Talent Edge Weekly - Issue #104

This February issue of Gartner’s HR Leaders Monthly includes six articles on a range of critical talent and workplace topics. The articles are 1) 3 Steps Regional and Business Unit HR Heads Must Take to Advance to CHRO, 2) 3 Steps to Improve Leadership Bench Strength Amid Disruption, 3) Risks and Opportunities for D&I Leaders in 2022, 4) CHROs Also Need a More Human Deal With Themselves, 5) How to Redefine Total Rewards for the Hybrid Workforce and 6) How to Accelerate Talent Outcomes Through HR Technology in 2022. Regarding #4 (begins on p.21), this article addresses how the benefits of hybrid work and location flexibility also create challenges for total rewards leaders in four areas; one challenge is determining whether to adjust the pay of employees that move to lower cost-of-living areas. I mentioned in a previous post how firms have taken different stances on this topic. While Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Google will base pay on geographic location, smaller companies, including Reddit and Zillow, have shifted to location-agnostic pay models. As shown on p.22 of the Gartner article, respondent organizations take the following approaches when considering salary adjustments: a) Case-by-case (46%), b) One-Time Pay Increase/Reduction (31%), c) No Adjustment (23%), and d) Gradual Adjustment of Merit Increases (8%). Total rewards leaders will need to develop strategies to address the four hybrid work challenges.

As many firms get ready to conduct talent reviews in their organizations, these three resources by The Talent Strategy Group and Marc Effron can help leaders prepare. 1) Potential After the Pandemic addresses the question: should we change how we define and measure potential to align with the changing nature of work and workplace? The short answer is that the core components of potential, such as intellect and personality, still have the same power to predict potential as pre-pandemic; intellect accounts for 35 to 45%, and personality covers up to 25% of variances in potential. One factor that has likely changed in some individuals is their “motivation to invest discretionary time at work.”  2) Rethinking Potential: Should We Search for Hidden Gems, Shy-Po’s and Repressed Performers? One aspect of this article covers how organizations can uncover a hidden segment of high-potential talent: Shy-pos—those with more significant potential but go undetected for reasons such as being less vocal about career advancement or not being “showcased” to decision-makers. I would add that one reason those with high potential get overlooked (a false negative) is proximity bias—where one’s physical proximity to their team and company leaders can unfairly influence assessments of performance and potential. Building manager capability in this area can mitigate this bias. 3) Six Steps to Great Talent Reviews dives into ways to overcome challenges to executing effective talent reviews, ranging from overly complex processes, vague definitions of potential, ill-equipped HR leaders, and no follow-up.

This i4cp article looks at six ways its member organizations are shifting their succession management approaches to better align with a new world of work. One of these shifts is #4: More firms are moving away from using years (e.g., 1, 2, 3 years until ready) to determine successor readiness. Supporting this shift is a growing acknowledgment that people learn at different rates, which can be accelerated with high-impact development assignments. One approach I have seen firms employ to categorize successor readiness is “number of development moves away.” This approach emphasizes the critical experiences needed to speed up a successor’s readiness. While not mentioned in the article, another opportunity is for firms to reevaluate whether geographic location—requiring successors to be in the same office as their teams—is necessary in all cases. This traditional requirement might be relaxed in certain situations because of the rise of remote and hybrid work teams. Eliminating geographic criteria where possible broadens the succession pool and allows firms to tap into more diverse talent for leadership roles—a talent priority of many organizations. If geography is important when identifying successors, firms might want to segment their talent (including successors) using mobility categories, such as global: mobile to any location in the world;  regional: only mobile to locations within certain areas (U.S. only, Latin American only); local: not mobile and needs to remain in his or her current location. This tactic is mentioned by Allan Church in his article, Think Outside the 9-Box.

Many HR teams are modifying their talent practices and processes to enhance the employee experience and drive business value. And one way to achieve this goal is through simplification. However, as noted in this article, those responsible for improving a product, process, or service usually have an instinct to do so by “adding” versus “subtracting.” This instinct may translate into adding more features or extraneous information that can unintentionally diminish value and overall experience. And while adding might be the best solution in some cases, it should not be the default tactic. The article explores why people overlook subtraction (eliminating things) and offers suggestions to overcome the tendency to add. One tip mentioned is for teams’ to develop a list of ways to achieve the group’s goals by subtracting. This technique “provides implicit social support for employees who may otherwise avoid offering helpful subtractions, especially if people are withholding subtractive ideas because everyone else is adding.” I also believe that managers can reinforce the power of subtraction by recognizing workers that simplify what is complex while preserving or adding value; otherwise, workers might think the level of sophistication of a practice, idea, or process is the measure of success. At your next team meeting, ask: where are there opportunities to simplify practices and processes, and how we operate as a team? The answers might alleviate employee burnout and work overload—which often results from unnecessary complexity. For a good read on making it easier to do what matters the most, check out the book Effortless by Greg McKeown.

Organizations continue to face challenges in finding talent to meet their business needs. However, there is an overlooked talent pool that firms should increasingly consider. According to this The Wall Street Journal article, workers 65 and over in the US will account for more than 60% of projected labor-force growth from 2020-30. Before 2010, almost all labor-force growth was driven by ages 25-64. As life expectancy continues to expand and older workers seek employment opportunities out of choice or necessity, firms can entice this talent segment to work for them in the later stages of life. The article points out that older workers who have achieved life milestones have different career goals and motivations than other worker segments. For example, if older workers want greater flexibility in the number of hours worked, one tactic is breaking jobs down into tasks or projects to make them more attractive; pay and hours can then be adjusted accordingly. The article notes that attracting and retaining older workers will require organizations to offer benefits that are more aligned with older workers’ priorities. Example benefits include long-term-care insurance, unpaid sabbaticals, and the option to be a consultant for various projects throughout the year. Given that a disproportionately high number of older workers have retired early during the pandemic, firms can use this opportunity to attract these workers with a compelling employee value proposition. Does your organization’s talent strategy include a plan for attracting and retaining this worker segment?