Paul A. Glantz Richard M. Hillbom Gustaf A. Stinstrom

University of West Georgia Robert J. Stone West Virginia University Richard Meredith Gardner Russell L. Isaacs Western Michigan University Quenten T. Wilber Western Washington University Wenderly J. Porterfield Widener University Liliane E. Miniscloux-Yoos College of William & Mary Walter D. Brickman Hays T. Watkins University of WisconsinMadison Bruce R. Ellig James Fetek David Geraldson Daniel L. Goelzer Richard J. Howell James F. Kress Kimberly K. Peterson University of WisconsinOshkosh Sharon F. Alferi Gregory J. Cleven Larry R. Koeppen Wright State University William M. McCullough, Jr. University of Wyoming Margaret H. Williamson Youngstown State University Kristin Hawkins Bruce Fishstein Matching Contributions Aeatna Foundation Joseph T. Doyle John C. Lang Cathy J. Wilton AIG Joseph E. Amicucci Ann Laforgia Assurant Health Kurt Janavitz

AT&T Foundation James P. Foran Chad W. Tursi Axa Foundation Jay Johnston Domenic Macrina III Mark Theissen Anton T. Vanek, Jr. Black & Decker Brad P. McMullen Clarkston Consulting Marie McDonald Duke Engergy Foundation Stephen P. Schultz GE Foundation James Nuttall Laura Salma Deborah Wight Donald Wrhel Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Diane McGinn McKesson Corporation Clay G. Foster Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation, Inc. Julia Peloso Monsanto Fund James Morrell Morgan Stanley Paul Baeske Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation James Jakubczak Pfizer Foundation E. Thomas Thurber The UPS Foundation Dennis Arneson Toys”R”Us Bruce Fishstein Verizon Foundation Stanley Kuenn

Thank You!

FOR YOUR GENEROUS SUPPORT

The Mission of the International Honor Society Beta Gamma Sigma is to encourage and honor academic achievement in the study of business, to foster personal and professional excellence, to advance the values of the Society, and to serve its lifelong members.

Your generous gifts help Beta Gamma Sigma fulfill its mission by funding the Society’s programs and services, including: • BGS Scholarships • Alumni Chapter Program • Student Leadership Forum • BGS International Exchange • CareerCentral: The BGS Career Resource Center • Collegiate Chapter Training • The BGS Center for Ethical Business Leadership • The BGS Emergency Membership Fund • And many, many more!

Seton Hall University

Help your Society fulfill its mission:

www.betagammasigma.org/ donate.htm

Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage PAID Effingham, IL Permit No. 294

Beta Gamma Sigma, Inc. 125 Weldon Parkway Maryland Heights, MO 63043-3101 www.betagammasigma.org bgshonors@betagammasigma.org (314) 432-5650

Please Recycle This Magazine Beta Gamma Sigma is committed to promoting and contributing to a clean and safe environment.

SUMMER 2010

Corporate Wellness