Unfortunately, in this day and age, corporate Learning and Development departments still view the learning function as a series of interventions. Furthermore, many are using learning models and tools that date back to the 1960’s, and even the 1940’s. Models that have been revisited by academics and subsequently found to be of low validity due to a lack of bodies of evidence, are still being regarded as gospel within the industry today – and it is widespread. The Learning Pyramid and learning styles such as Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic are just two such examples. Further yet, Learning and Development departments have been slow to move away from practices and tools that were suitable for the Industrial Revolution era, but that do empower the strategic aspirations of CEOs who wish to address emerging opportunities that create competitive advantage. Nor do they empower pivoting to address threats and disruptions.

Such trends include: remote digital working; the evolution of internal technological platforms (think Amazon, and its website platform that evolved into Amazon Web Services and Prime Video), and the growing usefulness of Artificial Intelligence – to name a few. These trends characterize what has become known as The New Global Knowledge Economy. The manufacturing and selling focus of the Industrial Revolution no longer holds much competitive advantage for many companies; products manufacturing can be outsourced to just about anywhere now, and it’s difficult to beat the costs of production in China anyway. Besides, products and services are easily emuhlated by competitors.

Instead, knowledge is the new currency. Hundreds of companies are able to manufacture smartphones, yet Apple and Samsung are the leaders. A myriad of companies can create a search engine – yet Google is the leader in the field. The ‘x-factor’ for the leaders is knowledge. Knowledge that has created more useful and effective products. Indeed, there is a proven link between learning and innovation. Yet, more Learning and Development departments can be found to be running traditional management development and coaching programs, and soft skill interventions, than can be found running interventions that develop the competencies required to compete in the New Knowledge Economy. L&D managers are still deliberating on deploying learning tools that are on the decline, such as mobile learning; gamification – and the like. To compound this, many L&D leaders fixate on coaching; training; mentoring; leadership. This single role-cluster, myopic view of L&D goes something like this: “We do learning. We create and deliver the program and tick the box, and that keeps EXCO quiet.”

L&D leadership needs to start thinking a little more like ‘mini-economists’; marketers and organizational development practitioners, to shift closer to practicing Strategic Human Resource Development. Strategic HRD is a state of the L&D department having such a deep understanding of the business it is meant to support, and being so aligned with corporate objectives, that everything they do directly drives corporate objectives in a measurable manner. It is a state that that is far beyond simply conducting a Training Needs Analysis, and setting Learning Outcomes. An L&D department that practices Strategic HRD, is a multi job-cluster role that is actually included in the corporate planning process, as the C-Suite realizes an L&D department that practices Strategic HRD is an enabler of the strategy, and C-Suite often will not set some strategies without first consulting with L&D as to whether it is able to transform the talent they will need to deliver the proposed corporate strategy.

Up-skilling the talent required for the business transformations that deliver corporate strategy is just one of the multiple role clusters of new generation of strategic L&D departments: nowadays, L&D is expected to run Change Management Engagement initiatives too – witness the increasing number of L&D job advertisements these days, that require the L&D candidate to have a Change Management certification. Furthermore, L&D is seeing the gradual addition of yet an additional role-cluster: the domain of Organizational Culture and Engagement. This domain is a natural expansion of the L&D role, as it requires the specialized ‘hearts and minds’ knowledge, as well as the communication and intervention execution competencies that are found in L&D professionals. The role of Talent Management is also being increasingly amalgamated with L&D: the L&D job advertisements have been decreasingly using the title ‘L&D Manager’, and increasingly referring to ‘Talent, Learning and Development Manager’. Some go further by advertising for a ‘Talent, Learning and Organizational Development Manager’. Recently, L&D advertisements reflect that organizations are further upping the ante for L&D, with some of them calling on candidates to be qualified AGILE Scrum Masters, who actually manage Organizational Development implementation project teams.

It’s no longer just about Learning for L&D. As the L&D professional’s knowledge transfer tasks continue to be reduced by Learning Management Systems, L&D departments are under pressure to find new ways to deliver value, and the with the rate and direction at which the role has been evolving, we say “so far, so good”.

An L&D department that has an excellent fit with the business, and empowers the strategy as described in the previous paragraph, is known as Vertically Integrated. The L&D department also needs to possess what is known as Horizontal Integration: a high level of integration with other H.R functions. Often, L&D is a separate function from Talent Management, and is always separate from the HRBP and Employee Relations function, and this reduces the effectiveness of the role that L&D can play. A few examples illustrate this: One of Talent Management’s tasks is Succession Planning. Often, Talent relies heavily upon managers to recommend their successors. When there is a high level of Horizontal Integration, Talent Management will include HRBPs and L&D in the Succession conversation: HRBP’s can provide valuable inputs on the recommended successor’s suitability based on their dealings with them, and L&D can provide inputs on their skills and leadership readiness, and future development plans. Should their be consensus that the recommended manager is indeed a potential future successor, then an exponential benefit arises when L&D and Talent Management collaborate to determine the developmental needs and career-planning needed to bring the potential successor to a state of readiness on the replacement chart. By including Performance Management in the conversation, both L&D and Talent can have constantly updated visibility as to whether the potential successor remains a feasible choice. This approach is the basis for the reasonably recent concept of Integrated Talent Management.

Against this backdrop, L&D departments in general have a lot of maturing to undergo, to transform not just the department, but the entire organization to become Vertically and Horizontally Integrated and drive its competence in competing in the Post-Industrial (manufacturing) Age. We are now firmly in the age of the New Knowledge Economy. What could count more than the L&D department in an age that has the words ‘Knowledge Economy’ in its nomenclature?

One of the key results of an L&D function that matures in line with the New Knowledge Economy, and is truly effective, is a product known as a New Learning Organization (NLO). What is a NLO? It is a concept that was proposed by systems scientist, Peter Senge in a business book he wrote over 25 years ago, and it was defined as “a company that continuously transforms itself through the learning and development of its members.” Senge’s book was rated by Harvard Business Review as one of the most influential business books in 75 years.

The good news is that a blueprint exists to facilitate this maturity journey. The transformative principles that bring about maturity have been refined by the Towards Maturity Organization, and according authors Daly and Overton, they are: A Holistic People Experience; a Thriving Ecosystem; Agile Digital Infrastructure; Intelligent Decision Making and Continual Engagement. These are centered around Clarity of Purpose. The essence of a NLO is that the ENTIRE organization – from C-Suite, to the Line, to Individual Contributor - thinks, breathes and acts LEARNING. Learning drives innovation (provided it has the required mechanisms such as Appreciative Inquiry). Innovation drives market share and profitability. According to Daly and Overton, their research revealed that the top 10% of organizations who pursue the NLO principles are “three times more likely to report benefits relating to growth, profitability, transformation and productivity than the rest of the sample of 600” (Driving the New Learning Organization, May 2017).

If the conversations in your L&D department are dominated with the usual talk about taxonomies, leadership styles, thinking hats and Learning ROI, then we’d suggest that the focus and approach might be micro and not integrated, nor strategic, and therefore inadequately geared to deliver the competitive advantage and agility required by the C-Suite to operate in the New Knowledge Economy landscape.

We know how to set companies on a transformation path towards becoming a New Learning Organization – and a massive budget is not necessarily a prerequisite: there are often low-cost yet impactful steps that can initially be taken. We invite you to speak to us to learn more.

As the environment in which businesses operate continues to rapidly change, many are not fully configured to capitalize on the opportunities and manage the risk that accompanies it. What are the major changes?

The most immediate one is a surge of pent-up B2B and B2C demand of a post-COVID era, that will endure for a long time to come. As far as more enduring changes are concerned, Digital will continue to accelerate: from Artificial Intelligence to new generation of smart business platforms. This presents its own challenges: Legislation snd Governance has not kept up with the rise of A.I: law-makers are still figuring it out. So are organizations as evident by the rise of internal A.I Councils.

The way of working is also changing, demanding smarter, more collaborative and leaner organizational structures; faster project management methods; and an increase in remote and flexible working capability. A recent global survey by McKinsey of 800 executives revealed that more than half of the respondents expected that home-working for staff would continue to work for a minimum of one or two days weekly. Taking this a step further, we note that numerous geographies are reducing the work-week – Dubai being an example, whereby the work week is four-and-a-half days. Furthermore, there has been a trend –especially in Europe- called the ‘right to disconnect’- whereby managers are prohibited from contacting their employees by any means whatsoever, outside of working hours. We have also witnessed that there is an increased demand and lack of Talent Acquisition strategy for sourcing scarce ‘new age skills’ for recently emerging roles connected to Sustainability; Green Energy; D.E.I; Battery Technology; Generative A.I and Semi-conductors. With the evolution of the world, there is no reason presently to think that the demand for these skills will diminish. The feedback that we receive tells us that many Talent Acquisition departments lack the talent pools; understanding; competencies and strategy to recruit these skills on an environment where there is a ‘war for talent’.

Consumer behavior has also continued to evolve at an increasing pace post-COVID pandemic, that has spurred many to try alternative purchasing methods, and there is an also increased social and eco scrutiny of brands by them. The environment is also changing: The pandemic-era sparked a surge in entrepreneurial activity – up to double that of 2019 in certain countries. This will certainly drive innovation and availability of smarter solutions for businesses to purchase. Innovation is the new competitive currency.

At the same time, globalization is increasing the sources of competition (and talent). Countries such as China, that entered the pandemic first, has been among the first to begin business recovery, and the balance of competitive and market power will likely shift further.

Next, geo-political tensions have been unprecedented, and Business (and by default, H.R) will need to deal with the volatility that it brings – whether it be the knock-on effect of inflation, to forced exit from markets involved in armed conflicts or subject to sanctions; to shortages of raw materials (e.g rare eath minerals and wheat). The chess game of major geopolitical rivals will also undoubtedly have implications. On the surface, there may seem like little relevance to business, but we already see the geopolitical effects trickling down: inflationary pressures on supply chains and accordingly, on consumers; and an inability to produce enough to meet consumer demand (as in the wheat example, whereby certain countries warned that there could be product shortages in supermarkets). Political interference is a futher factor: legislative or regulatory interference throughout Europe has seen farmers in France, Germany, Belguim, Netherlands and Italy striking. This element is not just limited to Europe: certain U.S governors are presently considering enacting legislation against certain Gulf countries that have bought up farms and are exploiting water reserves in the U.S. We also see turmoil related to farmers as far afield as India. Many of the Gulf countries have a program that they term ‘Vision (year)’, for example: ‘Vision 2025’ that have been conferred by their rulers. Their Public-; Semi-governmental / Public Investment Fund and private sectors will need to rapidly build the agility; capability and capacity to pivot to the new ‘national vision’ priority that has been conferred upon them. Big change, with voitalilty, uncertainty and ambiiguity indeed.

Whether it be pandemics; meltdowns of national economies; conflicts; global recessions or economic sanctions on a company’s major geographical market, the pressures on scalability, more robust supply chains and the need for the ability to pivot to new priorities will increase as they frequency and intensity of business pressures do.

This has given rise to a valuable emerging core competency: having a competent cadre of agile talent skilled in change, who are an effective ‘early-warning radar’ scanning the horizon for signs of SWOT; then making sense of the signals and translating them into proactive strategy and plans.

How does does H.R specifically fall in line to support business to cope with all of this? Some have started, but are deploying reactive, fragmented tactics: a few projects here and there, managed by traditional project management techniques, and the plugging in of the odd revised tool; policy or Change Management course for a few staff here and there, as and when needed. Not a well integrated, long-term strategy to establish change and agility as permanent Organizational Competencies.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Change, is Transition. They do not mean the same thing, and are not interchangeable words. Change is about installing new plans, processes and tools Transition is about the movement of the human, emotional state through a Change Curve. Change rarely happens successfully, nor sticks without aligning it with Transition planning. Further, supporting the human Transition must happen before the Change. The mistake many organizations make is that they do not use the middle of the change curve – where depression and confusion often reign – to engage employees to float their improvement ideas; they instead neglect to capitalize on this opportunities to make employees a true part of the change, which would buy additional commitment, and so speed them through the transition quicker.

Are H.R departments building change-embracing workforces? Crucial to doing so, is the need to strengthen the Motivators and Hygiene Factors, the Psychological Contract, and to align the Change Communication Plan and Engagement Plan with the principles of Expectancy Theory during during times of major changes. It is vital that Line Managers have rudimentary training and a playbook on these aspects, to ensure that this strengthening is implemented by the Line at grassroots. Speaking of Line Managers / Leaders, H.R offer monetary incentives for them to successfully formulate and implement local change initiatives (a bonus component based usually on the ‘Process’ quadrant of the BSC, and weighted heavily, or a once-off payment not tethered to BSC performance). We are not claiming flat-out that this is wrong, but the reader may like to consider the findings of an interesting experiment by Dan Pink. According to Pink, (www.danpink.com), “Money Can’t Buy You Performance”, accessed on Aug 2023, under the auspices of the London School of Economics, where scholars looked at 51 studies on pay-for-performance schemes. Their conclusions:

“We find that financial incentives may indeed reduce intrinsic motivation and diminish ethical or other reasons for complying with workplace social norms such as fairness. As a consequence, the provision of incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.” Studies by Studies by M.I.T; Carnegie Mellon and Federal Reserve have demonstrated that performance actually decreases as monetary incentives increase when used to incentivize employing cognitive skills , but is has the opposite effect on incentivizing motor skills.

Some good starting points for H.R would be first, to use scientific methods and tools to the Culture from a mindset of ‘managing change’ to a ‘continuous improvement’ paradigm. It sounds obvious and many try to do it. With posters on the cafeteria / canteen walls. With a video recorded streamed speech from the CEO playing on a screen in the elevator. They usually mix in an Internal Mass Communications plan linked to an Employee Engagement Event. And that is not a scientific approach, but they do it because “almost everybody does”. Those who are not “everybody” are doing it differently, starting off with a Values Audit; Leadership Review and perhaps determining their Cultural Entropy Score.

Those H.R practitioners who are “doing it differently” are also doing this: First, building new Core Competencies. One such competency is Sense-making: an understanding of data, signs, signals and trends in the surrounding environment to rapidly adapt and use new information faster, allowing the organization to identify SWOT whilst it is still on the horizon, to allow time to pivot to it and address it. The ability, Sense-making is an essential core competency that typifies the New Knowledge Economy. Do not confuse it with the common leadership competency of ‘Cognitive Ability’ or ‘Reasoming and Logic Skills’, as sense-making ability is just that: sensing the signs of disrupton BEFORE it happens, versus taking action on data and observatrions AFTER it has happened – this is the difference: proactivity. to do this, H.R needs to help to build capabilities that assist to proactively ‘sniff out’ winds of change that have not yet arrived by being instrumental in initiatives such as the creation of a B.I Team and Dual Operating Model Team: a capability that proactively, and constantly seeks out SWOT and is skilled in Managing Change (which includes Transition) to address that SWOT.

H.R departments that are on the leading adge of change competence and support, support their enterprize to capitalize on emerging First Mover Advantage opportunities, and stand ready to quickly and easily mitigate the risks. They realize that a change plan and team agility is not enough – organizational agility is the real key. For this reason, they have begun total transitions, to lead their businesses to collectively become an agile organization. They have set up proactive change teams, and trained them on project management methods that fast-track projects quicker than traditional methods - the AGILE ® framework. The world has been transitioning from traditional, long, inflexible projects to smarter ways that deliver results faster, and allow changes to be passed more easily along the way, as the environment changes. As the AGILE methodology is a discipline on its own, and it is not practical to examine it in depth in this insight, the reader is encouraged to research it at their convenience. Suffice to say that these companies are infusing AGILE practice throughout the organization by certifying an increasing number of their staff in all areas of operation. Why Agile ™? Because it has the propensity to save up to 30 to 40% in Implementation cost and time. How? Through parallel instead of consecutive, sequential workstreams. Why should H.R be concerned with this? Here’s why: how can H.R build and support change capacity if HR staff have only rudimentary knowledge of it?

Successful H.R functions realize that it is not just about performing the traditional H.R functions, and measuring H.R metrics, but rather, they take a ‘Design Thinking’ 360 degree, ‘outside in’ view of the entire enterprize: which is about solving a problem from an end user perspective- that is, the customers. They do not just ‘see everything through H.R glasses’. Although this sounds easy to accomplish, it requires thinking as both designer and end-user, and how to arrive at solutions for not one, but numerous possibilities. Whose key task is it to provide the culture and learning to accomplish this mindset and these skills? H.R’s, of course.

Another point of distinction for the successful H.R functions, is that they focus on championing and enabling those who are subject to the change, to become fellow-creators. This is quite achievable when one considers the simple framework that William Bridge’s made available in his Model of Transition and Change Model. We always see the word ‘innovative’ appear somewhere along the line within an organization’s literature in their website sections ‘About Us’, and they send their staff on courses about innovating, but the enabling structures are often absent. Which department is often seen as the custodian of organizatonal design? H.R usually.

The leading H.R departments are acting upon the new reality that the world of business has moved on from the 4th Industrial Revolution to a New Knowledge Economy. No longer are the organizational competencies of being able to manufacture and sell paramount, but rather, innovation is the new currency, and there is a proven link between learning and innovation. They do not view the Learning and Development (L&D) department as a separate function that churns out interventions, but rather, as an enabler of corporate strategy, that is to be engaged when setting corporate strategy. They view L&D as the leaders in turning the entire organization into a living learning ecosystem that grows its own capabilities, with managers, co-workers and C-Suite all participating in imparting learning in some way, every day –both formally, informally and socially. This state that they seek, is known as a New Learning Organization, and it is crucial state to achieve in order to effectively compete in the New Knowledge Economy.

Finally, astute H.R functions are slowly but surely adjusting their core role from being transactional and measuring roles to a very focused role whereby they absolutely align with C-Suite’s aspirations for agility and transformation, driving faster communications; decisions; implementations and improved capability and capacity.

We wish our fellow people practitioners success in building the strategic organizational competence of change and agility.

Talent & Transformation can help.

The Institute for the Future and Dell Technologies published a report stating ‘85% of the jobs that our people will be doing in 2030 haven’t been invented yet’. Every year, an increasing number of indications are manifesting, that lend credence to this claim, and most people professionals agree that many existing roles will change beyond recognition within the next few years. A simple question illustrates: how many data scientists do you have? How long ago was it that you heard of the term: ‘A.I and Data Council’?

So what are the implications for managing the workforce? After all, today’s Talent Management practices of most organizations are simply evolved iterations of paradigms of the Industrial Revolution Era which ended in 1840. At best, some of these practices loosely incorporate a few strands of the Digital Era for ICT requirements, as and when needed. It is unlikely that organizations will find much competitive advantage in their current traditional Talent configurations that are modelled on those two eras: after all, most countries in the world possess the Industrial Revolution capability to manufacture the goods in varying degrees, and China handles it all nowadays. Likewise, not much competitive advantage is to be had from a Digital Era talent focus either, as technologies are either soon copied, or become mainstream in the market. The Burden of Incumbency is real.

The Industrial Revolution talent template has been rapidly changing to a template for today’s New Knowledge Economy, and this means that the emphasis of Talent Managers on today’s technical skills will no longer be sufficient to build a workforce that is effective, as the skills become rapidly outdated. This change will mean that recruiting and retaining talent with softer skills that can amplify competitive advantage will come to the fore. For example: pro-active sense-making.

Added to this evolving complexity of defining and managing a talent strategy that needs to support competitive advantage and future-proofing, is a second layer of complexity consisting of challenges such as: geographically dispersed teams; digitization of the world of work; globalization; increasing pace of environmental volatility; talent scarcity, and the way-of-working expectations of the newer generations of workers.

Several other factors are impacting the world of Talent presently –some being challenges, and others being opportunities.

First is the opportunity that freelancers (‘The Gig Economy’) and outsourcing presents in terms of providing rapid scalability and HR Payroll expense reduction: they don’t come with the expenses of recruiting costs; developmental costs; supplemental benefits (pension and medical insurance-etc); nor the expense of Incentives. However, control of such workers can be tricky, and the only personal commitment to your company that they come with, is that of fulfilling the contract obligations. Josh Bersin’s HR Technology Market 2021 report on their study, indicated that only 16% of organizations have established a strategy for managing gig workers and that when their competence was assessed, just 12% could be defined as high-performers. Therefore, a robust plan is required when venturing into this realm. Even when considering the 2019 Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends report, we discover that 41% of survey respondents considered it crucial issue, and yet, not even 30% are prepared to cope with it. Furthermore, it was revealed that 54% of those surveyed had inconsistent to zero processes for managing such an alternative workforce.

Second, is the so-called Great Resignation. Since the end of the COVID era, people who worked from home have had time to reflect on their work lives, and many employees across multiple sectors came to the realization that they weren't happy with their jobs during the pandemic. People weren't satisfied with their work environment, the industry they were in or their work-life balance and left their jobs, and its now becoming a paradigm: “if you’re not happy, just do something else”. There are plenty of opportunities for them to do so too – from going into lucrative freelancing, to earning money from social media. They have realized that they will survive without a job, (unless they’re quite heavily leveraged in financial commitments) and have lost much fear of not having fulltime jobs. The writer of this insight is a prime example, having moved from the hassle of getting up early and fighting through traffic to get to work for 21 to 23 days a month, and then being able to take only 30 days off annually, to becoming an H.R freelancer for a few years, working 6 to 10 days a month on his own terms often at home, in short pants with Netflix ™ breaks, and other days flying to interesting places to work there, and still earning more than sufficient to cover life expenses. The Great Resignation is a real thing. This leads into another related trend: Talent Management being geared up in terms of policies; processes and infrastructure to facilitate remote work.

Third, is the growing importance of the Employee Experience. We all realize it’s important, but let’s take pause just to remind ourselves of the profound breadth and power of its impact: Employee experience affects employee engagement, satisfaction, loyalty, and advocacy. It also affects customer experience, brand reputation, and business results. Accordingly, let us likewise take a high-level reminder review of the task that needs to be accomplished to to render a high-quality Employee Experience: to drive our organization to adopt a human-centric and empathetic approach, and design processes and practices that align with the employee's needs, preferences, and values (as far as is practicable). Hand-in-hand with Employee Experience is another allied trend: that of Employee Wellness, although recently, Employee Wellness has began to evolve into the concept of ‘Well Organization’.

The final factor shall not be addressed in much detail, as it is addressed at length in other insights we have published. We shall just review 7 key considerations under this factor. The name of the game of this final factor is accurate prediction for Talent Management. A.I increases predictions over human predictions by between 30 to 50 percent, and that is a significant implication for cost; speed and effectiveness. Importantly, according to certain schools of thought (such as a recent webinar this writer attended, held by Wharton), it is not likely that A.I will replace Talent Management staff, but instead, augment their capabilities. It not a situation such as the typist job role that became extinct in the 1980s, and if you think about it, where are all of those autonomous trucks that were supposed to have eliminated the truck-driver role a few years ago already? Here are some of the considerations:

Consideration #1: By using A.I in Talent Management Identification and Selection efficiency and effectiveness increases, and most of the task is automated. Job desecriptions are automatically generated and suggested, along with a corresponding Ideal Employee Profile (IEP). The machine then automatically maps the best talent pools to target; the best media to use –from social media, to formal media (based on the likely number of views and the IEP demographics). It then writes the job advert and determines the best time to post. Next, it posts the advert along with the IEP and JD, and receives applicant response resumés. The algorithm, which functions unlike a traditional ATS, then runs predications in the likely success and tenure in the role for each applicant, by gleaning predictive variables from the resumés (examples: speed of career progression; likely stability based on age; motivation based date of last education attended) and also variables from any social media or forum posts by the applicant, that it searches for (indicators in their posts such as emotional maturity; personality type –all constructed from analyzing the words of the social media post, and the group subscribed to). A typical A.I driven solution can process hundreds of applicant resumés per minute. The prime candidate is then communicated to Talent Acquisition directly, drastically reducing ‘gut-feeling’ bias that could be introduced by the hiring manager. Rentention; accuracy of hiring and talent acquisition speed is improved. The bottom line is that the ATS. Hiring effectiveness improves. As long as steps are taken to reduce bias in training data, machine learning eliminates the subjective bias inherent in Talent Acquisition Specialists and Hiring Managers, as it draws on a myriad of data variables gleaned from numerous sources. It deals in cold facts and correlated patterns, not the ‘impressions’ nor ‘gut-feeling’ nor underlying personal motives and preferences of selection and hiring individuals. Bad Hires are reduced as a consequence. More so if the A.I tool goes beyond machine learning to the next generation of A.I : Deep Learning and Neural Networks.

Consideration #2: Hiring effectiveness improves. As long as steps are taken to reduce bias in training data, machine learning eliminates the subjective bias inherent in Talent Acquisition Specialists and Hiring Managers, as it draws on a myriad of data variables gleaned from numerous sources. It deals in cold facts and correlated patterns, not the ‘impressions’ nor ‘gut-feeling’ nor underlying personal motives and preferences of selection and hiring individuals. Bad Hires are reduced as a consequence. More so if the A.I tool goes beyond machine learning to the next generation of A.I : Deep Learning and Neural Networks.

Consideration #3: Given the previous considerations, we see that Talent tech is fast becoming outdated, especially a lot of legacy HRIS / HRM system components acquired more than 4 to 5 years ago – they often have ‘rear-view mirror’ capabilities to tell you what happened last month / quarter / year, but generally don’t make very accurate predictions compared to the machine learning systems that are replacing them.

Consideration #4: Chatbots can now serve as assistants in the Onboarding phase of the Talent Cycle. They allow employees – from new ones to existing, to pull whatever information they want, whenever they need it, from wherever they are. The resulting improvement in Employee Experience promotes retention: we all know that a new employee especially has a far higher chance of being retained if the Employee Experience is positive from day one. Further, they are now so widespread, that any H.R department can simply rent one!

Consideration #5: A.I can predict resignations more accurately than H.R of Line Managers. The reason is that it works away in the background, every minute of every day, looking for these signs that point to resignation sentiment, that manifest themselves in keywords in emails; time spent doing productive work on workstation computers; social media posts; performance appraisal data; time spent at the office based on login tmes –and many more sources of data. It does so for each and every employee. Workforce planning becomes more proactive and accurate. It also automates much of the cumbersome traditional Talent Requisitions for Hiring Managers.

Consideration #6: Performance Appraisals are more automated and achievement recording is more accurate – the implications are obvious here.

Consideration: Engagement becomes more accurate, as it is assessed every day in realtime by machine learning algorithms that parse the data to generate either Sentiment Analysis or Theme Modelling, allowing more proactive, close to realtime action to be taken by those involved in Employee Engagement. No more 'rear-view mirror' quarterly survey data.

The bottom line is that Talent Managers now have a very powerful potential arsenal of technical tools to improve Talent Management performance for the full Talent Cycle.

Not only that, but they have a powerful opportunity to become integrated with other H.R departments, and thereby move toward the non-standalone Talent Management function, to the more effective integrated Talent Management model that manages the entire Talent Cycle.

With the world of work evolving at such a pace, its no wonder that one may not know where to begin defining and deploying a Talent Strategy based on newly-manifesting trends and technologies. Talent & Transformation can assist in making sense of it and moving your Talent Management capability forward.

A 2019 research survey of 600 U.S companies revealed that 53.3% of companies surveyed said that retaining employees is more difficult than hiring them, and 81% believed turnover of employees to be a costly problem . People professionals undoubtedly know this very well. However, what does not always come to mind, are the other associated costs that run deeper than just the cost of replacement. According to the survey, 24% of the cost of turnover was the delay of customer projects and / or services. Loss of productivity accounted for a further 21.1% portion. Last was the cost of replacement, at 17.2%. Not factored into the equation, is the maginal value that is lost from resigning High Potentials and Specialist when the their enterprize know-how, accompanies them out through the door.

The top 2 reasons cited for people leaving their jobs, were firstly, higher earning potential at another employer, and secondly, poor interpersonal relationships with managers or colleagues. And people start to talk. In fact, this writer recently overheard a conversation wherein a job-seeker mentioned to their friend that they had a applied to a certain big-name company. The friend’s response: “Be careful, those guys are well-known for having to pay big salaries to attract people, and then forcing their employees to negotiate their salary downwards when it comes time for contract renewal”.

A big brand-name the prospective employee may have, but their actual Employer Brand is quite a different story apparently, and witnessing it being publically degraded through word-of-mouth was a sobering reminder that health of the Employer Brand – and the related Employee Value Proposition are vital.

A well integrated strategy for Engagement, Culture Transformation and Employer Value Proposition goes a long way towards not only curbing costly attrition, but also increasing Discretionary Effort of employees –the extra care, effort or time beyond the call of duty, that the highly engaged employee is not obliged to give, but nevertheless, gives happily and voluntarily, in order to exceed the required results. There is now an established connection between Employee Engagement, Discretionary Effort and Stock Price. A study by Kenexa in 2009,  showed that enterprizes with the most engaged employees achieved a five-fold higher return for shareholders over a period of 5 years, than the least engaged enterprizes. The story becomes more compelling yet to people professionals: In 2011, the Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study revealed that enterprizes with engaged employees reported net profit margins that were on average, 6% percent higher than those with lesser engaged employees.

However, in their quest for Retention and Discretionary Effort, people professionals should not make the error of blurring the lines between the concepts of Employee Engagement and Employee Satisfaction: a ‘Satisfied Employee’ may very well be happy with their benefits; working hours; office setup, but will not necessarily render Discretionary Effort. An Engaged Employee, however, feels an emotional connection to the company and is committed and enthusiastic about contributing to its success. By contrast, a Disengaged Employee is a net destroyer of the employer brand, productivity and morale. Alarmingly, the Towers Perrin study also revealed that only 21%, or 1 out of 5 employees were engaged on the job, with 71% being wither only partially engaged or partially disengaged, and 8% being totally disengaged.

Many organizations are still adopting the aging approach of the Quarterly Engagement Survey to guide their engagement efforts, and it does not occur to them that the interval between the surveys allow the issues to fester and engagement to potentially worsen. If only they knew about automated daily Sentiment Analysis, or better still, automated daily Theme Analysis, that measures the organizational mood continuously, in real-time, enabling H.R to make corresponding on-the-fly adjustments to their Engagement and plans and cultural initiatives, as the organization’s mood trends downward or upward.

Another Engagement consideration that is often overlooked, is that C-Suite and Functional Heads also like to be engaged. Often, H.R overlooks them, because “they’re too senior for this engagement stuff”. Perhaps they are indeed to senior to find the annual Employee Sports Day compelling but there are certainly other measures that they could find as being meaningful engagement: mentoring; speaking at local TedX ™ Talks; executive network golf days; CSR involvement, such as charity / humanitarian initiatives.

Examining the factor of culture, there are potentially two sub-components to manage here. The first has arisen through the effect of globalization and immigration on the workforce, whereby companies are either sourcing talent from abroad, or operate across numerous national geographies: national culture, which introduces the potential for additional workplace conflict based on national cultural differences. The second component is as expected, Corporate Culture. Besides the obvious benefits of a positive corporate culture, corporate culture can be compared to an ‘international converter plug’ that ‘standardizes the differing voltages’ (national cultures) into a single workable voltage (acceptable workplace behaviors).

Many practitioners believe that managing culture is abstract, and cannot really get scientific. This is not true. There are many validated scientific tools and methods available, such as OCAI Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument to baseline the culture, and Cultural Entropy Scoring that produce HEAT maps that can tell you quite accurately which leaders are degrading the culture, and how. The McKinsey 7S Model is another example of a useful tool for cultural application, as it measures the presence or absence of both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ elements that influence corporate culture.

This leads on to another factor that is intertwined with culture, and informs on it: Values. Unfortunately, there are still practitioners who attempt to spur the organization’s population to ‘live the values’ by using custom-made inspirational posters pasted onto the canteen’s / cafeteria’s walls, and a recorded speech from the CEO playing on video screens in the elevators. A more in-depth, integrated and scientific method would serve them better, such as the cultural change or reinforcement recipe of: Surface-Question-Define-Socialize-Operationalize-Institutionalize. Perhaps just a Values Audit would suffice if the values are existing and not a new set replacing an old set.

These are many variables to have to pull together and manage in an integrated strategy for Culture, Engagement and EVP. Talent and Transformation can help you connect the dots.

Designing structures for the future is vital to remain competitive as the business landscape grows increasingly competitive and multifaceted. This type of landscape is often referred to as: ‘V.U.C.A’ : Volatile; Uncertain, Complex; Ambiguous.

The best organizational approach to manage V.U.C.A is that of building adaptability: the ability to effectively and rapidly deploy strategies that address the local and worldwide market changes, opportunities and challenges. Or as we know it, ‘SWOT’. Firms at the forefront of managing V.U.C.A, no longer refer to refer to this capability as ‘managing change’, but rather, as ‘continual development’ - a complete paradigm shift.

Much of this depends on selecting the correct structure type for your business. and each has its pros and cons. For example, Hierarchical Structure is suited to settings where the levels of responsibility and authority need to be clearly defined – perhaps due to complex processes in the business, many specialized roles and compliance requirements. However, it is not the best in fostering innovation and can make lower level employees feel as if they have less of a voice.

The emphasis on flatter structures continues, and with good reason: flatter structures enable quicker decisions and thereby, quicker response times. Flatter structures promote increased hierarchical alignment with corporate strategy; encourage innovative thinking; provide better visibility of progress to goals throughout the hierarchy, and decrease payroll expenses. However, they require a really robust culture and clearly spelt-out collaboration processes and rules, or else confusion can reign in the absence of a a clear reporting line, which is the premise upon which a Flat Structure operates. This has given rise to the Hybrid Structure, that combines two or more organizational structures.

Astute organizations are now more than ever before, also posturing themselves for rapid scalability – both upscaling and downscaling. Taking it a step further: they do not wait for the next ‘big thing’ to happen and then try to figure changes to the organizational structure. Instead, we see increasing proactiveness: they are conducting risk analyses to narrow down high-probability-high-impact events (e.g sudden high interest rate hikes; raw materials shortages; recessions; pandemics), and then they formute (a ‘Plan B) organizational structure for each event- whether it be a risk or opportunity event. They also attach a ‘playbook’ to each ‘Plan B’ structure, detailing how to rapidly implement it – from workflow and process re-engineering to a communications plan, to what job roles to retain; cut or amalgamate. They then stress-test each contingency plan, and ‘keep them in the top drawer’ to be ‘pulled out’ and rapidly implemented. We find this a rather intelligent approach.

However, the smart organizations are doing more than this: they are also designing structures that capitalize on the scalability to be had from the so-called ‘Gig Economy’ (freelancers) and on Business Process Outsourcing or Shared Services. “We plug you in only when we need you”. Smart indeed.

They are starting to do away with many traditional ‘grand job titles’ that carry the expectation of a ‘grand salary’; perks and a comfortable, ‘sweet’ tenure for the next decade. These organizations have chosen to shift their paradigm in Organizational Design, to move with the times: as an example, instead of seeking to hire for a Director title, they are now increasingly looking at such candidates being Senior Specialists, who can innovate; who are at the cutting edge of the latest competitive practices, and who can easily lead people to successfully pivot to change. These Senior Specialists are more in the trenches with their troops than in their leather chairs, and their worth is judged as being only as good as their last performance. High performing leaders thrive under the challenge of such new paradigms, but the expensive and comfortable ‘dead wood’ leaders-in-title only, that have been hanging onto the organizational tree, fall off, liberating it from ‘just good enough’ performance and unremarkable innovation and change leadership. The reader is invited to explore the ‘Peter Principle’.

In high performing enterprizes, Organizational Design is also now expected to support new contexts: The first is that Talent is now required to be able to make rapid sense of changes, challenges and opportunities; where instead of asking “what happened?”, it quickly adapts and applies the new information. Secondly, to act on the lessons of relatively recent significant risk events -the COVID-19 pandemic; the Global Credit Crisis, Eurozone Bailouts and the oil price crashes - by building more coping ability into their organizational designs.

The final significant context that needs to be supported by an intelligent Design, is the ability to harness the power of Artificial Intelligence. We have already expanded on this topic in granular detail and at length in other insight articles. Those organisations whose structures who have been gearing up to understand, implement and master A.I, are at a distinct advantage in linking people and themes with other people, on the basis of their interests and needs.

However, today’s contemporary organizational design considerations are not just about responsiveness and coping; they are also about designing an organization for the future, where people will want to work, and can do so at their peak performance, with the latest tools and technologies. This first requires that the organization design has goodness-of-fit for the people who presently comprise the organization, and those who will, in the future. Given that there will almost certainly be up to three generations in the world of work – each with its own ideas regarding authority; workplace motivators; leadership; formality and decision-making frameworks, a structure that is flexible to cater for the evolving talent mix is essential. As food for thought: very few people wish to work for a ‘dinosaur’ organization.

Deserving of particular consideration is the Organizational Design requirements of public sector organizations versus private sector. Our experience tells us that the design requirements of public sector differs. For example, a longer approvals matrix; more emphasis on service delivery versus the ability to compete locally; more emphasis on capacity versus capability – and many more considerations. However, we have witnessed that the public sector has also been under pressure to effect savings; increase efficiency and quality, and to be able to compete with private sector in ‘the war for talent’. Other than this and maybe a handful of additional factors, public sector has to deal with similar challenges as private sector.

Frequently, those enterprizes that make the effort to evolve their structures to cope with the new demands discussed above, create very good, new inroads… that lead to the wrong destination: they pay only passing diligence to the fact that the world of work now operates on a newer premise of the New Knowledge Economy, that requires know-how and innovation as the business drivers. They revamp their organizational designs incorrectly, to support old Industrial Revolution business drivers, based on manufacturing and selling. Such enterprizes find themselves in the right direction…on the wrong road. Their Human Resource teams who typically heavily influence Organizational Design decisions, generally take an unintentional, H.R-biased view of the micro-environment, internal view of the Design, using many H.R metrics and H.R considerations as their reference, as opposed to a broader view of the external macro landscape and emerging changes in the competitive; technological and risk landscapes.

So which structure is best suited to your organization? Might you need a new new one? Maybe not. Perhaps it would serve you well to first conduct a health check and goodness-of-fit on your present structure, and then tweak it, or add elements of another structure to create Hyrbid one, that yields enhancements. On the other hand, perhaps an entirely new type of structure is warranted. Talent & Transformation can lend clarity that can assist. ‘Tomorrow’s world of work’ is already upon us –ready or not. We know how to articulate organizational design to not only meet these challenges and opportunities, but also to ensure a solution that is customized at higher level, to your organization’s business model; culture; talent; market and aspirations and at a granular level, to your processes; workflows and governance requirements. Talk to us without obligation.

A study by a global advisory, Willis Towers Watson reveals an alarming statistic concerning M&A: 50% to 70% of merger and acquisition deals do not meet all of the key goals upon which the investment decision was originally based. Data further reveals that the number one cause of deal failure is that of cultural issues. However, this is not the only people challenge that plagues Mergers and Acquisitions. Consider that during M&A’s, much focus and energy is diverted away from the people factor, and gets re-directed toward financial; legal; policy and organizational design aspects. H.R becomes swept up in these factors too, as it is constantly having to provide the M&A leads with people data, inputs and plans that feed into the broader policy; legal and financial realms of the merger or acquisition. Consequently, the forward-looking people focus is reduced, and this, coupled with employees’ job security concerns that arise during M&A’s, leads to reduced employee morale and productivity, causing vital talent to walk out of the door. Loss of some valuable enterprize knowledge from the outset, that gets shaved off of the benefits that the M&A was meant to yieled in the first place. After all, employees very well know that there will job role duplications between the two companies in the M&A, and that either they, or the ‘other guy’ will have to go.

Ironically, this is also the exact time when it is most important for H.R to be diverting the majority of its energy into communicating with employees, reassuring key talent, promoting change acceptance, and socializing the acquiring firm’s values and culture within the acquired workforce. Unfortunately, these ‘paving the way’ activities are left as one of the last items on the to-do list, as they are often viewed by C-suite as an abstract, lower priority ‘mop-up’ activity compared to the ‘hard stuff’ that are the financial; regulatory and legal aspects of the M&A. They thereby put the cart before the horse. No wonder the nett result is a 50 to 70% failure of M&A achievement objectives. Indeed, it is a complex set of variables for people professionals to have to manage, especially when they are resource constrained, as is typical during M&A’s.

Restructuring fares only slightly better, and it suffers from many of the same issues inherent in M&A’s: the employee uncertainty; morale impact; employer brand impact and effects on productivity- to name just a few of the myriad of issues. Some well-meaning leaders attempt to mitigate the potential for job losses by adopting a strategy of job-role expansion or diversification, and re-assignment, in order to either generate more revenue with the same amount of personnel, or, to slightly reduce the payroll expense by shedding a limited number or roles, and dividing up the work of the redundant roles, then adding it to the responsibilities of staff who will accept it in exchange for being able to keep their jobs. It sounds like a practical and ethical compromise, but it is in fact often a ticking time-bomb for numerous reasons: typically, a quarter down the line, some of the talent that was retained and accepted job-role expansion or re-assignment, will start to reveal itself as lacking in aptitude for the new tasks; other talent will be revealed as lacking the temperament or fortitude. This happens when H.R thinks it has now just finished right-sizing the workforce, has finally completed the new job analyses, and has revised the organizational structure. As a result, replacing the retained staff who have had their roles modified, is not on H.R’s mind: after all, why should they be pipelining when they have recently needed to exit staff for the restructure? Too late – a resignation domino effect begins, along with performance-related terminations. As restructuring is often directed at the Line and Frontliners, these cadres are quickly decimated, leaving sudden deficiencies in the company’s operational abilities or results, which typically take at least a quarter to recover from. It is an unexpected and uncontrolled ‘explosion’ of the time bomb, and it diverts the proactive focus of the Talent Acquisition unit; L&D unit, Employee Relations and H.R.B.P’s from activities that would have helped further Corporate Strategy implementation, to a reactive operational mode that does not move the needle of Corporate Strategy much.

So how the challenges best surmounted? For starters, a purely Human Resources approach to the issue is not the most effective one: instead, a holistic approach that includes elements of the disciplines of Operational Risk Management; Marketing; Economics; Six Sigma ™; Project Management; Systems Thinking and Employee Engagement is called for, woven into a pragmatic Change Management strategy. This is the time when H.R needs Organizational Development and certified, experienced Change Management staff in their ranks, together with a SixSigma ™ or two to integrate workflow processes.

However, if you had to ask the average H.R department whether how many of the aforementioned staff they have within the department, the repy might not inspire confidence in their ability to handle an M&A from the point of view of a people strategy; plan-setting and change execution. Often, it is the CHRO who get caught up in these aspects, and the focus on leading the H.R function is detracted from for a long time.

Our advisory, with vast experience, expertise and tools to implement best practice solutions to manage the human factor in M&A’s, can help you to cement a fruitful marriage of two enterprizes -or a successful restructuring- to ensure that the forecasted opportunities and synergies actually materialize, and do so completely – not partially.

According to a study by Gartner, the average strategy team spends $220,000 of the annual budget and 26% of its time to investigate emerging trends, yet struggle to keep up with them, due to the sheer amount of trends. Here, we provide insight into the emerging trends for which there seems to be growing consensus of them being the ones to watch.

The first trend is that of an emphasis toward more forward-looking data. The pandemic disrupted the notion of relying heavily on past data to map the way forward. Who would ever have thought that such a strategy-disrupting event as the pandemic would manifest – after all, the last one occurred 102 years ago? Serious merit is now being placed upon to data modelling that provides indications of how future crisis scenarios might play out. The context extends further than only potential problems, such as the question of workforce health and business continuity, but also looks to uncover potential opportunities in a crisis. For example, a clothing manufacturer may see a sharp decline in the sale of formal eveningwear during the pandemic, but having previously modelled the scenarios, they would know in advance an opportunity would be emerging that they could pivot towards and capitalize on: an increased demand for comfortable ‘around-the-house’ clothing. Data modelling of strategic options is therefore looking further and wider into the future than ever before.

The second trend is that of social justice and environmental awareness. As consumers are becoming more environmentally aware, they are looking more carefully at how their brands are performing in the carbon emission stakes. Likewise, they are looking closer from a social justice perspective, and are increasingly speaking out against companies who are seen as exploiting low-income offshore labor. The backlash against prestigious brands that outsource manufacturing to so-called ‘sweat-shops’, is well documented. As social justice and environmental awareness will undoubtedly continue to grow, companies that do bring their strategies into closer alignment with this trend, run a real risk of declining brand equity and market share.

The next trend is that of location-independent operations. The pandemic served a purpose of acting as a proof-of-concept for a possibility that strategy had previously not given much credence to the remote digital working model. What was previously dismissed as being a non-workable model, is now receiving fresh impetus. Corporations are beginning to see the opportunities to be had in the scalability and reduced operating overheads that remote digital work can bring. Brick-and-mortar premises that previously had to be rented long-term or bought, could be replaced with either smaller premises, or with shared, daily-rented desk space and meeting rooms in facilities such as those run by the world renowned brand, Regis. This model provides the possibility to enable business to be accessible anytime, anywhere – not only for employees, but also for customers and suppliers. In addition, recruitment decisions will rely less on the ability of a candidate to attend office daily.

The previously presented digital working model is already starting to drive the next trend: a focus on developing policies, procedures and rules of behavior for wired working. We have all heard anecdotes of an embarrassing situation that has arisen for a remote employee working from home, whilst on a video conference. Not only are policies and procedures needed to govern online professionalism, but in addition, the emphasis on effective cyber-security strategy is also increasing as a result of the emerging remote digital working trend.

The fifth trend continues the technology trend: that of business platform evolution. One needs just to look at how Tesla has evolved its digital presence from being a regular website, to being a platform on which a customer can order a new Tesla online, to underscore this trend. An additional example is how Amazon has transformed from a book selling website, to a diverse platform that caters not only for private consumer purchases, but also enables the consumer’s home digitally through its Alexa smarthub technology, and, enables businesses through its Amazon Web Services. The latest offerings that demonstrate their platform evolution is the Amazon Fire cellular phone, and Amazon Prime Video. Indeed, Amazon’s platform is now able to potentially permeate the lives of most corporations and consumers. A multi-enabled platform strategy such as theirs greatly reduces the overheads and physical constraints that other businesses with lesser evolved platforms.

Continuing the theme of reducing overheads, companies are beginning to pay attention to the cost advantages of shifting an increasing amount of operations to smaller cities, and to reducing their operational and consumer location formats. Kiosks, as opposed to shops and offices (for banks and telecom providers, as an example) are now springing up in malls. Fast-food chains have slowly started to reduce the number of stores, in favor of a large centralized food preparation warehouse in outlying locations where the rent is cheaper, and they are delivering telephoned orders directly from the centralized preparation facility, via third-party food delivery services that often charge the customers directly for the delivery cost. Competitors are even sharing such facilities – after all, burger patties, tomatoes and chicken nuggets are generic commodities that almost every hamburger chain sells; the only modifications needed are perhaps a slightly smaller or larger patty or different sauce to suit each competitor’s offering. The same production line and food materials can be used by both competing brands – shared, decentralized services.

Finally, the use of Artificial Intelligence is increasing as its capability has dramatically increased over a few short years. It is becoming a firmly established component of many corporates. Its ability to make predications between 30 to 50% more accurately than traditional human analysis, and to automate is the primary driving force behind its uptake. From analyzing consumer habits to allow for smarter marketing, to its ability to track employee activities in order to support smarter working ways, to its usefulness in making production smarter – A.I is not merely a trend, but a tool that has already permeated society. It is now even found in cars, city transport systems, healthcare and smart city infrastructure. A.I’s application in the contexts of planning; optimizing; improving connectivity and automating is the equivalent of a turbo-charger for strategy. Firms that master AI the quickest will have developed a core competency that is vital to thriving in the post-industrial revolution New Knowledge Economy.

Apart from the trends, the process of strategy-setting is important. Potential hazards lie for those companies that persist in using the same strategy-setting model year in and year out, and they include Strategic Drift; Predictability; increasing Opportunity Costs and sub-optimal Strategy by Discourse. We would like to suggest that the 5P Framework be used as a check on the completeness of proposed strategy, and that a 7S Analysis of Organizational Readiness and a subsequent Gap Analysis be included as tasks to inform on the capacity to implement successful strategy. We’d further recommend developing a small portfolio of contingency organizational structures (in other words, ‘Plan B’ structures) that are based on high probability-high impact risk events such as sudden, high interest rate hikes. These can then be rapidly deployed with the aid of of a playbook for each. Equally recommended, is the establishment of a permanent change team that can respond quickly to SWOT. Preferably a team that is dedicated to proactively seeking out SWOT and then responding to it. Should this not be viable, then at the least, a change ‘sleeper network’ of employees who are qualified in change management, but retain their regular job roles, yet can at least respond to the SWOT rapidly if it is not possible to have them dedicated to seeking it out. This can be accomplished by implementing the renowned Dual Operating Model.

As a parting thought, how does your strategy-setting process work: is it the ‘HIPPO Method’ (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion in the room); ‘Group-think Bandwagon’; ‘Strategy By Discourse’ or is it instead strictly evidence-driven? Are any of the 5Ps considered in crafting it: Plan; Ploy; Pattern; Position; Perspective?

Once strategy has been set, what are the assurances that all echelons in the hierarchy are aligned, and have allocated their resources proportionate to objectives, and have assigned the correct KPIs? A lot is often ‘lost in translation’. Speaking of KPIs, we have not witnessed many organizations harnessing the latest tool that enhances the effectiveness of KPIs, namely OPQs.

These are just some of the trends and issues for consideration in developing effective corporate strategy. We know many more. We invite you to contact us to learn more about how we can help you to navigate the correct course, through our domain experience and specialized strategy models and processes.

Winds of change have been blowing through H.R. Some H.R departments have adjusted their sails in varying degress to harness these winds, and accelerate their momentum, and others have not, and instead still rely on the old slower winds that are dying down.

Let’s examine some of those winds, which are a fusion of people practices and technology. This time around, the people-tech interface is not just a ‘facelift’ or Version 1.2, It is a new era that is truly disruptive.

The first is the shift from People Analytics to Data Literacy. The capability of People Analytics systems has rapidly improved to a high level over the years. However, the data has required human involvement for interpretation, and this has inevitably given rise to the introduction of bias; interpretational errors and predication errors. Therefore, the ley challenge is to equip the business with a framewok and skills to accurately understand and implement the data and its findings into the organization. Even this age of Machine Learning, wherein human inaccuracies in forecasting can be reduced to between 30 to 50%, is susceptable to forecasting errors due to lack of training data, and bias within the data. There are measures to remediate this to a degree fortunately. The name of the game is no longer retro-spective ‘rear-view mirror’ measuring of H.R KPIs that ‘happened’ last month or last quarter; now its about forecasting the future proactively. That game, as you already know, is called A.I

This brings us to the second wind- Employee Engagement. Indeed, the quarterly of annual Engagement Survey is already long outdated – we have moved on to automated Sentiment Analysis, and even beyond to Themes Analysis. It is conducted all day, every day, in realtime, for every single employee, by the machine algorithm. Infinitely more in-depth analysis and prediction capability versus human analysis. Now, there is no need to wait for the quarterly of annual E.E Survey to take action. Instead, action can be taken in close to realtime.

Next is Talent Acquisition: The Applicant Tracking System is fast becoming outdated and the latest technology in Machine Learning is at least two steps ahead of what most H.R departments currently use. Let us examine an end-to-end process in Talent Acquisition, using a Machine Learning algorithm:

Talent Requisition: Requisitions are now largely automated for the Hiring Manager by the machine. The machine will conduct a Job Analysis and write a corresponding suggested J.D and matching Ideal Employee Profile. Its just as well, as many of us in H.R know how long it can take for some Hiring Managers to finally write these and send them through to T/A. What about a Job Evaluation? The machine handles that too and merely provides a number range for T/A upon which to to guide the rewards package decision if the role is new; the skillset scarce, or if there has been no recent salary survey conducted internally.

Talent Identification and Attraction: No more combing through endless Linkedin ™ profiles to seek out passive candidates – the machine will do it, and generate a myriad of matching profiles. Alternatively, it will automatically write a draft advertisement, and after human approval, will shoot it out to specific profile clusters on LinkedIn; Whatsapp; Instagram and the like, and at times of the day or night, and to geographical areas that are likely to yield the highest number of responses. Scientific marketing methods for targeting in other words.

Selection is no longer a subjective process based on what the T/A Specuialist; HRBP and Hiring Manager have observed or felt in the interview. Its far more scientific and accurate than that and again, most of the task is automated. The machine receives reponses to the advertisement and instead of plain old keyword identification that an ATS uses. It then runs predictions on the likely success of each applicant in the job role. It does this by gleaning data from the applicant’s social media or forum participation that it may find. This provides a part of a composite ‘image’ of the individual’s inferred emotional maturity; personality; motivators –etc. It also extracts forecasting data from the CV, such as the number of jobs in X-years; the apparent speed of trading-up of role seniority versus time, apparent age; motivation to learn -indicated by the dispersal of education undertaken – and other forecasting variables, to forms another part of the composite ‘image’ that is more related to career. The total composite image is then compared to the algorithm’s internal training data composite ‘image’ of the what the best hires made in the past shared in common, and also the IEP (Ideal Employee Profile). The predicted most suitable applicant is then forwarded directly to Talent Acquisition –often deliberately bypassing the Hiring Manager, to reduce the potential for decision bias that the Hiring Manager may introduce – for example: “I have a funny feeling about this applicant”, or “The applicant is single, and I prefer a married person who is more stable” – all unfounded generalizations. Things are kept scientific.

Now that the employee has been hired, they need to be onboarded. A chat-bot plays a big role in this, acting as a virtual assistant to the L&D Onboarder. They can pull information when they want, from whever they want, in plain language without searching up FAQ’s of comning the intranet. The bot also interfaces with the Learning Management System, allowing for the Orientation phase of Onboarding to be completed at the user’s pace online.

Let’s move on to assume that the employee will begin to make use of H.R services. For a while, the slant moves temporarily toward a blend of A.I and Digitized Processes for employee self-service (ESS) and manager self-service (MSS). It almost goes without saying that ESS and MSS improves service and employee experience; reduces the H.R expense and moves responsibility for attending to routine transactions from HR to Line Managers; Employees and Candidates. On the ESS side, we already mentioned the use of chatbots to assist Onboarding, but there are other useful applications for them: they can liberate your Compensation & Benefits department from most daily employee pay queries. When A.I is blended with Digitized H.R Services; there is no need to navigate through the Self Service portal menus- the chatbot again comes to the fore and does it – from employee requests for time off, adjustment of schedules or swapping shifts with co-workers, checking pay information, completing enrollments, and creating personal profiles listing skills, certifications and licenses. On the MSS side, managers can analyze workforce statistics on demand, view employee schedules or time-off requests and collaborate with others on performance review. New Managers can also be guided through opening and closing job requisitions or order head-count reports. Importantly, the above capabilities also really empower the Remote or Hybrid Work strategy, with H.R Services being available 24-7 from a hotel; airport or home.

The next task in the Talent Cycle has been influenced by the winds of change is that of developing the employee, and an A.I infused Learning Management system can do this. As this is a vast topic in itself, we shall list just a few key considerations. AI empowers LMS to deliver tailored learning content based on each student's background, job-role; preferences; and goals. Advanced algorithms analyze vast data, programs, and training materials to match individual learners with the most relevant resources that match their learning styles. It can also leverage micro-learning by instantly generating micro-learning courses. The days of having to manually write any course –whether micro or multi-day, are over. Yes, of course it can also map to the Performance Management System to automatically identify employees’ developmental needs, and then pull to together customized learning resources: a course that it will automatically write; business articles, white papers to read and podcasts to listen to and videos to watch. We are confident that you have an impression of the power to be had from an A.I infused LMS, and therefore shall leave the topic at that.

Arriving at the phase of managing performance, A.I-based performance management tools can collect data from various sources, considering far more factors than just a simple performance score, and there is less or no room for prejudices because this is entirely data-driven (Panda & Sahoo, 2021). The performance data is collected continuously and automatically, eliminating the need for Line Managers to spend days analyzing each employee’s performance figures and then having to transcribe them onto a BSC, and thereafter, to expend their mental power and time writing up scores and suggested development plans. The machine automatically generates observation comments as to how well an employee is doing, what they can improve on, and opportunities they can take. Further, as mentioned the A.I in the PMS can ‘talk’ to the A.I in the LMS. A final boon is that real-time feedback is available at any moment –not just at traditional Performance Review intervials,

At the Engagement phase of the Talent Cycle, A.I is also the champion: It gleans email language data; workstation PCs’ keystroke speeds and frequencies, and login and logoff times to generates either a Sentiment Analysis (mood of the organization) or, at a deeper level; Theme Sythesis (more sophisticated output; shows the key themes that staff are talking about, such as excessive workload).

What winds are blowing through the area of Retention? Its not been untouched by A.I either. In short: the machine analyzes every single FTE, every single hour of the day, every day, to identify and predict who is likely to resign within a given time period, and again, it does so with greater accuracy and frequency than humans. How it does this technically is a lengthy subject, so all we can say here, is that it works along similar lines as described for the Engagement phase on the previous point.

Let us briefly touch on what is a breeze of change that is blowing through H.R, that has yet to become a wind: Blockchain for H.R . What is its relevance? First, it will eliminate challenges such as having to pay data warehousing vendors. Secondly, it will make GDPR data headaches disappear – especially useful if your organization has E.U presence. Third, it will eliminate concerns about integrity of applicant or employee data integrity, because for anybody to change the existing data will require quite a feat to be pulled off, almost superhuman timing, and computing power that is beyond the scope of most people. Watch the Blockchain space…

As a parting morsel of food for thought: besides the massive savings in time; costs and resources that A.I and Digitization brings, you may like to consider two further subtle, yet highly relevant factors: newer generations have a dislike for ‘dinosaurs’ and prefer an organization that moves with the times, and is ‘with it’ digitally, providing ‘wired’, instant and easy services and processes that they would need to interact with, in today’s world of scrolling; swiping and Siri ™. Its simply part of the EVP and Employer Brand nowadays, like it or not. The other consideration is that such transformation frees up H.R to focus on strategic work instead of so much operational work, empowering them to become more strategic drivers of the business – which is what H.R is really meant to be about.