How is your remote onboarding going? Almost all of us are missing one big thing! #HRFamous

Posted on by
Reply

In episode 39 of The HR Famous Podcast, longtime HR leaders (and friends) Tim Sackett and Jessica Lee are joined by Cameron Sackett to discuss remote work burnout, proposed remote work privilege tax, and onboarding in a work from home environment.

Listen (click this link if you don’t see the player) and be sure to subscribe, rate, and review (Apple Podcasts) and follow (Spotify)!

Show Highlights:

1:30 – KD is out this week, but Tim and JLee welcome Cameron Sackett, Tim’s son, and our resident Gen-Z expert, onto the pod!

3:20 – First topic of the podcast: The Wall Street Journal published an article recently about burnout due to working remotely.

4:30 – Cam started working at BuzzFeed about two months ago, and he mentions that while he hasn’t hit the full-on burnout that many others have, his company is offering some special offerings to combat burnout, like mental health days, yoga and meditation sessions, and more.

6:30 – JLee is glad that people are trying things to combat burnout, but she worries that the things people are trying aren’t the right answers. She also worries that this emphasis on mental health will dissipate once the pandemic is over.

8:00 – Tim’s Gen-X mentality makes him think that these special perks are a setup to weed out the weak, but he does see his own employees struggling with the types of burnout mentioned in this article.

10:00 – Next topic: Deutsche Bank recently released a study calling for a “privilege tax” which takes a 5% tax from those working from home to support lower-income essential workers who can’t work at home.

11:45 – JLee wants the people at Deutsche Bank to look at their own company first and ask themselves if they would do this within their own corporations before putting out some plan like this.

14:00 – Most people aren’t choosing to work from home and so JLee and Tim think that the responsibility should fall on the corporations to take care of this issue instead of the workforce.

16:40 – Time for the CHRO Move of the Week: The Washington Football Team recently hired Andre Chambers to be their new head of Human Resources. He comes from many different industries such as tech, gaming, and even grocery!

18:00 – Any Wegman’s fans out there? JLee is a big fan.

21:00 – If any pro sports teams want to hire KD or Tim to be their head of HR, they’re ready to go!

24:40 – Last topic of the podcast: onboarding in a pandemic world! Cam onboarded to his current role completely remotely, and he gives us some insight on what the experience was like. He mentions that while the actual onboarding process wasn’t that much different, he has had trouble getting to know his co-workers.

27:00 – JLee asks Cam about the logistics of his onboarding experience. He had good communication from his recruiter and manager in order to have a smooth onboarding process.

29:00 – Cam talks about the struggle he’s had about meeting and getting to know the people on his team since he’s not in person with his co-workers. Tim says that he’s heard of organizations that will force employees to make introduction videos for new hires.

33:00 – JLee asks Cam if he heard anything about the required dress code, and he says that he was given no direction on what the dress code for WFH was.

36:00 – JLee doesn’t know of a company that does onboarding really well and thinks we often do a disservice to new hires because of this.

39:15 – Cam says that the work culture that BuzzFeed is known for doesn’t really come through in a virtual environment, and he doesn’t think he’ll know what it’s like until he starts working in the office.

It’s 2020 and I’m Re-certifying with @SHRM. Want to know why?

Posted on by
4

In 2001 I got my SPHR certification for the first time. I started my first real HR Manager job and the CHRO wanted to make sure every single HR person on our team had either a PHR or SPHR. I did an eight-week group study course with fellow HR pros studying for the test and I was lucky that my company had also purchased a SHRM study kit.

I remember leaving that test thinking, “I have no idea if I failed or passed! And, boy, I only know a fraction of what I thought I knew in HR!” This was after studying for two months straight and putting legitimate hours in on the study kit.

I passed and vowed to never have to take that test again!

It’s 2020 and SHRM just sent me a reminder that my SHRM-SCP is up for renewal. For years I carried both the HRCI-SPHR and the SHRM-SCP. Again, I figured I did all the education to keep them up, I’ll just carry both.

Why am I re-certifying for the SHRM-SCP? 

  1. If you’re in HR, SHRM is the world-recognized leader in HR. So, having a certification from SHRM carries career weight.
  2. 99% of Leaders of organizations who care about someone having an HR certification have always believed it was a SHRM certification, even though for most of that time HRCI was the actual certifying body. Now, SHRM has its own HR certification, and quite frankly, it’s as good as the HRCI one, and in some cases better.
  3. I don’t see any other association in the world doing as much as SHRM does to advance the practice of HR. Because of that, I foresee them being the leader in the HR space for a long time.
  4. When I speak to actual SHRM card-carrying members, they are very satisfied with the association and they are very happy with the education and support they are getting.
  5. It’s a cost-effective way to stay on top of changes in HR and show those who care that I’m staying on top of my profession, probably better than most people are.

Let’s be honest, I’ve reached a point in my career where the SHRM-SCP certification isn’t needed for me personally. I don’t have to re-certify and I’ll have a job tomorrow and at any time in the future. But, I’m choosing to anyway because I did the work!

I developed content for webinars and presented it to my peers in HR and TA. I sat and watched peers in HR and TA present at conferences and on webinars and I learned things I didn’t know. I read books and listened to podcasts, and consumed tons of HR-related material so I was staying up on all the changes in the HR field.

Maybe it’s PTSD from taking that test once, but I’m re-certifying because I never want to have to take it again. I’m re-certifying because having my SHRM-SCP makes me feel special and accomplished. It sets me apart in the field of HR, and I won’t apologize for that, I passed the test and did the work.

Me re-certifying isn’t about taking a stance for or against something. This is about me and my professional development. I encourage every single professional to find ways to continue your professional, functional development long after you have “gotten the job”. Getting the job is just the start, not the end!

(FYI – for those thinking somehow SHRM is paying me for this post. They aren’t. But as always I welcome anyone to pay me for anything if they are so inclined! I’m an equal opportunity check casher.) 

Breaking Down the 2020 @Jobvite Recruiter Nation Survey with @Kris_Dunn and @KellyWLavin

Posted on by
Reply

(Project fans – sharing a podcast called The Best Hire Ever – this week I was on it with my buddy, Kris Dunn, and Jobvite’s Chief Talent Officer Kelly Lavin! Check it out!)

20 – Breaking Down the 2020 Recruiter Nation Survey – Kelly Lavin and Tim Sackett

In Episode 20 of BEST HIRE EVER, Kris Dunn breaks down the 2020 Recruiter Nation Survey from Jobvite with Kelly Lavin (SVP of Talent at Jobvite) and Tim Sackett. The survey is a leading piece of research on how recruiters are feeling and working annually, and this year’s release speaks volumes about how recruiters are feeling in the middle of COVID.  Serious stuff as well as recruiters use of IG and TikTok, as well as recruiter turn-offs when viewing candidates on social.

Please subscribe, rate, and review (Apple) and follow (Spotify) to get the latest delivered to you.  Click here if you don’t see the player below!

SHOW HIGHLIGHTS

2:40 – Kelly talks about her love for the HR Capitalist blog, etc. Kris wants to hear more. Tim doesn’t.

5:10 – Kelly breaks down the reason for the Recruiter Nation Survey – the reason for it, what is is and why it is important.

6:48 – KD talks about the survey size and the MARGIN OF ERROR – in a shoutout to an election year.

7:30 – The gang talks about the biggest downwards shifts in where recruiters are no longer spending their time and money during COVID (pipelining, time to hire, employer brand, candidate experience, and increasing retention rate). Wow. So much honesty in 2020.

13:55 – The gang talks about the upwards shifts in time spent and investment (managing layoffs and diversity hiring).  Kelly, KD, and Tim wonder why the focus on diversity hiring didn’t trend upward more.  Lots of honesty in the report from recruiters.

17:45 – Kelly, Tim, and Kris talk about what the survey says about video interviewing and where recruiters think candidates struggle with video interviews.  95% of recruiters think they are good at viewing interviewing. Tim thinks most of the recruiters think they are good at it because they’ve never been on the candidate side in a video interview.  Kelly breaks down the issues with eye contact in a video interview.

24:30 – Tim talks about where recruiters are spending their time via the survey – social media and LinkedIn. Tim hates it. He rightfully points to the candidate database and referrals as where the hires are.

25:55 – KD mocks the uptick in the use of Instagram and TikTok for recruiter purposes. Kelly learns about how KD gets the best TikTok videos in next to no time spent.  Kelly and Tim lead a real conversation about how TikTok might be used in a smart way by TA teams.

28:43 – KD leads a conversation from the survey results about the biggest “recruiter turnoffs” when viewing a candidate on social media (skin shots, use of pot, and of course – spelling errors. LOL).  Stalk much?

RESOURCES AND SHOW NOTES:

————Kelly Lavin, Jobvite and Tim Sackett

Kelly Lavin on Linkedin

Jobvite

The 2020 Recruiter Nation Survey

Tim Sackett on Linkedin

————Kris Dunn

Kris Dunn on LinkedIn

Kinetix

The HR Capitalist

Fistful of Talent

Boss Leadership Training Series

Kris Dunn on Twitter

Kris Dunn on Instagram

At what age should you retire?

Posted on by
2

We tend to believe retirement is an age thing. Well, once you turn 65, it’s time to retire! Do you know where ’65’ actually came from? Most HR pros will probably guess it, it’s when America instituted social security insurance back in 1935.

The U.S. Government, in 1935, didn’t even use any science to determine 65 years old.  At the time, the national railroad pension retirement age was 65, and about half the state pensions were the same (the other half were 70), so 65 years old was chosen. Way less red tape back in 1935! Can you imagine the government trying to make that decision today!?

So, you turn 65 and you’re supposed to retire. In 1935, that probably was fairly accurate. The actual life expectancy in 1935 was only 61! So, we built social security knowing most people would not live to receive it. Today, life expectancy is around 79 years old!  As you can imagine, 65 years old is no longer a realistic retirement age.

I’m currently 50 years old.  It’s my belief that I have about 20 years left to work and save for my retirement. I’m assuming I’ll work until I’m at least 70.  70 years old today doesn’t seem like 70 years old when I was a kid.  My parents are now in their 70’s and they don’t seem ‘old’. I mean they’re old, but not like they can’t do anything old.  Both could still easily work and produce great work if they wanted to.

All of this should change how we look at succession planning in our organizations, but we still use 65 as the ‘expiration’ date of when someone no longer seems to have value. “Oh, you know Tim, he’s going to be 65 next year, I’m amazed he can still stay awake all day!”

65 in 2020 is not the same 65 we saw in 1935!  The health and physical wellbeing of those two people are worlds apart!

Succession Planning needs to catch up with this difference.  HR needs to lead this charge.  Part of this change starts with us changing the language and numbers we use when describing retirement.  Regular retirement age needs to start at 70 years old, at a minimum, and move up from there.  We need to eliminate 65 years old from everything we write and speak.  It’s just no longer valid or accurate.

Once we push this date out, we can then start to plan much more accurately to what our organizational needs will truly be.  Next, we need to have frank conversations with those who we believe are reaching an age where they want to retire and have real conversations.  HR pros have been failing at this for years!  It’s actually not against the law to ask an employee what their retirement plan is! It should be against the law that you don’t ask this question!

If an employee knows that you are working with them to reach their goals, and you let that employee know that ‘hey, we need you for another five years’, most will actually happily stay on the additional time.  My Dad worked in a professional job until he was 72, and they wanted him longer! Don’t ever underestimate the power of being wanted. As we age, that desire to be wanted just increases!

So, I’ll ask you. At what age do you think someone should retire?

What is the Perfect Diversity Mix for your Organization?

Posted on by
2

This is a question I think many executives and HR and TA leaders struggle with. SHRM hasn’t come out and given guidance. ATAP has not told us at what levels we should be at with our diversity mix. So, how do we come up with this answer?

Seems like we should probably be roughly 50/50 when it comes to male and female employees. Again, that’s a broad figure, because your customer base probably makes a difference. If you’re selling products and services mostly women buy, you probably want more women on your team.

The more difficult mix to figure is when it comes to race. Should we be 50/50 when it comes to race in our hiring? Apple has taken it on the chin the last few years because of their demographic employee mix, and even as of this week, are still catching criticism for having only 1/3 of their leadership team is female, and only 17% of their entire team being black and Hispanic. 55% of Apple’s tech employees are white, 77% are male.

So, what should your diversity mix be?

The most recent demographics of race in America show this:

  • 61.3% are white
  • 17.8% are Hispanic/Latino
  • 13.3 are black
  • 4.8% Asian

Some other interesting facts about American race demographics:

  • 55% of black Americans live in the south
  • White Americans are the majority in every region
  • 79% of the Midwest is white Americans
  • The West is the most overall diverse part of America (where 46% of the American Asian population live, 42% of Hispanic/Latino, 48% of American Indian, 37% of multi-race)

So, what does this all mean when it comes to hiring a more diverse workforce? 

If 61.3% of the American population is white, is it realistic for Apple to hire a 50/50 mix of diversity across its workforce? I go back to my master’s research project when looking at female hiring in leadership. What you find in most service-oriented, retail, restaurants, etc. organizations are more male leaders than female leaders, but more female employees than male employees.

What I found was as organizations with a higher population of female employees hired a higher density of male employees as leaders, they were actually pulling from a smaller and smaller pool of talent. Meaning, organizations that don’t match the overall demographics of their employee base have the tendency to hire weaker leadership talent when they hire from a minority of their employee base, once those ratios are met.

In this case, if you have 70% female employees and 30% male, but you have 70% male leaders and only 30% female leaders, every single additional male you hire is statistically more likely to be a weaker leader than hiring from your female employee population for that position.

Makes sense, right!

If this example of females in leadership is true, it gives you a guide for your entire organization in what your mixes should be across your organization. If you have 60% of white employees and 50%, female. Your leadership team should be 60% of female leaders.

But!

What about special skill sets and demographics?

These throws are demographics off. What if your employee population is 18% black, but you can’t find 18% of the black employees you need in a certain skill set? This happened in a large health system I worked for when it came to nurse hiring. Within our market, we only had 7% of the nursing population that was black, and we struggled to get above that percentage in our overall population.

Apple runs into this same concept when it comes to hiring technical employees because more of the Asian and Indian population have the skill sets they need, so they can’t meet the overall demographics of their employee population, without incurring great cost in attracting the population they would need from other parts of the country to California.

Also, many organization’s leaders will say instead of looking at the employee base we have, let’s match the demographic makeup of the markets where our organizations work. At that point, you are looking at market demographics to match your employee demographics. Again, this can be difficult based on the skill sets you need to hire.

If I’m Apple, I think the one demographic that is way out of whack for them is female hiring. 50% of their customers are female. 77% of its employees are male, but only 33% of their leadership is female. It would seem to make demographic sense that 50% of Apple’s leadership team should be female.

Thoughts? This is a really difficult problem for so many organizations, and I see organizations attempting to get more ‘diverse’ in skin color without really knowing what that means in terms of raw numbers and percentages.

What are you using in your own shops?

Why Don’t We Make HR Simple? (hint: we might possibly have deep psychological issues!)

Posted on by
1

Have you ever wondered why HR Departments continue to make complex processes?  In reality, all of us want things simple.  But, when you look at our organizations they are filled with complexity.  It seems like the more we try to make things simple, the more complex they get.  You know what?  It’s you – it’s not everyone else.  You are making things complex, and you’re doing this because it makes you feel good.

From Harvard Business Review:

“There are several deep psychological reasons why stopping activities are so hard to do in organizations. First, while people complain about being too busy, they also take a certain amount of satisfaction and pride in being needed at all hours of the day and night. In other words, being busy is a status symbol. In fact, a few years ago we asked senior managers in a research organization — all of whom were complaining about being too busy — to voluntarily give up one or two of their committee assignments. Nobody took the bait because being on numerous committees was a source of prestige.

Managers also hesitate to stop things because they don’t want to admit that they are doing low-value or unnecessary work. Particularly at a time of layoffs, high unemployment, and a focus on cost reduction, managers want to believe (and convince others) that what they are doing is absolutely critical and can’t possibly be stopped. So while it’s somewhat easier to identify unnecessary activities that others are doing, it’s risky to volunteer that my own activities aren’t adding value. After all, if I stop doing them, then what would I do?”

That’s the bad news.  You have deep psychological issues.  Your spouse already knew that about you.

The good news is, you can stop it!  How?  Reward people for eliminating worthless work.  Right now we reward people who are working 70 hours per week and always busy and we tell people “Wow! Look at Tim he’s a rock star – always here, always working!”  Then someone in your group goes, “Yeah, but Tim is an idiot, I could do his job in 20 hours per week, if…”  We don’t reward the 20-hour guy, we reward the guy working 70 hours, even if he doesn’t have to.

Somewhere in our society – the ‘working smarter’ analogy got lost or turned into ‘work smarter and longer’.  The reality is most people don’t have the ability to work smarter, so they just work longer and make everything they do look ‘Really’ important!   You just thought of someone in your organization, when you read that, didn’t you!?  We all have them – you can now officially call them ‘psychos’ – since they do actually have “deep psychological” reasons for doing what they’re doing – Harvard said so!

I love simple.  I love simple HR.  I love simple recruiting.  I hate HR and Talent Pros that make things complex, because I know they have ‘deep psychological’ issues!  Please go make things simple today!

The HR Technology Conference 2020 ReCap & Top HR Product Winners! #HRTechConf

Posted on by
2

For the past decade or so, the HR Technology Conference has been one of the top conferences I attend every year! I’ve spoken and many covered all of them as a blogger or analyst, so when HR Tech went virtual for 2020, you knew I was going to check it out!

Let’s face it, virtual conferences are not the same as in person. It’s a very small percentage of folks I know who like virtual over in-person, so I think we are all hoping that HR Tech 2021 will be live in person back in Vegas! All that said, the HR Technology Conference team put a really good virtual event, using the technology platform Swapcard, and I’m sure some behind the scenes production.

The content was exactly what you normally expect from the HR Tech show – my buddy Steve Boese in a fancy suit, looking great, but from his living room, the keynotes this year were a little less big-name celebrities, and more inside baseball HR Nerd celebrities, which I loved (shout out to Josh Bersin, Stacey Harris, John Sumser, Stacia Garr, Jason Averbook, Dr. Tolonda Tolbert, Marcus Buckingham, Lisa Buckingham, and Ken Solon – go follow of these folks – super smart and they all share great stuff!).

Everyone did very well, but of course, once again, Marcus stole the show! He’s ridiculous, great speaker, sharing “wow” content is always a show stopper. This year, Marcus shared some new data from an ADP study on Resilience (and boy in 2020 do we need more resilience!).

Go check it out, turns out, those who go through more change tend to be more resilient. This seems to make sense, but yet we move mountains and constantly make dumb decisions in our organizations because we believe our employees can’t handle change! Also, age/generational differences have zero impact on resilience!

Who won the award for Top HR Product in 2020? 

-Accelerated Coaching and Scaled Mentoring Program

PILOT, New York, N.Y.

pilot.coach

-Dayforce Wallet

Ceridian, Minneapolis, Minn.

ceridian.com

-Fuel Marketplace

Fuel50, Laguna Niguel, Calif.

fuel50.com

-Language Learning Solution

GoFLUENT, New York, N.Y..

gofluent.com

-Manager-on-the-Go

Paycom, Oklahoma City, Okla.

paycom.com

 Microsoft Teams, Outlook Integration

iCIMS, Holmdel, N.J.

icims.com

-Moodtracker

Workhuman, Framingham, Mass.

workhuman.com

-Next Gen Pay

ADP, Roseland, N.J.

adp.com

-Opportunity Marketplace

Oracle, Redwood City, Calif.

oracle.com

-Paychex Flex Remote Workforce Enablement

Paychex, Rochester, N.Y.

paychex.com

-People Experience

Workday, Pleasanton, Calif.

workday.com

-Pluto

Pluto, New York, N.Y.

pluto.life

-Remote Hiring Solution

HackerRank, Mountain View, Calif.

hackerrank.com

-Skills Graph

Cornerstone OnDemand, Santa Monica, Calif.

cornerstoneondemand.com

-Workforce Insights

pymetrics, New York, N.Y.

pymetrics.ai

-WorkVue

Willis Towers Watson, London, U.K.

willistowerswatson.com

Very awesome list of winners and products as you look to 2021 you should be setting up demos to keep yourself up on what’s the next latest and greatest technology in the HR space!

Big shout out to the LRP team for pulling off a great virtual event, it’s not easy to do this right and you guys certainly did! Thanks, Steve Boese, Jeanne Achille, Tim Burke, and Elizabeth Clarke! Can’t wait until 2021!

The HR Technology Conference is going to do another virtual event in March – HR Tech Spring which is a free event, so go save your spot now!

Tomorrow I’m Talking for 9 Minutes! Check it Out! #InnovateWork #FindGreatness

Posted on by
Reply

My buddy, Chris Bailey, from the Cayman Islands called me and said, “Hey, I’m helping out with this HR thing called InnovateWork. Will you come on the event and do a talk?” I ask, “How long?” He says, “9 minutes.” I say, “9 minutes! I can definitely talk for 9 minutes!”

The event is Tuesday, November 10th at 1 pm ET. You can register here, the entire event takes like an hour or so – besides my 9-minute talk, you can also see Chris, our friend William Tincup, Simmone L. Bowe from the Bahamas, and Dr. Cassida Jones Johnson from Jamaica

Also, hosting the event are some more friends, Julie Turney, Bill Banham, Rob Catalano (Bill and Rob co-Founded InnovateWork).

What will I be talking about for 9 minutes? 

Great question, but I have a way that I think we can discover who is great in your organization! Yep, in 9 minutes I’m going to teach every single person on the webcast how they can discover who is great in your organization No technology needed. I’m not selling anything. Well, I’m selling you a great idea and an exercise that your leadership teams will love!

In 9 minutes I’m going to actually walk you through the exercise that you can then take back to your own organization and use! It’s simple but powerful, I’ve literally done this in organizations and had people crying!

Come check it out! It’s an hour or so out of your week, and I guarantee you it will be worth it!

REGISTER HERE! 

If You Pay Women More They’ll Work Harder Than Men! (It’s Science!)

Posted on by
1

A new study out from Harvard (so you know it’s legit and sh*t!) on what is the real payoff on paying employees more. It the age-old question, right? We can’t find great talent, so we say, “well, if we paid more we could find more talent”. Not quite “great talent” but more talent.

But, that really isn’t even the question this is answering. This is about what about our own employees and if we paid them more, would they work harder?

So, will employees work harder for more money? 

The study looked at mass retail and warehouse workers and found that a $1 increase in pay would on average, overall employees, give back the company $1,10 in extra productivity. Not great, but in very big organizations, an extra $.10 per hour in productivity could be significant, but there were other findings I found more fascinating:

1. Women, on average, will actually work harder for more pay than men! 

2. It’s super hard to pre-select those employees, or candidates, who will actually be more productive with the additional pay.

In fact, “women’s productivity responds more and their turnover responds less to wage changes than men’s, which can lead to occupational pay gaps”. Meaning, less pay doesn’t have the same impact on women as it does men. Men are more likely to turnover when they feel they aren’t being compensated fairly.

The other side of this study that is fascinating from a compensation perspective is something we all kind of know, but never like to admit to – we actually kind of suck at selection and determining who will be a great performer from a poor performer. Interviews, especially in no-skill, low-skill jobs, are basically worthless.

You might have a better chance of being a pay leader and only hiring women. At least you’ll give yourself a better chance the ladies will work harder for that money!

I think what this really speaks to is class pay for performance. Our need to make sure we are paying those employees, who perform the best, more than those employees who do not perform the best. We struggle with this. “Well, Tim, they are all classified “Warehouse Associates 1″ if we paid them differently there would be chaos!”

I get it. It’s not easy, but being great is never easy. Do you really think what you are doing now is really working great?

I think we have the ability in retail, dining, warehouse, manufacturing, do compensation testing where we try some of these philosophies and ideas. What would happen if we developed great productivity measures, and then we really compensated our best performers more. Not twenty-five cents more, but significantly more than their peers who are average or below average on those same metrics?

Might you have some turnover of weaker players? Yep. Is that a bad thing? Maybe, most likely not, if you’re prepared with a funnel of potential new hires. Becoming great at HR is about challenging what we are doing now, so we can become better than we are for the future.

Now, go take care of those ladies who are working harder than your dudes!

Does Your Average Employee Tenure Matter? (New Data!)

Posted on by
5

I keep getting told by folks who tend to know way more than me that employees ‘today’ don’t care about staying at a company long term. “Tim you just don’t get it, the younger workforce just wants to spend one to three years at a job than leave for something new and different.” You’re right! I don’t get it.

BLS recently released survey data showing that the average employee tenure is sitting around 4.1 years.  Which speaks to my smart friends who love to keep replacing talent. I still don’t buy this fact as meaning people don’t want long term employment with one organization.

Here’s what I know about high tenured individuals:

1. People who stay long term with a company tend to make more money over their careers.

2. People who stay long term with a company tend to reach the highest level of promotion.

3. People who tend to stay long term with a company tend to have higher career satisfaction.

I don’t have a survey on this. I have twenty years of working in the trenches of HR and witnessing this firsthand. The new CEO hire from outside the company gets all the press, but it actually rarely happens. Most companies promote from within because they have trust in the performance of a long-term, dedicated employee, over an unknown from the outside. Most organizations pick the known over the unknown.

I still believe tenure matters a great deal to the leadership of most organizations.  I believe that a younger workforce still wants to find a great company where they can build a career, but we keep telling them that is unrealistic in today’s world.

Career ADHD is something we’ve made up to help us explain to our executives why we can no longer retain our employees.  Retention is hard work. It has a real, lasting impact on the health and well-being of a company. There are real academic studies that show the organizations with the highest tenure, outperform those organizations with lower tenure.  (here, here, and here)

Employee tenure is important and it matters a great deal to the success of your organization. If you’re telling yourself and your leadership that it doesn’t, that it’s just ‘kids’ today, we can’t do anything about it, you’re doing your organization a disservice. You can do something about it. Employee retention, at all levels, should be the number 1, 2, and 3 top priorities of your HR shop.