The online survey development SurveyMonkey has launched a new tool for employers called SurveyMonkey Engage, which (you guessed it) surveys employees about their engagement, job satisfaction, future plans, and other talent dynamics. Phil Albinus reports at Employee Benefit News that the platform collects anonymous survey responses, analyzes them, and displays them in a dashboard for HR directors and senior executives to review:
The first Engage poll, called a “core survey,” is 15 questions plus a few questions that require comments, which the company says takes only five minutes to complete. Employees have two weeks to fill out the survey before the polling is closed.
After the first survey, Engage begins a monthly follow-up survey of three to five questions to create what it calls a “check in.” This “conversational cadence” allows SurveyMonkey to poll employees for their opinions on their employer’s workplace, connection with their job, work matters and more. Every six months, employees take another core survey that resembles the first survey to “establish the baseline of employee engagement.” The company just released a new question bank to add additional questions to the check-in surveys if they desire.
SurveyMonkey is only the latest polling company to get in the engagement survey game: Gallup, for example, has been offering employee engagement services for years. With business leaders more focused than ever on capturing the value of talent analytics, these third-party services are likely to proliferate further in the coming years.
Data scientists are among the most in-demand professionals in the US right now, as more and more industries look to harness the power of data to drive productivity and innovation to new heights. Demand is high and supply is short, so these experts command remarkably high salaries. However, recent research has suggested that many companies’ data isn’t sufficiently high-quality to produce the kinds of insights managers are expecting. This is particularly true in the emerging field of talent analytics, where companies are making major investments but most aren’t seeing them pay off.
In addition to the data quality challenge, Data Quality Solutions President Thomas C. Redman suggested in a recent Harvard Business Review article that senior managers at many organizations are mismanaging their data scientists: placing them in the wrong part of the organization, not focusing the data science program on business outcomes, and not facilitating a transition to a more data-driven culture. He offers some suggestions for how companies can get more out of their data scientists:
First, think through how you want data scientists to contribute, and put them in spots where they can do so. The worst mistake a company can make is to hire a cadre of smart data scientists, provide them with access to the data, and turn them loose, expecting them to come up with something brilliant. Lacking focus and support, most fail. Instead, clearly define the opportunities you want to address using data science, and put your data scientists in places in the organization where they can best pursue those opportunities. …
Diversity, new interviewing tools, data, and artificial intelligence are the four trends set to have the biggest impact on recruiting in the coming year, according to LinkedIn’s latest Global Recruiting Trends report. Based on a survey of over 9,000 talent leaders and hiring managers worldwide, along with a series of expert interviews, the report underscores the growing role of technology in shaping how companies meet their hiring goals, of which diversity is increasingly paramount. Nonetheless, while many HR leaders see these trends as important, the number of organizations fully acting on them lags far behind.
Diversity was the top trend by far, with 78 percent of respondents saying it was very or extremely important, though only 53 percent said their organizations had mostly or completely adopted diversity-oriented recruiting. In recent years, diversity has evolved from a compliance issue to a major driver of culture and performance, as more and more organizations recognize its bottom-line value. This shift was reflected in the LinkedIn report, with 62 percent of the companies surveyed saying they believed boosting diversity would have a positive impact on financial performance and 78 percent saying they were pursuing it to improve their culture. Additionally, 49 percent are looking to ensure that their workforce better reflects the diversity of their customer base.
Diversity was the only top trend identified in LinkedIn’s survey that wasn’t directly related to technology, but technology is definitely influencing how organizations are pursuing it. In the past year, we have seen the emergence of new software and tools to support diversity and inclusion. The aim of these tools is to remove the human error of unconscious bias from the recruiting process, but it’s important to be aware that automated processes can also develop built-in biases and end up replicating the very problem they are meant to solve. This is an issue we’ve been following in our research at CEB, now Gartner; CEB Diversity and Inclusion Leadership Council members can read more of our insights on algorithmic bias here.
The development of new interview tools and techniques was identified as the second most important trend, with 56 percent saying it was important. The LinkedIn survey found that the most common areas where traditional interviews fail are assessing candidates’ soft skills (63 percent), understanding candidates’ weaknesses (57 percent), the biases of interviewers (42 percent), and the process taking too long (36 percent). The report highlights five new interviewing techniques, all enabled by technology, that aim to address these problems:
Employee monitoring technologies represent the cutting edge of workplace gadgets, and these technologies are already becoming increasingly common, from sociometric badges to tracking devices at desks to sentiment analysis and even experiments with microchipping employees. Olivia Solon at the Guardian recently explored the next generation of this tech:
How can an employer make sure its remote workers aren’t slacking off? In the case of talent management company Crossover, the answer is to take photos of them every 10 minutes through their webcam. The pictures are taken by Crossover’s productivity tool, WorkSmart, and combine with screenshots of their workstations along with other data —including app use and keystrokes—to come up with a “focus score” and an “intensity score” that can be used to assess the value of freelancers.
Today’s workplace surveillance software is a digital panopticon that began with email and phone monitoring but now includes keeping track of web-browsing patterns, text messages, screenshots, keystrokes, social media posts, private messaging apps like WhatsApp and even face-to-face interactions with co-workers. …
It is not news that digitalization is forcing organizations to change faster than ever, and that organizational cultures need to equip employees to keep up with the pace of change. In fact, the average organization spends $2,212 per employee per year on culture management, and 82 percent of HR business partners say culture is very important to accomplishing their organizations’ strategies. To address these issues, a group of 57 innovative HRBPs, HR generalists, and other strategic HR professionals gathered with CEB, now Gartner, in New York on November 2 to discuss how to use best practices in culture management to arm their organizations for the digital age.
Our latest research on culture looks at the traditional strategies organizations use to manage organizational culture, what works well, and how organizations can shift their approaches to get cultures that drive business performance. This means throwing out the traditional people-focused playbook on culture management in favor of our research-backed, process-focused strategy. CEB Corporate Leadership Council members can see more insights from our culture study in the latest issue of CHRO Quarterly magazine.
Thursday’s meeting was a fantastic opportunity to learn how different organizations are enacting the key teachings of our culture research, through steps such as:
- Engaging employees to gather unfiltered feedback.
- Teaching employees to navigate culture barriers.
- Redesigning processes to support the culture.
Here are some of the ideas HR practitioners shared and discussed in our New York gathering last week:
Moving From Annual to Daily Culture Measurement
One organization shared that they moved from measuring culture once a year to asking employees daily culture questions as they logged into their workstations. The results are available to managers in real time as long as four people on their teams participate on a given day. Leaders then have the autonomy to decide how they will use the daily feedback, but based on our research, they will now consider empowering employees to be the ones who take action.
In a peer benchmarking session at the ReimagineHR conference CEB, now Gartner, is hosting in Washington, DC, recruiting leaders representing hundreds of organizations expressed uncertainty about the role of technology in their function and its impact on their work.
Previous conversations we have had with recruiting leaders have suggested that technology investments were mostly focused on the front end of the process—sourcing and branding—but participants in Wednesday afternoon’s session said managing the talent pool was actually the top priority for technology investment, with sourcing second and branding lagging far behind. Those who chose talent pool management were primarily high-volume recruiters looking for a more efficient way to sift through thousands of applicants per open position.
When asked if they thought applying text analysis to job descriptions would have a demonstrable effect on hiring for diversity, recruiting leaders were skeptical. Only 14 percent believed it could, while the rest said no or that they were unsure. Textio and SAP are working on text analytics solutions to aid diversity efforts, but this uncertainty from their potential customer base underscores the idea that technology is not a cure-all for diversity.
In this half-hour talk posted last week at re:Work, Google’s VP of People Operations Prasad Setty discusses his experience leading the development of the search giant’s talent analytics program, and about the key difference he discovered between having data make decisions for people, and using data to improve the way people make decisions:
When Prasad Setty joined Google ten years ago to build its People Analytics team, he envisioned a workplace where all people-related decisions would be made by data and analytics. If algorithms were spitting out search terms, why couldn’t we use them to make decisions for and about our people?
Setty soon discovered that this was the wrong approach. Despite the ability of analytics to objectively predict outcomes with high accuracy, people were reluctant to rely solely on formulas when it came to making important decisions — especially decisions that involved people, such as a promotion. And so, Setty shifted his vision for the People Analytics team. Rather than using data and analytics to make all decisions at Google, the team’s mission would be to educate Googlers on how they were making decisions and to help them make better decisions over time.
What really stands out about Google’s approach here is that they chose not to use a quantitative focus, even though they had the analytic sophistication necessary to do so. At one point, Setty mentions how HR was able to create a logistic predictive model that was able to accurately predict promotion decisions with an error rate of only 10 percent based on a few easily measurable attributes. Despite this, the engineers involved in the hiring process made it very clear that they did not want to outsource such an important task away to an algorithm.
This is an important lesson in how organizations can effectively use data in managing talent issues, particularly culture change.