Your Quarterly Resource for the Latest Trends Affecting Your Workforce Plan
Global Workforce Insights
Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™
Third Quarter 2015
Print DesignerKelly Suh
Contributing Print DesignersReid Griffler
EditorKate Seferian
Practice LeaderBrian Kropp
Principal Executive AdvisorDion Love
Research DirectorMatt Dudek
Research AnalystJohn Roman
CEB Talent Management LabsResearch DirectorMark Little
Research ManagerLindsey Walsh
Research ScientistNeha Jain
Senior Research AnalystSajal Jain
Research AnalystNamrata Raina
Research SpecialistNikita Ojha
CHRO Insight Series
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYNThe pages herein are the property of CEB Inc. No copyrighted materials of CEB Inc. may be reproduced or resold without prior approval. For additional copies of this publication, please contact CEB Inc. at +1-866-913-2632, or visit www.cebglobal.com.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council™ Content Publishing Solutions
HR NEWS REPORT Functional Insights
GLOBAL WORKFORCE INSIGHTS REPORTWorkforce Insights
CHRO QUARTERLYBusiness Insights
CHRO VIDEO SERIESPersonal Insights
Why We Create This Report
We believe that great ideas—acute insights rooted in
microeconomics and informed by human behavior—are
essential to those accomplishments that change the fortunes
of an individual, an organization, or the world. We discover
and create these ideas and enable members and colleagues
to act on them by delivering them in timely, targeted, and
memorable ways.
3© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN
Key Findings
Labor Market • 7 What You Can Do
Employees more confident in senior leadership than looming economic conditions (p. 7).
Given employees perceive fewer job activities, organizations must in particular, guard against perceptions that female employees cannot advance to more senior positions. Debunk common myths at your organization and learn how to close the gap.
Better customize your candidate sourcing strategy to reach active and passive candidates in your markets.
Boost your strategic workforce planning with our big data engine from CEB TalentNeuron.
Despite strong regional fluctuations in 2015; though, global job prospects return unchanged (p. 8).
Compared to one year ago, current global job-seeking activity changes less aggressively (p. 9).
Job-seeking activity declines globally, driven by a massive decline in the United States (p. 10).
Average time to fill a vacancy is increasing globally (p. 12).
Attraction • 13
The top 10 reasons employees join new companies do not change from last quarter (p. 13).
Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths for Employees and Organizations to learn how the best organizations design careers around high-value opportunities, target passive internal job candidates, expand career conversations beyond the manager, and offer employees job security by making them more employable.
Career opportunities with a new organization may retain, but are less likely to attract US employees (p. 14).
4© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN
Key Findings (Continued)
Engagement • 15 What You Can Do
Globally, intent to stay increases; effort shows no change (p. 16).Read the CHRO Quarterly Magazine to learn how to align employee engagement efforts with corporate strategy and how 3M’s head of HR uses engagement to drive innovation.
Effort in Latin and North America surges; Europe continues a downward trend originating in 2013 (p. 17).
Measure more than engagement at your organization with CEB’s ClearAdvantage Check (included in membership).
Employees in Europe fear the job market—likelihood to stay in seat is at an all-time high (p. 18).
Determine employees’ willingness to execute a strategic plan in your region by assessing the engagement scores of strategically critical talent segments.
Attrition • 20
Future career opportunities remain crucial and the top reason employees leave their jobs (p. 20). Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our exit
survey resource, Departure View.
Translate business strategy into workforce strategy with step-by-step guidance to keep increased compensation-switching premiums from impeding your organizational goals.
Help your HR business partners and generalists build the fundamental compensation knowledge needed to address basic pay questions with confidence and accuracy (requires CEB Total Rewards Leadership Council membership).
The regional volatility of attrition drivers continues (p. 21).
Although decreasing this quarter, compensation switching premium remains above 15% (p. 22).
Worldwide, merit pay expectations changed minimally (p. 23).
5© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN
Global Data Sources by Percentage of Origin in This Report
Looking for More Insight?
View targeted reports on our website.
Forty-five reports for the regions, industries,
and functions of your global business are
available through the Workforce Insights portal.
Each quarter, Global Workforce Insights is sourced from over 18,000 employees in 36 countries to offer the most authoritative look at the latest global and country-level trends so you know what attracts, engages, and retains talent.
Americas
■ Argentina: 0.9% ■ Brazil: 2.6% ■ Canada: 4.4% ■ Chile: 0.9% ■ Colombia: 0.9% ■ Mexico: 2.6% ■ United States: 10.0%
Africa
■ South Africa: 2.2%
Europe
■ Belgium and the Netherlands: 4.4%
■ Czech Republic: 0.3% ■ France: 2.2% ■ Germany: 5.5% ■ Hungary: 0.3% ■ Italy: 2.2% ■ Nordic Regiona: 8.8% ■ Poland: 2.2% ■ Romania: 0.3% ■ Spain: 2.2% ■ Switzerland: 2.2% ■ Russia: 2.2% ■ Turkey: 0.9% ■ United Kingdom: 6.6%
ANZ
■ Australia: 4.4% ■ New Zealand: 2.2%
Asia
■ China: 4.3% ■ Hong Kong: 0.9% ■ India: 4.4% ■ Indonesia: 2.2% ■ Japan: 2.2% ■ Malaysia and the Philippines: 4.2%
■ Singapore: 2.2% ■ South Korea: 2.2% ■ Taiwan: 2.2% ■ Thailand: 2.2% ■ Vietnam: 2.2%
a The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
6
The Business Confidence Index (BCI) measures employed individuals’ confidence in near-term business conditions and long-term economic prospects in their industry.
Employees More Confident in Senior Leadership Than Looming Economic ConditionsExecutive Sentiment on Business Conditions and Leadership, Q2 2015Degree of Confidence of Employees
Business Confidence Index Leadership Confidence Index
Q2 2015 n = 22,972Source: CEB 2015 Business Barometer Survey.
What You Can Do
Identify ways to share your unique insight on retaining top talent with fellow business leaders in your organization. Become an enterprise leader who excels not only as an individual leader but also as a network leader so you can influence the C-suite.
Right now, only 12% of leaders overall act as enterprise leaders. Learn about the three behaviors that distinguish enterprise leaders.
0.0
50.0
100.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
53.6
60.2
Low
Neutral
High
The Leadership Confidence Index (LCI) tracks employed individuals’ confidence in the senior leadership of their current organization to successfully prepare for the future by setting strategy, developing leaders, and responding to economic and labor market changes.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 7
DefinitionThe Job Opportunity Barometer measures employed individuals’ perceptions of the availability and quality of other employment opportunities in their current locations, industries, and functions.
Despite Strong Regional Fluctuations in 2015; Though, Global Job Prospects Return UnchangedJob Opportunity Barometer a
Global Employed Labor Force
Weaker Job Opportunity
Perception
Stronger Job Opportunity
Perception
Neutral Job Opportunity
Perception
52.1
53.5
55.0
47.4
48.0
50.2
Q2 2015 n = 6,671 (Asia); 3,302 (North America); 21,971 (Global); 1,503 (Australia and New Zealand); 8,690 (Europe).Source: CEB 2010–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Job Opportunity Barometer is an indexed score calculated from a battery of five questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and
converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values indicating stronger perceptions of job opportunities.
What You Can Do
Today’s careers are failing employers and also employees, impacting their job perceptions in general and their view of your organization. Companies are concerned about capability gaps, and employees aren’t satisfied with future career opportunities. No longer able to rely on predictable, promotion-based career cultures, leading organizations now create growth-based career cultures.
Join us for this webinar to learn how to build career partnerships that create growth for organizations as well as employees.
54.2 Asia
49.1 North America
47.9 Australia and New Zealand
49.2 Latin America49.4 Global
46.5 Europe
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
2011
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
20
12
Q1 2
013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
20
14
Q1 2
015
Q2
2015
40
50
60
���
A trend of pessimistic job perceptions is reversed in ANZ; however, North America and Latin America continue to experience negative trends in this category.
Even with economic uncertainty in Greece, employees in the EU see more job availability at the midpoint of 2015, than they did earlier in the year.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 8
Compared to One Year Ago, Current Global Job-Seeking Activity Changes Less AggressivelyPercentage of Employees by Degree of Job-Seeking BehaviorGlobal Employed Labor Force
Per
cent
age
of
Em
plo
yees
Q4
20
09
Q2
2010
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
20
11
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
20
12
Q4
20
12
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
20
13
Q4
20
13
Q2
2015
Q1
2015
Q4
20
14
Q3
20
14
Q2
2014
Q1
2014
37.8%
35.4%
26.9%
Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
The number of passive candidates remains near 2012 lows, showing that the large drop in early 2014 wasn’t an anomaly.
What You Can Do
See how you can customize your candidate sourcing strategy for any market.
Pursuing more in-depth insight? Use our Recruiting Effectiveness Dashboard to ensure your recruiters effectively bring the best talent to your organization (requires CEB Recruiting Leadership Council membership).
Q4
20
09
Q2
2010
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
2011
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
20
12
Q1 2
013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
20
14
Q1 2
015
Q2
2015
10%
30%
50%
���
44.9% Passive
24.6% Active
30.4% Neutral
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 9
So
uth
Ko
rea
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Ital
y
Mex
ico
Au
stra
lia
Ch
ina
Bra
zil
New
Zea
lan
d
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
No
rdic
Reg
ion
b
Fra
nce
Sp
ain
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Can
ada
Jap
an
Ger
man
y
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Ru
ssia
Bel
giu
m a
nd
th
e N
eth
erla
nd
s
Ind
ia
Sin
gap
ore
Ind
on
esia
Mal
aysi
a an
d
the
Ph
ilip
pin
es
So
uth
Afr
ica
Global Job-Seeking Activity Up Compared to Last YearActive–Passive Score: Q2 2015a
More Active
Neutral
More Passive
Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2013–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Active–Passive Score is an index calculated from a battery of eight questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and converted to a 100-point scale, with higher
values indicating more active job-search activity.b The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.c Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates the change was not significant. This value is determined by response count
and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.
Significant Change No Significant Change
DefinitionThe Active–Passive Score measures the extent to which employed individuals are inclined to and demonstrate effort to look for new jobs.
25.0
45.0
65.0
59.4
55.8
52.549.9 49.3 49.1
46.4 46.4 45.6
42.8 42.7 42.740.8 39.8 39.4 39.0
37.9 37.836.5 36.4 35.5 34.6
33.431.9
Year-Over-Year Change (Index Change)
0.2 8.2 0.5 (1.7) 2.5 3.5 (6.9) 4.2 (0.5) 4.0 1.9 3.2 1.7 (2.3) (2.8) 3.6 1.4 2.3 (5.9) (8.4) (5.3) 2.5 1.7 2.1
Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (Index Change)c
(0.1) 3.3 (1.2) (4.8) 2.7 (4.1) (4.4) 0.8 (3.2) (2.4) (1.5) 1.6 (4.7) (3.2) (2.8) 2.6 (5.4) (4.4) (6.7) (4.6) 0.3 (2.7) (2.9) (4.3)
International Average = 42.7
Significant Change
No Significant Change
40.8
Brazil, Canada and the United States see job-seeking activity drop an average of 7.1 index points since last year, revealing a marked slow down in search activity in these markets.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 10
Use CEB TalentNeuron for Your Strategic Workforce PlanningApply big data and decision science to plan, source, and optimize global talent.
BIG DATA ENGINE ACTIONABLE DECISIONS
1,000+ Cities in 100 Countries
100 Million Knowledge Workers
75,000 Companies
10,000+ Universities
4,500 Skills
Contact us to learn more.
Phone: +1-866-913-6447 | E-Mail: [email protected] | Website: cebglobal.com/talent-neuron
“ Where can I find critical talent?”
“ Where do I have a competitive advantage?”
“ How can I optimize talent costs?”
The largest amount of talent data is processed for your context.
Talent
Location
Competition
Talent ■ Roles ■ Jobs ■ Skills ■ Job Domains
Location ■ Countries ■ States ■ Cities ■ Metropolitan Statistical Areas
Competition ■ Industries ■ Companies
11© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN
48
Average Time to Fill a Vacancy Is Increasing GloballyBecause we believe in great ideas, we will feature the best of CEB TalentNeuron’s analytics and decision support to help you make informed decisions for your global workforce.
Number of Days to Fill a Mobile Developer Position
Worldwide, the average time it took to fill a Mobile Developer position was 45 days in Q2 2014 and 55 days in Q2 2015.Source: CEB analysis.
33.3%Q2 2014: 48Q2 2015: 64
1.6%Q2 2014: 64Q2 2015: 65
36.4%Q2 2014: 33Q2 2015: 45
21.1%Q2 2014: 38Q2 2015: 46
24.4%Q2 2014: 41Q2 2015: 51
4.9%Q2 2014: 41Q2 2015: 43
15.5%Q2 2014: 58Q2 2015: 67
13.9%Q2 2014: 36Q2 2015: 41
13.9%Q2 2014: 51Q2 2015: 58
19.2%Q2 2014: 52Q2 2015: 62
11.4%Q2 2014: 44Q2 2015: 49
5.9%Q2 2014: 51Q2 2015: 48
87.1%Q2 2014: 31Q2 2015: 58
92.0%Q2 2014: 25Q2 2015: 48
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Labor Market 12
The Top 10 Reasons Employees Join New Companies Do Not Change from Last QuarterPercentage of Employees Who Rank the Driver Among the Top Five Attributes Influencing Selection of a Potential EmployerGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q2 2015
Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.
10 Most Commonly Cited Attraction Drivers by Employees Worldwide
Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity
Man
ager
Qu
alit
y
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Hea
lth
Ben
efits
Vac
atio
n
Ret
irem
ent
Ben
efits
Sta
bili
ty
Res
pec
t
“Gre
at E
mp
loye
r” R
eco
gn
itio
n
Fu
ture
Car
eer
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Eth
ics
and
Inte
gri
ty
Tech
no
log
y L
evel
Env
iro
nm
enta
l Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Gro
wth
Rat
e
Em
po
wer
men
t
Mar
ket
Po
siti
on
Incl
usi
on
an
d D
iver
sity
Co
wo
rker
Qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
Pre
stig
e
Wo
rk–L
ife B
alan
ce
Job
–In
tere
sts
Alig
nm
ent
Cam
arad
erie
Rec
og
nit
ion
Bu
sin
ess
Trav
el
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Pro
du
ct o
r S
ervi
ce Q
ual
ity
Ind
ust
ry D
esir
abili
ty
Fo
rmal
ity
of
Wo
rk E
nvir
on
men
t
Mer
ito
crac
y
So
cial
Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Org
aniz
atio
n S
ize
Wel
l-K
no
wn
Pro
du
ct B
ran
d
Co
lleg
ial W
ork
Env
iro
nm
ent
Ris
k Ta
kin
g
Peo
ple
Man
agem
ent
Lo
cati
on
Inn
ova
tive
Wo
rk
Sen
ior
Lea
der
ship
Rep
uta
tio
n
0%
25%
50%
Although organizations invest a lot in attributes such as “Great Employer” recognition and social responsibility, these are top priorities for relatively few employees.
Critical for engagement, performance, and retention, “people” drivers are less vital for attracting employees.
Lev
el o
f Im
pac
t
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attraction 13
Career Opportunities with a New Organization May Retain, But Are Less Likely to Attract US Employees Top 10 Attraction Drivers for Select Countries and Regions, Q2 2015 Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Potential Candidates Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Attributes When Considering an Employer
RA
NK
Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States
1 Compensation (48.3%)
Work–Life Balance (59.2%)
Compensation (67.1%)
Work–Life Balance (38.1%)
Work–Life Balance (44.8%)
Work–Life Balance (53.3%)
Compensation (54.3%)
2Work–Life Balance (37.6%)
Location (44.6%)
Development Opportunity (34.7%)
+4 Respect (29.3%)
Compensation (34.2%)
Location (47.4%)
Work–Life Balance (42.5%)
3 Stability (34.5%) +1 Stability
(40.2%)
Future Career Opportunity (32.4%)
+2Future Career Opportunity (28.9%)
Stability (32.2%) +1 Respect
(32.8%) +1 Location (41.2%)
4 Respect (31.3%) -1 Respect
(36.6%)Stability (30.7%) -2 Growth Rate
(28.7%) +1Future Career Opportunity (30.9%)
-1 Stability (31.7%) -1 Stability
(40.1%)
5 Location (30.4%)
Compensation (25.6%) +1
Work–Life Balance (27.4%)
-2 Stability (26.9%) -1
Health Benefits (27.9%)
Compensation (25.2%)
Health Benefits (39.0%)
6Future Career Opportunity (22.7%)
+1Ethics and Integrity (24.2%)
-1 Respect (25.2%) -2 Compensation
(26.0%)Respect (27.6%)
Future Career Opportunity (23.2%)
Respect (28.4%)
7Development Opportunity (20.9%)
-1Future Career Opportunity (21.0%)
Health Benefits (23.9%)
Location (22.5%)
Location (24.8%)
Vacation (23.2%) +2
Retirement Benefits (26.0%)
8 Vacation (17.9%)
Recognition (16.8%)
Vacation (18.9%) +1
Development Opportunity (21.4%)
+1People Management (21.1%)
Recognition (20.2%)
Ethics and Integrity (24.4%)
9Ethics and Integrity (17.8%)
Development Opportunity (16.8%)
+3Retirement Benefits (17.2%)
+1 Recognition (20.6%) +1
Development Opportunity (20.4%)
+1People Management (17.7%)
+1 Vacation (22.1%)
10Health Benefits (17.0%)
Job-Interests Alignment (14.9%)
-1 Location (16.9%) +1 Innovative
Work (20.1%) -2Ethics and Integrity (19.1%)
+1Retirement Benefits (17.2%)
-3Future Career Opportunity (17.0%)
Q2 2015 n = 22,972 (Global); 1,001 (Australia); 993 (China); 1,000 (India); 1,984 (Southeast Asia); 1,506 (United Kingdom); 2,299 (United States).Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.
Note: The top drivers of attraction by country are calculated by asking survey respondents to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework that they consider most important when evaluating a new job. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attraction in that country or region.
a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.
Despite constantly being the most important attribute, compensation has diminished in rank recently. In Australia, India, and the United Kingdom, compensation is not among the top three attributes potential employees look for when selecting a new employer.
Why are employees in the United States ranking future career opportunities so low? Find out in our new study: The New Path Forward.
What You Can Do
The most recent edition of CHRO Quarterly Magazine focuses on how to build growth-based career cultures that create value for both employees and the organization.
Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™
CHRO Quarterly
Third Quarter 2015
A Magazine for Chief Human Resources Officers
Mobilize Leaders to Keep New Growth Strategies (and Leaders’ Careers) on Track
The Career Path Is Dead! Long Live Careers!
The Right Way to Brand Your Organization Using Growth-Based Careers
What Successful HR Professionals Do
Creating a Compelling Employment Value Proposition
In This Issue
Career Paths
Voice of the CHRO
Deb YatesSenior Vice President of Human Resources at RB
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attraction 14
Employee Engagement ModelEmployee engagement is the pride, energy, and optimism that fuels employees’ discretionary effort and intent to stay.
What You Can Do
Use your membership to align employee engagement with business strategy.
Assess Engagement StrategicallyParticipate in our in-membership ClearAdvantage Check to assess not only the engagement of your workforce but also its impact on your unique business priorities.
Contact Us to Learn More
Phone: +1-866-913-6447
E-Mail: [email protected]
Source: CEB analysis.
Engagement Metrics This QuarterPercentage of Employees Indicating High Levels of:
Energy ■ Sense of urgency ■ Excitement and/or enthusiasm ■ Focus
52.3% overall
0.1 ppt. since Q1 2015
Optimism ■ Confidence in the future ■ Belief in progress
54.1% overall
0.5 ppt. since Q1 2015
Pride ■ Identification with company ■ Recommending the company
56.6% overall
0.5 ppt. since Q1 2015
ALIGN
MEN
TAG
ILITY
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 15
34.5% Intent to Stay
18.3% Discretionary Effort
Globally, Intent to Stay Increases; Discretionary Effort Shows No Change
Q4
20
09
Q2
2010
Q3
20
10
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
20
11
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
20
12
Q4
20
12
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
20
13
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q1
2015
Q4
20
14
Q3
20
14
Discretionary EffortEmployee willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty, such as helping others with heavy workloads, volunteering for additional duties, and looking for ways to perform the job more efficiently
Intent to StayAn employee’s desire to stay with the organization, based on whether he or she intends to look for a new job within a year, frequently thinks of quitting, has actively been looking for a new job, or has taken steps such as placing phone calls and sending out résumés
Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.
Q2
2015
40%
20%
0%
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 16
Effort in Latin and North America Surges; Europe Continues a Downward Trend Originating in 2013Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort, by Region
Q4
20
09
Q2
2010
Q3
20
10
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
20
11
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
20
12
Q4
20
12
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
20
13
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2015
Q1
2015
Q4
20
14
Q3
20
14
Q2
2014
35.0%
20.0%
5.0%
17.7%
18.2%
14.9%
10.4%
21.0%
Q2 2015 n = 1,365 (Latin America); 5,648 (North America); 1,818 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,603 (Europe); 3,592 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
4.7 ppt.
0.0 ppt.
(1.4) ppt.
0.9 ppt.
32.2% Latin America
26.0% North America
16.2% Europe
12.7% Asia
21.6% Australia and New Zealand
Effort in Asia and Europe shows signs of a slight decrease this quarter; the gap between high and low effort has widened significantly. For a more in-depth look into this data, please contact us.
Employees in Latin America report the sharpest increase in discretionary effort since 2010. This comes at a time when economies in Latin American are losing strength and growth projections are timid. Thirty-two percent of employees in the region agree they are putting extra effort into their jobs this quarter.
Quarter-Over-QuarterPercentage Point
Change in Discretionary Effort Levels
(0.9) ppt.
What You Can Do
Use the Globalization Portal to better engage employees in the different regions of your business. CHROs can use the resources in this portal to:
■ Hone improvements in their own global HR processes,
■ Direct their team to take action on the latest trends, and
■ Use and distribute worldwide best practices to lead, manage, and work across time zones.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 17
Employees in Europe Fear the Job Market—Likelihood to Stay in Seat Is at an All-Time HighPercentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Intent to Stay, by Region
50.0%
30.0%
10.0%
11.5%
23.5%
Q2 2015 n = 1,365 (Latin America); 5,648 (North America); 1,818 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,603 (Europe); 3,592 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
(0.3) ppt.
0.7 ppt.
5.3 ppt.
40.1% North America 0.0 ppt.
48.8% Europe
(0.9) ppt.
38.1% Latin America
35.2% Australia and New Zealand
19.4% Asia
Employees in all other regions except Europe show little change in their intent-to-stay levels. Employees in both Asia and ANZ showed peak levels of intent to stay in 2014, but these regions have since reported a decrease over the past year.
27.5%
29.9%
What You Can Do
With more employees planning to stay, make sure they know the path forward so careers do not stall at your organization.
Attend The New Path Forward: Creating Compelling Career Paths for Employees and Organizations to learn how the best organizations design careers around high-value opportunities, target passive internal job candidates, expand career conversations beyond the manager, and offer employees job security by making them more employable.
Quarter-Over-QuarterPercentage Point
Change in Discretionary Effort Levels
27.9%
Q4
20
09
Q2
2010
Q3
20
10
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
20
11
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
20
12
Q4
20
12
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
20
13
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2015
Q1
2015
Q4
20
14
Q3
20
14
Q2
2014
Intent-to-stay levels among employees in Europe witnessed a sharp increase—this is the first time since 2013 there has been such a high likelihood for employees to stay in their current jobs.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 18
Get the Most from Your Hardest WorkersEighteen percent of the workforce is exerting high levels of discretionary effort, and more than half of them are likely to stay in seat.
Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort, Q2 2015
High Discretionary Effort
Neutral or Low Discretionary Effort
Distribution of Intent to Stay for Global Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Q2 2015
6.1% Low
6.3% Somewhat Low
19.3% Neutral
13.8% Somewhat High
54.6% High
Q2 2015 n = 22,972.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.
Q2 2015 n = 4,210 employees with high discretionary effort.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.
Note: Pie does not total 100% due to rounding.
81.7%
18.3%
What You Can Do
Read our issue of the CHRO Quarterly Magazine to learn how to align employee engagement efforts with corporate strategy and how 3M’s head of HR uses engagement to drive innovation.
Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™
Cut Through the Communication Permafrost: Aligning Employees with Corporate Strategy
The Value of Employee Engagement Is Cloudy: Learn How to Make It Clear Again
In This Issue
Employee Engagement
CHRO Quarterly
Second Quarter 2015
Voice of the CHRO
Marlene McGrathSenior Vice President of Human Resources at 3M
Drive Returns on Employee Engagement Investments
A Magazine for Chief Human Resources Officers
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Engagement 19
0%
20%
40%
0%
20%
40%
��
Sen
ior
Lea
der
ship
Rep
uta
tio
n
Fo
rmal
ity
of
Wo
rk E
nvir
on
men
t
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Hea
lth
Ben
efits
Vac
atio
n
Ret
irem
ent
Ben
efits
Sta
bili
ty
Res
pec
t
Env
iro
nm
enta
l Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Fu
ture
Car
eer
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Eth
ics
and
Inte
gri
ty
Tech
no
log
y L
evel
“Gre
at E
mp
loye
r” R
eco
gn
itio
n
Gro
wth
Rat
e
So
cial
Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Mar
ket
Po
siti
on
Incl
usi
on
an
d D
iver
sity
Co
wo
rker
Qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
Pre
stig
e
Job
–In
tere
sts
Alig
nm
ent
Rec
og
nit
ion
Lev
el o
f Im
pac
t
Bu
sin
ess
Trav
el
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Pro
du
ct o
r S
ervi
ce Q
ual
ity
Ind
ust
ry D
esir
abili
ty
Mer
ito
crac
y
Em
po
wer
men
t
Org
aniz
atio
n S
ize
Wel
l-K
no
wn
Pro
du
ct B
ran
d
Co
lleg
ial W
ork
Env
iro
nm
ent
Ris
k Ta
kin
g
Peo
ple
Man
agem
ent
Lo
cati
on
Inn
ova
tive
Wo
rk
Man
ager
Qu
alit
y
Future Career Opportunities Remain Crucial and the Top Reason Employees Leave Their JobsPercentage of Departing Employees Who Rank the Driver Among the Top Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous JobsGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q2 2015
10 Most Commonly Cited Attrition Drivers by Employees Globally
Q2 2015 n = 12,403.Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey; CEB 2015 Departure View Exit Survey.
Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity
Cam
arad
erie
Wo
rk–L
ife B
alan
ce
When joining an organization, new employees are not particularly influenced by “people” drivers. However, these factors constantly figure among the top five reasons why employees leave their current organizations.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attrition 20
The Regional Volatility of Attrition Drivers ContinuesTop 10 Attrition Drivers for Select Countries or Regions, Q2 2015Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Departing Employees Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous Jobs
Q2 2015 n = 12,403 (Global); 615 (Australia); 327 (China); 738 (India); 875 (Southeast Asia); 505 (United Kingdom); 8,398 (United States).Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey; CEB 2015 Departure View Exit Survey.
Note: The top drivers of attrition by country are calculated by asking respondents to our Departure View Exit Survey and newly hired respondents to our Global Labor Market Survey to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework with which they were most dissatisfied while at their former employer. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attrition in that country or region.
a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.
RA
NK
Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States
1Future Career Opportunity 38.8%
Future Career Opportunity 45.7%
+2Future Career Opportunity 48.8%
Growth Rate 40.9% +2
Future Career Opportunity 37.4%
Future Career Opportunity 39.7%
Future Career Opportunity 40.9%
2 Compensation 36.2%
People Management 35.6%
-1 Compensation 46.8%
Future Career Opportunity 37.9%
-1 Compensation 36.5% +1
People Management 36.8%
+1 Compensation 37.0%
3People Management 33.2%
+1 Recognition 31.1% -1
Development Opportunity 43.2%
+2 Recognition 34.0% +1
People Management 35.1%
-1 Recognition 36.7% -1
People Management 34.7%
4Development Opportunity 29.5%
+4Work–Life Balance 29.9%
People Management 32.2%
-1 Compensation 31.0% +2
Development Opportunity 31.7%
+2Manager Quality 31.9%
Manager Quality 31.0%
5Manager Quality 28.3%
-2Development Opportunity 29.4%
+1Work–Life Balance 30.4%
+3Manager Quality 27.5%
-3Work–Life Balance 28.1%
-1Development Opportunity 30.7%
+3Development Opportunity 28.8%
6Work–Life Balance 26.8%
Respect 29.1% -1 Recognition
26.3% +1Work–Life Balance 25.7%
-1Manager Quality 26.1%
+1Work–Life Balance 27.5%
-1Work–Life Balance 28.0%
7 -1 Recognition 26.7%
Compensation 26.8%
Respect 24.5% -3
Development Opportunity 24.8%
Recognition 25.8% -2 Compensation
26.9% -1 Respect 27.1%
8 +1 Respect 26.1% -3
Manager Quality 26.1%
Manager Quality 19.9%
-2People Management 23.9%
+3 Respect 22.9%
Respect 24.4% -1 Recognition
24.7%
9 Stability 18.5%
Stability 18.4%
Job-Interests Alignment 19.1%
Stability 21.3% -1 Growth Rate
20.6%Location 22.1%
Stability 18.2%
10 +1Job-Interests Alignment 15.7%
Location 17.6% +4 Location
18.0%Location 20.1% +2 Stability
18.7%Stability 16.6%
Growth Rate 16.0%
What You Can Do
Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our in-membership exit survey resource, Departure View.
Now you can survey departing employees and receive detailed feedback on their reasons for leaving, new job status, areas of dissatisfaction, and likelihood to recommend your organization.
Contact us to learn more: HR.SurveyRequests@ cebglobal.com
Lack of future opportunities emerges as the main reason why employees are leaving their organizations. Approximately 40%–50% of the workforce in most regions is dissatisfied with this attribute.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attrition 21
Although Decreasing This Quarter, Compensation Switching Premium Remains Above 15% Global Compensation-Switching PremiumPercent Change Expected in Total Compensation
Q2 2015 n = 7,206.Source: CEB 2011–2015 Departure View Exit Surveys.
DefinitionThe compensation-switching premium measures departed employees’ anticipated compensation changes at their new organizations.
What You Can Do
Translate business strategy into workforce strategy with step-by-step guidance to proactively retain talent with pay, even if you can’t give an increase, by improving pay perceptions.
15.6%
16.8%
14.8%
15.0%
14.8%
15.7%
14.4%
15.1%
14.8%
15.1%
14.1%
15.0%
14.8%
15.4%
15.7%
15.2%
13.0%
15.0%
17.0%
13.0%
15.0%
17.0%
Q3
20
11
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
20
12
Q4
20
12
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
20
13
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q1
2015
Q4
20
14
Q3
20
14
Q2
2015
Switching premiums tend to decline in the first quarter of the year and rise in the second quarter. This trend reversed going into 2015. However, the switching premium has remained above 15% for the past three quarters, indicating a potential rise in the later market.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attrition 22
Year-Over-Year Change (ppt.)
(1.0) (3.3) 0.2 (0.4) (1.6) (0.4) (1.0) 0.1 0.6 0.1 (0.2) (0.2) 0.4 0.3 (3.3) (0.7) 0.0 (0.1) 1.0 (0.8) (0.9) (1.5) 0.1 1.3
(2.0%)
6.0%
14.0%
(2.0%)
6.0%
14.0%
12.2%
10.6%9.8%
9.5%
7.8%
6.5%
4.4% 4.3%4.0% 3.8%
2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.3% 2.1% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.3%0.9% 0.7% 0.6%
(0.1%)
Worldwide, Merit Pay Expectations Changed Minimally Stark differences remain between merit increases expected by employees in developing economies (e.g., India, Brazil, Indonesia) and the more developed economic powers (e.g., United States, Germany, France).
Employee Expectations for Merit Pay, Q2 2015By Country or Region
International Average = 4.3%
Q2 2015 n = 22,972. Source: CEB 2015 Global Labor Market Survey.a The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.b Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates that the change was not significant. This value is determined by response
count and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.
Can
ada
Fra
nce
No
rdic
Reg
ion
a
Bra
zil
Jap
an
Ital
y
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Un
ited
Sta
tes
So
uth
Afr
ica
Mal
aysi
a an
d
the
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Ru
ssia
Ind
on
esia
New
Zea
lan
d
Au
stra
lia
Ger
man
y
Ch
ina
Bel
giu
m a
nd
th
e N
eth
erla
nd
s
Sin
gap
ore
Mex
ico
Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (ppt.)b
(0.4) (2.5) 2.0 0.4 (1.1) (0.7) (0.4) (0.2) 2.4 0.4 (0.8) 0.1 (0.2) (0.2) (2.4) (0.2) (0.6) 0.0 0.6 (0.1) (0.1) (0.2) 0.9 1.4
What You Can Do
CHROs: Help your HR business partners and generalists build the fundamental compensation knowledge needed to address basic pay questions with confidence and accuracy.
Significant Change
No Significant Change
3.8%
Ind
ia
Inte
rnat
iona
l
So
uth
Ko
rea
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Sp
ain
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Attrition 23
Appendix
Discretionary Effort Trends by Function • 25
Intent-to-Stay Trends by Function • 26
Discretionary Effort Trends by Industry • 27
Intent-to-Stay Trends by Industry • 28
Definitions of EVP Attributes • 29
24© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN
Discretionary Effort Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Function
Source: CEB 2011–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.a Corporate includes corporate legal, strategy, and real estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.
Function Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Quarter-Over-
Quarter Change
Communications 12.6% 18.0% 19.8% 15.2% 16.8% 15.5% 16.6% 17.3% 15.1% 18.6% 17.2% 15.6% 12.0% 15.3% 13.0% 17.1% 18.3% 1.2%
Corporate a 25.3% 23.5% 25.3% 25.7% 23.7% 24.6% 23.5% 24.1% 25.8% 27.5% 26.0% 23.9% 21.4% 21.7% 20.1% 23.4% 23.7% 0.3%
Customer Contact 20.4% 18.6% 19.0% 20.1% 17.7% 16.8% 18.0% 18.9% 18.5% 20.6% 19.8% 20.8% 16.9% 17.8% 19.3% 18.9% 17.5% (1.4%)
Finance and Accounting 19.5% 15.0% 18.9% 19.5% 19.5% 18.5% 17.7% 16.2% 18.3% 21.1% 19.6% 19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 17.8% 18.3% 18.1% (0.2%)
HR b 24.0% 19.2% 19.8% 22.4% 20.9% 23.4% 21.7% 22.6% 23.1% 24.0% 21.8% 20.3% 21.5% 20.2% 20.2% 19.9% 20.2% 0.3%
IT 15.5% 16.4% 17.1% 17.2% 17.9% 18.2% 16.0% 16.5% 18.9% 18.4% 19.9% 17.6% 18.4% 16.6% 17.5% 15.9% 17.3% 1.4%
Manufacturing 17.0% 17.8% 16.8% 18.0% 16.2% 17.4% 15.3% 14.3% 17.5% 15.9% 15.5% 16.1% 15.8% 15.1% 16.1% 17.9% 15.4% (2.5%)
Marketing and Market Research 19.1% 19.7% 17.5% 18.5% 14.8% 17.9% 11.7% 15.8% 18.0% 17.8% 18.0% 18.6% 18.9% 17.1% 19.4% 22.1% 18.5% (3.6%)
Operations 23.3% 21.5% 21.2% 22.6% 22.3% 22.9% 20.6% 20.7% 22.0% 23.2% 22.6% 22.4% 21.5% 20.1% 19.3% 21.4% 19.8% (1.7%)
Quality 18.8% 18.5% 17.4% 18.4% 16.2% 17.5% 18.8% 17.1% 20.4% 19.6% 19.5% 20.6% 17.9% 16.9% 17.9% 17.8% 16.6% (1.2%)
R&D and Engineering 14.8% 17.1% 15.2% 17.6% 17.5% 18.4% 16.1% 17.6% 17.1% 18.2% 17.1% 18.1% 17.0% 15.4% 16.2% 16.4% 16.5% 0.1%
Retail 23.1% 21.6% 23.8% 23.6% 22.7% 20.9% 23.6% 21.7% 19.5% 22.2% 23.3% 20.4% 21.4% 20.0% 20.2% 21.8% 20.7% (1.1%)
Sales 19.5% 17.6% 19.8% 19.7% 21.0% 19.4% 20.2% 18.7% 21.4% 18.8% 17.2% 18.4% 18.0% 17.9% 18.4% 17.9% 18.7% 0.8%
Supply Chain and Logistics 19.9% 17.7% 21.0% 21.5% 19.1% 20.0% 17.6% 18.4% 17.7% 16.5% 19.7% 21.5% 18.8% 18.9% 17.6% 19.6% 17.8% (1.8%)
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 25
Intent-to-Stay Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Function
Source: CEB 2011–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.a Corporate includes corporate legal, strategy, and real estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.
Function Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Quarter-Over-
Quarter Change
Communications 25.2% 33.2% 34.0% 30.7% 28.0% 28.2% 28.4% 26.8% 26.9% 29.1% 31.7% 34.5% 28.0% 28.5% 28.5% 29.7% 33.3% 3.5%
Corporate a 34.6% 35.3% 40.2% 37.0% 33.9% 39.0% 38.8% 38.6% 37.8% 39.0% 35.9% 42.1% 40.8% 36.3% 37.5% 42.4% 43.9% 1.4%
Customer Contact 28.8% 29.3% 30.4% 30.9% 29.2% 30.2% 31.1% 31.6% 32.2% 32.8% 32.2% 34.8% 33.7% 28.1% 31.7% 30.8% 30.6% (0.2%)
Finance and Accounting 32.9% 33.1% 31.7% 32.4% 33.7% 30.4% 33.5% 31.1% 31.4% 32.2% 33.6% 34.3% 36.1% 32.8% 33.9% 31.8% 35.0% 3.2%
HR b 29.6% 33.7% 35.3% 33.2% 32.8% 31.4% 33.7% 32.3% 38.5% 32.8% 32.2% 37.7% 39.1% 33.0% 33.5% 35.1% 35.1% 0.0%
IT 28.5% 25.7% 26.9% 26.0% 26.6% 25.7% 27.5% 25.9% 27.3% 29.5% 27.8% 31.5% 28.3% 26.5% 27.2% 28.0% 29.3% 1.3%
Manufacturing 30.7% 33.0% 32.3% 32.0% 32.1% 30.7% 31.3% 31.4% 34.0% 33.9% 30.0% 37.6% 35.5% 32.3% 30.6% 33.5% 32.9% (0.6%)
Marketing and Market Research 26.3% 23.4% 29.5% 25.8% 24.7% 26.2% 28.9% 26.5% 23.4% 27.5% 25.4% 29.4% 30.7% 26.2% 30.3% 28.1% 28.8% 0.7%
Operations 34.8% 37.3% 37.4% 36.9% 35.7% 35.6% 36.2% 38.8% 37.7% 37.9% 37.4% 40.5% 41.6% 38.3% 37.9% 39.2% 40.5% 1.3%
Quality 29.5% 34.8% 30.1% 33.0% 31.6% 31.0% 30.5% 32.0% 31.3% 33.2% 35.1% 39.0% 37.5% 34.8% 37.3% 32.5% 30.4% (2.0%)
R&D and Engineering 25.6% 28.4% 24.9% 28.4% 26.6% 29.3% 27.5% 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 26.6% 35.0% 32.3% 28.9% 29.8% 30.8% 31.0% 0.3%
Retail 29.0% 31.7% 31.5% 29.5% 30.0% 31.6% 30.8% 32.4% 31.3% 33.9% 35.0% 34.4% 34.5% 30.8% 30.2% 32.0% 35.4% 3.4%
Sales 29.4% 30.8% 31.4% 32.7% 33.0% 30.8% 32.1% 33.1% 34.7% 31.8% 32.6% 36.0% 35.9% 31.4% 35.1% 35.7% 35.1% (0.6%)
Supply Chain and Logistics 33.9% 33.5% 39.4% 36.5% 33.9% 37.8% 34.0% 32.7% 34.1% 34.5% 34.8% 39.2% 38.2% 36.0% 30.1% 37.0% 32.7% (4.3%)
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 26
Discretionary Effort Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Industry
Source: CEB 2011–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.
Industry Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Quarter-Over-
Quarter Change
Construction 20.6% 19.3% 18.6% 19.4% 17.5% 19.4% 17.3% 17.7% 17.7% 18.0% 19.1% 17.2% 18.1% 16.9% 14.9% 16.4% 16.6% 0.2%
Consumer Goods 23.0% 17.2% 18.5% 22.3% 17.0% 20.1% 21.6% 17.5% 19.0% 20.9% 19.0% 21.9% 20.7% 18.7% 20.2% 23.4% 20.0% (3.4%)
Education 21.0% 23.4% 21.8% 22.8% 21.9% 22.1% 20.9% 21.4% 22.7% 24.4% 22.8% 23.2% 19.2% 20.6% 19.6% 19.2% 20.2% 0.9%
Financial Services and Insurance 18.9% 17.8% 19.2% 19.5% 18.7% 18.9% 19.7% 18.5% 20.7% 21.2% 20.3% 19.8% 18.4% 17.8% 16.6% 17.7% 18.3% 0.6%
Government 20.5% 17.1% 17.7% 17.6% 15.1% 14.0% 14.4% 18.9% 20.0% 21.1% 19.5% 20.1% 19.8% 17.0% 17.9% 17.3% 17.3% 0.0%
Health Care 23.3% 22.2% 20.4% 22.2% 22.3% 21.9% 19.3% 22.2% 20.7% 20.3% 21.1% 20.7% 19.2% 21.3% 17.5% 19.5% 19.3% (0.3%)
Leisure and Hospitality 21.7% 21.1% 17.9% 19.0% 18.1% 22.3% 18.9% 17.8% 20.5% 21.8% 22.2% 22.6% 19.5% 17.8% 18.7% 18.4% 18.7% 0.3%
Manufacturing 18.1% 18.0% 18.2% 19.4% 18.7% 19.0% 16.4% 16.4% 19.7% 18.9% 18.4% 18.1% 17.5% 15.5% 17.9% 17.9% 17.5% (0.5%)
Professional Services 19.1% 19.2% 20.4% 19.7% 20.0% 19.7% 17.3% 20.8% 19.6% 21.2% 20.0% 20.5% 19.8% 17.7% 18.3% 20.2% 19.7% (0.5%)
Retail 22.4% 20.7% 21.9% 22.8% 22.3% 20.1% 21.4% 19.7% 20.5% 20.2% 21.3% 18.8% 19.4% 20.1% 19.1% 20.1% 17.8% (2.3%)
Technology 16.6% 16.6% 17.8% 16.8% 18.2% 17.8% 16.4% 15.2% 17.6% 18.5% 17.5% 16.4% 16.5% 15.6% 16.9% 15.8% 16.8% 1.0%
Travel and Transportation 18.4% 16.7% 18.7% 20.2% 19.6% 16.5% 17.5% 19.3% 16.2% 19.3% 20.4% 20.1% 16.2% 19.7% 15.0% 17.8% 19.7% 1.9%
Utilities 17.1% 15.2% 17.0% 16.9% 14.7% 17.7% 15.0% 16.9% 15.4% 16.8% 12.6% 16.1% 15.2% 16.5% 18.0% 14.7% 14.2% (0.5%)
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 27
Intent-to-Stay Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Industry
Industry Q2 2011
Q3 2011
Q4 2011
Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Quarter-Over-
Quarter Change
Construction 30.0% 30.4% 30.5% 28.4% 30.1% 30.7% 31.6% 30.2% 31.2% 31.3% 32.4% 32.8% 34.5% 31.4% 32.0% 31.4% 32.9% 1.5%
Consumer Goods 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 31.6% 30.7% 32.2% 30.5% 31.7% 29.8% 30.7% 30.8% 36.4% 37.2% 28.7% 32.6% 32.6% 31.4% (1.2%)
Education 36.8% 38.0% 37.0% 36.9% 34.9% 34.6% 35.7% 39.0% 38.7% 38.7% 39.5% 42.6% 40.5% 37.2% 36.8% 36.0% 37.4% 1.4%
Financial Services and Insurance 31.1% 32.1% 31.2% 31.3% 28.8% 31.2% 32.3% 29.9% 31.0% 33.6% 29.6% 35.6% 33.9% 30.7% 31.8% 33.0% 34.1% 1.1%
Government 39.7% 39.3% 42.3% 41.9% 40.1% 39.8% 41.7% 38.8% 41.6% 38.8% 40.7% 42.0% 43.3% 39.1% 41.3% 38.2% 42.3% 4.0%
Health Care 38.7% 36.7% 36.9% 38.2% 34.5% 35.0% 36.2% 37.1% 37.6% 37.2% 37.9% 42.9% 40.5% 40.3% 38.7% 36.8% 36.6% (0.2%)
Leisure and Hospitality 25.0% 30.2% 25.0% 29.3% 28.5% 27.1% 28.3% 27.1% 27.8% 33.1% 28.0% 28.4% 31.1% 27.8% 27.2% 32.0% 32.5% 0.6%
Manufacturing 29.3% 28.9% 30.2% 30.7% 29.1% 30.1% 30.7% 30.6% 33.2% 29.5% 32.5% 34.6% 32.6% 29.0% 31.0% 31.3% 33.6% 2.3%
Professional Services 33.7% 31.4% 33.8% 32.2% 33.1% 33.8% 32.2% 33.5% 31.4% 32.6% 31.4% 38.3% 35.6% 31.1% 33.4% 36.1% 37.9% 1.9%
Retail 29.0% 31.1% 30.6% 29.1% 30.8% 30.3% 31.3% 32.9% 30.6% 31.2% 33.7% 32.7% 34.3% 30.1% 29.9% 32.4% 32.0% (0.4%)
Technology 26.6% 26.9% 28.0% 25.2% 27.0% 25.0% 26.2% 26.4% 27.8% 28.9% 24.1% 30.7% 27.8% 26.0% 26.7% 28.2% 28.7% 0.5%
Travel and Transportation 33.7% 34.3% 35.7% 34.7% 35.4% 36.1% 32.8% 37.6% 35.7% 34.1% 32.5% 38.1% 38.3% 35.3% 33.2% 35.5% 36.2% 0.7%
Utilities 38.7% 32.9% 35.7% 30.9% 31.0% 28.3% 32.5% 31.9% 33.6% 37.3% 31.5% 38.1% 37.4% 36.7% 34.3% 34.3% 34.2% (0.1%)
Source: CEB 2011–2015 Global Labor Market Surveys.
Note: Quarter-over-quarter changes calculated from unrounded data.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 28
Definitions of EVP AttributesOur EVP model comprises 38 attributes that drive attraction and retention.
Attribute Definition
Business Travel The amount of out-of-town business travel required by the job
Camaraderie Whether working for the organization provides opportunities to socialize with other employees
Collegial Work Environment Whether the work environment is team oriented and collaborative
Compensation The competitiveness of the job’s financial compensation package
Coworker Quality The quality of the coworkers in the organization
Customer Prestige The reputation of the clients and customers served in performing the job
Development Opportunity The developmental and educational opportunities provided by the jobs and organizations
Empowerment The level of involvement employees have in decisions that affect their jobs and careers
Environmental Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to environmental health and sustainability
Ethics and Integrity The organization’s commitment to ethics and integrity
Formality of Work Environment Whether the organization maintains a casual work environment
Future Career Opportunity The future career opportunities provided by organization
“Great Employer” Recognition Whether the organization’s reputation as an employer has been rated highly by a third-party organization
Growth Rate The growth rate of the organization’s business
Health Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s health benefits
Inclusion and Diversity The organization’s level of commitment to having an inclusive and diverse workforce
We compiled a master list of more than 200 employment characteristics and evaluated it for similarity, distinctiveness, universality, and overall ratability, which led to the consolidated list of 38 attributes. This final list can be grouped into five categories: rewards, opportunity, organization, work, and people.
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 29
Definitions of EVP Attributes (Continued)
Attribute Definition
Industry Desirability The desirability of the organization’s industry to the respondent
Innovative Work The opportunity provided by the job to work on innovative, leading-edge projects
Job–Interests Alignment Whether the job responsibilities match an employee’s interests
Level of Impact The level of direct impact the job has on business outcomes
Location The location of the jobs offered by the organization
Manager Quality The quality of the organization’s managers
Market Position The competitive position the organization holds in its market(s)
Meritocracy Whether employees are rewarded and promoted based on their achievements
Organization Size The size of the organization’s workforce
People Management The organization’s reputation for managing people
Product or Service Quality The organization’s product- or service-quality reputation
Recognition The amount of recognition the organization provides employees
Respect The degree of respect the organization shows employees
Retirement Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s retirement benefits
Risk Taking The amount of risk the organization encourages employees to take
Senior Leadership Reputation The quality of the organization’s senior leadership
Social Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to social responsibility (e.g., community service, philanthropy)
Stability The level of stability of the organization and the job
Technology Level The extent to which the organization invests in modern technology and equipment
Vacation The amount of holiday or vacation time employees earn annually
Well-Known Product Brand The level of awareness in the marketplace for the product’s brand
Work–Life Balance The extent to which the job allows employees to balance their work and other interests
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN Appendix 30
CEB Corporate Leadership Council™
cebglobal.com
+1-571-303-3000 (North America)
+44-(0)20-7632-6000 (Europe, Middle East, and Africa)
+61-(0)2-9321-7500 (Asia–Pacific)
CHRO Insight Series
CHRO Quarterly Magazine
Business insights and implications for heads of the HR on leading their organization and the HR function, featuring personal stories from leading HR executives
HR News Report
Quarterly functional insights on advancements, challenges, and opportunities in HR categorized by 10 key functional areas
Global Workforce Insights Report
Quarterly workforce insights on global and country-level changes about what attracts, engages, and retains employees, based on data from more than 18,000 employees in over 36 countries
CHRO Video Series
Personal insights from leading heads of HR on the most important relationships and activities CHROs must manage
© 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC2305415SYN