˙;3? review · the tech, consulting and banking sectors in particular have launched initiatives...
TRANSCRIPT
REVIEW
July 2019
Neurodiverse Talent / Generation Z
Senior Executive Remuneration / Corporate Culture
IN THIS ISSUE
2
Your Global Partnerin Talent Mappingand Pipelining
A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO TALENT ACQUISITION
MAPPING
PIPELINING
INSIGHT
A view of the current talent landscape butnot involving candidate engagement.
A population of proactively generated, assessedand engaged individuals who meet your current and future hiring requirements.
Discreet and unique insight from and about key talent in the market enabling betterinformed decisions.
“We enjoy working with AC because it feels like you are
working with colleagues rather than an outside company.
They get under your skin as they understand your culture
and the type of people who will really fit in.”
HR DIRECTOR, GLOBAL INSURANCE BUSINESS
“We benefit from AC’s flexible talent mapping and
pipelining model when we have limited knowledge of
particular markets/regions. As a trusted provider,
AC delivers great candidates couple with very helpful
market information and has been used for hard-to-fill
or niche Development roles, notably in Asia.”
HEAD OF GLOBAL STAFFING,MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
HEALTHCARE & LIFE SCIENCES I FINANCIAL SERVICES I TECHNOLOGY
CONSUMER I INDUSTRIAL I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
“We have gained value from some excellent work from
Armstrong Craven. They are able to create valuable
business intelligence and organisational insights that feed
directly into our buisiness considerations and help us
make strategic talent decisions.”
HEAD OF TALENT SOLUTIONS,GLOBAL HEALTHCARE COMPANY
We were delighted with the
response to the last issue which
contained articles on the age
agnostic workplace, agile
recruitment and digital talent.
The articles contained in AC
Review 3 will hopefully prove just
as thought-provoking and provide
you with useful intelligence in the
ongoing development of your
talent acquisition strategies.
The topics we have chosen for
this issue include:
Neurodiverse talent
Generation Z
Senior Executive remuneration
Corporate Culture
Armstrong Craven continues to go
from strength to strength. This
year has seen further expansion
with the opening of a new global
hub in the US and the
appointment of Leslie Lazarus
as our Head of Americas.
We are also continuing to see
further growth in the APAC
region under the leadership of
Helen Coult as clients continue to
benefit from our range of services
which enable them to take a far
more strategic approach to TA.
Please do drop me a line if you
have any questions or ideas
regarding this edition of the AC
Review or would like to find out
more about how Armstrong
Craven may be able to partner
with your organisation.
KANESh KhILOSIA
CEO, Armstrong Craven
3
Welcome to the latest edition of theArmstrong CravenReview.
Kanesh Khilosia
4
Attractingneurodiversetalent By Robert Fulford
5
The business case for neurodiversity relatesstrongly to talent acquisition, and a growingnumber of companies are launching initiativesto hire neurodiverse talent.
As Megan Hogan, Global Head of DiversityRecruitment at Goldman Sachs stated to CNN:"We [have been] missing out on an opportunityto tap really highly skilled and highly intelligentindividuals for the bank..
Essentially, why throw out talent that can offervaluable skills, productivity and innovation tothe workforce?
Neurodiversity includes conditions that aredevelopmental, relating to skills such as readingor writing (e.g. dyslexia, dyscalculia), clinical(autism, ADHD, Tourette’s), or acquired (changesin mental health or arising from neurologicalillness or brain injury).
Up to 15% of people are neurodivergent and thistalent is increasingly being recognised in thecommercial world, driven by the war for talentand wider diversity and inclusion agendas.
The tech, consulting and banking sectors inparticular have launched initiatives supportingthe recruitment of neurodiverse talent, includingSAP, Microsoft, EY, Goldman Sachs, DXCTechnology, IBM and JPMorgan Chase.
Unlike neurotypical people, the skillsets ofneurodivergent people are ‘spikey’ (see chart).This means that certain ways of thinking andprocessing information are stronger than others,but if properly supported and aligned to roles,these special characteristics can become positiveassets in the workplace.
Strength-based approach
People with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)may have strengths in attention to detail,memory and innovative thinking and may alsobe dedicated, loyal employees. James Mahoney,head of JP Morgan’s ‘Autism at Work’ program,has stated: “Employees on the autism spectrumwere as much as 140% more productive thantheir peers.” Many initiatives focus on autismand technical employers make good use of thesespecial skills.
Dyslexia affects an even higher proportion of thepopulation – up to 10%. These individuals can beentrepreneurial with strong visual reasoning,practical skills and story-telling abilities. RichardBranson has famously acknowledged the benefitsof his neurodivergence: “Out in the real world,my dyslexia became my massive advantage: ithelped me to think creatively and laterally, andsee solutions where others saw problems.”However, there have been far fewer, if any,special initiatives to recruit for people withdyslexia.
The neurodiversity paradigm is all abouthighlighting strengths, not weakness. Thiscontrasts with medical models that pathologisedisabilities, characterising them as weaknesses tobe fixed (e.g. Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder). Neurodiversity aligns with the socialmodel of disability which argues that it is not theindividual that is disabled, it is society and theenvironment that disables people.
A ‘spikey profile’ of neurodiverse talent*
*(from BPS ‘Psychology at Work’ report)
Verbal Skills Verbal SkillsWorkingMemory
IQ S
core
(10
0 is
ave
rag
e)
Neurodiverse
Neurotypical
ProcessingSpeed
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
6
Challenges around neurodiversity and work
One big challenge relates to stereotyping.Recruitment and selection campaigns for specificneurodiverse conditions such as ASD carry therisk that we assume all people with thatcondition are similar.
This is simply not true. In April 2019, clinicalpsychologist Simon Baron-Cohen wrote that“Neurodiversity is dividing the autismcommunity.” He pointed out that “some autisticpeople have no functional language and severedevelopmental delay, others have milderlearning difficulties, whilst others have averageor excellent language skills and average or evenhigh IQ”.
Autistic people are therefore hugely diverse.However, only 16% of people with autism in theUK are in full time employment, indicating thatcomplex challenges exist and that the concept ofneurodiversity isn’t relevant for everyone.
Another challenge relates to dyslexia. Despite thehuge numbers affected, very few organisationsare tailoring recruitment to avoid excludingpeople with dyslexia. This represents a hugepotential loss of talent.
Although dyslexia is a reading and writingdisorder, the real disablers in adulthood areoften social and environmental factors thatdamage confidence and self-esteem. Despitepowerful software for spelling and grammar, the corporate world remains hung-up on perfectwriting ability. We routinely request these skillsin our job descriptions (JDs), but are we
discounting individuals who could be strongentrepreneurial, creative, team-players andleaders? Our attitudes towards spelling are socio-culturally embedded and will be hard to shift.
Putting diversity into practice and achievinginclusion is perhaps the biggest challenge of all.As Sally Paull, CHRO at Regeneron, puts it:“Diversity without inclusion falls flat. Inclusion isall about saying "yes" to all that could contributeto our success. Inclusion is the ultimate goal.”
Neurodiversity is simply a recognition that we allthink differently, but currently it doesn’t fullyaddress the challenges neurodivergent peoplemay experience at work. It is not yet knownwhether initiatives for neurodiverse talent candevelop and retain talent in the long-term, andthere is very little empirical researchunderpinning support for neurodivergent talentin the workplace.
Recruiting for Neurodiversity
So what practical solutions exist? There is plentyof advice about tailoring recruitment processesto avoid excluding neurodiverse talent.Recruitment marketing should includeneurodiversity case studies, and all JDs shouldbe reviewed. Typically, JDs are written forgeneralists in the hope of finding someone who‘ticks all the boxes’, but this discouragesneurodivergent applicants. Is ‘exceptionalcommunication’ really essential for a technicalrole? Is ‘exceptional writing ability’ essential fora creative leadership position?
7
Exploring different assessment formats
Interviews are particularly challenging for thosewith ASD who may be rated poorly due to eyecontact, body language or social skills. However,interviews are primarily tests of memory recalland social skills and performance at interviewonly predicts half the variance of subsequent jobperformance. Different assessment formatsshould therefore be explored, and interviewersshould be objective as possible before rejectingsomeone on first impressions.
Yet recruitment is only the beginning of thestory. Once employed, neurodivergentindividuals should have equal access to support,career development and high-quality jobs.Neurodiversity may be termed a disability as perthe Equality Act (2010) which ensures employees‘are not substantially disadvantaged when doingtheir jobs’.
The onus is on employers to make reasonableadjustments such as providing writing software,additional screens, or working to minimise thesensory noise or light overload in open planoffices. These should always reflect the uniqueneeds of the individual.
Reassuringly, the ‘soft-skills’ required bymanagers to support neurodiverse talent maybenefit us all. The Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development (CIPD) says theseinclude clarifying unwritten conventions (e.g.dress codes), clear communication, flexibility(e.g. for working time or frequency of socialinteraction), structured feedback, handlingchange sensitively and providing support.
These behaviours are remarkably similar to theHSE Management Standards which advisemanagers to curate job demands, support theirteams, build strong relationships and involveteam members in change, in order to reducestress and promote well-being.
Recommendations
The neurodiversity paradigm provides a morebalanced, positive perspective on ability anddisability, that also provides an incentive toreform recruitment and selection processes forthe better.
The benefits extend beyond inclusion and mayimprove well-being for all employees, providingwe keep the following points in mind:
• Avoid stereotyping neurodiverse talent using‘one size fits all’ strategies for recruitment and selection. Ensure talent acquisition is flexible and treats people as individuals.
• Question whether exceptional communication skills or writing ability are truly essential or just desirable for a role, when writing JDs.
• Explore different interview formats, such as group tasks, which may be better suited for neurodiverse talent.
• Bear in mind that neurological conditions are spectrums. People’s needs change over time, and from person to person.
Our world is becoming more digitally connected,not less. Those who are neurodivergent, who havediversity of thought, are showing themselves to behighly capable in the digital world and beyond.“
THEO SMITH, Recruitment Manager at the National Institute for Health
and Care Excellence and Regional Editor for Europe at ChatTalent
Robert Fulfordis a Global ProgrammeManager at ArmstrongCraven
“
8
Most of us think of ‘millennials’ as the young
people in our organisations. However, you may
be surprised to learn that the eldest of this
generation (born between the 1981 and 1996)
will soon be approaching 40 and that attention
has already turned to the next generational
cohort, Generation Z.
The Pew Research Centre defines Generation Z
as those born between the years 1997 and 2010,
which means the oldest members of this tribe
are embarking on their careers.
It is predicted that Gen Z will bring new
disruptions to organisations so understanding
who this generation is, how they differ from
their millennial predecessors and what their
potential needs and demands are will put
human resources and talent acquisition teams in
the driving seat to attract and retain the talent
they need to grow and thrive in the future.
Despite growing up in turbulent times, Gen Z are
enthusiastic, optimistic and ambitious about
their future careers and they could just be the
most workforce-ready generation yet.
What will Generation Z want from the
workplace?
Research tells us that Gen Z are most effective in
empowering work cultures with a high degree of
autonomy, placing a high value on mentorship
and will want close relationships with superiors
providing constant feedback on their
performance.
They value success, professional and academic
achievement above most other areas, even
salary. In fact, Gen Z could be more success
driven than any other generation.
Whereas baby boomers (born between 1946 and
1964) were more likely to be driven by family
and religion, Gen Z is all about personal success.
Perhaps contradictory to this, they will also
crave job and financial stability, having grown
up in a political and economic climate that has
seen major change and a global recession with
the possibility that their parents or older siblings
have been affected by debt, financial worries
and job uncertainty. They will want honesty and
a personal experience at work, favouring
personal contact through social media.
Generation Z?ARE yoU REAdy foR
By Ian Millard
9
Many employers are still focussed on work
cultures for millennials such as providing
friendly environments, flexible working and
benefits but our post-millennials will want
employers to be more focussed on career
growth, fulfilling work and stability in the
workplace.
A recent Forbes survey revealed that over 80% of
Gen Z say an emphasis on personal growth is the
most important quality they seek from an
employer and most will be ambitious to achieve
their “dream job” within ten years.
Companies that can build a strong reputation for
nurturing and developing these desires through
training, development and offering opportunities
to experience different jobs and disciplines in the
business will be more successful at attracting and
retaining the talent they need.
Unsurprisingly, they are very technically savvy,
even more so than millennials; remember they
have never known a world where information
is not instantly available, and they can multitask
quickly across many platforms.
While the anticipation is that they will bring
unprecedented levels of technical skills, there is
also apprehension about their interpersonal
communication skills. Having grown up around
social media, this could have a potential negative
impact on these interpersonal skills that we have
taken for granted in previous generations.
Generation Z and its impact on Talent
Sourcing
Many organisations may be starting to look at
updating their talent acquisition process to
match with Gen Z’s working needs as well as
their own business needs.
Firstly, our talent cohort will want a different
relationship with potential employers. They will
expect to have built a personal connection with
a business to decide where to apply. This
relationship will need to be developed across
multiple channels and platforms.
Gen Z will choose employers
on how they perceive they can
help them develop and achieve
their personal ambitions.
Gen Z want to knowthe good, the bad, and the ugly. They want tohave a realistic look intowhat it is really like towork at your company.No company is perfectand this generationappreciates as muchtransparency as possible.
“
“
ROBIN DAGOSTINO,
Director of Global Employer Brand, SAP
10
In addition, organisations must give prospective
candidates a great candidate experience from
the start, involving engaging with potentially
large volumes in a meaningful way in which
both technology, culture and personality play a
big part. In contrast to their predecessors, they
will yearn for person-to-person contact and
authenticity in the way an employer sells
themselves.
More so than ever, companies will need to build
a strong employer brand. Gen Z will choose
employers on how they perceive they can help
them develop and achieve their personal
ambitions.
Other factors they will consider will be their
commitment to equality, diversity, inclusion,
social and environmental responsibility. The
recent Forbes survey showed that 77% of Gen Z
say that an organisation’s level of diversity
affects their decision to work there, while almost
all (93%) said that a company’s impact on society
is also a critical factor.
Fortunately, technology and automation in talent
sourcing can streamline processes for both
candidates and recruiters. However, any
negative or perceived negative experience could
lead to this damaging the brand.
Poor communication and process can no longer
be hidden due to the plethora of online channels
available for sharing experiences.
Over 70% of potential candidates now look at
company reviews before making career
decisions.
More than 10 million of the 32 million unique
monthly users on Glassdoor are classed as either
millennials or Gen Z, so it seems obvious that
employers need to take this very seriously. SAP,
for example, has a team to monitor, respond and
act on trends and feedback.
Gen Z also look for information in two key
places, YouTube and Instagram, with many
organisations having already embraced these
platforms. Those who haven’t will be at risk of
being left behind.
It may also be necessary for talent acquisition
teams to revaluate the skill sets they look for and
how they assess these. This may mean assessing
more candidates who can demonstrate their
mental capability and breadth of skills and that
they can easily move between disciplines and
roles.
Business leaders will also have to become
champions of this non-traditional movement
across the organisation as this will fit a
candidate’s desire to learn and develop in a
stable and nurturing environment.
Those sourcing talent will have to redefine their
strategies to develop a “broader aperture” for
talent, looking beyond technical skills and,
instead, for evidence of cognitive skills such as
communication, negotiation and project
management skills.
Interviewing and Selection
Many believe that those organisations that
embrace new methods of talent sourcing and
attraction will lead the way in securing the best
people in the talent market of the future.
Experts also believe there will also need to be a
move from tried and tested methods of selection
such as behavioural and technical interviews.
For jobs that prioritise cognitive and technical
capabilities, methods such as competitions,
workdays and hack-a-thons will become more
common.
The recent Forbes
survey showed that 77%
of Gen Z say that an
organisation’s level of
diversity affects their
decision to work there,
while almost all (93%)
said that a company’s
impact on society is also
a critical factor.
“
“
11
Ian Millardis a ProgrammeManager atArmstrong Craven
One example of innovation in talent acquisition
is a global software company which recognised
that its challenge was recruiting people who
could collaborate and work well with others as
well as having specific programming skills.
Rather than relying on traditional behavioural or
scenario-based interviewing, it brought in
multiple candidates at one time and paired these
candidates up to work on a project for the day.
The business was able to assess and evaluate
how a well a candidate was able to bring out the
best in the person they had been partnered with,
while people also switched to see how well they
performed with different partners. The company
credits this approach for its recent successes in
hiring people with strong interpersonal, team
working and leadership skills.
The process of addressing the needs of post
millennials is congruent with the steps many
businesses must take to thrive in the modern
world such as embracing technology and
automation, and building strong employer
brands.
And, while this article has focussed on the
emergence of the Gen Z workforce, we should
prepare ourselves for Generation Alpha (those
born between 2010 and 2025), known as the
iGeneration and the children of the millennials.
focussed on flexible working and flexible
benefits
Strong cognitive skills, better at learning from
their peers
Pioneers in the digital age
favoured communication via text and email
More Idealistic
diversity and inclusion – grew up in a period
of profound change
Use social media and internet to research
and form opinions on potential employers
Grew up in a boom time, not afraid to take on
less stable employment
focussed on personal growth
development needed around cognitive
and team working skills
Born into the digital age
Prefer a personal connection achieved using
multiple social media platforms
More pragmatic
diversity and inclusion – Change is the new
normal
Use multiple platforms (including peer-to-peer) to
review and decide on potential future employers
Grew up in a time of uncertainty and crave
stability
MILLENNIALS GENERATIoN Z
MILLENNIALS GENERATIoN Z vs
12
Executive pay is never far from the headlines.
Given a number of high-profile corporate
governance failures and the stagnation of wages
for the general population, it is little surprise that
the debate is high on the agenda again.
Where headlines go, politicians are bound to
follow, and it is fair to say they are more
concerned with other people’s pay than ever
before.
Rightly, some political intervention is aimed at
improving the circumstances of definable groups
– the complex mechanism of the minimum wage
and the requirement for large organisations to
publish their gender pay gaps and work towards
narrowing them, being positive examples.
What is interesting with executive pay, is that
media and political intervention is not motivated
in any clear way at improving the position of
anybody, but instead attacks the moral basis of
what is perceived as the over generous
remuneration that arises from the market
economy, and then demanding it is curtailed.
Criticism is often selective. Listed company
executives are commonly in the firing line, but
entrepreneurs (and football stars) are not.
Political views have also shifted sharply from a
cross party neutrality about acceptable high pay.
In 1998, Labour Cabinet Minister Peter
Mandelson was ‘intensely relaxed about people
getting filthy rich (as long as they pay their
taxes)’, whereas in 2018 Conservative Minister
Caroline Nokes asserted that no one should get
an annual salary over £1 million.
To date, the key changes for UK quoted
companies include mandatory disclosure of pay
ratios between CEO and employees and the
publishing of a narrative explaining any changes
to that ratio from year to year setting them into
context of pay across the workforce.
And on the horizon? There have been pushes
from the Opposition to give employees a direct
say in executive pay in listed companies through
worker representation on boards, and Rachel
Reeves, Chair of the Commons’ Business
Committee, has argued that excessive executive
pay undermines public trust in business while
average worker pay is squeezed, and that
Government should take tougher measures on
pay if boards and RemCos fail to exercise
moderation on awarding executive pay.
Why does CEopay get such abad press?By Jon Salmon
13
There is little doubt that executive pay is an
important issue, and the prevailing wind with
politicians, media and public is reduction.
However, beyond the headlines what are the
wider arguments?
The indictment
Central to the indictment is that executive pay
has risen far faster than the average wage in
recent decades without any corresponding
increase in company performance. The
argument that international competition for rare
talent justifies the high CEO pay is dismissed on
the basis that most companies promote from
within and analysis that suggests long
established businesses (as opposed to
entrepreneurial start-ups) succeed on
established systems rather than the singular
abilities of the incumbent CEO.
There are suggestions that most shareholders
would like to see more modest levels of
executive pay, but are too far removed from the
operations of corporations by virtue of the
financial advisors, asset managers and pension
funds that hold shares on their behalf;
intermediaries that are highly paid themselves
and unlikely to take issue with generous pay.
And of the RemCos that are required to be
independent of the company’s management
structure? These committees, it is argued, are
from the same mould as the executives they
reward – generously paid, from similar
backgrounds and often holding or having held
executive posts on other boards.
The increasing use of Long Term Incentive Plans
is seen as driving the vast increase of CEO pay in
recent years despite the intention that LTIPs
award varying levels of reward based on the
company performance over the coming 3- 5 year
period. Proponents of reform claim that the near
universal use of LTIPs is undermining corporate
governance; the fact that LTIPs pay out for
almost every CEO almost every year despite
performance is indicative of the problem given
that they are meant to be awarded for
exceptional leadership.
Criticism isoften selective.“
“
14
The case for the defence
Central to the defence is that the executive pay
agenda is largely political and based on
arguments that are fundamentally flawed.
Government is concerned with public opinion,
Institutional shareholders are nervous of being
accused of poor governance, and newspapers
want to sell copy.
Journalists and then politicians have been
convinced by flawed analysis, and then repeated
the myths that executive pay is out of control
and there being a lack of correlation between
executive pay and listed company performance.
A problem with the reporting on executive pay
are the headline grabbing surveys and analysis
giving rise to vast increases in CEO mean pay.
The High Pay Centre ran an analysis that gave
CEO mean pay an increase of 23%, which was
grossly distorted by excessive pay in a few
companies. Further into the report was an
admission that the median increase was 6%.
Are CEOs genuinely unaccountable for poor
performance? This theme is generally based on
the view that salaries and bonuses are
insensitive to company performance. While
there may be some truth to this, salaries and
bonuses are only a small part of the incentive.
The biggest component is stock and options
holdings, and one has to consider not just stock
options granted this year but also the stock and
options granted in previous years.
The key then is not pay sensitivity, but a CEO’s
wealth sensitivity to performance. PwC has
calculated that a 10% drop in share price
equates to a drop of £650,000 in wealth for the
median FTSE 100 CEO.
Are shareholders too small to be heard and
powerless to influence CEO pay? There are
strong arguments to suggest this is the case, but
what happens when shareholders can dictate
what happens in a corporation? Evidence
suggests that when private equity firms or hedge
funds take large stakes in a firm they are not
afraid to make huge changes to improve
performance, increase innovation and, if
needed, even fire the CEO. However, they rarely
cut the CEO’s pay.
15
Worker representation on boards
The case for worker representation on
supervisory boards is contentious. Will this
herald the executive pay restraint that is being
called for? A common belief in the UK is that
high pay is generally a US and UK phenomenon.
A Bloomberg report in 2016, looked at 25 of the
largest economies and compared CEO pay of
listed companies. To little surprise, the US came
out on top at 2.6 times the average (average CEO
pay $16.95m on the S&P 500), then Switzerland
at 1.6 times and then the UK at an average CEO
pay of $9.61m for CEOs from the FTSE 100.
Surprisingly, Germany came in at 7th with
average pay for CEOs of companies listed on the
DAX 30 of $8.36m.
Germany’s high ranking comes as a shock given
the perception that German firms are an
example of transparency and fairness, largely
due to being subject to a supervisory board with
worker representation. However, German firms
are still open to the world, externally focussed,
and competing on a global market to attract and
retain the best CEO talent.
There is a strong case that perhaps it is worth
corporations paying the top salary to secure the
best talent for the role. The median value of a
FTSE 100 firm is approximately £9bn. If a CEO
contributes only 1% more than the next best
CEO, that contribution is worth £90bn (much
higher than the median £4m salary).
So, is reform warranted?
We have looked at various arguments central to
both sides of the debate and, beyond the facts, a
lot of the opinions are subjective such as should
pay be driven by market efficiency or social
equality.
Presented with the same statistics we can still
find difference in how to interpret them, but
perhaps we should start with the facts rather
than the headlines. Has this done more to create
resentment among the population than the
actual levels of pay themselves? Will naming and
shaming companies on the basis of the pay ratios
work or lead to misleading comparisons?
Maybe reform is warranted, but perhaps we
should move away from the mentality of pay
reduction for the sake of it and instead move
towards the mindset of value creation and work
towards incentivising CEOs to keep bringing
everyone else’s pay up.
Jon Salmonis a Global Client Partnerat Armstrong Craven
Journalists and
then politicians have
been convinced by flawed
analysis, and then
repeated the myths that
executive pay is out of
control and there being
a lack of correlation
between executive pay
and listed company
performance.
“
“
16
WHy CoRPoRATECULTURE IS VITAL ToTALENT MANAGEMENT By Nobumi Kobayashi
17
A good corporate culture is widely considered to
be central to attracting and retaining good
talent.
Despite this, there is no agreement over what
corporate culture entails, principally because it
varies from organisation to organisation.
The renowned Cultural Studies theorist,
Raymond Williams, describes culture as “a
whole way of life”. But what are the good
corporate culture practices that contribute
towards effective talent management,
particularly talent retention?
Nurturing a unique culture
Leading HR professionals regard corporate
culture as a pivotal talent management tool.
Karen Parkin, Executive Board Member at
Adidas Group with responsibility for Global
Human Resources, says the company’s focus lies
in “nurturing a unique culture that attracts and
retains great people”, revolving around “the
power of sports”. Clearly, shared values are
significant in shaping a corporate culture, but
how do we translate these into appropriate
practices?
Jennifer Hulett, Head of Human Resources at
Ericsson North America, sheds light on specific
practices. According to Hulett, they promote
“work-life balance, innovation and a very
collaborative work environment”. These are in
addition to “excellent benefits”, focusing on
“wellness”.
Jenn Barnett, Head of People at Grant Thornton,
says that in shaping their corporate culture, the
company endeavours to give their employees a
voice, “regardless of seniority”. Barnett points
out that this would encourage collaboration and
sharing in profit, leading to “a sense of
ownership and pride”.
Indeed, ensuring a close communication
between the employer and its employees is
imperative in this process. Carmel Galvin, Chief
Human Resources Officer at Glassdoor,
emphasises this point. She suggests that “we’re
all about employee feedback”. What this means
is that the company listens to their employees
and they make changes in order to keep them
“engaged” and “productive”.
“ “Understanding the
needs of the employeesand trying to ensurethat these needs aremet is paramount innurturing a goodcorporate culture.
18
Measures to improve employee retention
According to Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development (CIPD), there are certain
measures which organisations can take that are
considered to play a “positive role” in improving
retention.
Most concern good communication with its
employees and prospective employees. In its
‘Employee Turnover and Retention’ resource it
proposes a “realistic” job preview at the
recruitment stage to avoid misunderstanding on
behalf of prospective employees. Similarly, it
stresses the importance of “understanding” and
“managing” employees’ career expectations.
Most of all, it advises organisations to consult
employees, ensuring employees have a “voice”
through the likes of “grievance systems”.
If employees have no opportunity to voice
dissatisfaction, this may result in “resigning” as
“the only option”.
The causes of dissatisfaction typically involve
working hours, workload and unfairness at
work. Interestingly, CIPD claims that many
organisations do not have “specific retention
strategies”.
Understanding the needs of the employees and
trying to ensure that these needs are met is
paramount in nurturing a good corporate
culture.
Michelle Prince, Senior Vice President, Global HR
at Randstad, claims that engaging employees in
“the conversation” as “the most evident” way to
achieve this end. Intriguingly, she points out
that, as simple as it may seem, this method is
“often overlooked”. This means that employers
tend to shy away from directly engaging their
employees in improving the corporate culture.
Conclusion
There is now far greater recognition that
creating a great corporate culture is an effective
tool in attracting and retaining talent. Many
leading corporations now incorporate this in
their talent management strategies.
Since corporate culture is a specific way of
running an organisation, it should ideally be
accepted by, if not designed to please, every
employee. To achieve this, close communication
is imperative but, as this article has indicated,
the lack of effective communication between
employers and employees continues to be the
main challenge in utilising corporate culture in
talent management.
“There is now far greaterrecognition that creating a great corporate culture is an effective tool inattracting and retainingtalent. Many leadingcorporations nowincorporate this in theirtalent managementstrategies.”
19
OUR CLIENT:
A leading financial services institution had taken
over a legacy technology centre of excellence in
Asia as part of an acquisition, but found
substantial challenges in both acquiring and
retaining technical talent which they presumed
was a result of their compensation and benefits
not being competitive in the market. The talent
market in question is highly competitive, with
leading global firms fiercely headhunting scarce
talent.
THE SOLUTION:
Armstrong Craven undertook a targeted
compensation and benefit study, focussing on
specific job families at various levels of seniority
and conducting interviews with employees at
competitor organisations to not only understand
their basic salary, bonus structure and benefits,
but also their motivations to change jobs and
factors affecting this. The project included career
conversations with more than 60 individuals.
Career conversations are an ideal format for
gathering intelligence concerning salary as it is
just one part of a much wider discussion about
someone’s career aspirations. We can gather the
kind of market insight and sentiment, which is
otherwise unobtainable, and can help our clients
towards devising appropriate talent strategies.
THE OUTCOME:
We provided our client with a comprehensive
comparison of compensation and benefits across
competitor companies for the identified job
families.
This not only highlighted where our client was
not competitive in terms of basic pay, but also
where they were paying more and still finding
challenges in retention and recruitment.
This was highlighted as an area where
individuals were joining and staying at their
competitors due to additional benefits (flexible
working, secondment opportunities, working on
different projects and stretch assignments etc.)
which our client did not currently offer and had
not been aware of.
Only a small minority of the individuals
interviewed said that salary was the main
incentive for seeking a new role.
Some 71% of respondents cited lifestyle benefits
for staying with their current employer. Out of
these, 33% indicated that “a good corporate
culture” was the main reason.
The outcome supports the importance of
communication and a good understanding of
employees’ needs in devising talent strategies.
Nobumi Kobayashiis a Talent Partner atArmstrong Craven
CaSe Study: CoRPoRATE CULTURE
Becket House
Old Jewry
London
EC2R 8DD
T: +44 (0) 203 701 2020
19 Cecil Street #04-00
The Quadrant
Singapore 049704
Singapore Toll Free: 800 1206 647
T: +65 3163 0411
Westgate House
44 Hale Road
Hale
WA14 2EX
T: +44 (0) 203 701 2020
4 Chemin de la Tour-de-Champel
1206 Geneva
T: +41 (22) 518 0489
19 West 34th Street
Suite 1018
New York
NY 10001
LONDON
SINGAPORE
MANCHESTER
GENEVA
NEW YORK
Join the Conversation
Our teams of industry specialists are regularly bloggingabout talent issues affecting their sectors.
Armstrong Craven
@Armstrongcraven
@SingaporeAC