How Likely Is A Robot to Take Your Job?

In case you’ve ever laid awake at night and wondered about the question in this post’s headline, fear not: the McKinsey Global Institute recently released an interactive graphic that shows how much potential specific jobs have for becoming automated in the future.

McKinsey analyzed the detailed work activities of more than 750 jobs in the United States to “estimate the percentage of time that could be automated by adapting currently demonstrated technology.”

According to Fast Company’s take on the McKinsey, graphic, “filling machine operators, dredge operators, medical appliance technicians, graders of agricultural products, sewing machine operators are all 100% automatable, according to McKinsey.

“Also highly automatable are butchers and meat cutters, bakers, bus mechanics and laundry workers. Security guard jobs are 40% automatable (note, this is already happening). And computer system analysts are only 28% automatable. Amongst the least automatable jobs, according to the analysis, are those in PR, legal services, accountancy, and grounds-keeping.”

For those of you wondering just how “automatable” HR jobs are, the graphic illustrates that HR assistants (with the exception of payroll and timekeeping) are 51 percent automatable, while HR specialists are 22 percent automatable and HR managers are 14 percent automatable.

 

EEOC Releases Stats on LGBT Bias

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 91,503 charges of workplace discrimination in in fiscal year 2016 — the second year in a row that the number of charges has increased, the agency reports.  The EEOC says it resolved 97,443 charges of discrimination and secured more than $482 million for victims of discrimination through voluntary resolutions and litigation last year.

That’s according to the EEOC’s just-released annual summary of its enforcement and litigation data for the previous fiscal year, which this year — for the first time ever — includes detailed information about workplace discrimination charges filed by LGBT employees. The agency reports that it resolved 1,650  charges and recovered $4.4 million for LGBT individuals who filed sex discrimination charges with it during fiscal year 2016.  The number of such charges filed by members of the LGBT community has steadily risen since the EEOC began collecting this information in 2013, with 4,000 charges filed between then and 2016.

The agency has been a strong advocate of workplace rights for LGBT employees, arguing that the protections afforded workers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act extend to sexual orientation. In 2015, it ruled in favor of David Baldwin, a former Federal Aviation Administration employee who charged the FAA with discriminating against him because he is gay. In that case, the EEOC concluded that workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation  is indeed “sex-based” discrimination and therefore falls under the protection of Title VII.

It’s filed supporting briefs in a number of federal lawsuits by members of the LGBT community against their employers, including that of Kimberly Hively. Hively, a former adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana, claims the college refused to allow her to interview for a full-time position or extend her contract because she is a lesbian. In late November the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in her case and is expected to issue a ruling later this year. According to reports, the 7th Circuit judges expressed sympathy toward the arguments put forth by Hively’s legal team. Should the court rule in her favor, it would be the first U.S. appellate court to expand Title VII’s protections to LGBT individuals.

Language Matters in Job Listings

In the New York Times this week, Claire Cain Miller wonders why more unemployed men aren’t going after jobs in the industries that are growing the most, such as healthcare.

One key reason behind “one of the biggest economic riddles today,” she writes, is that “these so-called pink-collar jobs are mostly done by women, and that turns off some men.”

Seattle-based software provider Textio recently dug a bit deeper into this conundrum, examining the terminology used in listings for the 14 fastest-growing jobs between the years 2014 and 2024. Their analysis found the way the descriptions of these roles are worded has led to an overabundance of unemployed men and plenty of jobs going unfilled at least partly because they’re perceived as being “women’s work.”

I’ll stop here to point out that the software Textio provides is designed to, in the company’s own words, “optimize job listings for more qualified and diverse applicants.” And, I’m not exactly sure how Textio is defining terms used in job listings as being “masculine” or “feminine.”

All that said, they found some interesting evidence to support the idea that language matters in job listings.

In its analysis, Textio found that the descriptions for these quickly-growing positions “used feminine language, which has been statistically shown to attract women and deter men,” according to the Times.

Consider home health aides, the number of which is projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to grow by 38 percent by the year 2024.

Currently, females hold 89 percent of these positions, according to the BLS. The job listings for home health aides—which Textio found to be the most “feminine”-sounding—commonly contain key words such as “sympathetic,” “care,” “fosters,” “empathy” and “families,” and are more appealing to female applicants, according to Textio’s analysis. Textio found the job descriptions and requirements for many other predominately female-held roles—nurse practitioner, genetic counselor and physician assistant, for instance—frequently include similar key words and phrases.

On the other hand are cartographers, who find themselves in “one of the few fast-growing jobs that is male-dominated,” according to the Times, noting that cartographer jobs are expected to increase by 29 percent in the next seven years. (Men currently represent 62 percent of the profession.) In evaluating the wording typically used to advertise these jobs, Textio found “masculine” terms like “manage,” “forces,” exceptional,” “proven” and “superior” were often thrown around.

But health aides need to be “exceptional” and “proven” too, writes Cain Miller, adding that the reverse is not automatically true.

“Cartographers don’t necessarily need to be ‘sympathetic’ or ‘focused on families’ to excel,” she says. “That might be one reason that women have historically entered male-dominated professions, like law or management, more than men have entered female-dominated ones, like teaching or nursing.”

As Cain Miller points out, some healthcare employers have tried to use more manly language in an effort to reverse this trend, “like talking about the ‘adrenaline rush’ of being an operating room nurse.” Rather than rewriting “feminine” job descriptions in hopes of appealing to male candidates, or vice versa, Textio suggests using more gender-neutral lingo.

The latter approach is more effective, according to Textio, which says replacing words such as “world-class” and “rock star” with terms like “premier” and “extraordinary” improved the candidate pool for a software developer position, for example. Textio also claims that more gender-neutral wording enables employers to fill jobs 14 days faster in comparison to posts with a gender bias, in addition to attracting a more diverse collection of applicants.

That makes sense. And, while the Textio analysis focuses primarily on the healthcare sector, it’s probably safe to say that taking this kind of tack could deepen the candidate pool in any number of industries—at a time when finding the necessary talent is becoming more and more difficult.

More 401(k) Bashing, and a Fix

I posted here earlier this month about a provocative Wall Street Journal piece in which the creators and early adopters of the 401(k) retirement-savings vehicle lament the revolution they started.

Their point: They had no intention of watching the concept turn into the sole — and highly inadequate — savings receptacle for employees.

Now, on the heels of that, comes this piece on the October Three site by benefits expert Larry Sher taking that discussion even further, to a whole lot more wrong with the defined-contribution approach and the people who support it — i.e., the people with skin in its game. As Sher writes:

“For instance, the government tried, unsuccessfully so far, to nudge DC plan sponsors to give participants some sense of how much life annuity their account balances might be able to provide. The push-back was immediate and severe from stakeholders in the DC system.

“Some objected on technical grounds —  the annuity estimate could vary widely depending on a number of assumptions including life expectancies, market interest rates and inflation. Others viewed this initiative cynically, believing that it was just a first step toward mandating annuity availability in DC plans, thus leading to the prospect of huge sums of assets shifting from mutual funds and other asset managers to insurers.”

The chief concern of policymakers, employees and even some of the employers that have embraced the 401(k) concept, Sher says, “can be summed up as the total shifting of risks to employees — the risks that they won’t save enough, the risk that they will use the savings for non-retirement purposes, the risk of unfavorable investment results — culminating in inadequate retirement savings and the prospect of outliving such savings.”

To mitigate the problem of employees dipping into their funds for non-retirement purposes, he suggests employers impose greater restrictions on such withdrawals. Of course, he also writes,

“The best way to close this loop would be to provide a core company contribution for everyone — not just for those who are willing or able to save.”

Here’s one of my favorites of Sher’s points:

“And perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of a DC-only retirement system is the fruitless attempt to make employees into competent investors. Even if investment education works to an extent, the idea of employees spending time, probably mostly work time, to figure out how to best navigate the investment markets is an exercise in futility.

“When someone is sick they go to a doctor, not to medical school. Investment professionals have gone to investment school — a crash course in investments does little, or no more, than give employees a false sense that they know what they are doing. It’s like self-diagnosing a medical issue based on information on WebMD.

“The response from the DC world is default investments, such as target date funds. That helps but it still leaves employees vulnerable to temptations to time the market and apply their [inadequate]knowledge to making investment choices. Inevitably, the result is wide disparity in outcomes among plan participants — those with better outcomes being the better, or more likely luckier, investors.”

Sher’s solution to this DC mess is to establish a combination of a type of cash balance plan with a “market-return,”  so interest is credited based on real-market investment returns rather than high-quality bond yields. He calls this the MRCB. Here’s how it would work, according to him:

“The MRCB will provide much better cost control than a typical CB design — because account balances will tend to move in tandem with the plan’s assets, and regardless of changes in market interest rates. The employer can tune the degree of investment risk it is willing to share with employees by providing more downside protections, possibly in exchange for retaining a portion of the upside investment returns.

“By providing some of the employer benefits through an MRCB, the employer is accomplishing all of the goals that the government and some employers are trying to achieve by changing DC plans to be something they are not meant to be. Employer pay credits would automatically be provided to all participants — no dependency on employee contributions. There would be no diversion of the benefits during employment — no loans or withdrawals. Annuities would be provided directly by the plan — thus avoiding the extra cost of retail-insured annuities.

“Yes, that means the employer retaining some long-term longevity risk — but even that is controllable by how the factors are set and managed over time to convert accounts to annuities. The MRCB typically would allow employees to elect lump-sum distributions upon termination or retirement [equal to account balances, with spousal consent], although the ability to elect lump sums can be restricted by plan design to the extent the employer considers that to be desirable.”

And where would such an approach leave the 401(k)-DC plan? In Sher’s words:

“Just where it should be –as a short-term and supplemental long-term savings vehicle … “

not the only show in town.

Millennials Earn Less Than Boomers

As if young workers weren’t already  feeling  cursed on this Friday the 13th, here is more fodder for the Millennial Misery file (via the Associated Press and USA Today):

With a median household income of $40,581, millennials earn 20 percent less than boomers did at the same stage of life, despite being better educated, according to a new analysis of Federal Reserve data by the advocacy group Young Invincibles.

According to USA Today’s piece, the analysis of the Fed data shows the extent of the decline in outlook for millennials. It compared 25 to 34 year-olds in 2013, the most recent year available, to the same age group in 1989 after adjusting for inflation.

While education does help boost incomes, the median college-educated millennial with student debt is only earning slightly more than a baby boomer without a degree did in 1989.

The home ownership rate for this age group dipped to 43 percent from 46 percent in 1989, although the rate has improved for millennials with a college degree relative to boomers.

The median net worth of millennials is $10,090, 56 percent less than it was for boomers.

The analysis, the story notes, fits into a broader pattern of diminished opportunity.

Research last year by economists led by Stanford University’s Raj Chetty found that people born in 1950 had a 79 percent chance of making more money than their parents. That figure steadily slipped over the past several decades, such that those born in 1980 had just a 50 percent chance of out-earning their parents.

What’s even more troubling, though, is that the millennial malaise could be a portent of more economic worries:

The declining fortunes of millennials could impact boomers who are retired or on the cusp of retirement. Payroll taxes from millennials helps to finance the Social Security and Medicare benefits that many boomers receive — programs that Trump has said won’t be subject to spending cuts. And those same boomers will need younger generations to buy their homes and invest in the financial markets to protect their own savings.

“The challenges that young adults face today could forecast the challenges that we see down the road,” said Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director at Young Invincibles.

Job Candidates’ Strange Behavior

One job candidate told her interviewer that if he wanted to get to heaven, he’d hire her. Another asked where the nearest bar was located. Then there’s the candidate who  bragged about being in the local newspaper for allegedly stealing a treadmill from someone’s house. It’s that time of year again: CareerBuilder has released its annual list of the strangest interview mistakes hiring managers say they’ve witnessed while assessing job candidates, based on a survey conducted on its behalf late last year by Harris Poll among approximately 2,600 HR and hiring managers.

Some other examples of strange interview mistakes:

  • Candidate ate a pizza he brought with him (and didn’t offer to share).
  • The candidate asked to step away to call his wife to ask her if the starting salary was enough before he agreed to continue with the interview.
  • Candidate invited interviewer to dinner afterwards.
  • Candidate said her hair was perfect when asked why she should become part of the team.
  • Candidate ate crumbs off the table.
  • Candidate asked the interviewer why her “aura” didn’t like the candidate.

This year’s survey finds that half (51 percent) of employers say they know within the first five minutes of an interview whether a candidate is a good fit for an open position, virtually identical to the findings from last year’s survey (50 percent).

Of course, candidates are also scrutinizing their potential employers during the interview process, and some don’t like what they see. The Execu|Search Group’s 2017 Hiring Outlook, for example, finds that 34 percent of working professionals say their job interviewer could not convey the overall impact their role has on the company’s goals, and that 45 percent did not feel their interviewer made an effort to introduce them to the company culture.

And when it comes to strange experiences, think of the poor candidates who find themselves struggling to answer the bizarre “brainteaser” questions asked by some companies during job interviews, which was the subject of a  Glassdoor report last year. Among the more notable questions:

  • What would you do if you found a penguin in the freezer? (Trader Joes, position unspecified)
  • How would you sell hot cocoa in Florida? (J.W. Business Acquisitions, for a human resources recruiter position)
  • How many basketballs would fit in this room? (Delta Air Lines, for a revenue management co-op position), and:
  • Would you rather fight one horse-sized duck, or 100 duck-sized horses? (Whole Foods Market, for a meat cutter position)

 

An Extreme Twist on Team-Building

Tired of the same old activities designed to create a spirit of trust and teamwork among your employees? Survival Systems USA has an extreme experience to offer that could literally teach your workers how to sink or swim together.

The Groton, Conn.-based safety and survival education provider has taught underwater egress training and water survival techniques since 1999, delivering instruction to, among others, employees of the Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the New York Police Department and the National Guard, as the New York Times recently reported.

In imparting survival skills to those who might have to use them on the job, “we’ve seen residual effects along the way: improved morale, self-esteem, capabilities people didn’t know they had,” Survival Systems USA President Maria C. Hanna told the Times. Until recently, she said, “we’ve never stopped long enough to say, ‘You know, this is something that can appeal to a market in a different way, using the tools from aviation to help people develop themselves.’ ”

The company has begun putting those tools to work in hopes of attracting corporate customers searching for drastically different team- and morale-building exercises.

In November, for example, Survival Systems conducted a one-day aquatic survival training program for a group of three university students, four personal trainers and the owner of a paving company, according to the Times.

These individuals—who ostensibly had no work-related reasons to undergo such training—spent the first part of the six-hour program jumping from a 14-foot platform into an indoor pool. With life vests inflated, they were then given a matter of minutes to find a way to stay warm while floating. Another task required those taking part to work together to board an inflated life raft under the direction of one member of the group.

Program participants spent the next part of their Saturday strapped into Survival Systems’ Modular Egress Training Simulator, which the Times describes as “a plastic and metal craft that can be arranged to resemble the cockpit of almost any helicopter or small plane on the market.” Meanwhile, other pieces of equipment duplicated the downwash from rescue helicopters and generated rain, darkness, smoke, fire and winds of up to 120 miles-per-hour.

Once inside the simulator, these brave souls were submerged and flipped into a pool as part of an exercise that includes three rounds. First, participants must reach for the simulator’s window frame, unfasten their seatbelts, pull themselves out and swim to the surface. The second round adds a degree of difficulty to the task, by closing the aforementioned window. In the third scenario, individuals must pretend their window is stuck and escape by holding onto the simulator’s seats and making their way to an adjacent, open window.

An instructor remains nearby at all times, “ready to whisk [participants] to the surface if anything goes wrong,” the Times points out, adding that “though no one has drowned during the training, the primordial fear remains.”

The same article notes that the curriculum for this program is still being fine-tuned, and this particular group was offered the training for free, in exchange for their feedback. The experience, however, will soon retail at roughly $950 per person; a price that Survival Systems says is in line with that of its other one-day programs.

Greg Drab, owner of Advantage Personal Training, has sent multiple employees—including the four trainers taking part in the November session—through the program at no cost, but sees the $950 as a bargain.

“You get to see how people handle stressful situations,” Drab told the Times. “This unifies the team.”

Death to the HR Business Partner?

Someone recently shared this post on LinkedIn by Tom Rommens, who describes himself as “Passionate about HR.” I guess passion, then, would explain his headline: Would Somebody Please Kill the HR Business Partner?

His point, which I thought interesting enough to share, is that calling the HR leader of an organization a “business partner” doesn’t support the notion that “HR has become or will have to become part of the business itself. So,” he writes,

“we will have to kill the HR business partner … as a concept; please don’t hurt the actual people.”

Rommens mentions Dave Ulrich, Rensis Likert Professor of Business at the University of Michigan and a partner at The RBL Group in Provo, Utah, a good bit, primarily because he coined the term HR Business Partner in his long-running argument that HR professionals enable the business strategy through human resources. As Rommens puts it,

“I know it’s all semantics, but words do have their influence. I think it’s not accurate to call them partners. A partner is somebody who has a — positive, even interwoven — relationship with someone else but stands next to that other. Nobody calls the CEO a business partner; we don’t even consider the top IT guy to be one. [So why HR?]”

I reached out to Susan R. Meisinger, former president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management, HR speaker and consultant, and HRE‘s HR Leadership columnist, for her take on this. Semantics, she says, is precisely what’s at issue. “Ah, another debate about semantics and HR,” she told me. She went on:

“It reminds me of the almost theological debate on whether the profession was ‘personnel’ or ‘human resources,’ followed by ‘people and/or ‘human capital.’ While I know that words can matter, I think sometimes there’s too much debate and focus on the words, rather than the concepts and information the words are trying to convey.

“In short, I don’t feel strongly about the debate — I do agree that the focus should be on HR’s role as an integral part of the business, without worrying about the label of ‘business partner.’ While [Ulrich] uses the term, he does it while describing a role that’s an integral part of the business. That’s where I’d rather see the focus.”

How strongly does Meisinger feel about the overuse of semantics arguments and buzz phrases in the HR profession? You be the judge. In her words:

“To the extent that it gives some HR professionals a greater sense of status — ‘I’m a partner in this endeavor, and my input/contribution is just as important’ — it might be helpful.

“But please, if they tell me they have to be a full ‘business partner’ to be sure they get ‘a seat at the table,’ I’ll go running and screaming into the night!”

The Tall Costs of Short Workdays

Fans of shorter workdays may not like the recent news out of Sweden regarding the country’s attempt to scale back the length of the workday there.

A two-year experiment cutting working hours while maintaining pay levels for nurses at an old-age home in the Swedish city of Gothenburg is now nearing the end, according to a recent Bloomberg report.

While the take away was largely positive, with nurses at the home feeling healthier, which reduced sick-leave, and patient care improving, Bloomberg reports the city “has no plans in making the measure permanent or broadening it to other facilities.”

To do that, Bloomberg reports, it would need much more money and even help from the national government. To cover the reduced hours for the 68 nurses at the home it had to hire 17 extra staff at a cost of about 12 million kronor ($1.3 million).

“It’s associated with higher costs, absolutely,” said Daniel Bernmar, a local left-wing politician responsible for running the municipality’s elderly care. “It’s far too expensive to carry out a general shortening of working hours within a reasonable time frame.”

The Gothenburg experiment has been closely watched globally, with labor activists touting progressive Sweden as a role model in shortening working hours.

For those of you wondering if such an innovative idea could take hold here in America, Bloomberg’s got your answer here.

Gartner to Acquire Major HR Firm

Stamford, Conn.-based IT consulting firm Gartner will acquire CEB, the research and advisory firm that has a large HR consulting practice, for approximately $2.6 billion in cash and stock along with assumption of $700 million in CEB net debt. The transaction was unanimously approved by both companies’ boards of directors.

The combined organization will employ more than 13,000 employees serving clients in more than 100 countries; Gartner and CEB had pro forma revenues of $3.3 billion over the last 12 months ending Sept. 30, the companies said. Gartner plans to expand CEB’s services into the mid-market segment and develop a suite of new syndicated research and advisory products based on CEB’s expertise in HR, along with sales, finance and legal. CEB — previously known as the Corporate Executive Board — has traditionally focused on serving large companies.

CEB’s research and experts have frequently been cited in HRE stories, including today’s news story by Carol Patton on using technology to improve performance-management reviews. It presented a general session on using big data to find talent at last year’s inaugural Talent Acquisition Technology Conference.

“We are excited about joining forces with CEB, a world-class company we have long admired,” said Gartner CEO Gene Hall in a statement.

Under the terms of the agreement, CEB shareholders will receive a combination of cash and Gartner stock for a total value of $77.25 per share, a premium of 25 percent compared to CEB’s closing stock price on Jan. 4, the last day prior to the announcement.