1. FY18 LEM Update How are we doing so far? Rachel Kahn
Renee & Rachel AIDET (Renee Start)
Renee (AID)- With you approximately 30 minutes to give you a review of where we’ve been with the LEM and where we’re going in FY18
Rachel (ET + Promise) - Thank you in advance for your attention. Our ask is that while we’re presenting you start thinking about your personal LEM, keeping in mind your experience from FY17 and everything you heard yesterday, because at the end, we’re going to ask for questions and feedback.
Promise – Our promise to you is that you’ll know more about the FY18 LEM than you did when you walked in the door today…and hopefully you’ll feel positively about it as well.
Rachel Kahn

2. FY18 LEM How are we doing so far?
EXPECTATION: All leaders will have populated their LEM with their FY18 Annual Goals by today
WHERE WE ARE: ALMOST COMPLETE
As of 2:30pm yesterday, 13 leaders did not have a complete LEM at 100% weight.
All custom goals and templates have been built. Contact Rachel Kahn if you have unresolved questions.
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

3. FY18 LEM How are we doing so far?
EXPECTATION: 80% of LEM Goals will come from templates (non-custom goals)
WHERE WE ARE: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Approximate 84% of selected goals (in terms of count and weight) were selected from the original goal templates.
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

4. FY18 LEM How are we doing so far?
EXPECTATION: Leaders should ideally carry no more than 6 goals
WHERE WE ARE: MIXED RESULTS
71 leaders have more than 6 goals in their FY18 Annual LEM. However, we know that sometimes this is justified with leaders who carry goals for multiple facilities or department. Continue to be mindful of where your focus needs to be
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

5. FY18 LEM How are we doing so far?
EXPECTATION: Utilize weight to indicate the level of attention needed (30% = Urgency, 20% = Focus, 10% = Awareness)
WHERE WE ARE: MIXED RESULTS
11 Leaders have the same weight applied across all their measures
Weight is not always consistent with prior performance (i.e. areas of high performance in FY17 continue to be weighted with “Urgency” in FY18)
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

6. FY18 LEM How are we doing so far?
EXPECTATION: Utilize weight to indicate the level of attention needed (30% = Urgency, 20% = Focus, 10% = Awareness)
WHERE WE ARE: MIXED RESULTS
11 Leaders have the same weight applied across all their measures
Weight is not always consistent with prior performance (i.e. areas of high performance in FY17 continue to be weighted with “Urgency” in FY18)
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

7. FY18 LEM – Global View (EXPECTATION)
200 Leaders in LEM – Approximate Distribution of FY18 Goals
Coworker Engagement
200 Leaders
Finance
200 Leaders
Quality
100 Leaders
Patient Experience
150 Leaders
Growth
150 Leaders
Phys Sat.
100 Leaders
RACHEL
Though we didn’t have time today to walk through Rules of Thumb for every pillar, Renee, myself, and the Accountability Team had a goal that you would walk out of here today with a pretty good idea about what pillars you’d have goals for in your LEM evaluation.
There are still specifics on the goals to be worked out, from this graphic you can get an idea about expectations for how goals will be distributed. Each box represents our 9 pillars, and it shows how many leaders will have a goal in that pillar. So we have about 200 leaders in the LEM today. You see that 200 leaders should have a Coworker Engagement and Finance goal in their LEM. Yes, everyone is expected to have a Coworker Engagement and a Finance goal which may refer to your budget, wages per UOS, and supplies per UOS. In the next row down, you see we expect for about 150 leaders to have a Patient Experience and Growth in their LEM, meaning the majority of you will have these two pillars in your LEM as well. Quality and Physician Sat we expect about half of this room to carry those goals
Safety will be bit less because of our strong performance. And Transformation and Service to the Poor & Vulnerable will only be about 5-10 people. And of course, this is not to discount the importance of those measures…hopefully you learned a lot yesterday about how you can impact that in your day-to-day work.
5-10 Leaders
Safety
50 Leaders
5-10 Leaders
Transformation
Service to Poor & Vulnerable

8. FY18 LEM – Global View (WHERE WE ARE)
170 Leaders in LEM – Approximate Distribution of FY18 Goals
Coworker Engagement
158 Leaders
Finance
159 Leaders
Quality
96 Leaders
Patient Experience
135 Leaders
Growth
98 Leaders
Phys Sat.
94 Leaders
RACHEL
Though we didn’t have time today to walk through Rules of Thumb for every pillar, Renee, myself, and the Accountability Team had a goal that you would walk out of here today with a pretty good idea about what pillars you’d have goals for in your LEM evaluation.
There are still specifics on the goals to be worked out, from this graphic you can get an idea about expectations for how goals will be distributed. Each box represents our 9 pillars, and it shows how many leaders will have a goal in that pillar. So we have about 200 leaders in the LEM today. You see that 200 leaders should have a Coworker Engagement and Finance goal in their LEM. Yes, everyone is expected to have a Coworker Engagement and a Finance goal which may refer to your budget, wages per UOS, and supplies per UOS. In the next row down, you see we expect for about 150 leaders to have a Patient Experience and Growth in their LEM, meaning the majority of you will have these two pillars in your LEM as well. Quality and Physician Sat we expect about half of this room to carry those goals
Safety will be bit less because of our strong performance. And Transformation and Service to the Poor & Vulnerable will only be about 5-10 people. And of course, this is not to discount the importance of those measures…hopefully you learned a lot yesterday about how you can impact that in your day-to-day work.
5 Leaders
Safety 31
Leaders
3 Leaders
Transformation
Service to Poor & Vulnerable

9. ALL CHI ST.VINCENT LEADERS
FY18 LEM
Weighted Average
LOM Measure
ALL CHI ST.VINCENT LEADERS
166 Total Leaders
Coworker Engagement
17.62
Finance
21.90
Growth
11.90
Patient Experience
20.12
Physician Satisfaction
6.81
Quality
11.86
Safety
2.77
Service to Poor
0.33
Transformation
1.02
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

10. FY18 LEM Weighted Average LOM Measure HOSPITAL/CLINICAL
77 Total Leaders
Coworker Engagement
19.09
Finance
18.57
Growth
10.26
Patient Experience
23.25
Physician Satisfaction
4.22
Quality
17.14
Safety
2.27
Service to Poor
0.32
Transformation
0.00
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

11. FY18 LEM Weighted Average LOM Measure NON-CLINICAL/ADMIN
57 Total Leaders
Coworker Engagement
18.86
Finance
23.53
Growth
10.44
Patient Experience
12.02
Physician Satisfaction
8.51
Quality
11.39
Safety
5.00
Service to Poor
0.53
Transformation
2.98
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.

12. FY18 LEM Weighted Average LOM Measure CLINICS – PE & HCA
32 Total Leaders
Coworker Engagement
11.88
Finance
27.03
Growth
18.44
Patient Experience
Physician Satisfaction
10.00
Quality
0.00
Safety
Service to Poor
Transformation
RACHEL:
Over the last 6 weeks, there’s been a lot ongoing work with the Measurement Team and the Accountability Team, including all of the conveners defining our approach and ultimately creating our goals.
Throughout this process, the group has been very purposeful to address the questions we brought forth in the last slide. For that reason, the three themes you see at the top here kept rising up as part of the conversation. We kept asking ourselves if the end result we were heading for would help all of us leaders in the LEM Improve Focus, Increase Collaboration, and Decrease Ambiguity as far as expectations and process. And though we still have some work to do before we’re 100% ready for FY18, I think we’re well on our way to achieve those objectives.
For example:
To Improve focus – Across most pillars, you’ll see a reduced number of goals to choose from, according to where our organizational priorities are
To Increase collaboration – You’ll see more about that later
Decrease ambiguity – how does this goal apply to me?
In the interest of decreasing ambiguity, I’m going to start by sharing some of the “Guiding Principles” our teams have created about the LEM. You can think of these as our foundation or some essential assumptions that help us set the tone for how the LEM will work within our Organization.
At our last LDI, our CEO, Chad Aduddell, had established for us that our individual LEM performance will be the tool which determines merit-based raises.
It’s also very important to acknowledge the differences between the Living our Mission measures and the LEM. In the LEM, we as leaders may have goals on our evaluation that are not exactly the same as the Living our Mission goals, the 9 specific definitions Chad presented about yesterday. Some might – for example, I’m one of the few people in the organization who carries the exact definition for Transformation that we saw. But for the vast majority of the group in this room our goals will be defined a bit differently, but we know that success in those goal will support positive performance in those 9 Living our Mission measures in areas we can influence.
Our group also established that 80% of LEM Goals that will be populated for this next fiscal year will come from a pre-built template. This is a standard that Kelly has shared with us from Studer Group. We learned a lot this year about better ways to build template goals. But what we also know we need to do better at is managing the process of creating custom goals. Because the reality is again that the template goals will only address about 80% of the goals for the leaders in this room. And we know that there are groups within our organization who may not see a clear connection to CAUTI and CLABSI within their sphere of influence, but there are other ways you’d like to focus on Quality.
That’s where this last dot point comes in. As much as possible, we want the goals created in LEM, both template and custom, to have a direct line of sight to the Living our Mission goal. But for those that don’t, exceptions will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Though you can expect any custom goal you propose to be much more closely reviewed early on by the Measurement Team, the Conveners, and Chad Aduddell also said he would be reviewing all of these goals himself.