Category Archives: leadership development

Leadership-Development Woes Continue

It seems there’s still a whole lot wrong with leadership development.

540869810 -- HR leaderThe latest survey on the subject — from Harvard Business Publishing Corporate Learning — finds only 7 percent of organizations believe their leadership-development programs are best-in-class.

And even among those best-in-class programs, the survey finds, 40 percent of respondents feel leadership development is only important — not fundamental — to business strategy. Those top programs also struggle mightily with both measurement and innovation, it says.

Worse still, the majority of business managers and L&D professionals aren’t seeing eye-to-eye on the impact or relevancy of their leadership-development programs. Seventy percent of L&D professionals expect leadership development to become a strategic priority in the next three years, compared to only 47 percent of business managers … with only 19 percent of the latter group strongly agreeing their programs have a high relevance to the business issues they face.

The survey and its report makes a loud clarion call for more companies to stand behind their leadership-development programs and take them more seriously. As Ray Carvey, executive vice president of corporate learning and international at HBP, says:

“Although these survey results do not completely surprise us, they do show that, when leadership-development programs are designed and developed as a strategic priority, aligned to both goals and key challenges, businesses have a better chance at growth.”

Leaders and leadership-development programs behaving badly is no new tune in this profession. This post from earlier this year lays out the problem as one of corporate sponsorship. Or the lack thereof.

This study back in 2013 by Development Dimensions International finds most leaders worldwide still lack the fundamental skills to lead and still don’t know how to have important yet basic leadership conversations with their ranks and teams. So leadership-development failure? I think so.

This piece on HREOnline.com cites, as the majority of programs’ foibles, the failure to link leadership development to strategic objectives.

Which echoes nicely with what Carvey thinks. In his final parting shot of hopefulness, he says:

“While it’s easy to read this report as L&D teams are consistently being overlooked, or not doing a great job interpreting and responding to the needs of the business, there is a big silver lining here: Leadership development programs, when they work, absolutely have an impact on business success.

“L&D teams must embrace new ways of aligning with the business, demonstrating relevance and proving impact, not only to change the perception of leadership development in their organizations but also to better prepare their businesses for future growth.”

How you go about assessing that alignment, and adopting strategies to ensure your business and leadership-development initiatives are better connected, is entirely up to you, of course. Just don’t assume it’s “all good.”

Mercer’s Take on ‘Why HR Needs to Change’

There weren’t any huge surprises in Mercer’s recently released HR Transformation report, “Why HR Needs to Change,” but it certainly underscores the continuing clarion call for HR to better develop its 450744473 -- women business leaderown and prepare for significant changes to the profession.

The report cites Mercer’s recent Global Talent Trends Study, which finds that, while only 5 percent of employers polled say HR is seen as a strategic partner in their organization and more than 80 percent say their talent processes need an overhaul, a measly 13 percent say they have a systematic curriculum for developing HR professionals.

Granted, the pressures on HR to change that are cited in this latest report are all pressures we’ve reported on: the growing digital workforce, businesses’ needs to become more global yet remain local, the rising tide of data analytics, flexible workplace designs and the evolving role of the manager, to name the first five.

Also well-documented already are the challenges in executing a viable HR business-partner model — “originally designed to add business acumen and consultative skills in HR [but too often implemented in organizations] with little more than a title change and without discussing how generalists can acquire the skills needed to take on new responsibilities and [remove] existing administrative tasks from their job[s],” as the report states.

But HR experts I reached out to about it do agree the message — call it a warning, if you will, that HR better change or cease to exist — is a good and necessary one, a warning HR practitioners and leaders need to be paying attention to.

John Boudreau, professor at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business, and a handful of like-minded HR leaders including Eva Sage-Gavin and Kaye Foster-Cheek, recognized this problem years ago and established the CHREATE initiative in 2013 to — in the words of its online description — “map how HR must evolve to meet the future challenges in 10 years, to identify pivotal initiatives to accelerate that evolution, and to design the actions needed to make the future a reality.” I especially like this description of its mission, posted by CHREATE:

“Through the power of open-source collaboration, participant diversity, volunteerism and a unique combination of in-kind and financial resources, we aim to continue and extend the community of senior HR leaders who will reimagine a profession equipped to address the challenges of the future.”

Boudreau pointed me to this piece he posted on the Visier site back in April, in which he describes the “evolving work ecosystem [as one that] requires ‘retooling’ HR issues using the best thinking from disciplines such as engineering, finance, neuroscience, marketing, operations and supply chain.”

He lays out in that piece the future roles required to meet the challenges of this new ecosystem, and I must admit I noticed none of these roles contain the letters “HR”:

“The Organizational Engineer is an expert in facilitating virtual teams, developing leadership wherever it exists, and talent transitions.  She is an expert at talent and task optimization.  She is the knowledge resource on principles such as agility, networks, power and trust.

The Virtual Culture Architect is a culture expert, advocate and brand builder.  He connects current and potential workers’ purpose to the organization’s mission and goals.  He is adept at principles of values, norms, and beliefs, articulated virtually and personally.

The Global Talent Scout, Convener, and Coach masters new talent platforms and optimizes the relationships between workers, work and the organization, using whatever platform is best (e.g., free agent, contractor, regular employee, etc.).  She is a talent-contract manager, talent-platform manager and career/life coach.

The Data, Talent & Technology Integrator is an expert at finding meaning in big data and algorithms, and how to design work that optimally combines technology, automation and humans.

The Social Policy & Community Activist creates optimal synergy between goals that include economic returns, social purpose, ethics, sustainability and worker well-being.  She influences beyond the organization, shaping policies, regulations and laws that support the new world of work, through community engagement.”

Indeed, if organizations will be needing their HR professionals to transform themselves to this degree, a great, great deal of in-house HR development will be needed across the business community and profession. Far more than a 13-percent commitment.

Boudreau, Sage-Gavin (former chief human resource officer for The Gap Inc.) and Foster-Cheek (former CHRO for Johnson & Johnson) wrote about their group’s mission and vision for the future of HR in a recent issue of People + Strategy.  I like what Mark Sokol, executive editor, says about his contributors and the profession they know so well in his introduction to the pieces (pages 8 through 10):

“Perhaps you know the William Gibson saying, ‘The future is already here; it’s just not very evenly distributed.’ Some people really do get to the future sooner than others, and we would be wise to learn from them. … [Sage-Gavin and Foster-Cheek] describe the future of work and human resources — a future that has arrived for some of us and, in time, will involve all of us. This is not just their opinion, but reflects a consensus of experts across our profession.

” …  Boudreau reminds us that [the two former CHROs aren’t just writing about] forecasting trends; [they’re writing about] changing how we see and define the world of work — and that can fundamentally change everything we do in human resources.”

Mind you, CHREATE — which stands for a Global Consortium to Reimagine HR, Employment Alternatives, Talent, and the Enterprise — does a very different kind of dive into how HR must change, but no doubt the researchers at Mercer would agree the time for such fundamental change has come.

Effective Leaders Know their Leadership Stories

“What’s your leadership story?”

PeopleThat was the question posed to a roomful of attendees at the Society for Human Resource Management’s annual conference in Washington Monday. Speaking was Timothy J. Tobin, vice president of human resources for Marriott International, with headquarters in Washington as well.

And he had a host of things to think about that few probably had, based on the murmurs during and after his session, “Five Steps to Effectively Communicate Your leadership Story.”

Like what it really means to know your message and have a solid leadership point of view. And what it means to know yourself as a leader, why you are one and where you want to make a difference and have an impact. Equally important is understanding your core values and your personal mission.

“What contribution do you want to make? What do you want to accomplish? For whom?” he asked the crowd. “As Aristotle taught us many years ago, ‘knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.’ ”

But even more crucial for those leading others in business, said Tobin, is to maximize those “moments of truth” with other leaders in order to better understand specific pieces of the business and interact with those who can actually help you — all the while, carrying yourself with credibility and consistency.

“Who you know,” Tobin said, “can be as powerful as what you know. But the most powerful of all is who knows you and what they would say on your behalf. Who are those people who can act as credibility substitutes and speak up for you when you’re not there? You gotta find these people.”

And how do you find, support and sustain such a network? By engaging others in the organization at every opportunity and in every decision that needs to be made.

“The four most important words in leadership,” said Tobin, are ‘What do you think?’ ”

Two more seemed to be equally important as session takeaways: perceptions matter.

“You are only as good of a leader as people around you believe,” he told his listeners. “Communicate your story. Make it epic. And when it comes to telling it, remember, you all have a voice.”

How Do You Help Executives Thrive?

As a good HR leader, you no doubt spend a lot of time creating opportunities for everyday employees to gain the skills and experience they need to continue their professional growth.

But what are you doing to help those at the highest levels reach their career goals?

The answer, according to many senior executives taking part in a recent Egon Zehnder survey, seems to be “not quite enough.”

As part of its Leadership Identity—What Makes You Thrive study, global executive search and talent advisory firm Egon Zehnder recently polled 1,275 senior execs from Asia, Australia, Europe, and North and South America.

When asked if they felt their organization helps them unlock their professional potential, 40 percent replied in the affirmative, while 31 percent said “no” and another 27 percent reported feeling neutral. In addition, 72 percent said they would welcome more help from their company to “pinpoint and pursue [their] personal motivations and goals.”

These figures “suggest that a great many executives see an opportunity for a closer alignment of their job and their essential identity and priorities,” according to an Egon Zehnder summary of the findings. “Some might even feel a clear disconnect.”

Egon Zehnder study authors Andrew Roscoe and Wolfhart Pentz also note observing what they call “an interesting paradox,” saying that few executives who feel that disconnect take steps to address the situation by working to articulate their personal goals in a way that aligns with company objectives or “by fully exploring the potential of their current role,” for example.

“Instead,” the summary adds, “they often feel that their only option is to search for an opportunity elsewhere.”

It doesn’t have to come to that, of course, and Roscoe and Pentz offer ways in which employers and executives can close this communication gap.

For instance, the authors urge executives to do their part by taking more ownership of their own growth and trajectory, and being more forthright in discussing their goals with the organization.

Executives could also stand to improve their awareness and understanding of their own personal priorities—and how they intersect with those of the company, say the authors.

Organizations, meanwhile, must find additional means of developing executives who decline traditional promotion tracks and establish metrics of success that look beyond the “traditional quantitative measures,” the authors note, adding that companies’ rationale behind proposed moves could be better communicated in some cases.

“Too often, professional development is a monologue given by the organization to the executive. It needs to evolve to a true dialogue,” says Roscoe, who leads Egon Zehnder’s executive assessment and development practice.

“But that isn’t only the responsibility of the organization. Executives need to take ownership of their own growth trajectory and be active partners in that dialogue, rather than assume the only options are ‘take it or leave it.’ ”

Want Performers? Then Share Your Information

If you want your high-performing team members to really perform by participating in leadership decisions, then you’d better be giving 506554668 -- business meetingthem — or training your managers to give them — the information they need.

So says a recent study by researchers in China, published in the Academy of Management Journal.

According to that study’s report, “The Threshold Effect of Participative Leadership and the Role of Leader Information-Sharing,” released last year, there’s a certain performance threshold employees cross when bosses “openly share, discuss and communicate important information needed to make decisions and form judgments.”

Without the confidence that supervisors’ information-sharing fosters, the study suggests, employees may actually come to “hold a negative assessment of the leader’s participative action, interpreting it as a way to increase their workload and responsibilities with no reward.”

According to the authors, making such points is important because managers often assume “that a moderate degree of participative leadership may be enough to improve employees’ performance; this is a common phenomenon in organizations — participation is widely recognized [as valuable], but often done half-heartedly by managers.”

Earlier this week, I contacted Xu Huang, a researcher and professor at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University — and co-author of the study along with Catherine K. Lam of the City University of Hong Kong and Simon C.H. Chan of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University — asking for more specific takeaways for employers and HR, especially how leaders and managers can be trained to share, authentically instead of half-heartedly, more organizational information.

First off, he tells me, the differences between participative leadership and information-sharing are important to note. Based on years of research into these behaviors, he says, participative leaders encourage team members to express ideas and suggestions, they listen to those ideas and suggestions, they use those suggestions to make decisions affecting the entire organization, they give all group members a chance to voice opinions and they consider all team ideas even when they disagree with them.

On the other hand, he says, information-sharers “explain company decisions; company goals; how the team fits into the overall organization; the purposes of company policies, rules and expectations; and his or her decisions and actions.” This open sharing, he adds, doesn’t necessarily have to include sensitive information, just “organizational practices and decisions that may affect the employees and groups.”

There are ways HR professionals can train managers to show more openness and share company information without giving away the store, he says. Behavioral psychologists can even help with this. The problem is, not enough employers recognize this or do anything about it. More often than not, says Xu Huang:

“Managers show openness to different views and opinions from their subordinates, but fail to provide sufficient explanations for companies’ strategies, policies, rules and decisions that may affect employees. As such, employees may not feel that they’re being treated with full transparency and they see such leaders as less effective [and] may not be motivated to enhance their performance. Similarly, managers may offer a lot of information, yet fail to show openness.”

The trick is in combining the two, he says:

“Our key argument is that, if a manager wants his or her employees to perceive him or her as an effective leader, he or she must show a moderate-to-high level of participative leadership as well as a high level of information sharing. A low-to-moderate level of participative leadership behavior will give the impression that the participative leader is ‘half-hearted.’ Similarly, a high level of participative leadership yet low level of information sharing will [also] give the ‘half-heartedness’ impression.”

Probably a bit complex and maybe academically obscure, but worth thinking about if your goal is enhancing performance.

Changing Culture, Improving Performance

New research from the Hay Group division of Korn Ferry describes culture as “the invisible glue that holds an organization together.”

HR leaders have been singing a similar tune for years, but the Los Angeles-based executive recruitment firm’s Real World Leadership study seems to suggest that the rest of the C-suite is joining the chorus.

In polling more than 7,500 executives representing organizations in 107 countries, the survey found that “driving culture change” ranks among the top three global leadership development priorities among respondents.

Culture “is no longer an afterthought when considering the business focus of an organization,” says Noah Rabinowitz, senior partner and global head of Hay Group’s leadership development practice, in a press release highlighting a few of the findings.

Culture, says Rabinowitz, “is the X-factor … and ultimately makes the difference between whether an organization is able to succeed in the market or not.”

The survey also “affirms the critical role that leaders play in steering culture,” according to Korn Ferry, with executives citing “communications” as the most widely used strategy to improve culture, as well as “leadership development” and “embedding culture change in management objectives.”

And why are executives focused on improving their organizations’ culture? Primarily to “improv[e] organizational alignment and collaboration,” followed by “improving organizational performance,” the poll finds.

That said, organizations that are able to align strategy and culture are “more often the exception than the rule,” according to Korn Ferry. The firm cites its own 2014 research that found 72 percent of more than 500 executives saying that culture is “extremely important” to organizational performance. Just 32 percent of those same respondents, however, said their culture aligns with their business strategy.

Culture doesn’t necessarily align with strategy, per se, but “with the identity of the firm in the minds of key customers,” says David Ulrich, the Rensis Likert professor of business at the University of Michigan and a partner at the RBL Group.

In turn, “the firm’s brand with customers becomes the culture identity among employees,” he says. “As such, culture is a major form of competitive advantage, beyond talent.”

To gain such an advantage, Rabinowitz suggests that more organizations make culture change a bigger part of their leadership programs and overall leadership agendas.

“Culture change occurs, ultimately, when a critical mass of individuals adopt new behaviors consistent with their organization’s strategic direction,” he says. “Leadership development can be the most effective tool to change behaviors. And when leaders change their behaviors, others do so, too.”

Leadership Development Needs Sponsorship at Top

There has certainly been no dearth of studies and stories, both here at HRE and beyond, on the challenges and failings of leadership-82821233 -- business leaderdevelopment programs. Here, for instance, is our last look at this problem that Staff Writer Mark McGraw wrote about on Nov. 30.

In that piece, sources told McGraw a major stumbling block keeping most leadership-development initiatives from succeeding is the tendency for line leaders to hand the LD reins over to human resources without taking responsibility for the huge role they, themselves, play in steering those initiatives.

As Debbie Lovich, head of the Boston Consulting Group’s  Leadership and Talent Enablement Center in Boston, says in that story:

“As soon as [those reins are handed over, talent issues are] disconnected from the business. You see it happen when line leaders are developing plans for their businesses, and ownership for anything to do with talent goes to HR. … [T]he best-in-class companies don’t just throw it over the fence to HR.”

Now, the latest global study on this issue by Los Angeles-based Korn Ferry suggests the inherent problems with leadership development have less to do with who’s taking responsibility and more to do with who’s sponsoring the effort.

The study, Real World Leadership, which polled more than 7,500 executives from 107 countries, found a “lack of executive sponsorship” to be the chief barrier. Survey respondents not only indicated there was a general lack of active sponsorship, buy-in and support from the top, but they expressed disappointment in the programs altogether, with 55 percent of respondents ranking their return on such efforts as only “fair” to “very poor.”

“Executives have identified the crux of the problem,” says Noah Rabinowitz, a Korn Ferry senior partner and global head of leadership development. “The next step is to identify practical steps to create a solution.

“Given the central role leadership plays in the success of any organization,” he adds, “the view of leadership development has to shift from a ‘nice-to-have’ to a ‘must-have’ business process, as integral as the supply chain, marketing or IT.”

Dési Kimmins, Korn Ferry’s principal consultant, had some very specific and practical advice for HR leaders seeking executive buy-in for leadership development:

“The first step … is to start with strategic business needs. Executives must examine what challenges the organization currently faces, where the business is going and the leadership profile that will help the company get where it needs to go. This process starts with the C-suite, and must sustain that level of endorsement and sponsorship to be successful. The most senior leaders need to engage in the development strategy and insist the impact is regularly measured and reported.

“People assume that development happens naturally, but that’s not necessarily the case. A CEO, for example, not only has to run a business but also [has to] deal with a large number of external stakeholders, such as shareholders, the board of directors, business partners and even the media …  . That’s why stepping into the CEO role is sometimes described as a career change, not just another step on the career ladder. Development and feedback even at this level are essential when so much is at stake.”

Even more specifically, the report lists tips for increasing the effectiveness of leadership development and creating a robust and sustainable leadership pipeline:

  • Embed leadership development in the culture and strategy, ensuring it is consistently sponsored by top executives.

  • Embrace the idea that leadership development is a continuous process and not just made up of one-time classes or one-off events.

  • Make leadership development more relevant and engaging by focusing programs on the organization’s current strategies and business issues.

  • Roll out relevant and appropriate development for all levels in the organization, including senior-most executives and the C-suite.

  • Don’t cut back on investing in leadership development when times get tough. That is the time to double down on efforts.

Are Managers Cutting It As Coaches?

In late June of this year, I was dispatched to General Electric’s famed Crotonville campus in Ossining, N.Y., to attend Aon Hewitt’s Top Companies For Leaders Think Tank.

My main objective there was to meet one-on-one with representatives from some of the 25 companies that were on hand to be recognized as one of Aon Hewitt’s “Top Companies for Leaders.”

(Click here to find out who these organizations are, and how they landed on the most recent list, the first iteration of which appeared in 2001).

In these conversations, I was struck by how often HR executives returned to the idea of helping managers adopt a “coaching mind-set” as a key component of their companies’ leadership development strategies.

I was so struck, in fact, that I wound up writing a 2,300-or-so-word feature story on this topic for our September print issue, in which “Top Companies for Leaders” such as Procter & Gamble and Singtel Communications discussed how they’ve made it a priority to impart coaching skills to supervisors as part of their managerial training.

Some new data, however, suggests that most organizations haven’t warmed to the concept of making coaches out of managers in the way that “Top Companies” have.

In a survey of 117 vice presidents of talent management, vice presidents and directors of HR, directors of personnel and CHROs, talent-management software provider SilkRoad found 45 percent of these respondents saying their managers lack the skills to coach and develop employees.

Maybe finding out that nearly half of managers are coming up short in terms of coaching and fostering the professional growth of their people isn’t that shocking.

Heck, a 2015 Right Management poll found 68 percent of 616 North American workers saying their managers weren’t actively engaged in the career development of their employees.

Bruce Tulgan, founder of New Haven, Conn.-based management training and consulting company Rainmaker Thinking Inc., certainly isn’t surprised by such statistics.

I had a few conversations with Tulgan in the course of writing the aforementioned HRE feature. Not all of his thoughts found their way into print at the time, of course. But he had plenty to say on the subject, and his take in September seems just as relevant to this HRE Daily installment.

He described Right Management’s findings, for instance, as “very much in alignment” with what he and Rainmaker have uncovered in 20-plus years of research based on interviews with more than 200,000 managers.

In studying “undermanagement” and its root causes, he says, Rainmaker has frequently found that many managers and leaders don’t spend enough time interacting with their reports, spelling out their expectations and coaching employees on their career development.

“Managers, of course, are under pressure to have regular conversations with their teams about the actual work,” he says. “But providing this sort of career guidance is also part of the manager’s job.”

For their part, HR leaders can help managers set the parameters for these career-development chats, says Tulgan.

“For example, how often should [managers] be meeting with their people? How long should those conversations be, what should they be talking about and what are managers doing to prepare for those conversations? And what are they asking direct reports to do to prepare for those conversations?”

As is ultimately the case with the employees they’re charged with nurturing, he says, “you can’t hold managers accountable if you don’t tell them exactly what’s expected of them.”

Adjusting as Gen Y Takes Charge

Just last week, I finished writing a feature focusing on what a handful of 2015’s “Most Admired for HR” organizations are doing to prime today’s young employees for tomorrow’s leadership roles.

(By the way, this piece is slated to run in the upcoming December edition of HRE, and, naturally, I think you should check it and the rest of the issue out.)

In “Millennials Take Up the Mantle,” HR leaders from companies such as Wells Fargo and Comcast Corp. share some of the programs and initiatives they’ve put in place to groom employees of the millennial generation—a cohort that most projections say will make up roughly 75 percent of the workforce by the year 2025—for the leadership and management positions they’ll soon take over in large numbers.

Many millennials—generally defined as those born between the early 1980s and early 2000s—are already transitioning into leadership roles, of course. Some new data, however, suggests they aren’t the only ones who could use some help adjusting to Gen Y being in charge.

A recent study conducted by Future Workplace and Beyond surveyed 5,771 employees of all ages. Overall, 83 percent of respondents said that millennials are currently managing Gen X and baby boomer employees at their organizations. Among Gen X and boomer respondents, however, 45 percent said they feel that millennials’ lack of managerial experience could have a negative impact on a company’s culture.

And, while 44 percent of millennial respondents regard themselves as being the most capable generation to lead in the workplace, just 14 percent of participants overall agree that Gen Y workers are the best for the job.

It shouldn’t be surprising to see that some (OK, many) older employees aren’t completely comfortable with taking orders from younger, less experienced colleagues, at least not initially. And that uneasiness may help explain the more than one-third of millennials who reported difficulty in managing older employees.

All the concerned parties here certainly have some work to do if they and their organizations are to succeed. In the aforementioned HRE feature, Vanessa Walsh, who heads up leadership and professional development at Wells Fargo, explained what the San Francisco-based banking and financial services firm is doing to help its people bridge the generation gap.

Wells Fargo, which holds the No. 11 spot on this year’s “Most Admired for HR” list, currently oversees 10 affinity groups. The latest addition is “My Generation,” which consists of employees from different age cohorts “who are interested in what it means to be of a certain generation in the workforce,” says Walsh. “We don’t have one group focused on boomers or Gen Xers or millennials. These groups just get people together to learn about these different age groups.”

The idea, she says, is to discuss—and in some cases, debunk—stereotypes associated with various generations in the workplace.

What the group is not, says Walsh, is an effort to force young workers to adapt to old and “established” ways of working. Such an endeavor would be fruitless anyhow, she says.

“I don’t know that we’re going to ‘rewire’ 75 percent of the workforce. Nor should we. So, for me, the question becomes, ‘How do we shift to where they are?’ ”

Changing Priorities for Recruiters

How different will the world of recruiting look five years from now? If you ask Kevin Wheeler, founder of The Future of Talent Institute in Fremont, Calif., the answer is really different!

ThinkstockPhotos-478800411Wheeler, a self-described “futurist,” told attendees at this week’s Recruiting Trends Conference at Disney’s Grand Floridian Resort in Orlando, Fla., that recruiters should brace for dramatic change in the coming months and years.

Among a few of the forces at work in reshaping the recruiting landscape are increased automation and the changing nature of work.

Because of automation, Wheeler said, “mid-level and manufacturing-worker jobs are disappearing,” opening the way for workers who possess significantly higher skill levels.

“I was in Australia a few weeks ago, where they have McDonald’s with no workers in the front of the store,” he recalled. “You order on a kiosk … and they have two employees bring your food out.

”Think of all of those people who work at McDonald’s who won’t have jobs in a few years,” he said.

Wheeler pointed to an Oxford University study titled The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? showing that telemarketers, accountants and auditors, and retail sales people were among the jobs most at risk of disappearing.

Recruiters, he said, are also going to become much more technologically savvy.

“You probably have read [Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee’s 2011 book] Race Against the Machine — that we’re competing against computers and technology,” he said. But a better way to think about it, he added, is as a race with the machine, because if you end up racing against the machine, you’re going to lose!

Wheeler noted that recruiters are also going to need to get their hands around a workplace that includes many more contract workers. (Gig workers were the subject of a recent HRE cover story titled “The Contingent Quandary.”) When he asked how many of those in the room were involved in selecting contract workers, only a few hands went up. But in the future, he predicted, recruiters are going to need to play a much more active role in advising hiring managers on the merits of bringing in such workers, based on the type of work that needs to be done.

“Forget about culture,” he said. “It’s going to be more about whether or not that person can repair this chair.”

As a result, Wheeler said, recruiters are going to need to possess a different set of skills, such as social intelligence, virtual collaboration, co-creation and cross-cultural competence. “These are going to be core to your survival, not interviewing skills and sourcing skills,” he said. “Computers can do those.”