Category Archives: globalization

Brexit: The Human Resource Implications

Flags of the United Kingdom and the European Union DividedFew people seemed as surprised by the results of last week’s vote for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union than the British themselves. Meanwhile, other countries in Europe are witnessing similar “exit” movements of their own — in Spain (“Spexit”), France (“Frexit”) and even Germany (“Gexit”), although the consensus seems to be that those campaigns are unlikely to result in more countries leaving the 28-nation bloc. The reverberations are even echoing here in the U.S., where some Texas secessionists are calling for the Lone Star State to have a “Texit” referendum.

The process of formally unwinding the U.K. from the E.U. will be long and complex, and won’t begin until the country’s leadership formally invokes “Article 50,” perhaps in the fall. As such, experts say most multinational companies with operations in the U.K. are taking a “wait and see” approach in terms of how the changes in employment law, benefits and immigration may affect them.

“There’s still a significant amount of uncertainty as to how companies are going to proceed,” says William Sheridan, vice president for international human resources services at the National Foreign Trade Council in New York. “Brexit is going to have a range of implications — it’s a real mess.”

One of the biggest uncertainties is whether companies with U.K. operations will continue to enjoy unfettered access to the E.U. market once the separation is complete. Another big worry is over the “free movement” of people throughout E.U. member countries that is one of the pillars of E.U. membership — once that’s gone, it may be much harder for U.K. companies to hire and transfer foreign nationals. Indeed, some U.S.-based companies — most notably JP Morgan Chase — have indicated they may shift major portions of their employee base out of the U.K. This means the U.K. may become a less-attractive destination post-Brexit because it will no longer offer easy access to talented people from throughout the E.U.

“Many companies have established in the U.K. because … they access a large pool of qualified employees from other E.U. countries,” writes Ashley Craig, a partner at international law firm Venable. “If the U.K. leaves the E.U., that will likely no longer be the case.” Further complicating matters, Craig writes, many E.U. professionals — such as lawyers — may no longer  have their credentials recognized in the U.K., as they currently are under E.U. rules.

The E.U. has indicated that it will not be inclined to let the British retain the trade advantages that come with E.U. membership, probably as a way to discourage other countries from exiting. Manufacturers with a heavy presence in the U.K., such as Ford and Caterpillar, may end up having to move some plants, offices and staff to countries that remain in the E.U. in order to maintain their ready access to that crucial market, says Terry Gallagher, president of international executive-search firm Battalia Winston.

“The biggest challenge will be to engage and retain talent in this environment of more global uncertainty and more possible exits from the E.U. … ” he says. “Those companies that are nimble and proactive will do better than those waiting to see the impact and putting everything on hold.

HR leaders at multinational companies will want to pay especially close attention to developments once the U.K. invokes Article 50, which will begin the two-year separation process from the E.U., says Sheridan.  “Major law firms have been cranking out webinars and presentations on how Brexit may affect all sorts of regulations … it’s important for HR to stay attuned to what’s going on.”

Tweet This!

Compliance Efforts Not So Great Globally, Either

507249886 -- compliance word cloudIt wasn’t that long ago that I wrote a news analysis about the problems with ethics and compliance programs here in the United States.

Experts in that piece lamented the lack of clout being given to many corporate ethics and compliance officers, and the tendency at far too many organizations to require ethics officers to wear too many hats — doubling up on such governance responsibilities as risk management and human resources, thereby not being able to focus properly on any one of them, especially ethics and compliance.

Well, it appears those two disciplines are in need of collar corrections on the global stage as well. According to the recently released NAVEX Global’s 2015 Europe, Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific State of Compliance Programmes Benchmark Report, despite tighter government enforcement, boards are not getting regular compliance reports and 40 percent don’t have regular reporting cadence with their boards or are not sure. And the majority say their budgets for ethics and compliance will remain the same or will be less in the coming year.

To come up with its findings, NAVEX Global partnered with an independent research agency to investigate how companies headquartered  across Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia Pacific (APAC) develop and execute their ethics and compliance programs.

Researchers polled 247 key decision-makers and individuals responsible for ethics  and compliance programs. The purpose of the survey was to benchmark “the top priorities and challenges faced by ethics and compliance professionals headquartered in EMEA and APAC,” according to the report.

From the report (edited slightly for English readers):

“It is not surprising that measuring program effectiveness was cited as the biggest program challenge, since this is a complex undertaking. Organizations struggle to define the right combination of key indicators of culture and compliance to demonstrate the program is working.

“The key challenges of time availability and managing regulations speak to the need for programs to be properly resourced. A robust risk-assessment process can help to identify and better manage resource allocation and to prioritize jurisdictional issues. Successful programs regularly review resources against the organization’s risk profile to ensure appropriate management and mitigation actions .

“Survey write-in responses to challenges included concerns about implementing standardized programs across locations and being seen as a “troublemaker” for bringing up issues. The wide variety of responses serve as a reminder that every organization has its own culture and challenges to be factored into the development and implementation of an effective ethics and compliance program .

Key takeaways from the report:

  • Take a Risk-Based Approach: Program components and implementation strategies can be complex and will vary significantly by company and by region. The development of these programs should be driven by the organization’s risk profile, which can be identified by conducting a comprehensive ethics, compliance and reputational risk assessment.
  • Put Meaningful Program Measurements in Place: Consider a variety of metrics to determine the effectiveness of the program as there is no one metric or indication that will provide complete insights. A combination of useful metrics could include whistleblower-hotline benchmarks, feedback on training sessions, leadership feedback, employee surveys and focus group data, exit interview feedback, and legal actions.
  • Train Middle Managers and Supervisors: First- and second-level managers are culture carriers — the strongest link senior management has to employees. These managers need to be trained on communicating organizational expectations to employees — and trained on how to respond when issues arise. Investing in these managers will pay dividends in terms of creating a strong culture of integrity and compliance.
  •  Engage Leadership and Your Board of Directors: Both best-practice frameworks and regulatory bodies around the world have defined a clear oversight role for the board of directors. Neglecting this duty could mean putting the organization, and board members themselves, at risk. A regular reporting cadence — with high-quality data put into context — will help keep the board and leadership engaged.
  • Do More With Less: Make good use of systems and processes that will improve the efficiency and accuracy of their programs. There is still opportunity for further automation in many areas of respondents’ E&C programs.
Tweet This!

Taking a Multipronged Approach to Global Mobility

We’ve reported in previous stories that the use of short-term assignments continues to grow in popularity, as companies look for ways to get a bigger bang for their global-mobility buck. So it’s no surprise to see that most multinational companies (56 percent) expect to increase their use of this approach during the 2015-2016 period, according to a just-released report by the consultancy Mercer.

ThinkstockPhotos-71080038The more noteworthy finding in Mercer’s Worldwide Survey of International Assignment Policies and Practices report is probably the increased level of diversification that companies are using when it comes to global employee mobility.

More precisely, over the next year or so, about half of companies anticipate an increase in the use of permanent transfers (54 percent), developmental and training assignments (50 percent), and locally hired foreigners (47 percent).

As for traditional long-term assignments? Well, a smaller but still respectable percentage (44 percent) of the 831 multinational companies studied expect to see an increase here as well.

As Steve Nurney, partner and leader of Mercer’s North America global mobility business, explains, “companies are using a more varied range of assignments in order to respond to evolving business needs and changing patterns in the global workforce.”

The report also noted a marked increase in companies with multiple policies (64 percent, up from 57 percent since 2012), further evidence of a trend toward diversification.

Other findings in the study worth noting …

The number of female assignees increased by 6 percent, on average, since 2010;

Dual careers and cost remain key barriers to mobility, but less so compared to 2012; and

Employers are embracing a wider definition of ‘spouse’ to cover same-sex couples in benefits arrangements.

As Nurney appropriately points out, the greater diversification is inevitably going to add more complexity to HR’s job, especially when it comes to compliance issues. So HR and mobility leaders, I might add, are obviously going to need to make sure they have the mechanisms in place to effectively manage a more complicated global-mobility process.

But Nurney also correctly suggests that the shift to a more diversified approach to mobility creates an opportunity for HR leaders to impact the overall business strategy in a meaningful way.

So now, I would think, it’s up to HR and mobility leaders to demonstrate that they’re fully up to the task.

Tweet This!

Doing Your Homework in the APAC Region

If there’s an underlying message in First Advantage’s latest study on background checks in the Asia Pacific region, it’s to tread carefully.

ThinkstockPhotos-122576156I received a copy of the firm’s 2014 Background Screening Trends Report for Asia Pacific the other day, analyzing 2 million of its background checks it conducted in the region. Among the findings: a 6.5 percent increase in candidates misrepresenting their curriculum vitae. Digging deeper into the data, Australia and New Zealand (27 percent) consistently recorded a higher discrepancy rate across Asia Pacific, followed by Singapore and Hong Kong (19 percent and 16 percent, respectively).

As has been the case in prior years, the discrepancy rate in China continued to be lowest among the lot, at around 9 percent in Q4.

So where are the discrepancies occurring?  In terms of employment discrepancies, 54 percent concerned employment history. The three most common education-related gaps in the region were graduation dates with a variance of more than six months (6 percent), graduation dates with a variance of less than six months (5 percent) and unconfirmed degree (3 percent).

The research also revealed that employers are beefing up their screening efforts and increasing their number of background checks, with 67 percent of all cases subjected to at least five checks in 2014, compared to 42 percent in 2013.

Mathew Glasner, South Asia managing director for First Advantage, found the lower discrepancies in the less mature and higher risk markets like Malaysia, China and the Philippines particularly interesting. “This is driven by fewer checks per screen than we typically find in the more mature markets,” he said. “In the Philippines, for example, our customers conducted, on average, only 3.5 checks per screen and uncovered only 12.8 percent discrepancies compared to Australia, where they conduct, on average, 5.2 checks per screen and uncover 26.94 percent discrepancies. This behavior is counterintuitive when you consider the risk associated with hiring into these emerging and higher risk markets.”

Among the other trends Glasner is spotting: increasing usage in the region of infinity screening—or the rechecking of existing employees’ backgrounds. “The ongoing screening of staff represents a real opportunity to mitigate fraud, financial crime and reputational risk,” he said.

It goes without saying, of course: These findings should bode well for First Advantage and other background checkers with operations in the region.

Tweet This!

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.)

Tweet This!

Best to Shy Away from Ukraine Relocations or Trips

This report Friday from the BBC about the escalating crisis in the Ukraine certainly underscores alerts and cautions released days and weeks earlier about not doing business there right now. Though business travel doesn’t fall completely under the purview of human resources, this earlier alert  — which contains a link to this article — from the Incident Management Group Inc. is 177725008 -- ukraineworth a look. Relocation and expatriate considerations are tied in to this as well.

According to the alert, you’d better not only keep your employees and executive leaders out of the Ukraine and Moldova for the time being, you’d better keep a keen eye on Eastern Europe in general if your organization does business there.

The ousting of Ukraine’s pro-Russian prime minister in February, resulting in the annexation of the Crimea and continued Russian provocations, the alert says, “have caused alarm and unease in many countries in the region [and] many corporate travel managers are concerned that the security situation could deteriorate … .”

Some analysts, the IMG article says, “believe that Russian aggression could go even further [a prescient warning indeed], fearing that Russian forces massed along Ukraine’s eastern border could be preparing for an invasion.”

It goes on to offer this perspective for businesses doing business there:

Employee travel security in Eastern Europe is normally not a large safety concern. Ukraine and Moldova are at an elevated risk, but most of the countries in the region are roughly comparable to other EU nations in terms of security. For example, the countries of Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Baltic States are generally pretty safe. Visitors should be concerned about the potential for scams and petty theft, but violent crime directed against visitors is generally uncommon.

However, an escalation of Russian aggression could have negative implications for employee travel security [throughout] Eastern Europe. For example, increased tensions could lead to more cyber attacks on Western organizations based in the region. These attacks could be carried out by the Russian government or by rogue pro-Russian elements. One such organization, dubbed ‘Cyber Berkut,’ has already claimed credit for an attack against NATO’s website, and may seek out other pro-Western targets.

Additionally, an escalation of tensions could lead to a Russian energy embargo. After all, much of Europe is dependent on Russian oil and gas. An embargo could lead to shortages and civil disorder in the region, especially if such an embargo took place in winter when demand for natural gas is at its highest. Furthermore, an energy crisis could affect the operations of companies doing business in the region, especially those that rely on fuel to conduct their day-to-day operations.”

From the looks of things geopolitically, there’s no settling down going on, now or anytime soon. This report last Monday from ABC News notes 15 more Russian officials have been added to the European Union’s list of sanctions protesting Moscow’s meddling in the Ukraine — bringing the total number of EU sanctions to 48.

Best advice? According to IMG, get with a professional security consultant if you haven’t already and make sure your organization is developing or updating an evacuation plan. And if an employee or relocatee doesn’t have to be there, by all means don’t send him or her.


Tweet This!

Study: Diversity Not So Good for Creativity

After all the positive press that diversity in the workplace has been getting over the years, including here at HRE, a surprising study published in a recent issue of the Academy of Management Journal presenting an actual negative caught my eye.

dv496065aConducted by Prof. Roy Y.J. Chua of the Harvard Business School, it suggests — make that shows — that creativity in multicultural settings is highly vulnerable to what Chua calls “ambient cultural disharmony.”

In three distinct studies, the overall research finds that the presence of conflict or tension between two people of different cultures — whether the cause of strife is culturally based or simply due to personal antipathy — diminishes the ability of others to think creatively in multicultural ways, according to the research report. The paper, “The Costs of Ambient Cultural Disharmony: Indirect Intercultural Conflict in Social Environment Undermine Creativity” (subscription/registration required), appears in the December/January issue of AMJ.

“Creativity is not necessarily about producing a completely new idea or product that never existed before [but] oftentimes involves combining existing ideas in new ways that are useful toward solving practical problems,” Chua says. “To solve problems creatively in a global multicultural context, problem-solvers need to first see non-obvious connections among ideas from different cultures … . Ambient cultural disharmony motivates people to shut down the search for connections and patterns involving ideas from different cultures because they have come to believe that such intercultural connections are not feasible.”

How much of a problem could this be, going forward, in the global marketplace?

“It’s not clear how serious a problem this is,” Chua says, “since this is the first work to show creativity loss resulting from ambient cultural disharmony. Yet, the fact that intercultural conflict affects so many more people than those directly involved [a key finding of the research] and diminishes something as critical to organizational success as creativity suggests that what this research has uncovered is more than a minor drawback of diversity.”

Tweet This!

HR Leaders Speak Out on Global-Recruiting Challenges

Attendees at the 16th Annual HR Technology® Conference in Las Vegas got to “hear the stories from the practitioners themselves,” as moderator Gerry Crispin put it at Wednesday’s “Panel on Global Talent Challenge: How Can Recruiting Technology Span the Globe?”

165432939--global recruitingSharing their experiences and challenges — from needing to be better aware of recruiting cultures and characteristics to finding ways to communicate more effectively with candidates and recruiters in non-English countries — were Chris Hoyt, director of global talent engagement and marketing for PepsiCo; Maureen Neglia, vice president of global talent and recruitment for Manulife Financial; Kent Kirch, global director of talent acquisition and mobility for Deloitte; and Danielle Monaghan, HR partner director, technology services for Cisco Systems.

In one country where Neglia and her team rolled out a recruitment-management system, they were confounded by pockets where adoption was simply not occurring. “We had completely missed the fact that technology was not in the hands of recruiters” in every corner of every region, she said. Some were literally following candidates around on bicycles, she added.

Lesson learned? “Identify what it will take for recruiters in every region to succeed with your new system,” said Neglia. “Automate where it makes sense, but do it strategically, and don’t automate where it doesn’t make sense.”

And go slow, step by step, said Kent. In Deloitte’s upcoming projects, “we’re going to turn on capabilities in stages so we know people are comfortable with each one before we go on,” he said.

In terms of applying social media, know what you’re planning to do  with it going in, cautioned Crispin, principal and co-founder of CareerXroads. Follow the conversations, “the collaboration of questions and answers, and see where they’re coming from,” he said.

Hoyt agreed. “Those social-media vessels are just more channels of communication,” he told attendees.

Going futuristic for a spell, Crispin shared one vignette about a meeting he attended recently where an employer “actually brought out a robot intended to eliminate recruiters.” The robot demonstrated its ability to read body language and mine individuals, making real-time assessments — clearly, “raising broad issues for global recruiting down the road.”

In response to Crispin’s anecdote, Hoyt shared a gem: “When you take the people out of the people business, you’re on a slippery slope.”

Asked for their parting advice to other HR practitioners struggling with global-recruiting issues, each panelist gave the crowd some additional gems to chew on.

“HR professionals are so worried about every little data point, they end up pushing job candidates away,” said Neglia. Global recruiting, she added, is about “constantly conversing, with candidates and your global-recruiting teams.”

And simplify, said Monoghan: “Don’t ask job candidates to fill out 40-page questionnaires. Have your recruiters pick up phones and talk to the candidates.”

Lastly, said Crispin, do what one recruiting professional he knows did. “Go through your own process; apply for your own job at your own company,” he said. “You really should be testing [the system] yourself, as a job candidate to find out what needs fixing.”

Tweet This!

Say-on-Pay Movement Growing Globally

Momentum continues to build in the European Union to give shareholders greater powers of oversight on executive-pay practices.

166843264 -- globe and moneyA release from New York-based Mercer announcing its latest perspective on the topic details some of what’s going on “across the pond”: In the United Kingdom, binding say-on-pay votes will be implemented starting in October; in Switzerland, a March referendum to introduce binding say-on-pay votes was just supported; and, with similar measures being discussed in France, German and Spain, the EU is planning to introduce legislation later this year to require all 27 EU countries to implement mandatory, binding say-on-pay votes. (The link takes you to Mercer’s “Perspectives” landing page; the April special issue, Executive Pay Regulation: The Potential Impacts of Proposed European Reforms, is at the top right.)

As the perspective notes, there’s a certain European “hardening of attitudes” going on:

The political impetus to regulate executive pay has accelerated in Europe. Recent regulatory developments that would give shareholders greater oversight of executive pay and cap bonuses in the financial services sector, reflect a hardening of attitudes among European politicians and the public. In an era of low or nonexistent economic growth, consumer price inflation, and falling average real wages, executive remuneration will continue to be a sensitive issue.

This is particularly true in the banking sector, where the continued payment of bonuses, in the face of taxpayer-funded bailouts and revelations such as the Libor fixing scandal in London, has sparked outrage. But with other countries and regions taking a less prescriptive approach, an unlevel playing field is emerging and may result in executives leaving the EU for less regulated markets.

These proposed regulations, which have, for the most part, been supported by shareholders, will nevertheless require them to be more active in their oversight of executive pay. One consequence of this greater investor workload may be to extend the influence of proxy advisory firms.

The piece goes on to note exactly what’s going on globally, including in the United States, where say-on-pay votes are still non-binding but have, nonetheless, “influenced executive pay practices [by eliminating] many problematic practices and [increasing] shareholder-engagement efforts.”

Indeed, in this blog post written by Senior Editor Andrew R. McIlvaine about a session at the recent WorldatWork Total Rewards 2013 conference, he goes into much more detail about some of the ways say-on-pay is impacting — pro and con — the business community.

One of the most notable quotes in his post comes from John England, managing partner of Philadelphia-based Pay Governance, who fears what the European binding-vote wave landing on U.S. shores might mean. (He is clearly not a fan.)

“When CEO pay escalates sharply against average worker pay, it will inflame things,” England says in the post. “I do believe we are just one or two scandals away from the prospect of a binding say-on-pay law … in this country.”

What are employers to do with this information? I ran that by two Mercer thought leaders. Here’s what they both had to say. First from Vicki Elliott, Mercer’s senior partner and global financial-services consulting leader:

Companies should not let tighter regulation in financial services and other sectors define their objectives for compensation and talent-management effectiveness. Be creative and don’t succumb to a one-size-fits-all. Companies will [also] need to rethink their employee value propositions and the power of non-pay methods — it can no longer be all about pay.

And from Gregg Passin, senior partner and executive rewards leader for North America:

As say-on-pay develops, it is very important to simplify and clearly communicate remuneration strategies and programs to shareholders. It is [also] likely that there will be more focus on building talent from within so processes for managing talent pipelines such as succession planning and career development will be critical.


Tweet This!

Bersin Envisions a More Distributed HR Function

IMPACT_2013_Final_LogoJosh Bersin, principal, CEO and founder at Bersin by Deloitte, delivered a content-rich, provoking opening keynote at Bersin’s Impact 2013 conference in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Tuesday morning. The message was, in essence, that businesses and their HR functions need to do business and HR completely differently than even just a few short years ago if they’re going to compete in the global marketplace.

His vision, if you will, involves a more distributed network of HR expertise, localized for every state, country and culture. No more preaching HR from above.

Some of the top drivers of change, he said, are clear gaps in leadership, skills and education — borne out by research, Bersin’s and others’; an explosive role of technology; and disparities in economic growth and opportunity, country to country.

“Successful global interconnectedness,” he said, “means understanding what true localization really is.” He offered some examples of companies that have learned the importance of understanding what doing business in a different culture really means. Ford, for instance, before it introduced its highly successful Ford Figo in  India, knew its people had to learn what the road conditions were, what colors would sell, etc.

For HR leaders, embracing the challenges of doing business globally will mean understanding and transforming the learning culture, optimizing local talent acquisition and localizing the leadership pipeline. “High-performing leaders in certain cultures have characteristics specific only to those cultures,” Bersin told attendees.

From a business standpoint, he told me privately after the keynote, HR leaders need to embrace a more distributed HR, veering away from the old Centers of Excellence model toward one involving Networks of Expertise. The future of HR, competing in a global business world, he said, needs to “be a model where local HR specialists are trained enough to tweak [programs and initiatives] at a local level and HR leaders are creating standards based on integrating skills and information” throughout the corporation, not innovating and then passing it on down the chain.

In fact, he even went so far as to say that the concept of the HR business partner needs to be rethought and redefined. “Business partners need to be held more accountable,” he said. “They need to be more powerful and [need to be] experts locally,” much the same way houses aren’t built by generalists, but by specialists — each contributing the best of what he or she can do.

To help HR-leadership expertise along, his company introduced at the conference its Bersin by Deloitte Playbooks, step-by-step programs to help business leaders and their teams tackle current HR, talent and learning challenges — locally throughout the world — based on Bersin’s WhatWorks research.


Tweet This!