When we think of the “gig economy,” we usually think of platforms like Uber, Deliveroo, Fiverr, or Freelancer.com, which offer users flexible, contingent work on a piece or project basis. Taking a broader view, however, the advent of the gig economy has also had an impact on the way traditional employers think about meeting their talent needs. In our research at Gartner, over the past several years we have seen a number of organizations experiment with new models of hiring, engaging, and assigning workers, inspired by the gig economy. At our ReimagineHR event in London last week, Gartner Practice Leader Thomas Handcock walked HR leaders through several of these models and discussed how they might leverage them in their organizations as well.
Internal Career Marketplaces
Compelling career paths and opportunities to learn and grow within the organization are increasingly important aspects of the employee value proposition, particularly—though by no means exclusively—for Millennial employees. The stereotype of the Millennial job-hopper reflects the notable desire among employees of this generation for a greater variety of experiences in their careers. If your organization can’t offer employees this range of experiences and opportunities to acquire new skills, they are likely to seek them elsewhere: Lack of development opportunities is among the leading drivers of attrition for employees worldwide, Gartner’s Global Talent Monitor data show.
To address this demand for development and variety, innovative employers are making it easier for their workers to find their next job within the company rather than outside it, through internal career marketplaces. These marketplaces, which at companies like HCL Technologies operate through digital platforms, can help employees plot their career paths and understand what internal moves they need to make to reach the position they desire. This allows them to develop their careers more rapidly or grow in new directions more easily without changing employers. For the employer, these internal labor markets offer an effective way to retain and develop high-potential employees. Internal hires for new roles also require less onboarding and come with the benefit of pre-existing institutional knowledge and alignment with the organization’s culture. (Gartner Corporate Leadership Council members can learn more about HCL’s Career Connect portal in our case study.)
Dr. Eddie Obeng delivering a keynote at ReimagineHR in London (Gartner)
At the start of his keynote session at Gartner’s ReimagineHR summit in London last week, British organizational theorist, educator, and author Dr. Eddie Obeng offered a glimpse of the fast-arriving virtual workplace. A wearable mouse attached to his wrist, Obeng gave the audience a tour of a 3-D classroom projected on the screen, walking to different chalkboards and interacting with his colleagues present in the virtual room while actually participating from a remote office. In this way, Obeng illustrated the potential of flashy new technologies in shaping the future of work.
In our HR research practice at Gartner, however, we know from hundreds of calls with HR leaders and professionals that when many of them see this flashy technology, they say: “We’re not Google, we’re not Amazon; we simply can’t afford this level of digital enhancement.” They want to know what the future of work means for them: What can they actually do with the resources they have? When Obeng asked the audience to share some of their fears about the digitally-enabled presentation he was showing them, they said it would be “impractical,” “too techy,” and “too expensive” for them to implement.
But Obeng very quickly challenged the audience by telling them to forget about technology, that we’re using it all wrong. New technology, he asserted, is of limited value if we don’t rethink the processes by which people work. Technology may be changing around us, but our habits and behaviors have not. Our habits and practices are deeply ingrained, and as a result it is difficult to imagine what the future should look like; instead, as he put it, we “imagine the present, but shinier.”
Relating his topic back to HR, Obeng noted that everything about our organizational structure and talent processes, from compensation and benefits to learning and development to the hierarchical org chart, is designed for the world as it used to be, when organizations were able to see what was coming. Today, that’s impossible: Change happens faster than we and our processes can adapt. A senior leadership team making all decisions for an organization, Obeng said, can process about the same amount of data in an hour as our mobile phones can in a minute. Rather than trying to simply move faster, we need to reimagine the way we move.
In a panel discussion at Gartner’s ReimagineHR event in London last week, Birgit Neu, Global Head of Diversity & Inclusion at HSBC, and Eric Way, Director of Diversity & Inclusion at Volvo Group, sat down with attendees to share their experiences evolving their organizations’ D&I strategies over time. Although Birgit and Eric come from different organizations with different D&I journeys, common themes emerged from their stories that offer some insight into how to run a successful D&I program. A key point both panelists raised was that D&I must be “red-threaded”—that is, consistently part of the entire employee experience, both on an individual level and in interactions with colleagues.
Birgit was HSBC’s first global Head of Diversity & Inclusion, which meant that her strategic direction was defined by the organization’s need to understand what work was already being done in the space of D&I at the organization. Her first tasks were to build that understanding and use it to create a central theme for how the organization would approach their D&I mission in a unified way going forward. Being closely aligned with the talent analytics function, she said, helped her and her team to assess the experience of the bank’s employees and identify opportunities for improvement.
One example she gave was about parents and caregivers: Many organizations assess the number of parents in the organization by how many individuals have identified dependents in the HR information system. At HSBC, however, Birgit and the talent analytics team were able to determine that when asked directly, many more individuals identified themselves as parents than the system indicated. This gave the company an opportunity to reconsider the experiences of the parents in its workforce and think about wellness communications in a different way. HSBC went back to employees to see if there was a difference between parents and caregivers, as they had previously lumped these groups together. They found that asking people these questions separately gave them a clearer picture of their employees’ needs and challenges, and have been able to work with the benefits team to ensure that communications are relevant and timely to each group’s needs.
Employees today are more likely than ever to demand transparency about compensation practices at their organization. Total rewards leaders agree that pay transparency would benefit the organization in numerous ways. Yet even though everyone seems to be on board, organizations are slower to adopt this practice than you might expect. In our latest research at Gartner, 60 percent of the organizations we surveyed said they had not yet acted on pay transparency at all, while only 14 percent had fully realized it.
So why aren’t we making faster progress toward an outcome all stakeholders agree is the right thing to do? In a session at Gartner’s ReimagineHR event in London last Thursday, Advisory Leader Ania Krasniewska armed the total rewards leaders in attendance with strategies for surmounting obstacles to pay transparency and getting senior leaders and line managers at their organizations on board. Here are some of the most common reasons why organizations shy away from pay transparency, along with some counterarguments HR leaders can use to win over a skeptical CEO:
“It’s just a trend.”
The pressure organizations are facing today to be more transparent about their compensation practices comes from several directions: Millennial employees expect more transparency than previous generations did, employees have more access to (often inaccurate) pay information from outside sources like Glassdoor or PayScale, and governments and the media are advocating transparency as a means of driving pay equity. For an executive wary of pay transparency, it may be tempting to reason that these trends will eventually pass, but there is good reason to believe otherwise.
While Millennials and Gen Z are the employee cohorts most commonly associated with demands for pay transparency, they’re not the only employees who want it. Like other Millennial-driven trends in the workplace today, the younger generation of employees is simply more vocal in demanding things that in fact, employees of all ages would like. Their attitudes also influence their parents, neighbors, and older colleagues. Millennials aren’t the only ones using Glassdoor: Many of the employees who use these external sources to compare their salaries with those of their peers are in senior positions at their organizations. Furthermore, Millennials aren’t going away; they are already the largest segment of the workforce and Gen Z will eventually be even bigger. Gambling that these generations will stop caring about pay transparency later on is a very risky bet.
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.
Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani at ReimagineHR in London (Gartner)
Across a variety of industries, the demand for talent with digital skills continues to outstrip the supply. In recent years, many companies have realized that one way to fill this skills gap is to address the significant gender imbalance in roles like software engineering, where men outnumber women three-to-one in the US and by even larger margins in other countries like the UK and China.
This hasn’t always been the case; women were the first programmers in the early days of computing, before coding was seen as a prestigious and lucrative profession. Yet the real shift toward programming being such a male-dominated profession is even more recent, Girls Who Code founder Reshma Saujani pointed out in a keynote address at Gartner’s ReimagineHR event in London on Wednesday: In 1995, women made up almost 40 percent of the computing workforce in the US, whereas today, they make up less than 25 percent. And at a time when there are roughly 500,000 unfilled positions in computing in the US and as many as 700,000 in the UK, Saujani argued, the issue isn’t a question of gender parity for its own sake: companies need women in tech just as much as women deserve the opportunity to do these jobs.
So why are so few women taking jobs in computing? For one thing, the tech industry has developed a reputation as an unwelcoming work environment for women: Sexism and sexual harassment scandals have emerged at several major tech companies in the past two years, while women in tech say they are often pressured to cut short the leave they take when they start families, even as tech companies continue to offer world-class parental leave policies. To that end, bringing back women who left the workforce to raise children or care for aging relatives is one way companies are looking to close their tech talent gaps.
Yet a more fundamental obstacle, Saujani explained, comes much earlier in women’s lives.
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:
- “Recording the location, actions and communications of employees is a necessary and important part of business operations.”
- “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.