Global Talent Monitor
Part of the CHRO Insight Series CEB Corporate Leadership Council™
Update on Workforce Activity in Q3 2016
Print DesignerNicole Daniels
Contributing DesignersBrittany FritzReid Griffler
EditorSabrina Ashwell
Practice LeaderBrian Kropp
Research DirectorMatt Dudek
Research AnalystsBecca BrownCaitlin Dutkiewicz
Talent Management LabsResearch DirectorMark Little
Research ManagerLindsey Walsh
Senior Research AnalystSajal Jain
Research AnalystNamrata Raina
Research SpecialistAnu Kalra
Research AssociateMohena Srivastava
Confidentiality and Intellectual Property
These materials have been prepared by CEB Inc. for the exclusive and individual use of our member companies. These materials contain valuable confidential and proprietary information belonging to CEB, and they may not be shared with any third party (including independent contractors and consultants) without the prior approval of CEB. CEB retains any and all intellectual property rights in these materials and requires retention of the copyright mark on all pages reproduced.
Legal Caveat
CEB Inc. is not able to guarantee the accuracy of the information or analysis contained in these materials. Furthermore, CEB is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or any other professional services. CEB specifically disclaims liability for any damages, claims, or losses that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in these materials, whether caused by CEB or its sources, or b) reliance upon any recommendation made by CEB.
CEB Corporate Leadership Council™ Content Publishing Solutions
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Why We Create This Report
We believe that great ideas—acute insights rooted in
microeconomics and informed by human behavior—are
essential to those accomplishments that change the fortunes
of an individual, an organization, or the world. We discover
and create these ideas and enable members and colleagues
to act on them by delivering them in timely, targeted, and
memorable ways.
3© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Key Findings
Labor Market • 7 What You Can Do
Globally, employee confidence in the business environment stabilizes (p. 7).
Get the highlights from our new research, Open Source Change: Making Change Management Work, through this webinar to learn how the best organizations use the workforce’s frontline expertise to make decisions that improve business outcomes.
Capture top active and passive talent by creating a strong employment brand. Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Designing a Compelling EVP to create an employment value proposition (EVP) that will help your organization attract (and retain) top talent.
Read our blog Talent Daily to stay up to date on the latest labor market trends and talent news stories.
Job opportunity perceptions in North America weaken for the first time in a year (p. 8).
Global job-seeking activity slows (p. 9).
Job-seeking activity decreases significantly in Canada (p. 10).
Attraction • 12
Compensation and work–life balance remain job seekers’ top priorities (p. 12).
Find geographic talent clusters that align to your organization’s operating needs by using CEB TalentNeuron™ offerings to obtain talent availability, cost, and demand data for more than 1,000 skills and 75,000 companies in over 1,000 cities in 100 countries (may require an additional fee).
Distinguish your rewards package based on the specific ways your plans meet employees’ needs, not how they compare to what other companies offer. Learn more through our recent total rewards research, Inside-Out Rewards.
Rewards preferences shift globally (p. 13).
4© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Key Findings (Continued)
Engagement • 14 What You Can Do
Intent to stay rises globally for the first time in 2016 (p. 15). Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Communicating Engagement Survey Insights to facilitate discussions on engagement strategy and spur organization-wide engagement action planning.
Visit our new Talent Analytics Portal to learn how to use engagement data to influence business decisions and drive impact.
Attend an upcoming event, Designing a HIPO Strategy That Moves at the Speed of the Business, to discover how organizations develop high-potential (HIPO) strategies that are agile enough to address the changing needs of the organization and engage its most promising employees.
Discretionary effort hits a six-year low in North America and ANZ (p. 16).
Watch out for employees “quitting in seat” (p. 17).
Attrition • 19
Dissatisfaction with future career opportunities and compensation continues to push employees away (p. 19). Register for our upcoming webinar, Are Annual Employee Surveys
Dead?, to learn how to rethink your employee survey strategy to improve retention and drive maximum action.
Find out why employees are leaving your organization with our exit survey service, Departure View.
Stem the attrition of critical talent by creating growth-based rather than promotion-based careers. Learn how National Grid designs career maps around the experiences, not the positions, that help employees take advantage of vertical and horizontal career moves to develop the right capabilities for critical roles.
Work–life balance grows in importance in the United States and China (p. 20).
Employees globally see the lowest pay gains from switching jobs since 2014 (p. 21).
Merit pay expectations fall in major economies (p. 22).
5© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
40 Countries and Regions Inform the Global Talent Monitor
Looking for More Insight?
View targeted reports on our website.
Forty-five reports for the regions, industries,
and functions of your global business are
available through the Workforce Insights portal.
Each quarter, Global Talent Monitor is sourced from over 20,000 employees in 40 countries and regions to offer the most authoritative look at the latest global and country-level trends so you know what attracts, engages, and retains talent.
Americas
■ Argentina: 0.9% ■ Brazil: 2.8% ■ Canada: 4.7% ■ Chile: 0.9% ■ Colombia: 1.0% ■ Mexico: 2.8% ■ United States: 10.8%
South Africa: 2.4%
■ Belgium: 1.2% ■ Czech Republic: 0.4% ■ Denmark: 1.2% ■ Finland: 1.2% ■ France: 2.4% ■ Germany: 5.9% ■ Hungary: 0.4% ■ Italy: 2.4% ■ Netherlands: 2.4% ■ Norway: 0.9% ■ Poland: 2.4% ■ Romania: 0.4% ■ Russia: 2.4% ■ Spain: 2.4% ■ Sweden: 1.2% ■ Switzerland: 2.4% ■ Turkey: 0.9% ■ United Kingdom: 7.1%
■ Australia: 4.7% ■ New Zealand: 2.4%
■ China: 4.7% ■ Hong Kong: 0.9% ■ India: 4.7% ■ Indonesia: 2.4% ■ Japan: 2.4% ■ Malaysia and the Philippines: 1.2%
■ Singapore: 2.4% ■ South Korea: 2.4% ■ Taiwan: 2.4% ■ Thailand: 2.4% ■ Vietnam: 2.4%
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
Note: Total does not equal 100% due to rounding.
Africa
Europe
ANZ
Asia
6
Globally, Employee Confidence in the Business Environment StabilizesBusiness Confidence Indexa
Global Employed Labor Force
What You Can Do
Employees may not be entirely confident in the business environment, but they have the best visibility into what organizations need to change to improve performance.
Get the highlights from our new research, Open Source Change: Making Change Management Work, through this webinar to learn how the best organizations use the frontline expertise of the workforce to make decisions that improve business outcomes.
Employees’ confidence in the near-term business conditions and long-term economic prospects of their industry rose 0.6% from Q2 to Q3 2016, continuing its upward trajectory after hitting a three-year low in Q1 2016.
51.9 51.9
54.1
53.053.6
52.653.0
53.6
51.851.0 50.9 51.1 51.4
40.0
50.0
60.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2013–2016 Business Barometer Surveys. a The Business Confidence Index is an indexed score calculated from a battery of four questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are
combined and converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values indicating greater confidence in the business environment.
Q3 2016Q1 2016Q3 2015 Q2 2016Q4 2015Q1 2015Q1 2014 Q3 2014Q3 2013 Q2 2015Q2 2014 Q4 2014Q4 2013
Low
Neutral
High
DefinitionThe Business Confidence Index measures employees’ confidence in near-term business conditions and long-term economic prospects in their industry.
40.0
50.0
60.0
Three-Year Low
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Labor Market 7
Q3
2011
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
20
12
Q1 2
013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
20
14
Q1 2
015
Q2
2015
Q3
2015
Q4
20
15
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
40.0
48.0
56.0
DefinitionThe Job Opportunity Barometer measures employees’ perceptions of the availability and quality of other employment opportunities in their current locations, industries, and functions.
Job Opportunity Perceptions in North America Weaken for the First Time in a Year Job Opportunity Barometer a
Global Employed Labor Force, Indexed
Weaker Job Opportunity
Perception
Stronger Job Opportunity
Perception
Q3 2016 n = 6,192 (Asia); 3,301 (North America); 21,171 (global); 1,800 (Latin America); 7,378 (Europe); 1,500 (Australia and New Zealand).Source: CEB 2011–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The global Job Opportunity Barometer is an indexed score calculated from a battery of five questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and
converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values indicating stronger perceptions of job opportunities.
53.9 Asia
49.6 North America
46.2 Australia and New Zealand
47.9 Latin America
49.4 Global
Neutral Job Opportunity
PerceptionAfter hitting a five-year low in Q2 2016, job opportunity perception in Latin America strengthened by 1.5% in Q3 2016.
Job opportunity perception in ANZ weakened 1.5% in Q3 2016, continuing its overall downward trend since Q2 2015.
In Q3 2016, employees’ job opportunity perceptions in North America weakened for the first time since Q3 2015.
40.0
50.0
56.0
47.0 Europe
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Labor Market 8
Q4
20
09
Q2
2010
Q4
20
10
Q1
2011
Q2
2011
Q3
2011
Q4
20
11
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
2012
Q4
20
12
Q1 2
013
Q2
2013
Q3
2013
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q3
2014
Q4
20
14
Q1 2
015
Q2
2015
Q3
2015
Q4
20
15
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
2016
Global Job-Seeking Activity SlowsPercentage of Employees by Degree of Job-Seeking BehaviorGlobal Employed Labor Force
What You Can Do
Capture top active and passive talent by creating a strong employment brand.
Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Designing a Compelling EVP to create or redesign an EVP that will help your organization attract and retain top talent.
After two consecutive quarters of growth, the percentage of active job seekers receded in Q3 2016.
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.
DefinitionThe active–passive categories group employees according to the extent of their inclination and demonstrated effort to look for a job.
46.5% Passive
23.4% Active
30.1% Neutral30.0%
10.0%
50.0%
37.8%
35.4%
26.9%
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Labor Market 9
So
uth
Ko
rea
Ind
on
esia
Bra
zil
Mex
ico
Can
ada
New
Z
eala
nd
Glo
bal
Ital
y
Au
stra
lia
No
rdic
Reg
ion
b
Fra
nce
Ru
ssia
Ch
ina
Ger
man
y
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Sp
ain
Jap
an
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Bel
giu
m a
nd
th
e N
eth
erla
nd
s
Ind
ia
Sin
gap
ore
Mal
aysi
a an
d
the
Ph
ilip
pin
es
So
uth
Afr
ica
Job-Seeking Activity Decreases Significantly in CanadaActive–Passive Score,a Q3 2016Global Employed Labor Force, Indexed
More Active
Neutral 50.0
65.0
25.0More Passive
n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2015–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The Active–Passive Score is an index calculated from a battery of eight questions posed to survey respondents. These answers are combined and converted to a 100-point scale, with higher values
indicating more active job-search activity.b The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.c Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates the change was not statistically significant. This value is determined by
response count and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.
DefinitionThe Active–Passive Score measures the extent to which employees are inclined to and demonstrate effort to look for new jobs.
Year-Over-Year Change
0.4% (2.2%) (3.5%) (7.3%) 6.3% 3.4% (4.9%) (4.6%) (0.5%) (1.0%) 11.0% (7.5%) (4.1%) 2.3% (4.8%) (0.8%) (3.4%) 1.4% 5.0% (4.2%) (5.0%) (2.2%) (2.1%) (5.8%)
Quarter-Over- Quarter Changec
1.6% (3.4%) (0.4%) (7.6%) 5.6% (2.5%) (2.4%) (1.0%) 0.1% (1.4%) 3.1% (5.3%) (3.3%) (2.1%) 4.9% (1.3%) (5.7%) (1.4%) (1.2%) (3.2%) (8.2%) (2.4%) (0.2%) (2.1%)
25.0
45.0
65.0
60.9
53.2
50.348.7 48.3 48.0 47.0
45.9 45.4
41.8 41.0 40.9 40.239.2 38.2 37.4 37.4
36.3 36.1 35.8 34.933.3
32.2 32.0
In Indonesia and Canada, job-seeking activity decreased significantly from Q2 2016, falling 7.6% and 5.7%, respectively.
Job-seeking activity in Brazil and New Zealand has increased significantly since Q3 2015, up 6.3% and 11.0%, respectively.
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Labor Market 10
Employment Value Proposition FrameworkAn effective EVP allows organizations to source more deeply in the labor market.
The EVP Framework and the Benefits of a Differentiated EVP
Attraction Benefits ■ Reduces the compensation premium needed to hire by 50% ■ Enables organizations to reach deeper into the labor market
to attract passive candidates
Retention Benefits ■ Decreases annual employee turnover by 69% ■ Increases new hire commitment by 29%
EVPThe set of attributes that the labor market and employees perceive as
the value they gain through employment in the organization
Rewards■ Compensation■ Health Benefits■ Retirement Benefits■ Vacation
Opportunity■ Development
Opportunity■ Future Career
Opportunity■ Growth Rate■ Meritocracy■ Stability
Source: CEB analysis.
Organization■ Customer Prestige■ Empowerment■ Environmental
Responsibility■ Ethics and Integrity■ Formality of Work
Environment■ “Great Employer”
Recognition■ Inclusion and Diversity■ Industry Desirability■ Market Position■ Organization Size■ Product or Service
Quality■ Respect■ Risk Taking■ Social Responsibility■ Technology Level■ Well-Known Product
Brand
People■ Camaraderie■ Collegial Work
Environment■ Coworker Quality■ Manager Quality■ People Management■ Senior Leadership
Reputation
Work■ Business Travel■ Innovative Work■ Job–Interests
Alignment■ Level of Impact■ Location■ Recognition■ Work–Life Balance
What You Can Do
To extend your reach in the labor market:
■ Define the vision for a differentiated EVP,
■ Prioritize and position your EVP, and
■ Deliver on your EVP promise.
Visit our EVP topic center for more resources.
Project #
Catalog # CLC1462915SYN
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Labor Market 11
0%
25%
50%
Compensation and Work–Life Balance Remain Job Seekers’ Top PrioritiesPercentage of Employees Ranking a Driver Among the Top Five Attributes Influencing Selection of a Potential EmployerGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q3 2016
n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
10 Most Commonly Cited Attraction Drivers by Employees Globally
Man
ager
Qu
alit
y
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Hea
lth
Ben
efits
Vac
atio
n
Ret
irem
ent
Ben
efits
Sta
bili
ty
“Gre
at E
mp
loye
r” R
eco
gn
itio
n
Fu
ture
Car
eer
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Eth
ics
and
Inte
gri
ty
Em
po
wer
men
t
Org
aniz
atio
n S
ize
Gro
wth
Rat
e
Tech
no
log
y L
evel
Wel
l-K
no
wn
Pro
du
ct B
ran
d
Co
wo
rker
Qu
alit
y
Cu
sto
mer
Pre
stig
e
Wo
rk–L
ife B
alan
ce
Job
–In
tere
sts
Alig
nm
ent
Cam
arad
erie
Rec
og
nit
ion
Bu
sin
ess
Trav
el
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Pro
du
ct o
r S
ervi
ce Q
ual
ity
Ind
ust
ry D
esir
abili
ty
Fo
rmal
ity
of
Wo
rk E
nvir
on
men
t
Mer
ito
crac
y
So
cial
Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Env
iro
nm
enta
l Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Co
lleg
ial W
ork
Env
iro
nm
ent
Ris
k Ta
kin
g
Peo
ple
Man
agem
ent
Inn
ova
tive
Wo
rk
Sen
ior
Lea
der
ship
Rep
uta
tio
n
Lev
el o
f Im
pac
t
48.2%
18.5%17.2%
34.1%
21.8%19.5% 19.0%
29.8%
Lo
cati
on
38.7%
Res
pec
t
31.0%
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity
Mar
ket
Po
siti
on
Incl
usi
on
an
d D
iver
sity
12© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attraction 12
Rewards Preferences Shift GloballyTop 10 Attraction Drivers for Select Countries and Regions, Q3 2016 Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Potential Candidates Selecting Attribute as One of the Top Five Attributes When Considering an Employer
RA
NK
Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States
1 Compensation (48.2%)
Work–Life Balance (58.5%)
Compensation (60.0%)
Work–Life Balance (39.4%)
Work–Life Balance (44.1%)
Work–Life Balance (55.6%)
Compensation (56.5%)
2Work–Life Balance (38.7%)
Location (45.5%)
Development Opportunity (32.2%)
+2Future Career Opportunity (30.7%)
Compensation (33.0%)
Location (47.9%)
Work–Life Balance (44.7%)
3 Stability (34.1%)
Respect (38.1%)
Stability (31.5%) -1 Growth Rate
(28.2%)Stability (28.8%) +1 Stability
(31.5%) +1 Location (41.8%)
4 Respect (31.0%)
Stability (31.7%) +1
Work–Life Balance (29.2%)
-1 Stability (28.0%) +1
Future Career Opportunity (28.7%)
-1 Respect (31.2%) -1
Health Benefits (40.9%)
5 Location (29.8%)
Compensation (29.1%) -1
Future Career Opportunity (28.6%)
Respect (25.7%) -1
Health Benefits (25.8%)
Compensation (29.3%)
Stability (37.9%)
6Future Career Opportunity (21.8%)
Ethics and Integrity (27.4%)
+1Health Benefits (24.0%)
+2 Compensation (24.8%)
Respect (23.7%)
Vacation (25.7%)
Respect (28.6%)
7Development Opportunity (19.5%)
Future Career Opportunity (19.0%)
-1 Respect (23.4%) -1
Technology Level (22.8%)
Location (23.4%)
Future Career Opportunity (21.6%)
+2Retirement Benefits (25.4%)
8Ethics and Integrity (19.0%)
Recognition (18.7%) +1
Retirement Benefits (19.9%)
-1Innovative Work (21.6%)
Ethics and Integrity (22.5%)
Recognition (20.3%)
Ethics and Integrity (23.7%)
9 Vacation (18.5%) +1
Manager Quality (16.9%)
+4Job–Interests Alignment (15.3%)
Development Opportunity (21.1%)
+1People Management (20.0%)
+1Retirement Benefits (17.5%)
-2 Vacation (22.6%)
10Health Benefits (17.2%)
-1Job–Interests Alignment (16.3%)
+5Product or Service Quality (15.0%)
+1 Recognition (19.2%) +2
Job–Interests Alignment (19.5%)
+2Ethics and Integrity (15.3%)
Future Career Opportunity (18.3%)
n = 21,171 (global); 1,000 (Australia); 997 (China); 999 (India); 1,495 (Southeast Asia); 1,500 (United Kingdom); 2,301 (United States).Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
Note: The top drivers of attraction by country are calculated by asking survey respondents to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework that they consider most important when evaluating a new job. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attraction in that country or region.
a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.
What You Can Do
Distinguish your rewards package based on the specific ways your plans meet employees’ needs, not how they compare to what other companies offer.
Learn more through our recent total rewards research, Inside-Out Rewards.
In Q3 2016, rewards preferences shifted globally (indicated by gray boxes). Retirement benefits rose in importance in China, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Health benefits fell in importance in the United States and Southeast Asia but rose in importance in China.
13© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attraction 13
Employee Engagement ModelEmployee engagement is the pride, energy, and optimism that fuels employees’ discretionary effort and intent to stay.
Source: CEB analysis.
Engagement Metrics This QuarterPercentage of Employees Indicating High Levels of:
Energy ■ Sense of urgency ■ Excitement and enthusiasm ■ Focus
52.4% overall
0.4 ppt. since Q2 2016
Optimism ■ Confidence in the future ■ Belief in progress
57.0% overall
0.3 ppt. since Q2 2016
Pride ■ Identification with the company ■ Recommendation of the company
61.4% overall
0.3 ppt. since Q2 2016
Alignm
entA
gility
Business Priorities
Engagement
Sustain Advantage
14© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 14
Intent to Stay Rises Globally for the First Time in 2016Percentage of Employees Reporting High Intent to Stay and Discretionary Effort LevelsGlobal Employed Labor Force
What You Can Do
Stop employees from looking elsewhere for new work by improving their internal job perceptions. Push career opportunities to employees based on their interests and aspiration, and target passive internal candidates by building opportunities before they become dissatisfied and look elsewhere.
Discover how UnitedHealth Group creates visibility into its internal talent pool and enables employees to signal interest in internal job opportunities through its Raise Your Hand process.
35.6% Intent to Stay
Discretionary EffortEmployee willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty, such as helping others with heavy workloads, volunteering for additional duties, and looking for ways to perform the job more efficiently
Intent to StayAn employee’s desire to stay with the organization, based on whether he or she intends to look for a new job within a year, frequently thinks of quitting, has actively been looking for a new job, or has taken steps such as placing phone calls and sending out résumés
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.
16.6% Discretionary Effort
Q4
20
10
Q1
2012
Q1
2013
Q4
20
13
Q4
20
14
Q1
2011
Q2
2012
Q2
2013
Q2
2014
Q2
2015
Q4
20
15
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
20
16
Q1
2014
Q1
2015
Q3
20
15
Q4
20
09
Q2
2011
Q2
2010
Q3
20
11
Q3
20
12
Q3
20
10
Q4
20
11
Q4
20
12
Q3
20
13
Q3
20
14
In Q3 2016, intent to stay rose for the first time this year, up 1.1 ppt. since Q2 2016. Discretionary effort, however, continued to fall for the third consecutive quarter, down 0.2 ppt.
10.0%
25.0%
40.0%
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 15
What You Can Do
Improving employee engagement is not enough to drive performance and retention in an environment of complexity and frequent change. The best organizations align employees with key outcomes and business priorities and create agile workforces to sustain engagement and performance over the long term.
Use our Engagement Strategy Playbook for step-by-step guidance on building an engaged, aligned, and agile workforce.5.0%
20.0%
35.0%
Q4
20
10
Q1
2012
Q1
2013
Q4
20
13
Q4
20
14
Q1
2011
Q2
2012
Q2
2013
Q2
2014
Q2
2015
Q4
20
15
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
20
16
Q1
2014
Q1
2015
Q3
20
15
Q4
20
09
Q2
2011
Q2
2010
Q3
20
11
Q3
20
12
Q3
20
10
Q4
20
11
Q4
20
12
Q3
20
13
Q3
20
14
Discretionary Effort Hits a Six-Year Low in North America and ANZPercentage of Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Levels by RegionGlobal Employed Labor Force
17.7%
14.9%
10.4%
21.0%
Q3 2016 n = 1,800 (Latin America); 3,301 (North America); 1,500 (Australia and New Zealand); 7,378 (Europe); 6,192 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.
(2.2 ppt.)
(0.6 ppt.)
0.1 ppt.
(2.2 ppt.)
27.2% Latin America
20.5% North America
15.5% Europe
12.0% Asia
18.0% Australia and New Zealand
1.0 ppt.
18.2%
Despite its increase in Q2 2016, discretionary effort in North America fell to its lowest point since 2010 in Q3 2016.
In Q3 2016, discretionary effort in Australia and New Zealand also hit its lowest point in six years.
Quarter-Over-QuarterChange in Intent to
Stay Levels
Discretionary effort in Latin America sharply declined in Q3 2016, falling 2.2 ppt. since last quarter.
16© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 16
10.0%
30.0%
50.0%
Watch Out for Employees “Quitting in Seat”Percentage of Employees Reporting High Intent to Stay Levels by RegionGlobal Employed Labor Force
What You Can Do
With global discretionary effort falling but intent to stay rising, organizations should be wary of employees “quitting in seat.”
Increase the effort of employees who plan to remain in their positions by effectively responding to their critical feedback in engagement surveys.
Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Communicating Engagement Survey Insights to facilitate discussions on engagement strategy and spur organization-wide engagement action planning.
Q3 2016 n = 3,301 (North America); 7,378 (Europe); 1,500 (Australia and New Zealand); 1,800 (Latin America); 6,192 (Asia).Source: CEB 2009–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.
47.0% North America
41.7% Europe
38.4% Australia and New Zealand
34.1% Latin America
21.8% Asia
2.0 ppt.
1.9 ppt.
(1.3 ppt.)
(0.8 ppt.)
0.7 ppt.
Quarter-Over-QuarterChange in Intent to
Stay Levels In Q3 2016, intent to stay in North America rose 2.0 ppt., increasing for the first time since Q2 2015.
Q4
20
10
Q1
2012
Q1
2013
Q4
20
13
Q4
20
14
Q1
2011
Q2
2012
Q2
2013
Q2
2014
Q2
2015
Q4
20
15
Q1
2016
Q2
2016
Q3
20
16
Q1
2014
Q1
2015
Q3
20
15
Q4
20
09
Q2
2011
Q2
2010
Q3
20
11
Q3
20
12
Q3
20
10
Q4
20
11
Q4
20
12
Q3
20
13
Q3
20
14
Counter to the global trend, intent to stay in Latin America fell 0.8 ppt. in Q3 2016, down for the third consecutive quarter.
17© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 17
Get the Most from Your Hardest WorkersApproximately 17% of the labor force displays high levels of discretionary effort.
Percentage of Employees Reporting High Levels of Discretionary Effort Global Employed Labor Force, Q3 2016
High Discretionary Effort Neutral or Low Discretionary Effort
n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
83.4%
16.6% Distribution of Intent to Stay for Global Employees Reporting High Discretionary Effort Q3 2016
6.8% Low
6.1% Somewhat Low
18.6% Neutral
14.6% Somewhat High
53.9% High
n = 3,523. Source: CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
With changing leadership needs and disappearing career ladders, building a HIPO strategy that delivers the right talent is harder than ever.
Join one of our meetings, Designing a HIPO Strategy That Moves at the Speed of the Business, to discover how organizations develop HIPO strategies that are agile enough to address the changing needs of the organization and its most promising employees.
By attending, you’ll learn how to do the following:
■ Identify HIPOs at all levels by using simple, business-relevant criteria.■ Drive line leader ownership of HIPO management as a core business management responsibility.■ Establish a structured HIPO mentoring program that maximizes potential.
Related Topic: How Does Your HIPO Strategy Compare?
18© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Engagement 18
Dissatisfaction with Future Career Opportunities and Compensation Continues to Push Employees AwayPercentage of Departing Employees Ranking the Driver Among the Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous JobsGlobal Employed Labor Force, Q3 2016
10 Most Commonly Cited Attrition Drivers by Employees Globally
n = 20,088.Source: CEB 2016 Departure View Exit Survey; CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
0.0%
22.5%
45.0%
0.0%
22.5%
45.0%
35.2%
41.4%
31.7%
17.8%17.6%
25.2%
33.0%
26.9% 27.1% 27.1%
15.6%
Sen
ior
Lea
der
ship
Rep
uta
tio
n
Org
aniz
atio
n S
ize
Co
mp
ensa
tio
n
Vac
atio
n
Hea
lth
Ben
efits
Ret
irem
ent
Ben
efits
Sta
bili
ty
Res
pec
t
Wel
l-K
no
wn
Pro
du
ct B
ran
d
Fu
ture
Car
eer
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Em
po
wer
men
t
Tech
no
log
y L
evel
Pro
du
ct o
r S
ervi
ce Q
ual
ity
Gro
wth
Rat
e
So
cial
Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
“Gre
at E
mp
loye
r” R
eco
gn
itio
n
Ind
ust
ry D
esir
abili
ty
Co
wo
rker
Qu
alit
y
Env
iro
nm
enta
l Res
po
nsi
bili
ty
Lo
cati
on
Inn
ova
tive
Wo
rk
Bu
sin
ess
Trav
el
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Op
po
rtu
nit
y
Mar
ket
Po
siti
on
Fo
rmal
ity
of
Wo
rk E
nvir
on
men
t
Mer
ito
crac
y
Eth
ics
and
Inte
gri
ty
Incl
usi
on
an
d D
iver
sity
Cu
sto
mer
Pre
stig
e
Co
lleg
ial W
ork
Env
iro
nm
ent
Ris
k Ta
kin
g
Peo
ple
Man
agem
ent
Job
–In
tere
sts
Alig
nm
ent
Lev
el o
f Im
pac
t
Man
ager
Qu
alit
y
Cam
arad
erie
Wo
rk–L
ife B
alan
ce
Rec
og
nit
ion
Rewards WorkPeopleOrganizationOpportunity
19© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attrition 19
Work–Life Balance Grows in Importance in the United States and China Top 10 Attrition Drivers for Select Countries and Regions, Q3 2016Change in Rank Compared to Last Quarter and Total Percentage of Departing Employees Selecting Attribute as One of the Five Most Dissatisfying Attributes at Their Previous Jobs
n = 20,088 (global); 848 (Australia); 243 (China); 1,013 (India); 818 (Southeast Asia); 1,130 (United Kingdom); 11,230 (United States). Source: CEB 2016 Departure View Exit Survey; CEB 2016 Global Labor Market Survey.
Note: The top drivers of attrition by country are calculated by asking respondents to indicate the five attributes in our EVP framework with which they were most dissatisfied while at their former employer. The attributes selected most frequently by respondents are considered the top drivers of attrition in that country or region.
a Southeast Asia includes Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore.
RA
NK
Global Australia China India Southeast Asiaa United Kingdom United States
1Future Career Opportunity 41.4%
+1Future Career Opportunity 43.4%
Compensation 47.7% +1 Growth Rate
42.0%
People Management 39.2%
Future Career Opportunity 41.8%
Future Career Opportunity 42.9%
2 Compensation 35.2% -1
People Management 40.9%
Future Career Opportunity 47.4%
-1Future Career Opportunity 39.8%
+2 Compensation 38.1% +1
People Management 38.7%
Compensation 37.0%
3People Management 33.0%
+1Development Opportunity 32.9%
Development Opportunity 45.9%
Compensation 37.7% -1
Future Career Opportunity 34.2%
-1 Recognition 33.2%
People Management 33.8%
4Development Opportunity 31.7%
-1 Recognition 32.4% +1
People Management 30.3%
Recognition 34.7% -1
Work–Life Balance 33.1%
Development Opportunity 32.3%
+2Work–Life Balance 28.0%
5 Recognition 27.1%
Compensation 32.0% +2
Work–Life Balance 27.1%
People Management 26.6%
+1 Recognition 29.9% +2
Manager Quality 31.3%
-1Manager Quality 28.0%
6Work–Life Balance 27.1%
+1Manager Quality 29.6%
-2 Recognition26.0% +1
Development Opportunity 26.2%
-1Development Opportunity 29.6%
-1 Compensation 30.1% -1
Development Opportunity 27.9%
7Manager Quality 26.9%
+1Work–Life Balance 28.9%
+5Innovative Work 22.8%
-1Manager Quality 25.2%
Manager Quality 26.7%
+1 Respect 28.4%
Respect 26.0%
8 Respect 25.2% -2 Respect
27.0% -2Manager Quality 18.7%
Work–Life Balance 23.7%
+3Health Benefits 19.4%
-2Work–Life Balance 22.9%
Recognition 24.8%
9 Stability 17.8%
Stability 19.1% -1 Respect
18.0%Respect 21.8%
Growth Rate 19.2% +1 Location
18.2% +1 Growth Rate 18.0%
10 Growth Rate 17.6% +3 Empowerment
15.4% +9 Location 17.9% +2
Innovative Work 17.1%
-2 Respect 17.0% -1 Stability
17.5% -1 Stability 17.1%
In Q3 2016, dissatisfaction with work–life balance drove more employees away in both China and the United States, pushing work-life balance into the top five attrition drivers for both countries.
What You Can Do
Organize focus groups to find out why employees are leaving your organization.
Use the CEB Ignition™ Guide to Conducting Employee Focus Groups for step-by-step guidance on designing and managing effective focus groups that gather in-depth, timely, and actionable information from employees.
20© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attrition 20
n = 9,985 (Q3 2016)Source: CEB 2012–2016 Departure View Exit Surveys.
DefinitionThe compensation switching premium measures departed employees’ anticipated compensation changes at their new organizations.
Q1
2012
Q2
2012
Q3
20
12
Q4
20
12
Q1
2013
Q2
2013
Q3
20
13
Q4
20
13
Q1
2014
Q2
2014
Q1
2015
Q4
20
14
Q3
20
14
Q2
2016
Q1
2016
Q4
20
15
Q3
20
15
Q2
2015
In Q3 2016, the global compensation switching premium fell to 14.8%, hitting its lowest point since Q3 2014.
This quarter’s decline reflects a consistent pattern of the global compensation switching premium falling between Q2 and Q3 each year.
Employees Globally See the Lowest Pay Gains from Switching Jobs Since 2014Global Compensation Switching PremiumPercent Change Expected in Total Compensation in New Job
Attrition 21
14.8%
15.0%
14.8%
15.7%
14.4%
15.1%
14.8%
15.1%
14.1%
15.0%
14.8%
15.4%
15.7%
15.2%
15.0%
15.4%
15.8%
15.3%
14.8%
Q3
20
16
13.0%
15.0%
17.0%
21© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
What You Can Do
Read the report The Real Impact of Eliminating Performance Ratings to learn about the implications of removing ratings for pay differentiation.
Year-Over-Year Change (ppt.)
0.1 3.7 (2.4) 0.0 (1.2) (1.6) (1.5) (2.1) (0.7) 0.0 (0.4) 0.0 (1.2) (0.9) (1.8) (0.2) (1.0) (1.4) (1.0) (1.3) (1.8) (0.2) (0.8)
— — —
Merit Pay Expectations Fall in Major EconomiesMerit Pay Expectation by Country and Region, Q3 2016Percent Change Expected in Total Compensation in Current Job
n = 21,171.Source: CEB 2015–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a The Nordic Region includes Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.b Solid arrows indicate a statistically significant change at the 95% confidence level, whereas an outlined arrow indicates that the change was not statistically significant. This value is determined
by response count and standard deviation; therefore, the solid arrows will not always be the highest or lowest absolute scores.
Can
ada
Fra
nce
No
rdic
Reg
ion
a
Bra
zil
Jap
an
Ital
y
Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
So
uth
Afr
ica
Ru
ssia
Ind
on
esia
Au
stra
lia
Ger
man
y
Ch
ina
Sin
gap
ore
Quarter-Over- Quarter Change (ppt.)b
0.5 1.6 (1.4) 1.0 (0.9) 0.0 (0.7) (0.8) (0.4) 0.6 0.1 (0.2) 0.5 0.0 (0.6) (0.2) (0.9) (0.6) 0.0 (1.3) (1.1) (0.3) (1.0)
— — —
Ind
ia
So
uth
Ko
rea
Sp
ain
13.0%
5.0%
(3.0%)
12.7%
10.2%
9.1%
8.1% 7.9%
5.3%
2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8%1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7%
0.2% 0.1%
(1.9%)
Global Average = 3.4%
Mal
aysi
a an
d
the
Ph
ilip
pin
es
Mex
ico
Un
ited
Sta
tes
New
Zea
lan
d
Bel
giu
m a
nd
th
e N
eth
erla
nd
s
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Across Europe, merit pay expectations also fell significantly since last year in Belgium and the Netherlands (0.9 ppt.), Germany (1.0 ppt.), the Nordic region (1.4 ppt.), and France (1.8 ppt).
In China and the United States, merit pay expectations fell significantly from Q3 2015 to Q3 2016, dropping 2.1 ppt. and 0.7 ppt., respectively.
22© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Attrition 22
Appendix
Discretionary Effort Trends by Function • 24
Intent to Stay Trends by Function • 25
Discretionary Effort Trends by Industry • 26
Intent to Stay Trends by Industry • 27
Definitions of EVP Attributes • 28
23© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Appendix 24
Discretionary Effort Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Function
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a Corporate includes corporate Legal, Strategy, and Real Estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.c Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.
Function Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015
Q1 2016
Q2 2016
Q3 2016
Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)c
Communications 15.2% 16.8% 15.5% 16.6% 17.3% 15.1% 18.6% 17.2% 15.6% 12.0% 15.3% 13.0% 17.1% 18.3% 19.2% 16.3% 12.2% 13.0% 16.4% 3.4
Corporate a 25.7% 23.7% 24.6% 23.5% 24.1% 25.8% 27.5% 26.0% 23.9% 21.4% 21.7% 20.1% 23.4% 23.7% 20.2% 24.7% 20.5% 19.8% 20.5% 0.7
Customer Contact 20.1% 17.7% 16.8% 18.0% 18.9% 18.5% 20.6% 19.8% 20.8% 16.9% 17.8% 19.3% 18.9% 17.5% 16.0% 16.2% 15.8% 18.4% 17.0% (1.4)
Finance and Accounting 19.5% 19.5% 18.5% 17.7% 16.2% 18.3% 21.1% 19.6% 19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 17.8% 18.3% 18.1% 17.0% 16.4% 16.2% 16.9% 15.9% (1.0)
HR b 22.4% 20.9% 23.4% 21.7% 22.6% 23.1% 24.0% 21.8% 20.3% 21.5% 20.2% 20.2% 19.9% 20.2% 21.0% 18.9% 18.2% 17.0% 17.9% 1.0
IT 17.2% 17.9% 18.2% 16.0% 16.5% 18.9% 18.4% 19.9% 17.6% 18.4% 16.6% 17.5% 15.9% 17.3% 14.9% 17.2% 15.9% 16.5% 16.7% 0.3
Manufacturing 18.0% 16.2% 17.4% 15.3% 14.3% 17.5% 15.9% 15.5% 16.1% 15.8% 15.1% 16.1% 17.9% 15.4% 13.9% 17.2% 13.6% 14.2% 15.1% 0.9
Marketing and Market Research 18.5% 14.8% 17.9% 11.7% 15.8% 18.0% 17.8% 18.0% 18.6% 18.9% 17.1% 19.4% 22.1% 18.5% 12.2% 16.8% 18.3% 15.3% 15.5% 0.2
Operations 22.6% 22.3% 22.9% 20.6% 20.7% 22.0% 23.2% 22.6% 22.4% 21.5% 20.1% 19.3% 21.4% 19.8% 18.4% 19.8% 22.0% 18.5% 16.9% (1.6)
Quality 18.4% 16.2% 17.5% 18.8% 17.1% 20.4% 19.6% 19.5% 20.6% 17.9% 16.9% 17.9% 17.8% 16.6% 17.4% 15.6% 16.4% 14.6% 14.1% (0.6)
R&D and Engineering 17.6% 17.5% 18.4% 16.1% 17.6% 17.1% 18.2% 17.1% 18.1% 17.0% 15.4% 16.2% 16.4% 16.5% 16.4% 15.6% 14.9% 14.7% 12.4% (2.3)
Retail 23.6% 22.7% 20.9% 23.6% 21.7% 19.5% 22.2% 23.3% 20.4% 21.4% 20.0% 20.2% 21.8% 20.7% 18.3% 21.1% 18.6% 17.2% 18.0% 0.9
Sales 19.7% 21.0% 19.4% 20.2% 18.7% 21.4% 18.8% 17.2% 18.4% 18.0% 17.9% 18.4% 17.9% 18.7% 18.6% 16.6% 18.4% 19.7% 16.8% (2.9)
Supply Chain and Logistics 21.5% 19.1% 20.0% 17.6% 18.4% 17.7% 16.5% 19.7% 21.5% 18.8% 18.9% 17.6% 19.6% 17.8% 16.9% 15.7% 18.1% 16.5% 15.2% (1.4)
24© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Intent to Stay Trends by FunctionPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Function
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a Corporate includes corporate Legal, Strategy, and Real Estate departments.b Historical discretionary effort trends for the HR function have been slightly adjusted to reflect a more accurate picture of the corporate HR function.c Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.
Function Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015
Q1 2016
Q2 2016
Q3 2016
Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)c
Communications 30.7% 28.0% 28.2% 28.4% 26.8% 26.9% 29.1% 31.7% 34.5% 28.0% 28.5% 28.5% 29.7% 33.3% 28.7% 30.3% 27.6% 26.6% 30.4% 3.8
Corporate a 37.0% 33.9% 39.0% 38.8% 38.6% 37.8% 39.0% 35.9% 42.1% 40.8% 36.3% 37.5% 42.4% 43.9% 40.7% 43.0% 37.9% 38.6% 40.5% 1.9
Customer Contact 30.9% 29.2% 30.2% 31.1% 31.6% 32.2% 32.8% 32.2% 34.8% 33.7% 28.1% 31.7% 30.8% 30.6% 30.5% 33.2% 31.1% 31.6% 32.5% 0.9
Finance and Accounting 32.4% 33.7% 30.4% 33.5% 31.1% 31.4% 32.2% 33.6% 34.3% 36.1% 32.8% 33.9% 31.8% 35.0% 33.8% 35.7% 36.1% 34.5% 33.8% (0.7)
HR b 33.2% 32.8% 31.4% 33.7% 32.3% 38.5% 32.8% 32.2% 37.7% 39.1% 33.0% 33.5% 35.1% 35.1% 31.4% 35.2% 34.5% 32.9% 33.6% 0.7
IT 26.0% 26.6% 25.7% 27.5% 25.9% 27.3% 29.5% 27.8% 31.5% 28.3% 26.5% 27.2% 28.0% 29.3% 27.5% 29.5% 29.5% 25.1% 30.8% 5.7
Manufacturing 32.0% 32.1% 30.7% 31.3% 31.4% 34.0% 33.9% 30.0% 37.6% 35.5% 32.3% 30.6% 33.5% 32.9% 32.5% 32.2% 32.5% 33.4% 28.9% (4.5)
Marketing and Market Research 25.8% 24.7% 26.2% 28.9% 26.5% 23.4% 27.5% 25.4% 29.4% 30.7% 26.2% 30.3% 28.1% 28.8% 25.8% 32.5% 31.1% 29.4% 33.5% 4.2
Operations 36.9% 35.7% 35.6% 36.2% 38.8% 37.7% 37.9% 37.4% 40.5% 41.6% 38.3% 37.9% 39.2% 40.5% 37.3% 39.4% 37.0% 37.0% 37.2% 0.2
Quality 33.0% 31.6% 31.0% 30.5% 32.0% 31.3% 33.2% 35.1% 39.0% 37.5% 34.8% 37.3% 32.5% 30.4% 31.1% 38.0% 28.0% 29.3% 34.5% 5.2
R&D and Engineering 28.4% 26.6% 29.3% 27.5% 31.0% 29.6% 30.3% 26.6% 35.0% 32.3% 28.9% 29.8% 30.8% 31.0% 31.8% 32.2% 31.9% 32.9% 31.8% (1.0)
Retail 29.5% 30.0% 31.6% 30.8% 32.4% 31.3% 33.9% 35.0% 34.4% 34.5% 30.8% 30.2% 32.0% 35.4% 29.6% 33.1% 35.3% 36.9% 34.7% (2.2)
Sales 32.7% 33.0% 30.8% 32.1% 33.1% 34.7% 31.8% 32.6% 36.0% 35.9% 31.4% 35.1% 35.7% 35.1% 37.3% 36.9% 38.4% 39.3% 36.6% (2.8)
Supply Chain and Logistics 36.5% 33.9% 37.8% 34.0% 32.7% 34.1% 34.5% 34.8% 39.2% 38.2% 36.0% 30.1% 37.0% 32.7% 33.0% 30.6% 35.6% 34.7% 32.7% (2.0)
Appendix 25 25© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Discretionary Effort Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Discretionary Effort By Industry
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.
Industry Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015
Q1 2016
Q2 2016
Q3 2016
Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)a
Construction 19.4% 17.5% 19.4% 17.3% 17.7% 17.7% 18.0% 19.1% 17.2% 18.1% 16.9% 14.9% 16.4% 16.6% 18.1% 16.8% 16.3% 15.9% 14.1% (1.8)
Consumer Goods 22.3% 17.0% 20.1% 21.6% 17.5% 19.0% 20.9% 19.0% 21.9% 20.7% 18.7% 20.2% 23.4% 20% 19.2% 18.9% 18.6% 18.9% 17.1% (1.8)
Education 22.8% 21.9% 22.1% 20.9% 21.4% 22.7% 24.4% 22.8% 23.2% 19.2% 20.6% 19.6% 19.2% 20.2% 17.5% 18.7% 18.6% 15.8% 15.8% 0.0
Financial Services and Insurance 19.5% 18.7% 18.9% 19.7% 18.5% 20.7% 21.2% 20.3% 19.8% 18.4% 17.8% 16.6% 17.7% 18.3% 17.1% 17.1% 16.8% 16.8% 15.6% (1.2)
Government 17.6% 15.1% 14.0% 14.4% 18.9% 20.0% 21.1% 19.5% 20.1% 19.8% 17.0% 17.9% 17.3% 17.3% 16.1% 16.7% 17.3% 16.0% 16.3% 0.3
Health Care 22.2% 22.3% 21.9% 19.3% 22.2% 20.7% 20.3% 21.1% 20.7% 19.2% 21.3% 17.5% 19.5% 19.3% 19.7% 19.8% 19.7% 18.0% 16.9% (1.1)
Leisure and Hospitality 19.0% 18.1% 22.3% 18.9% 17.8% 20.5% 21.8% 22.2% 22.6% 19.5% 17.8% 18.7% 18.4% 18.7% 19.3% 19.5% 21.9% 19.5% 17.8% (1.7)
Manufacturing 19.4% 18.7% 19.0% 16.4% 16.4% 19.7% 18.9% 18.4% 18.1% 17.5% 15.5% 17.9% 17.9% 17.5% 15.7% 17.3% 15.9% 17.2% 16.7% (0.5)
Professional Services 19.7% 20.0% 19.7% 17.3% 20.8% 19.6% 21.2% 20% 20.5% 19.8% 17.7% 18.3% 20.2% 19.7% 19.7% 18.3% 18.3% 18.8% 17.4% (1.4)
Retail 22.8% 22.3% 20.1% 21.4% 19.7% 20.5% 20.2% 21.3% 18.8% 19.4% 20.1% 19.1% 20.1% 17.8% 17.4% 19.0% 16.9% 16.3% 17.3% 1.0
Technology 16.8% 18.2% 17.8% 16.4% 15.2% 17.6% 18.5% 17.5% 16.4% 16.5% 15.6% 16.9% 15.8% 16.8% 16.3% 17.3% 16.1% 15.8% 17.1% 1.3
Travel and Transportation 20.2% 19.6% 16.5% 17.5% 19.3% 16.2% 19.3% 20.4% 20.1% 16.2% 19.7% 15.0% 17.8% 19.7% 17.1% 17.3% 15.2% 18.1% 15.2% (2.9)
Utilities 16.9% 14.7% 17.7% 15.0% 16.9% 15.4% 16.8% 12.6% 16.1% 15.2% 16.5% 18.0% 14.7% 14.2% 14.8% 16.9% 12.7% 13.2% 15.0% 1.8
Appendix 26 26© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Intent to Stay Trends by IndustryPercentage of Employees with High Levels of Intent to Stay By Industry
n = 21,171 (Q3 2016).Source: CEB 2012–2016 Global Labor Market Surveys.a Quarter-over-quarter changes were calculated from unrounded data.
Industry Q1 2012
Q2 2012
Q3 2012
Q4 2012
Q1 2013
Q2 2013
Q3 2013
Q4 2013
Q1 2014
Q2 2014
Q3 2014
Q4 2014
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015
Q1 2016
Q2 2016
Q3 2016
Q- Over-Q Change (ppt.)a
Construction 28.4% 30.1% 30.7% 31.6% 30.2% 31.2% 31.3% 32.4% 32.8% 34.5% 31.4% 32.0% 31.4% 32.9% 32.0% 34.2% 32.8% 33.1% 32.2% (0.8)
Consumer Goods 31.6% 30.7% 32.2% 30.5% 31.7% 29.8% 30.7% 30.8% 36.4% 37.2% 28.7% 32.6% 32.6% 31.4% 34.6% 32.6% 32.5% 35.5% 34.9% (0.6)
Education 36.9% 34.9% 34.6% 35.7% 39.0% 38.7% 38.7% 39.5% 42.6% 40.5% 37.2% 36.8% 36.0% 37.4% 38.6% 35.1% 36.5% 35.7% 35.7% 0.0
Financial Services and Insurance
31.3% 28.8% 31.2% 32.3% 29.9% 31.0% 33.6% 29.6% 35.6% 33.9% 30.7% 31.8% 33.0% 34.1% 34.0% 36.7% 34.2% 35.2% 33.1% (2.0)
Government 41.9% 40.1% 39.8% 41.7% 38.8% 41.6% 38.8% 40.7% 42.0% 43.3% 39.1% 41.3% 38.2% 42.3% 39.4% 40.0% 41.2% 39.0% 39.7% 0.7
Health Care 38.2% 34.5% 35.0% 36.2% 37.1% 37.6% 37.2% 37.9% 42.9% 40.5% 40.3% 38.7% 36.8% 36.6% 38.2% 42.1% 41.7% 38.9% 38.7% (0.3)
Leisure and Hospitality 29.3% 28.5% 27.1% 28.3% 27.1% 27.8% 33.1% 28.0% 28.4% 31.1% 27.8% 27.2% 32.0% 32.5% 36.4% 38.4% 35.5% 33.9% 39.9% 6.0
Manufacturing 30.7% 29.1% 30.1% 30.7% 30.6% 33.2% 29.5% 32.5% 34.6% 32.6% 29.0% 31.0% 31.3% 33.6% 31.8% 33.7% 31.6% 30.4% 32.0% 1.7
Professional Services 32.2% 33.1% 33.8% 32.2% 33.5% 31.4% 32.6% 31.4% 38.3% 35.6% 31.1% 33.4% 36.1% 37.9% 40.4% 41.2% 38.9% 40.0% 39.7% (0.2)
Retail 29.1% 30.8% 30.3% 31.3% 32.9% 30.6% 31.2% 33.7% 32.7% 34.3% 30.1% 29.9% 32.4% 32.0% 33.0% 33.3% 33.7% 34.1% 35.4% 1.3
Technology 25.2% 27.0% 25.0% 26.2% 26.4% 27.8% 28.9% 24.1% 30.7% 27.8% 26.0% 26.7% 28.2% 28.7% 28.3% 30.5% 30.4% 27.5% 29.8% 2.3
Travel and Transportation 34.7% 35.4% 36.1% 32.8% 37.6% 35.7% 34.1% 32.5% 38.1% 38.3% 35.3% 33.2% 35.5% 36.2% 36.7% 38.7% 38.3% 38.5% 39.1% 0.6
Utilities 30.9% 31.0% 28.3% 32.5% 31.9% 33.6% 37.3% 31.5% 38.1% 37.4% 36.7% 34.3% 34.3% 34.2% 37.7% 39.1% 35.1% 33.4% 37.3% 3.9
Appendix 27 27© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR
Definitions of EVP AttributesOur EVP model comprises 38 attributes that drive attraction and retention.
Attribute Definition
Business Travel The amount of out-of-town business travel required by the job
Camaraderie Whether working for the organization provides opportunities to socialize with other employees
Collegial Work Environment Whether the work environment is team oriented and collaborative
Compensation The competitiveness of the job’s financial compensation package
Coworker Quality The quality of the coworkers in the organization
Customer Prestige The reputation of the clients and customers served in performing the job
Development Opportunity The developmental and educational opportunities provided by the job and organization
Empowerment The level of involvement employees have in decisions that affect their jobs and careers
Environmental Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to environmental health and sustainability
Ethics and Integrity The organization’s commitment to ethics and integrity
Formality of Work Environment Whether the organization maintains a casual work environment
Future Career Opportunity The future career opportunities provided by the organization
“Great Employer” Recognition Whether the organization’s reputation as an employer has been rated highly by a third-party organization
Growth Rate The growth rate of the organization’s business
Health Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s health benefits
Inclusion and Diversity The organization’s level of commitment to having an inclusive and diverse workforce
We compiled a master list of more than 200 employment characteristics and evaluated them for similarity, distinctiveness, universality, and overall ratability, which led to the consolidated list of 38 attributes. We grouped the final list into five categories: rewards, opportunity, organization, people, and work.
28© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Appendix 28
Definitions of EVP Attributes (Continued)
Attribute Definition
Industry Desirability The desirability of the organization’s industry to the employee
Innovative Work The opportunity provided by the job to work on innovative, leading-edge projects
Job–Interests Alignment Whether the job responsibilities match an employee’s interests
Level of Impact The level of direct impact the job has on business outcomes
Location The location of the jobs offered by the organization
Manager Quality The quality of the organization’s managers
Market Position The competitive position the organization holds in its market(s)
Meritocracy Whether employees are rewarded and promoted based on their achievements
Organization Size The size of the organization’s workforce
People Management The organization’s reputation for managing people
Product or Service Quality The organization’s product- or service-quality reputation
Recognition The amount of recognition the organization provides employees
Respect The degree of respect the organization shows employees
Retirement Benefits The comprehensiveness of the organization’s retirement benefits
Risk Taking The amount of risk the organization encourages employees to take
Senior Leadership Reputation The quality of the organization’s senior leadership
Social Responsibility The organization’s level of commitment to social responsibility (e.g., community service, philanthropy)
Stability The level of stability of the organization and the job
Technology Level The extent to which the organization invests in modern technology and equipment
Vacation The amount of holiday or vacation time employees earn annually
Well-Known Product Brand The level of awareness in the marketplace of the product’s brand
Work–Life Balance The extent to which the job allows employees to balance their work and other interests
29© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR Appendix 29
CEB Corporate Leadership Council™
cebglobal.com
+1-571-303-3000 (North America)
+44-(0)20-7632-6000 (Europe, Middle East, and Africa)
+61-(0)2-9321-7500 (Asia–Pacific)
© 2016 CEB. All rights reserved. CLC166505PR