Global Talent Monitor - LDC · 2019. 7. 23. · Compelling EVP to create an employment value...

Global Talent Monitor

Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™

Update on Workforce Activity in Q3 2016

Print DesignerNicole Daniels

Contributing DesignersBrittany FritzReid Griffler

EditorSabrina Ashwell

Practice LeaderBrian Kropp

Research DirectorMatt Dudek

Research AnalystsBecca BrownCaitlin Dutkiewicz

Talent Management LabsResearch DirectorMark Little

Research ManagerLindsey Walsh

Senior Research AnalystSajal Jain

Research AnalystNamrata Raina

Research SpecialistAnu Kalra

Research AssociateMohena Srivastava

Confidentiality and Intellectual Property

These materials have been prepared by CEB Inc. for the exclusive and individual use of our member companies. These materials contain valuable confidential and proprietary information belonging to CEB, and they may not be shared with any third party (including independent contractors and consultants) without the prior approval of CEB. CEB retains any and all intellectual property rights in these materials and requires retention of the copyright mark on all pages reproduced.

Legal Caveat

CEB Inc. is not able to guarantee the accuracy of the information or analysis contained in these materials. Furthermore, CEB is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or any other professional services. CEB specifically disclaims liability for any damages, claims, or losses that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in these materials, whether caused by CEB or its sources, or b) reliance upon any recommendation made by CEB.

CEB Corporate Leadership Council™ Content Publishing Solutions

© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR

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© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR

Key Findings

Labor Market • 7 What You Can Do

Globally, employee confidence in the business environment stabilizes (p. 7).

Get the highlights from our new research, Open Source Change: Making Change Management Work, through this webinar to learn how the best organizations use the workforce’s frontline expertise to make decisions that improve business outcomes.

Capture top active and passive talent by creating a strong employment brand. Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Designing a Compelling EVP to create an employment value proposition (EVP) that will help your organization attract (and retain) top talent.

Read our blog Talent Daily to stay up to date on the latest labor market trends and talent news stories.

Job opportunity perceptions in North America weaken for the first time in a year (p. 8).

Global job-seeking activity slows (p. 9).

Job-seeking activity decreases significantly in Canada (p. 10).

Attraction • 12

Compensation and work–life balance remain job seekers’ top priorities (p. 12).

Find geographic talent clusters that align to your organization’s operating needs by using CEB TalentNeuron™ offerings to obtain talent availability, cost, and demand data for more than 1,000 skills and 75,000 companies in over 1,000 cities in 100 countries (may require an additional fee).

Distinguish your rewards package based on the specific ways your plans meet employees’ needs, not how they compare to what other companies offer. Learn more through our recent total rewards research, Inside-Out Rewards.

Rewards preferences shift globally (p. 13).


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/events/replays/16/open-source-change.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/ignition-guides/ceb-ignition-guide-to-designing-a-compelling-evp.html


https://www.cebglobal.com/talentdaily/

https://www.cebglobal.com/talent-management/talent-neuron.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition.html?%2520%253f

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/executive_summary/15/inside-out-rewards.html

Key Findings (Continued)

Engagement • 14 What You Can Do

Intent to stay rises globally for the first time in 2016 (p. 15). Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Communicating Engagement Survey Insights to facilitate discussions on engagement strategy and spur organization-wide engagement action planning.

Visit our new Talent Analytics Portal to learn how to use engagement data to influence business decisions and drive impact.

Attend an upcoming event, Designing a HIPO Strategy That Moves at the Speed of the Business, to discover how organizations develop high-potential (HIPO) strategies that are agile enough to address the changing needs of the organization and engage its most promising employees.

Discretionary effort hits a six-year low in North America and ANZ (p. 16).

Watch out for employees “quitting in seat” (p. 17).

Attrition • 19

Dissatisfaction with future career opportunities and compensation continues to push employees away (p. 19). Register for our upcoming webinar, Are Annual Employee Surveys

Dead?, to learn how to rethink your employee survey strategy to improve retention and drive maximum action.

Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our exit survey service, Departure View.

Stem the attrition of critical talent by creating growth-based rather than promotion-based careers. Learn how National Grid designs career maps around the experiences, not the positions, that help employees take advantage of vertical and horizontal career moves to develop the right capabilities for critical roles.

Work–life balance grows in importance in the United States and China (p. 20).

Employees globally see the lowest pay gains from switching jobs since 2014 (p. 21).

Merit pay expectations fall in major economies (p. 22).


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/ignition-guides/ceb-ignition-guide-to-communicating-engagement-survey-insights.html


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/resources-by-role/talent-analytics-portal.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/events/meetings/15/lost-stars0.me102329.html


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/events/webinars/16/are-annual-employee-surveys-dead.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/events/webinars/16/are-annual-employee-surveys-dead.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/decision_supportcenter/departure-view-clc-hr-s-exit-survey-resource.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/case_study/13/national-grid-career-maps.html


40 Countries and Regions Inform the Global Talent Monitor

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 Talent Monitor is sourced from over 20,000 employees in 40 countries and regions 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: 2.8% ■ Canada: 4.7% ■ Chile: 0.9% ■ Colombia: 1.0% ■ Mexico: 2.8% ■ United States: 10.8%

South Africa: 2.4%

■ Belgium: 1.2% ■ Czech Republic: 0.4% ■ Denmark: 1.2% ■ Finland: 1.2% ■ France: 2.4% ■ Germany: 5.9% ■ Hungary: 0.4% ■ Italy: 2.4% ■ Netherlands: 2.4% ■ Norway: 0.9% ■ Poland: 2.4% ■ Romania: 0.4% ■ Russia: 2.4% ■ Spain: 2.4% ■ Sweden: 1.2% ■ Switzerland: 2.4% ■ Turkey: 0.9% ■ United Kingdom: 7.1%

■ Australia: 4.7% ■ New Zealand: 2.4%

■ China: 4.7% ■ Hong Kong: 0.9% ■ India: 4.7% ■ Indonesia: 2.4% ■ Japan: 2.4% ■ Malaysia and the Philippines: 1.2%

■ Singapore: 2.4% ■ South Korea: 2.4% ■ Taiwan: 2.4% ■ Thailand: 2.4% ■ Vietnam: 2.4%

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.

Note: Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Africa

Europe

ANZ

Asia

6

https://cebglobal.com/corporate-leadership

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/report/13/global-workforce-insights.html

Globally, Employee Confidence in the Business Environment StabilizesBusiness Confidence Indexa

Global Employed Labor Force

What You Can Do

Employees may not be entirely confident in the business environment, but they have the best visibility into what organizations need to change to improve performance.

Get the highlights from our new research, Open Source Change: Making Change Management Work, through this webinar to learn how the best organizations use the frontline expertise of the workforce to make decisions that improve business outcomes.

Employees’ confidence in the near-term business conditions and long-term economic prospects of their industry rose 0.6% from Q2 to Q3 2016, continuing its upward trajectory after hitting a three-year low in Q1 2016.

51.9 51.9

54.1

53.053.6

52.653.0

53.6

51.851.0 50.9 51.1 51.4

40.0

50.0

60.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2013–2016 Business Barometer Surveys. a The Business Confidence Index is an indexed score calculated from a battery of four questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are

combined and converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values indicating greater confidence in the business environment.

Q3 2016Q1 2016Q3 2015 Q2 2016Q4 2015Q1 2015Q1 2014 Q3 2014Q3 2013 Q2 2015Q2 2014 Q4 2014Q4 2013

Low

Neutral

High

DefinitionThe Business Confidence Index measures employees’ confidence in near-term business conditions and long-term economic prospects in their industry.

40.0

50.0

60.0

Three-Year Low

© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Labor Market 7

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/events/replays/16/open-source-change.html

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

Q3

2015

Q4

20

15

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

2016

40.0

48.0

56.0

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

Job Opportunity Perceptions in North America Weaken for the First Time in a Year Job Opportunity Barometer a

Global Employed Labor Force, Indexed

Weaker Job Opportunity

Perception

Stronger Job Opportunity

Perception

Q3 2016 n = 6,192 (Asia); 3,301 (North America); 21,171 (global); 1,800 (Latin America); 7,378 (Europe); 1,500 (Australia and New Zealand).Source: CEB 2011–2016 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.

53.9 Asia

49.6 North America

46.2 Australia and New Zealand

47.9 Latin America

49.4 Global

Neutral Job Opportunity

PerceptionAfter hitting a five-year low in Q2 2016, job opportunity perception in Latin America strengthened by 1.5% in Q3 2016.

Job opportunity perception in ANZ weakened 1.5% in Q3 2016, continuing its overall downward trend since Q2 2015.

In Q3 2016, employees’ job opportunity perceptions in North America weakened for the first time since Q3 2015.

40.0

50.0

56.0

47.0 Europe


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

Q3

2015

Q4

20

15

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

2016

Global Job-Seeking Activity SlowsPercentage of Employees by Degree of Job-Seeking BehaviorGlobal Employed Labor Force

What You Can Do

Capture top active and passive talent by creating a strong employment brand.

Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Designing a Compelling EVP to create or redesign an EVP that will help your organization attract and retain top talent.

After two consecutive quarters of growth, the percentage of active job seekers receded in Q3 2016.

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.

DefinitionThe active–passive categories group employees according to the extent of their inclination and demonstrated effort to look for a job.

46.5% Passive

23.4% Active

30.1% Neutral30.0%

10.0%

50.0%

37.8%

35.4%

26.9%




So

uth

Ko

rea

Ind

on

esia

Bra

zil

Mex

ico

Can

ada

New

Z

eala

nd

Glo

bal

Ital

y

Au

stra

lia

No

rdic

Reg

ion

b

Fra

nce

Ru

ssia

Ch

ina

Ger

man

y

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Sp

ain

Jap

an

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Bel

giu

m a

nd

th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Ind

ia

Sin

gap

ore

Mal

aysi

a an

d

the

Ph

ilip

pin

es

So

uth

Afr

ica

Job-Seeking Activity Decreases Significantly in CanadaActive–Passive Score,a Q3 2016Global Employed Labor Force, Indexed

More Active

Neutral 50.0

65.0

25.0More Passive

n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2015–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The 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 statistically 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.

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

Year-Over-Year Change

0.4% (2.2%) (3.5%) (7.3%) 6.3% 3.4% (4.9%) (4.6%) (0.5%) (1.0%) 11.0% (7.5%) (4.1%) 2.3% (4.8%) (0.8%) (3.4%) 1.4% 5.0% (4.2%) (5.0%) (2.2%) (2.1%) (5.8%)

Quarter-Over- Quarter Changec

1.6% (3.4%) (0.4%) (7.6%) 5.6% (2.5%) (2.4%) (1.0%) 0.1% (1.4%) 3.1% (5.3%) (3.3%) (2.1%) 4.9% (1.3%) (5.7%) (1.4%) (1.2%) (3.2%) (8.2%) (2.4%) (0.2%) (2.1%)

25.0

45.0

65.0

60.9

53.2

50.348.7 48.3 48.0 47.0

45.9 45.4

41.8 41.0 40.9 40.239.2 38.2 37.4 37.4

36.3 36.1 35.8 34.933.3

32.2 32.0

In Indonesia and Canada, job-seeking activity decreased significantly from Q2 2016, falling 7.6% and 5.7%, respectively.

Job-seeking activity in Brazil and New Zealand has increased significantly since Q3 2015, up 6.3% and 11.0%, respectively.


Employment Value Proposition FrameworkAn effective EVP allows organizations to source more deeply in the labor market.

The EVP Framework and the Benefits of a Differentiated EVP

Attraction Benefits ■ Reduces the compensation premium needed to hire by 50% ■ Enables organizations to reach deeper into the labor market

to attract passive candidates

Retention Benefits ■ Decreases annual employee turnover by 69% ■ Increases new hire commitment by 29%

EVPThe set of attributes that the labor market and employees perceive as

the value they gain through employment in the organization

Rewards■ Compensation■ Health Benefits■ Retirement Benefits■ Vacation

Opportunity■ Development

Opportunity■ Future Career

Opportunity■ Growth Rate■ Meritocracy■ Stability

Source: CEB analysis.

Organization■ Customer Prestige■ Empowerment■ Environmental

Responsibility■ Ethics and Integrity■ Formality of Work

Environment■ “Great Employer”

Recognition■ Inclusion and Diversity■ Industry Desirability■ Market Position■ Organization Size■ Product or Service

Quality■ Respect■ Risk Taking■ Social Responsibility■ Technology Level■ Well-Known Product

Brand

People■ Camaraderie■ Collegial Work

Environment■ Coworker Quality■ Manager Quality■ People Management■ Senior Leadership

Reputation

Work■ Business Travel■ Innovative Work■ Job–Interests

Alignment■ Level of Impact■ Location■ Recognition■ Work–Life Balance

What You Can Do

To extend your reach in the labor market:

■ Define the vision for a differentiated EVP,

■ Prioritize and position your EVP, and

■ Deliver on your EVP promise.

Visit our EVP topic center for more resources.

Project #

Catalog # CLC1462915SYN


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition/define-the-vision-for-a-differentiated-evp.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition/define-the-vision-for-a-differentiated-evp.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition/prioritize-and-position-the-evp.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition/prioritize-and-position-the-evp.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition/deliver-on-the-evp-promise.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/topics/employment-value-proposition.html

0%

25%

50%

Compensation and Work–Life Balance Remain Job Seekers’ Top PrioritiesPercentage of Employees Ranking a Driver Among the Top Five Attributes Influencing Selection of a Potential EmployerGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q3 2016

n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.

10 Most Commonly Cited Attraction Drivers by Employees Globally

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

“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

Em

po

wer

men

t

Org

aniz

atio

n S

ize

Gro

wth

Rat

e

Tech

no

log

y L

evel

Wel

l-K

no

wn

Pro

du

ct B

ran

d

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

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Co

lleg

ial W

ork

Env

iro

nm

ent

Ris

k Ta

kin

g

Peo

ple

Man

agem

ent

Inn

ova

tive

Wo

rk

Sen

ior

Lea

der

ship

Rep

uta

tio

n

Lev

el o

f Im

pac

t

48.2%

18.5%17.2%

34.1%

21.8%19.5% 19.0%

29.8%

Lo

cati

on

38.7%

Res

pec

t

31.0%

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity

Mar

ket

Po

siti

on

Incl

usi

on

an

d D

iver

sity

12© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attraction 12

Rewards Preferences Shift GloballyTop 10 Attraction Drivers for Select Countries and Regions, Q3 2016 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 (48.2%)

Work–Life Balance (58.5%)

Compensation (60.0%)





2Work–Life Balance (38.7%)

Location (45.5%)

Development Opportunity (32.2%)

+2Future Career Opportunity (30.7%)


Location (47.9%)


3 Stability (34.1%)

Respect (38.1%)

Stability (31.5%) -1 Growth Rate

(28.2%)Stability (28.8%) +1 Stability

(31.5%) +1 Location (41.8%)

4 Respect (31.0%)

Stability (31.7%) +1


-1 Stability (28.0%) +1

Future Career Opportunity (28.7%)

-1 Respect (31.2%) -1

Health Benefits (40.9%)

5 Location (29.8%)

Compensation (29.1%) -1


Respect (25.7%) -1

Health Benefits (25.8%)


Stability (37.9%)

6Future Career Opportunity (21.8%)

Ethics and Integrity (27.4%)

+1Health Benefits (24.0%)

+2 Compensation (24.8%)

Respect (23.7%)

Vacation (25.7%)

Respect (28.6%)

7Development Opportunity (19.5%)


-1 Respect (23.4%) -1

Technology Level (22.8%)

Location (23.4%)


+2Retirement Benefits (25.4%)

8Ethics and Integrity (19.0%)

Recognition (18.7%) +1

Retirement Benefits (19.9%)

-1Innovative Work (21.6%)


Recognition (20.3%)


9 Vacation (18.5%) +1

Manager Quality (16.9%)

+4Job–Interests Alignment (15.3%)

Development Opportunity (21.1%)

+1People Management (20.0%)

+1Retirement Benefits (17.5%)

-2 Vacation (22.6%)

10Health Benefits (17.2%)

-1Job–Interests Alignment (16.3%)

+5Product or Service Quality (15.0%)

+1 Recognition (19.2%) +2

Job–Interests Alignment (19.5%)

+2Ethics and Integrity (15.3%)


n = 21,171 (global); 1,000 (Australia); 997 (China); 999 (India); 1,495 (Southeast Asia); 1,500 (United Kingdom); 2,301 (United States).Source: CEB 2016 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.

What You Can Do

Distinguish your rewards package based on the specific ways your plans meet employees’ needs, not how they compare to what other companies offer.

Learn more through our recent total rewards research, Inside-Out Rewards.

In Q3 2016, rewards preferences shifted globally (indicated by gray boxes). Retirement benefits rose in importance in China, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Health benefits fell in importance in the United States and Southeast Asia but rose in importance in China.

13© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attraction 13



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

Source: CEB analysis.

Engagement Metrics This QuarterPercentage of Employees Indicating High Levels of:

Energy ■ Sense of urgency ■ Excitement and enthusiasm ■ Focus

52.4% overall

0.4 ppt. since Q2 2016

Optimism ■ Confidence in the future ■ Belief in progress

57.0% overall


Pride ■ Identification with the company ■ Recommendation of the company

61.4% overall


Alignm

entA

gility

Business Priorities

Engagement

Sustain Advantage

14© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 14

Intent to Stay Rises Globally for the First Time in 2016Percentage of Employees Reporting High Intent to Stay and Discretionary Effort LevelsGlobal Employed Labor Force

What You Can Do

Stop employees from looking elsewhere for new work by improving their internal job perceptions. Push career opportunities to employees based on their interests and aspiration, and target passive internal candidates by building opportunities before they become dissatisfied and look elsewhere.

Discover how UnitedHealth Group creates visibility into its internal talent pool and enables employees to signal interest in internal job opportunities through its Raise Your Hand process.

35.6% Intent to Stay

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

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.

16.6% Discretionary Effort

Q4

20

10

Q1

2012

Q1

2013

Q4

20

13

Q4

20

14

Q1

2011

Q2

2012

Q2

2013

Q2

2014

Q2

2015

Q4

20

15

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

20

16

Q1

2014

Q1

2015

Q3

20

15

Q4

20

09

Q2

2011

Q2

2010

Q3

20

11

Q3

20

12

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

11

Q4

20

12

Q3

20

13

Q3

20

14

In Q3 2016, intent to stay rose for the first time this year, up 1.1 ppt. since Q2 2016. Discretionary effort, however, continued to fall for the third consecutive quarter, down 0.2 ppt.

10.0%

25.0%

40.0%

© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 15

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/case_study/15/united-healthgroup-raise-your-hand-process.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/case_study/15/united-healthgroup-raise-your-hand-process.html

What You Can Do

Improving employee engagement is not enough to drive performance and retention in an environment of complexity and frequent change. The best organizations align employees with key outcomes and business priorities and create agile workforces to sustain engagement and performance over the long term.

Use our Engagement Strategy Playbook for step-by-step guidance on building an engaged, aligned, and agile workforce.5.0%

20.0%

35.0%

Q4

20

10

Q1

2012

Q1

2013

Q4

20

13

Q4

20

14

Q1

2011

Q2

2012

Q2

2013

Q2

2014

Q2

2015

Q4

20

15

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

20

16

Q1

2014

Q1

2015

Q3

20

15

Q4

20

09

Q2

2011

Q2

2010

Q3

20

11

Q3

20

12

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

11

Q4

20

12

Q3

20

13

Q3

20

14

Discretionary Effort Hits a Six-Year Low in North America and ANZPercentage of Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Levels by RegionGlobal Employed Labor Force

17.7%

14.9%

10.4%

21.0%

Q3 2016 n = 1,800 (Latin America); 3,301 (North America); 1,500 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,378 (Europe); 6,192 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.

(2.2 ppt.)

(0.6 ppt.)

0.1 ppt.

(2.2 ppt.)

27.2% Latin America

20.5% North America

15.5% Europe

12.0% Asia

18.0% Australia and New Zealand

1.0 ppt.

18.2%

Despite its increase in Q2 2016, discretionary effort in North America fell to its lowest point since 2010 in Q3 2016.

In Q3 2016, discretionary effort in Australia and New Zealand also hit its lowest point in six years.

Quarter-Over-QuarterChange in Intent to

Stay Levels

Discretionary effort in Latin America sharply declined in Q3 2016, falling 2.2 ppt. since last quarter.


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/tools/12/engagement-strategy-playbook.html

https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/tools/12/engagement-strategy-playbook.html

10.0%

30.0%

50.0%

Watch Out for Employees “Quitting in Seat”Percentage of Employees Reporting High Intent to Stay Levels by RegionGlobal Employed Labor Force

What You Can Do

With global discretionary effort falling but intent to stay rising, organizations should be wary of employees “quitting in seat.”

Increase the effort of employees who plan to remain in their positions by effectively responding to their critical feedback in engagement surveys.

Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Communicating Engagement Survey Insights to facilitate discussions on engagement strategy and spur organization-wide engagement action planning.

Q3 2016 n = 3,301 (North America); 7,378 (Europe); 1,500 (Australia and New Zealand); 1,800 (Latin America); 6,192 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.

47.0% North America

41.7% Europe

38.4% Australia and New Zealand

34.1% Latin America

21.8% Asia

2.0 ppt.

1.9 ppt.

(1.3 ppt.)

(0.8 ppt.)

0.7 ppt.

Quarter-Over-QuarterChange in Intent to

Stay Levels In Q3 2016, intent to stay in North America rose 2.0 ppt., increasing for the first time since Q2 2015.

Q4

20

10

Q1

2012

Q1

2013

Q4

20

13

Q4

20

14

Q1

2011

Q2

2012

Q2

2013

Q2

2014

Q2

2015

Q4

20

15

Q1

2016

Q2

2016

Q3

20

16

Q1

2014

Q1

2015

Q3

20

15

Q4

20

09

Q2

2011

Q2

2010

Q3

20

11

Q3

20

12

Q3

20

10

Q4

20

11

Q4

20

12

Q3

20

13

Q3

20

14

Counter to the global trend, intent to stay in Latin America fell 0.8 ppt. in Q3 2016, down for the third consecutive quarter.





Get the Most from Your Hardest WorkersApproximately 17% of the labor force displays high levels of discretionary effort.

Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort Global Employed Labor Force, Q3 2016

High Discretionary Effort Neutral or Low Discretionary Effort

n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.

83.4%

16.6% Distribution of Intent to Stay for Global Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Q3 2016

6.8% Low

6.1% Somewhat Low

18.6% Neutral

14.6% Somewhat High

53.9% High

n = 3,523. Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.

With changing leadership needs and disappearing career ladders, building a HIPO strategy that delivers the right talent is harder than ever.

Join one of our meetings, Designing a HIPO Strategy That Moves at the Speed of the Business, to discover how organizations develop HIPO strategies that are agile enough to address the changing needs of the organization and its most promising employees.

By attending, you’ll learn how to do the following:

■ Identify HIPOs at all levels by using simple, business-relevant criteria.■ Drive line leader ownership of HIPO management as a core business management responsibility.■ Establish a structured HIPO mentoring program that maximizes potential.

Related Topic: How Does Your HIPO Strategy Compare?



Dissatisfaction with Future Career Opportunities and Compensation Continues to Push Employees AwayPercentage of Departing Employees Ranking the Driver Among the Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous JobsGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q3 2016

10 Most Commonly Cited Attrition Drivers by Employees Globally

n = 20,088.Source: CEB 2016 Departure View Exit Survey; CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.

0.0%

22.5%

45.0%

0.0%

22.5%

45.0%

35.2%

41.4%

31.7%

17.8%17.6%

25.2%

33.0%

26.9% 27.1% 27.1%

15.6%

Sen

ior

Lea

der

ship

Rep

uta

tio

n

Org

aniz

atio

n S

ize

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n

Vac

atio

n

Hea

lth

Ben

efits

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efits

Sta

bili

ty

Res

pec

t

Wel

l-K

no

wn

Pro

du

ct B

ran

d

Fu

ture

Car

eer

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Em

po

wer

men

t

Tech

no

log

y L

evel

Pro

du

ct o

r S

ervi

ce Q

ual

ity

Gro

wth

Rat

e

So

cial

Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

“Gre

at E

mp

loye

r” R

eco

gn

itio

n

Ind

ust

ry D

esir

abili

ty

Co

wo

rker

Qu

alit

y

Env

iro

nm

enta

l Res

po

nsi

bili

ty

Lo

cati

on

Inn

ova

tive

Wo

rk

Bu

sin

ess

Trav

el

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Op

po

rtu

nit

y

Mar

ket

Po

siti

on

Fo

rmal

ity

of

Wo

rk E

nvir

on

men

t

Mer

ito

crac

y

Eth

ics

and

Inte

gri

ty

Incl

usi

on

an

d D

iver

sity

Cu

sto

mer

Pre

stig

e

Co

lleg

ial W

ork

Env

iro

nm

ent

Ris

k Ta

kin

g

Peo

ple

Man

agem

ent

Job

–In

tere

sts

Alig

nm

ent

Lev

el o

f Im

pac

t

Man

ager

Qu

alit

y

Cam

arad

erie

Wo

rk–L

ife B

alan

ce

Rec

og

nit

ion

Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity

19© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attrition 19

Work–Life Balance Grows in Importance in the United States and China Top 10 Attrition Drivers for Select Countries and Regions, Q3 2016Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Departing Employees Selecting Attribute as One of the Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous Jobs

n = 20,088 (global); 848 (Australia); 243 (China); 1,013 (India); 818 (Southeast Asia); 1,130 (United Kingdom); 11,230 (United States). Source: CEB 2016 Departure View Exit Survey; CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.

Note: The top drivers of attrition by country are calculated by asking respondents 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 41.4%

+1Future Career Opportunity 43.4%

Compensation 47.7% +1 Growth Rate

42.0%

People Management 39.2%

Future Career Opportunity 41.8%


2 Compensation 35.2% -1



-1Future Career Opportunity 39.8%

+2 Compensation 38.1% +1


Compensation 37.0%

3People Management 33.0%

+1Development Opportunity 32.9%

Development Opportunity 45.9%

Compensation 37.7% -1


-1 Recognition 33.2%


4Development Opportunity 31.7%

-1 Recognition 32.4% +1


Recognition 34.7% -1

Work–Life Balance 33.1%


+2Work–Life Balance 28.0%

5 Recognition 27.1%

Compensation 32.0% +2



+1 Recognition 29.9% +2

Manager Quality 31.3%

-1Manager Quality 28.0%

6Work–Life Balance 27.1%

+1Manager Quality 29.6%

-2 Recognition26.0% +1


-1Development Opportunity 29.6%

-1 Compensation 30.1% -1


7Manager Quality 26.9%

+1Work–Life Balance 28.9%

+5Innovative Work 22.8%

-1Manager Quality 25.2%

Manager Quality 26.7%

+1 Respect 28.4%

Respect 26.0%

8 Respect 25.2% -2 Respect

27.0% -2Manager Quality 18.7%


+3Health Benefits 19.4%

-2Work–Life Balance 22.9%

Recognition 24.8%

9 Stability 17.8%

Stability 19.1% -1 Respect

18.0%Respect 21.8%

Growth Rate 19.2% +1 Location

18.2% +1 Growth Rate 18.0%

10 Growth Rate 17.6% +3 Empowerment

15.4% +9 Location 17.9% +2

Innovative Work 17.1%

-2 Respect 17.0% -1 Stability

17.5% -1 Stability 17.1%

In Q3 2016, dissatisfaction with work–life balance drove more employees away in both China and the United States, pushing work-life balance into the top five attrition drivers for both countries.

What You Can Do

Organize focus groups to find out why employees are leaving your organization.

Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Conducting Employee Focus Groups for step-by-step guidance on designing and managing effective focus groups that gather in-depth, timely, and actionable information from employees.


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/ignition-guides/ceb-ignition-guide-to-conducting-employee-focus-groups-for-human-resources.html



n = 9,985 (Q3 2016)Source: CEB 2012–2016 Departure View Exit Surveys.

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

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

2016

Q1

2016

Q4

20

15

Q3

20

15

Q2

2015

In Q3 2016, the global compensation switching premium fell to 14.8%, hitting its lowest point since Q3 2014.

This quarter’s decline reflects a consistent pattern of the global compensation switching premium falling between Q2 and Q3 each year.

Employees Globally See the Lowest Pay Gains from Switching Jobs Since 2014Global Compensation Switching PremiumPercent Change Expected in Total Compensation in New Job

Attrition 21

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%

15.0%

15.4%

15.8%

15.3%

14.8%

Q3

20

16

13.0%

15.0%

17.0%


What You Can Do

Read the report The Real Impact of Eliminating Performance Ratings to learn about the implications of removing ratings for pay differentiation.

Year-Over-Year Change (ppt.)

0.1 3.7 (2.4) 0.0 (1.2) (1.6) (1.5) (2.1) (0.7) 0.0 (0.4) 0.0 (1.2) (0.9) (1.8) (0.2) (1.0) (1.4) (1.0) (1.3) (1.8) (0.2) (0.8)

— — —

Merit Pay Expectations Fall in Major EconomiesMerit Pay Expectation by Country and Region, Q3 2016Percent Change Expected in Total Compensation in Current Job

n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2015–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.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 statistically 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

So

uth

Afr

ica

Ru

ssia

Ind

on

esia

Au

stra

lia

Ger

man

y

Ch

ina

Sin

gap

ore

Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (ppt.)b

0.5 1.6 (1.4) 1.0 (0.9) 0.0 (0.7) (0.8) (0.4) 0.6 0.1 (0.2) 0.5 0.0 (0.6) (0.2) (0.9) (0.6) 0.0 (1.3) (1.1) (0.3) (1.0)

— — —

Ind

ia

So

uth

Ko

rea

Sp

ain

13.0%

5.0%

(3.0%)

12.7%

10.2%

9.1%

8.1% 7.9%

5.3%

2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8%1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7%

0.2% 0.1%

(1.9%)

Global Average = 3.4%

Mal

aysi

a an

d

the

Ph

ilip

pin

es

Mex

ico

Un

ited

Sta

tes

New

Zea

lan

d

Bel

giu

m a

nd

th

e N

eth

erla

nd

s

Sw

itze

rlan

d

Across Europe, merit pay expectations also fell significantly since last year in Belgium and the Netherlands (0.9 ppt.), Germany (1.0 ppt.), the Nordic region (1.4 ppt.), and France (1.8 ppt).

In China and the United States, merit pay expectations fell significantly from Q3 2015 to Q3 2016, dropping 2.1 ppt. and 0.7 ppt., respectively.


https://www.cebglobal.com/member/corporate-leadership-council/research/report/16/the-real-impact-of-eliminating-performance-ratings.html



Appendix

Discretionary Effort Trends by Function • 24

Intent to Stay Trends by Function • 25

Discretionary Effort Trends by Industry • 26

Intent to Stay Trends by Industry • 27

Definitions of EVP Attributes • 28


Appendix 24

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

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.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.c Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.

Function 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

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)c

Communications 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% 19.2% 16.3% 12.2% 13.0% 16.4% 3.4

Corporate a 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% 20.2% 24.7% 20.5% 19.8% 20.5% 0.7

Customer Contact 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% 16.0% 16.2% 15.8% 18.4% 17.0% (1.4)

Finance and Accounting 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% 17.0% 16.4% 16.2% 16.9% 15.9% (1.0)

HR b 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% 21.0% 18.9% 18.2% 17.0% 17.9% 1.0

IT 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% 14.9% 17.2% 15.9% 16.5% 16.7% 0.3

Manufacturing 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% 13.9% 17.2% 13.6% 14.2% 15.1% 0.9

Marketing and Market Research 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% 12.2% 16.8% 18.3% 15.3% 15.5% 0.2

Operations 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% 18.4% 19.8% 22.0% 18.5% 16.9% (1.6)

Quality 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% 17.4% 15.6% 16.4% 14.6% 14.1% (0.6)

R&D and Engineering 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% 16.4% 15.6% 14.9% 14.7% 12.4% (2.3)

Retail 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% 18.3% 21.1% 18.6% 17.2% 18.0% 0.9

Sales 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% 18.6% 16.6% 18.4% 19.7% 16.8% (2.9)

Supply Chain and Logistics 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% 16.9% 15.7% 18.1% 16.5% 15.2% (1.4)


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

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.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.c Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.

Function 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

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)c

Communications 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% 28.7% 30.3% 27.6% 26.6% 30.4% 3.8

Corporate a 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% 40.7% 43.0% 37.9% 38.6% 40.5% 1.9

Customer Contact 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% 30.5% 33.2% 31.1% 31.6% 32.5% 0.9

Finance and Accounting 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% 33.8% 35.7% 36.1% 34.5% 33.8% (0.7)

HR b 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% 31.4% 35.2% 34.5% 32.9% 33.6% 0.7

IT 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% 27.5% 29.5% 29.5% 25.1% 30.8% 5.7

Manufacturing 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% 32.5% 32.2% 32.5% 33.4% 28.9% (4.5)

Marketing and Market Research 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% 25.8% 32.5% 31.1% 29.4% 33.5% 4.2

Operations 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% 37.3% 39.4% 37.0% 37.0% 37.2% 0.2

Quality 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% 31.1% 38.0% 28.0% 29.3% 34.5% 5.2

R&D and Engineering 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% 31.8% 32.2% 31.9% 32.9% 31.8% (1.0)

Retail 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% 29.6% 33.1% 35.3% 36.9% 34.7% (2.2)

Sales 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% 37.3% 36.9% 38.4% 39.3% 36.6% (2.8)

Supply Chain and Logistics 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% 33.0% 30.6% 35.6% 34.7% 32.7% (2.0)

Appendix 25 25© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR

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

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.

Industry 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

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)a

Construction 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% 18.1% 16.8% 16.3% 15.9% 14.1% (1.8)

Consumer Goods 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% 19.2% 18.9% 18.6% 18.9% 17.1% (1.8)

Education 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% 17.5% 18.7% 18.6% 15.8% 15.8% 0.0

Financial Services and Insurance 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% 17.1% 17.1% 16.8% 16.8% 15.6% (1.2)

Government 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% 16.1% 16.7% 17.3% 16.0% 16.3% 0.3

Health Care 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% 19.7% 19.8% 19.7% 18.0% 16.9% (1.1)

Leisure and Hospitality 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% 19.3% 19.5% 21.9% 19.5% 17.8% (1.7)

Manufacturing 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% 15.7% 17.3% 15.9% 17.2% 16.7% (0.5)

Professional Services 19.7% 20.0% 19.7% 17.3% 20.8% 19.6% 21.2% 20% 20.5% 19.8% 17.7% 18.3% 20.2% 19.7% 19.7% 18.3% 18.3% 18.8% 17.4% (1.4)

Retail 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% 17.4% 19.0% 16.9% 16.3% 17.3% 1.0

Technology 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% 16.3% 17.3% 16.1% 15.8% 17.1% 1.3

Travel and Transportation 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% 17.1% 17.3% 15.2% 18.1% 15.2% (2.9)

Utilities 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% 14.8% 16.9% 12.7% 13.2% 15.0% 1.8


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

n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.

Industry 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

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

Q1 2016

Q2 2016

Q3 2016

Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)a

Construction 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% 32.0% 34.2% 32.8% 33.1% 32.2% (0.8)

Consumer Goods 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% 34.6% 32.6% 32.5% 35.5% 34.9% (0.6)

Education 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% 38.6% 35.1% 36.5% 35.7% 35.7% 0.0

Financial Services and Insurance

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% 34.0% 36.7% 34.2% 35.2% 33.1% (2.0)

Government 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% 39.4% 40.0% 41.2% 39.0% 39.7% 0.7

Health Care 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% 38.2% 42.1% 41.7% 38.9% 38.7% (0.3)

Leisure and Hospitality 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% 36.4% 38.4% 35.5% 33.9% 39.9% 6.0

Manufacturing 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% 31.8% 33.7% 31.6% 30.4% 32.0% 1.7

Professional Services 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% 40.4% 41.2% 38.9% 40.0% 39.7% (0.2)

Retail 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% 33.0% 33.3% 33.7% 34.1% 35.4% 1.3

Technology 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% 28.3% 30.5% 30.4% 27.5% 29.8% 2.3

Travel and Transportation 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% 36.7% 38.7% 38.3% 38.5% 39.1% 0.6

Utilities 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% 37.7% 39.1% 35.1% 33.4% 37.3% 3.9


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 job and organization

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 the 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 them for similarity, distinctiveness, universality, and overall ratability, which led to the consolidated list of 38 attributes. We grouped the final list into five categories: rewards, opportunity, organization, people, and work.

28© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Appendix 28

Definitions of EVP Attributes (Continued)

Attribute Definition

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

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 of the product’s brand

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

29© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Appendix 29

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)


http://cebglobal.com

Global Talent Monitor - LDC · 2019. 7. 23. · Compelling EVP to create an employment value...

Documents

Transcript of Global Talent Monitor - LDC · 2019. 7. 23. · Compelling EVP to create an employment value...