In the past three years, the number of US employees willing to go above and beyond their employers’ expectations at work has fallen by 10 percent, from 27 percent in the second quarter of 2015 to 17.8 percent in Q2 of 2018, the latest data from Gartner’s Global Talent Monitor shows. Globally, employees’ confidence in business conditions has fallen for the first time since Q1 of 2016.
One possible driver of employees’ declining levels of discretionary effort is a lack of satisfaction with opportunities to grow and develop in their careers. Nearly 40 percent of employees in the US and globally ranked a lack of future career opportunities as their main source of dissatisfaction in a previous job, displacing compensation as the number-one driver of attrition both in the US and around the world. Over the past few years, we have seen development opportunity grow to be an increasingly critical element of the employee value proposition, both as a driver of attraction for new employees and, in its absence, as a reason for quitting.
“With recent U.S. reports showing little growth year over year in real earnings, workers hope to achieve more satisfaction in their jobs through better titles and opportunities to advance and grow in their current careers,” Brian Kropp, group vice president of Gartner’s HR practice, said in a statement. “To prevent further reduction in workplace effort and to retain top talent, employers should pay closer attention to employee dissatisfaction about the lack of career opportunities, particularly if wage growth remains stagnant.”
“Leading organizations are able to use their employment brand to illustrate why their career opportunities are better than their competitors,” he added. “A company’s EVP directly correlates to employee engagement levels, as workers are more likely to work harder and stay in their current positions if they are highly satisfied with their company’s EVP offerings. Gartner data shows that organizations with high levels of employee engagement report financial outcomes three times higher than firms with lower engagement levels.”
Google’s 2017 diversity report, released last week, expands on the information included in previous reports to cover the retention and attrition of underrepresented talent, as well as an intersectional analysis of race and gender at Google. Overall diversity figures were little changed from last year’s report and showed limited progress since 2014, when Google first began making this data public. Men make up 69.1 percent of the tech giant’s workforce, while its racial makeup is 53.1 percent white, 36.3 percent Asian, 2.5 percent black, 3.6 percent Hispanic or Latinx, and 4.2 percent multiracial. In 2014, the Googler community was 61.3 percent white, 30 percent Asian, 1.9 percent black, 2.9 percent Hispanic/Latinx, and 3.6 percent multiracial.
The company has made some progress in improving the gender balance of its leadership over the past four years, with its the percentage of women in leadership globally rising from 20.8 to 25.5 percent. Google’s US leadership is 66.9 percent white, 26.3 percent Asian, 2 percent black, 1.8 percent Latinx, 0.4 percent Native American, and 2.7 percent of more than one race. Black and Latinx representation in leadership have improved slightly since 2014, while the report highlights that 5.4 percent of new leadership hires in 2017 were black.
The attrition data included in this report touches on an issue that tech companies struggling with diversity and inclusion have discovered to be of critical importance: not just recruiting diverse candidates but also retaining those employees for the long term. Based on an index of US attrition, Google’s report shows that attrition rates are highest among black and Latinx employees, at 127 and 115 compared to an overall index of 100. “Black Googler attrition rates, while improving in recent years, have offset some of our hiring gains,” Google acknowledges, “which has led to smaller increases in representation than we would have seen otherwise.” On a global index, attrition was slightly higher for men than for women, however, at 103 compared to 94.
Effective onboarding often makes the difference between a successful hire and an early quit. To better understand the causes of attrition among recently hired employees, Microsoft created a survey that was given to new employees after their first week and again after 90 days to find out about their experiences and first impressions of the company. The tech giant’s workplace analytics team also compared anonymous calendar and email metadata with engagement survey data from around 3,000 new hires.
At the Harvard Business Review last week, Dawn Klinghoffer, Candice Young, and Xue Liu revealed what this investigation uncovered and how it shaped Microsoft’s decisions about how to improve new hires’ experience. One thing the survey revealed was that having a working computer and access to the building, email, and intranet on day one was important for new hires to be productive and engaged from the very beginning, making an important first impression that colored their overall experience. Their more complex analysis produced another insight: New employees who had a one-on-one meeting with their manager in week one were more successful than those who didn’t:
First, they tended to have a 12% larger internal network and double network centrality (the influence that people in an employee’s network have) within 90 days. This is important because employees who grow their internal network feel that they belong and may stay at the company longer. For example, employees who engage internally intend to stay at a rate that’s 8% higher on our intent-to-stay measure. They also report a stronger sense of belonging on their team while maintaining their authentic self.
Chris Martin, Director of Research at PayScale, showcases the findings of a recent study his company conducted based on survey responses from more than 500,000 US employees. The study sought to gauge the impact of various criteria on employee engagement and intent to stay in their current jobs:
Two variables stood out from the pack for both outcomes: whether an employee feels appreciated at work, and whether they feel their organization has a bright future. Employees who feel unappreciated or who think their organization isn’t going anywhere are less likely to feel satisfied at work and more likely to plan on seeking a new job in the next six months.
Although they don’t align precisely, PayScale’s findings here underline a key insight from our Global Talent Monitor at CEB, now Gartner. This quarterly report provides workforce insights on global and country-level changes about what attracts, engages, and retains employees, based on data from more than 22,000 employees in over 40 countries. (CEB Corporate Leadership Council members can peruse the full set of insights from Global Talent Monitor.)
What our latest global data show is that while compensation is the most common driver of talent attraction both worldwide and in the US, other factors are nearly as important to employees in deciding whether to take a job, including stability (related to the future prospects of the organization) and respect. Indeed, respect has been growing in importance as a talent attraction driver over time, especially in the US, Southeast Asia, and India. When it comes to drivers of attrition (what compels employees to quit), compensation is outranked both globally and in the US by future career opportunity, while people management problems and a lack of opportunities for development are also common factors in employee attrition.
The other interesting finding Martin highlights from PayScale’s study concerns employees’ perceptions of pay practices:
A new survey from CareerBuilder claims that a 55-percent majority of US employees feel that they have just a job, not a career, and that 38 percent of these workers are likely to change jobs in the second half of 2017:
Almost three in 10 workers (28 percent) tolerate or hate their job. Of those who tolerate or hate their job, some of the top reasons for staying in a current position are the need to pay the bills (74 percent), its proximity to home (41 percent), needing the insurance (35 percent), it pays well (30 percent), or the job market is too tough (27 percent).
This survey picks up on something that we at CEB (now Gartner) have seen in our latest Global Talent Monitor data: Most US employees across a number of industries cite their future career opportunities as a leading reason for leaving their organization. Given this fact, it is easy to assume that this is a reflection that there is simply a lack of career opportunities available to employees, leading to disengagement and attrition. However, our data shows that this is not the case. We find that 12 percent of US employees we surveyed were actively dissatisfied with future career opportunities at their organizations and only 31 percent reported they were satisfied. The remaining 58 percent are somewhere in the middle—that is, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, but rather neutral or ambivalent.
This finding suggests that while future career opportunities are a key part of employees seeking a new job, the claim that lack of future career opportunities is driving attrition at organizations is overstated. When we look at how an employee’s satisfaction with future career opportunities at their current organization affected their engagement levels, we do not see nearly as strong as a connection as CareerBuilder reports in their survey.
In a session at last week’s WorldatWork Total Rewards Conference and Exposition, Taco Bell Vice President of People and Experience Bjord Erland discussed how the fast food chain has handled turnover—a major challenge in its sector—in recent years. At HRE Daily, David Shadovitz passes along some insights from Erland’s talk:
Leadership was hearing that pay was a major reason people were leaving. But in order to come up with the right game plan, HR knew it needed more data. So it brought in global consultancy Mercer to better understand the key drivers behind the high turnover and identify ways to address it. When it looked at why workers stuck around, Taco Bell, a unit of Yum! Brands, found that a flexible work environment and strong culture were major drivers. As to why people were leaving, factors such as a high level of stress, lack of training and better opportunities elsewhere emerged as a big contributors. …
Well, the big “Aha!” for Taco Bell was learning that earnings were far more important to workers than their rate of pay. Were they working enough hours, including overtime, to bring home a bigger paycheck? (Erland noted that Taco Bell’s pay was competitive with others in the industry.) In light of these findings, Erland said, the company began to increase its use of “slack hours” to increase the amount of employee take home pay. “Turnover improved when employees were able to bring home more earnings,” he said.
When we talk to HR leaders about predictive analytics, the first thing they usually want to do with this new advanced tool is improve retention. That’s definitely easier said than done, especially if you want the project to actually drive results, instead of just being an interesting research topic. Aliah Wright at SHRM highlights the success story of one organization that had a strong need to retain its highly skilled employees and used predictive analytics to help meet that goal:
When a top employee at the Anderson Center for Autism, a private school in Staatsburg, N.Y., handed in her resignation, the school’s HR department was expecting her. The HR staff had been using a predictive analytics program to help them gauge retention. “The software is so good that we were developing a retention plan for her as she was preparing to resign,” said Gregg Paulk, director of information technologies for the 92-year-old nonprofit organization. After HR staff spoke with her, “she actually rescinded her resignation,” he added. …
In 2001, the school undertook a new technology initiative spurred and funded by the No Child Left Behind legislation. Using Ultimate Software’s UltiPro, Paulk said the company “grew … and kept head count flat, reduced paper [processes] by 95 percent, and increased the time spent on employee development by 30 percent. The software also allows staff to manage time and attendance from anywhere [and yields] improved reporting and compliance.
“The software also helped us avoid the loss of key talent with predictive tools. It’s really powerful, and it’s astonishing the results we’ve seen,” Paulk said. “[The tools] helped us understand our challenges and put the puzzle pieces together.”
It looks like Anderson has done a couple of things really well, which makes it a great example of how to apply analytics most effectively.