REVIEW

July 2019

Neurodiverse Talent / Generation Z

Senior Executive Remuneration / Corporate Culture

IN THIS ISSUE

2

Your Global Partnerin Talent Mappingand Pipelining

A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO TALENT ACQUISITION

MAPPING

PIPELINING

INSIGHT

A view of the current talent landscape butnot involving candidate engagement.

A population of proactively generated, assessedand engaged individuals who meet your current and future hiring requirements.

Discreet and unique insight from and about key talent in the market enabling betterinformed decisions.

“We enjoy working with AC because it feels like you are

working with colleagues rather than an outside company.

They get under your skin as they understand your culture

and the type of people who will really fit in.”

HR DIRECTOR, GLOBAL INSURANCE BUSINESS

“We benefit from AC’s flexible talent mapping and

pipelining model when we have limited knowledge of

particular markets/regions. As a trusted provider,

AC delivers great candidates couple with very helpful

market information and has been used for hard-to-fill

or niche Development roles, notably in Asia.”

HEAD OF GLOBAL STAFFING,MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

HEALTHCARE & LIFE SCIENCES I FINANCIAL SERVICES I TECHNOLOGY

CONSUMER I INDUSTRIAL I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

“We have gained value from some excellent work from

Armstrong Craven. They are able to create valuable

business intelligence and organisational insights that feed

directly into our buisiness considerations and help us

make strategic talent decisions.”

HEAD OF TALENT SOLUTIONS,GLOBAL HEALTHCARE COMPANY

We were delighted with the

response to the last issue which

contained articles on the age

agnostic workplace, agile

recruitment and digital talent.

The articles contained in AC

Review 3 will hopefully prove just

as thought-provoking and provide

you with useful intelligence in the

ongoing development of your

talent acquisition strategies.

The topics we have chosen for

this issue include:

Neurodiverse talent

Generation Z

Senior Executive remuneration

Corporate Culture

Armstrong Craven continues to go

from strength to strength. This

year has seen further expansion

with the opening of a new global

hub in the US and the

appointment of Leslie Lazarus

as our Head of Americas.

We are also continuing to see

further growth in the APAC

region under the leadership of

Helen Coult as clients continue to

benefit from our range of services

which enable them to take a far

more strategic approach to TA.

Please do drop me a line if you

have any questions or ideas

regarding this edition of the AC

Review or would like to find out

more about how Armstrong

Craven may be able to partner

with your organisation.

KANESh KhILOSIA

CEO, Armstrong Craven

kanesh@armstrongcraven.com

3

Welcome to the latest edition of theArmstrong CravenReview.

Kanesh Khilosia

4

Attractingneurodiversetalent By Robert Fulford

5

The business case for neurodiversity relatesstrongly to talent acquisition, and a growingnumber of companies are launching initiativesto hire neurodiverse talent.

As Megan Hogan, Global Head of DiversityRecruitment at Goldman Sachs stated to CNN:"We [have been] missing out on an opportunityto tap really highly skilled and highly intelligentindividuals for the bank..

Essentially, why throw out talent that can offervaluable skills, productivity and innovation tothe workforce?

Neurodiversity includes conditions that aredevelopmental, relating to skills such as readingor writing (e.g. dyslexia, dyscalculia), clinical(autism, ADHD, Tourette’s), or acquired (changesin mental health or arising from neurologicalillness or brain injury).

Up to 15% of people are neurodivergent and thistalent is increasingly being recognised in thecommercial world, driven by the war for talentand wider diversity and inclusion agendas.

The tech, consulting and banking sectors inparticular have launched initiatives supportingthe recruitment of neurodiverse talent, includingSAP, Microsoft, EY, Goldman Sachs, DXCTechnology, IBM and JPMorgan Chase.

Unlike neurotypical people, the skillsets ofneurodivergent people are ‘spikey’ (see chart).This means that certain ways of thinking andprocessing information are stronger than others,but if properly supported and aligned to roles,these special characteristics can become positiveassets in the workplace.

Strength-based approach

People with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)may have strengths in attention to detail,memory and innovative thinking and may alsobe dedicated, loyal employees. James Mahoney,head of JP Morgan’s ‘Autism at Work’ program,has stated: “Employees on the autism spectrumwere as much as 140% more productive thantheir peers.” Many initiatives focus on autismand technical employers make good use of thesespecial skills.

Dyslexia affects an even higher proportion of thepopulation – up to 10%. These individuals can beentrepreneurial with strong visual reasoning,practical skills and story-telling abilities. RichardBranson has famously acknowledged the benefitsof his neurodivergence: “Out in the real world,my dyslexia became my massive advantage: ithelped me to think creatively and laterally, andsee solutions where others saw problems.”However, there have been far fewer, if any,special initiatives to recruit for people withdyslexia.

The neurodiversity paradigm is all abouthighlighting strengths, not weakness. Thiscontrasts with medical models that pathologisedisabilities, characterising them as weaknesses tobe fixed (e.g. Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder). Neurodiversity aligns with the socialmodel of disability which argues that it is not theindividual that is disabled, it is society and theenvironment that disables people.

A ‘spikey profile’ of neurodiverse talent*

*(from BPS ‘Psychology at Work’ report)

Verbal Skills Verbal SkillsWorkingMemory

IQ S

core

(10

0 is

ave

rag

e)

Neurodiverse

Neurotypical

ProcessingSpeed

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

6

Challenges around neurodiversity and work

One big challenge relates to stereotyping.Recruitment and selection campaigns for specificneurodiverse conditions such as ASD carry therisk that we assume all people with thatcondition are similar.

This is simply not true. In April 2019, clinicalpsychologist Simon Baron-Cohen wrote that“Neurodiversity is dividing the autismcommunity.” He pointed out that “some autisticpeople have no functional language and severedevelopmental delay, others have milderlearning difficulties, whilst others have averageor excellent language skills and average or evenhigh IQ”.

Autistic people are therefore hugely diverse.However, only 16% of people with autism in theUK are in full time employment, indicating thatcomplex challenges exist and that the concept ofneurodiversity isn’t relevant for everyone.

Another challenge relates to dyslexia. Despite thehuge numbers affected, very few organisationsare tailoring recruitment to avoid excludingpeople with dyslexia. This represents a hugepotential loss of talent.

Although dyslexia is a reading and writingdisorder, the real disablers in adulthood areoften social and environmental factors thatdamage confidence and self-esteem. Despitepowerful software for spelling and grammar, the corporate world remains hung-up on perfectwriting ability. We routinely request these skillsin our job descriptions (JDs), but are we

discounting individuals who could be strongentrepreneurial, creative, team-players andleaders? Our attitudes towards spelling are socio-culturally embedded and will be hard to shift.

Putting diversity into practice and achievinginclusion is perhaps the biggest challenge of all.As Sally Paull, CHRO at Regeneron, puts it:“Diversity without inclusion falls flat. Inclusion isall about saying "yes" to all that could contributeto our success. Inclusion is the ultimate goal.”

Neurodiversity is simply a recognition that we allthink differently, but currently it doesn’t fullyaddress the challenges neurodivergent peoplemay experience at work. It is not yet knownwhether initiatives for neurodiverse talent candevelop and retain talent in the long-term, andthere is very little empirical researchunderpinning support for neurodivergent talentin the workplace.

Recruiting for Neurodiversity

So what practical solutions exist? There is plentyof advice about tailoring recruitment processesto avoid excluding neurodiverse talent.Recruitment marketing should includeneurodiversity case studies, and all JDs shouldbe reviewed. Typically, JDs are written forgeneralists in the hope of finding someone who‘ticks all the boxes’, but this discouragesneurodivergent applicants. Is ‘exceptionalcommunication’ really essential for a technicalrole? Is ‘exceptional writing ability’ essential fora creative leadership position?

7

Exploring different assessment formats

Interviews are particularly challenging for thosewith ASD who may be rated poorly due to eyecontact, body language or social skills. However,interviews are primarily tests of memory recalland social skills and performance at interviewonly predicts half the variance of subsequent jobperformance. Different assessment formatsshould therefore be explored, and interviewersshould be objective as possible before rejectingsomeone on first impressions.

Yet recruitment is only the beginning of thestory. Once employed, neurodivergentindividuals should have equal access to support,career development and high-quality jobs.Neurodiversity may be termed a disability as perthe Equality Act (2010) which ensures employees‘are not substantially disadvantaged when doingtheir jobs’.

The onus is on employers to make reasonableadjustments such as providing writing software,additional screens, or working to minimise thesensory noise or light overload in open planoffices. These should always reflect the uniqueneeds of the individual.

Reassuringly, the ‘soft-skills’ required bymanagers to support neurodiverse talent maybenefit us all. The Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development (CIPD) says theseinclude clarifying unwritten conventions (e.g.dress codes), clear communication, flexibility(e.g. for working time or frequency of socialinteraction), structured feedback, handlingchange sensitively and providing support.

These behaviours are remarkably similar to theHSE Management Standards which advisemanagers to curate job demands, support theirteams, build strong relationships and involveteam members in change, in order to reducestress and promote well-being.

Recommendations

The neurodiversity paradigm provides a morebalanced, positive perspective on ability anddisability, that also provides an incentive toreform recruitment and selection processes forthe better.

The benefits extend beyond inclusion and mayimprove well-being for all employees, providingwe keep the following points in mind:

• Avoid stereotyping neurodiverse talent using‘one size fits all’ strategies for recruitment and selection. Ensure talent acquisition is flexible and treats people as individuals.

• Question whether exceptional communication skills or writing ability are truly essential or just desirable for a role, when writing JDs.

• Explore different interview formats, such as group tasks, which may be better suited for neurodiverse talent.

• Bear in mind that neurological conditions are spectrums. People’s needs change over time, and from person to person.

Our world is becoming more digitally connected,not less. Those who are neurodivergent, who havediversity of thought, are showing themselves to behighly capable in the digital world and beyond.“

THEO SMITH, Recruitment Manager at the National Institute for Health

and Care Excellence and Regional Editor for Europe at ChatTalent

Robert Fulfordis a Global ProgrammeManager at ArmstrongCraven

“

8

Most of us think of ‘millennials’ as the young

people in our organisations. However, you may

be surprised to learn that the eldest of this

generation (born between the 1981 and 1996)

will soon be approaching 40 and that attention

has already turned to the next generational

cohort, Generation Z.

The Pew Research Centre defines Generation Z

as those born between the years 1997 and 2010,

which means the oldest members of this tribe

are embarking on their careers.

It is predicted that Gen Z will bring new

disruptions to organisations so understanding

who this generation is, how they differ from

their millennial predecessors and what their

potential needs and demands are will put

human resources and talent acquisition teams in

the driving seat to attract and retain the talent

they need to grow and thrive in the future.

Despite growing up in turbulent times, Gen Z are

enthusiastic, optimistic and ambitious about

their future careers and they could just be the

most workforce-ready generation yet.

What will Generation Z want from the

workplace?

Research tells us that Gen Z are most effective in

empowering work cultures with a high degree of

autonomy, placing a high value on mentorship

and will want close relationships with superiors

providing constant feedback on their

performance.

They value success, professional and academic

achievement above most other areas, even

salary. In fact, Gen Z could be more success

driven than any other generation.

Whereas baby boomers (born between 1946 and

1964) were more likely to be driven by family

and religion, Gen Z is all about personal success.

Perhaps contradictory to this, they will also

crave job and financial stability, having grown

up in a political and economic climate that has

seen major change and a global recession with

the possibility that their parents or older siblings

have been affected by debt, financial worries

and job uncertainty. They will want honesty and

a personal experience at work, favouring

personal contact through social media.

Generation Z?ARE yoU REAdy foR

By Ian Millard

9

Many employers are still focussed on work

cultures for millennials such as providing

friendly environments, flexible working and

benefits but our post-millennials will want

employers to be more focussed on career

growth, fulfilling work and stability in the

workplace.

A recent Forbes survey revealed that over 80% of

Gen Z say an emphasis on personal growth is the

most important quality they seek from an

employer and most will be ambitious to achieve

their “dream job” within ten years.

Companies that can build a strong reputation for

nurturing and developing these desires through

training, development and offering opportunities

to experience different jobs and disciplines in the

business will be more successful at attracting and

retaining the talent they need.

Unsurprisingly, they are very technically savvy,

even more so than millennials; remember they

have never known a world where information

is not instantly available, and they can multitask

quickly across many platforms.

While the anticipation is that they will bring

unprecedented levels of technical skills, there is

also apprehension about their interpersonal

communication skills. Having grown up around

social media, this could have a potential negative

impact on these interpersonal skills that we have

taken for granted in previous generations.

Generation Z and its impact on Talent

Sourcing

Many organisations may be starting to look at

updating their talent acquisition process to

match with Gen Z’s working needs as well as

their own business needs.

Firstly, our talent cohort will want a different

relationship with potential employers. They will

expect to have built a personal connection with

a business to decide where to apply. This

relationship will need to be developed across

multiple channels and platforms.

Gen Z will choose employers

on how they perceive they can

help them develop and achieve

their personal ambitions.

Gen Z want to knowthe good, the bad, and the ugly. They want tohave a realistic look intowhat it is really like towork at your company.No company is perfectand this generationappreciates as muchtransparency as possible.

“

“

ROBIN DAGOSTINO,

Director of Global Employer Brand, SAP

10

In addition, organisations must give prospective

candidates a great candidate experience from

the start, involving engaging with potentially

large volumes in a meaningful way in which

both technology, culture and personality play a

big part. In contrast to their predecessors, they

will yearn for person-to-person contact and

authenticity in the way an employer sells

themselves.

More so than ever, companies will need to build

a strong employer brand. Gen Z will choose

employers on how they perceive they can help

them develop and achieve their personal

ambitions.

Other factors they will consider will be their

commitment to equality, diversity, inclusion,

social and environmental responsibility. The

recent Forbes survey showed that 77% of Gen Z

say that an organisation’s level of diversity

affects their decision to work there, while almost

all (93%) said that a company’s impact on society

is also a critical factor.

Fortunately, technology and automation in talent

sourcing can streamline processes for both

candidates and recruiters. However, any

negative or perceived negative experience could

lead to this damaging the brand.

Poor communication and process can no longer

be hidden due to the plethora of online channels

available for sharing experiences.

Over 70% of potential candidates now look at

company reviews before making career

decisions.

More than 10 million of the 32 million unique

monthly users on Glassdoor are classed as either

millennials or Gen Z, so it seems obvious that

employers need to take this very seriously. SAP,

for example, has a team to monitor, respond and

act on trends and feedback.

Gen Z also look for information in two key

places, YouTube and Instagram, with many

organisations having already embraced these

platforms. Those who haven’t will be at risk of

being left behind.

It may also be necessary for talent acquisition

teams to revaluate the skill sets they look for and

how they assess these. This may mean assessing

more candidates who can demonstrate their

mental capability and breadth of skills and that

they can easily move between disciplines and

roles.

Business leaders will also have to become

champions of this non-traditional movement

across the organisation as this will fit a

candidate’s desire to learn and develop in a

stable and nurturing environment.

Those sourcing talent will have to redefine their

strategies to develop a “broader aperture” for

talent, looking beyond technical skills and,

instead, for evidence of cognitive skills such as

communication, negotiation and project

management skills.

Interviewing and Selection

Many believe that those organisations that

embrace new methods of talent sourcing and

attraction will lead the way in securing the best

people in the talent market of the future.

Experts also believe there will also need to be a

move from tried and tested methods of selection

such as behavioural and technical interviews.

For jobs that prioritise cognitive and technical

capabilities, methods such as competitions,

workdays and hack-a-thons will become more

common.

The recent Forbes

survey showed that 77%

of Gen Z say that an

organisation’s level of

diversity affects their

decision to work there,

while almost all (93%)

said that a company’s

impact on society is also

a critical factor.

“

“

11

Ian Millardis a ProgrammeManager atArmstrong Craven

One example of innovation in talent acquisition

is a global software company which recognised

that its challenge was recruiting people who

could collaborate and work well with others as

well as having specific programming skills.

Rather than relying on traditional behavioural or

scenario-based interviewing, it brought in

multiple candidates at one time and paired these

candidates up to work on a project for the day.

The business was able to assess and evaluate

how a well a candidate was able to bring out the

best in the person they had been partnered with,

while people also switched to see how well they

performed with different partners. The company

credits this approach for its recent successes in

hiring people with strong interpersonal, team

working and leadership skills.

The process of addressing the needs of post

millennials is congruent with the steps many

businesses must take to thrive in the modern

world such as embracing technology and

automation, and building strong employer

brands.

And, while this article has focussed on the

emergence of the Gen Z workforce, we should

prepare ourselves for Generation Alpha (those

born between 2010 and 2025), known as the

iGeneration and the children of the millennials.

focussed on flexible working and flexible

benefits

Strong cognitive skills, better at learning from

their peers

Pioneers in the digital age

favoured communication via text and email

More Idealistic

diversity and inclusion – grew up in a period

of profound change

Use social media and internet to research

and form opinions on potential employers

Grew up in a boom time, not afraid to take on

less stable employment

focussed on personal growth

development needed around cognitive

and team working skills

Born into the digital age

Prefer a personal connection achieved using

multiple social media platforms

More pragmatic

diversity and inclusion – Change is the new

normal

Use multiple platforms (including peer-to-peer) to

review and decide on potential future employers

Grew up in a time of uncertainty and crave

stability

MILLENNIALS GENERATIoN Z

MILLENNIALS GENERATIoN Z vs

12

Executive pay is never far from the headlines.

Given a number of high-profile corporate

governance failures and the stagnation of wages

for the general population, it is little surprise that

the debate is high on the agenda again.

Where headlines go, politicians are bound to

follow, and it is fair to say they are more

concerned with other people’s pay than ever

before.

Rightly, some political intervention is aimed at

improving the circumstances of definable groups

– the complex mechanism of the minimum wage

and the requirement for large organisations to

publish their gender pay gaps and work towards

narrowing them, being positive examples.

What is interesting with executive pay, is that

media and political intervention is not motivated

in any clear way at improving the position of

anybody, but instead attacks the moral basis of

what is perceived as the over generous

remuneration that arises from the market

economy, and then demanding it is curtailed.

Criticism is often selective. Listed company

executives are commonly in the firing line, but

entrepreneurs (and football stars) are not.

Political views have also shifted sharply from a

cross party neutrality about acceptable high pay.

In 1998, Labour Cabinet Minister Peter

Mandelson was ‘intensely relaxed about people

getting filthy rich (as long as they pay their

taxes)’, whereas in 2018 Conservative Minister

Caroline Nokes asserted that no one should get

an annual salary over £1 million.

To date, the key changes for UK quoted

companies include mandatory disclosure of pay

ratios between CEO and employees and the

publishing of a narrative explaining any changes

to that ratio from year to year setting them into

context of pay across the workforce.

And on the horizon? There have been pushes

from the Opposition to give employees a direct

say in executive pay in listed companies through

worker representation on boards, and Rachel

Reeves, Chair of the Commons’ Business

Committee, has argued that excessive executive

pay undermines public trust in business while

average worker pay is squeezed, and that

Government should take tougher measures on

pay if boards and RemCos fail to exercise

moderation on awarding executive pay.

Why does CEopay get such abad press?By Jon Salmon

13

There is little doubt that executive pay is an

important issue, and the prevailing wind with

politicians, media and public is reduction.

However, beyond the headlines what are the

wider arguments?

The indictment

Central to the indictment is that executive pay

has risen far faster than the average wage in

recent decades without any corresponding

increase in company performance. The

argument that international competition for rare

talent justifies the high CEO pay is dismissed on

the basis that most companies promote from

within and analysis that suggests long

established businesses (as opposed to

entrepreneurial start-ups) succeed on

established systems rather than the singular

abilities of the incumbent CEO.

There are suggestions that most shareholders

would like to see more modest levels of

executive pay, but are too far removed from the

operations of corporations by virtue of the

financial advisors, asset managers and pension

funds that hold shares on their behalf;

intermediaries that are highly paid themselves

and unlikely to take issue with generous pay.

And of the RemCos that are required to be

independent of the company’s management

structure? These committees, it is argued, are

from the same mould as the executives they

reward – generously paid, from similar

backgrounds and often holding or having held

executive posts on other boards.

The increasing use of Long Term Incentive Plans

is seen as driving the vast increase of CEO pay in

recent years despite the intention that LTIPs

award varying levels of reward based on the

company performance over the coming 3- 5 year

period. Proponents of reform claim that the near

universal use of LTIPs is undermining corporate

governance; the fact that LTIPs pay out for

almost every CEO almost every year despite

performance is indicative of the problem given

that they are meant to be awarded for

exceptional leadership.

Criticism isoften selective.“

“

14

The case for the defence

Central to the defence is that the executive pay

agenda is largely political and based on

arguments that are fundamentally flawed.

Government is concerned with public opinion,

Institutional shareholders are nervous of being

accused of poor governance, and newspapers

want to sell copy.

Journalists and then politicians have been

convinced by flawed analysis, and then repeated

the myths that executive pay is out of control

and there being a lack of correlation between

executive pay and listed company performance.

A problem with the reporting on executive pay

are the headline grabbing surveys and analysis

giving rise to vast increases in CEO mean pay.

The High Pay Centre ran an analysis that gave

CEO mean pay an increase of 23%, which was

grossly distorted by excessive pay in a few

companies. Further into the report was an

admission that the median increase was 6%.

Are CEOs genuinely unaccountable for poor

performance? This theme is generally based on

the view that salaries and bonuses are

insensitive to company performance. While

there may be some truth to this, salaries and

bonuses are only a small part of the incentive.

The biggest component is stock and options

holdings, and one has to consider not just stock

options granted this year but also the stock and

options granted in previous years.

The key then is not pay sensitivity, but a CEO’s

wealth sensitivity to performance. PwC has

calculated that a 10% drop in share price

equates to a drop of £650,000 in wealth for the

median FTSE 100 CEO.

Are shareholders too small to be heard and

powerless to influence CEO pay? There are

strong arguments to suggest this is the case, but

what happens when shareholders can dictate

what happens in a corporation? Evidence

suggests that when private equity firms or hedge

funds take large stakes in a firm they are not

afraid to make huge changes to improve

performance, increase innovation and, if

needed, even fire the CEO. However, they rarely

cut the CEO’s pay.

15

Worker representation on boards

The case for worker representation on

supervisory boards is contentious. Will this

herald the executive pay restraint that is being

called for? A common belief in the UK is that

high pay is generally a US and UK phenomenon.

A Bloomberg report in 2016, looked at 25 of the

largest economies and compared CEO pay of

listed companies. To little surprise, the US came

out on top at 2.6 times the average (average CEO

pay $16.95m on the S&P 500), then Switzerland

at 1.6 times and then the UK at an average CEO

pay of $9.61m for CEOs from the FTSE 100.

Surprisingly, Germany came in at 7th with

average pay for CEOs of companies listed on the

DAX 30 of $8.36m.

Germany’s high ranking comes as a shock given

the perception that German firms are an

example of transparency and fairness, largely

due to being subject to a supervisory board with

worker representation. However, German firms

are still open to the world, externally focussed,

and competing on a global market to attract and

retain the best CEO talent.

There is a strong case that perhaps it is worth

corporations paying the top salary to secure the

best talent for the role. The median value of a

FTSE 100 firm is approximately £9bn. If a CEO

contributes only 1% more than the next best

CEO, that contribution is worth £90bn (much

higher than the median £4m salary).

So, is reform warranted?

We have looked at various arguments central to

both sides of the debate and, beyond the facts, a

lot of the opinions are subjective such as should

pay be driven by market efficiency or social

equality.

Presented with the same statistics we can still

find difference in how to interpret them, but

perhaps we should start with the facts rather

than the headlines. Has this done more to create

resentment among the population than the

actual levels of pay themselves? Will naming and

shaming companies on the basis of the pay ratios

work or lead to misleading comparisons?

Maybe reform is warranted, but perhaps we

should move away from the mentality of pay

reduction for the sake of it and instead move

towards the mindset of value creation and work

towards incentivising CEOs to keep bringing

everyone else’s pay up.

Jon Salmonis a Global Client Partnerat Armstrong Craven

Journalists and

then politicians have

been convinced by flawed

analysis, and then

repeated the myths that

executive pay is out of

control and there being

a lack of correlation

between executive pay

and listed company

performance.

“

“

16

WHy CoRPoRATECULTURE IS VITAL ToTALENT MANAGEMENT By Nobumi Kobayashi

17

A good corporate culture is widely considered to

be central to attracting and retaining good

talent.

Despite this, there is no agreement over what

corporate culture entails, principally because it

varies from organisation to organisation.

The renowned Cultural Studies theorist,

Raymond Williams, describes culture as “a

whole way of life”. But what are the good

corporate culture practices that contribute

towards effective talent management,

particularly talent retention?

Nurturing a unique culture

Leading HR professionals regard corporate

culture as a pivotal talent management tool.

Karen Parkin, Executive Board Member at

Adidas Group with responsibility for Global

Human Resources, says the company’s focus lies

in “nurturing a unique culture that attracts and

retains great people”, revolving around “the

power of sports”. Clearly, shared values are

significant in shaping a corporate culture, but

how do we translate these into appropriate

practices?

Jennifer Hulett, Head of Human Resources at

Ericsson North America, sheds light on specific

practices. According to Hulett, they promote

“work-life balance, innovation and a very

collaborative work environment”. These are in

addition to “excellent benefits”, focusing on

“wellness”.

Jenn Barnett, Head of People at Grant Thornton,

says that in shaping their corporate culture, the

company endeavours to give their employees a

voice, “regardless of seniority”. Barnett points

out that this would encourage collaboration and

sharing in profit, leading to “a sense of

ownership and pride”.

Indeed, ensuring a close communication

between the employer and its employees is

imperative in this process. Carmel Galvin, Chief

Human Resources Officer at Glassdoor,

emphasises this point. She suggests that “we’re

all about employee feedback”. What this means

is that the company listens to their employees

and they make changes in order to keep them

“engaged” and “productive”.

“ “Understanding the

needs of the employeesand trying to ensurethat these needs aremet is paramount innurturing a goodcorporate culture.

18

Measures to improve employee retention

According to Chartered Institute of Personnel

and Development (CIPD), there are certain

measures which organisations can take that are

considered to play a “positive role” in improving

retention.

Most concern good communication with its

employees and prospective employees. In its

‘Employee Turnover and Retention’ resource it

proposes a “realistic” job preview at the

recruitment stage to avoid misunderstanding on

behalf of prospective employees. Similarly, it

stresses the importance of “understanding” and

“managing” employees’ career expectations.

Most of all, it advises organisations to consult

employees, ensuring employees have a “voice”

through the likes of “grievance systems”.

If employees have no opportunity to voice

dissatisfaction, this may result in “resigning” as

“the only option”.

The causes of dissatisfaction typically involve

working hours, workload and unfairness at

work. Interestingly, CIPD claims that many

organisations do not have “specific retention

strategies”.

Understanding the needs of the employees and

trying to ensure that these needs are met is

paramount in nurturing a good corporate

culture.

Michelle Prince, Senior Vice President, Global HR

at Randstad, claims that engaging employees in

“the conversation” as “the most evident” way to

achieve this end. Intriguingly, she points out

that, as simple as it may seem, this method is

“often overlooked”. This means that employers

tend to shy away from directly engaging their

employees in improving the corporate culture.

Conclusion

There is now far greater recognition that

creating a great corporate culture is an effective

tool in attracting and retaining talent. Many

leading corporations now incorporate this in

their talent management strategies.

Since corporate culture is a specific way of

running an organisation, it should ideally be

accepted by, if not designed to please, every

employee. To achieve this, close communication

is imperative but, as this article has indicated,

the lack of effective communication between

employers and employees continues to be the

main challenge in utilising corporate culture in

talent management.

“There is now far greaterrecognition that creating a great corporate culture is an effective tool inattracting and retainingtalent. Many leadingcorporations nowincorporate this in theirtalent managementstrategies.”

19

OUR CLIENT:

A leading financial services institution had taken

over a legacy technology centre of excellence in

Asia as part of an acquisition, but found

substantial challenges in both acquiring and

retaining technical talent which they presumed

was a result of their compensation and benefits

not being competitive in the market. The talent

market in question is highly competitive, with

leading global firms fiercely headhunting scarce

talent.

THE SOLUTION:

Armstrong Craven undertook a targeted

compensation and benefit study, focussing on

specific job families at various levels of seniority

and conducting interviews with employees at

competitor organisations to not only understand

their basic salary, bonus structure and benefits,

but also their motivations to change jobs and

factors affecting this. The project included career

conversations with more than 60 individuals.

Career conversations are an ideal format for

gathering intelligence concerning salary as it is

just one part of a much wider discussion about

someone’s career aspirations. We can gather the

kind of market insight and sentiment, which is

otherwise unobtainable, and can help our clients

towards devising appropriate talent strategies.

THE OUTCOME:

We provided our client with a comprehensive

comparison of compensation and benefits across

competitor companies for the identified job

families.

This not only highlighted where our client was

not competitive in terms of basic pay, but also

where they were paying more and still finding

challenges in retention and recruitment.

This was highlighted as an area where

individuals were joining and staying at their

competitors due to additional benefits (flexible

working, secondment opportunities, working on

different projects and stretch assignments etc.)

which our client did not currently offer and had

not been aware of.

Only a small minority of the individuals

interviewed said that salary was the main

incentive for seeking a new role.

Some 71% of respondents cited lifestyle benefits

for staying with their current employer. Out of

these, 33% indicated that “a good corporate

culture” was the main reason.

The outcome supports the importance of

communication and a good understanding of

employees’ needs in devising talent strategies.

Nobumi Kobayashiis a Talent Partner atArmstrong Craven

CaSe Study: CoRPoRATE CULTURE

Becket House

Old Jewry

London

EC2R 8DD

T: +44 (0) 203 701 2020

19 Cecil Street #04-00

The Quadrant

Singapore 049704

Singapore Toll Free: 800 1206 647

T: +65 3163 0411

Westgate House

44 Hale Road

Hale

WA14 2EX

T: +44 (0) 203 701 2020

4 Chemin de la Tour-de-Champel

1206 Geneva

T: +41 (22) 518 0489

19 West 34th Street

Suite 1018

New York

NY 10001

LONDON

SINGAPORE

MANCHESTER

GENEVA

NEW YORK

Join the Conversation

Our teams of industry specialists are regularly bloggingabout talent issues affecting their sectors.

Armstrong Craven

@Armstrongcraven

@SingaporeAC