Around-the-clock medical coverage

Marrying workers' compensation and health insurance plans to reduce administrative workloads and get a firm grip on expenses. Can it work?     

Trial-by-fire transformation: an interview with Globe Metallurgical's Arden C. Sims. Interview by Bruce Rayner

Globe Metallurgical Inc., a $115 million supplier of specialty metals, is best known as the first small company to win the Baldrige Award in 1988. But there is much more to this gutsy little company than total quality. During the 1980s, Globe transformed itself from a rust-belt has-been on the verge of bankruptcy into a high-technology, high-quality industry leader. Along the way, the company went private in a management-led leveraged buyout, embraced flexible work teams, adopted a high-value-added, niche marketing strategy, and took its business global. Leading the way in Globe's reinvention was Chief Executive Arden C. Sims, the slow-talking son of a West Virginian coal miner. When he joined the company in 1984, Sims had no experience in the new managerial techniques. He was a product of the old school of management: cut costs and trim operations to regain competitiveness. But he soon discovered that old-style management was not enough to battle offshore competitors, an unproductive work force, rising costs, and outdated production technology. He was forced to go looking for new ideas and practices. In a succession of learning experiences, Sims attended a seminar on total quality in 1985, paving the way for the company's quality program; he discovered the power of flexible work teams when management was forced to run the furnaces during a year-long strike; he organized an LBO, allowing him to change the work order even more dramatically; and he took the company global and into highly profitable niche markets by severing a long-standing relationship with Globe's sales and marketing representative. As a result of these and other changes, Globe leads the specialty metals industry in virtually all performance measures.     

Is Germany a model for managers?

Most American managers have a hard time making sense of Germany. The country has a fraction of the resources and less than one-third the population of the United States. Labor costs are substantially higher, paid vacations are at least three times as long, and strong unions are deeply involved at all levels of business, from the local plant to the corporate boardroom. Yet German companies manage to produce internationally competitive products in key manufacturing sectors, making Germany the greatest competitive threat to the United States after Japan. The seemingly paradoxical nature of the German economy typically evokes one of two diametrically opposed responses. The first is to celebrate the German economy as a "model" worth emulating--indeed, as the answer to declining U.S. competitiveness. The alternative, more skeptical response is to question Germany's staying power in a new, more competitive global economy. According to Kirsten Wever and Christopher Allen, the problem with both points of view is that they miss the forest for the trees. Observers are so preoccupied with praising--or blaming--individual components of the German economy that they fail to see the dynamic logic that ties these components together into a coherent system. In their review of recent research on the German business system, Wever and Allen argue that managers can learn an important lesson from Germany. In the global economy, competition isn't just between companies but between entire socioeconomic systems. Germany's ability to design a cohesive economic and social system that adapts continuously to changing requirements goes a long way toward explaining that country's competitive success.     

Will your Medicare claims stand up?

In the first two installments of our series, we gave you the details of reimbursement under the new Medicare fee schedule, and showed how to code evaluation-and-management services with the revised CPT system.* This issue, we'll tell what to expect from Medicare carriers as they teach and enforce the new payment rules.     

Small firm mutual funds: Additional evidence on the small firm effect

Returns generated with small firm mutual fund data are used to examine the extent to which identification of a small firm effect is due to the difficulty in measuring the direct and indirect transaction costs involved in investing in the common shares of small capitalization stocks. Little if any evidence of the excess risk-adjusted returns is obtained for either of the period 1978–1983, when the small firm effect was observed, or the period 1984–1989, when it was not. The small firm effect may therefore be attributed to (1) higher direct transaction costs including bid-ask spread and broker fees and (2) higher indirect transaction costs including portfolio management expenses and market impact costs.The authors thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Brett Salazar for valuable assistance in data collection. Errors remain our own.