Talent analytics has rapidly grown from an experimental trend into something every organization uses. While many HR functions are investing in analytics, however, few are getting the kind of results they’d like to see. If the promise of talent analytics remains unfulfilled today, it’s not because the technology isn’t ready. Over the past two years, we have heard from HR leaders that their biggest challenge in implementing analytics has been in connecting the data to critical business questions and drawing actionable intelligence from it. Gartner research has also found that collecting high-quality, credible data is a significant hurdle for many organizations.
Perhaps as a result of these growing pains, a global survey earlier this year found that most C-suite leaders don’t have a high level of trust in their analytics programs. HR is still under pressure to get senior leadership on board with talent analytics and prove its value to the bottom line.
At Gartner’s ReimagineHR event in London last Wednesday, Principal Executive Advisor Clare Moncrieff moderated a discussion with a panel of leaders at major companies on the practical lessons they have learned in applying talent analytics on the ground. The panelists were Christian Cormack, Global Head of Workforce Analytics at AstraZeneca; Nanne Brouwer, Head of People Strategy and Analytics at Royal Philips; and Jacob Jeppesen, Specialist in HR Analytics at Novo Nordisk A/S.
The limiting factor for talent analytics professionals is rarely their knowledge of analytics, the panelists observed. Rather, it’s their knowledge of the rest of the business. Understanding how other business functions like supply chain or strategy work allows them to combine different sources of data that have never been looked at together before. This combination of data is ultimately more valuable than extremely advanced analytics that focus only on people data.
Apple made a big move in the battle for top AI talent this week, hiring John Giannandrea away from Google, where he had until Monday been chief of search and artificial intelligence. Apple announced on Tuesday that Giannandrea would lead its machine learning and AI strategy, reporting directly to CEO Tim Cook, the New York Times reported:
Apple has made other high-profile hires in the field, including the Carnegie Mellon professor Russ Salakhutdinov. Mr. Salakhutdinov studied at the University of Toronto under Geoffrey Hinton, who helps oversee the Google Brain lab.
Apple has taken a strong stance on protecting the privacy of people who use its devices and online services, which could put it at a disadvantage when building services using neural networks. Researchers train these systems by pooling enormous amounts of digital data, sometimes from customer services. Apple, however, has said it is developing methods that would allow it to train these algorithms without compromising privacy.
Cook stressed Apple’s commitment to charting a privacy-conscious course on AI development in his statement on Tuesday, saying Giannandrea “shares our commitment to privacy and our thoughtful approach as we make computers even smarter and more personal.” While safeguarding users’ privacy may pose a significant technical challenge in AI and machine learning, that commitment could have an upside from a marketing perspective at a time when tech companies are facing heightened scrutiny and criticism of their data privacy practices.
In what looks like the Trump administration’s latest effort to tighten the US border by subjecting entrants to greater scrutiny, the State Department announced in the Federal Register on Friday that it was proposing to require that people seeking both immigrant and non-immigrant visas provide consular officials with additional information, including their social media accounts from the past five years, Ana Campoy reports at Quartz:
“This is an indirect way that the Trump administration is trying to limit immigration to the US that does not require for them to go to Congress,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University, of the proposed rules.
The US had already been requesting social-media information from people suspected to represent a national security threat. That policy targeted a sliver of travelers to the US—about 65,000. The new measures would cover nearly 15 million people. Along with the handles, the State Department is also asking for a five-year history of email addresses, telephone numbers, and international trips.
The proposals must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget after a 60-day public comment period, so these new requirements will not come into effect until this summer at the earliest, but if they do, Campoy surmises, it may make some people think twice about traveling to the US. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement condemning the proposals as “ineffective and deeply problematic”:
The EU’s upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is scheduled to come into force on May 25, expands the reach of existing privacy regulations, applying not just to European organizations but to all companies processing the personal data of EU residents, no matter where the company is located. It also requires organizations to request users’ consent for data collection and grants EU citizens a number of new rights, including the right to access data collected about them and the “right to be forgotten,” or to have that data erased. Organizations caught violating the regulation risk fines of as much as 4 percent of their annual global turnover or 20 million euros.
The GDPR has sent many companies scrambling to establish new data privacy functions and hire data protection officers to manage what they expect to be a hefty compliance challenge. For any organization that does business in Europe, GDPR compliance will involve ensuring that employee data is managed correctly, meaning the HR function has a large part to play. Talent Economy’s Sarah Fister Gale gives a primer on what the impending regulation means for HR:
The main job for HR on these projects is to make sure EU employees and recruits are given notice describing what personal data the company is collecting, how it is being used and how it will be shared and kept. [Neal Dittersdorf, general counsel and privacy officer for iCIMS,] noted that many companies already provide data notifications to these workers, however HR needs to be certain the language and timing of these notifications is updated to reflect GDPR requirements. …
Trillium Asset Management, an activist investment fund focused on social and environmental responsibility, has filed a shareholder proposal at Verizon that would tie executive compensation at the telecommunications giant to its performance against cybersecurity and data privacy goals:
Verizon shareholders request the appropriate board committee(s) publish a report (at reasonable expense, within a reasonable time, and omitting confidential or propriety information) assessing the feasibility of integrating cyber security and data privacy metrics into the performance measures of senior executives under the company’s compensation incentive plans. …
Currently, Verizon links senior executive compensation to diversity metrics and carbon intensity metrics. Cyber security and data privacy are vitally important issues for Verizon and should be integrated as appropriate into senior executive compensation as we believe it would incentivize leadership to reduce needless risk, enhance financial performance, and increase accountability.
The proposal points to several data breaches in the company’s recent history, including one that affected 1.5 million customers in 2016 and another affecting 6 million last year. It also expresses concern about the growing number of users whose data the company is now responsible for safeguarding following its acquisition of Yahoo and AOL, which will expand Verizon’s digital advertising reach to 2 billion people.
The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is scheduled to come into force on May 25, represents a massive overhaul of data privacy law throughout the bloc. The GDPR expands the reach of existing privacy regulations, applying not just to European organizations but to all companies processing the personal data of EU residents, no matter where the company is located. It also requires organizations to request users’ consent for data collection “in an intelligible and easily accessible form,” while granting EU citizens a number of new rights, including the right to access data collected about them and the “right to be forgotten,” or to have that data erased. Organizations caught violating the regulation will be fined as much as 4 percent of their annual global turnover or 20 million euros.
With the enforcement date of this massive new regulation just months away, “data protection officers are suddenly the hottest properties in technology,” Reuters’ Salvador Rodriguez reports:
More than 28,000 will be needed in Europe and the US and as many as 75,000 around the globe as a result of GDPR, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) estimates. The organization said it did not previously track DPO figures because, prior to GDPR, Germany and the Philippines were the only countries it was aware of with mandatory DPO laws.
When a district court in Washington, DC, ordered the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to rewrite its rules governing incentives for employee wellness programs last August, the court declined to vacate the commission’s current rules in order not to create disruptions in businesses that had already implemented programs based on them. The AARP, a lobbying group for older Americans and the plaintiff in the case against the EEOC, petitioned the court to amend its judgment and vacate the rules.
In its latest ruling, issued in late December, the court agreed to do so, but not until January 2019. Labor and employment attorney Jonathan E. O’Connell outlines the latest chapter of this legal drama at SHRM:
Also playing into the court’s decision to modify its prior judgement was the timeline offered by the EEOC for issuing its revised rule. The EEOC indicated that the new rule would not likely be ready until 2021. The court stated that such a lengthy delay was inconsistent with its expectation that the revised versions of the rule would be issued in a timely manner and thus also supported reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision. The court stated that “an agency process that will not generate applicable rules until 2021 is unacceptable” and strongly encouraged the EEOC to take steps to implement revised regulations faster.
Arguing on behalf of the EEOC, the Justice Department pushed back on that decision in a court filing this week, arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction to impose a deadline on the agency or force it to write new rules at all, Erin Mulvaney reports at the National Law Journal: