Category Archives: Data Point Tuesday

November 19, 2013 · 4:30 am

Kids Need Jobs, Too!

data point tuesday_500

When you think about our current economy you probably evaluate that we’re in a recovery period, a time in which the job market is slowly – very slowly – on the mend. You probably imagine employment rates on the rise, and would claim we’re faring considerably better than we were during the recent recession. And you’d be right. But for one group in our nation, this holds hauntingly, troublingly, untrue, and we need do our darnedest to figure out a solution because this is one important group of people:  they are our future.

A recent report by The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University and JAG (Jobs for America’s Graduates) examines in detail the employment outcomes of high school graduates from the class of 2012 who did not enroll in college, and the results were not positive. Employment rates for our nation’s teens over the last several years (all demographic, socio-economic, and schooling groups) have seen steep drops. These drops have been so steep that employment rates for teens have reached new historical lows for the post WWII period. High school students and young high school drop outs have seen the greatest differences in securing paid employment (of any type) in recent years and young high school graduates , especially those not enrolling in college in the fall after graduation, have seen both declining employment rates and a strongly reduced ability to secure full time work.

JAG Policy Brief #1

What’s concerning is the nature of these drops. Until recently the ability of America’s teens to obtain work has been fairly cyclical, with teen employment rates rising to above average during periods of job growth and falling during periods of recession. During the economic recovery of 2003-2007 however, teen employment rates did not see any significant rise, dropping from a rate of 70% in 2000 to 58% in 2003 and recovering only three points to 61% in 2007. Employment rates failed to increase again during the current job recovery from the recession of 2007-2009, dropping from 61% in 2007 to 46% in 2009 and holding there in both 2011 and 2012. These are the lowest employment rates for new non-college enrolled high school graduates in the U.S since the data series began being recorded in 1959.

The employment rates of high school graduates varied considerably by gender and race ethnic group and across the board male high school graduates fared worse than female graduates, their employment rates dropping to an all-time low of 44% in Oct. 2012. Family income also influenced employment rates, with high school graduates coming from higher income families (no surprise here) seeing a stronger likelihood for employment. Another important note though, is that the ability of employed High School graduates not attending college to obtain full time jobs has also declined dramatically since 2000. This number dropped to 43% in October 2012, the lowest full time job share ever recorded in in this data series.

The report combined the findings on the employment rates of non-college enrolled high school graduates with the share of the employed working full time to calculate their employment to population ratios, which are consistent with the declining employment statistics and darker still. In the month of October 2012 only 19 of every 100 high school graduates who did not attend college in the fall were employed full time, another historical low. As this study implores us, we need to think about the message and implications of these unemployment rates. Not only will this lack of employment adversely affect the future of these graduates in terms of lower employment rates, wages, and reduced training from employers, but it also sends the wrong message to youths still in school. How can we expect young people to understand the value of a high school degree, and support our claim that it’s important to stay in school, when their direct experience is observing the many idle graduates (their peers) with no employment and nothing to do? As of now, no new policy initiatives exist to address this large-scale labor market issue.

So it’s up to us. What are we going to do about it?

1 Comment

Filed under Andrew Sum, Center for Labor Market Studies, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Employment Data, High School Graduates' Employment Rates, JAG, Student Job Search

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

November 12, 2013 · 4:30 am

Get With the Program — the Development Program!

data point tuesday_500

“Learning is not a one-time experience but an ongoing process.” This is one of the overarching ideas in a recent report written by Mollie Lombardi from Aberdeen, which examines the business impact of organizations focus on learning programs. The study is based on a collection of responses from 185 organizations and seeks to determine how organizations connect learning to business priorities, create development programs that impact every stage of the employee lifecycle, and utilize technology to support learning initiatives.  The study concludes that there is a definite correlation between organizational success and a high focus on learning initiatives. Let’s look at some of the specifics of this report…

Most HR professionals – as well as many other organization leaders – inherently recognize the importance of building/developing talent within, especially at a time when the economy is still recovering and our new generation of hires is consistently heralded as “lazy,” “entitled” or “unready” for the workforce. It shouldn’t surprise us then that the #1 pressure driving learning initiatives in all organizations surveyed is the need for more leadership talent, with the #2 pressure driving learning initiatives coming from the lack of critical skills in the marketplace, which requires development from within. While I think the general negativity surrounding Millennials is misplaced, it is generally understood that a new college hire will require some training to become an effective member of the workforce.

According to Aberdeen’s research, 40% of organizations say that their college hires will require additional training and coaching, and 29% say they will have to spend significant time training and developing new college hires. It should surprise us then when we find out that only 19% of organizations have programs for new college hires and only 36% have dedicated leadership programs for emerging leaders. These employee groups are effectively cited as the top two groups requiring training/development, so why the lack of programs in place to do this? The data clearly support that organizations understand the importance of focusing on learning programs, however, it also indicates that there are problems with organizations’ abilities to implement these programs.

We should use this disconnect to critically examine own our organizations and take a moment to reflect on the factors we know to be important (like learning initiatives). We may acknowledge the importance, even necessity, of such programs, but we should question whether this knowledge is actually being implemented or just internalized. If there is disconnect between awareness and implementation, the question then becomes how to fix it. The data is this report suggests we look to what best in class organizations are doing, and in the case of learning initiatives, a few factors stand out. Best in class organizations are 78% more focused than laggard organizations on providing a more consistent development experience at all career levels, and they are visibly less concerned than industry average or laggard organizations on more closely linking programs to business goals and defining /building a consistent set of competencies to guide development.

Nov 12 fig 2

While these findings may be surprising at first glance, they may suggest that best in class organizations have already been able to link programs to business goals and develop a consistent set of competencies to guide development. This in turn has allowed them the freedom to focus more attention on having dedicated learning programs for individuals at all stages of the employee life cycle.  In the least, the data here can provide a broad set of steps for laggard and industry average organizations to follow in order to reap the benefit of learning initiatives. An added bonus of successfully instituted learning programs? Organizations that use learning programs also see improved performance in employee engagement, their ability to fill leadership positions with internal candidates, and their ability to retain talent.

Nov 12 fig 3

Getting with the program and focusing on the development of talent may seem obvious to you and me – but evidently not so much.

2 Comments

Filed under Aberdeen Group, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Learning/Development, Mollie Lombardi

Tagged as , , , ,

November 5, 2013 · 4:30 am

Ouch! Creativity Spurred by Abuse?

data point tuesday_500

I came across this article from Pacific Standard Magazine the other day and thought it was discussion worthy – certainly a little controversial. And completely at odds with the principles of creating great workplaces from the Great Place to Work Institute. The article discusses a recent study from South Korea published in The Leadership Quarterly, which concludes that a moderate amount of abusive supervision in the workplace prompts employees to be more creative than they would be in an environment with either extremelyabusive supervision graph high or extremely low levels of abusive supervision. The study consisted of a survey taken by employees and supervisors of “a large government-affiliated institute” in which employees rated their supervisor’s level of abusiveness and supervisors evaluated their employee’s level of creativity. The result was a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity.

As author Tom Jacob’s points out in the article for Pacific Standard, we could simply take these findings as a critique of East Asian Culture and dismiss them. Since our culture is so different from that of East Asia, what’s the value of this controversial study to us? If we look deeper than the questionable ethics though, I believe there’s some interesting insight into human nature here. We all know the annoying and over-used adage, you’ve got to “think outside the box” to inspire innovation, but I must say that I think actually incorporating the results of this study would be taking it a little too far. Actually, it would be taking it a lot too far. Working to find creative ways to inspire innovation from our employees is growing in importance, but to use this data to “okay” an abusive environment at work, even to okay a moderately abusive manager (which is the type of supervision the study links to the highest levels of employee creativity) wouldn’t just be crossing a best practice line, it would be crossing a moral line.

Besides providing more organizational research on the potentially dark side of leadership, the study reminds us of several core characteristics of human nature that, while basic, are extremely important to our ability to be successful and creative at work, and in our lives. Firstly, stress: the study reminds us that in moderate levels stress is healthy, and even necessary, for us to achieve our goals and prompt us to make new ones. It’s when stress exceeds our ability to cope (like when employees experienced high levels of abusive supervision) or is entirely absent (when employees experienced no abusive supervision) that we become overwhelmed or underwhelmed, unmotivated, and are unable to do our jobs effectively.

The second element of human nature that the study highlights is the importance of accountability. The data remind us that when we have forces holding us accountable (stress in this case) we are more likely to be creative. Employees in this study were held accountable by stress brought on from moderately abusive supervision, and were motivated by a desire to eliminate the tension causing the stress.  Though, let’s be clear here! There are tons of different ways we can hold ourselves accountable and stress is by no means the only way.

Ultimately, I think we all experience enough stress without adding an abusive supervisor to the mix, so don’t leave here inspired to go stress out your employees in an effort to up the ante on their creativity! Just keep in mind that, like it or not, we all do need a wee bit of stress and accountability in our lives. They may seem negative at times, but we can celebrate by knowing that they could just be the necessary ingredient to that next big idea!

1 Comment

Filed under Abusive Supervision, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Great Place to Work Institute

Tagged as , , ,

September 3, 2013 · 4:30 am

Voice of the Candidate: Is Anyone Listening?

data-point-tuesday_5002

Vendor survey results, reports and whitepapers are self-serving. We know that, right? But vendor survey results, reports and whitepapers can also be sources of insight for HR professionals – as long as they understand that there’s an agenda behind the publication.

I read a SilkRoad report on some survey results last week that I thought was interesting. I don’t know anyone at SilkRoad but they sent me a link and I clicked on it. And found this:  2013 Employment Marketplace Survey Results: The Candidate’s Perspective. And I found that their results line up well with the work that Elaine Orler and Gerry Crispin’s Talent Board is doing with the Candidate Experience Awards* (CandEs).

The “Voice of the Candidate” is getting more and more powerful. And it’s clear from these results – and others – that organizations winning the talent game are listening to that voice. Those that aren’t listening are missing out on some great talent.

The report is a quick read but here are a couple of highlights:

SilkRoad 1c

Companies that invest in the commonly accepted components of “engagement” are more likely to catch the attention of job seekers. Period. The top five selected (this was a “check your top three” questions) characteristics are typically found in definitions of engagement. For good reason, as it turns out.

And this:

SilkRoad 2

The report describes the results of this question as the “halo effect” of web-based recruiting technology. It’s not just about the efficiencies of using the web for recruiting – it’s also about the assumptions candidates make about the use of web-based recruiting technology. According to the results, the majority of survey participants indicated that they believe the use of web-based recruiting technology means that the employer is innovative and progressive.

There certainly are a number of HCM providers with web-based recruiting technology solutions – and more being introduced nearly every day. If an employer has the dual purpose of increasing talent acquisition efficiency as well as improving the candidate experience, then listening to the “Voice of the Candidate” is the right place to start.

*The CandEs will be announced at the HR Technology Conference, October 7-9, 2013 at the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.

7 Comments

Filed under CandE Awards, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Elaine Orler, Gerry Crispin, HR Technology Conference, Recruiting, Recruiting Technology, SilkRoad

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

August 27, 2013 · 4:30 am

Maybe Engagement Doesn’t Really Matter

data-point-tuesday_5002

When Gallup released the most recent State of the American Workforce Report the engagement news was not good. Here’s what the report said:

“Currently, 30% of the U.S. workforce is engaged in their work, and the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees is roughly 2-to-1, meaning that the vast majority of U.S. workers (70%) are not reaching their full potential — a problem that has significant implications for the economy and the individual performance of American companies.”

Because the basic premise is that organizations with highly engaged workforces produce better results than those with less engaged workforces, I was surprised that the press didn’t make more of this data. I wrote about it here, but it was about creating the business case for caring about whether or not employees are or are not engaged. I guess the overall sad state of engagement in the U.S. is a given and not newsworthy anymore.

But I saw some new Galllup survey data that, frankly, raises new questions for me, and makes me wonder if “engagement” is really what we should be measuring. And if “engagement” and stronger financial performance really are causal, as Gallup implies.

The survey question was “If you won $10 million in the lottery, would you continue to work, or would you stop working?” So a rational person might think, “Well, if 30% of the workforce is engaged and 70% of the workforce is not engaged, then probably 70% of the workforce would quit their jobs if they found themselves $10 million richer.” Wouldn’t you think that? I certainly did.

So imagine my surprise to see that the response to this survey question is exactly the opposite of what we would have expected! 68% of polled working adults said they’d keep working and 31% said they would quit. Exactly the opposite!

Gallup win the lottery 1I’m confused. But then I thought I had it figured out when I looked at the next question, which asked those who said they’d continue working if they’d stay in the same job or take a different job. “Aha!” I thought to myself. “The people who said they’d continue to work would surely take another job – a job in an organization that would be more engaging since they’re all not engaged.” But no. Nearly half of those said they’d even stay in the same job!

Gallup win the lottery 2

Now I’m really confused. Maybe it’s financial. Except that the positive trajectory to stay in the same job started way before the recession of 2009. So it may not be financially motivated. In fact, $10 million buys a lot less in 2013 than it did in 2005 – and still the percentage of workers saying they’d stay in the same job has grown substantially.

So what’s the deal? Does engagement even matter? If 67% of the population will continue to work after winning $10 million – and fully half of those will stay in the job they currently have, why do we care about engagement scores? Does engagement really matter?

Enquiring minds want to know!

18 Comments

Filed under China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Engagement, Gallup, Winning the Lottery

Tagged as , , , ,

August 20, 2013 · 4:30 am

How About a Seat at the Spreadsheet?

data point tuesday_500

HR professionals worry a lot about whether their CEO thinks they are strategic business leaders. Turns out it isn’t the CEO that HR professionals need to worry about. It’s the CFO.

This is according to global survey data collected from three Oracle/IBM sponsored research reports produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit in April and May 2012. CEOs made up 57% and CFOs made up 43% of the 235 respondents.

The resulting infographic is one of the more readable and useful ones of its type that I’ve seen. Among the data points:

  • 80% of CEOs and CFOs want the head of HR to be key in their company’s strategy planning
  • Only 38% of those CEOs and CFOS say that is currently the case
  • Only 10% say the head of HR is “extremely” key in strategic planning right now
  • Only 37% of CEOs and CFOs say their relationship with the head of HR is “close and trustful”
  • Just 28% of CEOs and CFOs say their relationship with the head of HR is among their “most valued” professional relationships

But here are the real zingers:

Oracle Driving HR Forward Infographic March 2013

Ouch!

But here’s the real irony:  CFOs are more confident about HR’s understanding the needs of the business than they are about the business of HR! Low confidence by CFOs that HR can lead the HR function, can evaluate employee performance or can identify and recruit key talent.

That’s not good news – especially since CFOs spend significantly more time with CEOs than CHROs do. I wonder what the CFO and CEO are talking about with regard to HR? Is the CFO supporting the CHRO? Given this survey data, I wonder.

Maybe CEOs aren’t HR’s biggest challenge after all. Maybe CFOs are the ones toward whom HR professionals should be aiming their strategic attention. Maybe instead of pining after furniture HR should be pining after spreadsheets!

4 Comments

Filed under C-suite, CEOs, China Gorman, CHROs, Data Point Tuesday, IBM, Oracle

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 13, 2013 · 4:30 am

Who Knows More About Culture than HR?

data point tuesday_500

The importance of culture in making or breaking a merger/acquisition has long been an interest of mine. After spending 25 years at the top outplacement/career transition business, I’ve seen the best and worst of people practices in M&A – and the best and worst of culture awareness in M&A. So I read with interest the recent whitepaper by Mercer, Culture in M&A: We Know It’s Important, So Now What? And I found some interesting nuggets.

We all know this, but Mercer’s survey data show that “failure to address corporate culture is the key barrier in up to 85% of failed M&A transactions.” 85%. I’ll bet even your gut is surprised by that high percentage. Good to have hard data on that one, right?

This is a short report, as whitepapers go, so if there’s a merger or acquisition in your future, I encourage you to download the report here because the data are pretty compelling that culture should be a primary driver during due diligence and integration execution in a successful integration.

And who knows more about culture than HR?

Mercer Org Culture Tops Elements Critical to Deal Success

The relative importance of corporate culture as a driver of deal success as compared to customer relationship management, human resources, IT and regulatory compliance could be shocking to some – but not to leaders who have been on the wrong end of one of these deals. And by wrong end I mean a due diligence process and integration execution plan that ignored the importance of culture and people, focusing solely on “cost synergies” and “accretive” value; a due diligence process and integration plan that didn’t have HR’s fingerprints all over it.

And if you need any more convincing, there’s this to consider:

Mercer Paving the Way for Deal Success

So even if your focus is on achieving operational efficiencies, addressing culture in deals is a critical success factor.

And who knows more about culture than HR?

Other topics covered (briefly) in the report include:

  • Identifying company culture

  • Understanding target company culture

  • Analyzing data on culture

  • Using surveys to engage leaders

  • Planning for integration

  • Soliciting employee feedback

  • Tracking the integration process

As you prepare for the deal, remember that although your CEO, CFO, Chief Communications Officer and head of corporate strategy may talk the talk about culture in an acquisition or merger, it’s HR (you!) that usually ends up having to walk the talk for the increasingly critical dynamic of integrating cultures. And by the way, the “cost synergies” and “accretive” value never happen if culture isn’t the centerpiece of the due diligence and integration plans.

Mercer Leadership Plays Key Role in Culture

So look at it this way:  since most organizations make HR largely responsible for the cultural integration piece in M&A activity, and failure to address corporate culture is the key barrier in 85% of failed transactions, HR has an enormous opportunity to drive up the success rate of M&A activity, quantify its value and participate as a full member of the organization’s strategic leadership.

As the economy improves and M&A activity begins to ratchet up at home and globally, HR is uniquely positioned to lead real bottom- and top-line impact by taking the culture integration mantle and running with it. And by running I mean creating the business case with hard data to ensure that culture issues are pro-actively dealt with even before due diligence begins.

Because who knows more about culture than HR?

4 Comments

Filed under China Gorman, Culture, Data Point Tuesday, M&A Planning, M&A Success, Mercer

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 6, 2013 · 5:30 am

Tying Recognition to Values: Who Knew?

data point tuesday_500

Organizations that believe in driving an intentional culture – whether for engagement purposes, recruitment purposes, performance purposes, innovation purposes, or all of the above – might think it logical to tie their recognition programs directly to their values. But as it turns out, maybe not.

The new SHRM/Globoforce Employee Recognition Survey Winter 2012 Report has some interesting survey data and thought-provoking findings. The survey, sent to 6,000 SHRM members at the manager level or higher, had a response rate of 13% and a margin of error of +/- 3%. So, with 770 randomly selected HR professionals employed at organizations with more than 499 employees across North America, the sample size is large enough for the results to be interesting.

The broad findings are a little surprising – although the survey questions focused entirely on recognition, engagement and core values. (So, for example, the challenges of implementing healthcare reform don’t show up, nor do the issues of perceived talent or skills shortages.) But even within that context, these findings make me scratch my head:

#1  Employee engagement tops the list of HR challenges.

#2  Performance management remains stuck in neutral.

#3  Recognition programs fill the feedback and appreciation gap.

#4  Recognition programs have an observed positive impact on business results.

#5  Recognition aligned with core values leads to more effective managers.

#1  Employee engagement tops the list of HR challenges:  well, I do find that surprising – especially given the rest of the survey data. I might have thought that the issues of performance management done the same way it’s been done for 10-15 years (or not at all) would top the list of HR challenges. But no, employee engagement is at the top of the list. Despite (or maybe because of) the fact that most HR professionals haven’t been able to make the business case for investing in creating higher levels of engagement, it’s at the top of the list.

#2  Performance management remains stuck in neutral:  Performance management is the talent management infrastructure weak link. Most CEOs and other members of the C-Suite report that they know their system is ineffective. And what’s more they know their employees don’t like their current system either. That HR folks are “stuck in neutral” in this regard is perplexing. With the billions of dollars being spent on ineffective, unpopular legacy systems, this would seem ripe for corrective action — not being stuck in neutral.

#3  Recognition programs fill the feedback and appreciation gap:  so investing in new solutions that fill a gap rather than fixing the full system seems shortsighted to me. Don’t get me wrong. I think that there are recognition programs that powerfully engage teams, inspire individuals and create positive momentum for employers and their customers. Some of the new entrants that utilize social technology and are natively mobile are stunning. And worthy of investment. But should we be thinking bigger than filling gaps?

#4  Recognition programs have an observed positive impact on business results:  that’s research-speak for “we can’t quantify it yet but we think it’s real based on anecdotal evidence.”  ‘Nuff said.

#5  Recognition aligned with core values leads to more effective managers:  that’s it! If the data clearly support this finding, then this is the foundation for the business case that HR has been looking for. I’ve long believed that if the middle manager cohort was effectively trained and managed, the incidences of workplace drama and their resulting legal issues – and the resulting time-suck for HR – would be hugely reduced. Managers would be held accountable for managing. And HR could get to the strategic business of workforce planning and talent management leadership.

The following charts from the report show the “observed” connection between values-based recognition systems and managerial effectiveness in “acknowledging and appreciating” employees:

SHRM Globoforce Fig 8

SHRM Globoforce Fig 13

*Note:  the red circles on the charts are mine.

The finding that managers do a better job of effectively acknowledging and appreciating employees when recognition programs are directly tied to core values seems to stack up. But it also appears that managers do a better job of effectively acknowledging and appreciating employees simply by being given a recognition program to use. Either way works for me. And either way clearly works for employers and their employees.

But I’ll go out on a limb with the observable improvement in managerial effectiveness and agree that tying recognition programs to values is a winner. In fact, I’ll go so far as to opine that tying talent management in its entirety to organizational values will provide quantifiable improvement, not just observed improvement.

Interesting findings in this report. If you haven’t looked at some of the innovative new solutions in the recognition space maybe you should.

10 Comments

Filed under Achievers, Annual Performance Reviews, Business Case, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Globoforce, Managerial Effectiveness, Rewards & Recognition, Talent Management

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

July 30, 2013 · 4:30 am

Performance and Engagement: No More Smoke and Mirrors

data point tuesday_500 I was talking with the CEO and CMO of a startup software company in the HCM space yesterday. One of the things we talked about was the ready availability of data that link organizational performance with employee engagement. No longer the stuff of smoke and mirrors, the correlation between higher revenue, lower costs and greater customer satisfaction with employee engagement is rock solid. Whether the data come from academic researchers, think tanks, research/analysis firms or other interested parties, we can cite legitimate sources to underpin our ROI calculations. (See previous posts here and here.)

Gallup’s recently released State of the American Workforce is one example of such data. In the “From the CEO” introduction, Chairman and CEO Jim Clifton says:

“Here’s what you need to know:  Gallup research has found that the top 25% of teams – the best managed – versus the bottom 25% in any workplace – the worst managed – have nearly 50% fewer accidents and have 41% fewer quality defects. What’s more, teams in the top 25% versus the bottom 25% incur far less in healthcare costs. So having too few engaged employees means our workplaces are less safe, employees have more quality defects, and disengagement – which results from terrible managers – is driving up the country’s healthcare costs.”

Here’s the corresponding chart from the report:

Gallup Engagement KPIx

You may or may not have an opinion about Gallup’s Q12  methodology, but the longitudinal nature of their data — together with their periodic meta-analysis — says to me that their findings have weight. We can take to the bank – and to our CEOs and CFOs – the relationship between higher engagement and stronger organizational performance.

This is the data of sound and persuasive business cases for investing in the well-being of our employees. Take a look at the Gallup findings. You’ll find something that will spark an ah-ha moment. Or maybe two or three.

5 Comments

Filed under China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Employee Engagement, Engagement, Gallup

Tagged as , , , ,

July 23, 2013 · 4:30 am

Shooting Ourselves in the Foot Isn’t an Effective Engagement Strategy

data point tuesday_500

Recent headlines from Gallup proclaiming that college-educated Americans are less engaged on the job than other cohorts may have spurred some conversation among HR leaders and professionals. Engagement, that elusive component to organizational success, is the holy grail many employers chase. And Gallup, the grand surveyor of people on all topics, has regularly published engagement data that either convinces us that engagement is a fraud or that we have to try harder to win over our workforces.

A recent USA TODAY article, “Higher education = lower joy on job?” quoted Gallup findings as well as findings from this report: “Why Are Recent College Graduates Underemployed?” from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. The justaposition of these two sources shows an interesting picture.

Here’s Gallup’s data:

Gallup Engagement by Education 2013

So. According to Gallup, the most engaged group of workers are those who have earned a high school diploma or less.  And the least engaged group of workers are those who have earned a college degree. By themselves, the numbers are almost interesting. By themselves, the bigger news is that the numbers show that less than a third of the workforce is engaged, and more than two-thirds of the workforce is either not engaged or actively disengaged. OK. That’s interesting and cause for concern.

But put this Gallup data into the blender with this data from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity and it gets a little more interesting:

College Grads Underemployed 2013

If nearly half of all American workers with college degrees are in jobs that do not require a college degree, might that have something to do with their level of engagement? Are nearly half of our college educated workforce bored on the job?

And if they are, and if we’re concerned about engagement, why are we putting them into jobs for which they are overqualified? Would high school graduates be more engaged and perform better? Would those better performers positively impact the financial performance of their employers?

The Center also asserts that

“past and projected future growth in college enrollments and the number of graduates exceeds the actual or projected growth in high-skilled jobs, explain the development of the underemployment problem and its probable worsening in future years.”

So they believe the engagement problem will grow worse – if there really is a causal relationship between engagement levels and the over-qualification of many of our workers.

What do we make of this? Well, I do think it’s common sense to believe that people who are significantly over-educated for the jobs they hold could well be bored and unengaged. But I also think that in this economy, many are grateful to have any job, over-educated or not. What that means for engagement is unclear to me. Except that Gallup, being the last word in survey data, shows a clear line between education levels and engagement.

shoe with bullet holeWhile this might be above my pay grade, I’m willing to make a leap here and suggest that hiring overqualified workers might not be the best strategy for boosting engagement. If we truly believe that engaged workers have a demonstrably positive impact on an organization’s financial performance – and that’s been the HR mantra for a number of years – then we are probably shooting ourselves in the foot by requiring college degrees for jobs that truly don’t need them.

I’ve written this before: the over-inflation of job requirements in job descriptions isn’t putting the unemployed in this country back to work. And now we know it isn’t helping organizational performance. Hmmm…

I’ll bet we can agree on this:  shooting ourselves in the foot isn’t an effective engagement strategy.

5 Comments

Filed under Center for College Affordability and Productivity, China Gorman, Data Point Tuesday, Education Deficit, Engagement, Gallup, Job Descriptions

Tagged as , , , , , ,