Talent Blog

High-Performance Organizations View Interns as Long-term Investments

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:05:00 GMT

An often cited rationale for hiring interns is the prospect of having someone around to handle the grunt work no one else wants to do. But these days, many companies have more strategic goals in mind for their internship programs. The latest study from the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) found that top-performing organizations are more likely to realize a return on their investment in internship programs by converting interns into full-time employees. Nearly a third of survey respondents (28%) said that more than half of their interns convert, compared to 12% of lower performing organizations.

The study, conducted on behalf of an i4cp Fortune 500 member company, also found that only half of the organizations that have internship programs attempt to quantify the benefits to begin with, though high-performance organizations are much more likely to do so (64%) than lower performing companies (38%). This is not surprising, considering that high-performance organizations almost always do more to measure and quantify the strategic benefits of their efforts.

Nearly half (47%) of high-performing organizations reported intern labor productivity as the main measure for quantifying the benefits of an internship program, while 45% said improved retention among full-time employees who were formerly interns is a significant factor. Only 27% of lower performing organizations reported that these measures were used to quantify the benefits of internship programs to a high or very high degree.

Among the top-performing companies, improving the productivity of other employees by distributing some of their tasks to interns was the least used metric (22%), whereas low-performing organizations were most likely to select this as a ROI quantifying measure.

The ROI of Internship Programs study, which was conducted in May 2010, is now available to i4cp members in both report and interactive data formats. The study also examined the costs companies account for in regards to internship programs, the extent to which interns are exposed to other parts of the company and the way in which schools are selected as sources of talent.

Millennials Driving Workplace Social Media

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:52:00 GMT

The newly released ASTD/i4cp research report, The Rise of Social Media: Enhancing Collaboration and Productivity Across Generations, found that social media technologies are still gaining traction in the workplace relative to increases in personal usage. For example, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they used social networks, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, either often or all the time in their personal lives, while only 20% said they did so for work-related learning. Results show that adoption of social media technologies in many organizations is not as widespread yet because it hasn't been fully integrated and formalized within the workplace. The trend, however, is that employers are increasingly figuring out how to leverage social media within their organization so as not to fall behind as both an employer of choice and as a learning organization.

Although many employees have embraced shared workspaces - such as Google Docs and SharePoint - and various social networks, it doesn't mean that all social media technologies have become mainstream. Some technologies, such as social bookmarking, virtual worlds and augmented realities, have yet to gain the same kind of broad-based popularity in either the workplace or in personal use. Additionally, generational differences observed in the survey responses show that younger generations (Millennials) were more likely to use the majority of technologies more often than older generations (Baby Boomers). The only exceptions to this rule were podcasts and virtual worlds.

Although self-reported usage of social media for on-the-job learning was relatively low, there are many signs that its rise is imminent. More than 80% of respondents said use of social media for learning within their organization would increase over the next three years, a good indication that platforms are being studied and plans are being implemented. Additionally, a growing proportion of the future workforce will be from the Millennial generation (born after 1981), who use social media technologies more than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers both at home and at work. It makes sense that usage for learning will increase within the workplace as this younger generation takes a more prominent role.

The ASTD/i4cp Rise of Social Media report explores the business case for supporting and using social media technologies from a learner's point of view. This exclusive perspective provides business leaders with insight for a new strategic priority: to leverage the power of social media tools in order to maximize learning and increase the performance of the entire workforce. While most organizations have yet to fully embrace the use of social media in the workplace, there is a strong belief among the professionals surveyed that adoption of social media technologies will continue to grow in the coming years. Hence, it is critical for business leaders to prepare for the fundamental shift in habits and expectations that the surging Millennial generation will bring to the workplace, as computers and collaborative technologies are an extension of who they are. This report includes valuable results and recommendations to help executives make strategic decisions that can positively affect organizational goals and growth.

ASTD Members can purchase a discounted copy of this report from the ASTD store.

Share your organizations triumphs and challenges as they relate to introducing social media technologies into your workplace. How do you think these new and varied communication tools will impact the workforce learning environment?

2010 Attrition – Where will it go?

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:27:29 GMT

"Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows…" the carnival barker would shout, throwing a whiffle ball into a net above a colorful spinning disk. It was a favorite carnival game when I was a kid; trying to guess/anticipate where the ball would land. But where the carnival game has a limited number of options, the business endeavor of predicting organizational attrition is more complex.

At the recent i4cp Annual Conference, a luncheon roundtable discussion I was sitting in on got into a dynamic debate regarding what attrition assumptions to use for 2010. Participants wanted to know how to benchmark how their organizations were doing. The current reality is, no one knows.

Many organizations said they were using their 2008 attrition numbers as both an assumption and a benchmark, since 2009 was such an "odd" year. In truth, there may have been some stronger language used to describe 2009. But as one i4cp member said, "What if 2009 is the new norm?" To hedge for that uncertainty, my recommendation was to use a three year average rate for 2007 - 2009. Hedging is an effective strategy in uncertain times.

That discussion stuck with me beyond the roundtable conversation. There are so many factors that could influence attrition in 2010, including economic improvements, lifted hiring freezes and employee quality of life issues.

My bet: attrition rates for 2010 will be highly similar to levels experienced in 2003-2004. This wager may seem counterintuitive, given that the Obama administration is forecasting that unemployment will only improve slightly in 2010 and, from industries as varied as Transportation and Health Care, organizations are experiencing all-time low attrition rates. But while the phrase is often over-used, I predict there is a "perfect storm" brewing in the American workforce that will cause attrition to surge in the coming year. What factors lead me to this conclusion?

Workers are tired! As the March 1, 2010 BusinessWeek Numbers point out, "The productivity of nonfarm US business has increased 6% since the end of 2007. That's because there are fewer workers, but those that remain are producing more per hour." To which anyone who is currently employed will say "duh!" This is the "dark side" of productivity. Prolonged overwork and burnout will take its toll on those who, so far, have been willing and able to tough it out.
Workers may start to reassess their quality of life. While there has been much written about curtailing executive compensation and bonuses, what about the average worker? For all of that extra work, for most, bonuses will be modest and salary increases minimal (if at all). According to Hewett, 48% of US companies are reporting salary freezes in 2010, compared to only 13% in 2009. In particular, top-talent with children and some financial options may start to re-evaluate their home economics and temporarily drop out of the workforce until it becomes "worth their time."
Workers may be irritated. Many organizations implemented hiring freezes in 2009 to hold the line on costs. The result is that some managers held on to poor/low performing employees, using the short-term logic that a half-performing employee is better than no employee. How can you tell if this is a problem in your workforce? If your organization is in a hiring freeze, compare your involuntary or organization-initiated terminations to the prior three years to see if it fell in 2009. In prosperous times, the result of holding on to lower-performing employees is resentment in other employees. But, given the current climate, there is an exponential increase in workload for the average and high-performing employee. That would motivate me to look for a new job in a new organization.
Many of the 2009 hiring freezes have been lifted, capital spending is starting to increase and continued (temporary) government stimulus - including the 2010 Census - is starting to awaken the job boards. This translates into increased employment options and opportunities, which may be just enough to trigger the "daisy chain" effect that will send organization attrition rates rising. That is, a situation in which top employees move on first, starting a cascade effect through the remaining tiers of workers.

So what if I am right? What should organizations do?

Know your organizations needs. Know which roles drive value. Know which talent is critical.

Now more than ever, it's important to target your human capital management practices where they will reap the most benefit! Rather than fixating on the overall separation rate, understand the "Quality of Separation." If you have not already, implement retention strategies for key roles and critical talent. The organizations that execute well will have a true competitive advantage in 2012 and beyond.

If you are interested in learning more about "Quality of Separation" and other Talent Management effectiveness metrics, contact your i4cp member representative for more information on our Talent Management Accelerator group.

What are your attrition predictions for 2010? What factors do you think will influence employee's decisions?

The War for Talent – Olympic Style

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:44:33 GMT

Consider this: The only Mexican Winter Olympian in Vancouver is 51 year old Austrian skier, Prince Hubertus of Hohenlohe-Langenburg; pairs skater and Japan native, Yuko Kavaguti, is competing for Russia; American ice dancing siblings, Chris Reed and Cathy Reed, are competing for the Japanese team. There are a handful of other examples in the 2010 Olympic Games of talented athletes that are representing a country that they do not necessarily call home, whether through dual citizenship, marriage or immigration.

What can organizations learn from this? First, that the evening Olympic medal count by country has become as washed out as the "Buy American" slogan. After all, with Kia assembling cars in Georgia and Chevrolet manufacturing in Canada, which is the true U.S. automobile?

Second, that talented people will always have options, regardless of the economy. While thought leaders may debate the extent or existence of a "war for talent" in the current economic climate, this Olympics highlights the fact that talent cannot be confined by borders.

In the now famous (at least in Human Capital circles) Economist cover story, "The Search for Talent," Daniel Pink was quoted as saying that "talented people need organizations less than organizations need talented people." This year's Olympics proves the truth to that assertion.

Don't assume your current talent doesn't have other opportunities, especially talent with the potential and desire to take on broader responsibility. The Olympic example shows that talented individuals will create opportunities for themselves and that they have the desire to fulfill their potential, regardless of the need to sacrifice. Also, realize that tried and true recruiting and retention methods may not be adequate for dealing with top talent. For a competitive athlete, the chance to train with the best and compete at the Olympics trumps patriotism, the traditional appeal and incentive of the games. Talent will seek out challenging opportunity to grow, develop and thrive. Making sure that opportunities exist for top talent to be their best is the best way to keep that talent engaged and in place.

What's your organization doing to keep its top talent in place?

Women and the Workforce. What Have We Really Done?

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:32:00 GMT

"We Did It!" is the cover story of the January 2nd issue of The Economist. The cover features a photo of a popular World War II-era poster with an image of a "working woman" flexing her arm. (I think of "Rosie the Riveter," but according to Wikipedia, J. Howard Miller's "We Can Do It!" is commonly mistaken for Rosie.) The Second World War was indeed a significant marker in terms of the number of women entering the U.S. job market, and the contributions that were made to business and industry by women were unprecedented at the time. But how far have we come since then?

The issue features three write-ups on the affect of women on the world's workforce (women currently comprise or are quickly approaching half the workforce in the U.S. and much of Europe). In "Briefing,"the author concludes that "the landmark book in the rise of feminism was arguably not Ms. Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, but Daniel Bell's The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society. In an industrial economy, it's argued that men have natural physical advantages. But in a knowledge or service economy, those advantages dissipate. The current "mancession" seems to illustrate the point. In the U.S., the female unemployment rate is approximately 8.5%, compared to approximately 11% for men

The article discusses the past and present challenges that woman face in the workforce, from overt sexism (as seen today in AMC's Mad Men), to overcoming leadership opportunity barriers and balancing family responsibilities with career aspirations.

But there are signs that these trends are reversing in the Western world, and countries that don't adjust will be at a competitive disadvantage by neglecting this potential talent pool. The article cites a projection that "by 2011 there will be 2.6 million more women than men studying in American universities." That's a potent projection for the future of knowledge economies.

While these articles do a wonderful job of highlighting the issues and exploring how different countries are approaching the challenge, a major implication was not addresses. The impact of higher education costs to the workforce realties.

According to College Board, the tuition for a four-year public institution runs roughly $30,000 and more than $100,000 for private schools. This does not include the costs of books, housing and other expenses.

Currently, I'm scheduled to pay-off my student loans for two advance degrees when my one-year-old son is in his mid-20s. While I love my son more than anything, dedicating myself exclusively to him and not working is not fiscally feasible. Luckily, I have a career that offers flexibility, a supportive family and progressive employer. This helps to balance my competing obligations. But even with all of those advantages, it is challenging! More challenging than I imagined (see baby blogs 1 and 2).

So, how is this feminist forecast a productivity issue? In era of recession and recovery, employee engagement is a top priority for high-performing organizations. Employers who recognize their employees' personal needs with Employee Assistance Programs gain not just a great deal of loyalty, but also increase productivity. Here are a few family and working mom friendly programs that organization may want to consider offering all employees to enable them to bring their best self to work:

Subsidized or on-site financial planning
Subsidized or on-site fitness programs
On-site health fairs
Child/Eldercare support
Affinity Groups for working parents

Recognizing today's trends is the best way to plan for future success.

What's your organization doing to promote a family-friendly environment for working mothers?

Few Companies Have Employee Retention Strategies for an Economic Uptick

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 16:49:30 GMT

While nearly half admit the economic downturn has slowed the drain of employees, that doesn't mean companies are effectively addressing ways to retain workers when the situation improves, according to the latest study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp). The findings for our Retention Strategy and Execution Pulse Survey are now available to members.

According to the study findings, which are now available to i4cp's corporate members, 47% of polled organizations said the current economic doldrums have had a "somewhat" or "significant" positive effect on employee retention. However, when asked what will happen when the economy rebounds, less than half (46%) of companies said they are concerned about retention to a "high" or "very high" extent.

When it comes to trying to keep employees on board when the economy upticks, just 20% of organizations reported they have increased their retention efforts. However, among higher-performing companies, 27% said retention efforts have increased, compared to 17% of lower performers.

Regarding a budget for retention efforts, 23% of companies overall admit they don't have one, while 43% say their budgets have remained about the same. Twenty percent of higher performers said they don't have a retention budget, while 25% of lower performers admitted they do not have one.

In addition, when employees do leave, the study suggested that many companies may be missing the "why" retention boat. For instance, 68% of companies overall conduct face-to-face exit interviews to learn what led employees to leave the organization, but only 17% take action to address those issues from a "high" to "very high" extent. Among higher performers, 65% conduct exit interviews and 20% take action, while lower performers do so at 77% and 16%, respectively.

"It seems that many companies may be dropping the ball when it comes to retention issues," said i4cp senior research analyst Carol Morrison. "They've identified retention as a concern, but they're not willing to fund programs for it. And, they are losing out on opportunities to find out why employees are leaving. Clearly, more attention to retention issues is going to be needed as the economy improves and turnover inevitably increases."

Of those organizations which have a plan in place, 44% of respondents said they don't regularly review their retention strategies and programs. In higher-performing organizations, that number drops to 32%, while 51% of lower performers said they do not review the strategies/programs.

So, how effective are organizational efforts to retain talent? Overall, 48% of companies believe their efforts are "somewhat" or "highly" effective. The employee segments are headed up by senior managers, 56% from a "high" to "very high" extent, followed by employees in critical roles (41%) and high performers, also at 41 %. In general, 62% of responding companies said they have made an effort to identify specific talent to retain, and HR was cited by 30% has having primary responsibility for that task.

Download the Retention Strategy and Execution findings now.

Need Talent? 25% of Companies Are Contacting Competitor Employees Directly

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:20:00 GMT

The recession may have weakened the war for talent, but the battles have intensified. In the latest member-driven study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp), which looked at competitive recruiting practices among organizations, a quarter of companies said they recruit new talent by contacting their competitors' employees directly. Over 40% say they actively source competitors' employees in certain positions to a moderate or higher extent.

The study, the results of which are now available exclusively to i4cp members (download the results now), also revealed that, when searching for talent, 67% of respondents' organizations utilize recruiting firms to fill positions. Not surprisingly, large companies (10,000 employees or more) are more likely to use an external firm (79%) than firms with 1,000 workers or fewer, which reported they do so 58% of the time.

Though a majority of organizations use external recruiting firms, a third of respondents said that using headhunter techniques are seen as "bad form" for internal recruiters, and a quarter stated that they damage a company's brand.

Mostly, companies polled use external searches selectively. Overall, 58% said they use headhunters to fill certain key positions. In high-performance organizations - firms that consistently outperform their competitors in market share, revenue growth, profitability and customer satisfaction - 63% use external firms for filling key positions, compared to 54% of lower performers. Overall, only 15% said they use the option "fairly often" for a minority of jobs in the organization.

"These study results speak to the fact that many organizations are concerned not just with finding talent, but with finding the right talent," observed i4cp senior research analyst Carol Morrison. "Developing current employees for advancement is an excellent strategy, but recognizing that there are times when a company can benefit from hiring externally and adding fresh perspective is a very practical and relevant sourcing approach, too."

In general, senior leadership positions are the most likely to be targeted for headhunting services, with 66% of respondents tabbing that as their top choice, followed by positions where talent is difficult to find (44%), and 40% of respondents use headhunters to fill high-skilled positions.

Regarding the future use of headhunting for talent searches, the results are mixed. Overall, 23% of polled organizations said they don't plan to headhunt in the near future, while 22% are "discussing" the option, 20% are planning to try it on a limited basis and 16% plan to use headhunters on an increasing basis. Almost a quarter (23%) of high-performance organizations plan to increase the use of competitive recruiting practices, compared to just 4% of lower performers.

So, how else are companies recruiting these days? According to the study, 13% opt for online search engines (Google, etc.) from a high to very high extent, and the same percentage turn to LinkedIn as an avenue for finding talent search options. High-performance organizations are more likely to use search engines (20%) and LinkedIn (12%) than lower performers (23% and 9%, respectively).

The Competitive Recruiting Practices survey was conducted by i4cp in November 2009. The full results of the survey are available exclusively for all i4cp corporate members.

Learning Evaluation for Business Results

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:33:00 GMT

If you want it done, measure it. If you want it done right, evaluate it. But what types of measurement and evaluation are the most effective? When does a learning function stop going through the motions and start showing true value as a business partner that can help to achieve strategic goals?

A new study commissioned by the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) answers these questions by showing how companies use information gathered from learning evaluations. It also identifies which techniques are most strongly linked to successful evaluation and, more generally, better market performance.

The study found that, in most cases, using Kirkpatrick/Phillips (K/P) levels is associated with greater success in the area of learning metrics. Simply put, if respondents said their organizations used a given K/P level of evaluation, they were more likely to give their organizations a higher score in terms of learning evaluation success. The exception to this rule is when organizations only measure Level 1 (reactions of participants). Level 3 (evaluation of behavior) and Level 4 (evaluation of results) were seen to be the most valuable.

This study also looked at specific practices. It found, for example, that firms using evaluation to gauge whether employees are learning what is required or to calculate learning's effects on business outcomes are far more likely to view their evaluation efforts as successful and to have better market performance. Other important actions include making sure learning positively influences employee behavior and demonstrating the value of learning to others in the organization. The most valuable use of evaluation, however, is to improve overall business results. Companies that say they do this to a high extent tend to see results, as this action was the most positively correlated to market performance.

The key findings suggest that today's organizations do not need to settle for learning evaluations that are done as more of a ritual than as a business-improvement strategy. Good evaluation techniques are available, and they can be used to make the whole organization stronger.

i4cp members have full access to study findings. See the study and listen to a webinar on the subject. Nonmembers can look to the ASTD official blog for more information.

Most Companies Don't Measure the Bottom-Line Impact of Diversity Programs

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

While most companies agree that diversity issues in the workplace deserve attention, not many have a clear and consistent definition of just what "it" is, according to i4cp's latest study. The results are now available to i4cp members.

The study found overall, only about 1 in 5 (21%) study respondents have a broad and inclusive definition of diversity, while 17% admit they have no definition at all. Higher market-performing organizations are more likely to define diversity broadly, with 28% reporting they include all diversity groups in their definition, compared to only 15% of lower-performing companies that include them all. Roughly one in four (23%) lower-performer companies do not even have a diversity definition, and 12% of higher performers don't either. Also, few organizations measure the bottom-line impact of diversity initiatives. In higher-performing organizations, 76% said they do not calculate a return on their diversity investments, while 80% of lower performers don't measure ROI.

Higher-performing organizations have a more inclusive definition of diversity

Diversity strategy, however, is a widely recognized topic, particularly among larger companies. A full 78% of organizations with 10,000 or more employees report having a diversity strategy, compared to 44% of companies with 100 to 999 employees and 31% in companies with fewer than 100 workers.

The perceived importance of diversity is not lost on companies, either. Seventy-two percent of higher-performing organizations say that diversity issues are "important" or "very important" today, and 80% believe the issue will be important/very important in 10 years. That compares to 76% of lower performers who feel diversity is important or very important today, and 83% of them believe it will be so in 10 years.

"Defining 'diversity and inclusion' is a primary challenge for organizations to 'move the needle.' If you cannot agree on what diversity is, how do you create a strategy?" asks i4cp's Mary Ann Downey. "How do you know when you have succeeded? Another challenge is measurement. If you define diversity narrowly to attributes that are measurable, such as race/ethnicity, gender, etc., are you addressing the business challenge?"

Regarding budget considerations for diversity programs, larger and higher-performing companies are more likely to set a specific budget. Fifty-nine percent of companies with more than 10,000 workers have specific budgets for diversity issues, compared to 19% of companies with 100-999 employees, and 11% of companies with fewer than 100 workers. Higher performers (48%) are also more apt to specifically fund such initiatives than are lower-performing firms, at 27%.

When it comes to measuring the success of their programs, organizations at all performance levels agree that retention and engagement top the list. Improvement in employee retention was cited by 69% of higher performers as the top diversity success measurement, followed by better employee engagement results at 54%. More than half (56%) of lower performers cited retention as the top measurement, and 54% (the same as higher performers) pointed to improved employee engagement. When reviewing diversity metrics, companies at all levels tend to rely on the previous year's results for comparison purposes.

To support diversity strategies, the most common infrastructure in place is diversity training, favored by 53% of higher performers and 54% of lower-performing companies. Diversity recruiting is favored by 49% of higher performers, compared to 36% of lower performers.

The Diversity Practices Survey was conducted by i4cp in September of 2009. The full results of the survey are available exclusively for all i4cp corporate members.

Additionally, i4cp will be hosting a webinar titled, Global Diversity and Inclusion: A Johnson & Johnson Success Story, today, November 5, 2009 at 1pm EST. The webinar will be presented by Arisa Cunningham, Vice President of Global Diversity at Johnson & Johnson.

Heirs, Spares and Getting Prepared

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:51:01 GMT

Few people in the U.S. have been deprived of a chance in the past year or so to read or view speculative news reports about the health issues of Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Although Jobs has been less than forthcoming with the details of his health status, it was serious enough to necessitate a corporate time-out for him. Because his persona is so closely associated with Apple's culture and its success, confidence in the tech firm's future - along with Apple stock prices - hit a speed bump when Jobs stepped away. Happily, both Mr. Jobs and Apple have rebounded. We certainly wish him well.

A very different outcome befell not one, but two Indiana organizations following the sudden death of their top leader last year. Health savings account pioneer J. Patrick Rooney headed both a medical insurance company and a foundation that helped patients dispute medical bills. His unexpected passing during a time of great volatility in healthcare-related industries and with no designated successors prepared to step in signaled disaster for the two organizations he led. Within months of Rooney's death, the foundation's board declared an end to its operations. At the same time, the state of Indiana took over the health insurance firm, and liquidation was set to follow.

If Apple's close call didn't bring home the point that succession planning is important, then the circumstances in Indiana certainly do. Organizations would do well to take a page from the planning playbook of Britain's royal family - "an heir and a spare" is an oft-cited quip associated with expansions of the House of Windsor. But today's business firms also must busy themselves with expanding the work of preparing leaders for the future - enough to address forecasted needs … and maybe one or two to spare.

The umbrella of talent management encompasses many disciplines: recruiting, engagement, retention, development, workforce planning and succession planning, to name just some of the most common components. As the economic downturn has wrought changes in the ways companies approach the elements of talent management, it also has served to highlight the benefits of looking ahead, projecting the variety of circumstances an organization might encounter and planning to meet those scenarios effectively. It's no longer enough to get through today relatively unscathed. We must be on our toes and not only watching our backs, but doing our best to peer into the future. i4cp's Knowledge Centers in Talent Management, Succession Planning and Workforce Planning help you do that.

Soon, too, we'll have new results from surveys in Workforce Planning and Succession Planning to help you benchmark and to provide more insights into these compelling business challenges. Because members like you respond to our surveys, we're able to offer glimpses into the best practices of some of the top firms in today's business world. Aren't you curious to find out who's prepared for the future? Don't you hope it'll be you?

What Have You Done for You Lately?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:53:44 GMT

I ask you as a colleague and a friend - how much time off have you taken this year?

I ask for several reasons. First, I haven't taken any in a while, and misery loves company. Second, I believe that HR professionals leave more paid-time-off days on the table than people in any other occupation. While I have no hard numbers to back up that statement, I know from working nearly 10 years in corporate America that, even in good years, there is no good time in HR to take a week or more off. There's a constant grind of processes to be managed - performance management, succession planning, strategic planning, benefit design, enrollment and transition, year-end payroll, etc. Third, this recession has been harder than most, with some organizations having gone through four or five rounds of layoffs in the past 18 months. This translates to even more work for human resource professionals. All of this leads me to ask, "What have you done for you lately?"

According to The HR Anxiety Survey, conducted May 26-June 3 by Workforce Management, there were some pretty sobering findings for the profession. Seventy-three percent of respondents said they are somewhat stressed, depressed or anxious as a result of having to conduct layoffs, while 11% said they are extremely so. Fifty percent have experienced some sleeplessness, while 17% said they have experienced frequent to extreme sleeplessness.

In addition to stress at work, many of our brethren are exhausted by hearing from friends, family and even mere acquaintances about their own layoffs or workplace stress. My LinkedIn requests have doubled in the last year, and I've been asked to provide advice to numerous college students and new grads looking for that important first job. There seems to be no safe haven for HR professionals.

While the increase in stress is nearly universal, how folks are coping tends to vary. According to the Anxiety survey, almost 30% reported that they have occasionally to frequently used a substance (some legal and some not) to cope with anxiety from work. In a BusinessWeek report on the same survey, renowned thought leader Dave Ulrich noted that many staffs "are stretched to the risk of burnout."

Why should organizations be alarmed? In a nutshell, burnout-level stress has a negative impact on productivity. As almost half of the HR managers surveyed (49%) said their increased anxiety has affected their job performance, one can deduce that the rest of the workforce is similarly affected. And surprisingly, less than 10% of the survey respondents said they are utilizing their organizations' employee assistance programs (EAPs) to help them cope. HR is probably the most informed about these programs and benefits, so it seems counterintuitive that so few would take advantage of them. The ROI behind EAPs is to lower absenteeism, lower benefit expenses and increase productivity and engagement. But if so few are participating in the programs, organizations will feel the result in their bottom line as stress begins to chip away at their employees' productivity. In theory, there is a risk of a downward spiral for employees first, and then their organizations.

What to do? HR should first look within and assess the well-being of its own teams.

What does this entail? Ensuring that folks are taking their paid time off, working reasonable hours, taking lunch away from their desk and having fun (within reason) at work. Senior leaders should also communicate the importance of their EAPs and encourage employee use of these services.

So what are you going to do to take care of you? We welcome your comments.

New Study Reveals How Firms Are Preparing to Retain Workers as Economy Improves

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:15:00 GMT

The silver lining in a lousy economy is employee retention, but as economic prospects brighten, most firms are thinking about ways to retain talent, according to the latest study by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) on the subject of organizational turnover and engagement. But that doesn't necessarily translate into big raises for most employees, who have seen few pay raises of late.

In this down economy, the study, the full results of which are now available to i4cp members in both standard and interactive form (if you don't have access to the Talent Pillar, a sample of the results may be downloaded here), found that higher market performing companies are more than twice as likely to offer pay raises to keep key talent from walking out the door than are lower performers.

The study showed that 18% of high-performing organizations have already taken the step of increasing compensation levels to reduce turnover, compared to 7% of lower performers. Over the next six to 12 months, the same ratio of high performers (18%) plan to implement pay raises, while almost a quarter (24%) of lower performers have plans to do so.

That doesn't mean, however, that reducing turnover revolves around reward. The favored tactic companies overall have already taken to further reduce turnover is better internal communication with all employees, 81% naming it as the top method. Increased focus on talent management (77%) was the second-highest choice, and increased focus on succession planning (59%) ranked third. Among higher market performers, a full 91% point to communication as their top method of staunching turnover, compared to 71% of lower performers.

What about the future? Steps planned within the next year to reduce turnover by higher-performing companies include increased focus on succession planning and talent management, both cited by 70% of respondents. Leadership training is being planned by 66% of higher-performing firms. Lower performers plan to focus first on talent management issues (71%), followed by 62% who plan to increase internal communication.

"Certainly, employees who are challenged to stretch their personal finances during this difficult economy will be happy to contemplate pay increases," comments i4cp senior research analyst Carol Morrison. "But our research confirms, too, that companies understand how important it is to maintain ongoing communication with their employees, along with strong talent management programs that emphasize a future focus through development and succession."

The study also asked respondents to outline their cost-cutting measures over the last year and a half, and the overall results showed that 40% have made significant cost cuts, while 14% said they have had few or no cost-cutting measures. When viewed from a market performance perspective, however, the numbers change. Twenty-three percent of higher performers said they have instituted few or no cost-cutting measures, compared to 5% of lower performers. On the other end of the spectrum, 62% of lower performers have made significant cuts, while 31% of higher performers said they've undergone steeper cuts.

Regarding steps taken to increase engagement, the study showed that higher performers are more likely to involve employees in the process. Two of 10 respondents (21%) from higher-performing companies admit they have never surveyed their employees about engagement issues, compared to 36% of lower performers. Both higher- and lower-performing companies that conduct surveys are most likely to survey their workers annually. Based on results of their most recent surveys, 49% of higher performers reported an increase in engagement, compared to a quarter (26%) of lower market performing organizations.

The Employee Turnover and Engagement Pulse Survey was conducted by i4cp in September 2009. Download the Pulse Survey Results, Interactive Data, PowerPoint slides and more.

Future Trends of HR Metrics

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:37:00 GMT

This article was co-written by Jay Jamrog and Mary Ann Downey.

We've been asked a lot lately about the future of HR metrics. In order to answer that question, it's essential to first see how far HR analytics and metrics have come. And, although the past isn't necessarily a good predictor of the future, it's a good place to start.

Over the past 25 years, much has been written by practitioners, consultants, academics and gurus calling for the HR profession to step up and install better ways to measure not only the efficiency but also the effectiveness of the various HR functions. Even more important is a call for the measures that will show the impact that HR is having on the organization as a whole. The theory is that this would lead to more enlightened strategies for managing human capital and give HR the long-lost respect that the profession deserves.

So, how far have we come in 25 years? Unfortunately, the answer is mixed. While a few organizations are making good progress, the vast majority are not. The results of i4cp's 2009 survey on the topic showed that while almost three-quarters of the respondents said that they had HR measurements in place, most were measuring only the efficiency of various HR functions and programs. Less than a quarter were attempting to develop effectiveness metrics, and very few were measuring the impact on the organization (unless you believe that engagement and satisfaction surveys are providing a reliable gauge for measuring the impact that HR is having on the organization).

No board or CEO would ever accept this paucity of data from any other department. If marketing were measuring efficiency only, they would be reporting something like, "Last year, marketing placed more ads in more magazines at less cost." This wouldn't be greeted favorably by decision-makers. They would demand that marketing give them data on the effectiveness and impact of any advertising campaign: "Did it boost sales? Did it increase marketing share?"

So, what can HR do? We know from studying those companies that are making progress in measuring the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of HR that building a thriving human capital management metrics process takes four ingredients: good people information, a culture that makes decisions based on data, effective tools and dedicated resources. But we also know that most organizations aren't willing to devote much time and effort to this process. As a result, absent a major breakthrough, we believe that for most organizations, the measurement of human capital management will look only incrementally better 10 years from now.

But organizations willing to devote the resources to sustain the effort over the next 10 years will see real progress. Over time, continued collection of historical data on efficiency, effectiveness and impact - along with external data - will help them to build better predictive models. These models will help them gain a deeper understanding of how people add value to their processes, leading to even better predictive modeling and, subsequently, better decision-making. These cutting-edge organizations will eventually have predictive models that will help determine which roles, skills, knowledge and behaviors increase productivity, drive profitability and give the organization a competitive advantage. Through better employee planning and development, employee engagement should increase with new transparency and empowerment. There will be a virtuous cycle, because the talented and driven will want to join these companies, making them the new employers of choice and role models of the organizational world. They will represent real-world versions of a modern managerial ideal: the organization that is so excellent in so many areas that it consistently outperforms most of its competitors for extended periods of time.

Is your organization in the forefront, or are you being left behind?

Dangerous curves: Is forced ranking the pay-for-performance answer?

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:45:00 GMT

I'm not sure I know anyone who enjoyed getting graded in college "on the curve." It's strange and unnerving going into an assignment knowing that a certain percentage of students in the class are guaranteed to fail. Forced ranking leaves me with the same impression. Before the process even begins, someone is going to be number one, and someone is going to be dead last. Fine for a race, but is it the best strategy for an organization?

i4cp recently conducted a survey on pay for performance (results here), and one of the findings was that about 21% of respondent companies use a forced ranking system for performance management. I personally thought that number would be much lower. While it's used mostly by the largest companies (more than 10,000 employees), about 14% of smaller companies also said they use it.

It's not new to say that forced ranking is controversial. In the past, Microsoft, Ford and Conoco have all been sued over forced ranking systems. Microsoft managed to fend off numerous lawsuits, but it ended up ditching forced ranking a few years ago. Conoco and Ford both settled, with Ford paying out $10.5 million. Ouch. Check Google and you'll find endless articles on both sides of the issue. Dick Grote's book on forced ranking is a good reference on the pro side.

Those that are for the system will say that it's a relatively easy, definitive way to identify performers. As pay for performance becomes increasingly important, companies are looking for ways to effectively identify high performers. Forced ranking appears to be an attractive solution, forcing managers to be more objective in their review process and eliminating inflation. Most people would agree that performance review inflation is a little out of control, with 4's and 5's being handed out like candy from a bottomless Pez dispenser. But is ranking Smith as better or worse than Johnson the answer?

In a business world where teamwork is imperative, I can think of nothing more anti-team than forced ranking. "I need you all to pull together and make this work, but at the end of the year, it's every man and woman for themselves!" I imagine it's pretty easy to distinguish employee #1 from employee #101, but what sets employee #42 apart from #43? Was the knot in his tie tighter? Employees each have their strengths and weaknesses, and creating a forced ranking system that is both fair and effective seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Of course, companies have been using the strategy for years, and many swear by it. They say it helps elevate overall performance by allowing a company to identify and eliminate the lowest performers. I just think there are other ways to accomplish this without hammering each employee into some arbitrary peghole.

What are your views on forced ranking, and what performance measurement standard do you think would be more equitable?

Recruiting in interesting times

Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:20:36 GMT

"May you live in interesting times." - Chinese Proverb/Curse

In a typical year, summer months are the height of the organizational recruiting season. Folks prefer to switch jobs in the summer, especially if relocation is involved. The previous year's bonus has been paid, but you haven't put enough effort into the current year to feel you are walking away from next year's bonus. The kids are out of school, so, in theory, a change in job or location will be less chaotic. The new college graduates are starting to come on board, and June 30th is the second-most-popular retirement date (after December 31st). Budgets typically still appear healthy before the third-quarter spending freezes - again, "typical." From the organization's perspective, summer is a natural time to shuffle staff.

All of that said, 2009 is not a typical year. Whether you believe we are in the midst of a second Great Depression - or are more bullish and view the past nine to 18 months as a major market correction that exposed weaknesses and will lead to an overall stronger economy - there is no argument that these are not "typical times."

While the official unemployment rate was 9.4% as of May 2009, many industries have been hit harder. Professional and business services have seen unemployment almost double, from 5.9% in May 2008 to 10.9% in May 2009. The construction industry has experienced even more dramatic force reductions, with unemployment increasing from 8.6% in May 2008 to 19.2% in May 2009. (This explains the Obama administration's concern with "shovel ready jobs.") Finally, manufacturing has seen a crushing 137% increase in unemployment, from 5.3% in May 2008 to 12.6% in May 2009.

I imagine recruiters are being overrun with résumés, social networking requests and other solicitations. Yet with all of the talent presumably available, the recruiter's job isn't any easier. First, when many organizations restructure their workforce, recruiters are not immune. This is a community that's seen its own opportunities shrink. The logic goes: If we have a hiring freeze, why do we need recruiters?

But, unless you are closing shop forever, this logic is fundamentally flawed. Employees leave jobs unexpectedly for a variety reasons, poor performers are managed out and new skills are always needed. According to a recent BusinessWeek article, in spite of the recession, there are three million jobs that cannot be filled. Even AIG has over 500 U.S. positions posted on their Web site. The bottom line is that recruiters are still a necessity.

A seasoned recruiter acquaintance lamented to me that this is the hardest market she has ever worked in and that the talent wars of the late 1990s were like Disneyland in comparison. Why so hard? First, the volume of candidates available makes finding "the best" more labor-intensive. This is true even with today's technologies - and, sometimes, because of today's technologies. Between the proliferation of job-posting sites, social networking media such as LinkedIn and Facebook, and old-fashioned networking and referrals, recruiters have more resources than ever to find candidates. Second, adding to the overabundance of viable candidates is a gridlocked housing market, where even the unemployed may be unable to consider positions that require relocation. During better times, many organizations re-designed their relocation policies to save money rather than to facilitate the acquisition of talent. These policies, if not reevaluated, may create additional obstacles. The third major difficulty is uncertainty within organizations themselves. Too often, the recruiter has done his or her job, the manager is ecstatic with the candidate and then the position is eliminated or "put on hold" due to changes in market conditions.

To add to the list of problems, recently there was an "uproar" in Silicon Valley over a gentleman's agreement not to actively poach or hire from competitor or partner organizations. While not illegal on its face, the Department of Justice is looking into the agreement as a potential antitrust issue. In this case, the uproar comes from employees who are unhappy with their current employer and feel trapped in their job, effectively blackballed by organizations that should be seeking their skills. As I understand the "alleged" policy, it did not block hiring if the candidate came to the competing organization of his or her own volition. After reading up on the topic, I concluded that this just creates another recruiting challenge, at least in Silicon Valley.

A final challenge for recruiters today is the candidate rejection process. While never a fun task, in this climate it has become a minefield. Recruiters are bound by their organization's guidelines, but well-meaning and sometimes desperate candidates are pushing for information regarding why they were not selected. While data is not widely available, conventional wisdom says there will be an increase in employment-related lawsuits in 2009, including discrimination and failure-to-hire cases.

Is there a silver lining for organizations and their recruiters? For those that embrace 2009's "interesting times" as an opportunity to assess their current human capital, harvest the bumper crop of talent available, strengthen their diversity initiatives and invest in training and development opportunities, this could be a rebuilding year that will set them up for success in the future.

With the plethora of recruiting resources available, organizations can look to non-traditional sources for talent that can propel growth and productivity. This includes finding top MBAs looking to switch careers or an army of skilled and semiskilled labor cast off from the auto industry that can be trained to fill technical and mechanic positions. The "best" talent may not be where you are used to looking or where you were previously unable to explore. Recruiters who work for opportunistic organizations may even have fun going to work again.

What other top talent recruiting challenges is your organization facing - we would love to hear from members?