8 Ways Leaders Delegate Successfully

Disagreement about what delegation actually means is one major reason for that gap. Managers tend to see delegating as binary choice—either hold on or let go. Framed in those stark terms, the notion of letting things go can strike fear into managers’ hearts. Thus begins a vicious circle: As their employees push for more autonomy, leaders tend to hold on more tightly. To some degree or other, it happens every day in every organization.

Breaking that cycle starts by redefining delegation. It isn’t about managers losing control and oversight of what their teams are doing. Quite the opposite. Delegation is about enabling the most intelligent, capable, committed people to contribute to their organization’s success.

Leaders who delegate properly do these eight things well:

Managers who delegate effectively devise the right performance metrics and hold everyone accountable to them. You have to continuously gather data about what individuals, teams, the organization as a whole are accomplishing. Distribute that information—both the criteria and the results—to everyone involved. When those measures point to a person or team that isn’t delivering, it’s time to reconsider how that task should be delegated.

Good leaders demand those they entrust with important work to execute it well, but they also stay open to considering new approaches. In those cases, a good manager requires their teams to back up new proposals with solid research. Hold opinions to close scrutiny allow everyone who might be a stakeholder in a change you’re considering weigh in.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. You’ll know from the measurements you take when things are going smoothly and don’t need to be touched. But letting others take the helm in carrying out certain duties frees an effective leader up to find ways where they might be done differently altogether. Delegating can actually open up new opportunities for innovation.

Effective leaders must offer robust and accessible training so the teams charged with handling certain work have the skills and tools to do it. They also allow those who succeed at new assignments and take on bigger challenges—and provide the right resources for those undertakings, too.

Park your privilege at the door. Be humble and respectful.
This is the surest way to avoid micromanaging. Give the responsibility for accomplishing something to others, but let them sort out the best way to go about accomplishing it. That gives your team a chance to prove how intelligent, talented, capable, and committed they are—or otherwise.

Reward exceptional work when you see it. Leaders who delegate effectively are on the lookout for future leaders who can distinguish themselves when they’re given the chance.

Managers who delegate properly still show up wherever they’re genuinely interested in finding out how things are coming along. Park your privilege at the door. Be humble and respectful. Ask good questions to encourage people to think clearly and demonstrate what they know. Share your ideas sparingly and strategically, and don’t dictate solutions.

The ultimate test of skillful delegation is how far a leader enlarges their team’s involvement in critical decision-making—whether it’s about people (hiring, management, rewards), strategy (goals and plans), or money (where it goes, and how much of it). These are the spheres most leaders hold onto tightly, and there’s indeed good reason to be careful. Mistakes involving staffing, strategy, and investments can become fatal errors that can threaten the success and very survival of an enterprise.

Source: https://www.fastcompany.com/3049107/8-habits-of-leaders-who-know-how-to-delegate

Co-Exist With Robots: How to Compete With Technology in the Age of Automation

As technology, including robots, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other forces change the nature of work, employees will need new skills to adapt to shifting roles. Research firm Gartner predicts that employees who regularly update their skill sets and invest in new training will be more valued than those with experience or tenure. But it’s not going to be easy.

The World Economic Forum’s “Future of Jobs 2018” report estimates that, by 2022, more than half (54%) of employees will require significant skills updating or retraining. More than one-third (35%) will need about six months to get up to speed, while nearly one in five will require a year or more of additional training.

And employers might not be much help. A 2019 global survey of employers by consulting firm Deloitte found that 86% of respondents rated the need to improve learning and development (L&D) as “important” or “very important.” But just 10% felt ready to “very ready” to address that need. As digital transformation affects so many businesses, a 2018 Gartner report found that just 20% of employees have the skills they need for their jobs now and in the future.

Clean Power to the People
By Schneider Electric
For workers who are concerned about remaining marketable, this raises a number of questions about where they should invest their efforts.

“In almost every job, you need a different set of skills than you did five years ago, and there’s no reason to believe that number’s going to get smaller,” says Brian Kropp, the Arlington, Virginia-based chief of human resources research at Gartner. Employees who are serious about remaining marketable must take it upon themselves to remain in demand in the marketplace.

Finding the focus

Identifying skills with emerging demand can begin with simply keeping abreast of job ads, says career expert Susan P. Joyce, publisher of Job-Hunt.org, a Marlborough, Mass.-based website for job seekers. As certain tools and technologies become more widely adopted in a given field, the skills required to use them are going to be listed as requirements for certain positions, she says. “If something’s required now that wasn’t a year ago, that’s a sign,” she says.

Similarly, watching new developments from technology providers in your sector can also help keep you ahead of the curve, she says. For example, if you work in human resources, keeping an eye on how performance management platforms or applicant tracking systems are evolving may help you spot where you need to upskill.

Many of those skills will be in the digital arena, says Tracey Malcolm, global leader, Future of Work, at Willis Towers Watson, an insurance and advisory company based in London. So, in addition to being comfortable with technology, you’ll likely need to become comfortable working with technology, she says.

The World Economic Forum report says that technology design and programming are increasingly in demand. But, not everyone has to be a data scientist or coder, Malcolm says. You may have A.I.-powered tools operating within your existing software or cloud-based platforms to help you identify productivity improvements or automation opportunities. You need to be adept at using and interacting with those tools, and then reading, understanding and applying the data they provide, she says.

“As we look to have our performance augmented with different forms of technology, that is going to require us to actually think in very forward-looking ways,” she says.

Getting comfortable with data isn’t just about looking at dashboards or spreadsheets. You need to be conversant enough in the data that relates to your job that you can think about hypotheses and scenario planning, Malcolm adds. For example, when you see that productivity has slowed or that you’re not meeting other metrics, you need to be able to think about the sources of the data and circumstances that may have affected the outcome, then think about how various changes could improve results.

Soft skills matter, too
In addition to technology, digital, and data acumen, soft skills are also going to be increasingly in demand. As workplace environments experience fast-paced change and computers add a more straightforward, just-the-facts element to work, the ability to communicate, collaborate, and effectively work with others will be essential, says labor ethnographer Karla Erickson, a professor of sociology at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa.

“Being a team member, being able to anticipate, moving smoothly through complexity when the unexpected arises, those are the kinds of tools that I think people should be working on,” Erickson says.

In addition to technology-based “co-workers,” employees are also going to need to be flexible to accommodate workplaces that include more contractors and contingent workers.

The World Economic Forum report predicts great demand by 2022 for “’human’ skills such as creativity, originality and initiative, critical thinking, persuasion and negotiation.” Emotional intelligence, complex-problem-solving, and flexibility are also important. Workshops, training, mentorship, and other forms of skills development shouldn’t overlook these areas.

Get ready to grow

Kropp and his team estimate that, by 2024, 64% of typical managerial tasks—filling out expense reports, monitoring dashboards, etc.—will be automated. Successful employees will use that newfound free time to focus on high-value activities. After all, this is technology fulfilling its great promise and untethering workers from rote tasks. But workers must use that time wisely, Kropp says.

“So, you want to be looking at what you do within your job that actually generates insight, generates ideas, new approaches, new solutions, things that are tried for the first time, and you need to ask yourself the question, what are things I can do within myself, in terms of developing skills, capabilities, knowledge, that helps me focus on those things that are more insights, rather than tasks?” he says. When you can answer that, you will have found the areas least likely to be eliminated because of technology.

Source : https://fortune.com/2019/08/18/job-replaced-by-automation-artificial-intelligence-ai/

Eight Steps To Start Or Grow A Diversity And Inclusion Initiative

One of the best ways to recruit, engage and retain employees is to create an inclusive workplace culture. Most organizations are already on the diversity and inclusion bandwagon, but small- and midsize companies may be considering how to build it into their programming or expand an initiative already in place. While there is no one way, the following eight steps are sure to provide a powerful start and keep you on track.

Lead from the Top: Moving the needle takes a commitment from the top down. Any chink along the chain could impede progress or, even worse, sabotage the credibility of the initiative. The best way to gain commitment is to make diversity and inclusion an organizational goal and include it in performance metrics. Some business areas will require more specific measures, such as recruiters ensuring a diverse candidate pool and hiring managers avoiding homogeneity. Check out this article suggesting eight steps to setting meaningful diversity and inclusion metrics.

Rely on Experience: Building a successful diversity and inclusion initiative requires a unique set of skills. Successful diversity practitioners offer leadership, influence, collaboration, strategy and strong communications skills — written and spoken – in addition to having an excellent command of diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism. If you don’t already have a subject matter expert managing diversity and inclusion, hire one. And if you do have someone in place, ensure resources are allocated to continue their training and networking with leaders in this space.

Measure Employee Attitudes: Surveying employees to gain insight into the corporate culture is critical. Questions should help establish the level of understanding employees have about the subject, how inclusive they believe the culture to be, the level of trust they have in the company and their management and their perception of organizational commitment. Consider including scaled responses to an age-related question like, “I understand the value that people of different ages can bring to work.” Or “I enjoy working with colleagues older than me.” Use pulse surveys for intermittent checks, but administer employee surveys annually to measure progress toward goals.

Training is Key: Training is one of the best ways for employees to understand how their perceptions may be sabotaging inclusive words and behaviors. Sometimes it’s as easy as a short video at a team meeting and a facilitated exchange. Other times, organizations may require a deep dive on unconscious bias and how it negatively impacts certain groups of people. A report by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) indicates that while more than half of North American organizations (56%) provide training on non-discrimination, regulatory compliance and embracing differences, more can be done. It’s one thing to explain what it means, but something altogether to demonstrate what good inclusion practices look like and how to incorporate them in their learning and development plans.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sheilacallaham/2019/08/18/eight-steps-to-start-or-grow-a-diversity-and-inclusion-initiative/#5d46bce06b17

Your Approach to Hiring Is All Wrong

Businesses have never done as much hiring as they do today. They’ve never spent as much money doing it. And they’ve never done a worse job of it.

For most of the post–World War II era, large corporations went about hiring this way: Human resources experts prepared a detailed job analysis to determine what tasks the job required and what attributes a good candidate should have. Next they did a job evaluation to determine how the job fit into the organizational chart and how much it should pay, especially compared with other jobs. Ads were posted, and applicants applied. Then came the task of sorting through the applicants. That included skills tests, reference checks, maybe personality and IQ tests, and extensive interviews to learn more about them as people. William H. Whyte, in The Organization Man, described this process as going on for as long as a week before the winning candidate was offered the job. The vast majority of non-entry-level openings were filled from within.

Today’s approach couldn’t be more different. Census data shows, for example, that the majority of people who took a new job last year weren’t searching for one: Somebody came and got them. Companies seek to fill their recruiting funnel with as many candidates as possible, especially “passive candidates,” who aren’t looking to move. Often employers advertise jobs that don’t exist, hoping to find people who might be useful later on or in a different context.

The recruiting and hiring function has been eviscerated. Many U.S. companies—about 40%, according to research by Korn Ferry—have outsourced much if not all of the hiring process to “recruitment process outsourcers,” which in turn often use subcontractors, typically in India and the Philippines. The subcontractors scour LinkedIn and social media to find potential candidates. They sometimes contact them directly to see whether they can be persuaded to apply for a position and negotiate the salary they’re willing to accept. (The recruiters get incentive pay if they negotiate the amount down.) To hire programmers, for example, these subcontractors can scan websites that programmers might visit, trace their “digital exhaust” from cookies and other user-tracking measures to identify who they are, and then examine their curricula vitae.

At companies that still do their own recruitment and hiring, managers trying to fill open positions are largely left to figure out what the jobs require and what the ads should say. When applications come—always electronically—applicant-tracking software sifts through them for key words that the hiring managers want to see. Then the process moves into the Wild West, where a new industry of vendors offer an astonishing array of smart-sounding tools that claim to predict who will be a good hire. They use voice recognition, body language, clues on social media, and especially machine learning algorithms—everything but tea leaves. Entire publications are devoted to what these vendors are doing.

The big problem with all these new practices is that we don’t know whether they actually produce satisfactory hires. Only about a third of U.S. companies report that they monitor whether their hiring practices lead to good employees; few of them do so carefully, and only a minority even track cost per hire and time to hire. Imagine if the CEO asked how an advertising campaign had gone, and the response was “We have a good idea how long it took to roll out and what it cost, but we haven’t looked to see whether we’re selling more.”

Hiring talent remains the number one concern of CEOs in the most recent Conference Board Annual Survey; it’s also the top concern of the entire executive suite. PwC’s 2017 CEO survey reports that chief executives view the unavailability of talent and skills as the biggest threat to their business. Employers also spend an enormous amount on hiring—an average of $4,129 per job in the United States, according to Society for Human Resource Management estimates, and many times that amount for managerial roles—and the United States fills a staggering 66 million jobs a year. Most of the $20 billion that companies spend on human resources vendors goes to hiring.

Why do employers spend so much on something so important while knowing so little about whether it works?

Where the Problem Starts
Survey after survey finds employers complaining about how difficult hiring is. There may be many explanations, such as their having become very picky about candidates, especially in the slack labor market of the Great Recession. But clearly they are hiring much more than at any other time in modern history, for two reasons.

The first is that openings are now filled more often by hiring from the outside than by promoting from within. In the era of lifetime employment, from the end of World War II through the 1970s, corporations filled roughly 90% of their vacancies through promotions and lateral assignments. Today the figure is a third or less. When they hire from outside, organizations don’t have to pay to train and develop their employees. Since the restructuring waves of the early 1980s, it has been relatively easy to find experienced talent outside. Only 28% of talent acquisition leaders today report that internal candidates are an important source of people to fill vacancies—presumably because of less internal development and fewer clear career ladders.

Less promotion internally means that hiring efforts are no longer concentrated on entry-level jobs and recent graduates. (If you doubt this, go to the “careers” link on any company website and look for a job opening that doesn’t require prior experience.) Now companies must be good at hiring across most levels, because the candidates they want are already doing the job somewhere else. These people don’t need training, so they may be ready to contribute right away, but they are much harder to find.

The second reason hiring is so difficult is that retention has become tough: Companies hire from their competitors and vice versa, so they have to keep replacing people who leave. Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that 95% of hiring is done to fill existing positions. Most of those vacancies are caused by voluntary turnover. LinkedIn data indicates that the most common reason employees consider a position elsewhere is career advancement—which is surely related to employers’ not promoting to fill vacancies.

The root cause of most hiring, therefore, is drastically poor retention. Here are some simple ways to fix that:

Track the percentage of openings filled from within.
An adage of business is that we manage what we measure, but companies don’t seem to be applying that maxim to tracking hires. Most are shocked to learn how few of their openings are filled from within—is it really the case that their people can’t handle different and bigger roles?

Require that all openings be posted internally.
Internal job boards were created during the dot-com boom to reduce turnover by making it easier for people to find new jobs within their existing employer. Managers weren’t even allowed to know if a subordinate was looking to move within the company, for fear that they would try to block that person and he or she would leave. But during the Great Recession employees weren’t quitting, and many companies slid back to the old model whereby managers could prevent their subordinates from moving internally. JR Keller, of Cornell University, has found that when managers could fill a vacancy with someone they already had in mind, they ended up with employees who performed more poorly than those hired when the job had been posted and anyone could apply. The commonsense explanation for this is that few enterprises really know what talent and capabilities they have.

Protecting Against Discrimination
Finding out whether your practices result in good hires is not only basic to good management but the only real defense against claims of adverse impact and discrimination. Other than white males under age 40 with no disabilities or work-related health problems, workers have special protections under federal and state laws against hiring practices that may have an adverse impact on them. As a practical matter, that means if members of a particular group are less likely to be recruited or hired, the employer must show that the hiring process is not discriminatory.

The only defense against evidence of adverse impact is for the employer to show that its hiring practices are valid—that is, they predict who will be a good employee in meaningful and statistically significant ways—and that no alternative would predict as well with less adverse impact. That analysis must be conducted with data on the employer’s own applicants and hires. The fact that the vendor that sold you the test you use has evidence that it was valid in other contexts is not sufficient.

Recognize the costs of outside hiring.
In addition to the time and effort of hiring, my colleague Matthew Bidwell found, outside hires take three years to perform as well as internal hires in the same job, while internal hires take seven years to earn as much as outside hires are paid. Outside hiring also causes current employees to spend time and energy positioning themselves for jobs elsewhere. It disrupts the culture and burdens peers who must help new hires figure out how things work.

None of this is to suggest that outside hiring is necessarily a bad idea. But unless your company is a Silicon Valley gazelle, adding new jobs at a furious pace, you should ask yourself some serious questions if most of your openings are being filled from outside.

Employers are obsessed with new technologies and driving down costs.

A different approach for dealing with retention (which seems creepy to some) is to try to determine who is interested in leaving and then intervene. Vendors like Jobvite comb social media and public sites for clues, such as LinkedIn profile updates. Measuring “flight risk” is one of the most common goals of companies that do their own sophisticated HR analytics. This is reminiscent of the early days of job boards, when employers would try to find out who was posting résumés and either punish them or embrace them, depending on leadership’s mood.

Whether companies should be examining social media content in relation to hiring or any other employment action is a challenging ethical question. On one hand, the information is essentially public and may reveal relevant information. On the other hand, it is invasive, and candidates are rarely asked for permission to scrutinize their information. Hiring a private detective to shadow a candidate would also gather public information that might be relevant, yet most people would view it as an unacceptable invasion of privacy.

The Hiring Process
When we turn to hiring itself, we find that employers are missing the forest for the trees: Obsessed with new technologies and driving down costs, they largely ignore the ultimate goal: making the best possible hires. Here’s how the process should be revamped:

Don’t post “phantom jobs.”
It costs nothing to post job openings on a company website, which are then scooped up by Indeed and other online companies and pushed out to potential job seekers around the world. Thus it may be unsurprising that some of these jobs don’t really exist. Employers may simply be fishing for candidates. (“Let’s see if someone really great is out there, and if so, we’ll create a position for him or her.”) Often job ads stay up even after positions have been filled, to keep collecting candidates for future vacancies or just because it takes more effort to pull the ad down than to leave it up. Sometimes ads are posted by unscrupulous recruiters looking for résumés to pitch to clients elsewhere. Because these phantom jobs make the labor market look tighter than it really is, they are a problem for economic policy makers as well as for frustrated job seekers. Companies should take ads down when jobs are filled.

Design jobs with realistic requirements.
Figuring out what the requirements of a job should be—and the corresponding attributes candidates must have—is a bigger challenge now, because so many companies have reduced the number of internal recruiters whose function, in part, is to push back on hiring managers’ wish lists. (“That job doesn’t require 10 years of experience,” or “No one with all those qualifications will be willing to accept the salary you’re proposing to pay.”) My earlier research found that companies piled on job requirements, baked them into the applicant-tracking software that sorted résumés according to binary decisions (yes, it has the key word; no, it doesn’t), and then found that virtually no applicants met all the criteria. Trimming recruiters, who have expertise in hiring, and handing the process over to hiring managers is a prime example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Reconsider your focus on passive candidates.
The recruiting process begins with a search for experienced people who aren’t looking to move. This is based on the notion that something may be wrong with anyone who wants to leave his or her current job. (Of the more than 20,000 talent professionals who responded to a LinkedIn survey in 2015, 86% said their recruiting organizations focused “very much so” or “to some extent” on passive candidates; I suspect that if anything, that number has since grown.) Recruiters know that the vast majority of people are open to moving at the right price: Surveys of employees find that only about 15% are not open to moving. As the economist Harold Demsetz said when asked by a competing university if he was happy working where he was: “Make me unhappy.”

Fascinating evidence from the LinkedIn survey cited above shows that although self-identified “passive” job seekers are different from “active” job seekers, it’s not in the way we might think. The number one factor that would encourage the former to move is more money. For active candidates the top factor is better work and career opportunities. More active than passive job seekers report that they are passionate about their work, engaged in improving their skills, and reasonably satisfied with their current jobs. They seem interested in moving because they are ambitious, not because they want higher pay.

Employers spend a vastly disproportionate amount of their budgets on recruiters who chase passive candidates, but on average they fill only 11% of their positions with individually targeted people, according to research by Gerry Crispin and Chris Hoyt, of CareerXroads. I know of no evidence that passive candidates become better employees, let alone that the process is cost-effective. If you focus on passive candidates, think carefully about what that actually gets you. Better yet, check your data to find out.

Understand the limits of referrals.
The most popular channel for finding new hires is through employee referrals; up to 48% come from them, according to LinkedIn research. It seems like a cheap way to go, but does it produce better hires? Many employers think so. It’s hard to know whether that’s true, however, given that they don’t check. And research by Emilio Castilla and colleagues suggests otherwise: They find that when referrals work out better than other hires, it’s because their referrers look after them and essentially onboard them. If a referrer leaves before the new hire begins, the latter’s performance is no better than that of nonreferrals, which is why it makes sense to pay referral bonuses six months or so after the person is hired—if he or she is still there.

A downside to referrals, of course, is that they can lead to a homogeneous workforce, because the people we know tend to be like us. This matters greatly for organizations interested in diversity, since recruiting is the only avenue allowed under U.S. law to increase diversity in a workforce. The Supreme Court has ruled that demographic criteria cannot be used even to break ties among candidates.

Measure the results.
Few employers know which channel produces the best candidates at the lowest cost because they don’t track the outcomes. Tata is an exception: It has long done what I advocate. For college recruiting, for example, it calculates which schools send it employees who perform the best, stay the longest, and are paid the lowest starting wage. Other employers should follow suit and monitor recruiting channels and employees’ performance to identify which sources produce the best results.

Persuade fewer people to apply.
The hiring industry pays a great deal of attention to “the funnel,” whereby readers of a company’s job postings become applicants, are interviewed, and ultimately are offered jobs. Contrary to the popular belief that the U.S. job market is extremely tight right now, most jobs still get lots of applicants. Recruiting and hiring consultants and vendors estimate that about 2% of applicants receive offers. Unfortunately, the main effort to improve hiring—virtually always aimed at making it faster and cheaper—has been to shovel more applicants into the funnel. Employers do that primarily through marketing, trying to get out the word that they are great places to work. Whether doing this is a misguided way of trying to attract better hires or just meant to make the organization feel more desirable isn’t clear.

The Grass Is Always Greener…
Organizations are much more interested in external talent than in their own employees to fill vacancies. Here are the top channels for quality hires.

Much better to go in the other direction: Create a smaller but better-qualified applicant pool to improve the yield. Here’s why: Every applicant costs you money—especially now, in a labor market where applicants have started to “ghost” employers, abandoning their applications midway through the process. Every application also exposes a company to legal risk, because the company has obligations to candidates (not to discriminate, for example) just as it does to employees. And collecting lots of applicants in a wide funnel means that a great many of them won’t fit the job or the company, so employers have to rely on the next step of the hiring process—selection—to weed them out. As we will see, employers aren’t good at that.

Once people are candidates, they may not be completely honest about their skills or interests—because they want to be hired—and employers’ ability to find out the truth is limited. More than a generation ago the psychologist John Wanous proposed giving applicants a realistic preview of what the job is like. That still makes sense as a way to head off those who would end up being unhappy in the job. It’s not surprising that Google has found a way to do this with gamification: Job seekers see what the work would be like by playing a game version of it. Marriott has done the same, even for low-level employees. Its My Marriott Hotel game targets young people in developing countries who may have had little experience in hotels to show them what it’s like and to steer them to the recruiting site if they score well on the game. The key for any company, though, is that the preview should make clear what is difficult and challenging about the work as well as why it’s fun so that candidates who don’t fit won’t apply.

It should be easy for candidates to learn about a company and a job, but making it really easy to apply, just to fill up that funnel, doesn’t make much sense. During the dot-com boom Texas Instruments cleverly introduced a preemployment test that allowed applicants to see their scores before they applied. If their scores weren’t high enough for the company to take their applications seriously, they tended not to proceed, and the company saved the cost of having to process their applications.

If the goal is to get better hires in a cost-effective manner, it’s more important to scare away candidates who don’t fit than to jam more candidates into the recruiting funnel.

Test candidates’ standard skills.
How to determine which candidates to hire—what predicts who will be a good employee—has been rigorously studied at least since World War I. The personnel psychologists who investigated this have learned much about predicting good hires that contemporary organizations have since forgotten, such as that neither college grades nor unstructured sequential interviews (hopping from office to office) are a good predictor, whereas past performance is.

Since it can be difficult (if not impossible) to glean sufficient information about an outside applicant’s past performance, what other predictors are good? There is remarkably little consensus even among experts. That’s mainly because a typical job can have so many tasks and aspects, and different factors predict success at different tasks.

There is general agreement, however, that testing to see whether individuals have standard skills is about the best we can do. Can the candidate speak French? Can she do simple programming tasks? And so forth. But just doing the tests is not enough. The economists Mitchell Hoffman, Lisa B. Kahn, and Danielle Li found that even when companies conduct such tests, hiring managers often ignore them—and when they do, they get worse hires. The psychologist Nathan Kuncel and colleagues discovered that even when hiring managers use objective criteria and tests, applying their own weights and judgment to those criteria leads them to pick worse candidates than if they had used a standard formula. Only 40% of employers, however, do any tests of skills or general abilities, including IQ. What are they doing instead? Seventy-four percent do drug tests, including for marijuana use; even employers in states where recreational use is now legal still seem to do so.

Be wary of vendors bearing high-tech gifts.
Into the testing void has come a new group of entrepreneurs who either are data scientists or have them in tow. They bring a fresh approach to the hiring process—but often with little understanding of how hiring actually works. John Sumser, of HRExaminer, an online newsletter that focuses on HR technology, estimates that on average, companies get five to seven pitches every day—almost all of them about hiring—from vendors using data science to address HR issues. These vendors have all sorts of cool-sounding assessments, such as computer games that can be scored to predict who will be a good hire. We don’t know whether any of these actually lead to better hires, because few of them are validated against actual job performance. That aside, these assessments have spawned a counterwave of vendors who help candidates learn how to score well on them. Lloyds Bank, for example, developed a virtual-reality-based assessment of candidate potential, and JobTestPrep offers to teach potential candidates how to do well on it. Especially for IT and technical jobs, cheating on skills tests and even video interviews (where colleagues off camera give help) is such a concern that eTeki and other specialized vendors help employers figure out who is cheating in real time.

Revamp your interviewing process.
The amount of time employers spend on interviews has almost doubled since 2009, according to research from Glassdoor. How much of that increase represents delays in setting up those interviews is impossible to tell, but it provides at least a partial explanation for why it takes longer to fill jobs now. Interviews are arguably the most difficult technique to get right, because interviewers should stick to questions that predict good hires—mainly about past behavior or performance that’s relevant to the tasks of the job—and ask them consistently across candidates. Just winging it and asking whatever comes to mind is next to useless.

More important, interviews are where biases most easily show up, because interviewers do usually decide on the fly what to ask of whom and how to interpret the answer. Everyone knows some executive who is absolutely certain he knows the one question that will really predict good candidates (“If you were stranded on a desert island…”). The sociologist Lauren Rivera’s examination of interviews for elite positions, such as those in professional services firms, indicates that hobbies, particularly those associated with the rich, feature prominently as a selection criterion.

Interviews are most important for assessing “fit with our culture,” which is the number one hiring criterion employers report using, according to research from the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s also one of the squishiest attributes to measure, because few organizations have an accurate and consistent view of their own culture—and even if they do, understanding what attributes represent a good fit is not straightforward. For example, does the fact that an applicant belonged to a fraternity reflect experience working with others or elitism or bad attitudes toward women? Should it be completely irrelevant? Letting someone with no experience or training make such calls is a recipe for bad hires and, of course, discriminatory behavior. Think hard about whether your interviewing protocols make any sense and resist the urge to bring even more managers into the interview process.

Recognize the strengths and weaknesses of machine learning models.
Culture fit is another area into which new vendors are swarming. Typically they collect data from current employees, create a machine learning model to predict the attributes of the best ones, and then use that model to hire candidates with the same attributes.

As with many other things in this new industry, that sounds good until you think about it; then it becomes replete with problems. Given the best performers of the past, the algorithm will almost certainly include white and male as key variables. If it’s restricted from using that category, it will come up with attributes associated with being a white male, such as playing rugby.

Interviews are where biases most easily show up.

Machine learning models do have the potential to find important but previously unconsidered relationships. Psychologists, who have dominated research on hiring, have been keen to study attributes relevant to their interests, such as personality, rather than asking the broader question “What identifies a potential good hire?” Their results gloss over the fact that they often have only a trivial ability to predict who will be a good performer, particularly when many factors are involved. Machine learning, in contrast, can come up with highly predictive factors. Research by Evolv, a workforce analytics pioneer (now part of Cornerstone OnDemand), found that expected commuting distance for the candidate predicted turnover very well. But that’s not a question the psychological models thought to ask. (And even that question has problems.)

The advice on selection is straightforward: Test for skills. Ask assessments vendors to show evidence that they can actually predict who the good employees will be. Do fewer, more-consistent interviews.

The Way Forward
It’s impossible to get better at hiring if you can’t tell whether the candidates you select become good employees. If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there. You must have a way to measure which employees are the best ones.

Why is that not getting through to companies? Surveyed employers say the main reason they don’t examine whether their practices lead to better hires is that measuring employee performance is difficult. Surely this is a prime example of making the perfect the enemy of the good. Some aspects of performance are not difficult to measure: Do employees quit? Are they absent? Virtually all employers conduct performance appraisals. If you don’t trust them, try something simpler. Ask supervisors, “Do you regret hiring this individual? Would you hire him again?”

Organizations that don’t check to see how well their practices predict the quality of their hires are lacking in one of the most consequential aspects of modern business.

Source: https://hbr.org/2019/05/recruiting#your-approach-to-hiring-is-all-wrong

The Wrong Ways to Strengthen Culture

Compared with some other activities of business leaders, such as hiring the right talent and setting strategy, changing corporate culture can be especially challenging. Culture is amorphous; there are no direct levers for shifting it in one direction or another. Indications are that CEOs are putting a higher priority on this aspect of leadership than in the past. According to a study by the research and advisory firm Gartner, CEOs mentioned culture 7% more often during earnings conference calls in 2016 than in 2010. In surveys both CEOs and CHROs say that “managing and improving the culture” is the top priority for talent management. But the data suggests that there’s lots of room for improvement: Each year companies spend $2,200 per employee, on average, on efforts to improve the culture (much of the money goes to consultants, surveys, and workshops)—but only 30% of CHROs report a good return on that investment.

When trying to spearhead culture change, many leaders use the wrong tools. Having surveyed more than 7,500 employees and nearly 200 HR leaders at global companies and conducted in-depth interviews with 100 HR leaders, Gartner has written a report identifying the most- (and the least-) effective ways leaders try to transform culture. To increase their odds of success, the report advises, they should avoid three mistakes.

Don’t use simple adjectives to describe culture.
Because culture feels “squishy” and hard to describe, leaders tend to resort to a generic, overused set of adjectives: Cultures are said to be high-performing, collaborative, innovative, customer-focused, entrepreneurial, results-oriented, transparent, or trusting. Gartner studied how companies using these various buzzwords compared with one another on progress toward revenue goals and found no significant differences—meaning that none of the labels creates an advantage. One reason: Often the chosen buzzword is at odds with how the company actually operates. That causes what Bryan Kurey, Gartner’s managing vice president for HR research, calls a say/do gap: Employees see leaders’ cultural aspirations as hypocritical.

Instead of using a single adjective to describe the culture you aspire to, illustrate it by acknowledging an important tension. “The tension is about the intersection of the ideal and present realities and how those play out day to day,” Kurey says. Talk about wanting to create a “culture of innovation” might sound fanciful and out of touch if the business currently devotes 80% of its resources and personnel to existing product lines. The CEO should instead speak to the tension: “We support a culture of innovation while continuing to seek growth and profits from legacy businesses.”

Other tensions evident in most businesses include the need to achieve both short- and long-term goals and an emphasis on results and accountability while also caring about employees’ well-being and work/life balance. Explicitly recognizing such tensions avoids the disillusionment that can result when employees see leaders espouse one set of behaviors but live by another.

Don’t measure culture with data alone.
Because culture feels intangible, many companies depend on employee surveys when trying to quantify what frontline people think about it. Often the surveys overrely on measures of employee engagement. Firms also commonly look at turnover rates as an indication of culture and morale. But those numbers can provide false comfort. “The feedback gets sanitized at the leadership level, even if you’re not trying to do that,” Kurey says. “Data gets aggregated and averaged and becomes a little generic.” Gartner suggests that companies include open-response questions in their surveys and ensure that leaders see some of the raw feedback. Smart leaders also go beyond periodic surveys, providing an atmosphere of safety that allows employees to speak up at any time without fear of reprisal.

Such unfiltered feedback is especially useful given that many employees feel disconnected from leaders’ cultural aspirations. Gartner’s research shows that on average, 69% of employees don’t believe in the cultural goals set by their leaders, 87% don’t understand them, and 90% don’t behave in ways that align with them. By closing these gaps, Gartner says, companies are 9% more likely to meet or exceed their annual revenue goals. And having a qualitative sense of how employees are feeling can help them do so. “CEOs must not only encourage the unvarnished truth, but also create an environment that demands it,” the researchers write.

Don’t forget to alter policies to support cultural change.
It’s all well and good to talk about a company’s collaborative culture. But if that company uses a forced-curve performance management system—in which a certain percentage of employees must receive low marks—it has created an environment in which workers must compete against one another for high marks, undercutting collaboration. Similarly, companies might declare themselves to be customer-centric but clamp down on the expense account spending necessary to let sales reps travel to meet customers face-to-face. “This is the area where leaders are least consistent—putting the operating model behind the culture,” Kurey says.

“It’s Not a Win-Lose Situation”

Source : https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-wrong-ways-to-strengthen-culture

The Workforce Of The Future: The Skills Challenge Becomes More Apparent

Few business topics seem to receive more media attention than talent and, in particular, preparing talent to be the workforce of the future. So it was surprising when we surveyed CXOs around the globe last year about their “readiness” for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including the changes it would bring to the workplace, that executives were not regularly discussing talent issues. In fact, talent was last among 12 choices of topics CXOs said their companies discussed most frequently.

Focus on talent development will do more than differentiate companies; it also will have a positive impact on society.GETTY IMAGES
At the same time, 86 percent of those surveyed said their organizations were doing “everything they could to create a workforce prepared for Industry 4.0.” With all the changes occurring in the talent and skills space, it seemed that executives perhaps had an unrealistic view of what it would take to truly prepare their workforces for the future.

A year later, it appears reality has set in. In this year’s report from Deloitte Global on business readiness for Industry 4.0, the number of executives reporting they are doing all they can to create a workforce for Industry 4.0 dropped by nearly half, with only 47 percent agreeing. This dramatic shift is an indication that executives are gaining a much deeper understanding of Industry 4.0, are increasingly aware of the challenges before them, particularly with respect to the workforce, and are viewing the actions needed to succeed in Industry 4.0 more realistically.

Addressing the skills mismatch

As Industry 4.0 introduces more advanced technologies capable of impacting almost every aspect of a business’ operations, workers who understand how to utilize and implement these technologies is crucial. However, given the rapid rate of change, the acquisition of these skills are not keeping pace, which has executives concerned. Fifty-five percent of respondents said that their top talent challenge is the significant mismatch between their companies’ current skill sets and those that will be needed in the future. Yet, 46 percent admit they aren’t fully sure what those future skills will be.

With respect to the acquisition of the needed skills, our survey reveals that executives believe the education system is lagging behind the pace of technology. Fifty-seven percent of executives surveyed believe the education systems need to be redesigned to prepare graduates for Industry 4.0, which was a significant increase from 35 percent last year.

Although executives do not believe that the education system is properly preparing workers, they are split on who has the most responsibility to do so. Nearly a quarter of those surveyed believe that individuals have the most responsibility versus 17 percent putting the onus on employers. Still, 43 percent said they intend to train their current employees to meet their future demands.

A focus on talent is a differentiator

Our survey reveals that leaders who embrace training and are more confident their organizations already possess the correct workforce composition for the future are growing faster (that is, more than 5 percent annually) than their counterparts (32 percent versus 20 percent). And they’re also more confident in their own abilities to lead their companies in the Industry 4.0 world.

This focus on talent development will do more than differentiate companies; it also will have a positive impact on society. As Deloitte Global and the Global Coalition for Education recommended in the recent report, “Preparing tomorrow’s workforce for Industry 4.0,” the skills gap is threatening to leave behind nearly half of today’s youth. By continuing to gain clarity in what skills will be needed, and committing to supporting the development of these skills—through training their own employees, working with educators and policymakers to update the education system, and setting up external training programs, like apprenticeships—businesses are creating a brighter future.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/deloitte/2019/01/22/the-workforce-of-the-future-the-skills-challenge-becomes-more-apparent/#2716d9b11ea8

Digital transformation starts with people, not technology

Digital transformation is the number one concern of directors and business executives globally in 2019, according to research conducted by the Enterprise Risk Management Initiative at North Carolina State University and the management consulting firm Protiviti Inc. Just a year ago, the researchers said, it was tenth on the list.

The huge leap within a year reflects the speed and magnitude of digitisation as it affects every organisation, challenging leaders to show they have the agility to keep pace with digital disruption.

Transformation is a challenge. According to a report by McKinsey, 70% of digital transformation initiatives fail. An article in Harvard Business Review stated that of the US$1.3 trillion that was spent on digital transformation in 2018, “it was estimated that $900 billion went to waste”.

So, what does it take for digital transformations to succeed?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution that applies to every organisation. However, based on what I’ve observed from changing business patterns and my own experiences, here are two questions that might help leaders to start thinking in the right direction.

Question one: What do your customers think about you?

The best customer experiences will come from the way you respond to the ideas and comments of your actual customers. The process of ideation should be outside in, and not inside out.

Many organisations start with technology. As soon as they introduce a new app or tool for customers to play with, they expect customer satisfaction to improve by leaps and bounds.

But eventually, they get disappointed when the technology doesn’t deliver the impact it promised, which can lead to an internal blame game and low morale in the organisation.

The source of the problem isn’t that someone proposed a mediocre idea. When your people don’t have any authentic information and real-time statistics from real customers, and they are put in a room to brainstorm, chances are they will come up with some fancy ideas just for the sake of it. This will just create confusion and misalignment of organisational values and business strategy.

The problem is the starting point. Instead of starting with technology, start with your customers. Empathise with them. Heed the positive comments as well as the negative ones. Negative comments will help you identify possible flaws in your products and services, and maybe in your overall organisation.

Once you have honest feedback, value it. Work and make changes wherever possible. The only way to know where to change and how to change is through detailed input from your customers.

Question Two: What work culture does your organisation promote?

Some startups have a work culture that exemplifies agility in decision making, fast prototyping of products and solutions with no hierarchy. What roles do these qualities and traits play in transformation?

Digital transformation is a mixture of experimentation, ambiguity and resilience. There is no guaranteed outcome for experiments. Most initiatives start with a sense of optimism and positivity backed up with grit.

Transformation is not about one big storm sweeping every old tradition away in one blow. It is mostly a long journey of small changes that happen every single day in bits and pieces. That is why consistency and willingness to repeat and iterate is so important in transformation.

Some leaders want to change everything about the organisation from day one of their transformational journeys. That only puts unnecessary stress on your people and invites frustration for you.

Hierarchy can be a stumbling block against each of the small changes that you ultimately want to add up to a big change. If you want to see sustainable transformation with measurable impact, you need to ensure that hierarchy doesn’t quash the creativity and efforts of your people.

Monique Shivanandan, the Group Chief Information Officer of Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, said: “The biggest part of our digital transformation is changing the way we think.”

Changing technology is the easy part of digital transformation. Changing people is, however, the real challenge, and it all starts with how we think: What do you think about your people and your customers? And what do they think about you and your organisation?

Source: https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/1732451/digital-transformation-starts-with-people-not-technology

Here’s how to cultivate a work environment that produces great ideas

It’s easy to overlook great ideas when you’re caught up in your day-to-day work. Here’s how to create a workplace where great ideas can thrive.
Here’s how to cultivate a work environment that produces great ideas
Apple Computer cofounder Steve Wozniak sitting in front of one of his Apple MacIntosh computers. [Photo: Getty Images/Getty Images] BY AYTEKIN TANK4 MINUTE READ
In the days before Apple, an engineer pitched the idea for a personal computer five times to his employer, Hewlett Packard. Each time, they rejected his idea. That engineer, Steve Wozniak, went on to found Apple with fellow innovator Steve Jobs.

Wozniak wasn’t the first person to have his brilliant idea rejected, and he certainly won’t be the last. The thing is, companies often lack the right infrastructure or approach to recognize the actual merits of their employees’ ideas.

There are, however, things you can do to create workplaces that reward your employees’ creative efforts. But first: what causes companies to overlook smart innovations in the first place?

For starters, many organizations don’t have a system for employees to submit their proposals. A study by Accenture found that a whopping 72 percent of companies have no formalized process to review and evaluate their employees’ ideas.

Then, there’s the fact that many decision-makers are risk-averse. As Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman has written, “For most people, the fear of losing $100 is more intense than the hope of gaining $150.”

In short, losses loom larger than gains. People would rather maintain the status quo than risk betting on a losing horse. When it comes to companies and innovation, there’s an emphasis on demonstrable results and profitability. This means that leaders often don’t green-light unusual ideas, and this kind of culture often stifles innovation.

And in some cases, great ideas are swallowed up by company politics. According to Northwestern professor Brian Uzzi, meaningful innovations will inevitably cause politics to enter the picture, as various players vie for a limited amount of resources, often without being able to demonstrate future returns. Uzzi explains:

“[W]hen early-stage innovations or those that need to be implemented to collect performance data lack hard performance evidence, politics tend to preserve the current state of power and control over physical and social resources.”

As a result, the most innovative ideas lose out.

But as some companies have figured out, that doesn’t have to be the case. If you’re a manager, here’s a guide to ensuring that your company’s next million-dollar idea comes to fruition.

First, you need to make sure that employees know how to submit their ideas for review.

Micah Johnson of GoFanbase, Inc., shared with Small Business Trends that his company created a Slack channel where employees can submit their ideas. Tomer Bar-Zeev of IronSource said that 24-hour hackathons enable his innovation team to break from their usual projects and work on entirely different, new projects. At my company, JotForm, we hold weekly Demo Days to give employees a forum to explore their ideas, no matter how far-fetched.

Even a system as simple as a suggestion box can be highly effective. Just ask Charlie Ward, the engineer who used Amazon’s digital suggestion box to submit his idea for free shipping, which eventually formed the basis of Amazon Prime. As journalist Brad Stone wrote in his book The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon, CEO Jeff Bezos was reportedly “immediately enchanted by the idea.”

Regardless of which system you implement, make sure it’s known and accessible to all employees.

You can also encourage great ideas by making the selection process transparent and more democratic.

Rite-Solutions, a Rhode Island-based IT company, developed a smart way to generate new ideas while eliminating some of the politics of decision-making: an “idea market,” where employees can post an idea, which is then listed as “stock” on the market, Harvard Business Review.

The company gives employees $10,000 in virtual currency, which they can “invest” in their colleagues’ ideas. Those that garner enough support are greenlit, and the respective investors get a share of the profits. I love this system because it encourages employees to collaborate and to support each other’s ideas.

What do Apple’s MobileMe, Amazon’s Fire Phone, and Google Glass have in common? They’re all unsuccessful products introduced by the world’s most successful and innovative companies.

The most forward-thinking companies embrace risk-taking and the possibility of failure. And for every MobileMe, there’s a handful of products or services that did gain traction. Plus, every failure can offer a teachable moment.

Before I launched JotForm, my entrepreneurial track record included more than one failed product. And I mean total busts. For example, I created a membership site for university alumni—at about the same time that a little company called Facebook was taking off. I’m sure you can guess how that story ended. But rather than giving up on starting my own business, I continued to gain experience working for other companies while looking for another problem I could solve and one that no one else was solving.

Now, I’m not saying you should encourage lax work ethic and sloppy skills (which often leads to failure). But letting employees know that failures are okay can go a long way toward fostering their most creative ideas.

Next time you want your employees to come up with a great idea, don’t focus on how it will make a profit; focus on how it will solve a problem. With this approach, I’ve found that employees will rise to the task of coming up with innovative solutions.


Why Isn’t HR Leading The Freelance Revolution?

It’s a topic of some importance to me as a former HR executive, author and consultant. And, I confess some disappointment. Speaking recently at a large HR leadership conference in Europe, fewer than 30% described their organizations as far along in defining their workforce in future. Fewer still saw their organization ready to benefit from the freelance revolution. In workshops I’ve delivered to HR executive audiences in New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., London and elsewhere, it’s the same: HR leaders are well aware of what’s happening globally as the freelance revolution gains traction, but aren’t applying that insight to their own company’s freelance use in a meaningful and strategic way. Too often, HR delegated management of freelancers to Procurement or the discretion of individual managers.

For a great many HR departments the default mission is still defined implicitly: we’re responsible for full-time employees.

It’s a mistake that HR needs to correct. In many organizations, full-time is becoming a less overwhelming part of the total workforce. In a recent Toptal survey, 91% of companies regularly tap freelance expertise, 76% are increasing freelance involvement, and companies like Apple and Google already employ more freelancers than regular employees.

I’ve wondered why HR is so late to the freelance revolution. Then I found a recent HR.com survey helpful. The survey was conducted by HR.com and Sense. 500 HR professionals participated.

Most of the findings replicated other survey results:

A majority of surveyed organizations use freelance professionals.
The principal benefits are flexibility and cost.
Fewer than half see their organizations as effectively managing freelancers.
Organizations that do manage freelancers well track use freelancers, measure engagement/satisfaction, communicate with key updates and effectively screen and select.
But one additional finding was very interesting: When asked “What factors keep your organization from hiring a greater proportion of contingent workers (choose all that apply)?” Fifty-five percent said “We need to retain, long-term qualified skilled employees;” two-fifths said, “Our business requires skill sets that require a long time to hone” (44%). “About half (47%) added because “We need long-term employees who understand our culture.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonyounger/2019/08/18/why-isnt-hr-leading-the-freelance-revolution/#4f94e566430f

SolveCubeHR – The Intelligent Global HR Marketplace

Enter SolvecubeHR
Infusing decades of blended HR domain knowledge with proprietary matching technology, SolveCubeHR helps to ensure only the best-fit recommendations are presented based on the inputs from buyers over an extensive and structured review of benefits & features.

This is achieved through two important processes completed quickly:

The vendors onboard their capability in detail via a structured online process. This allows easy comparison of buyer requirements versus what the vendor got to offer.
The buyer has to go through a similar structured process to make sure the full specifications are listed out.
The intelligence of the platform takes over to identify and present the top matches that fit buyer needs instantaneously.

From there, the buyers can engage the shortlisted vendors through audio or video calls and/or online chats.

At the vendors’ end, they would get immediate notification of a warm interest.

An interactive, exclusive to HR, intelligent matchmaking platform to procure, provide and transact all HR Freelancers and HR technology solutions
The HR Tech market is extremely fragmented and cluttered.Based on my 2019 HR Tech Market Map released earlier this year, there are at least 160 HR tech vendors in Singapore alone. And 5000+ HR tech products globally.

I can imagine the confusion among st buyers as they are reminded about the “Future of Work” and “HR Digital Transformation”.

Just like no recruiter wants to read through 100 unique CVs to hire that one candidate, neither would HR Tech buyers want to sit through a few dozen demos before deciding which one to go with.

With that in mind, the team behind iCube Consortium (recipient CIO APAC Outlook Magazine Top 10 HR technology solutions providers 2019) set out to solve this pain point and recently launched SolveCubeHR, a global first e-HR intelligent market platform.

Officially launched in mid-July, SolveCubeHR is funded by Enterprise Singapore Capability Development Grant.

SolveCubeHR is a disruptive innovation, changing the way HR products and services are accessed and consumed globally. It aims to empower buyers and providers of HR freelance expertise & HR tech solutions, to access each other speedily and cost-effectively. No more network search or references or cold calls.
With ~12 HR market places across USA, Singapore, India, Canada etc., and many more HR association networks in other countries, the access, without any exception, is “listing directories”.

Going back to the recruitment analogy, it is akin to getting a full list of candidates when you do a keyword search on your ATS without the suitability score.

At least you only have one set of requirements (or keywords) to search with as a recruiter.

When you are shopping for an HR tech platform, the heads of IT, procurement, business units would also have their own criteria.

Often enough, the answers you are looking for are not publicly available as vendors hold their cards not just close to their chest but kept deep within their vault.

All these make the buying process complex and cumbersome, which can be a drag to timeline and motivation.

Given so, the level of engagement and priority would be significantly higher, making the rest of the process much more conducive for both parties.

The key differentiation of SolveCubeHR – neutrality.
Most similar platforms or directories would collect referral fees from vendors.

Hence the recommendation would always be the same few as those are the ones that would be paying them.

That is good for the platform but not so for the buyers who just want to have the best possible tech solution in the market to solve their problem.

With that in mind, SolveCubeHR adopted a product-neutral stance and doesn’t take any referral fees from vendors.

This allows complete objectivity and ensures matching needs and capabilities are purely based on what the buyers need.

Instead, HR tech vendors would be paying for a subscription to be listed on the platform allowing for independent matchmaking.

The platform is built to onboard 30+ HR tech categories
HRM Software Learning Management Performance Management
Applicant tracking Payroll solutions Time and attendance
Succession Planning Video interviewing 360-degree feedback
Compensation Management Benefits Administration Talent Management
Workforce Management Onboarding solution Employee recognition
Employee engagement Career Planning Organisation Chart
Contract Labour Mgt Stock Options Admin Document Management
HR Help Desk Background verification Knowledge Management
HR Risk Management HR Analytics Predictive Analytics
Collaboration software EHS software Mentoring system

What kind of products and services will be available?
Use “expert on call” facility to seek HR advice almost instantly.
Find curated HR experts to Set up, Step up or Transform your HR function
Download ready to use policies, templates, manuals
Devise your HR strategy with HR diagnostic tools and instant reports.
Find an HR expert to customise HR policies or handbooks
Find the right fit HR tech products, matched for your specific needs

So what else can you do on the platform?
Beyond providing intelligent matching, there is other stuff you can do on the platform. Such as:

Engage end to end on the platform- buy, sell, pay and receive online
Subscribe as a freelancer vendor and get presented in the top matches when scores with other vendors are equal.
Subscribe as an HR tech vendor and get free access to leads without a Lead Fee each time. And be presented as a preferred vendor after all other scores are almost equal to match buyers’ needs.

Keen to be featured?
For a limited period, HR tech vendors get to register free and be handheld through the onboarding process.

There are already tens of HR tech vendors, 100+ buyers and ~ freelancers on the platform.

Join and gain access to buyers.

Reach out to chandru@solvecubehr.com to find out more from the founder today.

Source: https://adriantan.com.sg/solvecubehr-the-intelligent-global-hr-marketplace/