Productivity Blog

Sabbaticals: The Ultimate Perk?

McDonalds, Charles Schwab, PricewaterhouseCoopers and American Express. Very different organizations, yet there's one thing they all have in common. Yes, they're all high performers and set industry standards for talent management. But think more specifically. Give up? Each of these organizations offers paid time off to their employees in order to achieve, well, something that's hard to pinpoint. The concept of a sabbatical is usually associated with universities, as faculty members typically get one semester every seven years (at full pay) to recharge their batteries, learn something new and return to campus with fresh research ideas. It may come as a surprise, then, to learn that 31 of Fortune magazine's "Best 100 Companies to Work For" offer fully paid sabbaticals to employees. CNNMoney.com reports that 11% of large companies, 21% of midsized companies and 16% of small companies offer paid sabbaticals to employees. Almost thirty percent of all companies offer unpaid sabbatical [article].

Sabbatical protocol differs dramatically from company to company. Some offer six months of paid leave after five years of full-time employment, with very few parameters to guide how that time must be spent and with no work products required upon return. Other paid leave times are much shorter and may involve an extensive application process and documentation of "lessons learned." However, the underlying purpose of most sabbaticals seems to be the same: to get away from the current work environment in order to renew energy, gain new perspectives and return with greater commitment to the organization and fresh insights to tackle thorny problems. Improved recruitment, retention, morale and company reputation are touted as benefits of sabbaticals.

But is this really what happens? Tracking the ROI or productivity of employees who have taken sabbaticals compared with those who haven't is not common practice. Most organizations rely on the personal testimonials of returning employees as the "sabbatical success" metric.

Recently, I traveled with my husband, a university professor, on his sabbatical - "Semester at Sea." Although we made hundreds of mistakes along the way and were often exhausted and sometimes seasick, we agree that this was the experience of a lifetime. Faculty contend that these experiences will both improve their teaching and provide research fodder for years to come. Yet, benefits to the organization are difficult to prove.

How, then, do managers decide which employees should be offered a sabbatical, what qualifies as an acceptable program and how should its success be measured? Currently, no set of industry standards exists to guide the sabbatical process, nor are there generally accepted measures to evaluate success. In the current economy, my impression is that many of these programs are (or soon will be) victims of corporate expense-cutting. Without greater attention to the choice of sabbatical options and more accountability for lessons learned, I'm wondering if more organizations will respond as one manager did, as reported by Catrin Griffiths in thelawyer.com. When asked whether he offered sabbaticals to his employees, he quipped, "Sure, we just call them weekends."

Have you ever worked for an organization that's allowed sabbaticals? Have you ever gone on sabbatical yourself? Share your or your organization's views on sabbaticals with other members.

Oh, So NOW Productivity is Bad for Us!

Maybe economist Michael Mandel of BusinessWeek is right and current productivity figures are a sign of bad things to come, but count me both skeptical and amused (in a black humor kind of way). In essence, Mandel argues that U.S. productivity has been rising at a healthy clip over the last two years but that, this time, it may not be such a good thing because now it's professionals getting the ax.

He writes, "Professionals are the people who do the research, the new-product development, the information-gathering, the training, and even the marketing which moves the economy forward… In effect, we could be eating our seed corn to get through the financial crisis - and the official stats would not warn us."

I can almost hear all those veteran blue-collar manufacturing workers - many of whom probably know more about their jobs than 10 MIT engineers - getting a chuckle out of this. Sure, as long as it's only the get-your-hands-dirty crowd getting laid off, rising productivity is a good thing. But as soon as a bunch of the white-shirt (or probably plaid or paisley these days) crowd gets hammered, we're "eating our seed corn."

The truth is, nobody knows how this is going to play out. There's certainly a danger of cutting so far into your talent that you lose muscle rather than fat, thereby killing or maiming the patient on the table (that is, your own organization). Nonetheless, Schumpeter's oft-cited process of capitalistic "creative destruction" shouldn't stop operating just because a growing proportion of the workforce is now working in professional jobs.

Mandel writes, "If the economy is stuck in a slow-growth recovery, companies may not be quick to rehire their professionals - and that would be a disaster." Maybe. But are we necessarily referring to the exact same companies that laid off those professionals? Think about it this way: If a laid-off engineer from a struggling company is hired by a healthier company, it's likely that person will become, over the long haul, more productive in that healthier company. That's how the whole creative destruction process is supposed to work, after all. Now, if a huge percentage of professionals are simply left on the sidelines for years at a time, Mandel could wind up having a point. We'll see.

But there's nothing inherently disastrous about professionals dealing with the same headaches and heartaches that other workers have suffered for years during recessions. They just have to play by the same rules as everyone else in a knowledge economy.

Look on the bright side. Productivity isn't doing too badly right now (though it's not knocking our socks off either, if you really study the numbers). As things progress, that should pay dividends. As Mandel notes, quoting Paul Krugman, "Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything." And it's quite possible that productivity will rise even faster in the future, especially if the woeful manufacturing sector ever bounces back.

So, buck up. Productivity is still a good thing, even if white-collar workers suddenly have to live in the same harsh world as everybody else.

Dangerous curves: Is forced ranking the pay-for-performance answer?

I'm not sure I know anyone who enjoyed getting graded in college "on the curve." It's strange and unnerving going into an assignment knowing that a certain percentage of students in the class are guaranteed to fail. Forced ranking leaves me with the same impression. Before the process even begins, someone is going to be number one, and someone is going to be dead last. Fine for a race, but is it the best strategy for an organization?

i4cp recently conducted a survey on pay for performance (view the sample results), and one of the findings was that about 21% of respondent companies use a forced ranking system for performance management. I personally thought that number would be much lower. While it's used mostly by the largest companies (more than 10,000 employees), about 14% of smaller companies also said they use it.

It's not new to say that forced ranking is controversial. In the past, Microsoft, Ford and Conoco have all been sued over forced ranking systems. Microsoft managed to fend off numerous lawsuits, but it ended up ditching forced ranking a few years ago. Conoco and Ford both settled, with Ford paying out $10.5 million. Ouch. Check Google and you'll find endless articles on both sides of the issue. Dick Grote's book on forced ranking is a good reference on the pro side.

Those that are for the system will say that it's a relatively easy, definitive way to identify performers. As pay for performance becomes increasingly important, companies are looking for ways to effectively identify high performers. Forced ranking appears to be an attractive solution, forcing managers to be more objective in their review process and eliminating inflation. Most people would agree that performance review inflation is a little out of control, with 4's and 5's being handed out like candy from a bottomless Pez dispenser. But is ranking Smith as better or worse than Johnson the answer?

In a business world where teamwork is imperative, I can think of nothing more anti-team than forced ranking. "I need you all to pull together and make this work, but at the end of the year, it's every man and woman for themselves!" I imagine it's pretty easy to distinguish employee #1 from employee #101, but what sets employee #42 apart from #43? Was the knot in his tie tighter? Employees each have their strengths and weaknesses, and creating a forced ranking system that is both fair and effective seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Of course, companies have been using the strategy for years, and many swear by it. They say it helps elevate overall performance by allowing a company to identify and eliminate the lowest performers. I just think there are other ways to accomplish this without hammering each employee into some arbitrary peghole.

What are your views on forced ranking, and what performance measurement standard do you think would be more equitable?

Is Twittering a Productive Use of Work Time?

I was torn. On one hand, I was skeptical about Twitter. Despite its growing popularity as a social networking site, it struck me as superficial and geared toward narcissists. After all, users can post messages of no more than 140 characters, so they often wind up posting mundane details of their personal lives.

On the other hand, at i4cp we're paid to look at data, and certain Twitter-related data was showing something interesting and mysterious. It was a study of how Web 2.0 technologies are being used for learning purposes in organizations, one commissioned by the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD). Read the rest of the TrendWatcher titled, Is Twittering a Productive Use of Work Time?

How High-Performers Support Employee Engagement

Engagement! Engagement! Engagement! The word continues to ring through the halls of business, hyped as a crucial weapon against attrition and a catalyst for improved employee productivity, both of which are especially important amidst workforce reductions and a struggling economy. i4cp research has consistently shown a strong correlation between employee engagement and a variety of other factors in determining high-performance organizations.

But you probably already know that. The question is: What processes and tactics can organizations use to boost employee engagement?

In a study commissioned by the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD) late last year, we asked companies to tell us which processes were used to support employee engagement.

Employee engagement processes: The standard view
The chart below shows the basic results from the i4cp/ASTD study, with more than half of companies saying they clarify and communicate their mission and goals to employees to support engagement. Engagement integration into organizational values was second highest, as indicated by 33% of organizations.

Employee engagement processes: The interactive view
The chart above makes it pretty clear that there is lots of room for improvement in organizations looking to boost employee engagement, but it doesn't show the full picture. Using i4cp's new Interactive Data functionality, i4cp staff and members alike are able to dive into the data, strip out middle-tiered companies - based on market performance index (MPI) ratings - and focus on how high-performing company responses vary from the low-performing ones. Doing so reveals some major gaps between the two, as seen here:

This Interactive Data view shows that, in fact, 71% of high-performing organizations are communicating their mission and goals to employees, whereas only 34% of low-performing organizations are doing so. There are even wider gaps when looking at many of the other engagement options; for instance, a scant 8% of low-performing organizations have a well-formed engagement strategy compared to 31% of high-performers.

Conclusion
If you're at a company that's increasingly relying on the engagement of its workers to boost productivity and develop a competitive advantage, the gaps in strategy shown above can serve as opportunities to make strong headway with your employees. And while improving employee engagement is not necessarily easy, many of the processes identified here rely on communication and clarity - things that don't cost a lot of money, time or resources.

Employee Engagement Resources

Buy i4cp's new, limited-time Employee Engagement Toolkit, which includes a Highlight Report, survey results, Interactive Data, a Playbook and a benchmarking tool - for only $995
Buy the ASTD report Learning's Role in Employee Engagement - $995 (free for ASTD members)
Download a sample version of i4cp's Engagement Interactive Data

Business Social Networking Risks Podcast

Total Picture Radio's Peter Clayton recently interviewed i4cp's Lorrie Lykins about the June 5, 2009 TrendWatcher, Time to Tighten Your Social Networking Structure? Their discussion is now available in podcast format for download.

The article examines the perceived potential and risks companies see in embracing social networking as a workplace tool. Some of the questions discussed in the podcast include:

When you discuss social networks with i4cp members, do they consider blogs, Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin as all part of the same thing, or do they get more specific?
A number of companies have started to use Facebook and Twitter to connect with customers. Did you get into specific platform discussions in your survey? If so, what did you learn?
What are some of the primary concerns among the companies you surveyed regarding social networks?
Do larger companies have a better handle on social networking?
What were some positive results of using social networks that you uncovered in your research?
A recent i4cp survey, commissioned by ASTD, showed that 70% of learning within an organization is informal or social learning. How do large corporations decide what is social networking and what is social learning? Aren't they very closely tied?
With more Gen Y employees entering the workforce, companies are going to have to come to terms with social networks because this generation grew up using this technology. Is this a trend i4cp research sees?
What are some recommendations for developing social networking policies within organizations?

Download the podcast now or visit Total Picture Radio for other TrendWatcher podcasts.

Transparency in talent management programs ... maybe?

"In the spirit of full disclosure" - it's a phrase that has come into its own in our modern world, which is fraught with covert operations and murky ethics. Perhaps it traces its origins to a dusty law-library volume somewhere, or maybe it bubbled forth from some politico or other. Either way, the concept of full disclosure - aka, transparency - is again at the heart of ongoing debates among business leaders nationwide. Only this time it isn't about accounting procedures and corporate records. The current buzz revolves around talent management practices.

Specifically, there's debate about transparency as it relates to succession planning and the identification of employees who are considered to have high potential. A June 2009 article in ASTD's T+D publication described the very logical route one of its member organizations took to try and cut through the transparency question as it related to its own talent programs.

First, the firm did its research. What did other company leaders think? What were the arguments for and against full disclosure of succession planning and HiPo development efforts? What sort of organizational factors affected such a decision?

Not surprisingly, research revealed that opinions and practices run the gamut from complete secrecy to wide-open communication about talent programming. The full-disclosure camp argues that free-flowing information about succession planning and HiPo development programs can provide a basis for employee motivation by communicating that opportunities exist for those willing to work hard, keep learning and remain onboard. Further, describing the programs on the company intranet or through other communication channels clearly delineates the steps that employees can take to enhance their chances for advancement and development. That's not to say that such firms proudly trumpet to all and sundry about the latest candidates chosen for the pipeline (though some do), but many advocate telling the chosen candidates about their status, noting that disclosure can support coaching, mentoring and other development activities for that person.

Companies that play it close to the chest reason that revealing too much information may cause employees to expect more than the company is willing to offer - whether that translates to an expectation of promotion into a plum leadership position or a substantial salary increase as a reward for recognized potential. Such organizations also point out that identifying some employees as HiPos or as leadership candidates can torpedo morale among workers who missed the boat themselves. And that can lead to an environment that deflates productivity.

Obviously, a number of organizational factors come into play for firms debating transparency. The corporate culture must support it. Senior leader buy-in is essential. Formal programs with equitable processes must be in place. Communication messages and tools play a big role. Talent management programs must align with business objectives. There are many considerations. In short, while the spirit may be willing, an in-depth exploration is required before full disclosure (or not) can take place. The i4cp Talent Pillar is a great place to start.

Video: How employees really feel about managers

According to recent i4cp research, over half of employees rate management in their companies as ineffective. Fifteen percent said their managers were either "barely deserving the name ‘management'" or just plain "hopeless." Ouch.

For more stats from the survey, watch this two-minute video. Don’t forget to pass it along to your friends and colleagues - oh, and your manager, too.

Leading Change in a Complex Environment

Senior leaders across the U.S. recognize the importance of managing organizational change and employee reactions to such changes. Change has always been something that organizations must deal with, but the current economy is accelerating the pace at which organizations must adapt, restructure and realign.

To help your organization adjust to the rapid changes of 2009 and beyond, join Dottie Brienza, VP of Change, Communication and Education at Johnson & Johnson, an i4cp member company and respected leader in innovation. Learn what Johnson & Johnson has been doing to facilitate change management and how their practices can be applied to your organization.

Some of the items covered in this organizational change webinar include:

why change management is so important
current external factors and impacts to consider
practical tips and recommended areas of focus
change management case studies.

The webinar will be Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 1pm EDT. Register now!

About Dottie Brienza
Dottie Brienza has 25+ years experience in organization development, human resources management and sales, 17 of which have been at Johnson & Johnson. Dottie is currently Vice President, Change, Communications, and Education for Johnson & Johnson. Prior to her current role, Dottie was VP HR- Change Management, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Group for the acquisition and integration of the Pfizer Consumer Healthcare business. This $17 Billion acquisition was the largest in J&J’s 120 year history.

Previously, Ms. Brienza was the Worldwide Vice President of Human Resources and a member of the Global Management Board for the ETHICON franchise of Johnson & Johnson, a $3.5 billion business with 10,000 employees globally, part of the Medical Device & Diagnostics Group of J&J.

Recruiting in interesting times

"May you live in interesting times." - Chinese Proverb/Curse

In a typical year, summer months are the height of the organizational recruiting season. Folks prefer to switch jobs in the summer, especially if relocation is involved. The previous year's bonus has been paid, but you haven't put enough effort into the current year to feel you are walking away from next year's bonus. The kids are out of school, so, in theory, a change in job or location will be less chaotic. The new college graduates are starting to come on board, and June 30th is the second-most-popular retirement date (after December 31st). Budgets typically still appear healthy before the third-quarter spending freezes - again, "typical." From the organization's perspective, summer is a natural time to shuffle staff.

All of that said, 2009 is not a typical year. Whether you believe we are in the midst of a second Great Depression - or are more bullish and view the past nine to 18 months as a major market correction that exposed weaknesses and will lead to an overall stronger economy - there is no argument that these are not "typical times."

While the official unemployment rate was 9.4% as of May 2009, many industries have been hit harder. Professional and business services have seen unemployment almost double, from 5.9% in May 2008 to 10.9% in May 2009. The construction industry has experienced even more dramatic force reductions, with unemployment increasing from 8.6% in May 2008 to 19.2% in May 2009. (This explains the Obama administration's concern with "shovel ready jobs.") Finally, manufacturing has seen a crushing 137% increase in unemployment, from 5.3% in May 2008 to 12.6% in May 2009.

I imagine recruiters are being overrun with résumés, social networking requests and other solicitations. Yet with all of the talent presumably available, the recruiter's job isn't any easier. First, when many organizations restructure their workforce, recruiters are not immune. This is a community that's seen its own opportunities shrink. The logic goes: If we have a hiring freeze, why do we need recruiters?

But, unless you are closing shop forever, this logic is fundamentally flawed. Employees leave jobs unexpectedly for a variety reasons, poor performers are managed out and new skills are always needed. According to a recent BusinessWeek article, in spite of the recession, there are three million jobs that cannot be filled. Even AIG has over 500 U.S. positions posted on their Web site. The bottom line is that recruiters are still a necessity.

A seasoned recruiter acquaintance lamented to me that this is the hardest market she has ever worked in and that the talent wars of the late 1990s were like Disneyland in comparison. Why so hard? First, the volume of candidates available makes finding "the best" more labor-intensive. This is true even with today's technologies - and, sometimes, because of today's technologies. Between the proliferation of job-posting sites, social networking media such as LinkedIn and Facebook, and old-fashioned networking and referrals, recruiters have more resources than ever to find candidates. Second, adding to the overabundance of viable candidates is a gridlocked housing market, where even the unemployed may be unable to consider positions that require relocation. During better times, many organizations re-designed their relocation policies to save money rather than to facilitate the acquisition of talent. These policies, if not reevaluated, may create additional obstacles. The third major difficulty is uncertainty within organizations themselves. Too often, the recruiter has done his or her job, the manager is ecstatic with the candidate and then the position is eliminated or "put on hold" due to changes in market conditions.

To add to the list of problems, recently there was an "uproar" in Silicon Valley over a gentleman's agreement not to actively poach or hire from competitor or partner organizations. While not illegal on its face, the Department of Justice is looking into the agreement as a potential antitrust issue. In this case, the uproar comes from employees who are unhappy with their current employer and feel trapped in their job, effectively blackballed by organizations that should be seeking their skills. As I understand the "alleged" policy, it did not block hiring if the candidate came to the competing organization of his or her own volition. After reading up on the topic, I concluded that this just creates another recruiting challenge, at least in Silicon Valley.

A final challenge for recruiters today is the candidate rejection process. While never a fun task, in this climate it has become a minefield. Recruiters are bound by their organization's guidelines, but well-meaning and sometimes desperate candidates are pushing for information regarding why they were not selected. While data is not widely available, conventional wisdom says there will be an increase in employment-related lawsuits in 2009, including discrimination and failure-to-hire cases.

Is there a silver lining for organizations and their recruiters? For those that embrace 2009's "interesting times" as an opportunity to assess their current human capital, harvest the bumper crop of talent available, strengthen their diversity initiatives and invest in training and development opportunities, this could be a rebuilding year that will set them up for success in the future.

With the plethora of recruiting resources available, organizations can look to non-traditional sources for talent that can propel growth and productivity. This includes finding top MBAs looking to switch careers or an army of skilled and semiskilled labor cast off from the auto industry that can be trained to fill technical and mechanic positions. The "best" talent may not be where you are used to looking or where you were previously unable to explore. Recruiters who work for opportunistic organizations may even have fun going to work again.

What other top talent recruiting challenges is your organization facing - we would love to hear from members?

Webinar: Pay-for-Performance Success

The "automatic raise" days are history, with i4cp research showing that companies are paying closer attention to their pay-for-performance systems. Our recent study found that, overall, 78% of polled companies say they tie pay to performance, with most of the focus squarely on the solid performers. However, high performers are only earning slightly more than their "average" colleagues.

Pay-for-performance is becoming more prevalent, but is your organization using the approach to its full potential? And if you aren't using performance metrics to determine rewards, what do you need to do to get started?

Join i4cp research analyst David Wentworth and Talent Pillar Director Mary Ann Downey for this complimentary webinar that explores the environment of pay-for-performance and provides the insight necessary to implement a successful program. The webinar will take place this Thursday, June 18th at 1pm EDT.

Register for the webinar now, or explore i4cp's research yourself by downloading an abridged version of i4cp's Pay-for-Performance Interactive Data.

What MBA?

A few months ago, I wrote about the difficulty HR faces when evaluating résumés for puffing, inflation or outright lying about qualifications. That was then. This is now. The economy has gotten worse. More people have lost jobs. Colleges and universities are dumping graduates into a job-scarce market. A May 21st article in the Christian Science Monitor points out that "3.3 people are [now] competing for every job in the United States (in December 2007 the ratio was 1.9 applicants per job opening). … The wait for a job has become longer. The average period of unemployment hit 23.4 weeks in April, compared with 17.9 weeks in 2008, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics."

What are job hunters doing? Well, the Monitor story says that some are getting a bit wacky to gain attention, such as the guy who walked up and down Park Avenue in New York wearing a sandwich board that said, "Experienced MIT grad for hire." But others are fiddling with the truth on their résumés. Only they're not padding them; they're stripping them of qualifications and experience, according to a May 26th article in the Wall Street Journal.

You have to feel some sympathy. After all, if the only job out there is flipping burgers, someone with a PhD might figure that it's better than sleeping under a bridge, right? But you can also understand why there might be a reluctance to hire said PhD, unless, of course, the degree is in chemistry. I can see where a chemistry degree would help ensure that your burger has just the right mix of special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions on a sesame seed bun. Who said all those lab hours were pointless?

But this leaves HR with a huge problem. I mean, it's relatively easy to call MIT to find out if Jane Brainiac graduated and with what degree. But if someone omits the fact that he or she has a degree, you can't exactly call every college and university in the country to see if Degree-less Joe is actually Dr. Joe. So what's HR to do? Hire the person and then fire that really good waiter when you find out later he "forgot" to tell you he graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law School? If you decide to just let it ride, what does that do to any ethics code the company might have?

Of course, the ideal answer would be that the best person would be hired for the job even if overqualified, which would allow the company the benefit of that person's skills, learning and experience no matter how long the employee stays. And, who knows, perhaps Ms. Former CEO might just discover that emptying trash cans is much more rewarding than coping with the daily stress of running a multinational company. Has this become a problem in your company?

Don't Be Like Brett Favre

In the classic comedy There's Something About Mary, Ben Stiller's character asks Mary, played by Cameron Diaz, about her former love interest. "What about Brett Favvvvv...ruh," he asks in a memorable line, butchering the pronunciation of Favre's last name (pronounced "Farve").

In the future, Favre may be fortunate to have only his last name misconstrued.

After a career with the Green Bay Packers in which Favre established himself as indisputably one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, his legacy is now tainted. And it's all due to one reason: his inability to let go. With one mediocre season behind him after "unretiring" last year, the sports world is now alive with speculation that Favre will unretire for a second time and - much to the horror of die-hard Packer fans - take the offensive helm for their primary rival, the Minnesota Vikings. The average fan asks a simple question: Why? Read the rest of the TrendWatcher article.

Are your salary raises costing you talent?

The economy has forced a lot of companies to freeze raises for the time being, and understandably so. Employees are most likely accepting this situation because 1) they want their company to succeed and 2) they have few other options but to stay put.

But what about when profits start climbing, jobless rates start dropping and recruiters begin to come out of the woodwork searching for the best of the best? Raises will have to return at some point, and high performers (HiPos) - defined as "those where there is an expectation of outstanding performance and an aspiration for significant advancement" - will be getting the itch sooner than the rest. These future leaders and managers are what makes things tick, but many companies don't treat them like the assets they are.

When looking at all companies who participated in i4cp's Pay-for-Performance Pulse Survey, we see that high-performing employees do benefit greatly from their hard work, with salary raises ranging from 4 - 10 %. Over 30% of companies, however, do not create as much distinction between high-performers and the rest. But look at the difference when responses are filtered by an organizations market performance rating:

Using i4cp's recently released Interactive Data functionality, we're able to break this data down by high-performing and low-performing companies (not to be confused with employees). As we can see, almost 48% of high-performing companies award their best employees with 7-10% raises; whereas only 15% of low-performing companies do the same.

In other words, high-performing companies are, at least in terms of salary compensation, giving more to keep their HiPos on staff. After all, HiPos are presumably the employees with the most profit potential.

The biggest questions are: Are you rewarding HiPos with better salary increases than LoPo employees? And has anyone coined the term LoPos?

A fully functional Pay-for-Performance Interactive Data file is available to i4cp members, but you can download a preview of the study here (Tableau Reader, which is free, is required to view and filter the data).

New Podcast on High-Potential Employees (HiPos)

Total Picture Radio’s Peter Clayton recently interviewed i4cp’s Mark Vickers about last week’s TrendWatcher, Living Up to Your High Potential(s). Their discussion is now available in podcast format for download.

The podcast examines the complications that arise and the discipline needed to effectively manage high-potential employees. Some of the questions discussed in the podcast include:

Given the economy and the huge number of highly qualified and talented professionals out of work, is it surprising that some of your member companies are interested in the topic of high potential employees?
How do you define high potentials?
How do companies go about identifying high potentials?
What is the general course of action companies use when they've identified someone as HiPo?
How important is the role of senior management throughout the process?
What are some of the stumbling blocks you've identified?
With the best performers, does retention always come down to money?
What are some recommendations you've given your members on developing and retaining HiPos?

Download the podcast now or visit Total Picture Radio for other TrendWatcher podcasts.