Connecting the Dots: Driving Engagement through Career Development

7/28/2019 Connecting the Dots: Driving Engagement through Career Development

1/38

In partnership with:

Connecting the Dots:Comprehensive Career Development

as a Catalyst for Employee Engagement

2

011HCI

Research


2/38


3/38

Connecting the Dots: Comprehensive Career Development as a Catalyst for Employee Engagement

iiiCopyright 2011 Human Capital Institute. All rights reserved. iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1

About this Research ................................................................................................ 3

Denition of Key Terms .................................................................................................................3

Introduction............................................................................................................. 4

Current Talent Environment .................................................................................... 5

Conventional Wisdom: Engagement & Organizational Impact .................................... 6

Examining Engagement Through a Fresh Lens: TPOs & PPOs .............................. 7

Drivers of Employee Engagement ......................................................................... 9

Key Survey Findings: Differentiating TPOs from PPOs ........................................ 12

Assessing Employee Engagement ..............................................................................................12

Dening Career Development ....................................................................................................13

Determining Roles & Responsibilities Related to Ownership ....................................................15

Structuring Career Development Strategies and Programs ......................................................17Leveraging Multi-Directional Career Movement ........................................................................20

Key Barriers .......................................................................................................... 25

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 26

Appendix A: About the Research Partners .......................................................... 28

About the Authors ......................................................................................................................29

Appendix B: Respondent Demographics ............................................................. 30

Appendix C: Works Cited ..................................................................................... 32


4/38


5/38

1Copyright 2011 Human Capital Institute. All rights reserved.

Executive Summary

The Human Capital Institute (HCI) and Lee Hecht Harrison (LHH) partnered to develop an

original research report examining the relationship between career development strategies and

employee engagement in the current economic environment and talent landscape.

This research builds on the body o work centered on the impact that employee engagement

can have on talent retention, organizational productivity and overall perormance. Specifcally,this report uncovers true levers that aect employee engagement in the modern organization

namely career development and planning.

Todays organizations look dierent than they did fve years ago traditional hierarchies dont

exist as they once did, and frms have gone through a attening process in an eort to contain

costs and streamline processes. This has had a dramatic eect on the way that todays worker

relates to his/her organization, understands his/her role in that organization, and plans his/her

career within the organization. In addition, with signs o economic recovery on the immediate

horizon, organizations are becoming acutely aware that their top talent is beginning to look

elsewhere or career opportunities that will satisy their needs or career growth, development

and advancement. Employment opportunities that simply did not exist only a ew short years ago

are becoming increasingly available. Organizations that are committed to talent retention must

consider the risk that this economic shit poses, and adapt specifc human capital strategies that

will have the greatest impact on engagement and, eventually, retention.

This report describes the important impact that these economic changes have had on the talent

landscape and provides recommendations or organizations to implement in order to enhance

career development and thereore, ultimately increase employee engagement and retention.

Connecting the Dots:Comprehensive Career Developmentas a Catalyst for Employee Engagement


6/38

HCI Research

2 Copyright 2011 Human Capital Institute. All rights reserved.

A 36-item survey exploring the post-recession talent landscape, employee

engagement drivers, and career development programs was developed and

distributed to more than 10,000 HCI members to produce the oundational

knowledge or this research. More than 440 responses were received rom

organizations around the world and the data reveals a unique split between

types o organizations that have engaged employees and satisactory retention

rates (Top Performing Organizations TPOs) versus those that do not (Poor

Performing Organizations PPOs).

Key research fndings uncovered the distinct dierence between the way that

these two types o organizations handle and manage certain elements o their

human capital initiatives and programs, namely the way they:

Assess employee engagement

Defne career development

Determine roles and responsibilities related to ownership o career

development

Structure the career development strategy

Leverage multi-directional career movement (versus strictly vertical

movement) as a core career development strategy

The data also revealed real challenges aced by organizations to adopt

comprehensive, best-practice career development programs at their organizations.

This report presents actionable recommendations or overcoming these obstacles

by incorporating some o the strongest dierentiators that TPOs embody.


7/38



About This ResearchThe ollowing research report was developed in partnership between the

Human Capital Institute (HCI) and Lee Hecht Harrison (LHH) between May

and June o 2011. A survey o 36 items was distributed to approximately

10,000 HCI members. Four hundred and orty-six surveys were received.

The results o the survey orm the basis o this research and are summarized

in this paper. In addition, several in-depth interviews were conducted with

talent development and employee engagement thought leaders rom top

organizations. To supplement the primary research methods described

above, HCI researchers also reviewed relevant inormation rom a variety o

secondary sources, including white papers, articles, books, interviews and

case studies. Many o these are cited in the report and all are reerenced in

HCIs Talent Development & Leadership Practice Areas, to which interested

readers are encouraged to visit or additional reading and online events.

Denition of Key Terms

Employee Engagement

The extent to which people are satisfed with their work; have a positive

attitude towards their employer; are committed to the organizations success;

and eel valued or their work.

Career Development

The organization has a defned process to establish and manage long-termcareer plans or all employees that align employee strengths and interests

with career goals and opportunities within the organization. As part o this

process the organization provides skills development, coaching and mentoring

to ensure employee career growth and goals are met. Career development is

employee-driven, manager enabled and supported by the organization and its

guiding talent management strategy.

Top Performing Organizations (TPOs)

For this research, Top Performing Organizations (TPOs) are defned as those

respondent organizations that strongly agree or agree that their employees

are engaged and that their business leaders are satisfed or somewhat satisfed

with their retention rate.

Poor Performing Organizations (PPOs)

For this research, Poor Performing Organizations (PPOs) are defned as

those respondent organizations that strongly disagree or disagree that their

employees are engaged and that their business leaders are not satisfed with

their retention rate.


8/38

HCI Research


IntroductionFor years, organizations have been concerned with employee engagement

and retention, specifcally as it relates to their top-tier talent. In response,

human capital practitioners and business leaders have designed a whole host

o engagement and retention strategies, processes, and programs in an eort

to meet the needs o their organizations. Typical initiatives include recognition

and reward programs, exible work arrangements and work-lie balance

initiatives, enhanced benefts and compensation structures, and most recently,

career development programs.

The topic o employee engagement has received increased interest in recent

years due to the Great Recession that began in late 2007. During that

tumultuous time period, dramatic changes were made within organizations in

order to reduce the workorce; streamline workows; identiy new efciencies;contain costs related to compensation, benefts and training programs; and

atten the layers o management. In other words, those employees that did

remain at their organizations, and weathered the storm, were expected to do

more with less, oten resulting in lower employee morale, motivation, and,

ultimately, engagement.

Today, in this post-recession environment, organizations are still struggling

with employee engagement, only now they have the added risk o losing

their key talent. While beore, the core challenge related to the workorce and

engagement centered on morale, motivation, productivity, and perormance

todays risks associated with engagement are even more acute, and could

likely lead to key talent departures. With signs o economic recovery on the

immediate horizon, employees are more aggressively looking or new career

opportunities outside o their organizations that will satisy their needs or

better work-lie balance, larger compensation packages, and more compelling

growth, development, and advancement opportunities. Employment

opportunities that simply did not exist only a ew short years ago are now

becoming increasingly abundant.

Organizations that are committed to talent retention must consider the risk

that this economic shit poses, and adapt specifc human capital strategiesthat will have the greatest impact on engagement and, eventually, retention.

Given the ragile state o the current economy, organizations are still ocused

on impacting employee engagement and retention by employing initiatives,

tactics, and strategies that are cost-eective.

The Human Capital Institute (HCI) and Lee Hecht Harrison (LHH) partnered to

develop the ollowing research to examine the state o employee engagement


9/38



and retention at this critical economic inexion point. Specifcally, this report

sought to investigate the true drivers o employee engagement, and zeroed in

on Career Development as a low-cost, eective driver that has the potential

to really move the needle. The research revealed a unique split between

two distinct types o respondent organizations those that have engaged

employees and satisactory retention rates (Top Performing Organizations

TPOs), and those that do not (Poor Performing Organizations PPOs). Finally,

the research provides a set o actionable recommendations or organizations

to consider in order to transorm their organization into a TPO, one that has

engaged employees and satisactory retention rates.

Current Talent Environment

The economic recession is coming to a close, and or many, that means the

career moves that were on the backburner just a ew short years ago have

again taken center stage. Recent research has shown that key employees are

currently eyeing new positions, primarily at competitive corporations, and our

own research has bolstered this fnding.

More than hal o this studys respondents (52%) stated that their organization

reduced the size o their workorce within the past two years due to the

recession, and those downsizing eorts did not come without cost. Among

many organizations, existing employees have been shouldered with extra

duties, and or many, there have not been any adjustments in pay or benefts.

As the tide begins to turn toward a recovering labor market, more employees

are quitting their current positions in lieu o bigger and brighter positions now

available to them. A key indicator used to gauge opportunities within the labor

market are the number of people discharged (layos and terminations) versus

those who quit their job for other opportunities. Prior to the recession, the

number o employees leaving their positions voluntarily consistently exceeded

the number o employees discharged. During the recession however, this

relationship was reversed as layos and discharges outnumbered quits. This

recessionary period was characterized by many people who chose to remain

in their current positions, hesitant to explore other opportunities because othe weak economy and poor job market growth. But, the job market appears

to be changing in 2011. At the end o 2010, the number oemployee quits

exceeded the number o employees discharged and the gap continues to

grow. This empirical evidence indicates that the labor market is entering a

period o increased workorce transitions, and such transitions are saddled with

more employees choosing to explore other career opportunities i they are not

satisfed with their current job or its opportunities. 1

1 Bureau o Labor Statistics, JobOpenings and Labor TurnoverSurvey Highlights April 2011 June7, 2011


10/38


HCI Research

Today, employees who remained with their organizations during the

recession are now preparing to make the career moves. Indeed, nearly 3 in

4 (73%) o our survey respondents agreed that there are more opportunities

now or their employees to fnd work outside their organization, compared

to one year ago.

Jack Katzanek, a thought leader in this space, observed in 2010, As the

economy starts to pick up some energy, workers who have not had any new job

opportunities or two years or longer might now be seeing light at the end o a

long tunnel. But what seems encouraging to employees could cause a dierent

kind o headache to their bosses. I a resh crop o job prospects does come

along, it could signal a round o departures by critical workers. Employees who

were not laid o because o the recession were asked to do much more work

with little or no fnancial reward.

2

As organizations are aced with this new talent environment, they must

ask themselves what steps can be taken to minimize the local eect o this

trend. And, as the relationship between employee engagement scores and

organizational perormance continues to grow, what can companies do to

ensure that their employees are engaged in their work and the organization?

Conventional Wisdom: Employee Engagement &Organizational Impact

Employee engagement is a topic that has received a signifcant amount o

attention in the last ew years and most people in a business or human capital

context have heard the term and understand it on a undamental level. In

general, engagement is about workers consistently distributing discretionary

eort to help their organization achieve its production and perormance goals.

2 Katzanek, Jack Companiesmay lose top talent as economyrecovers December 25, 2010,Enterprise Media

Figure 1:

To what extent do you agreeor disagree: There are moreopportunities or employees

to fnd work outside yourorganization compared to

one year ago?

3%

6%

18%

48%

25%

73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Not sure

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

NET AGREE


11/38


12/38

HCI Research


To better understand our respondents and their organizations, we asked

them a number o baseline questions, the frst o which was whether they elt

employees in their organization were engaged. Nearly 3 in 4 (71%) respondents

agreedthat their employees were engaged; however, only 1 in 10 strongly

agreedwith this assessment.

The next baseline question ocused on retention rates, asking respondents

whether their business leaders were satisfed with the current employee

retention rate at their organization. More than a third o respondents (36%)

stated that their business leaders were satisedwith the current employee

retention rate in their organization, and an additional 35% stated they were

somewhat satised.

As the ollowing chart illustrates, there is a compelling connection between

these key metrics. Organizations with engaged employees are more satised

with their employee retention rate and those who strongly agreed their

employees were engaged, had a retention satisfaction rate of 92%. The

retention satisaction rate dropped to 40% among those who disagreed that

their employees were engaged. Thus, the relationship between employee

engagement and retention rates is a positive correlation as one increases,

the other also improves.

Figure 2: Based on thedefnition o employee

engagement:

The extent to which peopleare satisfed with their work;

have a positive attitudetowards their employer;

are committed to the

organizations success; andeel valued or their work.

How much do you agree ordisagree: Employees in myorganization are engaged.

4%

4%

21%

60%

11%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Not sure

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

NET AGREE


13/38



Are Employees Engaged?

Satisfaction with Retention Rate

Satisfed SomewhatSatisfed

NETSATISFIED

Strongly Agree 67% 25% 92%

Agree 39% 41% 80%

Disagree/Strongly Disagree 12% 28% 40%

Given this important correlation, we segmented our respondents into two

categories in order to urther isolate the key fndings o this survey and

examine engagement through a resh lens. In the remaining portion o

the report, we will reer to Top Performing Organizations (TPOs) those

respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that their employees are engaged

AND that their business leaders are satised or somewhat satised with their

current organizational retention rate; and Poor Performing Organizations

(PPOs) those respondents who disagreed that their employees are engaged

and that their business leaders are not satised with their current organizational

retention rate.

In this analysis, 58% o the survey respondents are classifed as TPOs and 42%

are PPOs.

Drivers of Employee Engagement

Typically, when we think about employee engagement and the drivers

associated with it, we consider the traditional elements o compensation,

benefts, and perks to be the most meaningul levers o engagement or

employees. Not only does our research demonstrate that this is untrue, but it is

increasingly difcult or organizations today to maintain these types o perks

given the ragile economic environment that we now live in, even in the post-

recession economy. Taking these two actors together, we aimed to identiy thetrue levers that impact employee engagement the most, especially through

the lens o TPOs and PPOs to gain valuable insights about best practices and

dierentiators rom our respondent organizations.

This inding implies that engagement may be best created through the

use o holistic strategies that interconnect an organizations talent with

accentuating supportive interpersonal relationships, as well as working

Poor Performing

Organizations (PPOs)

Respondents who disagreed

that their employees are

engaged and that their

business leaders are not

satised with their current

organizational retention rate.

Top Performing

Organizations (TPOs)

Respondents who stronglyagreed or agreed that their

employees are engaged AND

that their business leaders

are satised or somewhat

satised with their current

organizational retention rate.

Figure 3: Data synthesis oorganizations with engagedemployees and satisaction

level o employee retentionrates.


14/38

HCI Research


to oster a connection between employees and the strategic goals o the

organization. Further demonstrating that TPOs have a comprehensive

understanding o what drives employee engagement in their organization,

our research ound that they are better prepared to implement several o

these strategic oerings rather than relying on just one or two.

Furthermore, while the importance o ostering positive relationships to

impact engagement has been requently highlighted in past research

studies, the act that this is a signifcant dierentiating eature or TPOs in our

current study underscores the efcacy o this practice to impact employee

engagement and retention. One research study remarked, As organizations

battle to get the most rom their existing people in an environment

characterized by skill shortages, the role o human resource practices in

ostering employee engagement and commitment is paramount. 5

One o the respondents in our survey underscored this fnding when stating,

The organization has a responsibility to be a shepherd o organizational

talent and to create the conditions that help talent thrive. When talented

people eel they are valued and that the work they do has meaning, they

become passionate and engaged.

Figure 4: How eective arethe ollowing in regardsto impacting employee

engagement in yourorganization?

% Who RespondedEective

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



20%

27%

21%

21%

33%

19%

34%

42%

38%

55%

39%

65%

Compensation/Pay/Benefits

Career Development

Training provided

Connecting work to the larger

organizational strategy

Relationship with

Manager/Supervisor

Coworker relationships/support

5 Chew, Janet and Girardi, AntoniaIs Career Management thePanacea to Retaining Vital Sta?2008. International Journal oManagement and MarketingResearch


15/38



As mentioned above and perhaps a bit surprisingly, our survey uncovered

that the least effective means or impacting employee engagement was

compensation, pay and benefts. While these benefts are certainly important

to an employee, it is the interpersonal relationships and ability to connect

work to the organizations strategy that are the most eective means or

impacting engagement.

Chris Grams, Partner and President o New Kind, elaborated on this fnding

in his statement that providing a belie in the work conducted is the most

eective means or impacting engagement. For me, cultural ools gold is

when an organization has really good benefts, a cool workplace, lots o perks

those things are great, but they only create the illusion o engagement.

Someone can always create an environment thats a little bit better and steal

people away. But cultural gold is when you create a purpose or a missionthat inspires people to do great work because they believe and because they

want to be a part o something amazing. My experience is that companies

with a mission worth believing in have one o the most powerul engagement

tools there is.

To develop unique and eective techniques or retaining current talent and

perhaps attracting outside talent, many frms are looking toward career

development as a method or impacting employee engagement and retention.

Throughout the thought leader interviews conducted or this report, a

common theme that emerged was the need or employees to understandwhat is available to them rom a career development perspective, because

anecdotally, this seemed to be a key driver o engagement. Our survey

fndings underscored this trend, and 25% o TPOs agreed that providing

career advancement opportunities is a signifcant method to increase

employee engagement.

In the ollowing sections o this report, we delve deeper into this element o

career development as a true driver o higher employee engagement.

Real employee engagement

It almost makes things

like your job title and rising

up the corporate ladder

not matter anymore. In my

world, we care a little less

about rising up the ladder,

and more about are you

making major contributions

to important things and

when you lead, are people

going to follow you? Its

about meaningful leadership

and meaningful work.

Chris Grams, Partner and

President, New Kind

We conducted an

Appreciative Inquiry

regarding what people

would change at Red Hat

and the answer was that

our employees want more

clarity around the career

opportunity discussion. As

a result, while we are not

promising a cookie cutter

development path, we arehelping employees see the

opportunities available as our

company grows.

DeLisa Alexander,

Chief People Ofcer,

Red Hat


16/38

HCI Research


Key Survey Findings: Differentiating TPOs from PPOs

Now that we have identifed TPOs, PPOs, and the core drivers o engagement,

it is important to understand how TPOs dier rom PPOs in key areas o boththe engagement process and the career development process in order to draw

some conclusions around next practices.

In the ollowing section o the report, we will examine what dierentiates TPOs

rom PPOs in our survey data. These areas include the way they:

Assess employee engagement

Defne career development

Determine roles and responsibilities related to ownership o career

development

Structure the career development program/strategy

Leverage multi-directional (i.e., lateral) career movement into overall

career development/advancement process

Assessing Employee Engagement

William Costellano o the Center or HR Strategy at Rutgers, pointed to the

pitalls associated with improperly defning and assessing engagement: I one

does not know what one is measuring, the action implications will be, at best,

vague and, at worst, a leap o aith. 6

Unlike PPOs, TPOs tend to use multiple methods to assess employee

engagement. These organizations are proactive in gathering inormation on

their employees levels o engagement by relying on several means to gather

inormation, including: turnover rates, in-house employee surveys, annual

perormance reviews, and organizational meetings and employee ocus

groups. Furthermore, they are more likely then PPOs to use more methods

that involve leaders regularly reaching out to their employees or coaching and

perormance discussions.

It is important to note that the multiple methods o assessment TPOs rely on

to get an accurate measurement o employee engagement are not necessarily

more costly than the measures taken by PPOs, but they are indeed more

comprehensive. By using every resource available to them, TPOs are able

to have more inormation and a more holistic perspective on the state o

employee morale, motivation, and engagement. The key to managing employee

engagement and subsequently deriving and developing appropriate strategies

or impacting engagement begins with eectively gathering this inormation.

6 Castellano, William G. ANew Framework o EmployeeEngagement 2009. RutgersCenter or Human ResourceStrategy

After we conducted an

employee engagement

survey in 2010, we

recognized that people

felt a bit frustrated. They

wanted to know, where

can I take my career now

that those traditional ladders

and positions have been

attened? through the

partnership that we launched

with LHH we developed a

response. Were trying to

put a little more structureto those discussions about

individual development and

job opportunities.

Margo Armstrong,

Assistant Vice President of

Talent Practices,

MassMutual Financial Group


17/38



Dening Career Development

Another key dierentiator between TPOs and PPOs is the way in which they have

defned (i at all) career development at their organizations. The importance

o consistently and clearly defning human capital strategies at an organization

is an element that is paramount to these strategies success. Without a true

understanding o what the organization means by a given term or program,

employees are less likely to be able to take ull advantage o these programs.

Our survey fndings demonstrate another key distinction between TPOs

and PPOs as it related to the defnition and communication around career

development programs and strategies at respondent organizations. Less than

hal o the PPOs have notdefned Career Management and/or Development at

their organization, which is considerably higher than the 1 in 4 TPOs who have

defned this at their organization.

Not only do organizations dier dramatically on the topic owhether they

have formally dened career developmentor their employees, but they also

vary in terms ohow they refer to this concept. This fnding is noteworthy

because it suggests that the topic o career development is not uniormly

understood or reerred to across the human capital feld, and by extension, at

todays organizations.

Figure 5: How do you assesswhether your employees areengaged or not?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



51%

45%

35%

52%

38%

53%

68%

73%

65%

75%

Have a gut feel regarding howemployees feel about our organization

Review of annualperformance appraisals

Conduct organizational Town Hallmeetings and/or employee

focus groups

Employee survey results

Review Turnover/Retention rates


18/38

HCI Research


This speaks to the somewhat nebulous nature o this particular area o talent

management.

Indicative o this, our survey revealed that the organizations polled are using

no ewer than 36 different terms to reer to career path strategies in their

organization and a quarter were unsure as to what term their organization

was using, i any.

Career Developmentis the term used by slightly more than hal o the

respondents.

Figure 6: Have you defnedCareer Management and/

or Development at your

organization?

Figure 7: Organizationsoten times have dierent

names or employee careerpaths. How are these

strategies and/or planscommonly identifed in your

organization?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



9%

9%

65%

45%

26%

46%

Not sure

No

Yes

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

52%

7%

11%

1%

24%

5%

Career Development

Career Management

Other: 34 different

names mentioned

In the process of developing

Not sure

NA/Not defined/No career paths/None


19/38



Now that weve established that TPOs assess employee engagement dierently

and more comprehensively, and that they more clearly and directly defne career

development or their employees, we can begin to see that these actors have

contributed to their TPO status. But what about the career development

programs themselves? How do the career development programs at TPOs dier

rom those at PPOs, and what elements do they incorporate?

TPOs assess employee strengths, weaknesses and career aspirations more

requently than PPOs, which is in alignment with their proactive approach to

employee engagement and the development o their employees careers.

Determining Roles & Responsibilities Related toOwnership

Another key element o career development programs is around determining

the roles and responsibilities associated with the ownership o these

programs and the work involved. As with all strategic human capital endeavors,

there is a key responsibility or a number o stakeholders in the organization:the employee him/hersel, the manager, and the organization as a whole.

According to our survey fndings, this was another key dierentiator between

TPOs and PPOs. A higher percentage o the TPOs indicated career development

was an activity and process among the employee, the manager and the

organization. We believe this to be a best practice, one in which an environment

of engagementis created rather than a compartmentalized process devoid o

Figure 8: How oten areassessments conducted withemployees to understand

their strengths, weaknessesand career aspirations?

Your career is all about

your journey its an

exploration of your talents,

your opportunities, and

your potential you own

your interests and your

values and you own your

career. Your manager is in a

place to support and guide

you along that journey

and be honest and realisticwith you, while you are in

the drivers seat.

Scott Cohen,

Vice President of Talent

Practices, MassMutual

Financial Group

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Other

Not sure

Not done/Rarely

As needed/Depends on manager

Annually or more often

5%

2%

2%

18%

12%

9%

1%

8%

82%

60%


20/38

HCI Research


interaction and consideration o organizational opportunities and needs. Again,

TPOs consistently demonstrate uency around the need or interconnectivity

and shared responsibility or career development. This relationship is vital in

order to oster a comprehensive strategy that prepares employees or the career

development opportunities available to them within the organization.

One survey respondent pointed to the positive impact an involved manager

can have on satisaction and retention. The best supervisors who present a

way or employees to develop themselves have seen the greatest retention

and satisaction scores among their employees. It defnitely makes a dierence

in the engagement o employees.

Much o the research in the past decade has revealed that there is a positive

correlation between organizational career development paths and individual

career growth, including a 2009 report rom the European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology. First, evidence is provided or the idea that

the career sel-management initiatives employees undertake to manage

their career within the organization cannot be considered as a substitute

or Organizational Career Management. Individuals taking responsibility or

managing their own careers also expect an active contribution rom their

employer. Both complement one another and they are positively related.7

Figure 9: In yourorganization, who has

the responsibility or

owns the managementand development o an

employees career?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



8%

2%

1%

1%

3%

3%

3%

10%

3%

27%

23%

20%

22%

35%

47%

Other

Not sure

The organization

The employees manager

The employee

Shared responsibility between

the employee, the manager

Shared responsibility betweenthe employee,the manager

and the organization

7 De Vos, Ans and Dewettinck,Koen. The proessional career onthe right track 2009. EuropeanJournal o Work and OrganizationalPsychology


21/38



Structuring the Career Development Strategy

But what about the programs and strategies themselves? How do TPOs

structure career development versus the way that PPOs do (i at all)?

When asked to describe their organizations approach to Career Management,

a signifcantly higher percentage o TPOs indicated that they had developed

general and/or individual plans and policies or employee career development/

advancement. This fnding once more illustrates the holistic perspective TPOs

take to career development.

In the same way that there must be shared ownership o career development

among the organization, manager, and employee, the creation o both individual

and general development and/or advancement plans must supplement the

other development activities organizations provide or their employees.

Figure 10: Which o theollowing best describes yourorganizations approach toCareer Management?



2%

0%

45%

30%

31%

44%

10%

10%

16%

12%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not sure

Some combination of the above

We do not have specific plans

and policies for career

development/advancement

this is addressed on an as needed basis

We have developed individual plans

for specific employee career

development/ advancement

We have developed general plans

and policies for employee career

development/ advancement

0%

53%

70%NET Developed General

and/or Individual Plans


22/38

HCI Research


With 45% o the PPOs treating career management as an ad hoc practice,

these organizations will have to conront the outcomes o this defciency, which

will likely lead to lower levels o engagement, compromised retention levels,

and, ultimately, poor business perormance and proftability.

In combining the data o those organizations that have developed Career

Management (CM) plans and those who have defned Career Development

and/or Management (CDM), the results are quite groundbreaking. Of those

organizations that do both dene Career Development and/or Management

and have developed career management plans 89% stated their current

approach to career development and/or management is effective. By contrast,

those organizations that have developed plans and have NOT defned CDM

have a much lower eectiveness rate.

How Effective

is Approach

to Career

Development

and/or

Management

HaveDevelopedPlan(s) AND

Have DenedCDM

HaveDevelopedCM Plan(s)/Have NOT

Dened CDM

Have NOTDevelopedCM Plan(s)AND Have

Dened CDM

Have NOTDevelopedCM Plan(s)/Have NOT

Dened CDM

Eective 11% 5% 12% 2%

Somewhat

eective

78% 62% 25% 31%

NETEFFECTIVE

89% 67% 37% 33%

Ineective 11% 30% 63% 64%

Not sure 0% 3% 0% 3%

The data clearly show that the eectiveness o a career development and/or

management plan improves with each additional element incorporated (those

elements being a plan AND a defnition or career development and/or

management). Intuitively, this makes sense. The more ocused a plan is, and

the more its executors understand its goals, the more eective they are at

achieving them.

Those organizations that have not defned CDM prior to implementing a

CDM plan are not able to ully develop an appropriate strategy, nor are they

able to truly gauge whether or not its eective in achieving its goals. These

organizations ounder when compared to those with both a defnition and

plans. Furthermore, it is these organizations that have the most to gain rom

Figure 11: Data synthesiso how eective an

organizations approach tocareer Development and/

or Management (CDM)is, and whether or not anorganization has defned

CDM and/or developed aplan or it.


23/38



ully developing their career development defnitions and aligning them with

career development plans.

Organizations with unsuccessul Career Management strategies may notnecessarily be doing the wrong thing, but rather are just not doing enough,

and have not strategically aligned their organizational goals with the career

development plans that have been successul or other organizations. Inaction

seems to be a more common ault than counterproductive measures, even

amongst organizations that recognize the value o Career Management.

Ater uncovering many o the elements o career development plans, it is

important to distinguish what works holistically rom what does not. So,

what does an effective Career Management/Development plan look like or

organizations?

More than hal o the TPOs (57%) agreed that the comprehensive defnition

o Career Management provided in the survey represents their organizations

approach to Career Management/Development.

However, only 1 in 4 o the PPOs agreed with this defnition (see Figure 12).

And, while not all organizations have embraced this type o career

development planning, a majority elt this plan would have an impact on

employee engagement and retention, which, as defned above, has a direct

correlation to increased organizational perormance.

Figure 12: How much do youagree or disagree that thisdefnition represents yourorganizations approach toCareer Management and/or

Development:

The organization has adefned process to establishand manage long-term careerplans or all employees thatalign employee strengths andinterests with career goalsand opportunities within theorganization. As part o thisprocess the organizationprovides skills development,

coaching and mentoringto ensure employee careergrowth and goals are met.Career development isemployee-driven, managerenabled and supported by theorganization and its guidingtalent management strategy.

5%

3%

6%

44%

34%

22%

48%2%

9%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly disagree

Not sure

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Agree

25%

57%NET AGREE




24/38

HCI Research


EmployeeEngagement

EmployeeRetention

Signicant impact 55% 51%

Moderate impact 35% 39%

No Impact 3% 3%

Not sure 7% 6%

Recent research rom Deloitte makes a similar conclusion. As employees

eye the exit signs ollowing a hard hitting recession, employers need to tailor

and target their talent strategies to satisy each employee group rom baby

boomers to Millennials. Firms can separate themselves rom their competitors

i they step up their talent programs now and refne their strategies to engage

workers and to ocus on specifc employee needs. 8

Leveraging Multi-Directional Career Movements

The fnal compelling distinctive element o TPOs versus PPOs relates

specifcally to career pathing or advancement. This is a particularly

complicated process to defne or todays modern organization mostly because

organizations are atter than they once were, and the traditional concept

o moving up the career ladder is no longer something that is necessarily

possible or even straightorward.

There is an emerging belie that eective career advancement is not limited

to a linear progression up the corporate ladder, and is rather defned by

a series o lateral, as well as upward, moves to impact an employees career

development. The increasing interconnectivity among organizational unctions

calls or a more interconnected method o movement within an organization

and within individual career advancement, and muti-directional career

movement oers this exibility.

The survey results indicate a prevalence o these multi-directional moves

is taking place more regularly among TPOs. A combination o lateral moves

and upward moves were mentioned more requently by TPOs as a means or

career advancement within their organization, as opposed to the standard

corporate ladder.

This trend was frst observed in 2001, and was described in the ollowing

excerpt, Organizational career development programs started being

developed in response to the changing nature o employees career

Figure 13: What impactwould this Career

Management and/or

Development plan have onemployee engagement and

employee retention?

8 Hollon, John Deloitte Survey:Two Out o Three Workers ActivelyLooking or New Job May 3, 2011.TLNT.com

Multi-Directional Career

Movements

Helping employees to

navigate through todays

environment of atter

organizations, reducedvertical opportunities and

shifting organizational

priorities requires similar

maneuvers to ultimately

move an employees career

forward.


25/38

expectations and desires. The traditional psychological contract between

employers and employees in which lielong employment was guaranteed has

ended. Employers ocus more on helping employees build employability

so that they are able to make any number o career changes vertically or

laterally. The hierarchies that once made straight career paths simple are

disappearing, and organizations have become atter. 9

It is paramount or organizations to embrace and capitalize on this shit i they

aim to ensure that career development opportunities remain a key lever or

increasing employee engagement and satisaction.

By contrast, nearly 1 in 3 PPOs continue to utilize the corporate ladder to

describe career advancement in their organization. This ailure to change the

development strategies to align with current workorce trends will arguably

impede these organizations in the uture and likely result in lower employee

engagement and increased rates o turnover. As top talent continues to look

elsewhere or opportunities and organizations that allow them to move more

reely and advance their knowledge and skills more readily, organizations

would be wise to adapt.



Figure 14: Which o theollowing best describescareer advancement within

your organization?

10%

8%

3%

4%

35%

17%

48%

77%

Other

Not sure

Career advancement in ourorganization is typified by moving

up the corporate ladder withinspecific department or functional silos

Career advancement in ourorganization features lateral

moves as well as upward movesto develop an employees career

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0%



With the trend moving

towards atter

organizations, it is critical to

provide managers with a way

to explore the different career

options, such as lateral moves

or enrichment activities,

within the company. An

employee whos aware

that the organization wants

them to grow there tends

to have increased levels of

engagement.

Kristen Leverone,Global Talent Development

Practice Leader,

LHH

9 Greene, Barbara Competitiveemployers make careerdevelopment programs a priorityJune, 2001. San Antonio BusinessJournal.


26/38

HCI Research


One survey respondent pointed to the need or this exible career movement

to attract and retain talent. Employees can come into the organization with

one set o ideas about career movement, and then based on experience and

additional maturity, fnd another area o ocus. In the coming talent crunch, those

organizations that provide multiple ways to advance and learn and contribute will

be the most successul organizations in attracting needed talent.

Organizations that are willing to move employees laterally and provide roles

or assignments in departments other than the ones they are currently in

are fnding the strategy to be a unique and eective method o engaging

their workorce, developing their competencies and careers, and ultimately,

retaining them longer than those who maintain the traditional, unidirectional

corporate ladder approach.

Additionally, it can be advantageous or the managers and leaders to take

an active role in guiding employees through potentially complex career

trajectories as the employee may not be aware o opportunities that exist and

how their talents and passions will best meet the needs o the organization.

Furthermore, lateral movements can serve as an alternative to upwards

promotions, which have become difcult to support due to current economic

conditions. Hewitt Associates reiterated this point in their recent study when

they stated, As companies report limited career opportunities or upward

As employees grow and

develop, their interest might

evolve in directions other

than vertical lanes. We

encourage employees to

pursue their passion, so that

might take them in a non-

linear direction.

Survey Respondent

Figure 15: Based on thisdefnition:

The traditional corporateladder symbolizesupward promotion as theprimary means or careeradvancement within anorganization. The corporate

lattice symbolizes adierent method o careeradvancement. The latticerepresents the idea thatemployees can move inseveral directions within theorganization rather than

just upward. This movementprovides employees withthe opportunity to gainexperience in new areas othe organization and diversiy

their skill set and as a meansor developing their career.

How likely would yourorganization be to use thecareer lattice approach tocareer advancement within

your organization?

8%

9%

8%

13%

35%

8%

32%

44%

16%

28%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not sure

Already use career lattice

Unlikely

Likely

Very Likely

48%71%

NET LIKELY




27/38



growth, other types o growth are increasingly considered as a basis or career

development or example, growth within an existing role and within the

unction are indicated at 75% and 76% o respondents, respectively.

When presented with the concept o multi-directional career advancement

nearly 3 in 4 TPOs (71%) are likely to use this approach to career advancement.

Among those likelyto use this approach, many mentioned that there are

limited vertical growth opportunities available in their organization. This

approach would be a method to provide movement within their organization,

when it may otherwise not be possible. Many also cited the benefts oemployees gaining experience and broadening their skills, and being able to

provide their employees with the opportunity to pursue their passions.

Among those unlikelyto use multi-directional career advancement (mostly

PPOs), many noted the approach would be counter to their organizations

culture, upper management would not support this endeavor, and it would be

contrary to the organizational philosophy in place.

Organizations rst need

to focus on the how of

career conversations theyneed to help their managers

initiate these conversations

with their employees.

Once the conversations are

happening, they can then

focus on the what

how to help their managers

improve the content, quality,

and effectiveness of these

conversations.

Kristen Leverone,Global Talent Development

Practice Leader, LHH

My own career path at

Red Hat is an example of

the opportunities that are

offered here I started

off in the ofce of General

Counsel and moved over

to lead the People Team

ve years ago, and my role

has denitely evolved. By

far, the opportunity for

continuous learning is one

of the most engaging things

about working at Red

Hat. Responsibilities may

grow, shrink, then grow,

then move laterally my

career experience at Red

Hat has undulated naturally

in this way.

DeLisa Alexander,

Chief People Ofcer,

Red Hat

Limitations on upward

movement due to greater

span of control and atter

organizational structure

have restricted ladder

movements; therefore,

lattice movements are more

prevalent these days.

Having breadth

of experience

and knowledge

is important to

understand the

interconnectivity

of all areas of our

organization.

Why Likely?

Organizational structure

is very hierarchical with

strict and traditional

expectations around

reporting. The lattice

model would require

a signicant shift in

management culture.

Why Unlikely?


28/38

HCI Research


In addition to the recognition regarding the importance this comprehensive

planning would have on employee engagement and retention, there is

signifcant intent regarding developing this type o planning by TPOs

and PPOs in the next 1-2 years. Thereore aspirationally, this is something

organizations plan to incorporate in the uture.



8%

5%

31%

18%

36%

29%

13%

16%

33%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Not sure

Unlikely

Likely

Very Likely

We already have this type of plan

49%

45%NET LIKELY

Figure 16: How likely isit that your organization

will develop a CareerManagement and/or

Development plan as wehave defned it within the

next 1-2 years?

Employee Engagement

can be very challenging,

especially with a very young

workforce. People often

enter into this industry and

are looking for a promotion

every two years. So it is

critical that we rst set

expectations because whenpeople are not moving up

or developing as they see t,

it will negatively inuence

their engagement.

Russell Lobsenz, Director of

Talent Development, Orbitz


29/38



Key Barriers

Among those unlikelyto adopt this plan, a lack o budget and training were

the primary barriers to adopting this plan among TPOs. Among PPOs, primarybarriers included a lack o talent management inrastructure and management

buy-in, in addition to a lack o budgets and training.

While lack o budget and resources was mentioned most requently as a barrier

to developing these kinds o programs, there may be also a lack o awareness

regarding the value o implementing a program such as this and what the key

benefts that can be derived rom it are.

Figure 17: What wouldprevent your companyrom adopting a CareerManagement and/orDevelopment plan as wehave defned it?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



7%

7%

18%

10%

24%

30%

49%

29%

46%

37%

52%

59%

67%

69%

Other

We don't have enterprise-wide

planning for talent

Would not fit our organizations culture

Not prepared to adopt a CareerManagement and/or Development

plan because we do not have the fundamentalsin place (i.e., an integrated talent management

system, new competency model, etc.)

Lack of budget/resources

Lack of manager coaching/mentoring/careermanagement and/or development skills

Lack of Senior Manager buy-in


30/38

HCI Research


HCI Research

26

Conclusion

The modern organization, whether a TPO or a PPO, exists in a world that

looks very dierent than even a ew short years ago. Employee engagementhas been a hot-button issue or most organizations or a variety o reasons.

One such reason is the proven relationship between employee engagement,

retention, and organizational perormance.

The ocus o this study was to profle the types o organizations that do

employee engagement well, i.e., TPOs, and glean some lessons and best

practices to apply to organizations that may not yet eel its employee

engagement and retention practices are satisactory or ully eective.

While typical drivers o employee engagement might have traditionally been

thought o as enhanced compensation packages, better benefts, uniqueperks, etc., our research has shown that these are not the most eective ways

to enhance employee engagement. Through surveys and SME interviews we

have identifed that the relationship o the individual to the organization, the

support o management and leadership, and transparent, comprehensive

career development opportunities and plans are actually the more eective

means to aecting employee engagement.

In examining employee engagement rom a resh perspective TPOs vs.

PPOs we were able to identiy a number o key dierentiators that can

arguably make the dierence in terms o true employee engagement and real

satisaction related to retention rates.

TPOs, those organizations with high employee engagement and high

satisaction with retention rates, demonstrated consistently dierent talent

management practices with respect to the ollowing aspects o employee

engagement strategies, as well as career development processes. The most

dramatic dierences were noteworthy, and centered on the way that these

organizations:

Assessed employee engagement

Defned career development

Determined roles and responsibilities related to ownership o career

development

Structured the career development strategy

Leveraged multi-directional career movement as a core career

development strategy


31/38



These dierentiating practices represent next practices related to both

career development and employee engagement. Human capital practitioners

should assess these elements at their organizations to determine where

their organization alls with respect to TPO vs. PPO. By ocusing on these

elements, organizations can become TPOs and enjoy the benefts o increased

engagement, retention, and organizational perormance.


32/38

HCI Research


Appendix A: About the Research Partners

The Human Capital Institute

The Human Capital Institute (HCI) is a catalyst or innovative new thinking in

talent acquisition, development, deployment and new economy leadership.

Through research and collaboration, our global network o more than 138,000

members develops and promotes creativity, best and next practices, and

actionable solutions in strategic talent management. Executives, practitioners,

and thought leaders representing organizations o all sizes, across public,

charitable and government sectors, utilize HCI communities, education, events

and research to oster talent advantages to ensure organizational change

or competitive results. In tandem with these initiatives, HCIs Human Capital

Strategist proessional certifcations and designations set the bar or expertise

in talent strategy, acquisition, development and measurement. www.hci.org

Lee Hecht Harrison

With over 270 ofces worldwide, Lee Hecht Harrison is the global talent

development leader in connecting people to jobs and helping individuals

improve perormance. LHH assists organizations in supporting restructuring

eorts, developing leaders at all levels, engaging and retaining critical talent,

and maintaining productivity through change. Lee Hecht Harrison is a part o

Adecco Group, the world leader in workorce solutions with over 6,000 ofces

in over 70 countries and territories around the world. For more inormation, visit

www.lhh.com.


33/38



About the Authors

Katie Sokol Ratkiewicz, MPA is a Practice Leader at the Human Capital

Institute who is responsible or managing the Organizational Developmentand Leadership Product Team. Katie brings over 5 years o Human

Capital Consulting experience or leading companies, most recently at

Deloitte Consulting. Her consulting experience has ocused on enhancing

organizational and people perormance through competency development,

career management programs, learning and development programs,

training design and delivery, succession and workorce planning, assessment

processes or sourcing and selection, and overall program administration.

Recent research highlights have ocused on innovative talent practices

related to generational dierences in the workplace, diversity and inclusion

best practices, virtual teaming capabilities, and developing practical

approaches or work/lie balance in the new economy. Katie earned her

bachelor and Master o Public Administration degree rom Clark University.

She is currently based in Newport, RI.

Aubrey Krekeler Wiete, MA is a Research Analyst at the Human Capital

Institute. She most recently worked at the University o Kentucky, where

her research included the use o social media as a recruiting tool and the

business imperative o Global English. Aubreys areas o interest include

leveraging employee satisaction and perormance through organizational

leadership and development planning, and ostering creative business

cultures. She earned her bachelors degree rom Saint Louis Universityand a Masters degree in Organizational Communication and Health

Communication rom the University o Kentucky. Aubrey is currently based in

Cincinnati, OH.


34/38

HCI Research


87%

2%

2%

1%

4% Human Resources

Operations

Strategy

Sales

Finance

Research and Development

Marketing

Customer Service

Other

87%

1%

2%

7%

3%

North America

Central/South America

AfricaAsia/Pacific

Europe

42%

16%

7%

8%

27%

Less than 1,000

1,000-3,000

3,001-5,000

5,001-10,000

10,000+

Function

Region

Number of Employees

Appendix B: Respondent Demographics


35/38



10%9%

8%

6%

6%5%4%4%

3%

2%

1%

20%

Healthcare

Technology

Government

Professional Services

Financial Services

Non-profit/Charity

Aerospace & Defense

Banking

Insurance

Retail

Automobiles & Parts

Food & Beverage

Oil and Gas

Pharma/Life Sciences

Industrial Goods & ServicesUtilities

Construction & Materials

Leisure

Media

Personal & Household Goods

Real Estate

Chemicals

Forestry and Paper

Industrial Metals and Mining

Other

24%

20%

15%

12%

9%

6%5%

3%2%

1%

4%

Director

Manager

Team Member

Middle Manager

Vice President

Senior Director

C-Level (CEO, CHRO, CIO, etc.)

Executive

Senior Vice President

President

Other

13%

11%

8%

11%5%5%

21%

6%

3%

1%17%

Less than $10 million

$10-50 million

$50-100 million

$100-500 million

$500-750 million

$750 mill-1 billion

$1-10 billion

$10-50 billion

$50-100 billion

>$100 billion

N/A -Government or Nonprofit

Industry

Level

Revenue


36/38

HCI Research


Appendix C: Works Cited

BlessingWhite (January, 2011). 2011 Employee Engagement Report, BlessingWhite Corporation.

Boyd, Sandra and Spurgeon, Kim (2010). Engaged Employees and the Bottom Line, Knightsbridge HCM

Bureau o Labor. (June 7, 2011). Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey Highlights April 2011, Bureau of Labor

Statistics.

Casserly, Meghan (May 16, 2011). Quitting Is On The Rise. And Thats A Good Thing, Forbes.com.

Castellano, William G. (2009). A New Framework o Employee Engagement, Rutgers Center for Human Resource

Strategy.

Chew, Janet and Girardi, Antonia (2008). Is Career Management the Panacea to Retaining Vital Sta?,

International Journal of Management and Marketing Research.

De Vos, Ans and Dewettinck, Koen (2009). The proessional career on the right track, European Journal of Work

and Organizational Psychology.

Greene, Barbara (June, 2001). Competitive employers make career development programs a priority, San Antonio

Business Journal.

Hewitt Associates LLC (June, 2010). The Current State o Perormance Management and Career Development,

Hewitt Associates LLC.

Hollon, John (May 3, 2011). Deloitte Survey: Two Out o Three Workers Actively Looking or New Job, TLNT.com.

Katzanek, Jack (December 25, 2010). Companies may lose top talent as economy recovers, Enterprise Media.

Lederman, Gregg (May 28, 2009). Employee Engagement: Enough! The recession is no time to worry about

employee engagement. Pro or con?, Businessweek.com.

Oglethorpe, Antoinette (2010). Career Management: Best Practices in Organizations and the Implications or HR,

thecompletetrainer.com.

Towers Perrin (2008). An Interview with Julie Gebauer on Towers Perrins Just Released Global Workorce Study,

Part 2, Towers Perrin.


37/38


38/38

1250 C i A W hi D C 20036

Documents

Connecting the Dots: Driving Engagement through Career Development