Quantcast
Subscribe!

 

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

E-mail Steve
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Listen to internet radio with Steve Boese on Blog Talk Radio

    free counters

    Twitter Feed

    Entries in HR (502)

    Monday
    Feb182019

    PODCAST: #HRHappyHour 358 - HR Technology for Diversity & Inclusion

    HR Happy Hour 358 - HR Technology for Diversity & Inclusion

    Host: Steve Boese

    Guests: Stacia Sherman Garr, RedThread Research; Carole Jackson, Mercer

    Listen HERE

    This week on the HR Happy Hour Show, Steve was joined by Stacia Sherman Garr of RedThread Research and Carole Jackson of Mercer to share their insights on the HR technology market and ecosystem for solutions and capabilities that support organizational Diversity & Inclusion initiatives.

    You can listen to the show on the show page HERE, on your favorite podcast app, or by using the widget player below:

    Their recent report, Diversity & Inclusion Technology: The Rise of a Transformative Market is the first deep dive into how HR technology solutions are developing and evolving to help support programs linked to making organizations more diverse and inclusive. From talent acquisition, to development and learning, to employee engagement and retention, and to reporting and analytics - D&I programs are increasingly reaching more HR and talent processes, and a wide-ranging set of HR technologies is emerging to help HR leaders meet their objectives.

    Stacia and Carole shared key findings from their research, talked about the HR tech landscape for D&I tech, and offered advice for HR and business leaders who are thinking about these solutions for the first time.

    This was a really interesting show - thanks to Stacia and Carole for joining us.

    Here's the HR Happy Hour Show with GoodHire that Steve mentioned on the show.

    Download Diversity & Inclusion Technology: The Rise of a Transformative Market here.

    Subscribe to the HR Happy Hour Show wherever you get your podcasts.

    Friday
    Feb152019

    CHART OF THE DAY: Another all-time record number of open jobs in the US

    The most essential state of the labor market report, the JOLTS report, was issued a few days ago by our pals over at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I won't bury the lead, the chart below shows most all of what you need to know from the Dec 2018 JOLTS data - namely, there were over 7.3 million open jobs in the US, an all-time high, at the end of December 2018.

    For those keeping score at home, the number of open jobs cratered in July 2009 at about 2.2 million and for just about a decade has steadily climbed to the 7.3 million number the BLS has just reported.

    And one more data point from the JOLTS, for the last nine months or so, there have been more open jobs in the US than officially unemployed persons to fill them. Said differently, even if we could magically place every current unemployed person in one of the open jobs, there would still be hundreds of thousands of jobs unfilled.

    There is good (lots of open jobs means lots of opportunity and optimistic companies looking to grow), and bad (why can't we get better at hiring, training, and expanding opportunity) in this kind of number. All things being equal, the state of the labor market in Dec 2018 is much, much more preferable to the nightmare of July 2009. But here's the funny thing - it might seem like a lifetime ago, but it really wasn't. 

    That's it from me - have a great weekend!

    Monday
    Feb042019

    Dealing with 'Hard to Fill' positions? Don't forget about throwing cash at the problem

    Quick shot for a post Super Bowl Monday - I have posted a few times over the last year or so about the US Trucking industry and the labor market for commercial truck drivers. I am fascinated by this sliver of the labor market as many of the big labor trends like increased automation, shifts in demographics, increased regulation, and employers struggling to hire enough new drivers (and retain existing ones), make this area really ripe for observation and analysis.

    Having said that, I wanted to highlight one of the strategies that one employer, in fact the largest private employer in the US, is rolling out in an attempt to find more candidates and ultimately make more hires. Simply put, it is throwing more cash at the problem. Here's what Walmart is doing in order to hire more truck drivers from a piece on Fortune:

    While some people focus on whether automation will kill long-haul trucking jobs over the long-term, Walmart is currently more concerned with its short-term reality. The company is once again raising truck driver salaries to try to correct for an ongoing shortage of drivers. Walmart needs to hire at least 900 drivers this year, according to the Dallas Morning News.

    One reason: trucking tonnage is way up. The American Trucking Association, the industry’s largest trade association, says that tonnage hauled annually is up 6% is up even while the industry continues to suffer from nearly 50,000 unfilled long-haul jobs. The ATA’s chief economist Bob Costello notes that in 2018, truck tonnage hit its highest peak in 20 years.

    In a separate change, Walmart also recently relaxed somewhat the candidate screening process for prospective drivers. Instead of a 'one and done', fail and you are out screen of driving skills, Walmart is now allowing candidates to attempt the driving capability screen, offer them coaching and suggestions on how to improve their performance on the test, and then the chance to re-take the test. 

    The TL;DR summary of all this? Walmart has a problem filling an important job so they are taking major steps to increase the candidate funnel by changing a key element of the screening process, and are throwing more cash at the problem to try and convince more job seekers (who continue to enjoy a strong labor market), to accept and remain in these truck driver positions.

    Let more people in the door, offer them more money to stay. Pretty simple, let's see how it works.

    Have a great week!

     

     

    Wednesday
    Jan302019

    PODCAST: #HRHappyHour 355 - HR in the Digital Age

    HR Happy Hour 355 - HR in the Digital Age

    Host: Steve Boese

    Guest: Harry Osle, Principal, Global Human Resources Practice Leader, The Hackett Group

    Listen HERE

    This week on the HR Happy Hour Show, Steve is joined by Harry Osle of The Hackett Group - www.thehackettgroup.com, to talk about some of Hackett's recent research on Digital Transformation and its impact on HR. On the show, Harry shared some of the research findings on the impact of technology advancements and digital transformations on the workplace and in the practice of HR. Harry shared some of the key drivers and impetus behind HR and workplace digital transformation and how HR leaders can become more aware of these drivers and incorporate them into their HR and HR tech programs and plans.

    Additionally, Harry shared what their research suggests for how the HR leaders and the HR organization's skills and roles will need to adapt to help their organizations meet these new tech and digital challenges and take advantage of the opportunities. This was an interesting and deep dive into digital transformation and how it will impact HR in 2019 and forward.

    You can listen to the show on the show page HERE, on your favorite podcast app, or by using the widget player below:

    Thanks Harry for joining the show.

    Remember to subscribe to the HR Happy Hour Show wherever you get your podcasts - just search for 'HR Happy Hour'. 

    Monday
    Jan142019

    More information is not always better information, or leads to better decisions

    Quick update for a busy, cold Monday in the Northeast. Over the weekend while enjoying my typical evening of NBA League Pass and catching up on some reading, I ran into this excellent piece on the Behavioural Investment blog titled 'Can More Information Lead to Worse Investment Decisions.'

    In the piece, author Joe Wiggins references a research study titled 'Effects of Amount of Information on Judgement Accuracy and Confidence' that was published in 2008 in the academic journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, (I trust you are all up to date on your stack of these journals). Long, (really long) story short, the researchers found that having more information available that was meant to help subject make decisions had interesting and counter-intuitive effects. Essentially, more information did not increase the quality of decision making in a significant way, while at the same time increasing the subject's level of confidence in their decisions, which as we just noted, did not in fact get any better.

    Here's a simple chart from one of the experiments showing what happened to decision quality and subject confidence when more information and data about the decision was made available to subjects. 

    The data above shows how subjects in the study had to forecast a winner for a number of college football games based on sets of anonymised statistical information about the teams  The information came in blocks of 6 (so for the first trial of predictions the participant had 6 pieces of data) and after each subsequent trial of predictions they were given another block of information, up to 5 blocks (or 30 data points in total), and had to update their predictions.  Participants were asked to predict both the winner and their confidence in their judgement between 50% and 100%. The aim of the experiment was to understand how increased information impacted both accuracy and confidence in their decisions/predictions.

    Joe at Behavioural Investment sums up the results of the experiment really well:

    The contrasting impact of the additional information is stark – the accuracy of decision making is flat, decisions were little better with 30 statistics than just 6, however, participant confidence that they could select the winner increased materially and consistently.  When we come into possession of more, seemingly relevant, information our belief that we are making the right decision can be emboldened even if there is no justification for this shift in confidence levels.

    A really important reminder and a kind of a warning for any of us, say in HR in 2019, who are increasingly seeking to and are more able to gather more and more data and information to use and apply in HR and talent decision making. If more information does not always, (or maybe ever), lead to better decisions, then we need to be really much more careful how we plan to gather, process, and apply data for decision making. 

    The most basic takeaway from this kind of study is that we probably need to spend much more time thinking about what data and information is meaningful or predictive towards making a decision, rather than increasing our efforts to simply gather more and more data, from all the possible available sources, under the probably false impression that more = better.

    There are plenty of reasons why we are inclined to gather more data is we can - we might not know what information is actually relevant, so we look to simply collect data, we want to show we did a lot of research before taking a decision, or we want to be more comfortable with our decision if it is supported by more data. 

    But I think it's best to start small with our data sets we apply to decisions, take time to test if the data we already possess is meaningful and predictive before chasing more data for its own sake.

    Ok, that's it, I'm out - have a great week!