With technology and organizations more advanced and complex than they’ve ever been, HR is struggling to keep up the good fight. “Unfortunately, what we see is HR systems developed ad-hoc; one set of tools for selection, another for middle managers, and another for high-level leadership development, and none of those systems communicate,” said Ryan Ross, vice president of Global Alliances at Hogan.

The problem is that this information often comes from divergent systems, and therefore lacks context or common language. If HR wants to act strategically, it needs to consolidate those systems so that data can be viewed in context. The key to getting quality people in all levels of an organization is to “put a system in place that stays relevant throughout the entire employee lifecycle,” said Ross.

Check out the 4 other issues HR is running up against in our ebook How to Conquer the 5 Things Keeping HR up at Night.

As Big Data and technology swoop in to change the face of HR forever, it’s no wonder HR practitioners are having a few nightmares about their future. We’ve identified 5 problem children for the HR industry this year:

1)     Recruiting – Every time a new employee fails (which is, according to our research, half of them), the cost to the employer is more than 150% of the candidate’s salary.

2)     Retaining Talent – Voluntary turnover is on the rise. A survey by Future Workplace showed that 91% of Millennials expected to stay at a job for fewer than three years.

3)     Millennials – A survey of more than 37,000 college students showed that narcissistic personality traits rose as fast as obesity rates from the 1980s to the present. That’s a lot of ego for one entry-level employee.

4)     Succession Planning – According to a SilkRoad survey, only 38 percent of companies are prepared for the sudden retirement of a top executive.

5)     HR Business Function – Fifty-three percent of SilkRoad’s survey respondents were most concerned about developing an HR organization that acts strategically rather than tactically.

But wait, there’s hope! Find out how to keep HR nightmares at bay in our ebook, How to Conquer the 5 Things Keeping HR up at Night.

While participating at the Human Resource People & Strategy conference in New York last month, I attended a session on generational differences in the workplace of the future. The presenter, Jeanne Meister, presented on the unique conditions that the workplace of the near future will create: Specifically, by 2020 there will be five generations working together in the U.S. economy. Due to the anticipated delayed retirement of our aging workforce, by 2020 the US will see Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z attempting to peacefully coexist in the same workforce.

As a warm-up exercise, presenter Jeanne Meister asked a real-time poll question to see the generational spread of her audience. The poll question used audience response technology that prompted respondents to answer the question by texting their answers. A bar chart appeared up on the projector with a column for each of the five generations that updated audience responses in real time. We watched as the Generation Y bar spiked rapidly, towering over the rest. Within 15 seconds, Generation X had dwarfed Y on the chart and the Baby Boomers took the rightful lead soon after. Several minutes later, Jeanne was carrying on with her presentation as the Traditionalists bar was still slowly growing on the chart behind her as they figured out how to enter their responses via text.

This was a well-timed example of some of the differences that exist between the generations. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that Millennials will overtake the majority representation in the workforce by 2015. This statistic seemed to grip the room with intense fear of the hyper-connected, over-entitled twenty-somethings getting ready to take their offices and boardrooms by storm. The well-publicized stereotypes for Millennials include attention-seeking, impatience, and needing constant, immediate feedback.

However Jeanne communicated a message of optimism rather than fear: she emphasized the need to understand each generation more fully to better attract, recruit, and retain multi-generational talent. Not just in terms of actively creating an organizational culture that will be attractive for younger generations, but also in terms of understanding what it will take to keep all five generations engaged and on board in tomorrow’s organizations. Although Millennials are currently in the spotlight, I agree with Jeanne that it will be crucial to fully understand differences between all of the generations in terms of how they think, what they want/value, and what skills gaps exist between them.

Although there is much debate and disagreement on what criteria delineates each generation, the loose definitions below will serve our purposes:

As we consider the impact of the future generational landscape, we often talk in terms of personality descriptors and other character-based labels, such as confident, entitled, and social. Research indicates that while personal values may differ based on age, culture, and other demographics, personality is partially genetic and is an individual-level phenomenon. Attempts to personify an entire generation based on behaviors from a small sampling are problematic for more than one reason. Characterizing generations based on defining events (i.e., the great depression), expectations (i.e., immediacy vs. delayed gratification), and environmental factors (i.e., technology/innovation) makes much more sense. It should not be surprising that the generation that suffered through the depression might have a different outlook than the generation that put the first man on the moon. Nor should it shock us that the generation that is currently being brought up on the Internet and technology consumes information differently than the generation brought up on books and newspapers.

It seems there would be more to learn about how these people can work effectively together, rather than focusing solely on the differences or making sweeping statements about how they are similar or distinct.

In his recent Wall Street Journal article, “Software Raises Bar for Hiring,” David Wessel raises some interesting talent acquisition questions: As candidate pools have grown exponentially in the struggling economy and screening processes have become more efficient and cost-effective through the use of various software solutions, have organizations become overly stringent in their job requirements? Are employers cutting training programs, and therefore costs, based on the idea that they will be able to find someone in the vast pool of available workers who have the skills they require?

It seems that many organizations make the mistake of setting forth myriad requirements in their job requisitions, which are then programmed into software solutions used to screen out candidates early in the selection process. As a result the organization fails to find anyone for the job. At the same time, unemployed workers apply to positions for which they believe they are well qualified only to find themselves dropped from the selection process based solely on an initial application or resume submission. In the end frustration abounds – organizations are frustrated by the lack of “qualified” talent, and job seekers are frustrated by organizations that eliminate them from the selection process based solely on an initial screen.

Individual organizations can take steps to increase the likelihood of finding the right person for the job, regardless of what that job might be.

1. Carefully define job requirements

If your organization is struggling to find qualified candidates, make sure you are evaluating the must-haves that an individual needs to be successful in the job. You might find that you have been focusing on nice-to-haves (additional years of experience, advanced degrees for jobs that don’t require them) that do not truly differentiate high and low performance on the job. 

2. Focus on competencies, not experience

It is also important to consider what the employee needs day one on the job. Instead of looking for someone who has performed the exact same type of work before, focus on finding a candidate with the core competencies (knowledge, skills, abilities, and traits) required to be successful and supplement that talent with organization or job-specific training and education.

3. Take a whole employee life cycle approach

Organizations would also be wise to take a whole employee life cycle approach that includes recruitment, selection, development and retention. In some fields, such as engineering and IT, numerous opportunities are available to experienced workers, and organizations may find it hard to hold onto strong talent. When recruiting and hiring employees, ensure that the candidates you select are a good fit not just for a particular job, but also for your overall culture and work environment. Once employees are on the job, take steps to contribute to their professional development and keep them engaged. Depending on your structure this may include identifying high potentials to include in succession planning efforts, but don’t overlook middle-of-the-road performers who are your organization’s backbone – make sure they have opportunities to grow and develop their skills.  

Talent acquisition and management are complex processes, but careful planning at each step will help your organization hire and retain the right talent. Using selection techniques that identify candidates with the potential for success and focusing on onboarding, development, and engagement post-hire will go a long way towards ending employers’ and job seekers’ frustration.

Faced with the threat of a double-dip recession, many U.S. companies, rather than re-expanding their diminished workforces, are expecting more from their employees for less pay. These circumstances put a strain on worker satisfaction; a survey by First Command Financial Services Inc. found that 24% of respondents were unhappy with their job and 39% were actively looking for a new employment. Talent Management magazine quoted Scott Spiker, First Command CEO, as saying, “This rising discontent in the middle-class workforce is clearly being fueled by the continuing economic turmoil.”

Reduced bonuses and extended work weeks are sure to diminish morale. So what can organizations do to motivate and retain their talent given today’s economic constraints? A look back into the field of psychology may provide the answer.

Frederick Herzberg, a well-known psychologist and business management guru, was one of the first to propose theories of workplace motivation in the 1960s. He asserted that “the only way to motivate employees is to give them interesting jobs.”

Although Herzberg’s theory is quite absolute, the concept is worth entertaining. Job enrichment, a less expensive and arguably more effective way of intrinsically motivating workers compared to traditional methods (e.g., bonuses, promotions), involves:

• Providing employees with challenging and interesting work so they can use and develop a wide range of skills
• Empowering employees to make decisions about their work
• Allowing employees to work on projects from start to finish
• Delivering accurate, timely, and constructive feedback to let workers know how they’re doing
• Letting employees know how their work relates to the organization’s overall strategy

Herzberg and other psychologists found that when organizations enriched jobs, employees became motivated, satisfied, and engaged by their work and were less likely to leave. For example, a leading technology company wanted to boost their sales team’s morale and retention rate. Instead of increasing pay, they assigned each sales representative a geographic area so that he/she could develop long-term relationships with clients. Also, they gave the sales reps the authority to offer discounts and set their own work hours. These initiatives led to happier employees and a 19% increase in sales.

Although financial compensation is important, it isn’t the only thing that matters when it comes to satisfaction in the workplace. A recent Talent Management magazine article reported that a PDI Ninth House survey found that only 10% of surveyed leaders cited compensation and advancement opportunities as essential motivators within their jobs. Instead, leaders claimed that key motivators included having stimulating and challenging work and an organizational mission they can support. These results echo Herzberg’s job enrichment theory.

Although traditional motivators can lead to contentment and short-lived happiness, job enrichment can lead to engagement, pride, and growth. Given today’s turbulent environment, organizations can use these lessons from the past to motivate and retain top talent.
 

A virtual debate in the business blogosphere has been growing more and more heated over the past several weeks and months.  It appears the debate began with a May 17th New York Times article that quoted Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s illustrious CEO, as saying, “Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good. They are 100 times better.”  Although difficult to follow at first, Zuckerberg’s argument is that a brilliant individual is 100 times more valuable than a mediocre team.  His statement reflects a new strategy in the War on Talent that many have also begun to adopt.  According to the Times article, many of the giants in Silicon Valley are so desperate for fresh talent they have resorted to purchasing entire companies simply to acquire the gifted entrepreneurs, engineers, and programmers that created and comprise them.  This new practice has been dubbed “acqhiring,” and is becoming more common in industries where the competition for talent is fierce and requires more benefits, dazzling incentives, and creative ways to attract the best and brightest.

Zuckerberg’s thoughts are not shared by all, however.  In a rebuttal of sorts, HBR blogger Bill Taylor posted a piece of his mind called Great People Are Overrated on June 20th, in which he questions the practice of placing all of the eggs in a single, metaphorical basket.  Taylor warns his readers about the dangers of putting too much emphasis on “star players” and underestimating the power of an effective team.  In simpler terms, the quarterback cannot win the game alone, but the entire second string playing as a team may have a fighting chance; or at least they would in a heartwarming Hollywood blockbuster.  In our desperation to retain top talent, are those of us in talent management becoming overly focused on star-power and losing sight of what actually drives performance?  Taylor also points out that most talent decisions would not realistically involve a choice between one exceptional person and 100 mediocre people.  However, if forced to make the choice what would you decide?

Adding to the web debate is fellow HBR blogger Jeff Stibel, CEO of Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.  Stibel responded directly to Taylor on June 27th with his blog, Why a Great Individual Is Better Than a Good Team.  He not only agrees with Zuckerberg, but takes it one step further by saying that a great individual is worth an infinite number of average people.  Why?  Stibel claims that our cognitive functioning breaks down in group settings, and that the value of an individual contributor declines with each additional team member working on a single idea or project.  He likens his argument to the economic law of diminishing returns, or – more simply put – too many cooks in the kitchen will spoil the broth.

Evaluating both sides of this argument from a psychologist’s perspective, I propose another point of view.  As with all matters involving human beings, we cannot place too much or too little emphasis on the importance of individual differences in our talent management philosophy.  The dynamics of human interaction, team performance, and individual effectiveness are far too complex to be reduced to sports metaphors or culinary idioms.  It is very easy to cull up images of the brilliant artist, boy genius, or start-up entrepreneur who works best as a “lone wolf,” locked up in an office or studio with nothing more than their ideas and their IQ points.  For these individuals, perhaps it is possible to claim that an individual is better than a team.  These salient examples, however intriguing they are, do not define the global workforce or talent pool that we are currently facing.  Today’s effective organizations need dreamers and doers, leaders and team players, and generally rely on the cooperation and coordination of many. 

Jeff Stibel’s argument is somewhat lost on me for a few reasons.  First, individual differences matter.  For every person who works better alone, there is at least one person who thrives on social interaction, gains energy from working in teams, and feels motivated by opportunities to collaborate.  Behind every brilliant program or idea developed by a software genius is a person or team who knows how to actually market the product, balance the books, manage the necessary resources, etc.  Second, organizational performance cannot be determined by calculating the arithmetic sum of each individual contributor’s brilliance, ability, or creativity.  Rather, organizational performance is determined by the extent to which individuals can effectively perform together as a team.  Finally, taking into account individual differences and team dynamics, success will also depend on the quality of leadership, which ideally provides a compelling vision, adequate resources, and the strategic direction necessary to maximize the talent within an organization.

The debate rages on – see Taylor’s Great People Are Overrated (Part II).  However, it seems that all parties agree that the War on Talent is a reality, and that continued organizational success depends on the ability to attract, retain, and perhaps even “acqhire” top talent.  My opinion diverges from the debate based on a belief that neither the individual nor the team is sufficient to guarantee organizational success.  A much more complex formula governs the outcomes we care about in today’s talent landscape and informs where we decide to funnel our resources.  The final statement in Stibel’s blog is one I absolutely agree with: “One decision is easy: find the best people and empower them to do great things.” 

June 4th, 2010 marked the passing of basketball coaching legend John Wooden. As many people are aware, Wooden was known as the “Wizard of Westwood” for his unmatched success as coach of the UCLA men’s basketball team, leading them to a record 88 consecutive victories and 10 national championships among other accomplishments. What is less widely publicized is the strategy that Wooden designed and deployed in order to recruit, assess, select, develop, and mentor his players into successful individuals on and off the court. This aspect of the coach’s legend interestingly establishes him as not only an innovator in the sport of basketball, but also a pioneer in the realm of talent management.