SPONSORED BY

Welcome to this special Best of August issue of Talent Edge Weekly, featuring 16 of the most popular articles and resources from the month!

First, a shout-out to Marisa Pereira, VP of People & Organization at Storyblok, for referring new subscribers to Talent Edge Weekly. Thank you, Marisa, for your support of this newsletter!

Not subscribed to Talent Edge Weekly? Subscribe here for free!  

PRESENTED BY Produgie

Accelerate Your Development Culture

Most organizations claim to prioritize their people’s development. However, a truly impactful development strategy hinges on creating a culture that genuinely values and supports continuous development.

Join Produgie for this FREE one-hour webinar, where you'll gain actionable insights and tools to effectively scale your team's development and nurture a culture that champions growth. Don’t miss out—reserve your spot today and begin transforming your team's development journey!

If you want to share your brand, product, or service with 37,000+ Talent Edge Weekly subscribers, learn how to become a sponsor.

THIS MONTH’S CONTENT

This special Best of August issue is organized into two sections:

📈 Trends. Research on work-from-home and hybrid work, moments that matter for in-office work, return-to-office mandates, AI at work, and ageism.

 🧰 Practices. Case studies on talent practices, talent planning worksheets, talent reviews, succession planning metrics, high-potential employees, performance management, re-recruiting former employees, quality of hire, board of directors and talent strategy, and data-driven decision-making.

This issue includes several bonus resources, news about company layoffs, and updates on Chief HR Officers hired or promoted in August.

✅ You can also view an abridged version, which includes only links and brief descriptions of the 16 resources.

📈 I. TRENDS

Research on work-from-home and hybrid work, moments that matter for in-office work, return-to-office mandates, AI at work, and ageism.

REMOTE AND HYBRID WORK

Above the Fray: What We Know About How WFH and Hybrid Affect Work | The Talent Strategy Group

Summarizes the emerging scientific research on WFH and hybrid work to help leaders make decisions based on facts versus opinion.

Over the past several months, I’ve shared research from the emerging scientific literature on remote and hybrid work to help leaders make more informed return-to-office (RTO) decisions. In this context, this new paper by Marc Effron significantly advances the discussion by anchoring the debate around work-from-office (WFO), work-from-home (WFH), and hybrid work in robust scientific evidence, moving beyond mere opinions. It dispels four common myths about WFO preferences, such as the misconception that CEOs who prefer WFO are control freaks or that RTO mandates are solely about real estate. The paper examines how different work arrangements impact five key areas: performance, creativity, innovation, work relationships, and collaboration. For instance, studies show mixed results on performance, with some indicating decreased productivity in WFH settings, especially in certain roles and industries, while others find little difference or even gains depending on the context. WFH may weaken work relationships and reduce employee networks, though this varies. Limited research on collaboration suggests a potential decline in quality in WFH settings. The article provides greater detail on each of the five outcomes. While research on WFO and WFH is still emerging, the more familiar HR practitioners are with scientific studies, the better they can influence business leaders to make decisions based on evidence rather than opinion or anecdotal information.

Read article

HYBRID WORK

Hybrid Work: How Leaders Build In-Person Moments That Matter | MIT Sloan Management Review

Covers how purpose-driven in-person interactions in hybrid work programs can be more effective than broad return-to-office mandates.

As leaders continue to make return-to-office (RTO) decisions in the best interest of their organizations and stakeholders, this new article shares ideas that may be of interest. It argues that blanket RTO mandates—broad, one-size-fits-all policies requiring all employees to return to the office for a set number of days each week without considering individual or team-specific needs and preferences—often face resistance, reduce productivity, and risk losing top talent. At the same time, “free-for-all approaches”—unstructured policies that leave it up to individual employees or managers to decide when and how often to come into the office—lead to a lack of coordination and potentially ineffective use of in-person work time. The article highlights four key moments where in-person interaction can provide an advantage, such as: 1) Team Development: Regular gatherings mixing business and social time to build deeper connections and engagement. 2) Onboarding and Training: Face-to-face interactions during onboarding and training to enhance relationship-building and cross-functional relationships. 3) New-Team Formation and Major-Initiative Kickoffs: In-person meetings for project kickoffs to help align goals, build trust, and establish operating norms. Ultimately, there is no “one size fits all” regarding RTO. Nonetheless, the ideas shared can help leaders consider various options to determine what works best for their organizations. As a bonus, I am resharing a Microsoft WorkLab article on this topic.

Read MIT Sloan article

RETURN TO OFFICE

Return to Office (RTO) Cheat Sheet on Organizations Announcing RTO Updates | Brian Heger

My updated summary sheet of a segment of organizations that have announced changes to their RTO guidelines.

Organizations continue to announce updates to their return-to-office (RTO) mandates, including increasing the number of required in-office days, restricting specific days for remote work, and incorporating workers’ compliance with RTO mandates into their performance reviews. A few recent RTO updates include: 1) Kohl’s (NYSE: KSS), which announced that beginning in October, corporate employees must return to the office for at least four days a week (Monday through Thursday). This policy applies to employees who live within 30 miles of the company’s headquarters. Employees returning to the office will also receive two “work from anywhere” weeks each year. 2) Salesforce (NYSE: CRM), where employees in sales, workplace services, data center engineering, and onsite support technicians under the Chief Information Officer must come to the office four to five days a week, effective October 1. Other departments, such as marketing, legal, and product teams, will be designated “office-flex,” requiring at least three days a week in the office. 3) THG (The Hut Group) (LON: THG) has mandated a five-day office return starting August 19, 2024. The new policy could even impact employees with a formal flexible working arrangement agreed upon as part of their employment contract. The link below includes my cheat sheet showing a sample of 17 organizations that have announced RTO updates this year.

 Access cheat sheet

AI IN THE WORKPLACE

5 Employee Fears of AI and How to Overcome Them | Gartner Business Quarterly 2Q24

Offers tactics to address the five key concerns employees have about AI, including its ethical use.

As organizations implement AI in the workplace, many strive to uphold the highest ethical standards, emphasizing individual rights, privacy, and non-discrimination. However, according to this Gartner article, more than three-quarters of employees doubt that their organization’s future use of AI will be ethical. This lack of trust stems from specific fears about how AI will be applied, including job displacement (AI might replace me or make my job harder, more complicated, or less interesting), reputational damage (my organization could use AI irresponsibly, harming our reputation), and data insecurity (AI solutions might put my personal data at risk). The article outlines ways to address 5 concerns employees have about AI. For example, IBM has mitigated reputational risk by expanding accountability beyond the executive team. IBM’s ethics and privacy team established a governance framework that used the company’s ethics principles to guide AI project owners and deputized AI ethics representatives within business units to oversee policy implementation. This formal policy has boosted employee trust in organizational accountability. Other ideas are discussed.

Read article

AI IN THE WORKPLACE

How Companies Can Take a Global Approach to AI Ethics | Harvard Business Review

Highlights the challenges of implementing AI ethics programs due to varying cultural contexts and emphasizes the need for a contextual global AI ethics model.

This article discusses the challenges of establishing AI ethics programs across diverse cultural contexts and underscores the importance of a global AI ethics model that accounts for these differences. It argues that many organizations overlook cultural variations in ethical considerations, leading to ineffective AI ethics policies. It points out that Western perspectives often dominate emerging global AI ethics standards, which can result in biases that inadequately represent diverse populations. To address this, the article outlines three key steps for developing a contextual AI ethics policy: 1) establishing global guiding principles, 2) setting up relevant regional teams, and 3) fostering continuous dialogue between global leadership and regional teams to adapt policies to local contexts. It highlights Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) as an example, where the company successfully implemented a global AI ethics model by involving local teams and building automated processes for continuous engagement. HPE’s compliance team created a matrix of principles that considered both global guidelines and region-specific regulations, allowing the company to navigate AI ethics complexities effectively across its global operations. Other ideas are discussed.

Read article

AGEISM IN THE WORKPLACE

Uncover the Ageism Hiding in Your Organization | MIT Sloan Management Review

Shares a five-part framework with 25 questions to identify if ageism practices exist in the workplace and determine necessary changes.

When new subscribers sign up for Talent Edge Weekly, they often request coverage on topics such as workforce planning, skills-based talent practices, remote work, succession planning, and performance management, to name a few. Recently, however, there has been a surge in requests to cover ageism in the workplace. In response, this new article introduces a five-component framework to help organizations identify and eliminate ageist practices. It includes 25 targeted questions across five key areas to uncover hidden ageism and offers specific examples. For instance, in the workplace practices category, questions include: 1) Do our recruitment and retention strategies effectively target older workers? 2) Are there robust safeguards against age discrimination in our HR processes? 3) Does our corporate culture genuinely welcome and value older employees? 4) Are our training programs adaptable to diverse learning styles and experiences? 5) Do our benefits and policies address the specific needs of older employees? Examples of ageist practices range from limiting leadership programs to younger employees to enforcing mandatory retirement policies regardless of an individual’s capabilities. Tackling these and other hidden biases is a critical step toward fostering an inclusive culture that not only combats ageism but also bridges talent gaps by leveraging the strengths and experience of older workers.

Read article

🧰 II. PRACTICES

Case studies on talent practices, talent planning worksheets, talent reviews, succession planning metrics, high-potential employees, performance management, re-recruiting former employees, quality of hire, board of directors and talent strategy, and data-driven decision-making.

HR AND WORKPLACE PRACTICES

5 Company Examples of Talent and Workforce Practices | Brian Heger

My one-page summary showcasing how 5 organizations have implemented various talent and workplace practices—from internal talent marketplaces to new ways of working.

Staying informed about how organizations implement various talent and workplace practices is crucial for inspiring improvements in our own approaches and learning from their experiences. However, with so many topics to explore, finding relevant case studies can be overwhelming. To help fellow practitioners navigate this landscape, I’ve created this one-page cheat sheet highlighting five distinct examples from Johnson & Johnson, Booz Allen Hamilton, IBM, Novartis, and AT&T. Each case study offers unique insights and practical examples of HR and workplace practices, such as AI and skills, internal talent marketplaces, AI in HR, mental health benefits, and new ways of working. For example, IBM's AI-powered AskHR digital assistant now handles 94% of HR FAQs worldwide, reducing task completion time by over 75%. AT&T optimized its tools, processes, and ways of working using employee survey feedback, saving 3.6 million hours and over $230 million over the past 3.5 years. Novartis found that normalizing discussions about colleagues' struggles, regardless of severity, increased participation in mental health support programs by up to 8%. This summary will help you quickly identify the examples most relevant to your interests. To access the source documents, click on the company logos in the PDF.

Access PDF

TALENT STRATEGY

Strategic Talent Planning Worksheets | Brian Heger

Includes 3 of my worksheets for creating a narrative that connects business strategy, talent needs, and talent actions.

In my article, Linking Talent Strategy with Business Strategy, I wrote about the critical importance of creating a talent strategy that aligns with and enables an organization’s business strategy. While the concept of linking the two may seem straightforward, the execution is often challenging. However, engaging in meaningful discussions with key stakeholders and asking pertinent questions can facilitate this connection. To assist in this process, I am sharing three worksheets designed to guide teams in thinking through various aspects of their organization’s business and talent strategy. These worksheets cover: 1) Business Strategy, which sets the business context by addressing the overall vision, business objectives, and potential scenarios, to name a few. 2) Talent Needs, exploring required capabilities and the roles and skills essential for executing the business strategy, etc. 3) Talent Actions, establishing diverse tactics (e.g., build, buy, borrow, bot, etc.) to address talent gaps. Resources like this (templates, worksheets, etc.) are never about the mechanics of completing templates; they are intended to spark conversations that can lead to better talent decisions and strategies that deliver value to organizational stakeholders. Use this resource if you feel it can support your efforts.

Access worksheets

TALENT REVIEWS

Talent Review Maturity Model Case Study | Human Capital Institute

A new paper on how executives, HR business partners, and talent management leaders can support talent reviews.

Many organizations conduct talent reviews to identify and develop employees with the potential to advance into larger, more complex roles. However, effective talent reviews require more than just the right tools and technology; they demand active engagement from key stakeholders. This white paper explores talent reviews through a case study of UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center), a world-renowned healthcare provider, and introduces a Talent Review Maturity Model. This model focuses on three key stakeholders: executives, HR business partners, and talent management leaders, outlining their roles and responsibilities to ensure active engagement throughout the process. Page 10 provides key questions for each stakeholder group to assess where their organization stands on the Talent Review Maturity Model. For example: Are executives challenging each other with different perspectives on talent, or merely observing? Are HR business partners acting as engaged contributors or just silent notetakers? Is there a consistent, strategic process in place for talent management leaders to support discussions on individual performance and potential? The paper also offers several other practical ideas for enhancing the talent review process. As a bonus, I am resharing my one-page editable worksheet to help practitioners evaluate aspects of their talent reviews.

Read paper

SUCCESSION PLANNING

Succession Planning Questions and Metrics | Brian Heger

My consolidated one-page cheat sheet with questions and metrics that can help organizations shape their succession practices.

This one-page PDF summarizes 11 succession planning (SP) questions and 11 SP metrics that can help organizations evaluate various aspects of their SP practices. Although I’ve shared these resources separately in previous issues of Talent Edge Weekly, I’ve consolidated them into this one-page cheat sheet for a more comprehensive view. While not exhaustive, the questions and metrics provide a solid foundation to build upon. Sample questions include: What is the purpose of our SP? Based on the purpose, what is the scope of our SP? Should we focus on roles at certain levels, critical roles regardless of level, or something else? Are there areas where SP will be based on ‘successor pools’—where similar roles share a pool of potential successors? If so, what are they? How do we prioritize successor development if an individual is on multiple succession plans? Some SP metrics listed are: the percentage of non-ready-now successors with a development plan, the percentage of successors deemed high retention risks, and the success rate of successors after assuming the role (e.g., at the one-year mark). I hope this cheat sheet proves to be a valuable resource as you work to strengthen your organization’s SP practices.

Access PDF

HIGH POTENTIAL METRICS

9 Example Metrics Related to High Potential Employees | Brian Heger

My cheat sheet of example metrics to assess how effectively an organization identifies, develops, and retains its future leaders.

Assessing the impact of an organization's talent review process on key outcomes is crucial for effective talent management. While talent reviews drive many results, a critical focus should be on high-potential (HiPo) employees—specifically, how well the process identifies, develops, and retains future leaders. Here is my one-page cheat sheet of nine example metrics related to HiPos. These metrics might not be an exact fit for your organization, but they offer a solid foundation to build on. For example, HiPo Performance Consistency tracks the stability of HiPo employees' performance ratings over time, especially as they take on new roles or responsibilities. Purpose of the metric: ensures that HiPos continue to perform at a high level, even as they face new challenges. Another metric is the HiPo Assignment Success Rate, which measures the percentage of strategic or high-visibility projects led by HiPo employees that are completed successfully—on time, within budget, and achieving objectives. Purpose of this metric: measures the effectiveness of HiPos in delivering key assignments, indicating their readiness for more significant responsibilities. Since these metrics are examples and not an exhaustive list, you can use your judgment to determine what will work best for your organization.

Access cheat sheet

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

GM Raises Bar for Employee Performance with New Ratings System | Reuters

Shares aspects of General Motors’ (GM) new performance rating practices, which better align employee performance with business goals and reward top performers.

Despite years of redesigning and modifying performance management (PM), organizations continue to undergo changes to their PM practices. One organization whose PM was highlighted this past week is General Motors (GM), which is changing the way it rates the performance of its 53,000 salaried employees in the U.S. The change aims to better reward high-performers and put pressure on low-performers to improve or exit the organization. Under the new PM program, GM will reward its top 5% of employees with 150% bonuses, which is higher than what was available in the previous PM structure. One impetus for this change is to better attract and retain the talent needed to achieve GM’s business goals, especially as the industry undergoes increased competition and transformation with electric vehicles. The company’s PM will now be based on a five-scale system, from "significantly exceeds expectations" to "does not meet expectations." This new rating system is a shift from the previous one, which only differentiated employees on a three-category rating structure—"partially meets expectations," "achieves expectations," or "exceeds expectations." The new five-rating structure will enable more precise differentiation, and the tie-in to rewards will disproportionately benefit high performers. Employees who do not meet performance expectations would be subject to what the company calls "appropriate action...including being exited from the company." GM’s new PM is a clear example of a defined PM philosophy tied to business performance and supporting practices in line with its philosophy.

 Read article

TALENT ACQUISITION

Is the Re-recruitment of Former Employees Part of Your Recruiting Strategy? | Brian Heger

I share reasons why recruiting former employees, in some cases, can help organizations meet their talent needs. Includes my template to support this effort.

Many organizations seek ways to identify and recruit from untapped talent pools to gain a talent advantage. However, one talent segment that is often underutilized is former employees, sometimes referred to as ‘boomerang employees.’ While not all former employees should be re-recruited, some may desire to return to their previous organization, bringing with them in-demand skills. These individuals can also offer organizations a performance advantage upon rehire. A study published in the Academy of Management Journal revealed that former employees often outperform new hires, especially in roles requiring strong relational skills and internal coordination. And there may be an optimal timeframe for re-recruiting former employees. For example, a Visier analysis of 3 million employee records across 120 organizations over a four-year period discovered that the average time away for employees resigning from and returning to their previous employer is 13 months. The likelihood of a former employee returning sharply declines after being away for 16 months. These data points suggest that the critical time frame for rehiring former employees (in general) falls between 13 to 16 months. Does your organization have a strategy to identify and re-recruit former employees? Use my template to begin to identify employees you may want to target for re-recruitment.

Access template

TALENT ACQUISITION

How is Your Organization Measuring Quality of Hire (QoH)? | Brian Heger

I share a few observations for organizations to consider as they think through their QoH measures.

Talent acquisition teams use various metrics to assess the effectiveness of their organizations’ recruiting and hiring practices. While tactical metrics like time to hire, candidates per hire, and offer acceptance rate are commonly employed for their ease of measurement, strategic metrics, such as quality of hire (QoH), are harder to measure. According to the 2024 LinkedIn Future of Recruiting report, QoH is the top priority for recruiting professionals this year, continuing its prominence since 2020, when it showed the largest gap between importance and current capability among eight key recruiting metrics. The 2024 report suggests expanding QoH to include factors beyond performance, such as team fit, culture alignment, productivity, and retention, though some of these rely heavily on hiring managers' short-term perceptions. Given the evolving skills landscape and the increasing focus on long-term internal mobility, organizations should also consider longer-term QoH measures, like assessing an employee's potential for future roles and the development of skills important to the organization's future. This broader view of QoH requires moving beyond a hiring manager’s shorter-term perspective and incorporating diverse talent data throughout an employee’s tenure. Has your organization defined QoH? Has it identified the most valid and reliable data sources to measure it? Is QoH even a useful metric? This could be a good topic of discussion at your next team meeting.

Read post on BrianHeger.com

TALENT STRATEGY AND BOARDS

How Boards Can Champion a Resilient Talent Strategy | E&Y and Corporate Board Member

Covers four areas in which boards are increasingly interested regarding talent and workplace matters.

Boards of Directors (BofD) are increasingly focused on human capital and capability issues, such as talent strategy. A new paper, based on a survey of over 150 U.S. public company directors across various industries, reveals that most boards now discuss workforce matters at least quarterly (58%), a significant increase from 40% in 2019. The paper summarizes feedback from BofD respondents on how they govern talent, the most impactful people oversight practices, and the barriers they face. It identifies four key opportunities for boards to champion: 1) employee experience, 2) reskilling in the context of AI, 3) diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and 4) talent governance and metrics. For each area, the paper outlines specific actions boards can take to enhance their support. For example, regarding employee experience, boards can engage more directly with employees to better understand their perspectives, as surveys and reports may not fully capture employee sentiment. The paper also includes nine questions for boards to consider, such as how the company’s talent strategy aligns with its broader long-term goals, how it positions itself as an employer of choice, and how training and development programs are reskilling the workforce to build necessary skills, particularly in the era of AI. Even for organizations without a BofD, these questions reflect the priorities of business leaders

Read report

DATA-DRIVEN DECISIONS

Where Data-Driven Decision-Making Can Go Wrong | Harvard Business Review

Shares 5 pitfalls leaders often encounter when interpreting research studies or data, along with key questions to help mitigate them. Implications for HR and workplace-related studies.

The ability to draw insights from research studies and data is an essential skill for HR practitioners, enabling them to help business leaders interpret and apply workplace and talent information more objectively. To do this effectively, HR professionals must continuously hone their data analysis skills and critically evaluate the studies that inform workplace practices. This new HBR article by Michael Luca and Amy C. Edmondson highlights the importance of critically assessing data and research before making decisions. They outline five common pitfalls leaders encounter when interpreting study results: 1) confusing causation with correlation, 2) misjudging the potential magnitude of effects, 3) a disconnect between what is measured and what matters, 4) misjudging the generalizability of findings, and 5) overweighting specific results. The article covers sample questions to help mitigate these pitfalls. For example, to address the “misjudging generalizability” barrier, sample questions to ask are: How similar is the setting of this study to our business context? Does the context or time period of the analysis make it more or less relevant to our decision? What is the composition of the sample being studied, and how does it influence the applicability of the results? HR practitioners can use this framework not only to help business leaders make more informed decisions but also to enhance their own skills as critical evaluators of research.

Read article

JOB CUTS AND LAYOFF TRACKER

Here is my tracker, which includes announcements from a segment of organizations that have announced job cuts and layoffs since the start of 2023.

A few firms that announced job cuts in August include:

• Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: CSCO). The U.S. networking equipment maker is set to cut thousands of jobs in a second round of layoffs this year.

• Dell Technologies Inc. (NYSE: DELL). The global technology company is laying off up to 12,500 employees in a sales reorganization, following 24,500 job cuts in the past 15 months.

• Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). The bank is conducting layoffs as part of its annual “strategic resource assessment,” which regularly involves cutting 2% to 7% of its workforce based on performance, market conditions, and financial outlook. This round of cuts will impact ~1,300 jobs.

• Mastercard (NYSE: MA). The payments processor company plans to cut its global workforce by 3%, impacting around 1,000 people. Most of those impacted would be notified by the third quarter.

• Shell (LON: SHEL). The energy giant plans to cut around 20% of its workforce in certain oil and gas exploration and development divisions as part of CEO Wael Sawan's efforts to enhance efficiency and profitability. 

Access tracker

CHIEF HR OFFICER MOVEMENT

68 Chief HR Officers were hired, promoted, and/or resigned in August. A few headlines include:

• Chevron Corporation (SAN ROMAN, CALIFORNIA) [NYSE:CVX]— one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies— announced that Rhonda Morris, Chief Human Resources Officer, will retire after 31 years of service to the company. Michelle Green, VP, Human Resources, Oil, Products & Gas, will succeed Morris, effective January 1, 2025.

• Genuine Parts Company (ATLANTA, GEORGIA) [NYSE: GPC]—a leading global service provider of automotive and industrial replacement parts and value-added solutions—announced that Jenn Hulett has joined as EVP and Chief People Officer.

• Johnson & Johnson (NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY) [NYSE: JNJ]—announced that Peter M. Fasolo, EVP and Chief Human Resources Officer, will retire at the end of this year after 16 years of service. He will be succeeded by Kristen Mulholland, current head of Global Total Rewards for J&J, effective October 1, 2024.

• McDonald's (CHICAGO, ILLINOIS)—the world’s leading global food service retailer—announced that Heidi Capozzi, EVP and Global Chief People Officer, has departed from the company to become the Chief People Officer at CVS Health. Tiffanie Boyd, currently SVP and Chief People Officer for McDonald’s USA, has been promoted to assume Capozzi’s role, effective August 19.

• Stanley Black & Decker (NEW BRITAIN, CONNECTICUT) [NYSE: SWK]—a worldwide manufacturer of industrial tools and household hardware and a provider of security products—announced the promotion of Deborah K. Wintner to Chief Human Resources Officer, effective August 1, 2024.

Never miss another Chief HR Officer announcement. Subscribe to my CHROs on the Go with a quarterly or yearly plan and gain immediate access to +3900 (and growing) CHRO announcements, including hires, promotions, resignations, and board appointments.

If you are already a subscriber to CHROs on the Go, log in here.