July 2015, Page 4 Archive

Take a deep breath, HR professionals. You’re stepping up to the plate with the game on the line.  

In a complex post-recession job market with a growing talent gap, top executives are looking to HR leaders for innovative business strategies grounded in data, according to a recent CareerBuilder study.

A majority of CEOs (65%) agree that post-recession, HR opinions carry greater weight with senior management; nearly three fourths (73%) say that their HR leader has provided data that they have incorporated into their business strategy.

Shaping this new era is a post-recession landscape defined by increased competition for skilled talent in the face of shrinking labor pools and demands for higher salaries. Sixty percent of CEOs reported their companies have not been able to reach their full potential because they cannot find enough qualified candidates, and almost one fourth (23%) say the pressure to raise wages is among the issues that keep them up at night.

HR’s new mission

And nearly half of CEOs (48%) say their companies have lost money due to inefficient recruiting.

So who do CEOs expect to help them sleep better? HR pros. The survey said top execs expect:

• HR teams will interpret data and ascertain the right talent mix. The overwhelming majority of CEOs (90%) say it is important that HR leaders be proficient in workforce analytics — and more than one in three executives (35%) say this is “absolutely essential.”
• A more efficient recruitment process that provides for a better candidate experience.

The top three recruitment challenges CEOs identified for their organizations:

• lack of skilled candidates – 49%
• inefficient recruitment process – takes too long to fill jobs – 35%, and
• candidate experience is not as good as it could be – 25%.

More than nine of 10 (92%) business leaders think HR executives can have broader influence by:

• providing actionable talent data and other research to help devise strategies to meet larger business goals (57%)
• showing ways to increase efficiencies or cut costs by better using the company’s human capital (57%)
• knowing what the company does, but also how everything works (52%), and
• working with other leaders to help solve business problems (51%).

“HR is the new frontier for data science applications in business,” said Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder. â€œIn our study, CEOs acknowledge that the recruitment landscape is changing and the need for their HR teams to come forward with data-driven, competitive approaches and efficient technologies is more critical than ever. HR leaders are becoming more influential members of the executive team.

“CEOs are looking for HR to be just as data-savvy and digitally-savvy as other areas of the company, and take quick, measurable actions that move the business towards its goals.”

The nationwide survey was conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of CareerBuilder among 88 leaders at companies with revenue of at least $50 million.

In 2014, the German men’s team was awarded $35 million after winning the 2014 World Cup. So how much was the U.S. women’s team awarded for winning this year’s World Cup? 

Answer: A paltry-by-comparison $2 million. That’s according to a recent report by CNN.

Want some more staggering figures? The New York Daily News is reporting that the total prize money for this year’s women’s tournament was $15 million. The pot for the men’s tournament last year: $500 million.

Now, the first thought that may come to your mind here is: Well, the men’s tournament is more popular and receives more viewers than the women’s tournament.

In general, that may be the case, but consider this: The 2015 women’s World Cup final drew the largest U.S. television audience for a soccer game in human history — men’s or women’s — with an audience of 26.7 million.

FIFA, international soccer’s governing body, claims that the difference in prize money is the result of sponsorship dollars. The men’s tournament brings in far more dollars than the women’s tournament, it claims.

Again, that’s likely the case, but it’s hard to ignore the staggering difference in pay between the men’s and women’s tournaments — and it has cast yet another black cloud over FIFA, which was accused of massive corruption earlier this year.

Many of its officials were charged in the U.S. with pocketing millions in bribes. The organization also has long been accused of sexism — and this tournament certainly won’t clear up that part of its reputation.

The pay issue aside, female players had other complaints about this year’s tourney, including:

• playing on artificial turf (apparently men are given the luxury of only having to play on grass), and
• having to share hotels with opposing teams (something men are also not required to do).

There’s hope that the impending regime change at FIFA will help level the playing field in time for the next women’s World Cup in 2019.

Want yet another example of just how bonkers the pay disparity is between the men’s and women’s tourneys? Each of the men’s teams that were eliminated in the first round of last year’s World Cup walked away with $8 million. The U.S. men’s team, which finished 11th, got $9 million.

It’s getting more and more difficult to dismiss telemedicine as a healthcare fad that won’t catch among employers.  

But things have changed, and firms are starting to warm up to this option.

For starters, there are fewer barriers in place. One of the greatest obstacles to telemedicine usage has been insurers’ refusal to cover this option.

Now, however, Washington recently became the 24th state that required health plans to reimburse providers for telemedicine services – and others are likely to follow suit.

Plus, prominent insurers – such as Aetna, United Healthcare and Wellpoint/Anthem – are convinced telemedicine is here to stay and are planning accordingly.

$6 billion reasons

Telemedicine generally involves a patient speaking to a physician via a video stream (e.g., Skype) or over the phone for a diagnosis or treatment.

While this option will never replace face-to-face time with a doctor, the potential cost-savings are tremendous.

Telemedicine saves employees on travel waiting time and allows doctors to see patients more efficiently. For employers, the option can not only reduce the expense of unnecessary ER visits, it can also bolster productivity and cut absenteeism.

Telemedicine can save $6 billion annually in U.S. health costs if workers and dependents use the tactic whenever appropriate, according to an analysis by Towers Watson.

Third-party options

The option seems to be catching on, too. In 2014, just 22% of large firms offered this option. But 34% plan to offer it in 2016 or 2017, Towers Watson found.

If you have a tech-savvy workforce that’s likely to respond, talk to your broker about what’s available. Another option: Third-party telemedicine vendors. Services like Doctors on Demand charge on a per-employee or per-session basis and work with all major insurers.

Off-the-wall interview questions, lengthy printed job descriptions and rounds of repetitive interviews are a very 1989, or even 2003, way of recruiting. Gerry Crispin, Principal of CareerXroads, says it’s high time for a change. “For many years we’ve had a pretty bad approach in general to recruiting and we continue to have a bad approach.” He says that advances in technology, particularly social media, are only adding to the problem and make it easier for companies to make the same mistakes, and make them faster.

Crispin suggests that updated interview strategies will yield better results for employers and job seekers alike. Download the whitepaper to learn what three steps are central to any new interview process.

Click here to learn more!  

As organizations look for more ways to increase productivity and profitability, human resources departments are being asked to provide more strategic input to executives. Doing so requires tools that improve access to timely, accurate information for enhanced business decision making. If you don’t have a Human Resource Management System (HRMS), HR can end up spending too much time on repetitive day-to-day tasks like paperwork while struggling to deliver meaningful workforce insights. The right HR management software can help the HR team increase control over employee data, optimize productivity, and take employee engagement to the next level, so you can deliver the future workforce your organization needs to succeed.

Click here to learn more!  

Put up a job listing and you’ll get a number of resumes. Is that success? Quantity is never the goal. Quality is. So, what does it take to attract the best talent? If it were as simple as free meals, this article would be very short. To uncover the answers, we interviewed dozens of recruiters, tech employees and hiring managers. Download this report to learn how HR can help attract top tech talent and mistakes they need to avoid.

Click here to learn more!  

Everybody hates performance reviews. That’s a given. But there are ways to move them out of the “dreaded chore” category into the file titled “engagement tools.”

Performance reviews are often badly done and serve to de-motivate employees — or worse, give them a weapon to sue the company.

What’s wrong with this process? Here are the three most common mistakes managers make that limit the value of employee assessments:

1. Process vs. progress

Too often, the process of employee reviews becomes more important than the actual result. What do employees want out of their reviews? Aside from a raise, the main thing employees want to know is what career path they’re on — what they have to look forward to in terms of job growth and development.

Too many reviews omit a discussion of what advancement opportunities may be available in the near future, and what the employee needs to do to make it happen.

2. What will tomorrow’s expectations be?

Too often, reviews for well-performing employees congratulate them on what they’ve accomplished and let the story end there. For example:

An employee meets a predetermined goal of boosting production by 10%. Her manager writes in her review: “Your production was lifted by 10% and you’ve met your goal.”

While that’s true, wording it that way makes it sound like she’s reached the end of the line. Instead, the manager should say: “You lifted production by 10%, which is a great accomplishment. You should continue the progress and try to reach 15% — or even higher — next year.”

That congratulates the employee on a job well done, while reinforcing the fact that there’s always room to move forward.

3. Nix the money talk

Intertwining salary issues with performance discussions is truly taboo. Raises should always be the last thing the manager talks about — and in a separate meeting.

If pay comes up before the review is fully completed, it’s more likely employees will start arguing about the assessment instead of taking responsibility for their work. When the review is completed first, employees are more receptive to the manager’s critique.

Help for managers

To help your managers get better at reviews, here are some do’s and don’ts, courtesy of leading employment lawyer Jathan Janove of Ogletree Deakins, who spoke at the Labor & Employment Law Advanced Practices (LEAP) symposium in Las Vegas.

Don’ts

Don’t store up feedback. Don’t use a review as a gunnysack for storing up negative feedback over a period of a whole year and then dump it all on an employee’s head at review time. Feedback, both negative and positive, needs to be given throughout the year.

If you must bring up a new issue, apologize for not bringing it up sooner.

Don’t dispense report cards. People don’t want to go back to the school benches and be graded. If you give them five Bs and a D, all they’ll focus on is the D. Just tell them in plain language how they’re doing.

Don’t say things that could be subject to negative interpretation later. Avoid phrases like “you might try a little harder since you tend to be a little lazy” or “I’m cutting you some slack since you’re approaching retirement.” These only spell t-r-o-u-b-l-e.

Don’t use a review for discipline. Keep progressive discipline out of the performance review process. If you mix ’em up, plaintiffs’ lawyers will say your management process, not the employee, needs improvement.

Do’s

Do keep the end in mind. Focus on where the person is now, what the expectations are and how you can move the person up the line. Focus only on WIGs (wildly important goals) and PIGs (pretty important goals), not petty stuff.

Do give direct feedback. Managers must use the D-I-S formula with their employees — providing Direct, Immediate and Specific coaching throughout the year. That way, the annual review becomes a summary with no surprises.

Do make everyone go through the review process. If you want to build trust among employees around the review process, there can be no opt-outs — everyone gets reviewed, even HR and the C-suite.

Successful CEOs read as many reviews as they can — not to see how their employees are doing, but how their managers are doing.

Do make it a two-way street. Providing feedback should create the opportunity for two-way communication. Managers should be trained to ask the same amount of questions as statements they make.

Sample queries: “This is what I see; now what do you see?” or “How can I help you succeed?”

Do focus on the future. If managers stay focused on what should happen in the future, the employee can feel more fulfilled in his job. Plus, looking forward tends to minimize employee defensiveness about any past mistakes.

People are much less likely to be argumentative this way.

One final thought from Janove: For successful performance reviews, the front windshield is a much more useful tool than the rearview mirror.

This is an update to the original article, which ran on 4/27/13.