Zenefits: Unicorn Comeback?

Remember Zenefits — the cloud-based benefits-administration startup that was going to revolutionize the industry by providing a benefits platform to small and mid-sized businesses and which was valued at $4 billion just two years after it was founded? The high-flying unicorn plummeted back to earth amid revelations that Zenefits’ co-founder and CEO, Parker Conrad, led an effort to help the company’s sales reps skip over state insurance-licensing requirements so they could start selling as soon as possible. More fuel was added to the bonfire when details started emerging about Zenefits’ rowdy office culture, in which managers had to send out a memo specifically banning employees from having sex in the building’s stairwells. The company parted ways with Conrad, laid off hundreds of employees, and cut its valuation in half in order to avoid a lawsuit by investors.

Now the company is struggling to regain its once-lofty perch, but its got robust new rivals to contend with. In today’s New York Timestechnology columnist Farhad Manjoo interviews Zenefits’ current CEO, David Sacks, about its soon-to-be-released software redesign, the internal reforms he undertook to fix the company’s culture and its new branding campaign, which include billboards throughout Silicon Valley that ask: “What is Z2?” In the wake of Conrad’s resignation, Manjoo writes, Sacks worked hard to rebuild Zenefits’ reputation by being open and honest about previous wrongdoings, describing his strategy as “admit, fix, settle and repeat.”

But Zenefits’ path to redemption faces roadblocks in the form of  new, well-funded competitors such as Gusto, which has 40,000 paying customers and was recently valued at $1 billion, Manjoo writes. Gusto has a much different corporate culture than did the earlier incarnation of Zenefits, where the philosophy had been “ready, fire, aim”: Gusto is taking a slower, more deliberate approach to building its business under the leadership of its CEO, Joshua Reeves. Its offices “has the air of a meditative retreat,” Manjoo writes, with plants, couches and a ban on wearing shoes “to make it feel more like home than work.”

Yet regardless of whether Zenefits or Gusto ultimately prevails, this heated competition for the SMB market probably means the ultimate winners will be the small to mid-sized companies that had previously been unable to afford the sort of benefits-administration software that large companies have long enjoyed. Despite the sordid behavior that marked its rise, Zenefits’ early founders at least deserve props for being one of the first to use the cloud to help this long-underserved market.


Tweet This!

What HR Wants in Entry-Level Workers

If new SHRM research is any indication, HR professionals have a pretty good idea of the attributes they’re looking for in entry-level job candidates.

HR leaders aren’t quite so sure, however, of their organization’s ability to spot the skills they’re searching for.

Produced in collaboration with Mercer, SHRM’s just-released Entry-Level Applicant Job Skills Survey polled 521 HR professionals. Overall, 97 percent of respondents said dependability was very or extremely important in determining whether an applicant possessed the necessary qualifications to be hired into an entry-level position, according to SHRM. Eighty-seven percent said the same about integrity, with 84 percent and 83 percent saying that respect and teamwork, respectively, were very or extremely important.

In addition, 78 percent indicated that dependability was one of the three most important traits an entry-level candidate can possess. Forty-nine percent placed integrity in their top three, with 36 percent considering teamwork a top-three quality.

Looking ahead at what skills and traits would best serve entry-level job seekers in the coming three to five years, 62 percent pointed to adaptability, while 49 percent singled out initiative and 49 percent said critical thinking skills would be most desirable.

Respondents were also asked to gauge their faith in the methods their firms use to assess the aforementioned qualities (and a handful of others, such as professionalism and customer focus). Their confidence levels aren’t exactly off the charts.

With regard to evaluating the integrity of an entry-level candidate, for instance, a mere 15 percent said they thought the phone interviews they conduct with these applicants were effective. Just 13 percent of HR professionals reported confidence in their company’s ability to accurately assess integrity through telephone screens.

A simple phone conversation will only tell you so much about a candidate, of course. Respondents did feel that they could get a good sense of an applicant’s character in person, with 96 percent saying they were very or extremely confident or moderately confident or confident in on-site interviews as a way to assess integrity. Ninety-five percent expressed similar belief in panel interviews, with 97 percent saying the same about situational judgment tests.

Still, just 20 percent of those surveyed described themselves as being very or extremely confident in their organization’s ability to effectively assess the overall skills of entry-level applicants, while 11 percent said they were not at all confident or only slightly confident.

Such findings “may be due to an over-reliance on applications and resumes, even though most HR professionals believe them to be ineffective in assessing entry-level candidates, simply because they are ingrained in our culture,” says Evren Esen, director of workforce analytics at SHRM.

“This is a clear indication for a need for new, more effective approaches,” says Esen, noting that improvements in the use of predictive data modeling and assessment technologies could begin to influence the methods HR professionals use to evaluate entry-level candidates.

“Although few HR professionals indicated that their organizations currently used data-based assessment methods such as personality and cognitive tests or simulations,” adds Esen, “the use of these tools may grow in the future.”


Tweet This!

Know Your Independent Workers

Question: Do you know how many types of independent workers there are?

Answer: Four.

That’s according to a new report by the McKinsey Global Institute titled “Independent Work: Choice, Necessity and the Gig Economy.”

According to the report, independent workers largely fit into four segments:

Free agents, who actively choose independent work and derive their primary income from it; casual earners, who use independent work for supplemental income and do so by choice; reluctants, who make their primary living from independent work but would prefer traditional jobs; and the financially strapped, who do supplemental independent work out of necessity.

The growing prevalence of independent work could have tangible economic benefits, the report notes, “such as raising labor-force participation, providing opportunities for the unemployed, or even boosting productivity. Consumers and organizations could benefit from the greater availability of services and improved matching that better fulfills their needs. Digital platforms can amplify all these benefits through their larger scale, faster matches, seamless coordination, and richer information signals, enabling trust.”

Yet, the authors caution, “some key challenges still must be addressed for this shift to be a feasible and satisfying development for workers,” including benefits, income-security measures, and training and credentials.

“Independent workers and traditional jobholders alike will have to become more proactive about managing their careers as digital technologies continue to reshape the world of work,” the authors conclude.


Tweet This!

Being a Black Professional Woman

I’m probably wrong going into this: posting something about what it’s like to be a black woman in corporate America when I’m white.

523400310-black-professional-womanI probably don’t get extra points for being a member of a mixed-race family
either. In today’s
hypersensitive, hyper-volatile,
racially divisive
environment, I tend to shy away from my biracial nephew’s political Facebook posts and stick to our shared summer-vacation pictures, and our beautifully diverse family updates. What right have I to even “Like” something I can’t possibly know?

But I decided to post this release anyway, about a documentary airing this coming Wednesday in Oakland, Calif., Head Not The Tail Productions’ Invisible Women: Being a Black Woman in Corporate America. Not because I’m vying for any points, but because what happens to black women in or pursuing corporate careers should be something we all take seriously. And dealing with it should be all our jobs as well.

The disappointment, discrimination and rejection described by the many women in the documentary (the link above includes another link to a short teaser trailer worth watching) is often subtle, say diversity experts, as is corporate unconscious bias, which we’ve reported on on our website and here on HRE Daily.

“In conducting the research, we found the corporate practice of discrimination to be a common harsh reality faced by countless women of color,” says Melody Shere’a, HNTT Productions’ founder and CEO, and director of the film. As her release states,

“The playing field isn’t level and well-qualified black women are too frequently denied the opportunity to explore similar career-growth opportunities as their white and other female counterparts. The facts and details you will learn from this documentary will surprise you.”

Granted, most of you are nowhere near Oakland, Calif., but I imagine a call to Shere’a at the number provided in her release would prove fruitful in getting your hands on the film. It’s worth a try. You can’t improve diversity in your corporate culture if you don’t fully understand all forms of discrimination and how they’re being perceived by those on the receiving end.

For that reason, I encourage you to give this a read as well, a professional black woman’s response to a white friend of hers asking for a better understanding of white privilege. Like the documentary, this piece by Lori Lakin Hutcherson, founder and editor-in-chief of Good Black News, centers on the subtleties she has had to contend with throughout her career — including her education at Harvard University. As she details for her friend:

“When I got accepted to Harvard — as a fellow AP student, you were witness to what an academic beast I was in high school, yes? — three separate times I encountered white strangers as I prepped for my maiden trip to Cambridge that rankle to this day.

The first was the white doctor giving me a physical … .:

Me: ‘I need to send an immunization report to my college so I can matriculate.’

Doctor: ‘Where are you going?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Doctor: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

The second was in a store, looking for supplies I needed from Harvard’s suggested ‘what to bring with you’ list:

Store employee: ‘Where are you going?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Store employee: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

The third was at UPS, shipping off boxes of said ‘what to bring’ to Harvard. I was in line behind a white boy mailing boxes to Princeton and in front of a white woman sending her child’s boxes to wherever:

Woman, to the boy: ‘What college are you going to?’

Boy: ‘Princeton.’

Woman: ‘Congratulations!’

Woman, to me: ‘Where are you sending your boxes?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Woman: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

I think: ‘No … the one downtown next to the liquor store.’ …

The point here is, if no one has ever questioned your intellectual capabilities or attendance at an elite institution based solely on your skin color, this is white privilege [or bias, as some might say].”

A later example comes from Hutcherson’s work as a film and television writer/producer:

“While writing on a television show in my 30s, my new white male boss — who had only known me for a few days — had, unbeknownst to me, told another writer on staff he thought I was conceited, didn’t know as much as I thought I did, and didn’t have the talent I thought I had.  And what exactly had happened in those few days?  I disagreed with a pitch where he suggested our lead female character carelessly leave a pot holder on the stove and burn down her apartment. This character being a professional caterer.

“When what he said about me was revealed months later — by then he’d come to respect and rely on me — he apologized for prejudging me because I was black and female. I told him — not unkindly, but with a head shake and a smile — that he was ignorant for doing so and clearly had a lot to learn. It was a good talk because he was remorseful and open. [The subhead of her piece, by the way, is “Nobody is mad at you for being white.”]

“But the point here is, if you’ve never been on the receiving end of a boss’ prejudiced, uninformed ‘how dare she question my ideas’ badmouthing based solely on his ego and your race, you have white privilege.”

If ever there was a compelling treatise on what goes on between the races inside our buildings of business as opposed to the far-more-combustible streets below, especially over the past year, this is it.

Hutcherson’s last example, especially, should give us all pause: Perhaps the only way to shore up the divides, even at their most subtle, is to start — whether we’re the CEO, the head of HR or a direct supervisor — by admitting that certain behaviors or patterns of communication that are allowed to exist in business today are just wrong. Then start the conversation.

And then the training, if necessary.

Tweet This!

In HR Tech, All that Glitters is not Gold

After a week of bold pronouncements about things to come, one respected observer wrapped up this year’s HR Technology Conference & Exposition with a sober warning: New software isn’t always the answer.

Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and veteran thought leader in human resources, urged executives to think critically about the practical benefits of shiny new HR technology.

The multibillion-dollar industry offers dazzling possibilities through applications of cutting-edge techniques such as artificial intelligence. But that doesn’t mean new software will always produce results worth the cost and effort, Cappelli warned.

“All kinds of things are possible,” he said in a closing keynote address in Chicago on Friday. “That doesn’t mean they’ll take over.”

Many in the business world believe the pace of technological change is faster than ever, and accelerating. That makes buzzword-laden vendor sales pitches tempting because they offer a chance to catch the edge of the next big wave. But Cappelli believes we overestimate the pace of real change.

To illustrate the point, he noted that offices are not much different today than they were a half-century ago. Word processing, for example, has been in offices since the 1980s. A visitor from that decade to a modern office “wouldn’t be surprised by that much,” Cappelli said.

He said experts in the subject generally agree that the pace of technological change in recent decades is slower than in the 1960s – with transistors, for example, and sweeping advances in chemistry. The pace was even quicker in the 1910s, with telephones, radios and automobiles transforming business in fundamental ways. “Now that was dramatic technological change,” he said. The social-media revolution of recent years, by contrast, “didn’t change the way people live.”

Many innovations fail to catch on because they turn out to be too expensive or too hard to use. One example: VCRs. Once they were expected to eliminate TV commercials because viewers would skip over commercials. But most consumers could never figure out how to program their machines, Cappelli noted.

That’s not to say that software hasn’t transformed business, of course. Certain innovations have been particularly important to HR: file-sharing technologies that allow outsourcing, for example. Others include job boards and their successors, enterprise resource planning programs and LinkedIn as a tool to find candidates.

But Cappelli urged caution in adopting platforms that promise dramatic results from “big data,” “machine learning”or “predictive analytics.” Those techniques have value in some settings, Cappelli said. But deriving valuable insights from a complex analysis of HR data often will cost too much and take too long. In the end “you might find something – you might not.”

Cappelli’s prescription is for HR leaders to focus first on what problem they are trying to solve, and get the data needed for a straightforward solution. Instead of focusing on employee engagement under the assumption that engagement improves performance, for example, employers might be better advised to just study what characterizes high-performing workers, he said.

Solutions that allow organizations to standardize, organize and simplify their data often make sense, Cappelli said. One example: Switching from a rating-based performance management system to one based on frequent manager check-ins cries out for technology to properly organize records of those conversations.

Cappelli also thinks dashboards are valuable – digital tools to measure what is happening with a workforce in real time. They can give HR leaders early warning of trouble or important trends.

In the end, Cappelli says, employers need to take a back-to-basics approach before splurging on advanced analytic capacities with uncertain potential.

“If you want to spend some money, you want to spend it first figuring out your own data, figuring out who is a good employee,” he said. “If you don’t have that, ‘machine learning’ isn’t going to do anything for you.”


Tweet This!

What’s Driving Engagement

Engagement continues to be a hot topic. So I guess it’s no surprise to find at least two vendors at this year’s HR Tech Conference unveiling research studies on the topic.

thinkstockphotos-460766179For starters, Oracle released its first Global Engagement Study earlier this week.

According to feedback from 5,000 full-time employees at a variety of organizations, 40 percent of the respondents said their employers could do more to leverage technology to better enable them to do their jobs.

Employees as consumers are more plugged into technology than ever—so they expect the same level of accessibility at work that they get in their personal lives, says Gretchen Alarcon, group vice president of HCM product strategy at Oracle.

The research found that the quality of the digital working experience impacts how much employees feel they are empowered to do their job.

As you might expect, the research also revealed leadership can be a huge driver when it comes to engagement.

“One of things we learned is that leadership availability really matters,” says Alarcon. “Do employees have the ability to ask questions? Are they approachable? Do they feel trusted [by their leaders]? All of these can have a direct impact on engagement.”

The study, based on 4,706 interviews conducted earlier this year by Kantar TNS, found that 47 percent of the respondents consider their leaders visible and approachable and 44 percent have confidence in the company’s leadership, suggesting that plenty of room for improvement remains.

Meanwhile, Ultimate Software released the results of its 2016 National Study on Satisfaction at Work survey, a study of 1,000 American workers conducted this summer by The Center for Generational Kinetics. This study found that trust, open communication and development opportunities play an increasingly important role in influencing employee satisfaction and commitment. Indeed, these factors typically had equal or greater importance than compensation or financial motivators.

“What the research showed us was that the No. 1 driver of employee satisfaction is how companies treat their employees,” says Adam Rogers, chief technology officer of Ultimate. (Rogers shared some of the findings in an Ideas & Innovators presentation at the conference earlier today.)

Exactly three-quarters of the employees surveyed said they were more likely to stay with a company longer if their concerns were heard and addressed, and 73 percent said they were more likely feel satisfied with their organization if it were to invest in their development.

Their level of satisfaction especially depended on how they were treated by their direct manager, even more so than how they were treated by the organization’s top leaders.

Often, Rogers notes, companies will devote resources to developing executives, but the research suggests that they might be better served if they focus on developing managers.

Tweet This!

Why is Recruiting So Hard?

ThinkstockPhotos-179039030Four panelists at the HR Technology Conference — all of them from recruiting vendors — struggled to answer the question on so many minds these days: Given all the technological advances during the last 20 years, why is recruiting still such a frustrating experience for many jobseekers and employers?

Part of the problem may be technology itself, said panelist Jennifer Seith, CareerBuilder’s vice president for software solutions during the session, which was titled “Two Decades, Four Tech Revolutions and Billions of Dollars Later — Why is Hiring Still So Hard?” and moderated by Kris Dunn, CHRO of Kinetix and author of the Human Capitalist blog. “Sometimes technology  overcomplicate things,” she said. Further complicating matters, she added later on, is the fact that the people who buy recruiting systems are often not the end users of those systems, with the result that recruiters find themselves forced to use something that they find burdensome and unhelpful, that’s overloaded with features they didn’t ask for. “You can buy an ATS, but there’s no guarantee people will use it,” she said. “Pay attention to what your people need in order for them to solve problems.”

Seith and Colin Day, founder and CEO of iCIMS, said the market is oversaturated with too many vendors. “How many vendors came along, showed a lot of promise initially and then either fizzled out or got acquired by a much larger vendor? I think we vendors can’t recuse ourselves from blame for what’s going on,” said Day.

“Why are so many people less than fully satisfied with their ATS?” asked Dunn.

“The ATS is still a really important, fundamental part of recruiting,” said Day. “But we’ve got to stop putting so much reliance on the ATS — it’s a system of record, but you need much more than that. You need to building up your sourcing pools, improve your recruitment marketing, strengthen onboarding.”

What’s needed, he said, is to move beyond Software as a Service to “Platform as a Service,” an open system that lets companies add their own tools and applications to an existing cloud-based platform that is hosted and maintained by a vendor.

“The open-platform ATS is critical, because it allows all sorts of innovative companies plug into it to help the ATS be even better and add more value,” said Jon Bischke, CEO of Entelo.

Later on during the session, Dunn asked the panel when they expected technology to be able to make better hiring decisions than people, and whether people would ever be comfortable giving up that amount of control.

“I think we’re already there,” said Mark Newman, founder and CEO of HireVue. “The selection process we use is very flawed. If we built cars the way we hire people, then those cars would explode as soon as you turned the ignition.”

Bischke said the recruiting community should be most embarrassed by the unconscious bias that pervades hiring. “So why not let technology strip out information that would indicate race, gender and nationality, because so many companies have biases.”

Asked what companies should do to get recruiters to make greater use of the ATS and other tools, Newman said they should focus on giving recruiters solutions that would help them make better use of their time.

“Something like 40 percent of a recruiter’s time is wasted on things like chasing after hiring managers, scheduling interviews, trying to get feedback,” he said. “So why not take all the parts of their job that don’t add value and use technology to get rid of [those tasks]?”


Tweet This!

Engaging the Talent of Tomorrow

ThinkstockPhotos-494940180Diane Gherson, CHRO at IBM Corp., laughs when she recalls the role technology played in improving the employee experience when she first joined the Armonk, N.Y.-based technology giant 14 years ago.

At that time, she says, managers received emails notifying them when team members’ birthdays were coming up, for example.

“And that was really exciting,” Gherson told the audience at this morning’s opening session at the HR Technology Conference at Chicago’s McCormick Place.

Now, she says, managers receive frequent messages with much more information on their employees. For instance, managers get notes telling them that a given employee hasn’t received recognition for his or her role in, say, a special project.

Gherson’s example was just one illustration of how technology has changed the way managers and employees do their jobs at IBM. As part of this morning’s “Engaging and Retaining the Talent of Tomorrow” panel discussion, moderated by Emmy and Peabody Award-winning journalist and Starfish Media Group CEO Soledad O’Brien, Gherson was one of four HR executives sharing the stage, and sharing insights into how the employee experience continues to change, and how HR is using technology to meet changing employee expectations.

Along with Dermot O’Brien, CHRO at ADP, Scott Pitasky, executive vice president and chief partner resources officer at Starbucks, and Francine Katsoudas, chief people officer at Cisco Systems, the assembled HR leaders also examined recent research findings that illuminate just how much those expectations are changing.

ADP’s recent Evolution of Work study found, for example, that 58 percent of workers saying they believe that traditional hierarchical structures in the workplace will soon be a thing of the past. The survey also found 95 percent of employees saying they believe they will soon be able to work from anywhere.

The number of workers who anticipate working where and when they choose presents opportunities as well as challenges, says Katsoudas.

At Cisco, “we believe in a concept that everything good happens in teams,” Katsoudas told the audience.

That said, teams can still thrive while working in disparate locations, she adds. Katsoudas and the Cisco HR team has focused on helping managers “really connect with their team members, and really connect them with the strengths of their individual team members.”

For example, managers rely on the company’s talent management platform to check in to see how their team members are progressing on a given project or task, and tweak their roles if need be. Managers can also send brief surveys to their direct reports, to get a feel for the level of engagement throughout their teams, and solicit suggestions on how to improve the employee experience.

As how, when and where employees work continues to change, “technology can actually reconnect us to the workforce,” says ADP’s O’Brien.

And, “it provides us with enough data,” adds Gherson, “to help us find ways to make the employee experience better.”

Tweet This!

Citi’s Search for Innovation

There are plenty of tried and true ways to identify hot new HR technologies for your organization. Of course, you can attend events thinkstockphotos-489083454such as the HR Technology Conference and Expo, where this year more than 400 companies are demonstrating and sharing their solutions. Or you can read HRE, which regularly covers innovative new human resource tools, including its annual Top HR Products Awards.

But as attendees at an HR Tech Conference session titled “The Smarter Worklife Challenge: Transforming Software Selection to Drive Innovation” learned yesterday, HR leaders can also take a less traditional path.

Last fall, New York-based Citi, with the help of PwC, launched its first-ever Smarter Worklife Challenge, a competition aimed at uncovering innovative digital HR solutions, particularly those being developed by smaller entities that might not be on Citi’s radar.

As PwC Global Head of HR Disruptive Technology Bryon Abramowitz explained, Citi cast as wide a net as possible with the goal of identifying eight innovative solutions in eight different HR categories: recruitment, onboarding, real-time feedback and career development, training and mobility, connecting/social, predictive analytics, executive management and undetermined (essentially, anything else that didn’t fall in the other categories).

A total of 231 companies entered the competition by sending in a short three-to-five-minute video that explained the benefits and value of their solution. Judges reviewed the entries and selected 19 they felt deserved to go to the next step, which was to demo their solution at a one-day event held on Feb. 11 in the Tribeca section of Manhattan. All of them were assigned a coach, who helped them prepare their pitch.

“Many of the participants were small vendors,” Jeff Bienstock, global head of HR technology at Citi, pointed out. “But they were very innovative and creative.”

The competition gave these companies the rare opportunity to make their pitch in front of a company the size of Citi. Teams that made the final cut shared a cash award of up to $50,000, but as Abramowitz noted, the real prize was a contract with Citi, along with the feedback and experience they received as a result of going through the process.

To arrive at the final eight, Citi live-streamed the demos to potential users, who, along with those present in the room, rated them in real time.

Each winning vendor was also given an internal executive sponsor to help ensure funding and provide direction.

According to a press release issued by Citi, the Smarter Worklife Challenge award recipients included: Rocketrip (an employee-rewards solution), Infolio (a digital-workplace solution), Cooleaf (an employee-connectivity solution), Agolo (a business-intelligence solution), Butterfly (an employee-feedback solution), Yandiki (a people-management solution), HRIZONS (a career-information-management solution), GamEffective (an employee-gamification solution) and Starmind (an employee-choice award).

Of the final eight, Bienstock said, two decided not to move forward, two are currently in contract and the remainder are at other stages of the process.

Tweet This!

Reassessing Engagement Surveys

At one time in the not-too-distant past, employees at Lloyd’s Banking Group were being asked to complete employee engagement surveys every three months or so, according to David Littlefield, the London-based bank’s group head of culture, engagement and insights.

“You can’t build an engaged workforce without affecting behavioral change,” Littlefield told attendees at a Wednesday afternoon session at HRE‘s HR Technology Conference.

Indeed. The problem with conducting such frequent surveys, however, “was that [the firm’s approximately 8,000] line managers weren’t gaining any new insights and didn’t have time to digest that much data and take action” on what the latest employee polls told them.

Thus, in 2015, HR at Lloyd’s developed and introduced its Building the Best Team Survey. Including between 60 and 65 questions overall, this new survey added more open-ended questions to the mix, “to give employees an opportunity to talk about what they like and don’t like” about their jobs, and about their roles within the organization.

The goal of adding such new queries was to gain insight into how employees felt in four areas: their satisfaction with their role in the company, their pride in their work, their likelihood to be an advocate for the organization and their intent to stay with Lloyd’s, explains Littlefield.

In addition to internal variables, outside factors can impact employee engagement as well, says Littlefield. External factors such as current economic climates and media coverage of the industry, he adds, are especially vital to perceptions of firms within the financial sector, and some questions were designed to gauge how employees’ views of Lloyd’s culture are affected by how the organization and the industry is depicted outside of the company.

Polling employees less frequently and seeking more substantial input has paid off, says Littlefield.

Currently hovering between 85 percent and 88 percent, “participation rates [for employee engagement surveys] have never been higher,” he says, adding that overall employee engagement scores have increased by 11 percentage points since 2014.  Part of the reason for this rise is attributable to allowing managers to revamp employees’ roles to better match their skills and help them achieve “what they want to get out of their work,” based on responses from the annual survey.

“When we share data from engagement surveys with managers, we tell them to think about that data for a few days, and figure out how they can help employees get energized and engaged,” continues Littlefield. “We’ve found that managers don’t want to talk about the science behind engagement scores, they want insight that they can take action on.”




Tweet This!