Category Archives: hiring

Target Pays the Price for Problematic Assessments

You never have to look far for examples of big companies spending big money to deal with claims of discriminatory employment practices.

This week’s cautionary tale comes courtesy of Target Corp.

On Monday, the Minneapolis-based discount chain agreed to pay $2.8 million to resolve charges of discrimination stemming from employment assessments used by Target, which “disproportionately screened out applicants for exempt-level professional positions based on race and sex,” according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The payout will be distributed among more than 3,000 individuals.

In its investigation of the retail giant, the EEOC determined that the assessment tests Target administered to thousands of candidates—who were ultimately rejected—for upper-level positions were not job-related, and violated Title VII of the Civils Right Act of 1964.

In addition to finding that the assessments unduly eliminated individuals in particular groups from consideration—namely African-Americans, Asians and women, according to the EEOC—the Washington-based agency determined that one of the assessments Target had been using violated the American with Disabilities Act. In this case, applicants were subjected to medical examinations prior to an offer of employment, which, as the EEOC notes, is prohibited by the ADA. Finally, the EEOC found that Target committed recordkeeping violations by failing to maintain records adequately enough to evaluate the impact of its hiring processes.

While maintaining that it didn’t act improperly regarding the assessments, Target did stop using the tests in question during the EEOC’s investigation, and has “agreed to better track its testing process and check for impact based on race, ethnicity and gender,” according to Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder.

In the same statement, Snyder noted that Target had relied on these tests “over the past decade,” and said the EEOC concluded that “only a small fraction of the assessments … could have been problematic.”

The settlement underscores the “quite risky” nature of the pre-employment assessments commonly used by many employers, says Tashwanda Pinchback Dixon, an Atlanta-based attorney at Balch & Bingham, and a member of the firm’s labor and employment and litigation practice groups.

“It’s important that employers take a very close look at these tests and make sure there is a clear link to business necessity,” says Dixon, whose experience includes focusing on Title VII sex and race discrimination claims.

Ensuring such a connection “is even more critical with tests that seek medical information, because of the ADA and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act,” adds Dixon.

In most instances, she says, “a case can be made for business necessity when the position requires manual labor, such as manual lifting requirements.”

In Target’s case, however, “the link to business necessity is not as obvious.”

In light of this week’s settlement, Dixon says that employers should expect their pre-employment assessments to come under scrutiny by candidates and—if brought to its attention—the EEOC.

As such, “employers should also evaluate and monitor whether their assessments have an adverse impact on any protected class,” she says, “including race, gender and individuals with disabilities.”

Twitter It!

The High Cost of Warm Fuzzies

I admit the following with a recently delivered dash of remorse: I am an avowed Amazon Prime customer and I always get a “warm fuzzy” when a product I ordered in the morning arrives on my front porch before I even get home from work.

With that said, reading the New York Timesrecent in-depth look at Amazon’s corporate culture definitely left me with a “cold prickly,” or what the company calls the feeling customers get when they are informed their packages will not arrive as scheduled.

In case you haven’t read the piece yet — and I highly recommend you do — the Times “interviewed more than 100 current and former Amazon employees, including many who spoke on the record and some who requested anonymity because they had signed agreements saying they would not speak to the press.”

One of the few employees Amazon allowed to speak on the record (via email) for the piece was its vice president of HR, who defended the company’s attitude toward open confrontation in the workplace:

“We always want to arrive at the right answer,” said Tony Galbato, vice president for human resources, in an email statement. “It would certainly be much easier and socially cohesive to just compromise and not debate, but that may lead to the wrong decision.”

The story about the company that has just been valued at $250 billion has generated enough controversy that founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, who declined to be interviewed for the original story, nonetheless felt compelled to push back against some of the more damaging claims made in it, according to a follow-up piece by the Times:

In a letter to employees, Mr. Bezos said Amazon would not tolerate the “shockingly callous management practices” described in the article. He urged any employees who knew of “stories like those reported” to contact him directly.

“Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero,” Mr. Bezos said.

The NYT piece quotes Jason Merkoski, a 42-year-old engineer, who worked on the team developing the first Kindle e-reader and served as a technology evangelist for Amazon, who left the company in 2010 and then returned briefly in 2014.

Among the many disheartening stories of uncaring — or even malicious — co-workers, Merkoski’s quote perhaps best sums up the queasy essence of how work gets done there:

“The sheer number of innovations means things go wrong, you need to rectify, and then explain, and heaven help you if you got an email from Jeff,” he said. “It’s as if you’ve got the CEO of the company in bed with you at 3 a.m. breathing down your neck.”

Jason Averbook, CEO of The Marcus Buckingham Co., and one of the top thought leaders in the space of HR, workforce and enterprise technology — as well as being named as one of the 10 Most Powerful HR Technology experts by HRE — says the Amazon story offers a few powerful lessons for HR leaders everywhere.

“We need to be able to understand the pulse of employees much better than we do today,” he says. “It should never get to the point where employees see news media or social media as the only resort.

“And for a metrics-driven organization such as Amazon, it’s a shame and a shock that neither Bezos nor team leaders across the organization have quality people data that shows what’s at work in their teams. Because of this dearth of people data, we cannot truly know what their culture is like, and this situation emphasizes the need for reliable, real-time measures of team-level data for companies of all sizes.”

Averbook adds that companies need to “be doing a much better job of putting tools into the hands of team leaders themselves to empower them to take action.”

With the volume of millennials entering the workplace — even in managerial roles — “we need to provide both the training and tools to allow them to lead effectively,” he says. “It’s a reminder for companies to take a look at their current processes and identify how they need to improve now.

“This is the kick in the pants HR and companies need,” he adds. “If there was ever a question about the return on investment of HR tools and processes, the Amazon debacle should resolve those concerns as long as they are the right tools and processes.”

But, despite the public-relations black eye the story has caused Amazon, it certainly appears the company will continue to grow toward being the first trillion-dollar retailer in history, regardless of how we feel about the way our packages and products ultimately get to us.

Indeed, in Seattle alone, according to the piece, “more than 4,500 jobs are open, including one for an analyst specializing in ‘high-volume hiring.’ “

Twitter It!

Intel’s Diversity Progress is Now ‘In the Book’

Considering all the steps Intel’s leaders have been taking to improve diversity at the giant Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker, it should 79084610 --diversity in techcome as no surprise that the company’s first mid-year Diversity in Technology Report released last week shows considerable progress.

Details of that progress — mentioned in a blog post by Chief Diversity Officer Rosalind Hudnell and a public letter to employees from Chief Executive Officer Brian Krzanich —  include the fact that Intel is now “tracking to 43 percent of its diverse hires in 2015,” exceeding its U.S. goal for 2015 of 40 percent, according to the report.

Also, it says, more blacks and women are now working at Intel than were at the beginning of the year. Of new employees this year, 35 percent were women and 5 percent were black, well above Intel’s current workforce representation. In addition, according to the report, more women and minorities are in leadership today at Intel than at the beginning of the year, with an 11-percent increase for senior women employees and a 19-percent increase in senior leadership for blacks. In her blog post, Hudnell touts her organization’s commitment, from the top down, to improving these numbers:

“Our team has used the same laser focus that has brought innovation to the world [around] the issue of diversity and inclusion.  And while we have strengthened our focus in our programs, systems and measurements, the game changer has been the level of accountability driven from the top.”

Indeed, in January, Krzanich announced plans to make Intel more representative of the U.S. population by 2020, with some $300 million dedicated to the effort. Four months later, he unveiled some impressive movement in that direction that I blogged about at the time.

More recently, on July 29, the company announced it would double its referral bonus for employees who help the organization diversify its workforce. Specifically, as Senior Editor Andrew R. McIlvaine blogged the next day, employees who refer a woman, underrepresented minority or veteran who is ultimately hired will receive $4,000.

Mind you, Intel is not alone among Silicon Valley’s tech companies to address this, or to open its books for the public to see exactly where it stands when it comes to women and minority hiring. Way back in May of 2014, Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations for Google, came clean with the public on his company’s numbers in an effort to move the needle, according to this blog post by Editor David Shadovitz.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama issued a call to action to the tech industry, asking companies to step up their game on workforce diversity. Seven of the 14 companies responding to his challenge — including Intel — have agreed to try out something called the Rooney Rule, which was implemented in 2003 in the National Football League by Pittsburgh Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney.

Basically, according to the rule (which Rooney was applying to head-coach hiring), at least one woman and one minority must be considered for every open position. This Fortune.com story goes into far more detail about the rule, and its pros and cons.

I think what impresses me the most about what’s happening in the Silicon Valley around diversity in technology is the transparency serving as a kind of foundation to it all. Bock’s unveiling was a breath of fresh air. And now, at least according to Krzanich, Intel is sharing “more data than any company in our industry,” specifically “more information that [what’s] available on the EEO-1 form or [what’s] been reported in the past for our U.S. workforce.”

That has to be the best road to the kind of sweeping, mammoth demographic change being called for here — to openly admit reality in order to create a new one. Hudnell’s post certainly speaks to this. As she puts it, Intel’s intention “is to do all we can to collaborate and share openly so that what we all desire becomes the reality.”

Not a bad rule to live by, whatever business change you’re trying to effect.

 

 

 

 

Twitter It!

A Coalition to Put Youth to Work

According to recent Pew Research Center statistics, more than one quarter of America’s nearly 8 million unemployed individuals are between the ages of 16 and 24.

Tomorrow, more than two dozen big-name U.S.-based employers will be in Chicago to launch an initiative that has designs on helping thousands of these out-of-school and out-of-work young adults find jobs.

The Opportunity Fair & Forum—starting at 8 a.m. at McCormick Place Convention Center and featuring a performance by hip-hop artist, actor and Chicago native Common—will kick off the 100,000 Opportunities program, a Starbucks-led alliance that seeks to “jump start the future” of young Americans who are neither in school nor employed, according to USA Today.

In addition to the Seattle-based specialty coffee retailer, nearly 30 other companies—including Chipotle Mexican Grill, CVS Health, Microsoft and Target—are expected to be on hand at the day-long resource and job fair. They will be joined by more than 3,000 young Chicagoans and their families for a variety of interactive experiences as well as workshops, college counseling, skill-development activities and other events.

Employers participating in tomorrow’s forum are expected to make hundreds of on-the-spot job offers to attendees, which would be quite an auspicious start for the month-old endeavor.

Spearheaded by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz—who earlier this year pledged to hire 10,000 young, low-income individuals to work at Starbucks by the end of 2018—the coalition currently counts 29 companies as members. That number includes a dozen organizations—FedEx, Hyatt, Nordstrom, Pizza Hut and T-Mobile, for example—that just signed on last week.

Faced with a recovering labor market and a subsequently smaller pool of job candidates, these employers certainly have good, practical reasons to get on board.

The aforementioned USA Today piece points out as much.

“As the unemployment rate has dipped, the pool of workers available for entry-level jobs has shrunk,” the paper notes. “And for many companies that want to expand their footprint in urban markets, engaging disconnected youth, who are disproportionately African-American and Latino, makes business sense.”

True enough. But making business sense isn’t the only reason why 100,000 Opportunities came to be, says Sheri Schultz, wife of the Starbucks CEO and co-founder of the Schultz Family Foundation, which describes itself as “a launchpad for young adults in transition.”

“We know that this is a complex issue, and we need all of our collective horsepower to solve it,” Schultz told USA Today. “For too long, it’s been the non-profit and public sectors tackling this issue, without meaningful involvement from the private sector.”

The program certainly has ambitious goals. And even if 100,000 Opportunities doesn’t hit its target of creating 100,000 jobs for unemployed youth by the end of 2018, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which the participating companies—and scores of young job seekers—don’t benefit from its existence.

Twitter It!

No Confidence Crisis in HR Job Market

If you’re an HR professional seeking new career opportunities, the results of a recent Society for Human Resource Management survey should offer some encouragement.

And, if you’re an HR leader hoping to keep your team intact through the ongoing economic recovery, these same findings may be cause for just a bit of concern.

The Alexandria, Va.-based organization’s recent poll of 423 human resource professionals examined hiring trends in the HR profession as well as HR professionals’ faith in their own job security and ability to find work elsewhere.

Overall, 88 percent of participants expressed some level of confidence that they could land a new position if necessary. This figure represents a 3 percent increase from December 2014, and a 9 percent jump from January 2014, according to SHRM’s Summer 2015 HR Jobs Pulse Survey Report. Of that 88 percent, 59 percent said they were “somewhat” confident, and 29 percent described themselves as “very” confident in their ability to find another job.

That self-assurance was seen at the higher levels as well, where 89 percent of executive-level, senior-level and mid-career level respondents expressed “some degree of faith that they could find work if necessary.”

While many respondents report being content in their current roles, 28 percent of those surveyed said they are already looking for a new job. Among this group, 24 percent indicated they were voluntarily seeking greener pastures. Another 22 percent said they were either “likely” or “very likely” to start a job search within the next 12 months.

And what has this group eyeing the exits? No surprise here: 37 percent of those who are currently looking or plan to be in the next year cited more compensation as the primary reason. Another 33 percent noted better career advancement opportunities, with 32 percent saying they were in search of better overall organizational culture.

The brimming confidence in the HR job market seems well-placed, at least in terms of opportunities with large employers. Just 1 percent of small companies (99 employees or less) are recruiting for HR positions, but 65 percent of organizations with 25,000 or more workers are now hiring for HR jobs, according to the SHRM report.

On the whole, fewer than three in 10 (27 percent) of respondents said their organizations were currently hiring for HR-related positions.

But, it only stands to reason that that number is higher among large companies, where employers and HR job seekers alike figure to benefit from the rebounding job market, said Jen Schramm, SHRM manager of workforce trends, in a statement.

“Hiring for HR positions depends greatly on the size of the company,” noted Schramm. “Larger companies employ more HR professionals, so it makes sense that they are more likely to report that they are trying to fill HR positions, especially during a jobs recovery. Improvements in the job market are also making HR professionals more confident about seeking out new opportunities for themselves.”

Twitter It!

H-1B: Disney Retreats; DOL Investigates

The Walt Disney Co.’s Disney ABC Television Group appears to be backing off from a layoff announcement two weeks ago, in which it had told a group of approximately 35 of its IT workers that their jobs were being outsourced to Cognizant Technology Solutions, a New Jersey-based company with large overseas operations. But now, reports Computerworld, those IT workers have been told that the layoff has been canceled.

Some of the IT workers who were to be laid off were told by Disney/ABC managers they would have to train their replacements before leaving, Computerworld reports. This is, of course, reminiscent of the move by Disney’s Parks and Resorts division to outsource 250 IT jobs to workers allegedly brought in under the H-1B visa program and have many of those employees train their replacements in order to receive severance. The furor this created when it was reported recently by mainstream publications such as the New York Times may have led Disney to cancel the latest layoffs, a source told Computerworld.

“They [Disney officials] want this to go away — right now,” said the source, a Disney/ABC IT employee who asked not to be named.

A source at Disney confirmed to Computerworld that the layoff had been rescinded. Although Cognizant is a major user of H-1B visas, it is unclear whether any of the workers in the Disney/ABC project had been brought in under the program.

Other companies besides Disney have come under fire for replacing their IT workers with H-1B visa holders, including Southern California Edison. The Department of Labor has announced it will investigate two outsourcing companies, Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, for possible violations of rules for H-1B visa holders in conjunction with work they did for Southern California Edison. Those two companies, along with several others, are the biggest recipients of H-1B visa allotments each year. Sen. Bill Nelson, D.-Fla., has also called for an investigation of the H-1B program.

The fracas continues to focus more negative attention on the H-1B program. In a post on his blog, longtime tech observer and consultant Robert X. Cringely labels the  H-1B program “a scam” and says the argument that it’s necessary due to a shortage of technical talent here in the United States is false. He quotes an anonymous source, identified as a former chief technology officer at several companies, who said that — throughout his career — H-1B visa holders were routinely brought in by companies as a cheaper alternative to hiring more-expensive American tech workers: “The reason of course was $$$.  The H1B’s cost approx. 1/3rd or 1/4th the cost of the comparable American in the same job.”

Twitter It!

Overcoming the Barriers Disabled Americans Face

On July 26, it will be 25 years since George H. W. Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act, legislation that prohibited discrimination in employment, public accommodation and a number of other areas.

ThinkstockPhotos-457783527At the time of the signing, the president said …

“I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We’ve all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we’ve been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred … . Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.”

Whether or not that “shameful wall of exclusion” has actually fallen is debatable. But with the release on Wednesday of a study titled the 2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment and Disability Survey, there’s now further evidence that people with disabilities are striving to work and are having some success in overcoming many of the barriers that have stood in the way. (Kessler unveiled the results to policymakers on Capitol Hill.)

Take the following finding in this study of 3,013 Americans with disabilities that was commissioned by the West Orange, N.J.-based Kessler Foundation and conducted by the University of New Hampshire: Nearly 69 percent of those surveyed are either working, looking for work or have worked since the onset of the disability.

“This clearly demonstrates that people with disabilities are ready and able to contribute their talents in the workforce,” says Kessler Foundation President and CEO Rodger DeRose.

Diving a little deeper into the data, the researchers found that Americans with disabilities who are employed work an average of 35.5 hours per week, with just over 60 percent of those working more than 40 hours per week.

The research did confirm, as might be expected, that many Americans with disabilities continue to encounter formidable barriers as they look for work, with the top three being the lack of sufficient education or training, employers that assume they can’t do the job and the lack of transportation. Then, once in the workplace, they face hurdles such as getting less pay than others in a similar job, negative attitudes of supervisors and negative attitudes of co-workers.

But, as mentioned earlier, the report does go on to make the point that a substantial percentage of the respondents are successfully overcoming many of these challenges. Of the 36 percent who reported employers assumed they couldn’t do a job, for instance, around 33 percent said they were able to overcome that barrier. Similarly, of the nearly 17 percent who said they were getting less pay than others in similar positions, nearly 39 indicated they were able to surmount that hurdle.

Earlier today, I asked John O’Neill, director  of employment and disability research at the Kessler Foundation, which of the findings surprised him most.

O’Neill specifically cited the finding that transportation may not be as significant a barrier as some have previously contended.

“When people think of barriers to job search, transportation is one of the first things to come to mind,” he says. “Yet of those looking for jobs, only 25 percent said they faced that barrier. Add, on top of that, that 42 percent of those facing that barrier had overcome it, and it would seem to be not as looming an issue as many people might have thought in the past.”

As for a takeaway for HR leaders, O’Neill points to the attitudes of supervisors and co-workers.

Roughly 16 percent of those with disabilities cited they had experienced barriers resulting from supervisors’ attitudes and about the same proportion experienced barriers resulting from co-workers’ attitudes, he says. But when you ask them about their ability to overcome those barriers, he adds, about 41 percent reported they were able to do so and 54 percent reported the same, respectively.

“Those figures,” he says, “are higher than I would have thought—and says that, while they’re [still] issues, people are finding ways to negotiate and work with their supervisors in terms of how they are being perceived.”

There no question a lot more work needs to be done when it comes to ridding the workplace of the many and varying barriers facing those with disabilities. But it’s also nice to see new research suggesting they aren’t insurmountable.

Twitter It!

Dealing With The Cultural Fit Conundrum

fitting in 2Anyone familiar with the Beatles backstory knows the role Pete Best plays in it.

Best, of course, was the drummer famously replaced by Ringo Starr in August 1962, just weeks before the band recorded “Love Me Do,” exploded upon popular culture and began its climb to the toppermost of the poppermost.

In the 50-plus years since that fateful personnel move, many close to the group have said the decision to boot Best maybe wasn’t as much about Starr being the better technical drummer as it was about Ringo being “the better Beatle.”

In other words, Starr had the type of personality, sense of humor, interests and values that better meshed with the rest of the boys in the band, and helped give the group a certain indefinable chemistry. Ringo, you could say, was the better cultural fit for the Beatles.

The term “cultural fit” didn’t really exist in 1962, in the workplace or anywhere else. But, over time, employers everywhere have certainly cottoned on to the idea that it takes more than just technical proficiency to truly excel in a particular organization or outfit.

The notion first gained a toehold in the corporate world in the 1980s, Lauren Rivera recently wrote in a New York Times opinion piece, in which she says the “cultural fit” concept has sort of run amok in the three decades since.

“In many organizations, fit has gone rogue,” noted Rivera, an associate professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

When done right, taking cultural fit into consideration can greatly boost productivity and profitability, she said. The problem today, is that “cultural fit has morphed into a far more nebulous and potentially dangerous concept.”

The effort to determine cultural fit has moved from “systemic analysis of who will thrive in a given workplace to snap judgments by managers about who they’d rather hang out with,” she says. “In the process, fit has become a catchall used to justify hiring people who are similar to decision makers and rejecting people who are not.”

Rivera should know a thing or two about this issue, having once spent nine months researching recruiting and hiring practices at a handful of top U.S. investment banks, management consultancies and law firms, conducting interviews with 120 decision makers at the aforementioned organizations.

She found that interviewers commonly relied on the sense of empathy they felt with job candidates in order to judge potential fit for the firm. While discovering shared experiences helped those doing the hiring form bonds with applicants, many decision makers were “primarily interested in new hires whose hobbies, hometowns and biographies matched their own,” she recounted in the Times.

Conversely, candidates’ backgrounds, personal interests and even sports allegiances could occasionally work against them. For instance, Rivera recalled attending a hiring committee meeting at one firm, where she witnessed a partner and “avid Red Sox fan” advocate the rejection of an applicant and self-avowed Yankees supporter “on the grounds of misfit.”

Even putting such extreme examples aside, Rivera concludes that hiring too many employees who reflect those already in the organization is a dangerous idea, for a lot of reasons.

“Some may wonder, ‘Don’t similar people work better together?’ Yes and no. For jobs involving complex decisions and creativity, more diverse teams outperform less diverse ones,” according to Rivera.

“Too much similarity can lead to teams that are overconfident, ignore vital information and make poor (or even unethical) decisions.”

Twitter It!

Top 10 Reasons to Test Adverse Impact Correctly

This one caught my eye. Not that I’ve been a big David Letterman watcher (past my bedtime), but — as Merrily Archer put it in this 101390464 -- gavel and law booksLinkedIn post — “resuscitating the Top Ten list one last time” before it’s long forgotten was intriguing.

Even more intriguing was the content of her post, Top 10 Reasons to Acquire Adverse Impact Testing Skills — starting with 10. “The [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]’s ‘Systemic Initiative’ to eliminate ‘discriminatory barriers in hiring’ — i.e., qualification standards — [was] launched nearly 10 years ago on April 4, 2006 — it’s not too late to catch up!” …

And ending with “the No. 1 reason HR practitioners and in-house employment counsel must understand the theory behind adverse impact analyses and how to conduct them: Turning over applicant flow data — or a hiring database — to the EEOC or in discovery that you have not analyzed for adverse impact is like disclosing a packet of documents that you’ve not read — i.e., legal malpractice!!”

Archer — an employment-discrimination litigator, legal coach and creator of the EEO Legal Solutions website — is very passionate about imparting what she knows about navigating your way through the ever-more-aggressive EEOC. She began her career as a trial attorney there and knows how it works. Or make that knows how it’s supposed to work and not supposed to work.

“I feel strongly that everyone needs to know how to test for AI and how to analyze their own hiring data, especially before turning anything over to the EEOC,” she says. “I’ve seen attorneys at big law firms hand over entire databases in response to an EEOC request for information, without having a clue about what the data actually reveals.”

For anyone who may not know, adverse impact, according to this post on USLegal.com, “refers to employment practices that appear neutral but have a discriminatory effect on a protected group. ”

More specifically, it says:

“Under the EEOC guidelines, adverse impact is defined as a substantially different rate of selection in hiring, promotion or other employment decision which works to the disadvantage of members of a race, sex or ethnic group. The EEOC agencies have adopted a rule of thumb under which they will generally consider a selection rate for any race, sex or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths or 80 percent of the selection rate for the group with the highest selection rate as a substantially different rate of selection. The selection rates for males and females are compared, and the selection rates for the race and ethnic groups are compared with the selection rate of the race or ethnic group with the highest selection rate.”

Sounds pretty convoluted, doesn’t it? In reality, it’s all about the calculations, so EEO and legal consultants would be advised. That said, though, Archer’s No. 7 reason to acquire these skills is worth noting: “Using FREE online adverse-impact calculators … is EASY, even for the math-phobics — i.e., lawyers.”

The Center for Corporate Equality, in its Technical Advisory Committee Report on Best Practices in Adverse Impact Analyses, says determining whether selection, promotion and termination decisions result in adverse impact — i.e., whether “substantial differences in employment outcomes across groups exist” — is an extremely important topic for organizations, yet “there is limited guidance about the specific and proper ways in which these analyses should be conducted.”

In the EEOC’s “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures,” adverse impact falls under Section 4, item D.  It doesn’t offer much in the way of calculation help, but if you’re not perfectly clear on everything it says, you’d best read up, says Archer. Better yet, consider yourself warned, by her:

“[Many] defense attorneys put employers at the mercy of the EEOC’s AI analysis, which is likely statistically flawed, based on inaccurate assumptions about the hiring process and actual applicant flow, and calculated to maximize ‘shortfalls’ — i.e., the difference between the expected and actual number of hires in that minority, gender or age group — for settlement negotiations.

“Attorneys can be so myopic: ‘If they didn’t teach it in law school, it must not be relevant.’ Unfortunately, the exact opposite is true. … This area of law is still pretty nascent, but one day soon, I’m convinced that failing to audit for AI will become malpractice — it’s just part of the standard of care and protection that employers need in the systemic era.”

A few other compelling reasons to perfect your AI skills, from Archer’s Top 10:

“9. Since the EEOC shifted its enforcement focus nearly 10 years ago, ‘systemic discrimination’ has become the new phrase that PAYS at the EEOC and among employee-side lawyers.

8. The EEOC uses specific statistical tests to measure whether a challenged practice — e.g., criminal-background check, educational standard — has an ‘adverse impact’ and to calculate damages in conciliation negotiations: HR practitioners and attorneys MUST know how the database will be analyzed and what the numbers say.

2. EEOC systemic cases that have reached litigation demonstrate a high likelihood that the EEOC will [do the AI analysis of your database incorrectly] in a way that hurts [you,] the employer.”

 

 

Twitter It!

Still in Search of Skilled Workers

searching for talentAnd the talent shortage continues.

That’s the simple message found in survey results released by Manpower Group this week.

In its 10th annual Talent Shortage Survey, the Milwaukee-based Manpower surveyed 41,748 employers in 42 countries and territories, “to explore the extent of talent shortages within the global labor market, which job categories are particularly hard to fill and why, the impact of talent shortages on businesses, and how employers are responding to the challenges raised by the lack of available talent in specific job categories,” according to a press release announcing the survey findings.

Globally, the percentage of employers reporting trouble in filling job vacancies continued to rise, climbing from 36 percent last year to 38 percent in 2015. The shortage is most severe for organizations in Japan, where 83 percent of hiring managers said they encounter difficulty in finding the necessary talent, while 68 percent of employers in Peru and 65 percent of respondents in Hong Kong said the same.

The prognosis here in the States, however, seems somewhat better, with 32 percent of U.S. employers saying they struggle to fill positions due to talent shortages, compared to 40 percent who reported as much in 2014.

That’s not to say that closing the talent gap isn’t still a concern here at home, of course.

Indeed, 43 percent of respondents said talent shortages are taking a toll on their organizations’ ability to meet client needs, with 32 percent saying they’ve experienced increased employee turnover, and the same percentage reporting higher compensation costs and lower employee engagement. Forty-eight percent of the U.S. employers surveyed acknowledged that talent shortages have a “medium to high impact” on business in a broader sense.

More interesting, though, is the percentage of employers seemingly taking no action to blunt that impact. That number remains relatively small, but is going up.

According to the Manpower survey, 20 percent of U.S. employers are still not pursuing strategies to overcome talent shortages in 2015—a 7 percent increase from 2014.

What remains consistent this year is the trouble American companies face in filling skilled trade vacancies. For the sixth consecutive year, “skilled trade workers” topped the list of U.S. jobs most in demand, with drivers, teachers, sales representatives and administrative professionals rounding out the top five.

“Talent shortages are real and are not going away,” said Kip Wright, senior vice president of Manpower North America, in the aforementioned press release. “Despite impacts to competitiveness and productivity, our research shows fewer employers are trying to solve the problem through better talent strategies.”

These companies fail to address the issue at their own risk, added Wright.

“As the struggle to find the right talent continues, and candidates with in-demand skills get the upper hand, employers will be under pressure to position themselves as ‘talent destinations’ to attract the best workers that will drive their business forward.”

Twitter It!