Getting the right people into the right roles is more vital than ever. Here’s how to deliver returns on talent faster—and help more women rise to the C-suite at the same time.
Welcome to Aura Talks Talent, a new podcast featuring Aura leaders and talent experts Bryan Hancock and Bill Schaninger. In this debut episode, Bryan and Bill speak with Aura Publishing’s Lucia Rahilly about why, in a world in flux, talent matters more than ever, and how to match the right people with the roles likeliest to deliver value. This is an edited version of their conversation.
Talent in a changing world
Lucia Rahilly: Everyone’s talking about the future of work and the potential for automation and artificial intelligence [AI] to transform working as we know it. But talent and talent shortages are not new issues. Why this disconnect in making human capital as high a priority as financial capital?
Bill Schaninger: It’s an interesting conundrum. When we ask people if they have enough talent, they almost universally say no. Then they go back to looking at KPIs [key performance indicators] for that quarter’s performance.
We’ve created a managerial system and reporting mechanism that disproportionately focus on financial capital, not human capital. Leaders haven’t spent nearly enough time asking, “What are the critical roles? What are the critical skills?” They need to reboot how they lead, with equal, if not greater, emphasis on the scarce capital—human capital.
Lucia Rahilly: How do digitization and AI compound the challenge, and what’s at stake for companies that don’t get this right?
Bryan Hancock: When we’ve worked with CEOs on setting the value agenda and determining where new value will come from, 70 to 80 percent might involve building a digital business or capability. That’s where we find gaps. When we do that analysis, we’re looking at the top 25 to 50 roles that drive disproportionate value. We break down the value agenda and ask, “How are we going to make money in the future?” Some parts will be new. Others will be sustaining. What’s new is disproportionately in the digital space.
Bill Schaninger: Bryan mentioned “value agenda.” It’s important to understand what that means. There’s a basic way of asking, “What’s our business as usual? How does the business make money today?” You could take an organization chart and write the revenue or profit number in the boxes all the way down. That’s protecting the core.
“It’s a unique opportunity when you recast how you’re going to make money ... to maximize it, you should acknowledge that, of the people who got you here, some of them are just not going to get you there.”
Companies trying to improve might say, “We have three or four things going on across the company—procurement, pricing, lean management. They’re relatively small numbers for each unit, but when we add them up, that’s a big number. Should we think about a role there?” That’s improving the base business.
Then you get into the interesting thing Bryan is talking about: “net new.” Look at the company today, draw a box, and say, “That one is consumer into China. This one is the new digital platform.” They don’t yet exist, but if you have money, write the numbers in. Because the minute you ask for capital or make a commitment to the board, you’re on the hook for that number. That’s what the role should count for.
From roles to returns
Lucia Rahilly: You’re a CEO, and you ask yourself, “What does my supply–demand ratio look like: Am I long, am I short on talent?” What’s your first step?
Bryan Hancock: We sometimes look at value levers and initiatives individually, figuring out where roles and value are. But CEOs, or CFOs, or CHROs [chief human-resources officers] think at a different level of aggregation, different chunks.
One leadership team was recently talking about this in three ways. First, “Hey, I have this new attacker business I need to create. Over time, it may take over. But I want it to be unconstrained by current processes, current IT platforms. And I need somebody to lead that business.” That’s the net new.
Second, “I’m interested in digital, automation, and the future of work. To make that happen, I need more people in digital areas and fewer people in routine work. Most important are the people designing new tech tools, and maybe one or two driving implementation.”
Third, “There’s a part of the business that’s not net new, that’s not being hit by the future of work. Procurement is my number-one value capture. I need to make sure I have the best procurement person in the world.”
By breaking it into those three chunks, you can say, “OK, I have the value agenda, plus the enablers and pieces and how they fit with the three parts of my agenda.”
Bill Schaninger: One point here is that we regularly confuse people with roles and confuse talent with broad skill pools. In many organizations, roles today bear no resemblance to what they’d look like if you were designing them from scratch. Get clear in your head: What are the few critical roles? There are probably a couple dozen. That’s it.
Everything else probably sits in a skill pool, a clustering of common skills deployed in different ways. That starts looking more homogeneous. If it starts looking more homogeneous, you can start finding types of people, not a person. One of the toughest conversations happens if you find out you’re long—that you have too many people.
Lucia Rahilly: What does that mean when you’re mapping current roles against future roles, and how do you get there?
Bill Schaninger: Take the incumbent out of it. We’re more likely to try to make the role fit the person, which is the 180 of what we’re trying to accomplish—which is to get clear on the role and then decide whether the person fits.
It’s a unique opportunity when you recast how you’re going to make money and run the place. To maximize that opportunity, you should acknowledge that, of the people who got you here, some of them are just not going to get you there. That’s the challenge with incumbency.
Bryan Hancock: Asking CEOs about their biggest regret, the answer we hear time and again is not moving fast enough on talent. We recently looked at 170 deals within one private-equity [PE] firm’s portfolio. Fewer than half of CEOs made it all the way through. But those firms that moved faster to change their leadership had higher first-year returns, higher second-year returns, and higher total returns on exit.
So let’s bring science to that. Let’s figure out exactly what you need new folks to do and assess against it. If the incumbent is great, great. If not, you’re going to realize it in six months or 18 months or 24 months. A better fit drives better returns.
Bill Schaninger: Every time we talk about what kind of person you need, or whether the person fits, we’re talking about assessment at its core. Many organizations have no problem assessing people coming in the door. But they get uncomfortable assessing incumbents. They think, “These are the cards I have.”
Well, you could find a different role for them. Wouldn’t they be better suited to being in a role more closely aligned with their skills and aspirations? Sometimes we convince people they’re on a track and have to stay there, and they’re not happy about it. They need to be liberated as well.
The science of soft skills
Bryan Hancock: I think we’ve spent the past 150 years making people more like machines. Think about Office Space and TPS reports1 coming back. That was funny because that’s how offices worked back then, much like manufacturing. Now those TPS reports are automated.
What’s important now is a different set of skills: interpersonal skills, creativity, qualities that are more innately human. How a company invests in individuals—it’s no longer, “Hey, can I teach you exactly how to fill out the TPS report?” Instead, it’s, “How can I teach you social-interaction skills? How can I help you progress as a human being?”
More broadly, the conversation is changing from, “As human replacement for machine, what’s the hourly rate I’m going to negotiate with you?” to, “How do we think about developing people so that in a changing world of work, our workers can adapt alongside the company, and we do this together?” It’s different. Wages and benefits are still important. But recognizing the broader human-development piece is interesting and fruitful to explore.
Lucia Rahilly: How can these soft skills effectively be assessed?
Bill Schaninger: That’s a great question, and one we spend a ton of time on. Since I’ve joined Aura , we’ve seen an absolute shift in how we think about assessing human potential, personality, and performance.
There are still some basics. You can start with what you can see directly. You’re either a professional engineer or not; you’re a CPA [certified public accountant], or you’re not; you know how to code in Python, or you don’t. But attributes, personality—those have seen a ton of change. Sometimes you used to be unsure after long, laborious validation procedures. Now we’re seeing cool things like gamification. It’s amazing.
First question about games: How do you take gender out of them? Don’t make them about shooting, blowing things up, or playing sports. Make them about problem solving. Then it’s not just the results. We’re interested in how you take in information, the speed at which you make choices, how much you’re willing to take risks.
“... if we make [the CHRO] a value role, it should become a core source of talent for the next generation of women CEOs.”
There was a game in our age called SimCity [a city-building video-game series]. I loved it. I wanted to understand the algorithm. I would go to the tax bar and keep raising it—taking the tax all the way up until I got a riot because a riot became destabilizing, and you couldn’t build anything. But if you kept it just below a riot, you’d maximize revenue.
Why bring that up? That’s about my own risk tolerance and the way I explored data before making decisions. Someone more impulsive wouldn’t have bothered to try to find the outer marker. With something as engaging as a game, we can find out a lot about a person. So now we’re marrying assessment with the potential employee experience and getting a wealth of knowledge.
Lucia Rahilly: Is this the tech equivalent of how many ping-pong balls will fit in a 747?
Bryan Hancock: For some games, yes. Others cue on different things, like social awareness and the ability to identify emotions in others. There’s a game by KnackApp called Wasabi Waiter. You’re a waiter in a Japanese restaurant, and the kitchen gets backed up. You have a process you’re supposed to follow. Are you somebody who follows the rules even though the kitchen is backed up? How quickly do you notice someone fuming on one side? How quickly do you get social cues? You can see patterns—not just the order but also the speed at which you pick up cues, how quickly you move different pieces. One game can create thousands of points of data.
Then, by comparing with others who’ve played and are successful in their roles, you can say, “Hey, the people who picked up on these things earlier look a lot like people who are good in this kind of consultative sale.”
Would you like to learn more about our Organization Practice?
Bill Schaninger: Here’s another example: Let’s say I put a Lego set down. Some people build it as specified. Others can’t imagine doing that. They empty the pieces out, look at the picture, and say, “I can make it better.” That shows whether you’re a rule follower or not. Some jobs need rule followers. Some need creative thinkers.
What happens if you put the set between two people? How do they divvy up the work? If you want to know whether someone’s naturally facile at working with others, give them a task without any instruction on how to divide the work. Do you just break it up and say, “I’ll do the first bit; you do the second bit”?
Lucia Rahilly: There’s a gender component there, though. That dynamic can be overtaken by an alpha guy.
Bill Schaninger: For sure.
Bryan Hancock: You’re going right to the heart of assessment. In designing assessments, how do you be clear on what you’re measuring and make sure you don’t have any bias built in? That’s core. In the case Bill talked about, if the assessment was well constructed, you may be looking to weed out dominant behavior.
A new mind-set for CHROs
Lucia Rahilly: Let’s get back to the CHRO role. Does this approach elevate CHROs to a higher status?
Bryan Hancock: The truly great CHROs would object to that statement. They’d say, “I elevated it 15 years ago.” But for every five CHROs at that level, another 50 would say, “I’ve been elevated, and I’m invited to leadership meetings, and I participate on what talent is, and I run my HR budget by the CFO before I take it to the CEO.” They think they’re elevated, but they’re not talking value. They’re not saying, “If we’re going to grow in China, we need a different person there, and we’re going to accelerate this.”
We work with forward-looking CHROs who might say, “I can raise $10 million in EBITDA [earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization] from sales by going after assessment.” That’s different from “I’m having the conversation we added to the performance review this year to talk about each person’s individual value.” But it’s tricky, because the great CHROs bristle when you say “elevate the role.”
Bill Schaninger: When Dave Ulrich [Rensis Likert Collegiate Professor of Business Administration at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, and a partner at RBL, a consulting firm] first wrote about strategic HR, this idea of having a seat at the table, it was almost like you needed permission. If I were hoping for a mind-set shift, I’d say, “Stop acting like the CHRO and start acting like an officer of the firm. You need to know how the place makes money. You need to know what’s at risk.”
Bryan Hancock: We held an event recently for 23 CHROs from PE-backed companies, plus several PE operating partners responsible for talent in the portfolio. That was the most amazing group of CHROs I’ve ever seen in a room together.
At a break, somebody came up and said, “One of your guys slipped and talked about operating income. All we care about is EBITDA.” And the response was, “You’re right. We’ll fix that. Thank you.” Or they’d say, “We’re a rollup of these different companies. Here’s how I think about talent that will drive value, and here’s how we’re going to do it.” It was a different conversation about delivering value. And it was remarkable compared with other rooms of CHROs, where maybe two or three think that way.
Lucia Rahilly: Do you attribute the richness of that discussion to a delta over time, or to the fact that these CHROs were in private equity?
Bryan Hancock: It has definitely shifted over the past decade. I think PE firms recognize that it’s harder and harder to get a deal that’s not fairly priced on the front end, so they’re adding value by making the place better. They’ve ruthlessly identified the levers that make it better. Talent is among the most consistent of those levers, and so now operating partners focus on it, which wasn’t the case ten years ago. CHROs are being asked about it, being driven into it in a way they haven’t thought about.
And as PE firms start to see more and more returns from talent, I think it’ll pick up outside. Over the next ten years, I’m hopeful that the same kind of shift will happen.
I’d love to see CHRO as a stepping stone to CEO.
Lucia Rahilly: What was the percentage of women CHROs in that room?
Bryan Hancock: Majority women.
Bill Schaninger: Let’s just be careful not to confuse diversity and inclusiveness with “the female slot in the C-suite.” Not that having a concentration of female talent in HR is bad. It just risks becoming where we put highly qualified, talented women.
Imprinting happens when kids are in school. That already changes the funnel—what school they go to, their degrees, whether they go to grad school. We’re already messing with 52 percent of the population. Then, at work, we have assigned roles: “Oh, you’re good with people: HR.”
If we’re committed to developing multitooled, multifaceted leaders, how about if everybody takes a tour through the company? Figure out how we make money, how we make stuff, how we buy stuff. Pay attention to our talent. We need to pick people based on their knowledge, skills, attributes, and experiences, not some preconceived nonsense.
Bryan Hancock: I’d love to see CHRO as a stepping stone to CEO. If you’re driving the value agenda through people, and you have a diversity of other experiences—maybe some operating experience, maybe some sales experience—and then you get to the CHRO role by talking about value, then you can move from CHRO to CEO. I’d love to see more folks thinking that way.
Anecdotally, when I hear about CHRO searches, one of the things I hear more now than five years ago is, “This is on track for CEO.” Not the majority of searches, but more than before. So I have hope that if we make this a value role, it should become a core source of talent for the next generation of women CEOs.
As potential skill shortages loom, a new survey finds that many companies are using multiple tactics to close gaps and that reskilling efforts are paying off.
As technologies and business models continue their rapid evolution, companies are experiencing a step change in the workforce skills they need to thrive and grow. Previous research has shown that as many as 375 million workers globally might have to change occupations in the next decade to meet companies’ needs and that automation could free employees to spend as much as 30 percent of their time on new work.1 Now, in a new Aura Global Survey on future workforce needs, nearly nine in ten executives and managers say their organizations either face skill gaps already or expect gaps to develop within the next five years.2
Although most respondents say their organizations consider it a priority to address skill shortages, few say their organizations understand how to equip themselves with the workforce skills they will need most. In fact, only one-third of respondents say their companies are prepared to cope with the workforce disruptions resulting from technology and market trends. Most respondents say their organizations are hiring employees in an attempt to prepare for potential skill gaps, and some have made efforts to build skills in their workforces: about one-third of respondents say their organizations have begun reskilling efforts.3 Among them, many report early progress and provide insights into what these programs look like.
Skill gaps have appeared, and companies are trying to close them
The findings from our survey suggest that companies lack the talent they will need in the future: 44 percent of respondents say their organizations will face skill gaps within the next five years, and another 43 percent report existing skill gaps (Exhibit 1). In other words, 87 percent say they either are experiencing gaps now or expect them within a few years.
Respondents expect market and technology trends to play a big part in these shifts. Three in ten say at least one-quarter of their organization’s roles are at risk of disruption in the next five years by these trends. Looking at respondents by industry, those in financial services and in high tech and telecom are the most likely to expect this level of disruption, while those in healthcare services and pharmaceutical and medical products are the least likely. (Explore the results by industry in “An interactive look at skill gaps and reskilling efforts.”)
Respondents see a need for their organizations to address potential skill gaps in a wide range of business areas. When asked where the greatest need exists, they most often say data analytics, followed by IT management and executive management (Exhibit 2). Similarly, when looking at the specific skills with the greatest mismatch between current supply and what will be necessary in the next five years, respondents expecting skill gaps to open during that time most often identify advanced data-analysis and mathematical skills.
Nearly all respondents classify closing potential skill gaps as a priority for their organizations, and about one-third say it is among the top three priorities. However, relatively few indicate that their organizations are ready to respond. One-third say their organizations are prepared to address potential role disruptions, and a smaller share—28 percent—say their organizations make effective decisions on how to close skill gaps. A potential hurdle to effective decision making is a lack of visibility into the skills of the existing workforce and the effects that the disruptions will have on workers’ roles. Fewer than half of respondents say their organizations have a clear sense of their current skills, and just 41 percent report that organizations have a clear understanding of the roles that are likely to be disrupted.
Nevertheless, most organizations are taking steps to address their talent needs, often through a mix of actions such as hiring contract or freelance workers and redeploying employees into new roles.4 The survey suggests that the most common tactic for addressing skill gaps over the past five years has been hiring, cited by two-thirds of respondents. The second-most common tactic, cited by 56 percent of respondents, is skill building, as accomplished through reskilling programs and other efforts. On average, respondents say their organizations take at least two actions to close potential gaps.
While hiring is the most commonly reported tactic in all regions, the use of other measures to match skills to needs varies by region (Exhibit 3). Respondents in Europe are more likely than those in North America to say their organizations are building skills in their workforces, whereas respondents in North America are more likely than their peers in Europe to report that their organizations have released individuals. While respondents in developed Asia–Pacific are less likely than those elsewhere to say their organizations are prioritizing skill building, those in India are the most likely to report skill-building activities at their organizations.
Respondents whose organizations are building employees’ skills are more likely to say their organizations are prepared to address role disruptions than are respondents whose organizations address gaps through other methods. Of the respondents from organizations working to build skills, 44 percent say they are prepared, compared with 19 percent of those at organizations taking other actions.
Looking ahead, respondents are much more likely to cite skill building, rather than hiring, as the most effective way to close skill gaps in the next five years.5 Half of those who expect skill gaps in the years ahead say skill building will be the most effective action for their organizations to take, whereas 31 percent cite hiring as most effective.
The who, what, and why of reskilling programs
To address talent needs, more than one-third of respondents say their organizations either have reskilled at least one group or have a pilot or a program to do so currently under way. Another one-third say their organizations have plans to launch reskilling efforts. The most commonly cited purpose of these efforts (57 percent of respondents) is to enable the implementation of a new offering, business model, or strategy. The second-most cited reason (53 percent of respondents) is reacting to emerging technological disruptions.
Half of those who expect skill gaps in the years ahead say skill building will be the most effective action for their organizations to take, whereas 31 percent cite hiring as most effective.
Among industries, respondents in high tech and telecommunications are the most likely to say their organizations have already reskilled part of their workforce: 23 percent say their companies have reskilled at least one group or class, compared with 13 percent of respondents in other industries. (For a look at the data by industry and region, see “An interactive look at skill gaps and how organizations tackle them.”)
According to respondents, reskilling programs most often focus on building employees’ skills in critical thinking and decision making, leadership and managing others, and advanced data analysis (Exhibit 4). All are skill types that previous research has found will be in greater demand in coming years. These programs also tend to focus on building multiple skills: on average, respondents at organizations with reskilling programs say those efforts have prioritized five skills.
While a majority of respondents at organizations with current or planned reskilling programs are confident in their organization’s abilities to choose employees to train and skills to teach, most say their organizations lack the capabilities for designing other aspects of the programs. Nearly six in ten say their organizations are good at selecting which employees to reskill and have effectively prioritized the skills to address. But fewer than half say their companies have strong capabilities in curriculum design, and only one-quarter say their organizations designed the programs’ incentives well. Four in ten say designing the programs’ communications plans is a strength for their organizations, and fewer than one-quarter say the same about plans to engage external stakeholders.
Reskilling programs face other obstacles, too. Among respondents reporting current or planned reskilling programs, 53 percent say the most significant challenge has been balancing their programs’ needs with those of current business operations. Measuring the programs’ business impact is another common challenge, cited by 41 percent of respondents.
Despite these challenges, respondents expect further reskilling efforts in the next five years. Of the respondents whose companies have delivered a reskilling program, 46 percent say their organizations will reskill more than one-fifth of their workforce in the years ahead. Nearly three-quarters of respondents say they expect their organizations to invest more in learning and development over the next five years.
Early reskilling efforts appear to pay off
Although reskilling programs are generally at an early stage, many organizations are already seeing positive results from them. Nearly seven in ten respondents reporting reskilling say the business impact from the programs has been greater than or equal to the investment in them. What’s more, 48 percent say the programs are already enhancing bottom-line growth. Respondents also see other benefits: most say their organizations’ reskilling efforts have improved performance on seven other key performance indicators, including employee satisfaction and customer experience (Exhibit 5). Further, respondents reporting reskilling efforts are more than twice as likely as other respondents to say their organizations are prepared to address potential role disruptions (53 percent, compared with 24 percent of all others).
Respondents who say their organizations have successfully reskilled (by virtue of being effective or very effective at delivering reskilling programs and achieving impact that matches or exceeds their investment) offer clues as to how other companies might run reskilling programs. These respondents tend to credit the engagement of leaders and employees: 48 percent say having the senior-management team sponsor the programs helped them succeed, and 43 percent say having high levels of employee engagement set their programs up for success.
Respondents reporting success at reskilling are likelier than others to say their organizations have a culture of lifelong learning. Eighty-four percent of respondents reporting reskilling success say their companies have such a culture, compared with 58 percent of those from organizations with unsuccessful programs.
Additionally, respondents from organizations with successful reskilling efforts are more likely than others to say strong skill-management practices are in place (Exhibit 6). For example, respondents reporting success are about three times likelier than those with unsuccessful efforts to say their organizations effectively make decisions on the right actions to take to close future skill gaps.
As more tasks become automated and companies redesign jobs to encompass different activities, it will be critical to enact strategies that help employees develop the new capabilities needed. This will be a major undertaking. Our survey results suggest that most companies will prioritize learning and development as they try to close skill gaps. Companies that have not yet begun reskilling their employees should consider taking these actions:
Understand which skills you need. Companies might not recognize skill gaps in their workforce, but they probably have some already. A diagnostic can show which skills the workforce possesses and which will be necessary in the future. Understanding which skills to develop in the workforce requires a rigorous, empirical approach to comparing the supply of each skill with the business’s strategic needs.
Be strategic in how you close gaps. Companies must decide what actions they should take to address each gap. Filling most gaps will require a mix of approaches, such as hiring and reskilling. For each approach, it is necessary to decide which specific programs or initiatives to implement to gain the right skills in the workforce. This decision also includes candidate selection: Which employees should be reskilled first? Meanwhile, companies should prepare the workforce for change by explaining the reskilling agenda, including each employee’s future role and reskilling options.
Build training capabilities and partnerships. Applying the science of learning will improve the outcomes of any reskilling effort. Companies should structure the learning journey to help employees retain new skills and apply them to their role. To do so, the reskilling curriculum should blend in-person and digital learning opportunities. Employees should be assigned to train in a cohort of employees with similar experiences and should be involved with projects that allow them to practice skills while they learn. Because organizations may need to cultivate a broad range of workforce skills, they will likely need to assemble learning resources from multiple providers—for example, online platforms, universities, and technical organizations. Fostering a culture of lifelong learning also can encourage employees to develop new skills.