Welcome to 2023 and my January newsletter (a short collection of the most interesting EX articles I’ve come across over the last months). As always, let me know what you make of them!
Actually, there’s a bit of a theme to this edition. That’s because the first two articles are both about systems thinking (something I’m very interested in):
In this HBR article Ludmila Praslova identifies the problem of trying to fix issues like burnout or bullying by focusing on individual behaviours and not context. I like the discussion of super-biases and mental shortcuts.
Alec Levenson has written a two-part series on systems diagnosis tools and techniques. I like his coaching guidelines such as: “Focus on perennial problems”; “Check for unintended consequences”; and “Look for root causes.”
Next up, I just really like this article by Zach Mercurio on “mattering”. His definition is “the belief that we’re significant to the world around us.” Zach explains why it’s important for your experience at work and how you can foster it. Here’s the link.
Shopify made a big noise when it announced it was going meeting-less. I really don’t like meetings (this will surprise no-one), so I was interested to learn what’s involved. The truth is more interesting and complex than the headline suggests. Click here for a great write up by Becky Kane.
I thought this was a good article by Ben Zweig, analysing the attrition risk at 3- and 12-months. Getting to your first anniversary really matters. I’m working with several companies at the moment to understand why that sometimes doesn’t happen often enough.
In December and January my LI feed is full of long lists of “new year trends and priorities”. I appreciated the simplicity of this list by Lynda Gratton as she identifies only two: 1) Check your assumptions about different generations in the workplace so you can bring people together; 2) Improve your understanding of how human skills and new technologies intersect.
The final article is a WTW one, summarising our new research into change leadership in high-performance companies. It answers the question: “What sets these Change Masters apart when it comes to employee experience?” The link is to a download form; if that’s too much faff, let me know and I will email you the report. 🙂
I assume you’re grateful that I haven’t mentioned Chat GPT even once. 🙂 (Of course, this edition could have been written by a bot; how would you tell?)
The biggest challenge facing organisations today is inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. What role can people analytics play in helping leaders and employees tackle these issues?
The biggest challenge facing organisations today is inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. In this presentation, I will ask a simple question: What role can people analytics play in helping leaders and employees tackle these issues?
Let’s start at the beginning:
HR has been doing analytics for a long time, but it’s fair to say that, in the main, HR analytics (or “people analytics”) has involved a lot of reporting.
That means counting things and measuring the effectiveness of programmes. A good deal of time has been spent on simply getting data about the workforce into shape (agreeing common definitions, cleaning data, and automating reporting).
So in 2016 Janet Marler and John Boudreau were correct, when they did a meta analysis of the field, in stating that people analytics was primarily focused on providing data for better decisions within HR.
The good news is that since then things have started to change. That relatively narrow description has been expanded. The variety of papers in this conference amply demonstrates that people analytics is evolving to address issues that provide far more value.
This shift is partly due to the pandemic. Covid gave organisations a fundamental employee experience “stress test”. HR has been asked to provide better analytics in order to help. Leaders want to know how employee experience is being affected and what this means for people management, performance development, teamwork, collaboration, and productivity.
Another important shift relates to how HR thinks about its own purpose and mission. The function is gradually evolving from an internally-focused and compliance-driven mindset. It’s becoming a more strategic function.
So Jonathan Ferrar and David Green are right to point out, in their recent book, that people analytics now is more focused on providing value. It’s about addressing business challenges and surfacing solutions. Those things need to help the business perform better, they need to support leaders with their priorities, and they should have value for employees too.
So what I want to do in this session is put that to the test. I want to think about how people analytics can provide value when it comes to addressing the biggest challenge facing, organisations, leaders and employees right now.
For sure, the biggest organisational and people challenge at the moment is rising inflation and the cost-of-living of crisis.
Employers are facing a very tough set of problems. You know the headlines. Inflation is the highest it’s been in 40 years. At the same time growth is low. And on top of that the labour market is tricky. There’s a lot of turnover and companies are finding it hard to attract people with the skills they need.
In our research, we see that three-quarters of companies are finding it hard to retain and recruit employees with digital skills and 63% of employers say the same about professional staff in general. In order to fill gaps, most companies have stepped up their recruitment efforts.
In addition, employers are facing pressure from unions and other stakeholders. In the UK, the number of strikes is already at a decades-long high.
For all these reasons, “inflation and financial/market instability” is the Number 1 concern for CEOs (according to the Summer 2022 Fortune/Deloitte CEO Survey.)
From an employee perspective, of course, things are also very difficult:
Employees are under pressure. As an example, again according to our research, 36% of employees say they’re living from pay cheque to pay cheque. One-on-three say financial problems are having a negative impact.
36% of employees are living pay cheque to pay cheque
There’s a cost for individuals and businesses to this. At an individual level, financial wellbeing and anxiety impacts people’s physical, social, and emotional wellbeing too. For businesses, there are operational costs, such as absence and presenteeism (and perhaps “Quiet Quitting”). Of course, people are also more likely to move jobs if they can pick up even a small pay increase.
If you look at the data that sits behind the headline of a “Great Resignation” then it appears there are a lot of people making sideways moves. Some of this may be because people are re-evaluating their job after lockdown. It’s also very likely due to this urgent need to earn more as living costs rise.
In response, employers are having to react. These are some of the changes companies are making:
They’re targeting salary increases and offering one-off payments and they’re investing in broader support and assistance for employees.
These changes are potentially expensive and in some cases they’re being made quickly as an urgent response to events. Rather than being evidence-based, they’re sometimes driven by anecdote and leaders’ instinct. What’s often missing is an understanding of motivation that’s rooted in behavioural science.
What’s often missing is an understanding of motivation that’s rooted in behavioural science
Surely there’s a role for great analytics here?
Let’s begin by trying to break things down a little and to consider the kinds of questions we might want to answer:
At the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, what are our known-knowns and known-unknowns? More specifically, when it comes to total-rewards, what are we spending money on and are these the things that employees really value?
By total rewards, I mean three things:
Foundational elements like pay and benefits
Performance-based components like merit-increases and incentives
Plus career and environmental dimensions, such as learning and development
Take just benefits, for a moment. In my experience, established companies often have programmes that are designed for their legacy workforce rather than the needs of their future and up-and-coming talent. As such, it’s possible that you’re spending money on things that your mission-critical talent doesn’t really value. This is obviously a waste.
Benefits needs and preferences aren’t static; they change with the times.
One example is how employees’ views about private health in the UK have changed following the pandemic. Health insurance has been seen as a benefit for senior leaders. But there’s growing interest generally in health plans as people struggle to see their GP and get appointments on the NHS. By being more innovative when it comes to health plans both employees and employers can “win”.
Another example is “green benefits”. These can include things like supporting people to buy electric cars or introducing cycling-to-work schemes or investing pensions in sustainably-focused funds. These can help with your overall Net Zero commitments and they’re a way of tapping into the energy that your employees have about climate action.
As well as understanding needs and costs we should also ask ourselves if we’re incentivising the right behaviours. Specifically, are we driving high engagement and motivation? Are we encouraging collaboration and innovation? Are we doing enough to encourage people (that we want to stay) to grow a career here?
And there are other important considerations, such as ensuring we’re building an organisation that’s inclusive and where rewards and recognition are aligned to our values.
What these questions show is that you need to think systemically about total rewards. The danger is that you might “fix” one problem over here, just to create another problem somewhere else.
That’s enough theory.
How can you operationalise this kind of thinking?
The first question we should try to answer is what it is that people really need and want when it comes to their total rewards (so that we’re not simply responding reflexively to problems as and when they occur).
It makes sense to begin with, “what do we already know?” It might be a lot. For example, you know take up rates for benefits and you have feedback on providers, and you can look at data from your Employee Assistance Programmes, and so on.
But even with all that, you may still not be able to answer the question fully.
So you can ask people — through surveys and focus groups, for example. Surveys can be of various degrees of sophistication. We sometimes use Max-Diff surveys in order to force choices.
I find focus groups valuable. We often run them virtually (using a chat-based tool). They provide rich insights and a deep understanding of preferences. However, it’s hard to connect that feedback to specific cost data.
In terms of what you may or may not know already, here’s an example: I’m currently working with a very large tech company that has vast quantities of information about and from their people. I mean “enormous”. They are super data rich. They run very frequent pulse surveys using a survey widget tool. They run lots of polls. They have masses of open feedback on internal social media. They have input from Employee Resource Groups. They get insights from team huddles and other events. But having sifted through it none of it is specific enough to help them answer the exam question for total rewards: “What do employees really need and want?” It’s all noise and no signal.
So if this is the case for you too, how do you get a clear signal — what’s another option?
The approach that we find most useful is conjoint, which you may or may not be familiar with.
In case you’re not, then adaptive conjoint was first used in the 1980s in market research. It’s a way of testing different product attributes to estimate a preference score. It yields better information than asking people about each attribute individually.
That’s because a conjoint survey asks you to make trade offs between different sets of choices. The software is adaptive in that it tries to be efficient by testing the most relevant choices based on earlier responses.
There are two elements. You have to design a Reward Matrix with different rewards and options (typically decrease, stay the same, and increase). You can, of course, also calculate the cost of these options.
And then a conjoint survey tests those in combination. It’s a very different experience from an opinion survey. You have to make some tough choices. And the communication of the survey is important since you’re talking about people’s reward and you’re presenting options where it can decrease.
After running a conjoint survey, you can then use the results to understand the perceived value of different reward elements. This is the second step in what we call Total Rewards Optimization (TRO).
You can run a simulation of the impact on the perceived value of potential reward changes and the implications for costs. Effectively, these are “What-If Analyses”.
For example, are there simple changes that don’t cost much that would be greatly valued? Are there expensive programmes you’re paying for that people don’t actually value very much?
Are there simple changes that don’t cost much that would be greatly valued? Are there expensive programmes you’re paying for that people don’t actually value very much?
The graph on the right (above) shows the change in value for different reward elements and the associated cost
You can also segment the results for different talent and demographic groups. Are you offering rewards that are valued by your long-tenured employees, but not so much by new, younger hires? Can you build a better understanding of the needs and preferences of those critical talent groups you’re struggling to retain or attract?
As a third step, you can then build a model of all the potential options. In this graph, the cost or investment is shown on the horizontal / x-axis and the perceived value on the vertical / y-axis. It also shows an efficient frontier — based on plotting the most efficient allocations at various cost levels.
This means you can find your total rewards “sweet spot”.
For example, that could be spending the same amount of money, but increasing value. Or it could be spending less, because you need to cut cost, but doing so in a way that preserves value. Or perhaps you want to increase value and don’t mind spending a bit more in order to maximise talent retention. The point is that these are options based on analytics rather than instinct.
And typically we run an online simulation that’s used to build different portfolios as an aid to decision-making in a workshop setting:
It’s worth reflecting that traditionally, decisions on rewards have been set from the top-down (think budgets cascading through a hierarchy). The approach I’m outlining here to TRO is about building-in an understanding of employee needs to make sure you’re aware of the impact of those decisions on engagement and behaviour. It’s about understanding and mitigating risks. It’s also about involving people and capturing employee voice.
TRO is about building-in an understanding of employee needs to make sure you’re aware of the impact of those decisions on engagement and behaviour
So that’s the analytics. What happens to those findings? How are they turned into actions?
Here are a couple of examples.
In this first case (below) the analysis was turned into programme changes. This is a large global organisation that was struggling with turnover. Through the analysis they realised they had been too concerned by those foundational elements of total rewards (like pay) and that they weren’t paying sufficient attention to elements like Learning & Development. The analysis was able to quantify the impact of focusing more on L&D which meant there was a business case for investing in some of the programmes shown here. And there was indeed a payoff. Turnover dropped and engagement increased and they saved some money.
This second example is a recent and topical one. It’s from another large organisation that had a focus on recruitment, especially graduates and experienced hires:
In this case, the review of total rewards highlighted a need for more than programme changes. The top priority was actually financial wellbeing — things like assistance, education and tools on topics like clearing debt, building up savings, and applying for a mortgage.
They built a microsite to deliver employees with a semi-personalised experience. Effectively, as an employee, after answering some questions, you’re given a “score” and directed to particular resources that are relevant for your situation.
Their curriculum was based around four life stages. It mainly delivers financial education (as opposed to advice — although you can imagine “robo-advice” being deployed in the future).
It’s proven to be very popular. The resources are all “bite size”, so the average user visit only lasts around 15 minutes. And the peak time of day for accessing the portal is between 5pm and 6pm, in other words as people are transitioning from core working hours. Of course, everything is mobile-first.
The tool and the curriculum has continued to evolve based on feedback.
It’s also part of a broader shift in communications that the company is building out over time, whereby employees are delivered a personalised employee experience. In other words, rather than employees hunting for information on an intranet, as is typical in most places, it’s about delivering content that’s relevant to you, on your phone, in the moments that matter for you.
It’s worth building this point out a little. If people analytics is about providing value to the business and employees, then at heart it’s about improving employee experience (EX).
That might be a bit of a controversial statement here and it certainly requires a longer discussion. But if you ask me “what is people analytics for?” then my answer is “transforming employee experience”.
If you ask me “what is people analytics for?” then my answer is “transforming employee experience”
When I talk about employee experience, I’m including total rewards as one of the core dimensions of EX alongside the work itself, the sense of purpose you get from your job, and the culture and climate of the organisation you work for.
When it comes to thinking this way, there are always three steps to take when “Utilising People Analytics To Provide Deeper Insights”:
The first is to begin by really understanding employee needs; this is also a great way to start involving people of course
The second is to use those insights to help prioritise and plan changes; your “organisational compass points” here are your people strategy, your values, and your EVP
The third is to spark behaviour change through people leadership capability and technology; again involvement is key through design-thinking, testing and iteration
Of course, this all needs to be aligned to some kind of ambition or “blueprint”.
When you start thinking this way, you can broaden your horizons further.
Organisations have traditionally considered people’s experience at work quite narrowly. The focus is on roles, levels, training, compensation, benefits, etc. But it’s just as important to think about what those things mean in human terms.
The goal is to translate ”employee experience” and “the deal” into how I think about “my health, my wealth, and my career”.
When providing value to employees (as well as the business) it’s really about helping me achieve success at work and in life (however I define that.)
So, I’ve covered an awful lot of ground in this talk. But this is where some of my clients that are using people analytics to transform EX are heading.
They’re using people analytics to transform EX through human-centred design that’s based on a deep understanding of needs and wants.
Using people analytics to transform EX through human-centred design that’s based on a deep understanding of needs and wants
This presentation — or at least a version of it, as I skipped around a bit — was given to the HR Analytics Summit in London on the 8th of September 2022.
I’m moving my informal newsletter online as the number of recipients has grown. It’s the same format – a short selection of very best EX articles I’ve come across over the last months. Hopefully, this saves you from spending time scrolling through LinkedIn and Twitter.
Here you go:
The Four Levers of Employee Experience
Stacia Garr, who runs Red Thread Research, has written a great review of EX approaches. The four levers are: 1) A clear philosophy; 2) A supportive culture; 3) Clear accountability; and 4) An aligned measurement approach.
EX is all about closing the trust gap that exists in most organisations, so I enjoyed Dave Ulrich’s list of eight specific actions leaders can take “to break the trust/truth erosion cycle.”
“Sense of connection” is a very big topic, especially as people plan for the future of hybrid working. This article by Gianni Giacomelli is interesting because it looks at the importance of networks: “Good people who fail to create a strong network in their company can end up leaving.”
Gustavo Razzetti’s new book (“Remote Not Distant: Design a Company Culture That Will Help You Thrive in a Hybrid Workplace”) is a blinder. It’s full of practical steps and templates, beginning with “understanding mindsets” and moving through to “releasing agility”. A highly recommended addition to your summer reading list.
HPEX and Hybrid
I’ve also written about employee experience and flex work in this article in People Matters. I summarise quite a bit of our recent research into high performance EX.
Here’s the latest version of my informal newsletter, containing a short selection of the very best EX articles I’ve come across over the last few months (so you don’t have to slog through LI or Twitter).
First up is a terrific HBR article by Diane Gherson and Lynda Gratton on how overwhelmed many managers are and what to do about it. In our data we’re seeing more and more evidence of manager burnout. It’s often a systemic problem that’s fixed by rethinking the role of people leader. There is some great advice in this piece: building people leadership skills, simplifying work, and job redesign. Related to this, I am working on a number of “Manager 180s” for clients at the moment that provide tailored developmental feedback to people leaders at all levels. It’s a great use of our listening platform (and often not part of a traditional “listening strategy”).
I’m a long-time fan of Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore, the authors of The Experience Economy, one of my favourite books. I really like their latest article on transforming jobs to create more compelling employee experiences. Too much of the discussion about the Future of Work focuses on automation, cost-saving, and efficiency (the transactional side of work). It’s good to be reminded of the opportunity to invest in people, engagement, and trust (by transforming jobs).
This is an interesting article by Ayelet Fishbach on how moderate emotional discomfort can be a signal that you’re developing as a person. It often happens before you can actually detect the benefits of self-growth. In other words, short-term discomfort can be a sign you’re making progress towards long-term gains. Ayelet is author of the book “Get It Done: Surprising Lessons from the Science of Motivation”.
The final pair of articles are both reflections on what has happened over the last 2-3 years:
Here, Eric McNulty focuses on leadership. He sets out a simple process of “sensing-responding-adapting” in order to be agile enough to respond to uncertainty and shocks. I think it’s a very powerful (and simple) framework:
Over the last few months, we have been doing a lot of work on the connection between culture and EX, and that’s reflected in the content below. Both topics are top of mind for many leaders I’m working with. I think this is because there are just so many things happening that are impacting trust at work – witness “The Great Resignation” – that it’s important to reflect on key principles about purpose and alignment.
I like this idea of “a people-centered operating system” from Vivek Sharma, with a focus on goal setting, learning, and culture. In this short article, he argues that the future of work is really about the future of talent, which is something I strongly agree with: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/376749
Here is the Summer edition of my EX newsletter; a selection of the key EX articles I’ve come across over the last few months.
@nickl4
Why Trust Is the Future of the Employee Experience
So much has been written about EX and making hybrid working work! But I really like this short and optimistic article by Gethin Nadin. “One of the biggest lessons businesses learned from the pandemic was that employees can be trusted. As we begin to recover and prepare for new ways of working, it’s critical for employers to sustain this trust and build an employee experience founded on autonomy and choice.”
Daniel Kahneman’s new book Noise (about the variability of human judgement) has been getting a lot of press. In this short LI piece, Anna Tavis asks “What does it mean for HR?” and concludes “We may consider adding the “noise audit” to our organizational tool kit and revisit our relationship with algorithms as partners on the people experience journey.”
The Pandemic Did Not Affect Mental Health the Way You Think
This was a really interesting article in The Atlantic. The pandemic has led to real struggles for many people and many companies (also see below), but at the same time there has been an astonishing degree of resilience, which in itself holds key lessons.
We have been busy with new WTW research. We have just published the results of a major external survey of employee experience. The pandemic has put many organisations under stress and we have looked at those companies that have been able to respond the best, because they have a transformative approach to EX. I have put some of our slides here if you’d like to see them (hot off the press!)
I have also written a couple of articles recently: The first is about how UK companies have responded to the FRC changes on board oversight of employee engagement. The second is on why co-creation and involvement are at the heart of EX activation.
How have companies responded to changes in the Corporate Governance Code and what does that tell us about the state of employee engagement?
@nickl4
Successive UK governments have made a priority of employee engagement. This has involved task forces and reports, and in 2018 it included revising the Corporate Governance Code of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC).
If you’re not familiar with it, the code is part of UK company law. First established in 1992, it sets out standards of good practice for listed companies who have to either “comply or explain”.
When the code was updated in 2018, it included for the first time a specific requirement for boards to ensure there is effective workforce engagement.
What does this mean? To quote from the guidance that accompanies the code: “Engagement through a range of formal and informal channels helps the workforce to share ideas and concerns with senior management and the board. It provides useful feedback about business practices from those delivering them, and can help empower colleagues.”
This may sound bland, but it’s indicative of an important shift whereby boards are more on the hook for culture, engagement, and people issues in general. This rightly reflects a sharper focus on human capital and the contribution of intangibles to business success.
It’s worth noting that the FRC will soon become the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA) — with the aim of being a stronger regulator. It’s likely that workforce and stakeholder engagement, along with environmental and social responsibility, will continue to grow in importance.
In practical terms, the updated code stated that companies should use one or more of the following methods:
A Non-Executive Director (NED) who is on point for engagement issues
A workforce panel to provide advice to board members
An employee director who is appointed from the workforce.
There was a loophole. Companies can opt for “alternative arrangements” as long as they can show they’re effective.
The revised code came into operation in January 2019. Our research at that time indicated that companies were not in a rush to do anything major. The most likely option was the first one — not surprisingly, the easiest.
Companies have now had a period of time to respond and a very useful report has come out that provides a clear picture of what’s been done.
The report is by Chris Rees and Patrick Briône who collected feedback from 280 of the companies in the FTSE 350.
From the FRC
The report shows that, as predicted, most companies have taken the easier option. In fact, most firms describe the changes they have made as an evolution of what they were already doing.
According to the study, 40% of companies have appointed a NED, 12% have established an advisory panel, and 16% have appointed a NED in combination with setting up an advisory panel. Only one company has installed a director appointed from the workforce (joining four firms that already had them).
From the FRC
Others have adopted alternative approaches instead. These have mostly been listening activities, such as focus groups, informal conversations with employees, and engagement surveys.
This confirms my experience, that the code has breathed new life into engagement surveys. Even though their demise has long been predicted, engagement surveys are actually having a bit of a renaissance.
Even when a NED has been appointed, engagement surveys feature prominently in their remit. According to the study, “Many firms report the role of the NED as being to ‘complement the engagement survey’, with the NED responsible for the provision of feedback to the board on the results.”
Other NED activities include:
Site visits
Town halls
Meeting with small groups of employees
Focus groups
Reviewing messages received through the whistle-blowing system
NEDs come from a range of backgrounds, but mostly general management. Around 1-in-5 have worked in HR previously. Half of NEDs had no specific experience of workforce engagement prior to their appointment. The report’s authors note that the process for appointing NEDs is very unclear.
When it comes to advisory panels, they meet at least twice a year. Someone from the board or from management (usually the HR director) attends and often chairs the meetings. They then give a formal report back to the board.
Panel discussions cover a wide range of topics, such as:
Flexible working
Mental health and well being
Workplace facilities and working environment
Strategy, purpose, culture and values
Diversity and inclusion
Career development
Pay and bonuses
Climate change and sustainability
Again, according to the study, engagement surveys feature prominently in panel discussions: “There is an emphasis on panels supporting engagement surveys, with firms referring to panels providing ‘valuable input into action plans’ following annual survey results.”
In terms of who is on these panels, the most common approach is management appointees from different functions and business units. They are often nominated by line managers; not chosen by employees.
The least popular option — by far — is employee directors. This is despite the fact that it was a much-trumpeted idea in the discussions that led up to the revised code’s launch.
One firm with employee directors is Capita. According to reports, nearly 400 colleagues applied to take on one of two director roles, which “pay £64,500 a year on top of their day job’s salary.” Two long-serving employees were appointed in 2019 and put through training on topics such as investor relations. According to the CEO, Jon Lewis, the employee directors provide an “unvarnished view of the operational and strategic challenges facing the company.” As one of the employee directors themselves put it: “I think we’ve raised things that would not otherwise have been discussed in a boardroom.”
Standing back from the specific arrangements, what’s also notable is how companies have gone about deciding on their approach to workforce engagement in the first place. As the report points out: “In the vast majority of cases, the workforce themselves were not involved in the decision regarding how the firm responded to the code. This is itself an indication of a lack of workforce voice in strategic discussions.”
So what does all this tell us about the state of employee engagement?
Of course, the last year has been far from normal. The pandemic has impacted all aspects of organisational life. Companies that were slow off the blocks have not been able to make up lost ground.
Keeping this in mind, here are three observations:
A significant rump of firms are doing close to the minimum. Effectively, they’re complying, so they don’t have to explain. The report is a reminder that there is still this low-maturity group of companies in the UK, doing as little as possible and only because they have to. The code is designed to drive improvement in this long-tail over time. That’s a good thing, as these organisations are under-prepared in terms of how they enable their talent, drive transformation, and remain competitive in the future.
Further along the maturity curve are companies that are trying new things. They are placing more emphasis on employee feedback and involving people in changes. This shift is key. A stronger focus on employee voice is positive, but it needs to be part of a more strategic approach to employee experience activation. I have written elsewhere about how co-creation and involvement are at the heart of how you go about building a high-performance EX. It’s positive that a good number of organisations are already taking steps in this direction.
Leading organisations are already far ahead of the pack. Moreover, the distance from the rump group to best-in-class firms is staggering. They are operating in different worlds. In mature, employee-intelligent organisations, feedback is translated from moment-in-time insights into a deep understanding of critical talent and the employee life cycle. HR takes a design-thinking approach to activating employee experience. This means maximising the value of key episodes and moments. They do this through prototyping and testing, from learning what’s working well and what’s not, and through rapid iteration. People managers understand their role in delivering experiences that build trust in the future.
So how will things develop from here?
The report suggests that the UK government will continue to champion employee engagement. It’s still a hot topic, as it connects many different areas that are seen as critical to the future of work.
From the government’s perspective, workforce engagement also provides a comfortable compromise, since it encourages stakeholder involvement without supporting direct worker representation.
The report’s authors themselves highlight the power of providing feedback directly to board members, so they can, in turn, make company management more accountable.
As a result, they predict the regulator will get more teeth: “As the FRC transitions to becoming a new regulator — the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority — it may receive further powers. Demands are likely to grow for companies to give greater priority to long-term sustainable business models which incorporate employee interests.”
If you want any advice on employee engagement strategies and how to create a world class approach to employee experience, please get in touch.
Here is my second EX Newsletter, containing a selection of the best EX articles of the last couple of months. The goal is that I act as a filter, so you don’t have to spend your time scrolling through LinkedIn and Twitter.
Employee experience continues to be a hot topic as organisations prepare for “what comes next”. What’s clear is that the pandemic has accelerated trends that were already apparent, such as work flexibility, building more fluid organisations, and supporting future talent.
I hope you find these articles interesting and useful. Let me know!
Sensible advice from Bruce Daisley on how to make hybrid working work. I think this is the best article I’ve seen on this and there have been lots (and many more to come I expect).
This is a terrific short article by Seema Padman on designing for and personalising inclusion. “Organisations must invest in designing systems, initiatives, cultures, technologies, policies, and workplaces that are based on behavioural insights that can result in inclusive outcomes.”
A case study of one of our clients, Clarins. They have been able to adapt through the pandemic by assembling squads (small, cross-functional, cross-hierarchical teams) to tackle big issues and to ask questions like, “What If?”
This is an interesting article by Gethin Nadin on the topic of HR policies – truly! It makes the point that in high-trust organisations, less can often be more.
