Maybe 5-Hour Energy drink should have sponsored this one. In a none too surprising result, a new survey by Accountemps finds that 4 p.m. to 6 p.m is the least productive time of the day for employees, with 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. a close second.

More than 1,000 senior managers were surveyed. A couple of highlights and Accountemps’ advice for battling the late afternoon blues.

Managers were asked, “In general, what is the least productive time of day for employees?” Their responses:

8 a.m. to 10 a.m.  – 10%
10 a.m. to noon – 4%
Noon to 2 p.m.     – 19%
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. – 28%
4 p.m. to 6 p.m. – 37%
Don’t know – 2%

“All professionals experience lulls in productivity, but the late afternoon, in particular, may not be a good time to hold brainstorming sessions or take on highly challenging projects,” said Max Messmer, chairman of Accountemps and author of Managing Your Career For Dummies®, 2nd Edition (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). “High-performing individuals are typically attuned to their most productive times of the day and, when possible, schedule their critical tasks during those hours.”

Accountemps offers five tips to help professionals avoid the afternoon slump and maximize productivity:

• Plan ahead. Don’t push challenging projects off until the end of the day, when your energy may wane. Use your less-energetic periods to catch up on more routine tasks, such as responding to e-mails and reading industry publications.

• Get out and smell the roses. If you feel your energy beginning to dip, stretch or take a short walk to recharge. Try eating your meals or holding afternoon meetings outside.

• Eat well. Remember to make time for lunch and nutritious snacks throughout your workday. Avoid high-carb foods, which can cause you to crash later.

• Track goals. Keep a to-do list to remain focused, and ensure it’s visible on your desk so you can check items off as they’re completed. There’s nothing more motivating than making progress on your projects.

• Switch gears. If you’re struggling to focus, take a quick break and research something new. Changing tasks can help increase your productivity late in the day.

There is a reason the Indiana Chamber advocated in the 2010 legislative session for a two-year delay in the state’s unemployment insurance tax increase. That’s because two major things needs to happen — and both will take time. One is a comprehensive look at the state system; that means reviewing eligibility and benefit levels in addition to simply raising the tab for employers. Second is that Congress needs to craft a national solution to the billions that are being borrowed by numerous states, ones that do not have the capability to pay back the loans or the interest.

Indiana lawmakers did grant a one-year delay, saving employee jobs as employers could ill afford the $400 million tax increase. Little progress, however, has been made on the two elements to the long-term solution. Thus, another delay will certainly be on the agenda come January.

Stateline.org, in a story yesterday, details the dollars involved nationally and the need for Congress to act.

More than 30 states have borrowed nearly $40 billion. Some of the current totals:

• California, $7.5 billion
• Michigan, $3.8 billion
• New York, $3.2 billion
• Pennsylvania, $3.0 billion
• North Carolina, $2.4 billion
• Ohio, $2.3 billion
• Illinois, $2.2 billion
• Others topping $1 billion are Indiana ($1.7), New Jersey, Florida, Texas and Wisconsin

According to the story:

It adds up to more borrowing for the programs than ever before, and it’s likely to balloon by year’s end. If interest rates projected at around 4 to 5 percent were added to that total amount, it would force states to pay an additional $1.6 to $2 billion currently unaccounted for. And that’s not the only additional fee that could be imposed. For every year the loans aren’t paid back, employers will lose at least 0.3 percent from the federal credit. That could mean that an employer’s tax rate of 1.1 percent would inflate to 1.4 percent.

Doug Holmes, the president of UWC Strategies, a business-oriented consulting firm, says 25 of the 31 states borrowing federal dollars will be unable to pay off their loans in time unless Congress acts soon to revise the rules. But this may be an inopportune time for Congress to try to renew the interest-rate moratorium, says Mike Katz, of the National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA). Nothing is likely to be considered before the election, and if Republicans make substantial gains, as is expected, a new stimulus is very unlikely.

Michigan, a state that has a federal unemployment insurance debt close to $4 billion, provides a striking example. During the last recession in 2002, state lawmakers raised weekly benefits by about 20 percent. Policies like this led the state to unemployment insurance insolvency in 2006, three years before the surge of borrowing among other states began. Because of this, Michigan has already felt the federal penalties that most states are now fearing.

The closest that states have ever come to this level of borrowing happened in 1983, when the recessions of the mid-1970s and early 1980s added up to a collective unemployment insurance debt of $28 billion (the number is adjusted to 2007 dollars). During the first few years of the 1980s, Congress passed a series of reforms that aided the ability of states to pay off the loans. 

By 1990, all the outstanding debt was paid off, but much of that was aided by a prosperous economic rebound throughout the mid- to late ’80s. “If we’re going to recover from this period, we need to get lucky,” says NASWA Executive Director Rich Hobbie. “That is a steep hill to climb.”

I read a recent national study that noted the quantity of wellness programs for employers is not the problem; it’s the quality that’s lacking.

Why are the initiatives not effective in some cases?

• Not customizing the program to your workplace culture
• A lack of commitment from senior leadership
• Ineffective communication about elements of the wellness effort

The research is here; part of the solution can come from attending the Indiana Employee Health and Wellness Summit on September 1 at the Indianapolis Marriott East.

Gov. Mitch Daniels will be there to provide a dynamic opening; state and national experts will deliver keynote and luncheon addresses; and different education tracks will help show you how to successfully implement and improve your wellness programs. The bottom line: enhance your employees’ health and your organization’s bottom line.

Check out the details. A small investment could pay big dividends.

Go to 100 different businesses, and I venture you would find that 99 have some type of break room disputes taking place. Maybe there are few surprises here in this OfficeTeam survey, but it at least confirms what many are experiencing.

Any horror stories to share? Favorites from the tip list below?

Forty-four percent of workers interviewed said making a mess for others to clean up is the most annoying break room behavior.

Workers were asked, “In your opinion, which of the following is the most annoying workplace break room behavior?” Their responses:

• Making a mess for others to clean up – 44%
• Stealing a coworker’s food – 19%
• Leaving expired/spoiled food in the refrigerator – 18%
• Eating smelly food – 5%
• Nothing annoying/no break room – 7%
• Other/don’t know – 7%

“Many people believe their actions in the break room go unnoticed, but subtle behaviors can send a message about an individual’s consideration for others,” said OfficeTeam executive director Robert Hosking. “Leaving messes in a common area will have colleagues wondering whether you’re just as careless in other aspects of the job.”

OfficeTeam offers five tips for minding your manners in the lunch room:

• Remember what your mother told you. If you spill something in the microwave or on the counter, wipe it up. It’s also common courtesy to refill anything you’ve emptied in the kitchen, such as the coffee pot or napkin dispenser.
• Spare the air. You may love the smell of your famous “seafood surprise,” but your neighbors might not share your enthusiasm. Avoid bringing extremely pungent foods to the office that could offend your colleagues’ olfactory senses.
• Stake your claim. Label your food with your name and the date. This will ward off break room bandits and make it obvious when the item should be thrown away.
• Get the hint. Schedule alerts on your calendar so you’ll remember to take home or toss out leftovers or groceries from the refrigerator. This will help free up storage space for coworkers.
• Do a little dirty work. Clean up around the break room even if someone else created the mess. By simply picking up a piece of trash or wiping a table, you’ll set an example for others to follow and create a more pleasant and potentially safer environment for your colleagues. If you see an ongoing issue with break room etiquette, consider asking management to implement a staff policy or reinforce the rules of conduct.  

It’s a little too easy to take potshots at Washington these days. But even though the headline on a story I saw stated, "Poll: Some feds are overpaid and underworked," it’s not really an indictment of the individuals working for federal agencies.

It’s more of a "fix the darn system, train the people we have and give them the tools to do the job effectively" message. Just as has been the message with local government reform in Indiana, it’s not knocking the people (or at least most of them) but the bureaucracy that protects the status quo and prevents taxpayer dollars from being used efficiently.

Here are some of the details from the Government Executive article:

A May survey of 2,523 participants conducted by Hart Research Associates found that 67 percent of respondents believed a major source of government waste was due to inefficient federal employees receiving generous benefits or high salaries.

Respondents did not indicate a desire to cut federal pay, but instead expressed support for improved training and recruiting of federal employees to increase government efficiency.

Overall, respondents said they wanted a government that runs better, regardless of size. Sixty-two percent of respondents thought the government’s priority should be to improve efficiency and effectiveness, while 36 percent considered reducing the size of federal government a priority.

"Public lack of confidence in government’s ability to solve problems is more closely related to perceptions of government performance than it is a function of partisan affiliation or political ideology," the authors of the survey said in a statement. Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research; John Whaley, a Hart Research senior analyst; and Ruy Teixeira, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, conducted the survey.

"They [those polled] are extremely receptive to reform efforts that would eliminate inefficient government programs, implement performance-based policy decisions, and adopt modern management methods and information technologies," the authors said. Forty-five percent of respondents said efforts at improving federal management should begin with holding government more accountable for how it spends money.

While the majority of those polled — 74 percent — believed government could be effective with better management, 23 percent said the government was "bound to be ineffective no matter what."

OfficeTeam released a statement touting the results of an employer survey that illustrates how references impact the hiring of candidates. See if this coincides with your own company’s practices. (Sometimes, as a joke, when my colleagues and friends use me for a reference, when their potential employers call, I like to answer with, "How did you get this number?," in a really accusatory and put-off tone. Screaming "Who dis is?!?!?" is also a lot of fun.)

A strong resume and interview may place job seekers in the running for a position, but a new survey from OfficeTeam finds the results of a reference check can be the real deal maker — or breaker. Managers interviewed said they remove more than one in five (21 percent) candidates from consideration after speaking to their professional contacts. When it comes to what hiring managers are looking for when speaking to references, more than a third (36 percent) said they are most interested in getting input on an applicant’s past job duties and experience. Learning about the individual’s strengths and weaknesses came in second, with 31 percent of the response.

The survey was developed by OfficeTeam, a leading staffing service specializing in the placement of highly skilled administrative professionals. It was conducted by an independent research firm and is based on telephone interviews with more than 1,000 senior managers at companies with 20 or more employees. 

Managers were asked, “Approximately what percentage of job candidates do you remove from consideration for a position with your company after checking their references?” The average response was 21 percent. 

Managers also were asked, “When speaking to an applicant’s job references, what is the most important information you hope to receive?” Their responses:

• Description of past job duties and experience - 36%
• A view into the applicant’s strengths and weaknesses - 31%
• Confirmation of job title and dates of employment – 11%
• Description of workplace accomplishments – 8%
• A sense of the applicant’s preferred work culture – 7%
• Other/don’t know - 7%

“When hiring managers narrow the field to a few potential candidates, the reference check often becomes the deciding factor,” said OfficeTeam executive director Robert Hosking. “To distinguish themselves from the competition, job seekers should assemble a solid list of contacts who can persuasively communicate their qualifications and professional attributes.”

In 2007, about 60 colleges and universities had enacted a smoke-free policy. That number has grown to nearly 400.

There has been some external push. Clean air laws in Illinois, New Jersey and Wisconsin require smoke-free university housing. Smoking is prohibited on all public campuses in Arkansas and at every school (public and private) in Iowa. A couple of big players soon join the list, with no smoking at the University of Florida this fall or at any of the three University of Michigan campuses starting in 2011.

For those that still allow lighting up, more have policies that restrict the number of areas and move smokers away from building entrances. What have student reactions been? According to a CongressDaily story:

A Student Tobacco-Free Task Force was created when the University of Denver went smoke-free in January. Similar associations have been created at other colleges to help enforce the policy and support the change.

However, students who oppose the ban on smoking cigarettes outdoors have not remained silent. Groups of students held daily "smoke-ins" in protest when the University of Pennsylvania attempted to ban smoking at all 14 of its campuses in 2008.

The University of Denver found that about two-thirds of the student population was in favor of banning tobacco. "Interestingly, these divisions were not necessarily based on one’s personal use of tobacco," said Katie Dunker, the assistant director of health promotions at the school. "We had students who use tobacco who were for it and students who didn’t who were against it."

A list from the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation puts campuses of 15 Indiana colleges and universities in the total smoke-free category. There are another nine Hoosier campuses rated smoke-free with the exception of some remote outdoor areas.