global workforce third quarter 2015 insights · hr news report functional insights global workforce...

Your Quarterly Resource for the Latest Trends Affecting Your Workforce Plan

Global Workforce Insights

Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™

Third Quarter 2015

Print DesignerKelly Suh

Contributing Print DesignersReid Griffler

EditorKate Seferian

Practice LeaderBrian Kropp

Principal Executive AdvisorDion Love

Research DirectorMatt Dudek

Research AnalystJohn Roman

CEB Talent Management LabsResearch DirectorMark Little

Research ManagerLindsey Walsh

Research ScientistNeha Jain

Senior Research AnalystSajal Jain

Research AnalystNamrata Raina

Research SpecialistNikita Ojha

CHRO Insight Series

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYNThe pages herein are the property of CEB Inc. No copyrighted materials of CEB Inc. may be reproduced or resold without prior approval. For additional copies of this publication, please contact CEB Inc. at +1-866-913-2632, or visit www.cebglobal.com.

CEB Corporate Leadership Council™ Content Publishing Solutions

HR NEWS REPORT Functional Insights

GLOBAL WORKFORCE INSIGHTS REPORTWorkforce Insights

CHRO QUARTERLYBusiness Insights

CHRO VIDEO SERIESPersonal Insights

Why We Create This Report

We believe that great ideas—acute insights rooted in

microeconomics and informed by human behavior—are

essential to those accomplishments that change the fortunes

of an individual, an organization, or the world. We discover

and create these ideas and enable members and colleagues

to act on them by delivering them in timely, targeted, and

memorable ways.

3© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN

Key Findings

Labor Market • 7 What You Can Do

Employees more confident in senior leadership than looming economic conditions (p. 7).

Given employees perceive fewer job activities, organizations must in particular, guard against perceptions that female employees cannot advance to more senior positions. Debunk common myths at your organization and learn how to close the gap.

Better customize your candidate sourcing strategy to reach active and passive candidates in your markets.

Boost your strategic workforce planning with our big data engine from CEB TalentNeuron.

Despite strong regional fluctuations in 2015; though, global job prospects return unchanged (p. 8).

Compared to one year ago, current global job-seeking activity changes less aggressively (p. 9).

Job-seeking activity declines globally, driven by a massive decline in the United States (p. 10).

Average time to fill a vacancy is increasing globally (p. 12).

Attraction • 13

The top 10 reasons employees join new companies do not change from last quarter (p. 13).

Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths for Employees and Organizations to learn how the best organizations design careers around high-value opportunities, target passive internal job candidates, expand career conversations beyond the manager, and offer employees job security by making them more employable.

Career opportunities with a new organization may retain, but are less likely to attract US employees (p. 14).


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/Abstract.aspx?cid=101281587&home=HP4&s=banner

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Topics/Abstract.aspx?cid=101126035&fs=1&q=passive+candidates&program=&ds=1

http://www.executiveboard.com/exbd/human-resources/talent-neuron/index.page?

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/Abstract.aspx?cid=101271760&utm_source=clc.executiveboard.com&utm_medium=home&utm_campaign=Meetings#aSeeAlldates


Key Findings (Continued)

Engagement • 15 What You Can Do

Globally, intent to stay increases; effort shows no change (p. 16).Read the CHRO Quarterly Magazine to learn how to align employee engagement efforts with corporate strategy and how 3M’s head of HR uses engagement to drive innovation.

Effort in Latin and North America surges; Europe continues a downward trend originating in 2013 (p. 17).

Measure more than engagement at your organization with CEB’s ClearAdvantage Check (included in membership).

Employees in Europe fear the job market—likelihood to stay in seat is at an all-time high (p. 18).

Determine employees’ willingness to execute a strategic plan in your region by assessing the engagement scores of strategically critical talent segments.

Attrition • 20

Future career opportunities remain crucial and the top reason employees leave their jobs (p. 20). Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our exit

survey resource, Departure View.

Translate business strategy into workforce strategy with step-by-step guidance to keep increased compensation-switching premiums from impeding your organizational goals.

Help your HR business partners and generalists build the fundamental compensation knowledge needed to address basic pay questions with confidence and accuracy (requires CEB Total Rewards Leadership Council membership).

The regional volatility of attrition drivers continues (p. 21).

Although decreasing this quarter, compensation switching premium remains above 15% (p. 22).

Worldwide, merit pay expectations changed minimally (p. 23).


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/DecisionSupportCenters/Abstract.aspx?cid=101287135



https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=100237949&tc=engagement&loc=spo&scAuth=true

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=100237949&tc=engagement&loc=spo&scAuth=true

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ExitSurvey.aspx?scAuth=true

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101215699&fs=1&q=workforce+planning+playbook&program=&ds=1

https://www.cr.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/EventReplayAbstract.aspx?cid=101288920


© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN

Global Data Sources by Percentage of Origin in This Report

Looking for More Insight?

View targeted reports on our website.

Forty-five reports for the regions, industries,

and functions of your global business are

available through the Workforce Insights portal.

Each quarter, Global Workforce Insights is sourced from over 18,000 employees in 36 countries to offer the most authoritative look at the latest global and country-level trends so you know what attracts, engages, and retains talent.

Americas

■ Argentina: 0.9% ■ Brazil: 2.6% ■ Canada: 4.4% ■ Chile: 0.9% ■ Colombia: 0.9% ■ Mexico: 2.6% ■ United States: 10.0%

Africa

■ South Africa: 2.2%

Europe

■ Belgium and the Netherlands: 4.4%

■ Czech Republic: 0.3% ■ France: 2.2% ■ Germany: 5.5% ■ Hungary: 0.3% ■ Italy: 2.2% ■ Nordic Regiona: 8.8% ■ Poland: 2.2% ■ Romania: 0.3% ■ Spain: 2.2% ■ Switzerland: 2.2% ■ Russia: 2.2% ■ Turkey: 0.9% ■ United Kingdom: 6.6%

ANZ

■ Australia: 4.4% ■ New Zealand: 2.2%

Asia

■ China: 4.3% ■ Hong Kong: 0.9% ■ India: 4.4% ■ Indonesia: 2.2% ■ Japan: 2.2% ■ Malaysia and the Philippines: 4.2%

■ Singapore: 2.2% ■ South Korea: 2.2% ■ Taiwan: 2.2% ■ Thailand: 2.2% ■ Vietnam: 2.2%

a The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

6

https://clc.executiveboard.com

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101179891) on our website (clc.executiveboard.com

The Business Confidence Index (BCI) measures employed individuals’ confidence in near-term business conditions and long-term economic prospects in their industry.

Employees More Confident in Senior Leadership Than Looming Economic ConditionsExecutive Sentiment on Business Conditions and Leadership, Q2 2015Degree of Confidence of Employees

Business Confidence Index Leadership Confidence Index

Q2 2015 n = 22,972Source: CEB 2015 Business Barometer Survey.

What You Can Do

Identify ways to share your unique insight on retaining top talent with fellow business leaders in your organization. Become an enterprise leader who excels not only as an individual leader but also as a network leader so you can influence the C-suite.

Right now, only 12% of leaders overall act as enterprise leaders. Learn about the three behaviors that distinguish enterprise leaders.

0.0

50.0

100.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

53.6

60.2

Low

Neutral

High

The Leadership Confidence Index (LCI) tracks employed individuals’ confidence in the senior leadership of their current organization to successfully prepare for the future by setting strategy, developing leaders, and responding to economic and labor market changes.

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 7

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Events/Abstract.aspx?cid=101273551

DefinitionThe Job Opportunity Barometer measures employed individuals’ perceptions of the availability and quality of other employment opportunities in their current locations, industries, and functions.

Despite Strong Regional Fluctuations in 2015; Though, Global Job Prospects Return UnchangedJob Opportunity Barometer a

Global Employed Labor Force

Weaker Job Opportunity

Perception

Stronger Job Opportunity

Perception

Neutral Job Opportunity

Perception

52.1

53.5

55.0

47.4

48.0

50.2

Q2 2015 n = 6,671 (Asia); 3,302 (North America); 21,971 (Global); 1,503 (Australia and New Zealand); 8,690 (Europe).Source: CEB 2010–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Job Opportunity Barometer is an indexed score calculated from a battery of five questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and

converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values indicating stronger perceptions of job opportunities.

What You Can Do

Today’s careers are failing employers and also employees, impacting their job perceptions in general and their view of your organization. Companies are concerned about capability gaps, and employees aren’t satisfied with future career opportunities. No longer able to rely on predictable, promotion-based career cultures, leading organizations now create growth-based career cultures.

Join us for this webinar to learn how to build career partnerships that create growth for organizations as well as employees.

54.2 Asia

49.1 North America

47.9 Australia and New Zealand

49.2 Latin America49.4 Global

46.5 Europe

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

20

12

Q1 2

013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

20

14

Q1 2

015

Q2

2015

40

50

60

��

A trend of pessimistic job perceptions is reversed in ANZ; however, North America and Latin America continue to experience negative trends in this category.

Even with economic uncertainty in Greece, employees in the EU see more job availability at the midpoint of 2015, than they did earlier in the year.


https://www.executiveboard.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/events/webinars/15/the-new-path-forward-18-september-2015.html?referrerTitle=Webinars%20-%20CEB%20Corporate%20Leadership%20Council%E2%84%A2

Compared to One Year Ago, Current Global Job-Seeking Activity Changes Less AggressivelyPercentage of Employees by Degree of Job-Seeking BehaviorGlobal Employed Labor Force

Per

cent

age

of

Em

plo

yees

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q2

2015

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2014

Q1

2014

37.8%

35.4%

26.9%

Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

The number of passive candidates remains near 2012 lows, showing that the large drop in early 2014 wasn’t an anomaly.

What You Can Do

See how you can customize your candidate sourcing strategy for any market.

Pursuing more in-depth insight? Use our Recruiting Effectiveness Dashboard to ensure your recruiters effectively bring the best talent to your organization (requires CEB Recruiting Leadership Council membership).

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

20

12

Q1 2

013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q3

2014

Q4

20

14

Q1 2

015

Q2

2015

10%

30%

50%

��

44.9% Passive

24.6% Active

30.4% Neutral


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/Topics/Abstract.aspx?cid=101126035&fs=1&q=passive+candidates&program=&ds=1

https://rr.executiveboard.com/Members/RED/Default.aspx?tc=recruiting_roles&stc=1&loc=mkt

https://rr.executiveboard.com/Members/RED/Default.aspx?tc=recruiting_roles&stc=1&loc=mkt

So

uth

Ko

rea

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Ital

y

Mex

ico

Au

stra

lia

Ch

ina

Bra

zil

New

Zea

lan

d

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

No

rdic

Reg

ion

b

Fra

nce

Sp

ain

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Can

ada

Jap

an

Ger

man

y

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Ru

ssia

Bel

giu

m a

nd

th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Ind

ia

Sin

gap

ore

Ind

on

esia

Mal

aysi

a an

d

the

Ph

ilip

pin

es

So

uth

Afr

ica

Global Job-Seeking Activity Up Compared to Last YearActive–Passive Score: Q2 2015a

More Active

Neutral

More Passive

Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2013–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Active–Passive Score is an index calculated from a battery of eight questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and converted to a 100-point scale, with higher

values indicating more active job-search activity.b The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.c Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates the change was not significant. This value is determined by response count

and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.

Significant Change No Significant Change

DefinitionThe Active–Passive Score measures the extent to which employed individuals are inclined to and demonstrate effort to look for new jobs.

25.0

45.0

65.0

59.4

55.8

52.549.9 49.3 49.1

46.4 46.4 45.6

42.8 42.7 42.740.8 39.8 39.4 39.0

37.9 37.836.5 36.4 35.5 34.6

33.431.9

Year-Over-Year Change (Index Change)

0.2 8.2 0.5 (1.7) 2.5 3.5 (6.9) 4.2 (0.5) 4.0 1.9 3.2 1.7 (2.3) (2.8) 3.6 1.4 2.3 (5.9) (8.4) (5.3) 2.5 1.7 2.1

Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (Index Change)c

(0.1) 3.3 (1.2) (4.8) 2.7 (4.1) (4.4) 0.8 (3.2) (2.4) (1.5) 1.6 (4.7) (3.2) (2.8) 2.6 (5.4) (4.4) (6.7) (4.6) 0.3 (2.7) (2.9) (4.3)

International Average = 42.7

Significant Change

No Significant Change

40.8

Brazil, Canada and the United States see job-seeking activity drop an average of 7.1 index points since last year, revealing a marked slow down in search activity in these markets.


Use CEB TalentNeuron for Your Strategic Workforce PlanningApply big data and decision science to plan, source, and optimize global talent.

BIG DATA ENGINE ACTIONABLE DECISIONS

1,000+ Cities in 100 Countries

100 Million Knowledge Workers

75,000 Companies

10,000+ Universities

4,500 Skills

Contact us to learn more.

Phone: +1-866-913-6447 | E-Mail: [email protected] | Website: cebglobal.com/talent-neuron

“ Where can I find critical talent?”

“ Where do I have a competitive advantage?”

“ How can I optimize talent costs?”

The largest amount of talent data is processed for your context.

Talent

Location

Competition

Talent ■ Roles ■ Jobs ■ Skills ■ Job Domains

Location ■ Countries ■ States ■ Cities ■ Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Competition ■ Industries ■ Companies


mailto:TalentAnalyticsSupport%40cebglobal.com?subject=

mailto:cebglobal.com/talent-neuron?subject=

48

Average Time to Fill a Vacancy Is Increasing GloballyBecause we believe in great ideas, we will feature the best of CEB TalentNeuron’s analytics and decision support to help you make informed decisions for your global workforce.

Number of Days to Fill a Mobile Developer Position

Worldwide, the average time it took to fill a Mobile Developer position was 45 days in Q2 2014 and 55 days in Q2 2015.Source: CEB analysis.

33.3%Q2 2014: 48Q2 2015: 64

1.6%Q2 2014: 64Q2 2015: 65

36.4%Q2 2014: 33Q2 2015: 45

21.1%Q2 2014: 38Q2 2015: 46

24.4%Q2 2014: 41Q2 2015: 51

4.9%Q2 2014: 41Q2 2015: 43

15.5%Q2 2014: 58Q2 2015: 67

13.9%Q2 2014: 36Q2 2015: 41

13.9%Q2 2014: 51Q2 2015: 58

19.2%Q2 2014: 52Q2 2015: 62

11.4%Q2 2014: 44Q2 2015: 49

5.9%Q2 2014: 51Q2 2015: 48

87.1%Q2 2014: 31Q2 2015: 58

92.0%Q2 2014: 25Q2 2015: 48


The Top 10 Reasons Employees Join New Companies Do Not Change from Last QuarterPercentage of Employees Who Rank the Driver Among the Top Five Attributes Influencing Selection of a Potential EmployerGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q2 2015

Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

10 Most Commonly Cited Attraction Drivers by Employees Worldwide

Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity

Man

ager

Qu

alit

y

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Hea

lth

Ben

efits

Vac

atio

n

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efits

Sta

bili

ty

Res

pec

t

“Gre

at E

mp

loye

r” R

eco

gn

itio

n

Fu

ture

Car

eer

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Eth

ics

and

Inte

gri

ty

Tech

no

log

y L

evel

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Em

po

wer

men

t

Mar

ket

Po

siti

on

Incl

usi

on

an

d D

iver

sity

Co

wo

rker

Qu

alit

y

Cu

sto

mer

Pre

stig

e

Wo

rk–L

ife B

alan

ce

Job

–In

tere

sts

Alig

nm

ent

Cam

arad

erie

Rec

og

nit

ion

Bu

sin

ess

Trav

el

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Pro

du

ct o

r S

ervi

ce Q

ual

ity

Ind

ust

ry D

esir

abili

ty

Fo

rmal

ity

of

Wo

rk E

nvir

on

men

t

Mer

ito

crac

y

So

cial

Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Org

aniz

atio

n S

ize

Wel

l-K

no

wn

Pro

du

ct B

ran

d

Co

lleg

ial W

ork

Env

iro

nm

ent

Ris

k Ta

kin

g

Peo

ple

Man

agem

ent

Lo

cati

on

Inn

ova

tive

Wo

rk

Sen

ior

Lea

der

ship

Rep

uta

tio

n

0%

25%

50%

Although organizations invest a lot in attributes such as “Great Employer” recognition and social responsibility, these are top priorities for relatively few employees.

Critical for engagement, performance, and retention, “people” drivers are less vital for attracting employees.

Lev

el o

f Im

pac

t

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attraction 13

Career Opportunities with a New Organization May Retain, But Are Less Likely to Attract US Employees Top 10 Attraction Drivers for Select Countries and Regions, Q2 2015 Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Potential Candidates Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Attributes When Considering an Employer

RA

NK

Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States

1 Compensation (48.3%)

Work–Life Balance (59.2%)

Compensation (67.1%)





2Work–Life Balance (37.6%)

Location (44.6%)

Development Opportunity (34.7%)

+4 Respect (29.3%)


Location (47.4%)


3 Stability (34.5%) +1 Stability

(40.2%)

Future Career Opportunity (32.4%)

+2Future Career Opportunity (28.9%)

Stability (32.2%) +1 Respect

(32.8%) +1 Location (41.2%)

4 Respect (31.3%) -1 Respect

(36.6%)Stability (30.7%) -2 Growth Rate

(28.7%) +1Future Career Opportunity (30.9%)

-1 Stability (31.7%) -1 Stability

(40.1%)

5 Location (30.4%)

Compensation (25.6%) +1


-2 Stability (26.9%) -1

Health Benefits (27.9%)



6Future Career Opportunity (22.7%)

+1Ethics and Integrity (24.2%)

-1 Respect (25.2%) -2 Compensation

(26.0%)Respect (27.6%)

Future Career Opportunity (23.2%)

Respect (28.4%)

7Development Opportunity (20.9%)

-1Future Career Opportunity (21.0%)


Location (22.5%)

Location (24.8%)

Vacation (23.2%) +2

Retirement Benefits (26.0%)

8 Vacation (17.9%)

Recognition (16.8%)

Vacation (18.9%) +1


+1People Management (21.1%)

Recognition (20.2%)

Ethics and Integrity (24.4%)

9Ethics and Integrity (17.8%)


+3Retirement Benefits (17.2%)

+1 Recognition (20.6%) +1


+1People Management (17.7%)

+1 Vacation (22.1%)

10Health Benefits (17.0%)

Job-Interests Alignment (14.9%)

-1 Location (16.9%) +1 Innovative

Work (20.1%) -2Ethics and Integrity (19.1%)

+1Retirement Benefits (17.2%)

-3Future Career Opportunity (17.0%)

Q2 2015 n = 22,972 (Global); 1,001 (Australia); 993 (China); 1,000 (India); 1,984 (Southeast Asia); 1,506 (United Kingdom); 2,299 (United States).Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

Note: The top drivers of attraction by country are calculated by asking survey respondents to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework that they consider most important when evaluating a new job. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attraction in that country or region.

a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.

Despite constantly being the most important attribute, compensation has diminished in rank recently. In Australia, India, and the United Kingdom, compensation is not among the top three attributes potential employees look for when selecting a new employer.

Why are employees in the United States ranking future career opportunities so low? Find out in our new study: The New Path Forward.

What You Can Do

The most recent edition of CHRO Quarterly Magazine focuses on how to build growth-based career cultures that create value for both employees and the organization.


CHRO Quarterly

Third Quarter 2015

A Magazine for Chief Human Resources Officers

Mobilize Leaders to Keep New Growth Strategies (and Leaders’ Careers) on Track

The Career Path Is Dead! Long Live Careers!

The Right Way to Brand Your Organization Using Growth-Based Careers

What Successful HR Professionals Do

Creating a Compelling Employment Value Proposition

In This Issue

Career Paths

Voice of the CHRO

Deb YatesSenior Vice President of Human Resources at RB

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attraction 14

https://www.executiveboard.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/report/15/chro-quarterly--q3-2015.html?referrerTitle=CHRO%20Portal%20-%20CEB%20Corporate%20Leadership%20Council%E2%84%A2

https://www.executiveboard.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/report/15/chro-quarterly--q3-2015.html?referrerTitle=CHRO%20Portal%20-%20CEB%20Corporate%20Leadership%20Council%E2%84%A2

https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101179891&home=HP1

Employee Engagement ModelEmployee engagement is the pride, energy, and optimism that fuels employees’ discretionary effort and intent to stay.

What You Can Do

Use your membership to align employee engagement with business strategy.

Assess Engagement StrategicallyParticipate in our in-membership ClearAdvantage Check to assess not only the engagement of your workforce but also its impact on your unique business priorities.

Contact Us to Learn More

Phone: +1-866-913-6447

E-Mail: [email protected]

Source: CEB analysis.

Engagement Metrics This QuarterPercentage of Employees Indicating High Levels of:

Energy ■ Sense of urgency ■ Excitement and/or enthusiasm ■ Focus

52.3% overall

0.1 ppt. since Q1 2015

Optimism ■ Confidence in the future ■ Belief in progress

54.1% overall


Pride ■ Identification with company ■ Recommending the company

56.6% overall


ALIGN

MEN

TAG

ILITY

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 15



mailto:ClearAdvantageCheck%40cebglobal.com?subject=

34.5% Intent to Stay

18.3% Discretionary Effort

Globally, Intent to Stay Increases; Discretionary Effort Shows No Change

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Discretionary EffortEmployee willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty, such as helping others with heavy workloads, volunteering for additional duties, and looking for ways to perform the job more efficiently

Intent to StayAn employee’s desire to stay with the organization, based on whether he or she intends to look for a new job within a year, frequently thinks of quitting, has actively been looking for a new job, or has taken steps such as placing phone calls and sending out résumés

Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

Q2

2015

40%

20%

0%


Effort in Latin and North America Surges; Europe Continues a Downward Trend Originating in 2013Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort, by Region

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2015

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2014

35.0%

20.0%

5.0%

17.7%

18.2%

14.9%

10.4%

21.0%

Q2 2015 n = 1,365 (Latin America); 5,648 (North America); 1,818 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,603 (Europe); 3,592 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

4.7 ppt.

0.0 ppt.

(1.4) ppt.

0.9 ppt.

32.2% Latin America

26.0% North America

16.2% Europe

12.7% Asia

21.6% Australia and New Zealand

Effort in Asia and Europe shows signs of a slight decrease this quarter; the gap between high and low effort has widened significantly. For a more in-depth look into this data, please contact us.

Employees in Latin America report the sharpest increase in discretionary effort since 2010. This comes at a time when economies in Latin American are losing strength and growth projections are timid. Thirty-two percent of employees in the region agree they are putting extra effort into their jobs this quarter.

Quarter-Over-QuarterPercentage Point

Change in Discretionary Effort Levels

(0.9) ppt.

What You Can Do

Use the Globalization Portal to better engage employees in the different regions of your business. CHROs can use the resources in this portal to:

■ Hone improvements in their own global HR processes,

■ Direct their team to take action on the latest trends, and

■ Use and distribute worldwide best practices to lead, manage, and work across time zones.


mailto:HRAdvisory%40cebglobal.com?subject=







Employees in Europe Fear the Job Market—Likelihood to Stay in Seat Is at an All-Time HighPercentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Intent to Stay, by Region

50.0%

30.0%

10.0%

11.5%

23.5%

Q2 2015 n = 1,365 (Latin America); 5,648 (North America); 1,818 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,603 (Europe); 3,592 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

(0.3) ppt.

0.7 ppt.

5.3 ppt.

40.1% North America 0.0 ppt.

48.8% Europe

(0.9) ppt.

38.1% Latin America

35.2% Australia and New Zealand

19.4% Asia

Employees in all other regions except Europe show little change in their intent-to-stay levels. Employees in both Asia and ANZ showed peak levels of intent to stay in 2014, but these regions have since reported a decrease over the past year.

27.5%

29.9%

What You Can Do

With more employees planning to stay, make sure they know the path forward so careers do not stall at your organization.

Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths for Employees and Organizations to learn how the best organizations design careers around high-value opportunities, target passive internal job candidates, expand career conversations beyond the manager, and offer employees job security by making them more employable.

Quarter-Over-QuarterPercentage Point

Change in Discretionary Effort Levels

27.9%

Q4

20

09

Q2

2010

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

10

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2015

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2014

Intent-to-stay levels among employees in Europe witnessed a sharp increase—this is the first time since 2013 there has been such a high likelihood for employees to stay in their current jobs.






Get the Most from Your Hardest WorkersEighteen percent of the workforce is exerting high levels of discretionary effort, and more than half of them are likely to stay in seat.

Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort, Q2 2015

High Discretionary Effort

Neutral or Low Discretionary Effort

Distribution of Intent to Stay for Global Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Q2 2015

6.1% Low

6.3% Somewhat Low

19.3% Neutral

13.8% Somewhat High

54.6% High

Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

Q2 2015 n = 4,210 employees with high discretionary effort.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.

Note: Pie does not total 100% due to rounding.

81.7%

18.3%

What You Can Do

Read our issue of the CHRO Quarterly Magazine to learn how to align employee engagement efforts with corporate strategy and how 3M’s head of HR uses engagement to drive innovation.


Cut Through the Communication Permafrost: Aligning Employees with Corporate Strategy

The Value of Employee Engagement Is Cloudy: Learn How to Make It Clear Again

In This Issue

Employee Engagement

CHRO Quarterly

Second Quarter 2015

Voice of the CHRO

Marlene McGrathSenior Vice President of Human Resources at 3M

Drive Returns on Employee Engagement Investments

A Magazine for Chief Human Resources Officers




https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ResearchAndTools/Abstract.aspx?cid=101179891&home=HP1

0%

20%

40%

0%

20%

40%

��

Sen

ior

Lea

der

ship

Rep

uta

tio

n

Fo

rmal

ity

of

Wo

rk E

nvir

on

men

t

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Hea

lth

Ben

efits

Vac

atio

n

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efits

Sta

bili

ty

Res

pec

t

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Fu

ture

Car

eer

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Eth

ics

and

Inte

gri

ty

Tech

no

log

y L

evel

“Gre

at E

mp

loye

r” R

eco

gn

itio

n

Gro

wth

Rat

e

So

cial

Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Mar

ket

Po

siti

on

Incl

usi

on

an

d D

iver

sity

Co

wo

rker

Qu

alit

y

Cu

sto

mer

Pre

stig

e

Job

–In

tere

sts

Alig

nm

ent

Rec

og

nit

ion

Lev

el o

f Im

pac

t

Bu

sin

ess

Trav

el

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Pro

du

ct o

r S

ervi

ce Q

ual

ity

Ind

ust

ry D

esir

abili

ty

Mer

ito

crac

y

Em

po

wer

men

t

Org

aniz

atio

n S

ize

Wel

l-K

no

wn

Pro

du

ct B

ran

d

Co

lleg

ial W

ork

Env

iro

nm

ent

Ris

k Ta

kin

g

Peo

ple

Man

agem

ent

Lo

cati

on

Inn

ova

tive

Wo

rk

Man

ager

Qu

alit

y

Future Career Opportunities Remain Crucial and the Top Reason Employees Leave Their JobsPercentage of Departing Employees Who Rank the Driver Among the Top Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous JobsGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q2 2015

10 Most Commonly Cited Attrition Drivers by Employees Globally

Q2 2015 n = 12,403.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey; CEB 2015 Departure View Exit Survey.

Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity

Cam

arad

erie

Wo

rk–L

ife B

alan

ce

When joining an organization, new employees are not particularly influenced by “people” drivers. However, these factors constantly figure among the top five reasons why employees leave their current organizations.

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attrition 20

The Regional Volatility of Attrition Drivers ContinuesTop 10 Attrition Drivers for Select Countries or Regions, Q2 2015Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Departing Employees Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous Jobs

Q2 2015 n = 12,403 (Global); 615 (Australia); 327 (China); 738 (India); 875 (Southeast Asia); 505 (United Kingdom); 8,398 (United States).Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey; CEB 2015 Departure View Exit Survey.

Note: The top drivers of attrition by country are calculated by asking respondents to our Departure View Exit Survey and newly hired respondents to our Global Labor Market Survey to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework with which they were most dissatisfied while at their former employer. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attrition in that country or region.

a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.

RA

NK

Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States

1Future Career Opportunity 38.8%

Future Career Opportunity 45.7%

+2Future Career Opportunity 48.8%

Growth Rate 40.9% +2




2 Compensation 36.2%

People Management 35.6%

-1 Compensation 46.8%


-1 Compensation 36.5% +1


+1 Compensation 37.0%

3People Management 33.2%

+1 Recognition 31.1% -1

Development Opportunity 43.2%

+2 Recognition 34.0% +1


-1 Recognition 36.7% -1


4Development Opportunity 29.5%

+4Work–Life Balance 29.9%


-1 Compensation 31.0% +2


+2Manager Quality 31.9%

Manager Quality 31.0%

5Manager Quality 28.3%

-2Development Opportunity 29.4%


+3Manager Quality 27.5%

-3Work–Life Balance 28.1%

-1Development Opportunity 30.7%

+3Development Opportunity 28.8%

6Work–Life Balance 26.8%

Respect 29.1% -1 Recognition

26.3% +1Work–Life Balance 25.7%

-1Manager Quality 26.1%


-1Work–Life Balance 28.0%

7 -1 Recognition 26.7%

Compensation 26.8%

Respect 24.5% -3


Recognition 25.8% -2 Compensation

26.9% -1 Respect 27.1%

8 +1 Respect 26.1% -3



-2People Management 23.9%

+3 Respect 22.9%

Respect 24.4% -1 Recognition

24.7%

9 Stability 18.5%

Stability 18.4%

Job-Interests Alignment 19.1%

Stability 21.3% -1 Growth Rate

20.6%Location 22.1%

Stability 18.2%

10 +1Job-Interests Alignment 15.7%

Location 17.6% +4 Location

18.0%Location 20.1% +2 Stability

18.7%Stability 16.6%

Growth Rate 16.0%

What You Can Do

Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our in-membership exit survey resource, Departure View.

Now you can survey departing employees and receive detailed feedback on their reasons for leaving, new job status, areas of dissatisfaction, and likelihood to recommend your organization.

Contact us to learn more: HR.SurveyRequests@ cebglobal.com

Lack of future opportunities emerges as the main reason why employees are leaving their organizations. Approximately 40%–50% of the workforce in most regions is dissatisfied with this attribute.


https://clc.executiveboard.com/Members/ExitSurvey.aspx

mailto:HR.SurveyRequests%40cebglobal.com?subject=

Although Decreasing This Quarter, Compensation Switching Premium Remains Above 15% Global Compensation-Switching PremiumPercent Change Expected in Total Compensation

Q2 2015 n = 7,206.Source: CEB 2011–2015 Departure View Exit Surveys.

DefinitionThe compensation-switching premium measures departed employees’ anticipated compensation changes at their new organizations.

What You Can Do

Translate business strategy into workforce strategy with step-by-step guidance to proactively retain talent with pay, even if you can’t give an increase, by improving pay perceptions.

15.6%

16.8%

14.8%

15.0%

14.8%

15.7%

14.4%

15.1%

14.8%

15.1%

14.1%

15.0%

14.8%

15.4%

15.7%

15.2%

13.0%

15.0%

17.0%

13.0%

15.0%

17.0%

Q3

20

11

Q4

20

11

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

20

12

Q4

20

12

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

20

13

Q4

20

13

Q1

2014

Q2

2014

Q1

2015

Q4

20

14

Q3

20

14

Q2

2015

Switching premiums tend to decline in the first quarter of the year and rise in the second quarter. This trend reversed going into 2015. However, the switching premium has remained above 15% for the past three quarters, indicating a potential rise in the later market.




Year-Over-Year Change (ppt.)

(1.0) (3.3) 0.2 (0.4) (1.6) (0.4) (1.0) 0.1 0.6 0.1 (0.2) (0.2) 0.4 0.3 (3.3) (0.7) 0.0 (0.1) 1.0 (0.8) (0.9) (1.5) 0.1 1.3

(2.0%)

6.0%

14.0%

(2.0%)

6.0%

14.0%

12.2%

10.6%9.8%

9.5%

7.8%

6.5%

4.4% 4.3%4.0% 3.8%

2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3%0.9% 0.7% 0.6%

(0.1%)

Worldwide, Merit Pay Expectations Changed Minimally Stark differences remain between merit increases expected by employees in developing economies (e.g., India, Brazil, Indonesia) and the more developed economic powers (e.g., United States, Germany, France).

Employee Expectations for Merit Pay, Q2 2015By Country or Region

International Average = 4.3%

Q2 2015 n = 22,972. Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.a The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.b Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates that the change was not significant. This value is determined by response

count and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.

Can

ada

Fra

nce

No

rdic

Reg

ion

a

Bra

zil

Jap

an

Ital

y

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Un

ited

Sta

tes

So

uth

Afr

ica

Mal

aysi

a an

d

the

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Ru

ssia

Ind

on

esia

New

Zea

lan

d

Au

stra

lia

Ger

man

y

Ch

ina

Bel

giu

m a

nd

th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Sin

gap

ore

Mex

ico

Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (ppt.)b

(0.4) (2.5) 2.0 0.4 (1.1) (0.7) (0.4) (0.2) 2.4 0.4 (0.8) 0.1 (0.2) (0.2) (2.4) (0.2) (0.6) 0.0 0.6 (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) 0.9 1.4

What You Can Do

CHROs: Help your HR business partners and generalists build the fundamental compensation knowledge needed to address basic pay questions with confidence and accuracy.

Significant Change

No Significant Change

3.8%

Ind

ia

Inte

rnat

iona

l

So

uth

Ko

rea

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Sp

ain





Appendix

Discretionary Effort Trends by Function • 25

Intent-to-Stay Trends by Function • 26

Discretionary Effort Trends by Industry • 27

Intent-to-Stay Trends by Industry • 28

Definitions of EVP Attributes • 29


Discretionary Effort Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Function

Source: CEB 2011–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.

Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.a Corporate includes corporate legal, strategy, and real estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.

Function Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Communications 12.6% 18.0% 19.8% 15.2% 16.8% 15.5% 16.6% 17.3% 15.1% 18.6% 17.2% 15.6% 12.0% 15.3% 13.0% 17.1% 18.3% 1.2%

Corporate a 25.3% 23.5% 25.3% 25.7% 23.7% 24.6% 23.5% 24.1% 25.8% 27.5% 26.0% 23.9% 21.4% 21.7% 20.1% 23.4% 23.7% 0.3%

Customer Contact 20.4% 18.6% 19.0% 20.1% 17.7% 16.8% 18.0% 18.9% 18.5% 20.6% 19.8% 20.8% 16.9% 17.8% 19.3% 18.9% 17.5% (1.4%)

Finance and Accounting 19.5% 15.0% 18.9% 19.5% 19.5% 18.5% 17.7% 16.2% 18.3% 21.1% 19.6% 19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 17.8% 18.3% 18.1% (0.2%)

HR b 24.0% 19.2% 19.8% 22.4% 20.9% 23.4% 21.7% 22.6% 23.1% 24.0% 21.8% 20.3% 21.5% 20.2% 20.2% 19.9% 20.2% 0.3%

IT 15.5% 16.4% 17.1% 17.2% 17.9% 18.2% 16.0% 16.5% 18.9% 18.4% 19.9% 17.6% 18.4% 16.6% 17.5% 15.9% 17.3% 1.4%

Manufacturing 17.0% 17.8% 16.8% 18.0% 16.2% 17.4% 15.3% 14.3% 17.5% 15.9% 15.5% 16.1% 15.8% 15.1% 16.1% 17.9% 15.4% (2.5%)

Marketing and Market Research 19.1% 19.7% 17.5% 18.5% 14.8% 17.9% 11.7% 15.8% 18.0% 17.8% 18.0% 18.6% 18.9% 17.1% 19.4% 22.1% 18.5% (3.6%)

Operations 23.3% 21.5% 21.2% 22.6% 22.3% 22.9% 20.6% 20.7% 22.0% 23.2% 22.6% 22.4% 21.5% 20.1% 19.3% 21.4% 19.8% (1.7%)

Quality 18.8% 18.5% 17.4% 18.4% 16.2% 17.5% 18.8% 17.1% 20.4% 19.6% 19.5% 20.6% 17.9% 16.9% 17.9% 17.8% 16.6% (1.2%)

R&D and Engineering 14.8% 17.1% 15.2% 17.6% 17.5% 18.4% 16.1% 17.6% 17.1% 18.2% 17.1% 18.1% 17.0% 15.4% 16.2% 16.4% 16.5% 0.1%

Retail 23.1% 21.6% 23.8% 23.6% 22.7% 20.9% 23.6% 21.7% 19.5% 22.2% 23.3% 20.4% 21.4% 20.0% 20.2% 21.8% 20.7% (1.1%)

Sales 19.5% 17.6% 19.8% 19.7% 21.0% 19.4% 20.2% 18.7% 21.4% 18.8% 17.2% 18.4% 18.0% 17.9% 18.4% 17.9% 18.7% 0.8%

Supply Chain and Logistics 19.9% 17.7% 21.0% 21.5% 19.1% 20.0% 17.6% 18.4% 17.7% 16.5% 19.7% 21.5% 18.8% 18.9% 17.6% 19.6% 17.8% (1.8%)

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 25

Intent-to-Stay Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Function


Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.a Corporate includes corporate legal, strategy, and real estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.

Function Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Communications 25.2% 33.2% 34.0% 30.7% 28.0% 28.2% 28.4% 26.8% 26.9% 29.1% 31.7% 34.5% 28.0% 28.5% 28.5% 29.7% 33.3% 3.5%

Corporate a 34.6% 35.3% 40.2% 37.0% 33.9% 39.0% 38.8% 38.6% 37.8% 39.0% 35.9% 42.1% 40.8% 36.3% 37.5% 42.4% 43.9% 1.4%

Customer Contact 28.8% 29.3% 30.4% 30.9% 29.2% 30.2% 31.1% 31.6% 32.2% 32.8% 32.2% 34.8% 33.7% 28.1% 31.7% 30.8% 30.6% (0.2%)

Finance and Accounting 32.9% 33.1% 31.7% 32.4% 33.7% 30.4% 33.5% 31.1% 31.4% 32.2% 33.6% 34.3% 36.1% 32.8% 33.9% 31.8% 35.0% 3.2%

HR b 29.6% 33.7% 35.3% 33.2% 32.8% 31.4% 33.7% 32.3% 38.5% 32.8% 32.2% 37.7% 39.1% 33.0% 33.5% 35.1% 35.1% 0.0%

IT 28.5% 25.7% 26.9% 26.0% 26.6% 25.7% 27.5% 25.9% 27.3% 29.5% 27.8% 31.5% 28.3% 26.5% 27.2% 28.0% 29.3% 1.3%

Manufacturing 30.7% 33.0% 32.3% 32.0% 32.1% 30.7% 31.3% 31.4% 34.0% 33.9% 30.0% 37.6% 35.5% 32.3% 30.6% 33.5% 32.9% (0.6%)

Marketing and Market Research 26.3% 23.4% 29.5% 25.8% 24.7% 26.2% 28.9% 26.5% 23.4% 27.5% 25.4% 29.4% 30.7% 26.2% 30.3% 28.1% 28.8% 0.7%

Operations 34.8% 37.3% 37.4% 36.9% 35.7% 35.6% 36.2% 38.8% 37.7% 37.9% 37.4% 40.5% 41.6% 38.3% 37.9% 39.2% 40.5% 1.3%

Quality 29.5% 34.8% 30.1% 33.0% 31.6% 31.0% 30.5% 32.0% 31.3% 33.2% 35.1% 39.0% 37.5% 34.8% 37.3% 32.5% 30.4% (2.0%)

R&D and Engineering 25.6% 28.4% 24.9% 28.4% 26.6% 29.3% 27.5% 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 26.6% 35.0% 32.3% 28.9% 29.8% 30.8% 31.0% 0.3%

Retail 29.0% 31.7% 31.5% 29.5% 30.0% 31.6% 30.8% 32.4% 31.3% 33.9% 35.0% 34.4% 34.5% 30.8% 30.2% 32.0% 35.4% 3.4%

Sales 29.4% 30.8% 31.4% 32.7% 33.0% 30.8% 32.1% 33.1% 34.7% 31.8% 32.6% 36.0% 35.9% 31.4% 35.1% 35.7% 35.1% (0.6%)

Supply Chain and Logistics 33.9% 33.5% 39.4% 36.5% 33.9% 37.8% 34.0% 32.7% 34.1% 34.5% 34.8% 39.2% 38.2% 36.0% 30.1% 37.0% 32.7% (4.3%)


Discretionary Effort Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Industry


Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.

Industry Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Construction 20.6% 19.3% 18.6% 19.4% 17.5% 19.4% 17.3% 17.7% 17.7% 18.0% 19.1% 17.2% 18.1% 16.9% 14.9% 16.4% 16.6% 0.2%

Consumer Goods 23.0% 17.2% 18.5% 22.3% 17.0% 20.1% 21.6% 17.5% 19.0% 20.9% 19.0% 21.9% 20.7% 18.7% 20.2% 23.4% 20.0% (3.4%)

Education 21.0% 23.4% 21.8% 22.8% 21.9% 22.1% 20.9% 21.4% 22.7% 24.4% 22.8% 23.2% 19.2% 20.6% 19.6% 19.2% 20.2% 0.9%

Financial Services and Insurance 18.9% 17.8% 19.2% 19.5% 18.7% 18.9% 19.7% 18.5% 20.7% 21.2% 20.3% 19.8% 18.4% 17.8% 16.6% 17.7% 18.3% 0.6%

Government 20.5% 17.1% 17.7% 17.6% 15.1% 14.0% 14.4% 18.9% 20.0% 21.1% 19.5% 20.1% 19.8% 17.0% 17.9% 17.3% 17.3% 0.0%

Health Care 23.3% 22.2% 20.4% 22.2% 22.3% 21.9% 19.3% 22.2% 20.7% 20.3% 21.1% 20.7% 19.2% 21.3% 17.5% 19.5% 19.3% (0.3%)

Leisure and Hospitality 21.7% 21.1% 17.9% 19.0% 18.1% 22.3% 18.9% 17.8% 20.5% 21.8% 22.2% 22.6% 19.5% 17.8% 18.7% 18.4% 18.7% 0.3%

Manufacturing 18.1% 18.0% 18.2% 19.4% 18.7% 19.0% 16.4% 16.4% 19.7% 18.9% 18.4% 18.1% 17.5% 15.5% 17.9% 17.9% 17.5% (0.5%)

Professional Services 19.1% 19.2% 20.4% 19.7% 20.0% 19.7% 17.3% 20.8% 19.6% 21.2% 20.0% 20.5% 19.8% 17.7% 18.3% 20.2% 19.7% (0.5%)

Retail 22.4% 20.7% 21.9% 22.8% 22.3% 20.1% 21.4% 19.7% 20.5% 20.2% 21.3% 18.8% 19.4% 20.1% 19.1% 20.1% 17.8% (2.3%)

Technology 16.6% 16.6% 17.8% 16.8% 18.2% 17.8% 16.4% 15.2% 17.6% 18.5% 17.5% 16.4% 16.5% 15.6% 16.9% 15.8% 16.8% 1.0%

Travel and Transportation 18.4% 16.7% 18.7% 20.2% 19.6% 16.5% 17.5% 19.3% 16.2% 19.3% 20.4% 20.1% 16.2% 19.7% 15.0% 17.8% 19.7% 1.9%

Utilities 17.1% 15.2% 17.0% 16.9% 14.7% 17.7% 15.0% 16.9% 15.4% 16.8% 12.6% 16.1% 15.2% 16.5% 18.0% 14.7% 14.2% (0.5%)


Intent-to-Stay Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Industry

Industry Q2 2011

Q3 2011

Q4 2011

Q1 2012

Q2 2012

Q3 2012

Q4 2012

Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Quarter-Over-

Quarter Change

Construction 30.0% 30.4% 30.5% 28.4% 30.1% 30.7% 31.6% 30.2% 31.2% 31.3% 32.4% 32.8% 34.5% 31.4% 32.0% 31.4% 32.9% 1.5%

Consumer Goods 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 31.6% 30.7% 32.2% 30.5% 31.7% 29.8% 30.7% 30.8% 36.4% 37.2% 28.7% 32.6% 32.6% 31.4% (1.2%)

Education 36.8% 38.0% 37.0% 36.9% 34.9% 34.6% 35.7% 39.0% 38.7% 38.7% 39.5% 42.6% 40.5% 37.2% 36.8% 36.0% 37.4% 1.4%

Financial Services and Insurance 31.1% 32.1% 31.2% 31.3% 28.8% 31.2% 32.3% 29.9% 31.0% 33.6% 29.6% 35.6% 33.9% 30.7% 31.8% 33.0% 34.1% 1.1%

Government 39.7% 39.3% 42.3% 41.9% 40.1% 39.8% 41.7% 38.8% 41.6% 38.8% 40.7% 42.0% 43.3% 39.1% 41.3% 38.2% 42.3% 4.0%

Health Care 38.7% 36.7% 36.9% 38.2% 34.5% 35.0% 36.2% 37.1% 37.6% 37.2% 37.9% 42.9% 40.5% 40.3% 38.7% 36.8% 36.6% (0.2%)

Leisure and Hospitality 25.0% 30.2% 25.0% 29.3% 28.5% 27.1% 28.3% 27.1% 27.8% 33.1% 28.0% 28.4% 31.1% 27.8% 27.2% 32.0% 32.5% 0.6%

Manufacturing 29.3% 28.9% 30.2% 30.7% 29.1% 30.1% 30.7% 30.6% 33.2% 29.5% 32.5% 34.6% 32.6% 29.0% 31.0% 31.3% 33.6% 2.3%

Professional Services 33.7% 31.4% 33.8% 32.2% 33.1% 33.8% 32.2% 33.5% 31.4% 32.6% 31.4% 38.3% 35.6% 31.1% 33.4% 36.1% 37.9% 1.9%

Retail 29.0% 31.1% 30.6% 29.1% 30.8% 30.3% 31.3% 32.9% 30.6% 31.2% 33.7% 32.7% 34.3% 30.1% 29.9% 32.4% 32.0% (0.4%)

Technology 26.6% 26.9% 28.0% 25.2% 27.0% 25.0% 26.2% 26.4% 27.8% 28.9% 24.1% 30.7% 27.8% 26.0% 26.7% 28.2% 28.7% 0.5%

Travel and Transportation 33.7% 34.3% 35.7% 34.7% 35.4% 36.1% 32.8% 37.6% 35.7% 34.1% 32.5% 38.1% 38.3% 35.3% 33.2% 35.5% 36.2% 0.7%

Utilities 38.7% 32.9% 35.7% 30.9% 31.0% 28.3% 32.5% 31.9% 33.6% 37.3% 31.5% 38.1% 37.4% 36.7% 34.3% 34.3% 34.2% (0.1%)


Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.


Definitions of EVP AttributesOur EVP model comprises 38 attributes that drive attraction and retention.

Attribute Definition

Business Travel The amount of out-of-town business travel required by the job

Camaraderie Whether working for the organization provides opportunities to socialize with other employees

Collegial Work Environment Whether the work environment is team oriented and collaborative

Compensation The competitiveness of the job’s financial compensation package

Coworker Quality The quality of the coworkers in the organization

Customer Prestige The reputation of the clients and customers served in performing the job

Development Opportunity The developmental and educational opportunities provided by the jobs and organizations

Empowerment The level of involvement employees have in decisions that affect their jobs and careers

Environmental Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to environmental health and sustainability

Ethics and Integrity The organization’s commitment to ethics and integrity

Formality of Work Environment Whether the organization maintains a casual work environment

Future Career Opportunity The future career opportunities provided by organization

“Great Employer” Recognition Whether the organization’s reputation as an employer has been rated highly by a third-party organization

Growth Rate The growth rate of the organization’s business

Health Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s health benefits

Inclusion and Diversity The organization’s level of commitment to having an inclusive and diverse workforce

We compiled a master list of more than 200 employment characteristics and evaluated it for similarity, distinctiveness, universality, and overall ratability, which led to the consolidated list of 38 attributes. This final list can be grouped into five categories: rewards, opportunity, organization, work, and people.


Definitions of EVP Attributes (Continued)

Attribute Definition

Industry Desirability The desirability of the organization’s industry to the respondent

Innovative Work The opportunity provided by the job to work on innovative, leading-edge projects

Job–Interests Alignment Whether the job responsibilities match an employee’s interests

Level of Impact The level of direct impact the job has on business outcomes

Location The location of the jobs offered by the organization

Manager Quality The quality of the organization’s managers

Market Position The competitive position the organization holds in its market(s)

Meritocracy Whether employees are rewarded and promoted based on their achievements

Organization Size The size of the organization’s workforce

People Management The organization’s reputation for managing people

Product or Service Quality The organization’s product- or service-quality reputation

Recognition The amount of recognition the organization provides employees

Respect The degree of respect the organization shows employees

Retirement Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s retirement benefits

Risk Taking The amount of risk the organization encourages employees to take

Senior Leadership Reputation The quality of the organization’s senior leadership

Social Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to social responsibility (e.g., community service, philanthropy)

Stability The level of stability of the organization and the job

Technology Level The extent to which the organization invests in modern technology and equipment

Vacation The amount of holiday or vacation time employees earn annually

Well-Known Product Brand The level of awareness in the marketplace for the product’s brand

Work–Life Balance The extent to which the job allows employees to balance their work and other interests


CEB Corporate Leadership Council™

cebglobal.com

+1-571-303-3000 (North America)

+44-(0)20-7632-6000 (Europe, Middle East, and Africa)

+61-(0)2-9321-7500 (Asia–Pacific)

CHRO Insight Series

CHRO Quarterly Magazine

Business insights and implications for heads of the HR on leading their organization and the HR function, featuring personal stories from leading HR executives

HR News Report

Quarterly functional insights on advancements, challenges, and opportunities in HR categorized by 10 key functional areas

Global Workforce Insights Report

Quarterly workforce insights on global and country-level changes about what attracts, engages, and retains employees, based on data from more than 18,000 employees in over 36 countries

CHRO Video Series

Personal insights from leading heads of HR on the most important relationships and activities CHROs must manage

© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN

cebglobal.com


global workforce third quarter 2015 insights · hr news report functional insights global workforce...

Documents