Human resource management

Onboarding: Not Rocket Science


data point tuesday_500

As HR and other leaders grapple with high turnover rates among the Gen Y cohort (see last week’s post here), all kinds of issues get raised. Is the turnover due to “special” characteristics inherent in Gen Y? Is the turnover due to lack of education and training opportunities? Naivete on the part of Gen Y – the world of work doesn’t match their expectations? Could a lack of thoughtful onboarding play a part?

The Aberdeen Group published Onboarding 2013: A new Look at New Hires last month and author Madeline Laurano provides data that might help organizations become more effective in retaining the youngest of their workforce.

First of all, Aberdeen reports that only 37% of employers have invested in a formal onboarding program for longer than two years. Surveys report that it’s difficult to quantify the ROI on formal onboarding programs so “basic orientation” activities are used in…

View original post 424 more words

Human resource management, management, sensemaking

Gen Y’s Self-fulfilling Prophecy


Is long-term employment kicking back? There’s a lot about values and the need fro rethinking the HR function in this post. I believe it is so related to my recent post on the HRPS global conference (watch the video here: HRPS Video)

data point tuesday_500

Accenture recently published its 2013 College Graduate Employment Survey Findings. Lots of great data. Especially if you plan to hire recent college grads. In fact, some of the data are surprising.

One of the important takeaways is that employers have unrealistic expectations for the skills of the hires they make out of college. They think these young people should be able to hit the ground running and are surprised and disappointed when they don’t. And to compound the problem, these employers are not investing in training initiatives to get the newly hired up to speed in the short term or effective in the long term. This is all pretty logical. It’s good data and if you plan on hiring entry level employees from the ranks of the newly graduated, you should read this.

But here’s what caught my attention. It’s about the willingness to commit. And it isn’t the…

View original post 532 more words

Human resource management, sensemaking

Do we need to engage?


Article first published as Do We Need to Engage? on Technorati.

In the middle of a long recession, it does not come as a surprise that worker engagement is at its all time low. What surprises is that engagement is moving from being a concern just for Human resources leaders to filling the agenda of top managers.

In the UK, the largest businesses are taking action to promote revitalizing engagement and appear to be backed by the British government. Brian Groom, the Business and Employment editor at Financial Timesreports that UK’s largest businesses are warning in an open letter that lack of engagement is affecting two thirds of the labor force.

This hype, however, might be off target. A recent article on the journal ‘New technology, work, and employment’ by Jean Cushen and Paul Thompson provides a very realistic description of how many management practices targeting engagement even in high tech companies are not rooted in reality. They attempt to portray a world that is far from the one people experience every day – and by doing this fail to realize that employees are adults, not children to be lured into a fantasy park.

The authors conducted an in-depth analysis of the Irish branch of a multinational corporation operating in the high tech industry to find that “contrary to mainstream and critical scholarship, skilled technical workers in knowledge-intensive firms can be uncommitted, angry and high performing at the same time.”

Their account is rich in description of the effort put by the company to provide an engaging context, while failing to realize to what extent they were forcing employees to cope with practices and approaches they did not believe in. As Cushen and Thompson conclude:

“They had the brand, vision and extensive communication mechanisms; the bundles of interrelated, best practices; and an HR department at the core of strategy and operations. Yet the outcome was skepticism and often barely disguised contempt from the kind of employees we are told are particularly open to the charms of soft, culture-led practices. Even under ‘textbook’ circumstances, these knowledge workers’ commitment to and engagement with the company was low and there was no evidence that HR was successful in persuading employees to identify with or ‘live’ the brand.” (Cushen & Thompson, 2012: p. 89)

The interesting consequence is that once again many management practices aimed at promoting engagement fail to see that people appear to be able to self-engage, and far from embracing strongly supported initiatives that fail to recognize this, they can perform well notwithstanding the skepticism they share. Management should recognize that many of these practices are rooted in the past, and when moved into knowledge-intensive contexts create counterintuitive results. As supporters of the Self-determination theory of motivation by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan at the University of Rochester affirm, promoting engagement could prove itself harder than expected if managers and consultant fail to give up the idea that it is all about communication, with no substance.