Category Archives: HR leadership

NAHR Welcomes New Fellows

The National Academy of Human Resources inducted its 2017 class of Fellows at its annual dinner and installation ceremony Thursday night in New York.

NAHR Class of 2017 Fellows (from left to right) Donna Morris, Peter Fasolo, Christine Pambianchi and Tim Bartl.

One association executive and three senior HR leaders were welcomed into the academy by their peers in recognition of their level of achievement, including Timothy Bartl, executive vice president, general counsel and secretary of the HR Policy Association and CEO of the Center on Executive Compensation; Peter M. Fasolo, executive vice president and chief human resources officer at Johnson & Johnson; Donna Morris, executive vice president for customer and employee experience  at Adobe Systems Inc.;  and Christine Pambianchi, senior vice president of human resources for Corning Inc.

The NAHR’s first class of Fellows was inducted 25 years earlier. To acknowledge the milestone, six members of the founding committee who were present at the induction ceremony were asked to stand and be recognized.

To date, with the addition of its 2017 class, 172 individuals have been named Fellows of the NAHR.

Tim Bartl joined the HR Policy Association as its assistant general counsel and vice president of corporate affairs in 1997, when it was known as the Labor Policy Association. He’s been instrumental in expanding the association beyond employment policy into areas such as healthcare and executive comp. At the Center on Executive Compensation, he oversees operations, policy and federal advocacy activities and has played a key role in growing its “subscribers” over the past 10 years from 26 to 134.

Peter Fasolo joined Johnson & Johnson in 2004, after 13 years in management at Bristol-Myers Squibb. Under his leadership, J&J has transformed its approach to HR strategy and service delivery by establishing a global network of shared services. He also has played a key role in leveraging analytics capabilities to better align J&J’s talent and innovation strategies. During his tenure, the company has been able to place internal successors in 80 percent of all senior-management positions.

Donna Morris joined Adobe 15 years ago. She has played a key role in reshaping virtually every aspect of Adobe’s employee experience over that period and, in 2015, her responsibilities were expanded to include the customer experience. Morris is a champion of diversity, and is responsible for  developing cutting-edge benefits aimed at attracting and retaining talent. She’s a member of the board of directors at the Society for Human Resource Management.

Christine Pambianchi joined Corning in 2000 as a division HR manager and has led the company’s global HR function since 2008. Among her achievements are creating a Talent Management Center of Excellence, expanding Corning’s MBA recruiting process at core schools and enhancing the company’s leadership-development curriculum. Her efforts in the area of diversity has led to increases in the number of women, African-Americans and other minorities in leadership roles—39 percent, 17 percent and 83 percent respectively.

Next year’s annual dinner and installation ceremony is scheduled for Nov. 8.

Executives Honored at Awards Dinner

Lisa Buckingham of Lincoln Financial Group and a trio of HR leaders were honored at the 29th annual HR Executive of the Year awards dinner held at Boston University.

The HR Executive of the Year and Honor Roll awards are presented each year to the individuals in the HR profession who have distinguished themselves through extraordinary vision, strategy, direction and leadership in their organizations. A prestigious panel of judges, including previous award winners, thought leaders and HRE‘s editor, select the winners from a field of worthy candidates.

Buckingham, the Radnor, Pa.-based insurance and investment management provider’s executive vice president, and chief human resources, brand and enterprise communications officer, was honored for her leadership which has helped Lincoln advance its diversity and inclusion efforts, improve talent management and succession-planning processes, and develop a fully revamped career framework.

Lincoln Financial Group President and CEO Dennis Glass called Buckingham a “sophisticated ball of energy,” and said that when Buckingham first found out she had won the award, the first thing she did was thank her HR team.

“That’s just the kind of person she is,” he said. “She’s never going to take credit for something that was a group effort.”

In her speech accepting the award, Buckingham shared three principles that have guided her career: the power of networking and mentoring, thanking people who have helped you and simply being present at all times.

“Whether it’s a crisis situation or a calm situation, people really need to know that you’re being fully present.  That means that sometimes I may miss things at [my son’s] school or work, but you have to make those choices. You always know where you need to be,” she said.

Also honored at the awards dinner were Honor Roll inductees Vivian Maza, chief people officer at Ultimate Software, David A. Thaeler, executive vice president and CHRO at Haskell and Karen May, executive vice president and CHRO at Mondelez International.

HRE presented the first HR Executive of the Year award in 1989. Since that time, 28 other HR professionals have been honored with this top award and 94 Honor Roll recipients have been recognized, including this year’s winners.

For a full list of previous HR Executive of the Year award winners, click here.

Should HR Merge with RE?

Google and Facebook are both known for their innovative workplace policies on everything from hiring to parental leave.

A new post on JLL, however, offers those two organizations as a model for something else entirely: blending an organization’s HR and corporate real estate functions.

Google is already known for turning established thinking on its head when it comes to workplace design and policies, says Marie Puybaraud, global head of workplace research at JLL. “Its new £1 billion London campus features sports facilities some gyms can only dream of with a rooftop running track and a half Olympic sized swimming pool which act as a prime attraction for recruiting new talent, not to mention retaining existing employees.”

“Google’s high-end facilities are a physical demonstration that the organization is focused on looking after its staff,” continues Puybaraud. “Job-seekers will start to see such facilities as a benchmark —and all employers will put greater thought into how they use the quality of life at work as a way or recruiting and motivating staff.”

Meanwhile, the piece notes, Facebook’s new corporate village will include 1,500 apartments as well as a grocery store and offices. “The company is using its physical facilities to provide for its staff in ways which clearly go far deeper than the normal working relationship,” explains Puybaraud. “It is only when Real Estate and HR work seamlessly together that they can deliver such projects.”

Indeed, real estate teams suggesting such recreational facilities may well struggle to get them past the board without the backing of their HR colleagues. Equally, HR teams may be looking for new ways to increase engagement among staff yet may struggle with the practicalities of developing ambitious plans that require a rethink of current office space while working in a silo.

According to Puybaraud, if an organization’s workers are more engaged and fulfilled at work, they’re more likely to develop better relationships with colleagues and put more into their work. For companies, it equates to better productivity and lower turnover of staff., which is a key reason why more companies will merge their HR and Real Estate teams in the coming years.

“More businesses will realize how closely productivity follows on from deep level employee satisfaction,” Puybaraud says. “We predict that joint HR / Real Estate teams will be commonplace within a decade.”

Is your organization planning on merging HR with its real-estate functions? If so, we’d love to hear from you about the challenges and benefits of such a move.

Knowing the Unknown

Hal Gregersen has studied more than 200 corporate leaders.

Gregersen, the current executive director of the MIT Leadership Center, has worked with executives all over the world, from France to Helsinki, Finland. In his travels, he’s found that many CEOs and other leaders face a common challenge: overcoming a feeling of being isolated within the organization.

This morning, Gregersen shared some of their experiences as he kicked off the International Coach Federation’s ICF Converge event, held Aug. 23 – 25 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. His keynote presentation, “Asking Catalytic Questions,” offered some examples of executives that have wrestled with overcoming what he calls “a dangerous disconnect.”

CEOs such as Walter Bettinger at Charles Schwab, for instance, have told Gregersen that they sometimes grow concerned that “people tell him what they think he wants to hear, and [are reluctant] to tell him what he doesn’t want to hear,” said Gregersen.

Encouraging open and honest communication with employees is obviously important for any executive seeking to avoid isolation at the top of the organization. But it also requires some self-reflection—and some acceptance of one’s own limits, said Gregersen.

“The best and most innovative leaders constantly and systematically try to figure out what they don’t know they don’t know,” he told the roughly 1,600 corporate coaches in attendance. “It’s part of their everyday work.”

Gregersen pointed to Tesla CEO Elon Musk as an example, noting that a pre-teen Musk reportedly sat down and read the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica in an effort to broaden his knowledge base.

On the other hand is recently-ousted Uber chief Travis Kalanick.

“He didn’t know that he didn’t know how to interact with one of his own drivers,” said Gregersen, referencing the now-famous viral video showing Kalanick arguing with an Uber driver; a clip that has racked up more than 4 million YouTube views and helped precipitate Kalanick’s downfall at the company.

Kalanick might be an extreme example, but “it can be tough to know what you don’t know,” said Gregersen.

The higher one flies in an organization, “and the better we become, it can be tempting to think that we have it all figured out.”

In studying leadership, Gregersen says he’s also discovered that the best leaders know the right questions to ask in their quest for more knowledge—of themselves as well as others. And that journey sometimes requires knowing when to shut up and listen.

“How long do you wait for others to answer your questions?” Gregersen asked those in attendance, noting that four seconds is typically considered an appropriate length.

“For some leaders, and for some coaches,” he joked, “this might seem like an eternity.”

The best leaders, however, eagerly ask the right (and sometimes uncomfortable) questions, and listen carefully to the responses they get. Making this kind of effort, he says, expands an executive’s knowledge, of course. But, from a business perspective, it can also help prevent learning new information about an important issue before it’s too late, according to Gregersen.

“If we don’t seek out surprises, surprises tend to find us.”

 

Speaking Up in the C-Suite

A recent series of experiments, which we wrote about here at HRE, sought to get a sense of employees’ feelings about corporate leaders who base business decisions on their moral beliefs.

In that study, researchers found that workers saw executives who staked out positions on moral grounds and later changed their minds as being hypocritical, and “less effective and worthy of their support than leaders whose initial stance was pragmatic.”

So, CEOs take a chance when they choose to travel the moral high road, especially if they flip-flop on an issue in the future.

A newer survey, however, finds that, yes, there are hazards that come along with speaking out on controversial subjects. But there are also reasons to remind your CEO that saying something might be better than staying quiet, at least in the eyes of some (mostly younger) employees.

In partnership with KRC Research, New York-based public relations firm Weber Shandwick polled 1,021 U.S. adults, gauging respondents’ attitudes toward “the trend of chief executive officers speaking out on hot-button societal topics,” according to a Weber Shandwick statement.

They ultimately found that one generation of employees in particular—millennials—feel that CEOs actually have a responsibility to make their voices heard on matters that are important to society. Nearly half of millennials polled (47 percent) said they feel this way, while just 28 percent of Generation Xers and baby boomers agree. And, given the current cultural climate, it’s not exactly surprising that a larger portion of Generation Y (56 percent) feels that CEOs and other business leaders have a greater duty to take a stand on societal concerns now than they did in the past.

In addition, the report sees 51 percent of millennials saying they would be more apt to buy from a company whose chief executive spoke out on an issue they agreed with; an 11 percent increase from a 2016 Weber Shandwick survey. From an employee perspective, 44 percent of full-time Gen Y workers said they would be more loyal to their organization if the CEO took a public position on a “hotly debated current issue,” in comparison to the 16 percent of Gen Xers and 18 percent of boomers saying the same.

What exactly is the cost of a CEO’s silence? Overall, 47 percent of respondents said that some form of criticism—from the media, customers, employees or the government—would be the biggest downside to a CEO’s decision to sit out a social debate. Another 20 percent suggest that the organization could be hurt financially, while 14 percent reckon that potential job candidates would instead shy away from applying with the company. Twelve percent foresee current employees quitting.

The risk of incurring such damage apparently depends on the issue at hand. When asked which topics—all of which relate to the workplace in some way—that CEOs and other business leaders should express an opinion on, job and skills training was the most common response among all respondents, closely followed by equal pay in the workplace, healthcare coverage, maternity and paternity leave, and gender equality.

That said, there seem to be instances when executives should think carefully before entering the fray. Less than 35 percent of all respondents said business leaders should weigh in on immigration, for example, with roughly 25 percent saying the same about LGBT rights, gun control and refugees, respectively.

As a PR firm, Weber Shandwick is happy to offer tips on how to approach activism in the C-suite, of course. And this report does just that. But, however they decide to broach thorny subjects like those mentioned above, CEOs and other executives should be aware that the call for them to take at least an occasional social stand is only going to get louder.

“CEOs are expected to make a strong business case for any environmental or social issues they speak up about or which they commit time and resources to,” says Paul Massey, global lead of social impact at Weber Shandwick, in a statement. “This research tells us that millennials, more so than older generations, will also be vigilant when it comes to CEOs being held accountable for defending corporate values and conduct.”

 

The Battle for Work/Life Balance

Maybe there’s room to have a flourishing career and a fulfilling personal life after all?

It’s easy for many employees to feel like they’re forever losing ground in the work/life balance battle. But if a new survey from Menlo Park, Calif.-based Robert Half Management Resources is any indication, workers are finding ways to reconcile workplace demands with their responsibilities outside the office.

The poll of more than 1,000 U.S. adults who currently work in office environments found more than half (52 percent) of these professionals saying they feel their work/life balance has improved from three years ago.

This number should come with a bit of a disclaimer, though, as younger employees seem to have been much more successful at finding professional and personal stability in that time. For example, respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 were more than twice as likely as those 55 or older to say their work/life balance has gotten better in the last three years.

These numbers make sense when you consider that familial duties—raising kids and caring for elderly parents, for example—generally take up more of our time as we get older, making it harder to juggle work and home life.

What’s a little more surprising, however, is the finding that it’s actually managers—who tend to be north of 30 and are typically expected to work long hours and assume more responsibilities—who are leading the way toward better work/life balance.

For instance, 54 percent of workers told Robert Half that their manager was “very supportive” of their efforts to achieve work/life balance. (This number spikes to 62 percent among employees between the ages of 18 and 34.) And, overall, 74 percent of respondents said their manager sets an “excellent” or “good” example in the work/life balance department.

“Employers and employees alike are emphasizing work/life balance,” says Tim Hird, executive director at Robert Half Management Resources, in a statement. “Managers can help by giving their teams more freedom over where and when they work, if possible, and providing greater autonomy. These efforts go a long way to improve job satisfaction and retention rates.”

Managers and HR leaders should also rely on the input of employees—all employees—to determine how to help workers achieve equilibrium in their lives, he says.

“Many companies view work/life balance as being particularly relevant to millennials, but employees of all generations are under pressure to meet both work and personal obligations,” says Hird. “Businesses should promote work/life balance initiatives broadly and make sure all staff have the opportunity to weigh in on the perks that will best help them meet their goals.”

Risk on the Moral High Road

If, as an HR leader, you’re going to take a stand on ethical grounds, you had better be ready for the backlash if you change your mind later on.

That seems to be a key lesson to emerge from the findings of research recently published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

For their study, Tamar Kreps, an assistant professor in the department of management at the University of Utah, and Kristin Laurin, an assistant professor in the department of psychology at the University of British Columbia, conducted a series of 15 online experiments that involved more than 5,500 participants between the ages of 18 and 77.

In each experiment, these individuals were provided information about political or corporate leaders who had changed their opinions on a particular subject. Some participants were told that the leaders staked out their original positions on moral grounds, while others were informed that these initial stances were based on a more pragmatic view, such as “it was good for the economy.”

Across the multiple studies Kreps and Laurin conducted, they found that participants saw leaders who changed their minds after taking a moral stand as being hypocritical. In most cases, these individuals also perceived these leaders as “less effective and worthy of their support than leaders whose initial stance was pragmatic,” according to a statement.

“Leaders may choose to take moral stances, believing that this will improve audiences’ perceptions. And it does, initially,” says Kreps.

“But all people, even leaders, have to change their minds sometimes. Our research shows that leaders who change their moral minds are seen as more hypocritical, and not as courageous or flexible, compared with those whose initial view was based on a pragmatic argument.”

That perception can be tough to shake, too. According to the authors, they “tried to test various factors we thought might weaken the effect” across several studies. For example, the authors asked participants how they would feel if the leader “did not rely on popular support and therefore would have no reason to pander” or “used the same moral value in the later view as in the earlier view.”

Still, no dice.

“None of those things made a difference,” says Kreps. “Initially moral mind-changers consistently seemed more hypocritical” to those taking part in the study.

While opining that moral beliefs tend to stay constant over time, Kreps cautions that leaders should take the ethical high road on a given issue only if they genuinely feel that way.

“Taking an inauthentic moral view to try to pander to a moralizing audience could backfire,” she says, “if a leader needs to change that view later on.”

Hurting for Talent in HR?

In the never-ending quest to boost HR’s profile in the C-suite, CHROs must first surround themselves with top-notch talent in their own departments, according to new research from Korn Ferry.

The problem, the same survey finds, is that serious talent gaps exist within the HR suite.

The Los Angeles-based advisory firm recently polled 189 chief human resource officers, finding that “as the HR function becomes more strategic and high-profile, HR professionals need to step up their game when it comes to business insights and achieving results,” according to a Korn Ferry statement.

More specifically, CHROs were asked to name the skills they find are most lacking as they search for human resources talent.

A mere 4 percent reported having no difficulty finding the necessary skills to round out their HR teams. Otherwise, respondents said:

  • Business acumen (41 percent)
  • Ability to turn strategy into action (28 percent)
  • Intellectual horsepower (10 percent)
  • Analytical skills (7 percent)
  • Diversified experience (6 percent)
  • Relational skills (3 percent)
  • Technical skills (1 percent)

Of course, the role of the HR function, and the CHRO, is much more complex than it was even five short years ago, says Joseph McCabe, vice chairman of Korn Ferry’s Global Human Resources Center of Expertise.

“Disruptors such as digitization and globalization are creating an environment of constant organizational change,” says McCabe. “HR leaders must understand the business challenges that occur as a result of these disruptions, including the impact on the business strategy, and be able to quickly adapt and act.”

The Korn Ferry poll allowed respondents the chance to do a bit of self-examination as well, asking CHROs what competencies were most important to helping them handle the ever-changing environment in which they operate.

By far, the most common response was “tolerance for ambiguity,” cited by 52 percent of the CHROs surveyed. Twenty percent pointed to the confidence to make bold, yet informed decisions as most critical, followed by the ability to sustain analytical thinking and motivate others (11 percent) and the ability to listen to and accommodate others’ methods (6 percent).

The study finds that a failure to cultivate both “hard” and “soft” skills could be costly for a CHRO; a reality that respondents seem to recognize. Indeed, when asked to name the top reason that a CHRO would get fired from an organization, the largest percentage (37) said “personality issues/inability to work well with or lead others,” with 34 percent reporting that an “inability to direct connect HR efforts to tangible business outcomes” would be the most likely cause for being let go.

“Today’s CHROs are judged both on what they do and how they get things done,” says McCabe. “While it’s critical that HR must act quickly to adapt to changing business strategy, it’s also important to align their team and other key leaders to foster engagement and a shared vision.”

Report: HR is ‘Behind the Curve’

New research from the Hackett Group finds that many HR departments are lagging when it comes to helping their organizations deal with talent shortages in key areas, and — due to a lack of resources — sufficient progress likely won’t be made anytime soon.

The report, The CHRO Agenda: An Urgent Need to Close Large Gaps in Talent and Technology Capabilities (registration required), is based on survey results from executives at 180 large U.S. and foreign companies, most with annual revenue of $1 billion or more. It finds that HR at many organizations lacks the ability to fully support key enterprise goals such as adapting talent-management strategies and processes to deal with changing business needs, address talent shortages in critical areas, manage change more effectively and develop agile executives fully capable of leading in a volatile business environment.

HR leaders at these companies don’t suffer from a lack of ambition: The report finds that they’re planning to address issues such as talent-related change and strengthening their organizations’ HR tech and information capabilities and organizational structure and processes. However, their departments are held back by limited resources, with the number of full-time equivalent HR employees expected to decline by 1.4 percent this year on top of a decline of 1.3 percent last year and budgets that are projected to decrease by an average of 1.6 percent, compared to a reduction of 0.3 percent in 2016.

“The consistent finding here is that most HR organizations are simply too busy fighting fires to get out in front on strategic issues,” says Harry Osle, Hackett’s global HR advisory leader. “In many cases, they are in reactive mode, with too much on their plates and an inability to say no to work that does not allow HR to become more strategic.”

HR must change this mindset if it’s ever going to deliver strategic value, he says. “To build a true leadership position within the organization, it is essential that HR find ways to more effectively manage and prioritize its service portfolio, adopt proactive demand management techniques from IT and make headway on transformation and improvement in key talent areas.”

Hackett finds that HR organizations are planning to “dramatically increase” their mainstream adoption efforts in several digital technology areas, including cloud applications and Software-as-a-Service, social media and collaboration technologies and advanced analytics.

Sad State of Parental Leave

Tuned into a pretty interesting, if not depressing, Facebook Live session on Wednesday. Seems the at-least-slow progress in paid parental leave we’ve been writing about here on HRE Daily and on our HREOnline website isn’t as promising as some think.

At least that’s according to the Society for Human Resource Management, which released during the session its National Study of Employers — a self-described “comprehensive look at employer practices, policies, programs and benefits that address the personal and family needs of employees.” (Here’s the press release for those of you who don’t have the time for an entire study right now.)

Ellen Galinsky, president and co-founder of the Families and Work Institute, talked during the session about the study’s key findings — namely that, despite reports from well-known companies (such as Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson and Ernst & Young — see our own posts linked above) announcing their expansions of paid-parental-leave benefits, the average amount of caregiving and parental leave provided by U.S. employers has not changed significantly since 2012.

Specifically, over the past 11 years, the number of organizations offering at least some replacement pay for women on maternity leave has increased from 46 percent to 58 percent. But the study also found that, among employers offering any replacement pay, the percentage offering full pay has continued to decline, from 17 percent in 2005 to 10 percent in 2016.

In fact, of all employers with 50 or more employees, only 6 percent offer full pay. In addition, daily flexibility, the kind needed for emergencies, has gone down actually, from 87 percent in 2012 to 81 percent in 2016, a statistic Galinsky called “critical.” She added:

“The fact that that kind of flexibility has gone down is a critical [and alarming] finding.”

According to Galinsky, HR has a major role in turning this around. As she put it during the session:

“Flexibility is now the norm. HR should be thinking this way. It used to be, ‘Should or shouldn’t we provide flexibility?’ Now it’s a given that we should.”

Unfortunately, she said, HR needs to do a better job of telling workers what is offered at their organizations. The study found only 23 percent of companies making a real effort to communicate the programs they have.

Here are some other key findings:

  • Small employers (50 to 99 employees) were more likely than large employers (1,000 or more employees) to offer all or most employees 1) traditional flextime, the ability to periodically change start and stop times (36 percent versus 17 percent), 2) control over when to take breaks (63 percent versus 47 percent) and 3) time off during the workday to attend to important family or personal needs without loss of pay (51 percent versus 33 percent).

  • Growth of workplace flexibility has been stable over the past four years. Out of 18 forms of flexibility studied, there were only four changes:

  1. An increase in employers that offer telework, allowing employees to work at least some of their paid hours at home on a regular basis (40 percent in 2016 versus 33 percent in 2012).
  2. An increase in employers that allow employees to return to work gradually after childbirth or adoption (81 percent in 2016 versus 73 percent in 2012).
  3. An increase in organizations that allow employees to receive special consideration after a career break for personal/family responsibilities (28 percent in 2016 versus 21 percent in 2012).
  4. A decrease in organizations that allow employees to take time off during the workday to attend to important family or personal needs without loss of pay (81 percent in 2016 versus 87 percent in 2012).

In Galinsky’s words:

“Whether high-profile companies offering paid [parental] leave are out of step with the majority of employers or leading the way remains to be seen. Given our findings that 78 percent of employers reported difficulty in recruiting employees for highly skilled jobs and 38 percent reported difficulty in recruiting for entry-level, hourly jobs, these high-profile companies could be leading the way in the strategic use of leave benefits.”

And, apparently, that’s not happening. Not yet anyway.