A Vicious Cycle, Continued

A recent New York Times article serves to underscore the disconnect between American educational organizations and business organizations. The article, entitled "Taking More Seats on Campus, Foreigners Also Pay the Freight", highlighted a trend at The University of Washington and other colleges with regards to foreign students. Schools are increasing the size of these populations due to the fact that they can charge more for them. Universities are feeling the economic pinch so, like their for-profit peers in the business world, are tapping into alternative revenue sources. Students from other countries (and to a lesser extent, out-of-state students) can be charged higher tuition and other school related fees. 

Here are a few points from the NYT article:

• At The University of Washington 18% of its freshman are from outside the United States. Their tuition costs ($28059) are 3 times the average of in-state students.
• Top schools such as Columbia University, Boston University, and University of Pennsylvania report at least 15% of its respective freshman populations are from other countries.
• Foreign students contribute approximately $21 billion a year to the US economy.

To be clear, the issue isn't about foreign students coming to the US to be educated. This journey for many echoes this country's immigrant experience, of those looking to gain an opportunity that this country can uniquely offer. And many have expressed their gratitude for this opportunity financially. It's also important to note that while the number of foreign students have sharply increased, they still represent a small fraction of a school's overall student population. 

"The U.S. has the best education system, especially in higher education"--Charn Uswachoke

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/02/12/3729579/international-alumni-are-filling.html#storylink=cpy

It's also not about pointing blame at the universities involved. As I talked about in a previous blog post, school administrators appear to be making reasoned yet unfortunate economic choices. When one source of revenue is significantly reduced (the University of Washington, for example, has stated that funding by the state has been reduced by more than half) an institution has to look elsewhere. Otherwise, it will have to reduce or cut programs. This is what happens when one doesn't adequately support and invest in critical institutions. 

The issue for me is one of access, particularly for low income students, many of whom are often people of color. Considering the fact that over 15% of the US population is living in poverty, and that a college degree has shown to have a significant return on investment (at least in terms of unemployment rates and salaries), it's troubling to see this trend. 

The issue is also one of competitiveness. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), 41% of foreign students currently enrolled at American universities are enrolled in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields (check out the report here). It's been well established that part of the economic crisis the US is facing is due to the fact that there isn't enough talent amongst its own citizens to support many company's demand for highly skilled technical workers. Without the right investments this trend will continue for the foreseeable future.

What can business leaders do to impact this? Here are a few suggestions:

• Advocate. Much has been made in terms of business leaders pledging to create jobs in the United States (e.g., Create Jobs for USA). Less has been discussed in terms of advocating for changes in access to effective educational and training programs. If the pipeline is broken how can companies build sustainable and effective talent management programs? Organizational leaders must actively reach out to those in the public and private sector to create solutions around this issue. For public institutions of higher education it's ultimately about funding. Businesses should reach out to government leaders to ensure that public funding continues and is strengthened. And universities can use this money, whether from public funds or added fees, and reinvest it into programs targeted toward underrepresented groups, particularly in the STEM fields.
• Innovate. No matter what's done in the higher education arena to impact the future it won't be enough to effectively address an organization's talent needs today. This means that companies must roll up their sleeves and do the work themselves, or support existing programs that seek to address this need (check out some examples here and here).
• Equivocate. Business leaders can simply not commit to any proactive stance. It's a legitimate strategy. Perhaps a company, one that's considered best-in-class for instance, can afford to attract and retain high quality talent. Yet considering the volatility of the economic landscape it seems like a short-sighted stance.  

In conclusion, the economic choices that those in the higher education industry will have a direct impact on public and private organizations. Leaders can choose to advocate, innovate, or equivocate on this issue. But it's not going to go away anytime soon. Until things change the vicious cycle will continue.  

Blind Spots, Diversity on the Catwalk, and Holding Ourselves Accountable

It's been close to 2 weeks since the New York Giants won the Super Bowl. Aside from the game I, along with apparently millions of  other people, enjoy critiquing the commercials. One of the spots that garnered a lot of attention was from Best Buy. In it they highlight various inventors and business people who've had a significant impact in the mobile arena. 

It definitely appealed  to the geek in me. I felt it was a pretty cool commercial, but some didn't see it as I did, noting its lack of women or people of color (click here and here for a few examples). What was interesting was that I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me. Then it became pretty obvious. Whether this constitutes discrimination or lack of understanding on the part of Best Buy or the advertising agency is debatable. The point is that, for an industry that's been in the news recently for its distinct lack of diversity, this commercial didn't help matters.

But other business sectors have their own blind spots when it comes to diversity and inclusion issues. I've been in the fashion and retail industry for more than two decades now. In that time I've experienced a lot of changes--from the rise of fast fashion to changes in the fortunes of many a retailer--yet there are a few constants. Retail, even in the age of the internet, still works best when it's face-to-face. And female models--on display, in print, on the runway, or through other mediums--are tall and lithesome. Instead of lithesome some would say skinny, and unhealthily so. Why else would the Council of Fashion Designers in America (CFDA), the industry's trade association, issue guidelines designed to "educate the industry to identify the early warning signs in an individual at risk of developing an eating disorder"? 

Be that as it may, the latter statement may be changing slightly, if recent articles can be used as indicators of said change.

'Most runway models meet the BMI criteria for anorexia', claims plus-size magazine in powerful comment on body image in the fashion industry

This was the headline in a recent online article for The Daily Mail, a British publication. The piece centered around a feature from Plus Model Magazine. This magazine, through photos and statements, attempted to address the need for greater size diversity in the fashion and modeling industry. As you can imagine, the article generated strong comments on both sites.

On a somewhat quieter but no less interesting note is this article from the Fashionista blog:

Can Modesty and Modeling Mix? Enter New Muslim Modeling Agency, Underwraps

Its content centers around Nailah Lymus, an American-born Muslim, and her modeling start-up called Underwraps. Its purpose, according to Ms. Lymus, is to provide a way for women who want to work as models while holding onto the modesty principles of their faith. While brand new (she started the agency only recently, in time for New York's Fashion Week) she has 4 women in development. 

Again, it's not until an alternative appears that we realize how homogeneous our environment is or can become. As business leaders, it's important that we have our eyes open to what's occurring around us. Be honest about our inherent biases about the industry and profession we work within. Celebrate its successes but be critical of its shortcomings. Equally important, speak up about the need for change, even if things are going well--especially when things are going well. This goes beyond diversity as a game of numbers (e.g., how many members of a protected category the organization has representing it). This also goes beyond avoiding lawsuits and bad press. Ultimately, it's about reflecting the audience you serve, not as something 'other', but as normal as we all are.

The Conference Board--Talent Strategies Management Conference

On February 9th and 10th I had the pleasure of attending an event sponsored by The Conference Board here in New York City. Founded in 1916, The Conference Board is a not-for-profit organization, working with businesses and their leaders to make better decisions--in their words, "to help our members understand and deal with the most critical issues of our time." 

The event I attended, the Talent Strategies Management Conference, spoke clearly to the organization's mission. Tight budgets, coupled with lingering economic uncertainty, continue to dictate how leaders use limited company resources. Yet it's apparent that Talent Management (TM) must be a priority, in order for businesses to remain competitive in the face of constant internal and external disruption. As Valerie Grillo, Vice President of Global Leadership Development at American Express stated, "What got us here today isn't going to make us successful in the future." No organization, whether globally recognized or regionally based, can ill afford to ignore this.

So it comes as no surprise that the event's attendance was high. An informal tally revealed approximately 150 participants, spanning the range from humble blogger/HR Generalist (myself) to senior executives and CEO's. This mix of business leaders, both on and off the stage, coupled with the beautiful surroundings (the event was held at the world famous Waldorf=Astoria), allowed for a rich discussion of TM centered philosophies, strategies, and tactics. These factors will undoubtedly enable participants to walk away from the event inspired, informed, and ready to put theory into practice.

The two day conference was informative on many levels. All those in attendance understood the critical role in how a robust, well planned and executed talent management program benefited an organization and its members. And while companies approached it in various ways, a few common themes emerged.

• "Talent Management activities must be be integrated with your business planning activities." This quote by George S. Barrett, Chairman and CEO of Cardinal Health, Inc., sums up a recurring theme on display at the conference--TM strategies must be explicitly linked to the organization's business strategy. This seems obvious (at least to me) and yet many companies are not good at talent management. According to Alice Kwan from Deloitte Consulting, in reference to a Deloitte report entitled, "Talent Edge 2020: Redrafting talent strategies for the uneven recovery", only 17% of organizations consider themselves best in class with regards to talent management programs. 83% reported the need for significant improvement in this area. In order to drive organizational objectives it's critical for leaders to provide the framework, goals, and tools for its members to succeed. If TM systems and programs are not aligned with business objectives it leads to waste, disengagement, and a decreased competitive advantage. This often involved much organizational soul searching by senior leadership. Assessment of the brand's position, both currently and where it wanted to be down the road, helped to define what the talent road map may look like. Having a finger on the company's pulse (whether through external or internal assessments) helped define what people-centric behaviors and outcomes were valued.
• Human Resources wasn't the only player on the field. HR was an important partner in the design, implementation, and ongoing development of a company's talent management initiative. For true success (meaning high quality and sustainable design, execution, and user acceptance) ALL key stakeholders needed to be involved. It was intentional in many organizations to have senior leaders pilot specific TM initiatives in a public fashion. Going back to Cardinal Health Inc., it was mentioned that HR executes the strategies, but all business leaders drive it. At PepsiCo Inc., they utilize a dual 5-point performance evaluation system, broken out by People and Business objectives. Each represents 50% of a leader's total performance score. As Allen H. Church, PepsiCo's Vice President of Global Talent Development stated, "How you achieve results is as important as what you achieve." 
• Keeping it simple. Almost everyone spoke of the need to have a simple, user-friendly, and most importantly, integrated talent management systems. Some told of having TM processes such as performance feedback as being "folded" into a leader's day-to-day interactions with staff. For instance, leaders from both Campbell Soup Company and PepsiCo Inc. spoke of 'Moments of Truth'. These were the commonplace interactions between supervisors and employees that, when done wrong, potentially impacted morale and productivity. Both companies took proactive approaches to coach supervisors on their behaviors, enabling them to have more effective conversations. Technology deployment was also discussed. Many companies found that integration across the enterprise was critical for talent management programs to truly penetrate the culture, particularly for those companies that had a portfolio of product lines and/or were global in nature. This allowed for high user adoption as well as transparency. Many companies present spoke of setting up their respective systems so that, barring certain restrictions, employees, leaders, and executives had access to relevant talent related data. Reviews were no longer hidden in storage, they were out in the open and available across the entire enterprise.
• Getting the most bang for your buck. Many participants made it explicitly clear that talent management wasn't a one-size-fits-all process. While it was important for the entire enterprise to pursue effective TM strategies, significant resource allocation (in the form of budget dollars and executive level sponsorship, amongst other things) was targeted to those opportunity areas which would yield the best bottom line results. For example, high potential employees and enterprise solutions were of particular importance to most organizations present at this event. 

The Talent Strategies Management Conference was a great event to attend. I wish to thank The Conference Board for putting together such a well organized event, as well as giving me the opportunity to attend. I also wish to thank the speakers (particularly Lori Pierson and Molly Simpkins) for sharing the good, bad and ugly when it comes to how they were able to effective tackle talent management strategies within their respective organizations.