Over the years, organizational development consultant Michael J. Kitson said, he has come to identify about a half dozen issues that really concern top executives, especially chief executives and company presidents. Yes, they'll hire him for some ostensible assignment, but as the conversation develops, the assignment will turn into dealing with one of these issues.

The issues are fascinating and center around the ability to get accurate information. Chief executives, Kitson said, worry about their isolation at the top. They are petrified that they won't get accurate information from their underlings, particularly their direct reports. They worry that their direct reports will tell them only what they think their boss wants to hear. They worry that their direct reports, in an effort to increase their territory and power within the company, will slant the information in a way that can hurt the company as a whole. And by the way, they always need to keep a sharp eye on the direct reports, figuring that at least one of them is gunning for the job of chief executive.

What do executives do to cope? They turn to others in their industry or at their country clubs for advice and support. They may bring in a consultant simply to have someone to lean on who is outside the corporate structure. This is particularly important, Kitson said, when companies are laying off people and the executives feel responsibility, both for the people and for the company.  Kitson, a former Sun Oil Co. executive, operates his consulting business in Malvern. 

The laid-off workers that I wrote about in Sunday's piece on the closing of the Reynold's packaging plant in Downingtown didn't get a dime in severance. They didn't even get vacation pay for the balance of the year. Pretty harsh. Many of the nearly 150 who lost their jobs had worked at the plant for decades. 

Interestingly, one in four employers doesn't have any kind of severance policy, according to Mercer, the consulting company that specializes in employee benefits. That doesn't mean they don't pay severance benefits -- it just means they don't have a policy. (I'm sure Mercer would be available to help draw one up.) That info comes from 400 mid-size and large employers across the nation who responded to an April survey conducted by Mercer on severance policies. Mercer found that two-thirds of the organizations that responded had staff reductions, but that very few changed their severance policies, despite changes in their overall compensation practices.

It'll come as no surprise to anyone that executives are well protected, Mercer's survey shows. Nearly all, 98 percent, got severance and three out of four had some continuation of benefits. More than two-thirds had outplacement help with fewer than one in five having to have had worked for the company for a minimum period to get severance help. Typically, severance payments max out at year for executives.

By contrast, rank-and-file workers will receive up to 26 weeks, under many policies. And only 61 percent of non-union and hourly workers received some continuation of benefits. Less than half, 40 percent, had outplacement help. But even non-union/ hourly workers got severance -- 95 percent. The survey doesn't include a category for unionized hourly workers. The Downingtown workers were represented by the United Steelworkers of America. They blame the union for not negotiating a severance package. Their union rep, James "Tommie" Nolan, said union negotiators tried hard, but to no avail. 

Whether or not the union is at fault, the fact remains that it is not up to the union to pay severance; it is up to the company to pay it. And the new owners of this plant, the Rank Group of New Zealand, chose not to pay it -- at least not to rank-and-file workers. Managers got severance packages, but those packages included strict confidentiality requirements.    

Thank you, Inquirer readers, for your many interesting comments (via phone, email and online) about my Sunday story on the closing of the Reynold's packaging plant in Downingtown, putting as many as 150 people out of work. What really impressed me about this story was the tragic confluence of circumstances. At some point between April 2007, when Reynolds put its packaging division up for sale and January 2009, when workers received notice that the factory would close, the Rank Group had to have looked over the numbers and made a decision about the factory. It didn't help that oil prices were up -- meaning that it would cost more to make the plastic labeling the company used. It didn't help that some manufacturing processes were botched and that an important press that could have made a difference was left in storage. You are looking at the intersection of a decision-making time with existing facts. If the decision window had been different, perhaps the decision would have been different and the lives of the workers could have continued peacefully as they were. 

But some of it is so randomly coincidental. I'm thinking about this in my own life. Our family had to choose between two colleges for my son, and the choice had to be made between March 31 and May 1 -- 30 days. In the end, he chose a school where he would be able to co-op more easily, study abroad and where he could have smaller classes as a freshman. The other school, which we loved just as much, if not more, for many reasons, also had co-op and study abroad options, but they weren't as well organized. And the possibility of smaller classes would come in later years, not immediately. The other school also will have new leadership in the department, probably by the end of the year. That new leader might well improve the co-op options. But he isn't going to college in a year; he's going now, so we had to make the decision based on the current situation. What ramifications will the decision have? Of course, he's a lucky boy to even have the opportunity to go to college. 

To our family, my son's college education is of paramount importance and my husband and I put tremendous time and effort into helping to prepare him for this important part of his future. Indeed, we count educating our two children as one of our primary jobs as parents, just below food, shelter and love.

But this plant didn't ever occupy similar front-and-center attention of any of  its corporate parents. Again, maybe if it would have been more of a beloved child, the decision would have been different. 

To get a job, it's all about sell, sell, sell -- the product being yourself and your skills. But author Mark Magnacca says that philosophy only goes so far. His soon-to-be-released book, "So What? How to Communicate What Really Matters to Your Audience" makes the point that the sales pitch needs to be made with the customer in mind. For someone laid off, the customer, obviously, is the potential employer.

Think of it this way: You say that you are a great communicator, or an excellent computer whiz. That's nice. But it is also like saying, "I have a terrific BMW sports coupe for sale." So what? The buyer wants a vehicle capable of schlepping the Cub Scout patrol back from the soap box derby. How many Cub Scouts can fit in a sports coupe? Maybe you can tie them on the trunk using a series of square knots (that way they can practice for their merit badges.) 

Magnacca says employers don't really care about what you can bring to the table. They want their needs met, period. Unfortunately, it is sooooo not about you.

Magnacca suggests making sure you frame your skills so you can answer the "so what" question on your resume or during your interview. What does the company need? How can you fill that need. Don't be the BMW when the Dodge Caravan is what's needed. Or vice versa, don't offer up the Caravan when the employer needs the BMW. Applying that lens to your skills will focus your efforts, he says. 

By the way, the same philosophy is applicable to the self-employed (whether by choice or necessity). When trying to land new business, answer the so what question, Magnacca says. 

Talk to anyone who is unemployed and you'll soon learn that one of the biggest worries is health insurance. No doubt activists who work with the unemployed will rally some of them to attend a protest this morning at 11:30 a.m. at Independence Blue Cross headquarters in Philadelphia at 19th and Market Streets. The insurer has asked the Pennsylvania Insurance Department for permission to raise its non-group health insurance rates, effective July 1. 

Check out what could happen to a parents in their 40s with children. A family now paying $1,254.30 a month would see a premium hike to $1,752, an increase of $497.70 per month, or 40 percent. Parents in their 30s with children have an even bigger hike, up 52.8 percent. Many of the hikes are in the 25 percent range.

No doubt Independence Blue Cross has an explanation for this, and later on today, I'll give them a call to find out. In advance, I will say that it definitely costs more to insure an individual on his own than it does to insure a person in a group, because groups have administrators who understand the paperwork. Individuals make a lot more use of customer service, increasing overhead costs.   

Sometimes, I honestly don't know whether to bang my head against the wall or break out into hysterical laughter. Probably all the above, as you will see in a minute.

Just an insight into the world of reporters -- we probably get at least 50  "helpful" story ideas a day. Truly, I get that public relations people need their jobs as much as I need mine, so in some ways, the writer of this pitch probably deserves a gold medal for making a valiant effort. Personally, I really enjoy/hate (that's the head-banging, laughing part)  how every single pathetic cart of a story is attached to that over-worked recession, unemployment horse.

I'm just going to cut and paste the entire pitch so you can laugh or gasp, as you see fit:

"In today’s trying economic times, companies are asking their employees to take on more responsibility, often meaning more hours spent in the office and away from home. In an effort to keep morale up, employers are finding new ways to bring the comfort of “home” into the office.

For example, more and more companies are allowing their employees to wear jeans to work – and not just on Fridays anymore! Employers are also being more flexible by allowing employees to listen to their iPods while they work or tune into their favorite TV program.
 
Another trend is bringing quality, fresh tea, indulgence drinks and coffee into the workplace, through gourmet beverages lines like Mars Drinks’ FLAVIA. With their decadent hot chocolates, calming teas and delicious coffees, employees can enjoy the same beverages they would make for themselves at home while on the job. Not only that, FLAVIA is the only single serve beverage line to offer authentic Cappuccinos, Mochaccinos and Chai Lattes allowing employees to give themselves that extra treat to help get them through the day.
 
And workplaces are starting to notice that when employees stay in for coffee, they spend less time off the job leading to greater productivity – it’s a win-win!

Please let me know if this sounds interesting, as I’d love to set up an interview for you to learn more."

I'm not going to include the woman's name, because I'm pretty sure she didn't write this press release.  But ohmygod...

Here's my suggestion for FLAVIA -- how about a "decadent hot chocolate" that includes an extra delightful dollop of Kahlua, so that when people are being laid off, they'll be more cheerful on their way out? Or perhaps, as a good will gesture, the company could treat the laid off  to several "authentic cappuccinos" each with its authentic shot of whiskey. Enough of those authentic drinks, and employers can simply roll the laid off out, and leave them draped over their boxes in the parking lot. Another idea? Place a carafe of Thorazine next to the hazelnut-flavored syrup. Add the Thorazine to the "calming tea" for some extra calm. That'll help the survivors. Or, FLAVIA could rig the machine so it dispenses two shots of espresso for every cup. Then the survivors will be able to work twice as fast and do all the work their laid off colleagues did! Lo-ooove that productivity.

It's a win-win!!!  

Can you slip on a banana peel and make people laugh? Or is it just your face that throws the general populace into hysterics? (Mine makes babies cry.) If so, there is a job for you.

You have to love a job posting that looks for someone with an over-active funny bone and aspirations to live on a train. On Tuesday, May 19, Ringling Brothers will hold auditions for clowns, age 18 or over. There's no mention of a resume. Instead, candidates need to prepare a three-to-five minute routine that will demonstrate "their ability to display exaggerated facial expressions, athleticism or any unique physical skills, an understanding of their comedy, as well as a sense of personality."

Auditioners can check in at 8 a.m. at the Wachovia Spectrum. You need to pre-register at WachoviaCenter.com/clowns. If any of you do this, please write and tell what happened! 

The problem with today's world, among many, is that people, or rather computers, rely too much on credentials. Computerized recruiting and job search programs fly through online resumes landing on certain key words like a fly on fruit salad. Those key words have to do with educational credentials, certificates, college credits, college names. Know-how may count most on the job. But when it comes to getting that job, it may take a back seat to some kind of credential that lets some computer somewhere choose you over others or provides cover for a wimpy recruiter without the ability to judge people's strengths on their own. 

So why this lecture? Because yesterday the Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board and Mayor Nutter announced a program to spend $14.1 million of federal stimulus on workforce training in Philadelphia. Almost half is earmarked for training programs for adults and recently laid off workers. Preference will be given to programs that yield college credits or link to college programs. 

It looks like a windfall for workforce training programs. (Interested programs can link here to find out how to request some of the funding.)  The key for unemployed workers will be figuring out how to tap into this funding. The best bet, it looks like, are for people entering fields such as green building and construction, advanced manufacturing, healthcare and life sciences, education and social services, hospitality, logistics and transportation.

A description of Philadelphia's plans for spending the funding will be published on the Philadelphia Workforce Investment Board's web page. The board invites comment. Here's what scares me: I love funding for education. I believe in it. I see it as ripe for potential scams -- look at what has happened with the charter schools. (You can read about the latest investigation in the Inquirer this morning.) We the taxpayers are putting a tremendous amount of money into this.  Let's all keep an eye out.

People lost their jobs in droves in the first quarter, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a truly stunning and depressing report out today. Mass layoffs due to slack business conditions set a program high since the BLS started keeping track in 1996 and mass layoffs due to financial conditions set a first quarter record. Both categories more than tripled since the first quarter of 2008. Just over one in four employers said they plan to recall at least some workers -- still that's the lowest in the history of these stats.

More than half a million workers lost their jobs in the 3,489 mass layoff events -- that's a 160 people, average, per layoff. Horrible. A year ago, 230,098 lost their jobs in 1,340 first-quarter mass layoffs. The number of mass layoffs reached program highs in 12 out 18 business sectors. 

Here are a few more numbers:

Twenty of those mass layoffs occurred because 3,466 jobs were moved out of the country. I'm not happy about that.

Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware had their highest first quarter separations since the program began.

Delaware had seven mass layoff events, with 1,509 people losing their jobs -- up from no mass layoffs in the first quarter of 2008.

New Jersey had 105 mass layoffs, with 16,054 losing work -- that's up from 33 mass layoff events in the first quarter 2008.

 Pennsylvania's mass layoffs rose from 75 a year ago to 216 with 32,173 losing work.