More US Companies Encouraging Employees to Vote This Year

More US Companies Encouraging Employees to Vote This Year

Anyone in the US who has recently had a work meeting derailed by their coworkers talking politics knows that the elections coming up on November 6 are attracting far more attention and interest than midterm elections normally do. The political environment in the US remains highly charged and polarized, while these elections are seen as having particularly high stakes. Poll watchers are expecting voter turnout to be high, partly helped along by a growing number of employers giving their workers paid time off to vote on Election Day. Beyond that, Washington Post columnist Jena McGregor reports, they are actively encouraging their employees to go out and vote:

At Cava, the Washington D.C.-based chain of Mediterranean fast-casual restaurants, its 1,600 workers will get two hours of paid time off to vote on Election Day this year if they request it in advance, a nationwide perk for its workers. For the first time, Tyson Foods, the meat company, has launched a company-wide voter registration initiative, with many of its plants participating in an effort to register employees and offer details about early voting, absentee ballots and voting locations. Levi Strauss & Co. has named volunteer “voting captains” in each of its offices and distribution centers to hold registration drives and educate workers; it’s also giving employees, including retail workers, paid time off to vote.

Organizations that give their employees time off on Election Day, whether they make it a holiday or simply let staff take a few hours off to vote, do so for a variety of reasons. At some companies, this decision stems from a culture of social responsibility; at others, it may be part of an effort to improve their public image. Though few companies take public positions in favor of a particular candidate or party, still others may be hoping that their employees vote a certain way. It could also help boost employee engagement and perceptions of the organization; a recent study by O.C. Tanner found that US workers who get time off to vote have more positive things to say about their employers than those who don’t, HR Dive reported last week:

Read more

More US Employees Telecommuting than Taking Public Transit to Work

More US Employees Telecommuting than Taking Public Transit to Work

New estimates from the US Census bureau, published last week, show that 8 million workers in the US are now primarily working from home, making telecommuting the country’s second most common way of getting to work after driving, displacing public transportation for the first time, Governing magazine reported on Friday:

Last year, an estimated 5.2 percent of workers in the American Community Survey reported that they usually telecommute, a figure that’s climbed in recent surveys. Meanwhile, the share of employees taking public transportation declined slightly to 5 percent and has remained mostly flat over the longer term.

The number of Americans telecommuting at least occasionally is much larger than what’s depicted in the federal data. That’s because the Census survey asks respondents to report how they “usually” go to work, meaning those working from home only a day or two each week aren’t counted. A 2016 Gallup survey found that 43 percent of employees spent at least some time working remotely. …

Those working from home at the highest rate — 11.7 percent — in the Census survey were classified as professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services workers. Other industries where telework is about as common include finance, insurance, real estate, agriculture and the information sector.

Last year’s American Community Survey data also showed that the number of US employees working remotely was on the rise: An analysis of that data found that 2.6 percent were working entirely from home—more than the number who walk and bike to work combined. Other surveys last year and this year have also found more Americans working from home, particularly workers over the age of 55. Employers see this trend continuing for the foreseeable future, and many are changing their policies around flexibility and remote work in response to greater demand for these options from employees in critical talent segments. Most US companies, however, don’t have explicit remote work policies, a survey earlier this year indicated.

Read more

How to Use Diversity and Inclusion to Engage Hourly Employees

How to Use Diversity and Inclusion to Engage Hourly Employees

Hourly employees make up over 50 percent of the total US employee population and a critical segment of the workforce at many organizations. While employee engagement efforts typically focus primarily on salaried employees who are perceived as having more of a long-term commitment to the organization, hourly employee engagement and loyalty are growing concerns for HR leaders in today’s tight labor markets. According to recent Gartner research, hourly workers are more engaged in their jobs when they are satisfied with their employer’s diversity and inclusion efforts.

In the past year, we’ve seen many large companies launch new initiatives to better engage and retain their hourly employees, whether through education benefits or opportunities to work with local nonprofit organizations. HR leaders have also seen improvement of hourly employee engagement when these employees have positive perceptions of their organization’s D&I activities, our research finds. In fact, when hourly employees are satisfied with D&I, they exhibit almost twice the discretionary effort and almost three times the intent to stay compared to those who are not satisfied. However, only about half of hourly employees are currently involved with D&I efforts and HR leaders are uncertain how to use D&I to engage this population.

Our D&I research team has uncovered three ways HR leaders can leverage hourly employee engagement in D&I to make a positive impact on the organization:

Integrate D&I in Current Processes

HR leaders should integrate D&I efforts into pre-existing engagement initiatives, such as team meetings, to ensure that cultural values and behaviors are articulated and implemented consistently throughout the organization. This approach addresses a key challenge hourly employees face when connecting to D&I at their organizations: They do not feel included on their teams. By building hourly employee inclusion into existing processes, organizations can improve team performance without creating additional structures for HR to manage.

Read more

Global Talent Monitor: Discretionary Effort Continues to Fall in US as Employee Confidence Dips

Global Talent Monitor: Discretionary Effort Continues to Fall in US as Employee Confidence Dips

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.”

Read more

ReimagineHR: A Tale of Two Employee Monitoring Programs

ReimagineHR: A Tale of Two Employee Monitoring Programs

As employee monitoring technologies move out of the realm of experimentation and into the mainstream, concerns over their impact on employee privacy, data security, and trust have become even more pressing. In a breakout session at Gartner’s ReimagineHR event in London on Wednesday, Principal Executive Advisor Clare Moncrieff elucidated the difference between the kind of employee monitoring we trust and that which we don’t. She began by asking the attendees if they agreed with the following statements:

  1. “Recording the location, actions and communications of employees is a necessary and important part of business operations.”
  2. “Recording the location, actions and communications of commercial airline pilots is a necessary and important part of business operations.”

Responses to the first statement were mixed, with about half the audience saying they agreed or strongly agreed and the other half saying they disagreed or felt neutral on the subject. On the other hand, every single attendee agreed with the second statement. What’s the difference?

One reason why the recording of commercial airline pilots was uncontroversial is that it has been a standard practice in the industry for nearly 60 years. Flight recorders (commonly referred to “black boxes”) are understood to be a normal and necessary component of air safety procedures. Their value in diagnosing and correcting problems that can lead to catastrophic accidents is unquestioned, and everyone—passengers, crew, airline administrators, regulators, and the public—understands and appreciates why they are needed.

Pilots don’t see these devices as intruding on their privacy, even though they record every conversation they have in the cockpit, because their benefits are clear and because airlines only use the information for a specific and clearly defined purpose. Data from the recorders is only accessed after an incident and is never shared or published. Black box data has never been used for purposes other than intended and there has never been a known breach of flight data security in six decades of using these recorders. Also, data from flight recorders is only one of many inputs into an inquiry, which also incorporates first-hand accounts from the flight crew.

Flight data recorders meet all the key criteria of an effective employee monitoring system, according to our research at Gartner: The purpose and beneficiary of the technology is clear and consistent, access to the collected data is strictly controlled, and employees’ voices are taken into consideration when interpreting the data. When monitoring follows these guidelines, employees are much more likely to trust and accept it.

Read more

Survey: US Employers Rethinking Compensation Programs

Survey: US Employers Rethinking Compensation Programs

A new survey released last week by Willis Towers Watson illustrates the key factors driving US companies to reassess and change their compensation practices. In explaining why they were making these changes, employers cited cost, manager feedback, changes in the marketplace, and employee feedback as the most common motivations. WTW’s Getting Compensation Right Survey, conducted in April 2018, surveyed 1,949 employers worldwide, including 374 US employers whose total workforce comprises more than 5.2 million employees.

Among the US employers, nearly half said they were considering or planning on redesigning their annual incentive plans, while more than a third said they were changing criteria for salary increases. This highlights a trend we’ve been seeing over the past few years, in which employers are rethinking the traditional annual raise and opting for more targeted and differentiated increases or bonuses to reward and incentivize performance. Many employers also told WTW that they were refocusing performance management to include future potential and possession of skills needed to drive the business in the future, as well as introducing recognition programs to provide on-the-spot rewards.

One move many companies are making is toward greater pay transparency, with 53 percent of respondents saying they were planning on or considering increasing the level of transparency around pay decisions. Our latest research at CEB, now Gartner, also finds that transparency is a growing concern among rewards functions. One driver of this trend is the increasing amount of information available to employees and candidates about what other people are earning in their roles, both within their organization and at other organizations, through external sources like Glassdoor or LinkedIn.

In our employee survey, we found that 42 percent of employees who had consulted one of these online sources for pay information had thought about leaving their current employer as a result. These external forms of transparency are making it increasingly important for employers to be more forthcoming about their pay practices and take control of the narrative around compensation at their organization to get ahead of employees who might find (potentially inaccurate) information elsewhere and draw their own conclusions.

Read more

Dogs at Work May Boost Engagement, But Don’t Forget the Downsides

Dogs at Work May Boost Engagement, But Don’t Forget the Downsides

Today marks the 20th annual observance of Take Your Dog to Work Day, an event launched by Pet Sitters International in 1999 to promote dog adoption by encouraging organizations to let their dog owner employees bring their canine companions to work for the day. Take Your Dog to Work Day highlights Americans’ increasing level of devotion to their pets, especially among Millennials, the largest generation of pet owners today. Rising rates of pet ownership are inspiring employers to offer benefits like pet insurance and even pet bereavement leave.

Indeed, many dog owners would love it if every day were Take Your Dog to Work Day, and some research purports to show that pet-friendly workplaces have many upsides, from increased employee engagement and loyalty to reduced stress levels and greater overall wellbeing. For instance, a new study from Nationwide and the Human Animal Bond Research Institute suggests that employers with pet-friendly workplaces enjoy greater engagement among all employees, not just dog owners, Nick Otto and Yasemin Sim Esmen report at Employee Benefit News:

According to the study, 91% of the workforce feels more fully engaged in the work compared to 65% of employees who work in a non-friendly workplace, which is defined in the study as one that allows pets in the workplace (regularly or occasionally) and/or offers a pet-friendly employee benefit, such as health insurance. One of the interesting things that the study noted was the camaraderie and positive relationships with both supervisors and coworkers (52% and 53%, respectively) at pet friendly companies versus non-pet-friendly workplaces (14% and 19%).

Still, just a fraction of US employers allow employees to bring their pets to work, but some high-profile organizations do: Amazon has allowed dogs in the office at its Seattle headquarters for about 20 years, Jennifer Calfas reports at Time, and over 1,000 dogs come to work there with their owners on a regular basis. What works for Amazon, however, may not work for all workplaces. As Calfas notes, some dogs aren’t suited to spending time in an office, while some employees will object to having them around:

Read more