Facebook Testing CV Feature in Further Push Toward Recruiting

Facebook Testing CV Feature in Further Push Toward Recruiting

Since Facebook launched its new job listings feature earlier this year, the social media giant has made what looks like a play for LinkedIn’s share of the online job search and recruiting market. Since then, Facebook has integrated job listings into its Marketplace platform, revealed that it is testing location targeting for advertising, and has been playing around with a mentor/mentee matchmaking feature. The Next Web spots what could be the company’s next move in its evolution into a job search tool, reporting that Facebook is testing a résumé feature that lets users add more detail about their work experience to their profiles:

The new addition expands on the standard ‘Work and education’ section, but won’t publicly display all information about your credentials. The dedicated resume field lets you conveniently list your professional and educational background in more detail. It also allows selecting the precise dates when you started and left each undertaking that appears there. …

Interestingly, the screenshots indicate the detailed information will not readily show up on your public profile. This could mean that Facebook is considering making the hidden resume details available exclusively to job hunters and talent seekers. … As with any other test feat, there is no telling whether and when the functionality will make its way to all users.

Read more

Private Equity, an Employer of Millions, Turns Its Attention to Talent

Private Equity, an Employer of Millions, Turns Its Attention to Talent

As investors become more aware of how talent drives value at a company, they are looking for ways to measure that impact and demanding more information about talent issues from the companies in which they invest. But investors won’t always wait for companies to crack the code connecting talent to performance; some are going ahead with this themselves.

Take private equity firms for example.

If asked who the biggest private sector employers are in America today, many would think of companies such as Walmart, Amazon, or General Electric. Not according to Michael Milken, chairman of the Milken Institute. In a speech he delivered recently at the annual conference that bears his name, the Financial Times’ Gillian Tett reported, Milken produced a list of America’s top 10 private sector employers, as calculated by the institute. Walmart indeed tops this list, but the next eight largest employers, according to Milken’s data, are private equity (PE) firms. And while Milken refrained from identifying these entities, it is not hard to guess who they might be, as Tett explains:

Carlyle and KKR, for example, are each estimated to employ about 700,000 people through their portfolio companies, which probably ranks them just below Walmart. Blackstone has “around 600,000” employees, as Steve Schwarzman, its founder, told the Milken event. Apollo, another private equity group, has 300,000 workers in its portfolio companies, while Warburg Pincus, General Atlantic, and TPG are only slightly smaller. Lobbying groups estimate that private equity firms now employ 11 million people throughout the US (the data are not very transparent).

Over the past decade or so, PE firms have become more like conglomerates. In the traditional model, private equity makes money by boosting the value of portfolio companies, then selling them at a much higher price, but according to research by the RBL Group, many PE firms are increasingly pursuing a “buy and transform” model. In this model, RBL’s Dave Ulrich and Justin Allen explain at the Harvard Business Review, PE funds must behave more like employers and pay more attention to talent and leadership. This has led to the emergence of leadership capital partners (LCPs), who are responsible for ensuring that both the firm itself and its myriad of portfolio companies have the right talent, culture, and leadership. According to RBL, over half of PE firms now have an executive with the responsibilities of an LCP:

Read more

CEOs Want HR to Communicate the Value of Talent

CEOs Want HR to Communicate the Value of Talent

When it comes to what CEOs want from HR to help drive business value, one of their main demands is that HR help communicate the value of talent to investors, whether that means Wall Street or a lone philanthropist. At a breakout session at last week’s ReimagineHR event in London, Brian Kropp, HR Practice Leader at CEB, now Gartner, explained that the reason CEOs want this help is not because investors believe in making employees happy for its own sake, but because they are increasingly acknowledging that talent is a leading indicator of business performance and growth. Below is an overview of some ideas HR leaders should think about when approaching this opportunity:

The Growing Value of Talent

According to PwC’s annual CEO survey, the percentage of CEOs concerned about the availability of key skills as a business threat to organizational growth has risen from 46 percent in 2009 to 77 percent in 2017. This year, CEOs identified “human capital” as the second most important investment to make to capitalize on new business opportunities, ahead of “digital and technology capabilities.” Various trends, from new technologies to demographic shifts, are uprooting the core assumptions of how companies and industries operate. In our analysis of earnings calls from 1,600 of the world’s largest publicly traded companies, we found that words like “change,” “transformation,” and “disruption” have become commonplace. (CEB Corporate Leadership Council members can see the full range of insights from our Investor Talent Monitor here.)

In a recent earnings call with Volkswagen, Chairman and CEO Matthias Mueller said that “Volkswagen needs to transform. Not because everything in the past was bad, but because our industry will see more fundamental changes in the coming 10 years than we have experienced over the past 100 years.” Highlighting the value of talent is becoming one way in which organizations can gain the trust of their investors that their business still has what it takes to outperform a rapidly changing, volatile market. Jean-Paul Agon, CEO of L’Oreal, mentioned in their earnings call that they were going through a “digital transformation” whose success “stems from our very decentralized agile approach in execution with a significant investment in talent.” Conversations like these are only growing, and investors are pushing for more. Private equity firms are even taking matters into their own hands, appointing executives to oversee the talent strategies of their portfolio companies.

As we’ve observed in our Investor Talent Monitor, 46 percent of the largest public companies talked about issues related to talent during their earnings calls in 2010, but by 2016, this number had topped 60 percent. This should not be surprising: Investment firms and activists have been making the news recently for taking an active interest in companies’ talent strategies, pushing firms for greater gender diversity on boards of directors as well as for firms to publish employee compensation and pay gaps.

Read more

ReimagineHR: 6 Shifts in the Digital Age and Their Implications for HR

ReimagineHR: 6 Shifts in the Digital Age and Their Implications for HR

At our ReimagineHR summit in London on Thursday, CEB (now Gartner) Principal Executive Advisor Clare Moncrieff led a session on creating a common vision of digitalization for the business and HR. After examining hundreds of trends, our research councils serving chief HR officers and chief information officers have identified six deep shifts in the business environment that will result from digitalization. These shifts should act as the framework for heads of HR to:

  • Ensure talent conversations with the line are grounded in business context
  • Identify the current talent implications of these shifts, project future implications, and partner with the line and C-suite peers to prioritize and respond to each
  • Improve their teams’ business acumen (to underscore the importance of this, 58 percent of HR business partners indicated in one of our surveys that building business acumen was their top development goal in 2017)

(The case studies we link to below are available exclusively to CEB Corporate Leadership Council members)

1) Demand Grows More Personal

As customers seek personalized products that align with their preferences and values as individuals (rather than as segments), companies will rely on digital channels and digital innovations in logistics and customer service to achieve personalization at scale. Customers will continue to expect lower-effort, nonintrusive service.

This could, for example, affect how HR functions look for new talent. Attraction of critical talent now requires differentiated, customized branding and career coaching. Candidates will demand a more effortless, personalized application experience. AT&T approached this shift by creating a more personalized “Experience Weekend” to show the innovation of its brand to campus candidates and make top talent more likely to accept job offers.

Read more

ReimagineHR: For CHROs Today, Change and Disruption Are Top of Mind

ReimagineHR: For CHROs Today, Change and Disruption Are Top of Mind

At the ReimagineHR summit in London on Wednesday, Brian Kropp, HR Practice Leader at CEB (now Gartner), led a benchmarking and discussion session with over 150 chief HR officers, almost half of whom manage businesses with over 10,000 employees. The group shared their thoughts on the growing challenges heads of HR face today, and one theme remained constant throughout the conversation: change.

1) Disruptive Trends Changing the Pace of Business

As heads of HR look forward to 2018, the number one priority for many in the room will be change management. One HR executive, for example, said her organization’s major challenge currently was in managing multiple, overlapping acquisitions that were doubling the size of their workforce practically overnight—and both the pace and intensity of that form of change will only increase. Historically, organizations would make one acquisition and then wait several years before the next. Over the past several years, however, organizations have begun to face acquisitions or mergers one after another. Today, however, many businesses are struggling as they confront multiple changes at the same time.

One consequence of this, as another head of HR pointed out, is that organizations can no longer manage change using the same strategies they learned through their previous experiences. Every change is different, deserves its own unique response, and must be dealt with as if it were the first time the organization was doing it. There is no “one size fits all” approach to change.

Read more

Change Management Takes Focus as Investor Activism Heats Up

Change Management Takes Focus as Investor Activism Heats Up

Activist investors are playing a greater role in shaping companies’ strategic priorities, Dale Buss observes at Chief Executive, pushing for bigger and faster changes and forcing out CEOs or directors when they don’t see results. What’s more, he adds, “CEOs aren’t just being assessed for weakness by activists based on financial performance”:

Another factor is that CEOs across entire industries seem to be overwhelmed these days by the speed of change. “Retail is a great example,” said Micah Alpern, principal at A.T. Kearney consultants. “So much is happening and there are so many factors you have to consider to be effective and remain relevant today.” …

Carol SingletonSlade, global energy and U.S. board practice leader for Egon Zehnder recruiters, said that activists also are applying new criteria for gauging the performance of CEOs in addition to traditional financial measures.

“CEOs across industries are measured against how they have led their organizations through digital transformation, if their business strategies have allowed them to remain relevant amid constant disruption, and at the same time, how well they have been able to maintain company culture while being under intense pressure to perform and remain agile.”

These observations are consistent with what we’ve been seeing in our latest research at CEB (now Gartner) on how investors are engaging with talent and change management issues. Our recently published Investor Talent Monitor (which CEB Corporate Leadership Council members can read in full here) shows that organizational culture, recruiting strategies, and other talent issues are coming up with greater frequency on investor calls.

Read more

Is the Post-Work Future a Myth? Not for Everyone

Is the Post-Work Future a Myth? Not for Everyone

Central to the debate over automation and the future of work is the fear that robots and artificial intelligence will take over so much of the work people currently do that there will be no jobs left for human beings. Some believe we may be looking at a not-too-distant future of mass structural unemployment due to automation, while the more optimistic crowd contends that the current wave of automation will ultimately create more jobs than it destroys, just as the steam engine, the automobile, and the computer did in past periods of technological change. Political scientist Ruy Teixeira is in the second camp, arguing at Vox that the fears of a post-human workforce don’t square with the economic data:

If [futurist Martin] Ford’s “rise of the robots” were taking place, we would be seeing very rapid productivity increases today (fewer workers, larger output). We’re not. Instead, productivity increases have been abominably slow in recent years — a mere 1.3 percent per year, just over a third of the rate at the end of the last century.

Another indicator that the robots are gaining on us would be an exceptionally high rate of “occupational churn,” the rate at which the job structure is changing as some occupations decline and others grow. In a study of Census data going back to 1850, economists Robert Atkinson and John Wu found instead that the rate of churn in recent decades has been exceptionally slow — slower, in fact, than at any other period in their study.

Greg Ip made a similar point in the Wall Street Journal last month, also pointing to the slowdown in productivity and arguing that, if anything, robots aren’t taking over enough of our jobs. “Instead of worrying about robots destroying jobs,” Ip wrote, “business leaders need to figure out how to use them more, especially in low-productivity sectors.”

In these pieces, Teixeira and Ip write to dispel the “jobless future” hypothesis and do so quite effectively. Yes, this same debate occurred in the 1950s and yet we’re still here. But what makes this time different—and indeed it is different—is that technological change tends to proceed at an exponential rate, and we are reaching a point in which new technologies are rapidly making entire industries redundant.

This quality of rapid change cannot be said about people, and this includes our skills, our ability to adapt, and our willingness to change social and political norms. The difference in the speed of change is what makes this threat of a jobless future so real, even if productivity growth remains incremental.

Read more