In a recent overview of gamification technologies at Employee Benefit News, John Soat looked at the growing number of ways in which organizations are gamifying HR processes. Soat highlighted three areas in which gamification is most promising: pre-hire assessments for recruiting, training programs for current employees, and encouraging participation in wellbeing initiatives and other benefits programs. Game-like tools are popular and effective because they are fun and engaging, so employees are more likely to use them voluntarily, even outside working hours. This impact on engagement, Soat hears from vendors, is part of the often intangible ROI their clients see from gamification.
This is a trend we’ve been following both here at Talent Daily and in our research at CEB, now Gartner, for several years now. Looking at how various organizations have gamified their processes, we’ve discovered some surprising use cases for this approach and developed a robust understanding of what makes gamification initiatives most likely to succeed.
In the training space, it’s interesting to note that companies aren’t just using gamification for entry level or technical skills. In 2014, we profiled GE’s Experienced Leaders Challenge: a week-long, immersive development session for experienced GE leaders designed to help them develop a leadership mindset aligned to today’s inherently unpredictable business environment. A key part of the program is a simulation that lets leaders practice navigating common challenges and observe the unexpected consequences of their decisions or actions. (CEB Corporate Leadership Council members can check out the full case study here.)
A recent analysis from the Pew Research Center took a closer look at the gender gaps in corporate leadership in the US, focusing on top-level executive positions and the roles from which senior leaders are most commonly promoted to them. Drew DeSilver wrote up the analysis late last month at Pew’s Fact Tank blog:
Women held only about 10% of the top executive positions (defined as chief executive officers, chief financial officers and the next three highest paid executives) at U.S. companies in 2016-17, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of federal securities filings by all companies in the benchmark Standard & Poor’s Composite 1500 stock index. And at the very top of the corporate ladder, just 5.1% of chief executives of S&P 1500 companies were women.
Nor do many women hold executive positions just below the CEO in the corporate hierarchy in terms of pay and position. Only 651 (11.5%) of the nearly 5,700 executives in this category, which includes such positions as chief operating officer (COO) and chief financial officer (CFO), were women. Although this group in general constitutes a significant pool of potential future CEO candidates, the women officers we identified tended to be in positions such as finance or legal that, previous research suggests, are less likely to lead to the CEO’s chair than other, more operations-focused roles.
That women are underrepresented among CEOs and other high-level executive positions is hardly breaking news. The most interesting finding from Pew’s analysis is that three-quarters of the CEOs studied had previously held leadership roles in operations: a function where women are significantly underrepresented. At the same time, the gains women have made in obtaining executive roles in finance, legal, and HR are not putting these women leaders on the CEO track.
This finding builds on other recent research showing that although women’s representation in management has increased dramatically over the past few decades, women are still segregated into leadership roles that are less production-focused, less highly compensated, and less likely to be career stepping stones toward the top of the pyramid. We see the same thing in boardrooms: Even as more women directors are appointed, they remain less likely than their male colleagues to achieve positions of influence on the board.
If Volkswagen’s emissions cheating scandal, Wells Fargo’s fake-accounts scandal, and Uber’s sexual harassment scandal have a common thread, it is that each of these controversies has been blamed on a fundamentally toxic element within the organizational cultures of these companies, so each company has embarked on a major culture overhaul in its wake. In a feature at the Wall Street Journal last week, Joann Lublin observed that scandals like these were opening directors’ eyes to how significantly their companies’ cultures affect their performance, and took a look at what some companies’ boards were doing to manage culture issues more directly.
Even though the evidence is mounting that culture problems can do severe damage to a company’s reputation and bottom line, “few boards currently have an explicit focus or formalized approach to cultural oversight,’’ Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola and Colgate-Palmolive, told Lublin. Gayle was the co-chair of a blue ribbon commission appointed by the National Association of Corporate Directors to prepare a report on culture as a corporate asset and come up with ideas for how boards can manage culture more effectively.
The report recommends that boards work with the CEO and senior management to “establish clarity on the foundational elements of values and culture,” and take a proactive approach to culture management. That means making oversight of culture (including the board’s own culture) a full-board responsibility. Culture management needs to be embedded in the organization’s business processes, including rewards systems and CEO selection and evaluation, and in the board’s interactions with management.
This recommendation concurs with the conclusions of our latest research on culture at CEB, now Gartner: Many organizations try to change their culture by changing their people, but these interventions are often ineffective, despite massive investments of time and resources. The most effective culture change efforts we’ve seen focus instead on crafting systems and processes that allow everyone to live the culture.
From getting certified as a B Corporation in 2012, to its proposal for a social safety net for gig economy participants, to its expansive parental leave policy and other generous employee benefits, the online handicrafts marketplace Etsy has made a point of positioning itself as a socially responsible business that takes good care of both its employees and the users who rely on it to sell their creations. Since going public two years ago, however, Etsy’s growth has stalled and its stock price has fallen considerably as investors balked at a business philosophy that appeared to them insufficiently profit-minded. Now, Max Chafkin and Jing Cao report in a recent Bloomberg Businessweek feature, activist investors are stepping in to push the company in a more pro-growth direction, which means rethinking some elements of its culture and particularly spending less money on compensation and employee perks:
The answer, as [tech investor Seth Wunder] saw it, was that the company had been careless with its spending—Etsy’s general and administrative expenses amounted to 24 percent of total revenue. (EBay and MercadoLibre.com, the Latin American online marketplace, each spend about 10 percent of revenue on such expenses.) Etsy had been hiring like crazy, having increased its staff 55 percent since the end of 2014, and doling out all manner of perks: an elegant Brooklyn headquarters with Manhattan views, art installations, and a “breathing room,” along with salaries and benefits common at much, much more profitable tech companies. Wunder’s Black-and-White Capital began buying Etsy stock, eventually acquiring 2 percent of the company. The stake is relatively modest—Black-and-White is Etsy’s 16th-largest shareholder—but it was more than enough to launch an activist campaign.
In a world of constant connectivity, it can be difficult for knowledge workers to separate themselves from their work and carve out genuine personal time. Employers can exacerbate this “always on” problem when they create an expectation that employees will respond to work-related emails at all hours simply because they can. At Quartz, Anne Quito passes along some solutions to that problem from participants in a workshop at last month’s TED conference:
The most insidious of all emails are those sent while we’re not in the office. German companies Volkswagen and Daimler AG have taken proactive measures to help employees safeguard their time off. Volkswagen’s Blackberry servers stops delivering messages after an employee’s shift and Daimler has a voluntary “Mail on Holiday” program that automatically deletes incoming messages when employees are on vacation. “As employees come back from holidays, they start with a clean desk,” explains a Daimler human resource representative to Quartz.
A manager who works in an Australia start-up says he turns his mobile phone off during the month he goes on annual leave. For bosses and clients who insist on keeping contact, he gives his out-of-office email as his out-of-office contact. “I say if you need to contact me, here’s my wife’s email address.” It’s an offer no one has ever taken, he reports. “It can be done—disappearing for weeks at a time.”
I would be in big trouble if all the emails I received while on PTO were deleted, but the off-hours struggle is real! Rather than going to such an extreme as deleting everything, something I’ve found useful in the past is setting expectations with my team about what communications will be important to send, and which are safe to omit.
As many employers rethink their approach to performance management, one approach many organizations are trying is to replace or supplement the traditional annual performance review with more frequent check-ins. As companies work to meet the demand among their employees for more continuous and detailed feedback, Sarah Kessler at Quartz takes a look at the growing market for technological systems that enable these more frequent conversations:
Startups like Lattice, TinyPulse, and Zugata take the concept to the extreme with quick reviews that are often meant to be completed every week and sometimes coordinated automatically. TinyPulse CEO David Niu, whose customers include Facebook and IBM, promised that a new product launched in February would capture “all the real-time data people crave to measure performance, all while keeping it fun.” By fun, he meant, for instance, that managers and employees can assess progress on their goals with a Tinder-like swipe-to-rate system. …
At First Round Review, New Relic’s CIO Yvonne Wassenaar shares how her company used simulations to navigate a challenging period of growth and change:
Wassenaar, then the SVP of Operations, set a goal: Drive understanding and alignment across the top 30 company leaders so they could all more effectively execute and support each other in the move to enterprise. To prepare the simulation, Wassenaar partnered with BTS consultants and asked for input from the finance team, with about 15 people who were interviewed in advance of the exercise. The process took about six weeks.
The setup of a simulation was simple: Teams competed against each other running the company over a three-year period. “Done right, it’s a lively and engaging process. We played three rounds, and each round of the game represented a year. In each round, teams made a set of trade-off decisions and investments that were run and scored against expected trends built into a premade forecast model kept secret from participants until the simulation. To keep it interesting, we threw unexpected events that required teams to react, like a competitor making a hot acquisition or a sudden security breach,” Wassenaar says. “After the simulation, the teams were scored and ranked by highest revenue, profitability and customer satisfaction. Then the teams debriefed and examined their performance. At the end of the ‘three years,’ the team with the highest weighted score won.