Category Archives: corporate culture

Now THAT’s Honest Feedback

There’s a saying that people want the truth until they get it.

Consider the leadership team at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, who might regret asking interchange manager Michael Stuban to fill out an exit survey on his last day before heading into retirement.

Stuban, who spent 35 years with the organization, offered his two cents and then some.

In a recent interview with The Philadelphia Daily News, Stuban described the “brutal” frankness with which he approached the online questionnaire.

“When they asked for an honest exit interview, I gave them one,” Stuban told the paper, with a bit of a laugh. “I sent it minutes before I officially retired.”

For what it’s worth, the 58-year-old Stuban wrote that he didn’t really want to retire just yet, and that he actually liked his job.

He may have enjoyed his work, but it seems he wasn’t so crazy about the people he worked for.

The “out of touch” executive-level managers at the helm of the “rudderless” agency, for instance, are “only looking out for themselves,” according to Stuban. He characterized the past five years at the commission as “terrible,” with “no morale” among employees.

These same co-workers were asked to take part in classes “where we were told we are not political,” wrote Stuban, who opined that the commission frequently hires incompetent employees “based on political connections,” according to the Daily News.

Stuban didn’t mince words when it came to the idea that corporate politics were not at work within the organization.

“That’s bulls—,” he wrote. “Jobs/promotions are filled by the politicians … it’s who you know, not what you know. Positions [are] created for people who are not qualified.”

And, Stuban apparently felt so strongly about the thoughts he was sharing that he had to disseminate them throughout the organization. Stuban emailed his completed exit survey not just to the HR department from which it came, but to more than 2,000 colleagues as well, according to the Daily News.

At least one of them found some levity in Stuban’s sentiments.

“Want to get away? Southwest is offering great fares … ” replied the employee, in a reference to the airline’s well-known commercial tagline.

Turnpike Commission Chairman Sean Logan didn’t find Stuban’s candor quite so funny.

Logan, a former Pennsylvania State Senator, was equally blunt in his reply, which went out to those same 2,000-plus turnpike employees, the Daily News notes.

“Mr. Stuban … I don’t believe we ever met, and after reading your exit questionnaire, I am grateful that we didn’t.”

According to the paper, Stuban was made aware of Logan’s brusque response, and, perhaps not surprisingly, felt the chairman failed to see the point of his missive.

“If it was an effective company and someone told you there are problems and no morale, you don’t have to believe me, but maybe someone should check into it.”

No one outside this particular organization can really say how accurate Stuban’s depiction of its culture may or may not be. And who knows how the commission has responded, or plans to respond, to the issues that Stuban alleges exist within the agency.

But if morale really is a problem there, then Logan’s reaction to Stuban’s candid, albeit harsh, feedback probably won’t encourage other workers to offer their honest (and invaluable) opinions to those above them. And that’s the organization’s loss.

Undervaluing the Human Element

If you’ve heard it from one CHRO, you’ve heard it from a hundred: Our people are our greatest asset.

A new Korn Ferry Institute study suggests that most CEOs also appreciate the hard-working employees within the organizations they lead—just maybe not quite as much as they value technology.

More specifically, the recent survey saw 63 percent of 800 business leaders from multimillion-dollar global organizations saying that technology will be their greatest source of competitive advantage in five years. In addition, 67 percent said they believe technology will create greater future value than human capital will within their firms, and 44 percent said the prevalence of robotics, automation and artificial intelligence figure to make people “largely irrelevant in the future of work.”

As if that wasn’t hard enough for employees to hear, consider that people didn’t crack the top five in terms of assets that CEOs predict will be most critical half a decade from now. Technology ranked No. 1, followed by research and development, products/services, brand and real estate (offices, factories and land, for example.)

“CEOs have a significant blind spot in the way they perceive people,” according to the Korn Ferry Institute study, “tending to undervalue human capital.”

These “distorted perceptions” demonstrate the extent to which the individual is being pushed to the periphery of tomorrow’s workplace—and the danger in failing to recognize the potential of employees to generate value, the report continues.

In placing a greater emphasis on technology and tangible assets, chief executives “may be demonstrating, in a big way, what experts call tangibility bias. Facing uncertainty, they are putting a priority in their thinking, planning and execution on the tangible—what they can see, touch and measure.”

In the report, Korn Ferry Search Vice Chairman, CEO and Board Services Alan Guarino cautions against taking that approach while overlooking human capital.

“Leaders are placing a high emphasis on technical skills, technological prowess and the ability to drive innovation in their new senior recruits—elements critical for modern organizations,” says Guarino. “However, the financial reality proven by this study—that the value of people outstrips that of machines by a considerable distance—must give CEOs pause for thought.”

The ability to lead and manage culture—”so-called ‘soft skills,’ ” says Guarino—will become “critical factors of success for companies in the future of work, as they seek to maximize their value through their people.”

Who knows the organization’s people better than the HR executive? And, if what Guarino says is true, one could look at this study’s findings as a tremendous opportunity for the HR leader to help the CEO see the tremendous worth of human capital, and to help make the organization’s workers an irreplaceable, invaluable part of tomorrow’s workforce.

Taking Time Off for Election Day

I got to my local polling place at 6:50 a.m. today, pretty pleased with myself for having the foresight to show up 10 whole minutes before the polls opened.

I knew I wouldn’t be the first in line. But, based on what I saw as I pulled into the parking lot, I’d say at least 150 to 200 of my fellow Harleysville, Pa., residents had thought much further ahead than I had.

As heartened as I was by the sight of democracy in action, I wasn’t as excited about standing in the line that snaked down the sidewalk outside of Oak Ridge Elementary School. Sub-40 degree temperatures and cranky back aside, my biggest worry was that I might wind up getting to work later than I had planned when I carefully mapped out my election day schedule last night.

Petty concerns on a day of this magnitude, to be sure. And I was actually able to wrap up my civic duty and get on my way to work in about 25 minutes. And, we have flexible schedules here at HRE headquarters anyway, so it really didn’t matter when I showed up at the office. I just didn’t want to feel like I was running behind all day long.

Some workers won’t face such dilemmas today.

As the Washington Post reports, a handful of companies including General Motors, Patagonia and Western Union are giving employees the day off so they can go vote. (Patagonia “is taking it a step further and closing its stores,” according to the Post.)

These organizations are among the 330 joining a Twitter campaign that maintains a running list of companies that offer employees time off in order to vote, according to the Post, which notes that the social media movement began this summer when venture capitalist Hunter Walk asked California-based start-up founders to provide employees with time off on election day.

Arlington, Va.-based Distil Networks is one of these companies. CEO Rami Essaid, 33, came to America from Syria at a young age and, with early help from government technology funding, founded Distil in 2011 and has since grown it to include a few hundred employees, the Post notes.

Coming from a country that’s currently wracked by civil war and a subsequent refugee crisis, the gravity of this election isn’t lost on Essaid. He tried to impress its importance on Distil employees in an impassioned, companywide email.

“Once every couple of years, we get a chance in the U.S. that many people around the world don’t ever get the opportunity to experience,” he wrote, “and that is to choose who will represent us nationally and globally.

“ … As a Syrian-American, I can’t take the opportunity to vote for granted and I ask that you don’t either,” continued Essaid. “On election day, DO NOT come to work UNTIL you vote.”

Essaid, who in an interview with the Post declined to express support for either candidate, told the paper that Distil is also sponsoring an election day happy hour for employees showing their “I voted” stickers.

Encouraging or even incentivizing employees to vote is one thing. Trying to influence who workers choose at the ballot box is quite another, of course. Reston, Va.-based technology company Canvas is treading lightly.

According to the Post, Canvas chief executive James Quigley has given all employees the day off today, “but not before he made them check their voter registrations online, handing out mobile devices for them to do so.”

While noting that Canvas employees are generally “aware of some company leaders’ [political] leanings,” Quigley also pointed out that he hasn’t “explicitly push[ed] employees” to vote for one candidate or another.

“Clearly we live in a very blue area, and the company in general has more of those values,” Quigley told the Post. “It was clear what some members of our senior staff thought, but we tried to be soft about pushing people one way or the other.”

Women’s Disparity, Dearth in STEM

When I was 10 years old, my father put a microscope/chemistry set under our Christmas tree — not for either of my studious siblings, 538088903-women-in-sciencebut for me, the nutty little gymnastic tumbler who rarely stopped long enough to observe much of anything, let alone how the world worked.

Years later, when I asked him about it, he told me he put that there because he sensed in me the inquisitiveness and intuition of a future scientist, like he had become and his father before him.

I never lived up to his hunch, though I did love math, and I certainly chose an inquisitive career. But I’ve often wondered what stopped me. Was there something in me or my environment that never allowed that chemistry set to become more of a beacon than a toy?

A new study from the University of Washington, Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? suggests there well may have been, a force that persists to this day, and one that could account for the varied representation — as well as the under-representation — of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers.

According to the study’s report, the most powerful factor driving this disparity and dearth is a “masculine culture” that makes many women feel like they don’t belong.

Granted, the masculine force in my case was completely encouraging, but was it the rest of my world around me — the lack of female role models in scientific jobs, the other stuff I was given to play with, the general expectations of what drives women onward and our perceptions of the fields that seem so out of reach?

Lead researcher and author Sapna Cheryan, a UW associate professor of psychology, says maybe so — maybe all that and more:

“Students are basing their educational decisions in large part on their perceptions of a field. And not having early experience with what a field is really like makes it more likely that they will rely on their stereotypes about that field and who is good at it.”

She and her fellow researchers analyzed more than 1,200 papers about women’s under-representation in STEM fields and, from those, identified 10 factors that impact gender differences in students’ interest and participation in STEM. Then they winnowed the list down to the three factors most likely to explain gendered patterns in the STEM fields — a lack of pre-college experience, gender gaps in belief about one’s abilities and that most powerful one, that masculine culture that discourages women from participating.

Cheryan isn’t the only one taking the declining, diverging number of women in STEM careers seriously. On Thursday, Accenture and Girls Who Code released their joint research finding that the share of U.S. women in technology jobs will decline from 24 percent to 22 percent by 2025 — “a new low over the next 10 years, despite so much focus recently on closing the gender gap in tech,” says Accenture’s report. In the same token, it states:

“[I]nterventions to encourage girls to pursue a computer-science education could triple the number of women in computing to 3.9 million, growing their share of technology jobs from 24 percent today to 39 percent in the same time frame.”

I’ll never forget my interview a few years back with Colleen Blake, one of our 2013 HR’s Rising Stars.  At the time, she was the senior director of global people operations for San Jose, Calif.-based Brocade Communication Systems Inc.

A busy mom, but with a rich past in information technology and science, she was also passionate about encouraging women in STEM careers. Her company, in fact, realizing its own deficits in that area, asked her to be its liaison and mentor for women pursuing those fields.

As she recalls, Brocade leaders “had approached me when I returned to work [after her daughter’s birth] and said, ‘Colleen, we have this problem encouraging women in this field.’ To be tapped on the shoulder like that felt like a real sign for me, that I was meant to do this — not just for me, but for my daughter as well.”

It does kind of baffle the mind that, with so much attention to the problem and with crusaders like Blake, we’re getting worse, not better. What this means for you, I can’t pretend to know, though creating better support systems for women in tech does come to mind. Perhaps it’s best to leave you with two cogent quotes from the Accenture release. The first, from Reshma Saujani, founder and CEO of Girls Who Code:

“Despite unprecedented attention and momentum behind the push for universal computer-science education, the gender gap in computing is getting worse. The message is clear: A one-size-fits-all model won’t work. This report is a rallying cry to invest in programs and curricula designed specifically for girls. We need a new mind-set and willingness to prioritize and focus on our nation’s girls, and we need it now.”

And this, from Julie Sweet, Accenture’s group chief executive for North America:

“Dramatically increasing the number of women in computing is critical to closing the computer-science skills gap facing every business in today’s digital economy. Without action, we risk leaving a large portion of our country’s talent on the sidelines of the high-value computing jobs that are key to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.”

Couldn’t agree more.

Zenefits: Unicorn Comeback?

Remember Zenefits — the cloud-based benefits-administration startup that was going to revolutionize the industry by providing a benefits platform to small and mid-sized businesses and which was valued at $4 billion just two years after it was founded? The high-flying unicorn plummeted back to earth amid revelations that Zenefits’ co-founder and CEO, Parker Conrad, led an effort to help the company’s sales reps skip over state insurance-licensing requirements so they could start selling as soon as possible. More fuel was added to the bonfire when details started emerging about Zenefits’ rowdy office culture, in which managers had to send out a memo specifically banning employees from having sex in the building’s stairwells. The company parted ways with Conrad, laid off hundreds of employees, and cut its valuation in half in order to avoid a lawsuit by investors.

Now the company is struggling to regain its once-lofty perch, but its got robust new rivals to contend with. In today’s New York Timestechnology columnist Farhad Manjoo interviews Zenefits’ current CEO, David Sacks, about its soon-to-be-released software redesign, the internal reforms he undertook to fix the company’s culture and its new branding campaign, which include billboards throughout Silicon Valley that ask: “What is Z2?” In the wake of Conrad’s resignation, Manjoo writes, Sacks worked hard to rebuild Zenefits’ reputation by being open and honest about previous wrongdoings, describing his strategy as “admit, fix, settle and repeat.”

But Zenefits’ path to redemption faces roadblocks in the form of  new, well-funded competitors such as Gusto, which has 40,000 paying customers and was recently valued at $1 billion, Manjoo writes. Gusto has a much different corporate culture than did the earlier incarnation of Zenefits, where the philosophy had been “ready, fire, aim”: Gusto is taking a slower, more deliberate approach to building its business under the leadership of its CEO, Joshua Reeves. Its offices “has the air of a meditative retreat,” Manjoo writes, with plants, couches and a ban on wearing shoes “to make it feel more like home than work.”

Yet regardless of whether Zenefits or Gusto ultimately prevails, this heated competition for the SMB market probably means the ultimate winners will be the small to mid-sized companies that had previously been unable to afford the sort of benefits-administration software that large companies have long enjoyed. Despite the sordid behavior that marked its rise, Zenefits’ early founders at least deserve props for being one of the first to use the cloud to help this long-underserved market.

 

Being a Black Professional Woman

I’m probably wrong going into this: posting something about what it’s like to be a black woman in corporate America when I’m white.

523400310-black-professional-womanI probably don’t get extra points for being a member of a mixed-race family
either. In today’s
hypersensitive, hyper-volatile,
racially divisive
environment, I tend to shy away from my biracial nephew’s political Facebook posts and stick to our shared summer-vacation pictures, and our beautifully diverse family updates. What right have I to even “Like” something I can’t possibly know?

But I decided to post this release anyway, about a documentary airing this coming Wednesday in Oakland, Calif., Head Not The Tail Productions’ Invisible Women: Being a Black Woman in Corporate America. Not because I’m vying for any points, but because what happens to black women in or pursuing corporate careers should be something we all take seriously. And dealing with it should be all our jobs as well.

The disappointment, discrimination and rejection described by the many women in the documentary (the link above includes another link to a short teaser trailer worth watching) is often subtle, say diversity experts, as is corporate unconscious bias, which we’ve reported on on our website and here on HRE Daily.

“In conducting the research, we found the corporate practice of discrimination to be a common harsh reality faced by countless women of color,” says Melody Shere’a, HNTT Productions’ founder and CEO, and director of the film. As her release states,

“The playing field isn’t level and well-qualified black women are too frequently denied the opportunity to explore similar career-growth opportunities as their white and other female counterparts. The facts and details you will learn from this documentary will surprise you.”

Granted, most of you are nowhere near Oakland, Calif., but I imagine a call to Shere’a at the number provided in her release would prove fruitful in getting your hands on the film. It’s worth a try. You can’t improve diversity in your corporate culture if you don’t fully understand all forms of discrimination and how they’re being perceived by those on the receiving end.

For that reason, I encourage you to give this a read as well, a professional black woman’s response to a white friend of hers asking for a better understanding of white privilege. Like the documentary, this piece by Lori Lakin Hutcherson, founder and editor-in-chief of Good Black News, centers on the subtleties she has had to contend with throughout her career — including her education at Harvard University. As she details for her friend:

“When I got accepted to Harvard — as a fellow AP student, you were witness to what an academic beast I was in high school, yes? — three separate times I encountered white strangers as I prepped for my maiden trip to Cambridge that rankle to this day.

The first was the white doctor giving me a physical … .:

Me: ‘I need to send an immunization report to my college so I can matriculate.’

Doctor: ‘Where are you going?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Doctor: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

The second was in a store, looking for supplies I needed from Harvard’s suggested ‘what to bring with you’ list:

Store employee: ‘Where are you going?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Store employee: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

The third was at UPS, shipping off boxes of said ‘what to bring’ to Harvard. I was in line behind a white boy mailing boxes to Princeton and in front of a white woman sending her child’s boxes to wherever:

Woman, to the boy: ‘What college are you going to?’

Boy: ‘Princeton.’

Woman: ‘Congratulations!’

Woman, to me: ‘Where are you sending your boxes?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Woman: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

I think: ‘No … the one downtown next to the liquor store.’ …

The point here is, if no one has ever questioned your intellectual capabilities or attendance at an elite institution based solely on your skin color, this is white privilege [or bias, as some might say].”

A later example comes from Hutcherson’s work as a film and television writer/producer:

“While writing on a television show in my 30s, my new white male boss — who had only known me for a few days — had, unbeknownst to me, told another writer on staff he thought I was conceited, didn’t know as much as I thought I did, and didn’t have the talent I thought I had.  And what exactly had happened in those few days?  I disagreed with a pitch where he suggested our lead female character carelessly leave a pot holder on the stove and burn down her apartment. This character being a professional caterer.

“When what he said about me was revealed months later — by then he’d come to respect and rely on me — he apologized for prejudging me because I was black and female. I told him — not unkindly, but with a head shake and a smile — that he was ignorant for doing so and clearly had a lot to learn. It was a good talk because he was remorseful and open. [The subhead of her piece, by the way, is “Nobody is mad at you for being white.”]

“But the point here is, if you’ve never been on the receiving end of a boss’ prejudiced, uninformed ‘how dare she question my ideas’ badmouthing based solely on his ego and your race, you have white privilege.”

If ever there was a compelling treatise on what goes on between the races inside our buildings of business as opposed to the far-more-combustible streets below, especially over the past year, this is it.

Hutcherson’s last example, especially, should give us all pause: Perhaps the only way to shore up the divides, even at their most subtle, is to start — whether we’re the CEO, the head of HR or a direct supervisor — by admitting that certain behaviors or patterns of communication that are allowed to exist in business today are just wrong. Then start the conversation.

And then the training, if necessary.

Engaging the Talent of Tomorrow

ThinkstockPhotos-494940180Diane Gherson, CHRO at IBM Corp., laughs when she recalls the role technology played in improving the employee experience when she first joined the Armonk, N.Y.-based technology giant 14 years ago.

At that time, she says, managers received emails notifying them when team members’ birthdays were coming up, for example.

“And that was really exciting,” Gherson told the audience at this morning’s opening session at the HR Technology Conference at Chicago’s McCormick Place.

Now, she says, managers receive frequent messages with much more information on their employees. For instance, managers get notes telling them that a given employee hasn’t received recognition for his or her role in, say, a special project.

Gherson’s example was just one illustration of how technology has changed the way managers and employees do their jobs at IBM. As part of this morning’s “Engaging and Retaining the Talent of Tomorrow” panel discussion, moderated by Emmy and Peabody Award-winning journalist and Starfish Media Group CEO Soledad O’Brien, Gherson was one of four HR executives sharing the stage, and sharing insights into how the employee experience continues to change, and how HR is using technology to meet changing employee expectations.

Along with Dermot O’Brien, CHRO at ADP, Scott Pitasky, executive vice president and chief partner resources officer at Starbucks, and Francine Katsoudas, chief people officer at Cisco Systems, the assembled HR leaders also examined recent research findings that illuminate just how much those expectations are changing.

ADP’s recent Evolution of Work study found, for example, that 58 percent of workers saying they believe that traditional hierarchical structures in the workplace will soon be a thing of the past. The survey also found 95 percent of employees saying they believe they will soon be able to work from anywhere.

The number of workers who anticipate working where and when they choose presents opportunities as well as challenges, says Katsoudas.

At Cisco, “we believe in a concept that everything good happens in teams,” Katsoudas told the audience.

That said, teams can still thrive while working in disparate locations, she adds. Katsoudas and the Cisco HR team has focused on helping managers “really connect with their team members, and really connect them with the strengths of their individual team members.”

For example, managers rely on the company’s talent management platform to check in to see how their team members are progressing on a given project or task, and tweak their roles if need be. Managers can also send brief surveys to their direct reports, to get a feel for the level of engagement throughout their teams, and solicit suggestions on how to improve the employee experience.

As how, when and where employees work continues to change, “technology can actually reconnect us to the workforce,” says ADP’s O’Brien.

And, “it provides us with enough data,” adds Gherson, “to help us find ways to make the employee experience better.”

Reassessing Engagement Surveys

At one time in the not-too-distant past, employees at Lloyd’s Banking Group were being asked to complete employee engagement surveys every three months or so, according to David Littlefield, the London-based bank’s group head of culture, engagement and insights.

“You can’t build an engaged workforce without affecting behavioral change,” Littlefield told attendees at a Wednesday afternoon session at HRE‘s HR Technology Conference.

Indeed. The problem with conducting such frequent surveys, however, “was that [the firm’s approximately 8,000] line managers weren’t gaining any new insights and didn’t have time to digest that much data and take action” on what the latest employee polls told them.

Thus, in 2015, HR at Lloyd’s developed and introduced its Building the Best Team Survey. Including between 60 and 65 questions overall, this new survey added more open-ended questions to the mix, “to give employees an opportunity to talk about what they like and don’t like” about their jobs, and about their roles within the organization.

The goal of adding such new queries was to gain insight into how employees felt in four areas: their satisfaction with their role in the company, their pride in their work, their likelihood to be an advocate for the organization and their intent to stay with Lloyd’s, explains Littlefield.

In addition to internal variables, outside factors can impact employee engagement as well, says Littlefield. External factors such as current economic climates and media coverage of the industry, he adds, are especially vital to perceptions of firms within the financial sector, and some questions were designed to gauge how employees’ views of Lloyd’s culture are affected by how the organization and the industry is depicted outside of the company.

Polling employees less frequently and seeking more substantial input has paid off, says Littlefield.

Currently hovering between 85 percent and 88 percent, “participation rates [for employee engagement surveys] have never been higher,” he says, adding that overall employee engagement scores have increased by 11 percentage points since 2014.  Part of the reason for this rise is attributable to allowing managers to revamp employees’ roles to better match their skills and help them achieve “what they want to get out of their work,” based on responses from the annual survey.

“When we share data from engagement surveys with managers, we tell them to think about that data for a few days, and figure out how they can help employees get energized and engaged,” continues Littlefield. “We’ve found that managers don’t want to talk about the science behind engagement scores, they want insight that they can take action on.”

 

 

 

Does Your Firm Support Well-Being?

limeade_quantum_wbereportDid you know employee engagement and employee well-being are two different things? I kind of did, but this research by Limeade and Quantum Workplace (pictured at left) made the differences about as clear as they could be, given the subject matter.

The report, released last week, defines the two thusly:

“Engagement [is] the strength of the emotional connection employees have with their work, team, company and higher purpose. … Well-being [is] a state of optimal health, happiness and purpose.”

OK, different, yes, but clearly very related. In fact, that’s one of the report’s key takeaways: that when employees feel they have higher well-being, they’re more likely to be engaged in their work.

The survey of 1,276 employees across 45 U.S. markets found, more specifically, that 88 percent of employees who cited feelings of “higher well-being” (i.e., access to healthy options, the flexibility and freedom to pursue them and find balance between work and life, and a sense of belonging and value to an organization) also said they feel engaged at work, versus 50 percent for those citing “lower well-being.”

Moreover, 83 percent of those in the “higher” category say they enjoy their work versus 41 percent in the “lower” one, and 84 percent in the higher category say they’re loyal to their teams, versus 54 percent in the lower camp.

So, is all this an intuitive no-brainer? Well, yes and no, according to Dr. Laura Hamill, Limeade’s chief people officer and managing director of the Limeade Institute. As she puts it,

“The connection between well-being and engagement may seem intuitive, but there has been little research that statistically relates the two. These findings confirm the relationship and can serve as the foundation of taking companies from good to great.

“[This] connection is great news. It means that helping disengaged employees isn’t out of an organization’s control [and can actually, by enhancing retention and productivity, lead to] better business results. “

(Here’s another link to the study’s microsite with a cool video for your viewing pleasure.)

Also key to an employee’s feeling of well-being is organizational support, defined in the report as “the resources and nudges an organization intentionally provides to encourage well-being improvement.” More specifically, it says, “this research indicates that organizations should provide the policies, visible manager and leadership support, role modeling, encouragement and norms to fully support [that] improvement.”

(One interesting note: The study found managers to be the primary source of that support, or nonsupport, over and above executive leaders. “Managers,” Hamill told me, “can be the biggest obstacles to well-being improvement because they don’t understand its connection to team success or they are nervous about how to talk with their employees about their well-being. Organizations should educate managers about the impact of well-being on employee engagement — and give them the tools and support to make it a priority.”)

The numbers certainly bear out the importance of this organizational/managerial support. Seventy-two percent of people who felt their employer cared about their well-being also reported having higher organizational support, whereas only 7 percent of employees with lower organizational support reported feeling higher well-being. In other words, as perceptions of organizational support diminish, so do perceptions of well-being. So why is this finding important? According to the report’s authors,

“You’ve heard it before: It’s more expensive to replace an employee than to retain one. A 2015 study [‘The impact of human resource practices on employee retention in the telecom sector,’ published in the International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues] states that costs associated with a person leaving unexpectedly are usually 2.5 times greater than that person’s salary.

“So why not invest those dollars back in the people who already work for you to help retain them? Employees who feel they have higher well-being and who feel they have higher organizational support are more likely to want to stay in an organization — compared to those [in the lower groups].”

In fact, researchers found, about 98 percent of those who feel they have higher well-being and higher organizational support answered favorably to the statement “I would like to be working at this organization one year from now.” That number dropped to about 79 percent for people who feel they have lower well-being and lower organizational support.

Even more impressive in terms of sheer numbers, 99 percent of employees with high well-being and high organizational support recommend their employer as a great place to work.

“Employee engagement is the holy grail for many companies aiming to attract and retain top talent,” says Jason Lauritsen, director of customer success at Quantum Workplace. “[This report] validates this goal … .”

Forget the Fancy Job Titles

Employees walking around with titles like “chief happiness officer” and “product evangelist” are expected to be exuberant, enthusiastic proponents of a company’s internal and external brand.

And they could very well be crazy about the companies they work for. But they might not be so keen on such creative, “non-traditional” job titles, which a fair number of workers apparently don’t find all that endearing or even accurate.

A quarter of employees, to be exact, don’t care for using exotic monikers to describe their positions, according to a new survey from Spherion Staffing.

The Atlanta-based recruiting and staffing provider’s most recent WorkSphere survey found that 25 percent of employees consider “non-traditional” job titles unprofessional, and are against the idea of being christened with one. Nearly as many (23 percent) feel that flowery designations don’t capture what they actually do in their jobs. That said, 14 percent of employees who favor more tried-and-true titles believe they too could use improvement, saying that labels such as “project manager” and “specialist” are too vague.

Overall, 42 percent of workers said their current titles—be they old-fashioned or more “outside the box”—don’t really reflect their roles and responsibilities.

Regardless of what appears on their business cards, an overwhelming majority of employees expressed confidence in their ability to describe their jobs in a way that’s easy to understand. Eighty-nine percent of those polled said they would have no issues delivering an “elevator speech” that highlights their duties.

Those that don’t have such an easy time encapsulating what they do every day might struggle with summing up the complexities of their roles. Close to one-third (31 percent) of employees polled said their job or industry is too specialized to easily explain to a layperson. Twenty-nine percent said they try to avoid using work jargon in everyday conversation.

According to the survey, employees struggling to articulate their responsibilities may be making things harder than they have to be. Overall, 53 percent indicated they give different accounts of their jobs, depending on the audience. In addition, 11 percent said they sometimes lie about what they do for a living.

Whatever they tell others about their vocation, “employees take great pride in their job titles, and in some cases, a title that is considered limiting or hard to describe can significantly impact their job satisfaction,” says Sandy Mazur, Spherion division president, in a statement.

Faced with growing pressure to recruit and retain top workers, “reexamining how different titles are perceived and applied can make a big difference in building morale,” says Mazur, “and positioning a company as a favorable place to work.”