We’re all expected to be doing more with less these days (just like last year, and the year before that and … oh never mind). But a new survey of U.S. workers by American Express finds that today’s companies may not be doing enough to help their employees be more productive; in fact, their workplace cultures may actually be standing in the way.
Take jargon, for example (no really, please take it): 88 percent of U.S. workers admit to pretending to understand office jargon, even when they really have no idea what it means, according to Amex’s Get Business Done Survey. However, two-thirds (64 percent) say they use jargon words or phrases multiple times a week — as in, “Let’s table that and circle back when the deliverables have greater impactfulness.”
Then there are meetings: One third of the employees say they spend nearly 1,200 hours a year in meetings they would call “pointless.” As Sonny Corleone said in The Godfather, “No more meetings!” Or at least, no more meetings that run on for so long that attendees’ attention starts to flag — the survey finds that when this happens, employees’ “top distractions of choice” include thinking about running errands (43 percent), taking a vacation (32 percent), wondering “What were they thinking?” about coworkers’ wardrobes (29 percent) or inserting a witty joke to make the meeting more fun (27 percent).
Email is yet another factor, as employees in the survey admit to responding to work email at less-than-productive times of the day such as after 10 p.m. (36 percent), on vacations (36 percent), while out on dates (15 percent) and eve as late as 3 a.m. (19 percent). Nothing sad about that, right?
The survey also cites some non-culture-related distractions that impede productivity, such as social media (52 percent say it hinders their productivity) and current events (30 percent said they’re “glued to the news”).
While HR may not be able to do much about the last two items other than block access via the company network (possibly a futile move in this age of BYOD), it can certainly provide managers with some tips on structuring shorter meetings and communicating effectively in a jargon-free manner. These moves may certainly “positively impact the organization’s ability to achieve maximum deliverables in a shortened timespan.”
According to U.S. Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, only 3 percent of the American workforce are apprenticeship graduates. But if President Trump’s new apprenticeship program delivers as promised, that number will soon be a lot higher.
Indeed, the Trump administration is now focused on getting universities and private companies to pair up and pay the cost of such learn-to-earn arrangements., according to the Washington Post, which noted that the president has accepted a challenge from Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff to create 5 million apprenticeships over five years.
“Our program will be geared toward all industries and all jobs,” Acosta said during a White House press briefing Monday. “The point here is to foster private-private partnerships between industry and educational institutions … so that when [students leave the program] they have the skills necessary to enter the workforce,”
President Trump also spoke about the need for a more robust apprenticeship program during his first full Cabinet meeting on Monday: “Apprenticeships are going to be a big, big factor in our country. There are millions of good jobs that lead to great careers, jobs that do not require a four-year degree or the massive debt that often comes with those four-year degrees and even two-year degrees.”
Many employers and economists on both sides of the aisle welcome the idea of apprenticeships as a way to train people with specific skills for particular jobs that employers say they can’t fill at time of historically low unemployment, according to the Post piece, which notes the most recent budget for the federal government passed with about $90 million for apprenticeships, and Trump so far isn’t proposing adding more.
More from the Post:
But the Trump administration, like President Barack Obama’s, says there’s a need that can be met with a change in the American attitude toward vocational education and apprenticeships. A November 2016 report by Obama’s Commerce Department found that “apprenticeships are not fully understood in the United States, especially” by employers, who tend to use apprentices for a few, hard-to -fill positions” but not as widely as they could.
The shortages for specifically-trained workers cut across multiple job sectors beyond Trump’s beloved construction trades. There are shortages in agriculture, manufacturing, information technology and health care.
George Brooks, leader of People Advisory Services at Ernst & Young, applauds the decision to focus on apprenticeships.
“Apprenticeship programs look like a win-win solution for employers, employees and society,” he says, before adding that companies must play their part.
“What resonates beyond the announced apprenticeship program is the need for companies we work with to fill many new types of jobs that will be in heavy demand, such as cyber, drone management, robotics management, etc., that are growing too quickly to wait for four-year STEM students to graduate or for older workers to go back to school,” Brooks says. “By the time these people have the traditional degree, technology will have evolved even further. That workforce challenge is why we see leading organizations starting their own training-apprenticeship-mentoring programs, thus building their own future workforce.”
More than 150 CEOs from some of the largest, best-known companies on the planet have just signed on to the “CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion,” an effort that includes leaders from Accenture, Deloitte U.S., GE and some other fancy blue-chip names. It’s quite a big deal: The CEOs are pledging to take action to, among other things, share successful — and unsuccessful — actions shared across organizations via a unified hub and “cultivate a workplace where … employees feel encouraged to discuss diversity and inclusion.”
This effort is one that will be watched here at HRE with a mix of excitement and profound skepticism. After all, here in one of the most diverse countries on the planet, we haven’t exactly mastered the art of talking to one another, rather than past each other. And yet, as the press release states, when we feel respected and valued for who we are — and can see our colleagues (and neighbors, etc.) for who they are, regardless of race, gender or ethnicity — then great things can happen.
One component of the program will include implementing and expanding unconscious-bias education, which is a potentially powerful tool because it encourages everyone to identify and address their own biases. After all, nearly everyone of us has biases — and these can include biases against, say, a rural white person who speaks with an accent. Research has shown that when we let ourselves be guided too much by our unconscious biases, then potentially valuable talent — from all corners of the country and the world — gets left on the floor, and that hurts us all.
One of the effort’s toughest challenges will be, of course, the part about cultivating workplaces in which honest conversations about diversity and inclusion can take place. As you know, talk may be cheap, but the wrong kind of talk — unfiltered, taken out of context, etc. — can get very, very expensive. Companies like EY, Accenture and GE have the resources to afford the very best in training so that these potential issues can be addressed and avoided in a skillful manner. But what about the workplaces in small to mid-sized organizations — you know, those places where 99 percent of the U.S. workforce lives? Hopefully, the solutions that will be shared on CEOAction.com’s platform will be accessible to, and workable for, the companies with much more limited funds.
Engagement was certainly on the minds of speakers and attendees at the recent HR Tech Conference in Chicago. (Here’s a link to the conference site, FYI, which already has information about next year’s event.)
From this session covered by Mark McGraw, Engaging the Talent of Tomorrow, to this one covered by David Shadovitz, What’s Driving Engagement, there seemed to be a lot of buzz about what’s working at some companies (especially in McGraw’s post), what needs to be happening in terms of technology, training and the treatment of employees (particularly in Shadovitz’s post), and a whole lot more.
One study released at the conference but not mentioned yet came from Saba, showing just how bad companies still are at simply carrying out the basics — not only in terms of engagement, but overall management tactics too. That survey, completed in August, shows most businesses are “not in tune with their employees’ perceptions of engagement, training and career development,” according to Saba’s release.
With so much attention being paid to the need for keeping employees engaged, retained and productive, you’d think most companies are at least asking for more feedback, or figuring out better ways to ask for more feedback. Saba says no, that is not happening much at all.
For the most part, the report says, companies do not have continuous channels for engagement and feedback because the majority of employees are rarely asked for their feedback — less than a few times a year. Other highlights of the August survey of 1,200 U.S. HR managers and employees include these two points, suggesting some troubling gender issues wrapped up in all this:
Sixty-eight percent of baby boomers and 61 percent of female employees indicated they were rarely asked for feedback, versus 56 percent of male employees.
At the same time, women were also less comfortable giving their input. The survey showed only 56 percent of women are comfortable giving feedback, compared to 63 percent of men. “This implies a statistical disconnect that needs to be immediately addressed by HR and learning teams,” the report says.
Another gem from the release:
“Based on these statistics and anomalies in engagement, it’s understandable why more than half of HR leaders (51 percent) and employees (52 percent) believe their organizations do not have a good employee-feedback process.”
In terms of initiating better training programs to keep employees producing and staying put, companies aren’t doing so good there, either. Only 22 percent of employees believe their organizations are very effective in providing easy access to training and development.
What’s more, 86 percent of millennials, often the highest flight risk in the organization, indicated they would be more inclined to stay at their current company if they were given access to quality training and development. So what’s the holdup here? As Theresa Damato, vice president of global marketing at Saba, sees it:
“While most organizations will agree that talent is their most important asset, [this] survey highlights the struggle many have in effectively engaging, assessing and developing their people.
“Organizations need to focus on the critical role continuous development plays in employee engagement and retention. They also need to find new ways to improve effectiveness of talent programs through more frequent and consistent feedback channels.”
And for the most part, she and others at Saba indicate, that is hardly happening at all.
Except, it would seem, in the handful of success stories — or at least stories of successful starting points and strategic approaches — shared at HR Tech.
My guess is, if we’re doing this bad at the feedback basics, then this engagement conundrum/roadblock is going to be on the minds of attendees and the agendas of many conferences to come.
The online learning company Coursera is making a push into the world of corporate training. Its new service, called “Coursera for Business,” repackages existing courses and adds new tools for employer learning-and-development programs.
Coursera is a venture-backed company launched in 2012 with partners that include big-name universities like Duke, Stanford and University of Pennsylvania. Like other so-called massive-open-online-course providers, it has attracted much attention but struggled to find a sustainable business model. Most consumers are resistant to paying for online coursework and attrition rates in free classes are high.
For Coursera, corporate training may be an answer. Employers signing up for Coursera for Business pay to design custom programs drawing from the site’s 1,400 online classes, including titles such as “Business Analytics,” “Python for Everybody” and “Data Science.” The program offers certifications for employees and tracking tools for HR. Companies already signed up include BNY Mellon and L’Oréal.
Amanda Molaro, a publicist representing Coursera, declined to say what the service will cost. Charges are “dependent on the number of employees that they wish to enroll and the number of courses they sign up for,” she said in an email.
The idea is not a new one. Coursera already had a deal with Yahoo to train engineers, and other MOOCs — which include Udacity, edX, Udemy and others — also have explored the corporate training realm. Udacity’s Open Education Alliance, for example, offers “nanodegrees” in subjects such as web design and data analysis. And in 2014 Microsoft worked with the French business school INSEAD to develop online sales training.
Experts have been forecasting for years that MOOCs would take root in the world of corporate training. After all the hype and disappointments that have marked online learning, Coursera’s big push offers hope to those who think that moment has arrived.
“This will be the sustainable revenue stream” for MOOCs, says Curtis J. Bonk, a professor of instructional systems technology at Indiana University. “The corporate training world is a significant place for their business model.”
Bonk also thinks the trend is good for companies that need ways to help employees develop at a reasonable cost. Online platforms can be far cheaper than building classrooms and hiring instructors for in-house training.
As evidence that MOOCs are gaining ground, Bonk points out that Coursera offers a huge number of certificates that are gaining real value in the employment market. “That’s what the business world wants,” he says. “It’s more self-directed, employee-driven … it makes a lot of sense for the corporate world.”
To capsulize, the researchers, who have published their work (titled Who Strikes Back? A Daily Investigation of When and Why Incivility Begets Incivility) in a recent issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, found that experiencing rude behavior reduces employees’ self-control and leads them to act in a similar uncivil manner. (In doing their study, they asked 70 employees to fill out a survey relating to incivility and its effects three times a day for 10 consecutive workdays.)
Of course, this finding is not all that surprising. As human beings, we’re easily influenced by those around us. Right? Probably the more interesting finding is the unintentional nature of so-called “incivility spirals”—i.e., when acts of incivility lead to subsequent acts of incivility.
As Russell Johnson, an associate professor of management at Michigan State University and the study’s lead author, explains …
“When employees are mentally fatigued, it is more difficult for them to keep their negative impulses and emotions in check, which leads them to be condescending and rude to colleagues. This happens even for employees who desire to be agreeable and polite; they simply lack the energy to suppress curt and impatient responses.”
That’s certainly a troubling thought, especially if you work at an organization in which incivility is clearly visible at the highest levels.
The study also found that incivility spirals occurred in workplaces that were perceived as political (i.e., where co-workers “do what is best for them, not what is best for the organization”).
Because the “intentions and motives of others are less clear” at such organizations, the researchers report, employees have a harder time understanding why they were targeted and how best to respond.
You’ve got to think, I might add, that this inevitably would take a serious toll on employee effectiveness and productivity.
In response to what they found, the researchers emphasize the need for managers to provide employees with clearer feedback on “the types of behaviors that are desired,” both informally through day-to-day interactions and formally through the performance-management process.
Certainly great advice. But is it enough to prevent incivility from spiraling out of control?
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 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.”
Diversity programs haven’t done much to actually increase diversity in the workplace.
This is the conclusion recently reached by sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev, who drove this idea home throughout an article appearing in the July/August 2016 edition of Harvard Business Review.
The authors point to volumes of past research that they say reinforce the notion that diversity efforts—mandatory diversity training sessions in particular—may be well-intentioned, but often miss the mark.
“Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers,” wrote Dobbin and Kalev.
“Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions,” according to Dobbin, a professor of sociology at Harvard University, and Kalev, an associate professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Tel Aviv University.
Laboratory studies, however, “show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person.”
Dobbin and Kalev’s HBR piece is based on their own examination of three decades’ worth of data, culled from more than 820 United States-based businesses as well as interviews with hundreds of line managers and executives.
In conducting their analysis, the authors found that companies saw representation of some demographic groups actually drop in the five years after they made diversity training programs obligatory for managers.
For instance, the share of black women in management roles decreased by 9 percent on average in that time, while the ranks of Asian-American men and women declined by 4 percent to 5 percent.
“Trainers tell us that people often respond to compulsory courses with anger and resistance,” added Dobbin and Kalev, noting that many participants reported feeling more animosity toward other groups after taking part in such programs.
The authors outlined other ways in which diversity training efforts are typically derailed.
Threatening undertones, for example, help to upend many diversity training programs.
“ … Three-quarters use negative messages in their training. By headlining the legal case for diversity and trotting out stories of huge settlements, they issue an implied threat: ‘Discriminate, and the company will pay the price.’ We understand the temptation … but threats, or ‘negative incentives,’ don’t win converts.”
Dobbin and Kalev contend that companies achieve better results “when they ease up on the control tactics” in delivering diversity programs.
“It’s more effective to engage managers in solving the problem, increase their on-the-job contact with female and minority workers, and promote social accountability—the desire to look fair-minded.
“That’s why interventions such as targeted college recruitment, mentoring programs, self-managed teams and task forces have boosted diversity in businesses. Some of the most effective solutions aren’t even designed with diversity in mind.”
As its name suggested, HireVue’s Digital Disruption 2016 in Park City, Utah was, for the most part, all about distrupting HR through technology. More precisely, the vast majority of the content surrounded hiring, HireVue’s roots. But as CEO Mark Newman made quite clear during an opening general session titled “New Wave of Disruption,” the South Jordan, Utah-based firm is no longer just about talent acquisition. It’s now about coaching and developing talent, too.
Though still a small portion of its business, with around 30 clients, Newman noted that HireVue Coach, a recent addition to the firm’s Team Acceleration Software Platform, is already growing at a fairly fast clip. He predicted that it soon will become a substantial piece of HireVue’s overall business. To date, he noted, training has been ineffective; it doesn’t stick. But by leveraging the power of video, he said, employers can now change employee behavior (primarily for those in customer-facing positions) in a fundamental way.
Of course, as you might expect, Digital Disruption (now in its third year), like most user events, was chock full of client success stories. Hilton. United Airlines. Vodafone. Netflix. But it also featured a number of speakers who looked at bigger-picture issues impacting HR.
One who personally stood out for me was Rusty Rueff, a former recruiting executive at PepsiCo and Electronic Arts who now sits on a number of boards and is an investor in several Silicon Valley start-ups. (I personally had an opportunity to meet Rusty a number of years ago at a much smaller gathering of CHROs.)
Rueff, in a general session titled “Craft(ing) of the Future,” suggested that those in recruiting need to stop thinking of recruitment as a profession and begin to think of it as a craft.
“A profession is defined as an occupation requiring prolonged training and a formal qualification,” he said. “Doctors and lawyers are a profession. But a crafts person [exercises a skill] in making something. We make something of people. We make something of organizations. We make something of cultures.”
To illustrate his point, Rueff recounted his days running recruiting at Frito Lay, where he was charged with interviewing candidates all day long, week in and week out.
“One day, I said to myself, ‘I’m the most powerful guy in the company?’ he recalled. “My other voice said, ‘What are you talking about?’ And I said, ‘No, I’m the most powerful guy in the company! because if I wanted everyone to have green eyes, I could do that. I could screen out everyone who didn’t have green eyes.’ That’s pretty scary, because I’m out there deciding what the organization’s culture is going to be by who I let in and who I screen out.”
Rueff recalled that he believed at the time that the HR function at Frito Lay needed change leaders—so that’s who he brought into the organization.
“I was a lowly little guy [at Frito Lay],” he said, “but I got to change the culture.”
Rueff told those attending that a crafts person needs to be, among other things, agile—someone who is able to adopt new ways of thinking. He added that such a person is like “an actor who can play many different kinds of roles on many different kinds of stages.”
To be successful, Rueff said, those in HR and recruiting are going to need to begin thinking like data scientists. “You don’t have to have a degree [as] a data scientist,” he said. “If you’re good with numbers, you can be one.” In other words, it’s a skill people can learn.
In addition, he said, they have to “think like the software-design architects of today, not yesterday. [People] who are fast and nimble.”
And they need to think like personal trainers, he said. “One size fits one when it comes to talent in the future.”
Speaking to this notion of one size fits one, another presenter, Molly Weaver, offered up a great example during a session titled “Stop Screening Out Great Talent.”
As director of talent acquisition at Children’s Mercy, Weaver said she was saddled by a hiring process that was way “too long” and “cumbersome” for applicants. So about a year ago, Weaver and her team unveiled a unique program called “Interview First.”
Instead of encouraging job candidates to apply for a specific job, “Interview First” enables them to submit a video via the company’s website in which they share something about their background and what they would like to do at Children’s Mercy. (Yes, you guessed it: Children’s Mercy, headquartered in Kansas City, uses the HireVue platform.)
Each day, two recruiters are assigned to review the videos that come in and parse them out to the appropriate recruiters (Children’s Mercy currently has 10 recruiters and jobs are divided into clinical and nonclinical). The idea behind the initiative, Weaver said, was to just give people a chance to tell their stories. By putting these videos at the front end of the process, she said, Children’s Mercy is able to quickly capture a lot of great talent, people who otherwise might have left the process.
Just because they aren’t the right candidate for one particular job, she said, doesn’t mean they aren’t right for something else at the company or an opening down the road.
Once the videos are evaluated, potential candidates are told they should consider applying for a particular position right away, there may be something for them down the pike or they’re not really a good fit.
Weaver pointed out that affirmative-action laws aren’t a concern for Children’s Mercy (a government contractor) here, since these individuals aren’t applying for a specific job.
So how is it working out for Children’s Mercy? To date, 120 positions have filled through “Interview First,” including nine individuals who were rehires. Interestingly, the new hires, on average, had applied seven times before.
Certainly, a pretty good start in disrupting a process that is clearly in need of some serious disruption, I think.
The HR tech world just got a big new player. Really big.
Once Microsoft closes its $26 billion acquisition of LinkedIn late this year, the software giant will own a service that has become increasingly important to HR departments around the world. With Microsoft’s resources behind it, LinkedIn could become a massive force not only in recruiting, but in the larger world of HR, experts say.
Among the business opportunities for Microsoft, he noted, is “expanding beyond recruiting and learning and development to create value for any part of an organization involved with hiring, managing, motivating or leading employees. This human capital area is a massive business opportunity and an entirely new one for Microsoft.”
That doesn’t necessarily mean a Microsoft-backed LinkedIn will be moving into payroll, benefits administration and other bread-and-butter HR applications, though. Many experts see the company integrating LinkedIn data into Microsoft Office tools, but not moving wholesale into new lines of business.
Under Microsoft, “LinkedIn could become a network for learning and collaboration,” providing HR departments a tool for connecting employees, says George LaRocque, a well-known HR technology consultant. “I think that’s the direction.”
LinkedIn already is a force to be reckoned with. Though far smaller than social-media titans like Facebook, it virtually owns the world of professional connections, with over 100 million active users and four times as many profiles. It’s increasingly necessary for an active business person to have a presence on the site, which has made it a critical resource in many businesses — particularly sales and HR.
The company posted $2.9 billion in revenue last year. About $1.9 billion of that was in its “talent solutions” business, the company says. Most of that came from recruitment services, which include premium search functions, targeted job postings, a referral tool for current employees and company branding. Through its April 2015 acquisition of the online tutorial site Lynda.com, LinkedIn also has a solid presence in training.
Though revenue was up 41 percent from 2014, in other ways LinkedIn has lost momentum, which is what helped make it an acquisition target. After disappointing earnings, the share price had dropped by 50 percent — from over $260 in February 2015.
Many experts say the marriage with Microsoft makes sense because the two companies don’t overlap in services, yet cater to the same audience — business professionals. That opens up the potential for connections between Microsoft productivity tools and LinkedIn’s vast people database. The immediate opportunities may be in customer relationship management — an area where Microsoft already has a presence with its Microsoft Dynamics software.
The reality, though, is that no one knows what Microsoft plans to do with LinkedIn — likely including Microsoft itself, notes LaRocque, principal analyst and founder of New Providence, N.J.-based #hrwins.
“I think we’re all going to be reading tea leaves for a little bit on this one,” he says. “The opportunities are endless.”
But most experts say Microsoft is most likely to build on its strengths as a provider of tools that business professionals use every day. LaRocque sees the company connecting LinkedIn’s Lynda tutorial videos to Excel, for example, so that users can get immediate help.
He and others don’t see this as a beginning of a move to take over HR technology — or even just recruiting.
“I have a hard time thinking Microsoft is excited about getting into talent acquisition,” though LinkedIn may well stay in that business, LaRocque says. On the other hand, LinkedIn’s networking and communication functions could become another “pillar” of the company’s Office 365 platform. “They’re impacting HR technology in a huge way,” he says. “But they’re not the classic HR player.”
Kyle Lagunas of the IT market research firm International Data Corp. has a similar view. He sees three key opportunities for Microsoft in the acquisition: LinkedIn’s in endorsements, recommendations and posts.
If properly leveraged by Microsoft, LinkedIn endorsements — in which users rate each other for various skills — could be used internally “to map influence across various subject matters, skills and capabilities,” he notes in an email.
Recommendations shared among LinkedIn users could provide a powerful tool for recruiters, he says. And companies could track posts on LinkedIn’s Pulse service to help workers develop — and demonstrate — expertise.
Another HR tech expert agrees that the Microsoft-LinkedIn deal will lead to new tools for HR departments, but not fundamentally change the landscape.
Kathryn Minshew, CEO of a career site called The Muse, notes that the two companies both target established white-collar professionals. She doesn’t see that changing with Microsoft’s purchase of LinkedIn — leaving plenty of room for businesses like hers.
“I think this acquisition is a great thing for the industry — it validates the core role that HR has,” Minshew says. ” Companies are starting to realize that products and platforms in the human-capital space have a much broader impact.”
Muse, with 50 million site visitors annually, serves a diverse population of workers with an average age of 29, and 60 percent female. Those people, she says, may keep their resume on LinkedIn, but The Muse “is where their heart is.”
“I don’t know that the human-capital space is ever meant to have a single winner-take-all,” Minshew says. “There’s a lot of room for those who want to take a different approach.”
News, Strategies and Resources for Senior HR Executives (formerly The Leader Board)