Working Hard, or Hardly Working?

feet upIt’s a scene that’s been played out in countless movies and television shows, and, for better or worse, in real corporate offices everywhere.

A determined go-getter logs punishing hours—days, nights, weekends—on a tireless quest to earn that big promotion, missing wedding anniversaries, kids’ soccer games and other important personal stuff along the way.

In the movies, the ultra-ambitious workaholic eventually has some kind of epiphany, learns to slow down, stops doggedly pursuing the corner office, and starts spending more time actually living life.

In the real world, however, there’s a nagging perception that the “all work, all the time” approach is still the surest way to the top.

Some interesting new research, however, suggests that simply giving the appearance of a slavish dedication to your work may be enough to get there—especially if you’re a man.

That’s what Boston University’s Erin Reid found in a study of one global consulting firm’s American offices, the findings of which were recently published in Organization Science.

Reid, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at BU’s Questrom School of Business, interviewed more than 100 employees at said consultancy. She also had access to performance reviews as well as internal HR documents within the firm, which has “a strong culture around long hours and responding to clients promptly,” according to a New York Times piece highlighting some of Reid’s findings.

Her research found that those who embraced this culture tended to be top performers, while those who resisted it—insisting upon more flexible work schedules or less travel, for instance—were “punished in their performance reviews,” according to the Times.

Overall, Reid found that both men and women were likely to have trouble with “always on” expectations within the firm. It was how men coped with these demands “that differed strikingly,” Reid wrote in a recent Harvard Business Review summary of her findings.

For instance, women who struggled with work hours tended to take formal accommodations, reducing their work hours but also “revealing their inability to be true ideal workers,” wrote Reid, noting that these female employees “were consequently marginalized within the firm.”

Men, meanwhile, often found unobtrusive, discreet ways to alter the structure of their work—such as seeking mostly local clients or building alliances with other colleagues, for example—that allowed them to work more predictable schedules in the range of 50-to-60 hours per week.

“In doing so,” wrote Reid, “they were able to work far less than those who fully devoted themselves to work, and had greater control over when and where those hours were worked, yet were able to ‘pass’ as ideal workers, evading penalties for their noncompliance.”

Take Lloyd (not his real name), a senior manager at the firm. Lloyd was “deeply skeptical about the necessity of being an ideal worker, and was unwilling to fully comply” with steep expectations, according to Reid.

“He described to me how, by using local clients, telecommuting and controlling information about his whereabouts, he found ways to work and travel less without being found out,” wrote Reid, noting that “Lloyd” even went skiing during the day five times in the week prior to their interview.

“He clarified,” added Reid, “that these were work days, not vacation days.”

Reid is careful to point out that the lessons learned from this unidentified firm can’t necessarily be applied to other organizations. And she acknowledges that men experience difficulties meeting job demands just like women do, noting that men also “face resistance and penalties” for expressing reservations about working more hours, being available on nights and weekends and so on.

What seems to vary, she says, “is that many men are able to stray while passing as fully devoted.”

Reid’s findings underscore yet another example of the disparities that still exist between how men and women are viewed in the workplace. But the notion of “passing” also highlights the flaws in how and why some organizations reward employees, she concludes.

“Passing is not a good strategy for the organization as a whole,” according to Reid. “Not only does it involve an element of deception between colleagues, bosses and subordinates, it also perpetuates the myth that those who are successful are also all wholly devoted to work.”

 

Twitter It!

Mixed Interpretations of Mach Mining Decision

Reactions to last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Mach Mining v. EEOC are plentiful, and mixed. The decision essentially came down 78805354 -- Supreme Court for left sidein favor of employers and against the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but just who the real winner is — and by how much — is subject to interpretation.

In the case, Mach Mining was accused by the EEOC of discriminating against women who applied for jobs at its Johnson City, Ill., coal mine. The EEOC filed suit in 2008 after an unsuccessful job applicant complained to the agency that the company never hired a female miner.

In response, Mach argued for an intensive federal-court review of conciliation efforts the EEOC should have engaged in, but Mach argued were not carried out — as required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — prior to the company being sued.

“In language that is sure to be repeated back to the EEOC for years to come, the Supreme Court held that ‘[a]bsent such review, the commission’s compliance with the law would rest in the commission’s hands alone,’ ” say Seyfarth Shaw attorneys Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Christopher Cascino and Matthew Gagnon in this blog post. “This, the Supreme Court said, would be contrary to ‘the court’s strong presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action.’ ” They go on:

“While the Supreme Court did not rule that the intensive review that Mach Mining argued for was required, the case nevertheless represents a significant win for employers and resounding defeat for the EEOC. The EEOC will no longer be able to file suit against employers after paying mere lip-service to its conciliation efforts, and to give them the back of the hand in response to requests for fulsome information about liability and exposure in a threatened lawsuit. And employers will, as a result, be in a better position to settle meritorious claims  on reasonable terms before the EEOC files suit, thus saving employers from unnecessary litigation expense.”

But not so fast. According to points raised by Jon Nadler, a Philadelphia-based employment attorney with Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, the ruling is actually a win for the EEOC, despite the prevailing commentary and headlines. Though the court ruled the EEOC’s conciliation efforts are subject to some judicial review, “that review is extremely limited (‘relatively barebones,’ in the court’s words,” his notification says.

On the contrary, it goes on, the “EEOC will merely need to show it provided the employer with notice of the allegations — the specific alleged unlawful practices, and identification of those allegedly harmed — and to engage in some bilateral communication with the employer in an attempt to resolve the matter.”

Nevertheless, Nadler points out, though employers have complained in some instances that the EEOC “failed even to provide this basic information, now [it’s] clearly required.”

Further, in points raised by Don Lewis, shareholder with Nilan Johnson Lewis, the Supreme Court also ruled the EEOC must act in “good faith” when it tries to conciliate with an employer prior to bringing a Title VII discrimination lawsuit. “Employers,” his notice reads, “will be pleased that the high court has recognized that the EEOC’s obligations when handling disputes beyond judicial measures includes a duty to act in good faith that is enforceable in court.”

Meanwhile, in this posting, the EEOC calls the decision a “step forward for victims of discrimination” in its rejection of the “intrusive review proposed by the company and its supporters.”

The agency goes on to say that the “court recognized … the scope of review is narrow and a sworn affidavit is generally sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. If the employer has concrete evidence that such efforts were not made and the court finds in favor of the employer,” it says, “the remedy is [simply] further conciliation.”

This story on the Inside Counsel site, written in January after oral arguments were presented in the case, offers great background on the history, arguments and questions surrounding all this.

So what does it mean? Obviously, it depends on who you talk to … on whose glass is half full or otherwise. Yes, the scope of judicial review articulated in the decision “is a narrow one,” Maatman and company write, but bottom line, the court “vigorously upheld the fundamental principle that judicial review of administrative action [however slight] is [still] the norm in our legal system.”

Further, they state, “the EEOC now has to present its position in a federal court, and its litigation strategies are apt to be very different when it must justify and show the basis for its conciliation positions before a neutral fact-finder.” In their words,

“Suffice it to say, employers’ defense of ‘failure-to-conciliate’ is still alive and well, and the EEOC’s litigation strategies are now likely to be in need of rebooting.”

Or not …

Twitter It!

Best and Worst States for Working Moms

To kick off Mother’s Day week (Wait, is my mom the only one who raised her kids believe the holiday was actually an entire week-long celebration?) WalletHub has just released its findings on the best and worst states for working moms.

They analyzed the attractiveness of each of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia to a working mother by examining three key dimensions: Child care, Employment opportunities and work/life balance. Data from 12 key metrics — such as median women’s salary, female unemployment rate and daycare-quality rankings — helped determine the list.

According to the rankings, Vermont took the top spot, followed by: Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Washington, North Dakota, Maine, Virginia and Ohio.

Meanwhile, Louisiana took the bottom spot in the rankings, preceded by: South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, North Carolina and Oklahoma.

Other key stats include:

  • Day care quality is five times better in New York than in Idaho.
  • Child care costs (adjusted for the median woman’s salary) are two times higher in the District of Columbia than in Tennessee.
  • Pediatric services are 12 times more accessible in Vermont than in New Mexico.
  • The ratio of female to male executives is three times higher in Alabama than in Utah.
  • The percentage of single-mom families in poverty is two times higher in Mississippi than in Alaska.
  • The median women’s salary (adjusted for cost of living) is two times higher in Virginia than in Hawaii.
  • The female unemployment rate is four times higher in Nevada than in North Dakota.

In an a Q&A accompanying the findings, Zachary Schaefer, assistant professor of applied communication studies at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, says it’s actually getting both easier and more difficult for women to find the right work life balance because they are being put in a “double bind”:

As the number of organizations that offer “work-life” policies continues to increase, the expectations of women to be able to gracefully balance both spheres of their life will also increase. This is an unfair double bind where women are now supposed to be able to raise a family, head the household, and establish a successful career all because organizations now offer telework, more paid time off and flexible work schedules. Men are not faced with this.

So if you’re an HR professional working in an organization in one of the bottom-10 states for working moms, maybe it’s time to start thinking about what you and your organization can do to raise your state’s score.

After all, that’s an effort I’m fairly sure your own mother would be proud of.

To view the full WalletHub results, click here.

Twitter It!

A Closer Look at Executive Compensation

moneyThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission wants the link between executive pay and a company’s financial performance to be clearer.

The SEC hopes it took a step in that direction this week, when it proposed rules that would implement a requirement mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, obliging companies to disclose that relationship.

According to an SEC statement announcing the proposal, the rules “would provide greater transparency and allow shareholders to be better informed when they vote to elect directors and in connection with advisory votes on executive compensation.”

Firms would be obligated to disclose executive pay and performance information in a table, for themselves as well as a “peer group” of companies, and tag the information in an interactive data format. The table would include data such as:

  • Executive compensation actually paid for the principal executive officer, which would be the total compensation as disclosed in the summary compensation table already required in the proxy statement, with adjustments to the amounts included for pensions and equity awards.
  • The total executive compensation reported in the summary compensation table for the principle executive officer and an average of the reported amounts for the remaining named executive officers.
  • The company’s total shareholder return on an annual basis.

On the heels of the SEC announcement, National Public Radio’s Jim Zarroli summed up the proposal more succinctly.

“The rule grew out of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial overhaul bill,” said Zarroli, a business reporter with NPR. “And it simply says that companies have to disclose whether executive pay is in line with their financial performance.”

This information “is already available for people who want to pore through financial reports,” he added. “The new law would simply require companies to put it in a form that’s easier for shareholders to digest.”

Zarroli called the rule “the latest attempt by regulators to address soaring corporate pay,” but also noted some compensation consultants’ skepticism toward the proposal, and said it’s unclear what if any bearing the law would have if approved.

SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White, meanwhile, seems optimistic about the rule’s potential impact.

“These proposed rules would better inform shareholders,” said White, in the aforementioned statement, “and give them a new metric for assessing a company’s executive compensation relative to its financial performance.”

Twitter It!

Forming a Different Kind of Alliance

Trust. Loyalty. Lifetime employment. I think most of you would agree these words don’t really apply to today’s workplace.

ThinkstockPhotos-181678934As Ben Casnocha pointed out during his keynote yesterday at the SHRM Talent Management Conference—conveniently taking place this week just a few city blocks from the ERE Recruiting Conference I also attended—companies such as General Electric used to treat employees like “family” and offer them lifetime employment. But as we all know, factors such as globalization and technology forced employers to abandon such approaches decades ago.

Casnocha, an entrepreneur who co-authored with LinkedIn Founder and Chairman Reid Hoffman and Wasabi Ventures Partner Chris Yeh a book titled The Alliance: Managing Talent in a Networked Age (published last July by the Harvard Business Review Press), noted that a General Electric executive once described job security as one of GE’s prime corporate objectives. The year: 1963.

It’s hard to imagine anyone saying that today, right?

More recently, Casnocha said, many companies have embraced the other extreme: the free-agent model. True, he explained, that model does provide both employers and employees with the upside of greater flexibility; but it doesn’t build the kind of relationships that are needed to innovate.

“Would you do your very best work knowing you might not have a job the next day?” he asked.

For those of you who haven’t read The Alliance, Reid, Casnocha and Yeh make a compelling case for a third model that treats employees as “allies.”

“Think about any great alliance between countries, companies and people,” Casnocha said. “In an alliance, both sides commit to adding value. It’s a relationship that’s characterized by mutual trust, mutual investment and mutual benefit.”

Both the employer and the employee need to be adaptable in order for such a model to work, he added.

Employers, Casnocha said, need to “look the employee in the eye and say, ‘We’ll help transform your career, even if that means your career takes you to a different company someday.’ ” As for the employee, he or she “needs to say, ‘If you can make my LinkedIn profile look more impressive by having worked here, I will do great work [for you] and make a meaningful contribution to the company … .”

In his talk, Casnocha also touched on tours of duty, in which employees embark on a specific “mission.” (Once one tour of duty is completed, a new one is then defined.)

Alliances are especially effective, Casnocha pointed out, when it comes to “super-talented employees” who can really move the needle in your company. “What fires [these] employees up more than anything,” he said, “is the opportunity to transform themselves, the company and the world.”

To be sure, it’s a collaborative effort.

Casnocha told the story of one manager who printed two copies of an employee’s LinkedIn profile (so both the manager and the employee would have copies). Together, the two went through the profile, circling those parts that mattered most to the employee and writing in how that person might like to see it read two or three years from then.

On the subject of millennials, Casnocha asked: Which is better for their careers: Giving them a new title? Or telling them that you’re going to help them have conversations with three of the most important people in the industry?” (Hint, it’s not the first. Because, as Casnocha explained, people can take their networks and relationships with them when they leave.)

Twitter It!

Tapping the Power of a Good Story

When you think of great recruiters, Ernest Shackleton probably isn’t going to be the first person to pop into your head. But if you ask Mike Pierce, who kicked off the ERE Recruiting Conference yesterday in San Diego with a keynote address titled “Tell Powerful Stories to Answer, ‘Why Should I Join Your Team,’ ” talent-acquisition leaders could learn a thing ThinkstockPhotos-151575842or two about the art of hiring (and, of course, leadership) from this early-20th-century adventurer.

As a refresher for those of you who might be a little rusty on your history, Shackleton was an Irish-born British explorer who was a principal figure during the period known as the “Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration.” His third attempt to reach the South Pole, aboard the Endurance, was unarguably the most famous of his endeavors.

Shackleton, along with his 27-person team, set out from London in 1914 with the goal of crossing the Antarctic by foot. Before reaching the continent, however, the Endurance became entrapped in ice, forcing Shackleton and his crew to abandon the ship and set up camp on floating ice. More than a year would pass before they would see land again. (Remarkably, the entire team survived this terrible ordeal.)

In his talk, Pierce, a San Diego-based consultant, speaker and author who goes by the nickname “Antarctic Mike,” shared with attendees how Shackleton’s story personally inspired him back in 2006 to become one of nine people to run a full 26.2-mile marathon on an ice shelf 600 miles from the South Pole, something that “never had been done before.” 

Pierce’s PowerPoint deck included a copy of a classified newspaper ad (remember those?) that Shackleton used to “recruit” his team …

“Help Wanted

For hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success.”

Could he have been any more direct?

So how many people responded? 10? 50? 100? Remarkably, Pierce said, 5,000 people replied to the ad. Why? Because, he explained, Shackleton was able to write his story in a way that captured people’s attention.

Job candidates, Pierce explained said, “are looking for evidence of credibility—and a story is the most effective way to [give them that evidence].”

“Stories are the most magical vehicle on the planet to move people,” he said. “People love stories, especially those that are credible and true. They can show that you are … authentic … accessible … and for real … .”

To make his point, Pierce shared several examples of how employers have used videos to connect with job candidates, including a pretty entertaining one from Sutton Group, a Chilliwack, Canada-based realtor. (Chilliwack, in case you’re wondering, isn’t far from Vancouver.)

Referring to the Sutton Group video, Pierce said “people love it when the leaders of a company are accessible.” Well, say what you may about the Sutton video, but it’s hard to argue CEO Kelly Johnson isn’t making himself “accessible.”

The 2013 video reportedly continues to deliver results for Sutton Group today.

Pierce said he had every reason to believe everyone in the room worked at organizations with their own stories to tell. But, he asked, “are those stories out [in the market today] producing results for you? Are they out in places where people will see them and be moved by them?”

Thanks to the tools available to employers today, he said, capturing those stories and putting them out there isn’t all that hard to do.

And that, of course, begs the question: Why aren’t more organizations doing it?

Twitter It!

How Managers ‘Game’ Performance Reviews

I just came across an interesting piece by Alfredo Behrens on Harvard Business Review’s site that takes a troubling look at how managers can (and apparently do) misuse employees’ performance reviews. Many times, he says, such trickery — albeit unintentional — can come back to hurt a company’s bottom line.

In his piece, the author, a professor of global leadership at Faculdade FIA de Administração e Negócios in São Paulo, Brazil, recounts how he joined a large U.S. organization and was assigned an employee who provided “the worst secretarial assistance I have had in my entire life.”

After realizing his predicament, he spoke with a colleague about how to best handle the situation.

The advice he received? “Her performance review is coming up. Give her the highest possible rating.”

Why? Because, the colleague told him, “It’s the fastest way to get her invited to work in another division.”

I am ashamed to admit it, but I followed her advice and, sure enough, the secretary was snatched up by a manager in another division. Evidently this kind of dysfunctional behavior is not uncommon; in Brazil there is even a term for it, “people trafficking.”

Behrens says managers also use similar techniques when trying to hold onto the talent they wish to keep for their own little domains, by giving talented employees low-to-middling reviews with the hopes that such workers’  talents will not be discovered and taken away from their department for use elsewhere internally.

“This kind of behavior can badly hurt the company,” he says. “All those low-ranked but highly valued employees were at risk of jumping to a competitor, of course, just as my incompetent secretary was moved around the company instead of being removed completely, as she should have been.”

And while there is a growing  chorus calling for the end of annual performance reviews entirely (see HRE Senior Editor Andrew R. McIlvaine’s recent take on the topic, for example), Behrens offers a question for companies that “aren’t quite ready to throw out” their performance-review processes:

If performance-management systems are so often reviled, ignored, or gamed, do we really know how well we’re managing talent? How many good people are being held back by bad managers?

Those are certainly two interesting questions to ponder the next time  you’re filling out a direct report’s performance review. Are YOU the bad manager who is holding talent back?

Twitter It!

The Mindfulness-Retaliation Connection

Two researchers from the University of North Carolina Kenan-Flagler Business School came up with an interesting connection 166198718 -- meditation2between mindfulness and employee retaliation that has me drawing a further connection of my own.

The Kenan-Flagler study by Ph.D. student Erin Cooke Long and Professor Michael S. Christian suggests practicing mindfulness at work, which can incorporate workplace meditation, can actually reduce retaliatory behavior in employees who feel treated unfairly. (Here’s the study’s abstract.)

I suppose this can be seen as intuitive, but it’s apparently the first time mindfulness and retaliation have been connected in any study. As Cooke Long describes it:

“When employees think they have an unfair boss or colleague or the organization is unfair, they might be tempted to seek retribution or act in ways to ‘even the score.’ Mindfulness helps them short-circuit emotions and negative thoughts so that they can respond more constructively.”

Which gets me to my additional connection: How bout keep them mindful and meditating, and perhaps you can keep the unions from knocking at your door? Perhaps we can add “incorporating mindfulness into your workforce” to the many suggestions experts and attorneys offered in a recent webinar I blogged about the day before the National Labor Relations Board’s “quickie-election” rule went into effect.

Everyone speaking in that webinar agreed the rule — which became effective April 14 — would increase union activity and win rates within the business community.

And as Jeff Harrison, a Minneapolis-based Littler shareholder, said then, employers should be looking more closely at their people issues than ever before, because unhappy employees make for likely union members.

“Are your people treating your people right?” he said, because it’s those types of complaints — treatment ones — that “are almost always behind” employees being driven to unionize.

At the risk of making another bold connection, my sources for this blog post on the importance and difficulty of bringing mindfulness into the workplace — including our benefits columnist, Carol Harnett — would concur that offering such a stress-reducer certainly sends the message that employees are being treated well.

And if the UNC study is to be believed, which I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t be, perhaps mindfulness can also keep their minds off “getting back” at you through protected concerted activities.

Twitter It!

Confidentiality Agreement Crackdown, Revisited

If there was any question whether the Securities and Exchange Commission was serious in its efforts to clamp down on confidentiality statements, Office of the Whistleblower Chief Sean McKessy put it to rest during a recent American Bar Association webinar titled “New Developments in Whistleblower Claims and the SEC,” which took place on Wednesday.ThinkstockPhotos-155172325

Some of you may recall the story we published earlier this month titled “Cracking Down on Confidentiality Agreements,” in which I reported on the SEC’s first “enforcement action” against a company it said had used restrictive language in its confidentiality agreements.

More precisely, the SEC charged the Houston-based engineering firm KBR Inc. of violating whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 by requiring witnesses in certain internal-investigation interviews to sign confidentiality statements saying violators could face discipline, including termination, if they discussed the matters with outside parties without KBR’s approval.

Most of the experts I spoke to for that story predicted that the SEC wasn’t likely to stop with KBR in pursuing such violations—and  McKessy’s remarks on Wednesday seemed to back up those claims.

On Thursday, Seyfarth Shaw attorney Ada W. Dolph, who was one of the sources for my original story, provided some commentary on McKessy’s remarks, writing in a memo that McKessy pointed out in the ABA webinar that the SEC rule is “very broad,” and “intentionally so.”

Dolph, based in her firm’s Chicago office, continued …

“McKessy stated that this initiative remains a ‘priority’ for him and his office. ‘To the extent that we have come across this language [restricting whistleblowers] in a Code of Conduct’ or other agreements, the SEC has taken the position that it ‘falls within our jurisdiction and we have the ability to enforce it.’ He noted that ‘KBR is a concrete case to demonstrate what I have been saying,’ referencing public remarks he has made in the past regarding SEC scrutiny of employment agreements. He stated that the agency is continuing to take affirmative steps to identify agreements that violate the Rule, including soliciting individuals to provide agreements for the SEC to review. Additionally, he reported that the SEC is reviewing executive severance agreements filed with Forms 8-K for any potential violations of the Rule.”

Dolph pointed out that McKessy also addressed the question of whether the SEC would apply the KBR order to private companies under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158 (2014)—which expanded Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protections to employees of private companies who contract with public companies. McKessy, she reported, “stated that the SEC has not officially taken a position on this issue, but in his personal opinion he ‘certainly can see a logical thread behind the logic of the Lawson decision’ to be ‘expanded into this space [private companies],’ and that ‘anyone who has read the Lawson decision can extrapolate from it the broader application.’ ”

In short, Dolph concluded, “it is clear that we can expect further SEC enforcement actions in this area.”

Granted, that’s pretty much been the expectation all along. But McKessy’s remarks should, at the very least, be considered a not-so-friendly reminder that you might not want to wait too long before reviewing your confidentiality agreements and policies in order to ensure they aren’t worded in a way that would catch the attention of SEC officials.

Twitter It!

New Performance-Management Rankings

The performance-management process — why employees and managers tend to hate it so much, ideas for improving it — weighs heavily on the minds of many HR leaders. Plenty of software vendors are eager to sell solutions they claim will make performance management less painful and more effective. In an effort to help sort through the offerings, G2 Crowd, a Chicago-based software review platform, has released a Grid report on performance-management providers.

The report, based on reviews from 240 HR professionals as well as “vendor market presence” that G2 Crowd says is determined by public and social data, highlights seven vendors out of the 65 included in the report that received 10 or more reviews as well as vendor size, market share and social impact.

The seven vendors are classified as Leaders and High Performers. The Leaders — products receiving high customer-satisfaction scores and having substantial market presence — were SuccessFactors, Workday and UltiPro (from Ultimate Software). The High Performers — those receiving high customer-satisfaction rates but smaller market presence than Leaders — were Cornerstone OnDemand and Halogen TalentSpace.

Most reviewers appear to be satisfied with the performance-management products they’re using: Reviewers reported the product they use meets their requirements at an average rate of 78 percent, and on average they said they were 77 percent likely to recommend the product they use.

G2 Crowd is hardly the only source for reviewing performance-management products: HRLab.com also offers reviews, as does Gartner with its Magic Quadrant rankings.

 

Twitter It!