Workforce and hiring trends amd demographics
While U.S. high school graduation rates are rising, much improvement has to be made.
Read more about…
8 Stats and Facts about the high school dropouts.
How low graduation rates affect the skill shortage.
The top 10 hedge funds managers make as much as 196,000 registered nurses or 250,000 entry level teachers. They make 50 to 100 times more than our top athletes, movie stars, CEOs, lawyers, writers, doctors and celebrities. The top hedge manager, David Tepper, earned $1,057,692 an HOUR in 2012 — that’s as much as the average American family makes in 21 years!
Dementia affects a large and growing number of older adults in the United States. The estimated prevalence of dementia among persons older than 70 years of age in the United States in 2010 was 14.7%. The monetary cost of dementia in the United States ranges from $157 billion to $215 billion annually, making the disease more costly to the nation than either heart disease or cancer.Medicare paid approximately $11 billion of this cost. The costs and the number of people with dementia will more than double within 30 years.
Now get your head out of the gutter. It’s not what you’re thinking. WTF? is the question posed by Brian Solis in his new book, What’s the Future of Business? While previewing his video and Slideshare presentation, I discovered these nuggets:
Finally – I love this quote.
“in the end, complacency is a symptom of mediocrity and mediocrity is the result of a leadership organization that chooses not to lead, but instead, to manager how to be better or more efficient around “what is” and not “what should be” or “what’s next.” Brian Solis
The internet has upended the business model of many industries—often in unexpected ways. The higher-education industry is on the verge of such a change.
Industry leaders in other industries like newspapers, telecommunications, and entertainment never saw the changes coming (or committed to huge overhead investments and labor contracts, they chose to ignore the signs) even though such transformations seem to have been inevitable. Leaders in higher education will do well to learn from the past and heed the warning signs. Disenchantment is growing with the quality and value of the traditional college experience.
The Degree Payoff
For those who seek a certain level of economic security or advancement, a 4-year degree is absolutely necessary. The Bureau of the Census data shows that the income advantage offered by a college degree is nearly double what it was just a generation ago. And it is the full bachelor’s degree that counts (although lifetime incomes vary dramatically between major fields of degree-holders’ study and the reputations of the institutions granting them). Even someone with a 2-year associate degree can expect just 29 percent more in annual income than a person who holds only a high school diploma. Compare that to students from families in the bottom quartile of household income who are now graduating from college at the lowest level in 30 years, with fewer than 10 percent obtaining a degree.
Clearly, this is a situation primed for change not just for individuals, but for our economic recovery and global competitiveness. Completing a certain level of education since the dusk of the Industrial Era and the beginning of the Computer Age has been crucial to securing good employment. The difference is that, just a generation ago, the attainment level needed to assure a reasonable chance at the American Dream was a high school diploma. Today, the high school diploma has been supplanted by the college degree; making it through 4 years of college is now virtually a prerequisite for economic advancement.
The existence of new competition, combined with widespread public frustration, has produced the conditions that may allow for a sweeping makeover of American higher education. Something has to give. Serious alternatives to the status quo are beginning to emerge.
Heavy Heavy Overhead
The traditional college model that requires a classroom, teachers, dorms, and libraries is obsolete. The high cost of a college education at a traditional university is driving opportunities for online learning endeavors that promise to revolutionize the way we learn. Peer-to-peer learning is part of this new trend. Rapid change in technology is giving creative new entrants a growing technological edge—an essential precondition for transformative change.
Online learning enables information to be transferred and student performance to be monitored at a fraction of conventional costs. It changes the entire relationship between student and teacher. Just as blogs, social media, and websites have disrupted traditional media, collaborative learning and peer-to-peer education will disrupt conventional colleges. Online education has the potential to completely upend today’s established universities.
In fact, a recent 12-year study by the U.S. Department of Education finds that people learn better online than in a traditional classroom. In part, this is because students learning online are not faced with an authority figure (“the sage on the stage”) but with their own peers in a collaborative setting. Young adults preparing to enter the workforce are already used to that virtual environment from building relationships on social networking sites and developing collaborative skills on gaming sites. This type of learning experience is already available with sites like eduFire.com, which provides a marketplace for both teachers and students to find one another and connect with the most effective learning tools.
Fewer Faculty: Online’s poised to explode professor productivity
Online education is no longer just a cheap alternative—it’s a force to be reckoned with. It is growing rapidly in both scale and scope. For the past 7 years, online enrollments in the United States have increased much faster than overall university enrollments. According to a survey of more than 2,500 colleges and universities by the Babson Survey Research Group, the proportion of students taking at least one online course grew from 10 percent in 2003 to 25 percent in 2008. And that figure continues to rise: In the fall semester of 2009, the share of students taking at least one online course was up 21.1 percent from the previous year and represented 29.3 percent of total enrollment—an enormous figure when compared to the increase in total post-secondary enrollment, which grew at just 1.2 percent.
To seize the opportunity at hand, new learning models are being introduced and are getting a lot of attention from students, parents, and forward-thinking leaders in higher education.
A new online phenomenon is developing called a MOOC, which stands for massive open online course. Part of what makes this different is that it is a free course that is open to a large number of students. Consider the course Introduction to Artificial Intelligence offered by Stanford University. When the class was introduced, enrollment was planned for 10,000. One hundred sixty thousand enrolled. You might think that “watching a video clip” of a professor is nothing new and adds little educational value. But MOOCs just don’t rely on having students watch recordings of professors. MOOCs provide many benefits, including delivering courses from the best teachers in the field to students who would otherwise not be able to access it. They break up video into 8 to 12-minute segments, followed by on-screen exercises and quizzes to keeps students engaged. MOOCs combine education, entertainment, and social aspects into a highly effective learning experience. And the cost is appealing—free!
Another example of disruptive changes to the traditional college education is the Khan Academy, a free, nonprofit service that now provides more than 2,700 lectures online via YouTube, mainly in the sciences and primarily at the pre-college level. The Khan Academy now offers a sophisticated learning strategy using YouTube that allows students to take graded tests and obtain feedback that steers them in a customized way toward appropriate material.
Disruptive Technology?
The Khan Academy is just one example of the creative use of online instruction and monitoring software that is transforming education and providing better quality at a fraction of the cost. And yet, despite the proliferation of such competitors, the major universities have been complacent in their responses to the challenge of online education. Their reaction has been simply to try to incorporate web-based learning into their traditional business model, rather than to treat it as a fundamentally different approach to learning.
The established universities recognize that they face an unwelcome threat from for-profit schools that aim primarily at working students seeking professional qualifications. These include such competing institutions as the University of Phoenix, which blends online learning with instruction at local campuses across the country, and Kaplan University, which, in its own right, demonstrates how industries are adapting—Kaplan University is owned by a subsidiary of The Washington Post. To date, they are largely dismissive of these for-profit schools. This attitude is eerily reminiscent of the attitude that major newspapers had during the early days of online news, when now-defunct publications believed that their journalistic quality and name brands would protect them from any serious competition.
Tuition Under $6,000—A Year!
But while the emergence of online instruction is sure to drive change in higher education, it is not the whole story. The larger threat to the traditional university system seems more likely to come from institutions that combine online education with new, innovative business models. Consider Western Governors University, a nonprofit created in 1996 by the governors of 19 western states. WGU not only uses online education, but it also shuns curricula and grades, instead identifying the core knowledge needed for competency in a subject area and testing for that knowledge, licensing the necessary study material. Members of WGU’s faculty function as mentors and tutors, assisting students with the material, rather than as formal instructors. WGU has won accreditation, and with its focus on undergraduates and master’s students (rather than PhD students or research programs), the university now has more than 20,000 students nationwide. Perhaps most noteworthy, its annual tuition is below $6,000.
Brigham Young University–Idaho is another intriguing innovator. Created out of Ricks College in 2000, BYU–Idaho does not have a long summer recess or competitive athletics. It supplements regular professors with peer-to-peer instruction. For some students, the school allows technical certifications in core courses before moving on to electives, which means that students acquire official qualifications as they advance toward a bachelor’s degree. If, for any reason, the students do not graduate with a degree, they still have the certifications—unlike many students elsewhere, who may drop out of college with a large debt but no formal qualification of any kind. In some BYU–Idaho programs, students who can avoid room and board costs by living at home are able to complete a 4-year degree for less than $8,000.
The small, private Southern New Hampshire University is yet another example. Now the second largest online education provider in New England, SNHU’s 7,000 web-based students outnumber the on-campus student body. At the university, “course authors” with a strong understanding of online education develop classes but don’t necessarily teach them; often, the teachers are adjuncts who use the course authors’ materials. Next year, SNHU expects online education to bring in more than $100 million—a windfall that subsidizes the money-losing undergraduate campus. In a sharp break with most established universities, SNHU views online courses not as a sideshow to its traditional on-campus programs, but rather as the key to its future.
The Declarative Knowledge Revolution
Another significant threat to the traditional college education are companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, or some yet to be announced start-up. As corporations and individuals begin to demand better bang for their buck, who else better to teach “declarative knowledge”—facts rather than know-how—than the leaders of the knowledge revolution at a fraction of the cost of the university and equal or better outcomes. A whole generation of young people has grown up with or has adopted mobile devices, and a company that aims directly for this market could capture commuters, travelers, and busy working adults. And for a new learning based on collaborative learning and peer-to-peer education, a business like Facebook is primed to jump in.
Higher Ed Meets Higher Value
The real challenge for these new entrants is to show potential students and their parents that the programs they offer actually do rival or outperform their established competitors in terms of value for money. To be sure, well-established leaders in any industry are used to dealing with competition from new technologies and new entrants with different business models. But with college costs rising, would-be students are demanding clear demonstrations that their money will be well spent. Traditionally, value-seekers have been at a disadvantage: Compared with the value-for-money data available for many other products and services, obtaining the financial and other information needed to make a wise decision about college is confusing and difficult. But the situation is steadily improving, thanks to rankings and data like those supplied by U.S. News & World Report, Kiplinger, and Forbes. As a result, colleges are likely to see a significant increase in prospective students’ ability to make informed decisions, to the detriment of complacent colleges that have relied on their brand names and historical reputations to coast along.
A Tipping Point for the American Dream?
Among experts in the fields of education and industry transformation, there is a growing sense that higher education is approaching a tipping point—and that the industry will encounter disruptive innovation quite soon. The Innosight Institute’s Michael Horn predicts: “I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 10 to 15 years, half of the institutions of higher education will have either merged or gone out of business.”
For a growing number of Americans, a college degree is something obtained only through enormous sacrifice and indebtedness on their part or their parents or a dream that is entirely out of reach. Meanwhile, most college leaders live in a bubble in which the costs of ever more elaborate facilities, expanding administrative bureaucracies, and high-profile professors with light teaching loads can simply be passed on to customers in the form of higher tuition.
But those days are about to end. If this transformation does come to pass, it could have profound and beneficial implications. It could significantly increase the international competitiveness of American workers in a world in which we need higher skills and productivity to compete. It could sharply improve the employability of those on the bottom rungs of America’s income ladder, giving them the tools they need to move up. And it could do much to restore the American Dream for those who have begun to believe that opportunity in this country is disappearing. In other words, such a change could hardly come too soon.
While changes are transforming almost every industry, perhaps no individual profession will be impacted with the next few years as much as healthcare. And within that industry, no single job will be revolutionized as much as the medical billing coder. The looming transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10 will alter the profession and those directly responsible for accurate and prompt reimbursement for services.
(Note: ICD is International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, a medical classification list by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is used by 25 countries to report medical diagnoses and inpatient procedures. Accurate and prompt patient reimbursement by both governmental agencies and insurance companies rely on correct coding by hospitals and physicians offices. Delays in coding may result in inaccurate payments, higher accounts receivable, and more out-of-pocket expenses by patients or write offs by offices and hospitals.)
It is estimated that the complexity of the work and scope of managing the addition of more than 56,000 codes, a 5+ times increase, will result in productivity drops of 50 percent or more. As a result only half the work will get done or twice as many coders will need to be hired. And there lies the first of several problems facing hospitals and physician offices.
A lot of coders currently have just basic medical knowledge. That isn’t going to be enough. It is estimated that half of the coders today do not have enough education to make it. This alone will change education requirements and, subsequently, the type of individual capable of the work and attracted to a career in coding. ICD-10 requires a higher level of clinical knowledge than many Certified Professional Coders (CPC) have. If they haven’t prepared for that, they will be left behind. It will be a completely different world in coding going forward.
The magnitude of the change is significant. ICD-10 is not merely a modification of ICD-9 – it’s a disruptive change that relies much more on tacit knowledge than explicit information, something largely ignored by administrators and human resources.
What coders see no longer results in the conclusions you want – coding is no longer plug and play. This creates a critical and dangerous environment since efficient and accurate ICD-10 is required if the medical community wants to get reimbursed what they are due in a timely manner.
To understand the difference between just explicit information (know-that) and implicit knowledge (know-what and know-why), the iceberg metaphor is often used. Above the water lies the information that we know and can articulate without prompting. It is visible, readily available and shared by whoever wants it. It is simply explicit. Explicit knowledge is codified and easily transferable in systematic methods, such as rules and procedures.
You can ask a know-that question to just about anyone in a job and they can likely regurgitate it back even if it doesn’t have anything to do with their job. You can compare explicit knowledge activity to snorkeling verses scuba diving. Snorkeling is relatively easy and safe and fun. Most training programs and just plain old writing-down-what-you-do fits into this level of knowledge.
Most of us can articulate explicit knowledge, what we call knowledge at this surface level, if we are prompted. This is what most assessments for certification and skill proficiency evaluate.
Below the waterline lies tacit knowledge, or implicit knowledge. Employees floating below the surface are often the organization’s subject matter experts. They hold the technical and some company and industry knowledge that is revealed when they are asked. Few employees actually live in this space. And this is where things begin to get a bit more complicated. Knowledge near the water surface is still fairly easy to work with.
As outsiders or new employees enter an organization, they seek out these “snorkelers” to find out how to get things done. The problem with the ICD-10 transition is that there are few scuba divers and lots of snorkelers. And transforming knowledge from divers to snorkelers diverts the skilled from getting their jobs done at a time when productivity is already diminished by the massive requirements of ICD-10.
Tacit knowledge on the other hand is non-verbalized and intuitive. It is deeply rooted in an individual’s actions and experiences. Experts often arrive at problem diagnoses and solutions rapidly and intuitively without being able to report how they attained the result (tacit knowledge).
As we dive deeper into the water, the nature of this tacit knowledge changes. The view becomes murkier. It is harder to see ahead and get a handle on things. Like the iceberg, the deeper you go the knowledge becomes more complex and vast. At these levels, we begin to see all the different reasons why our tacit knowledge is unspoken.
Tacit knowledge rarely if ever is recorded. It often lies deep inside the minds of the employee. It is difficult if not impossible to capture. It’s not as easy as saying “Let’s find out what we know and then document it.”
That poses a gargantuan problem. Tacit knowledge is what we know and believe but cannot articulate, often because it has become so ingrained in our minds that we cannot separate it from who we are. That means if skilled workers leave, they take institutional knowledge with them along with the skills to do the job.
The timing for ICD-10 couldn’t be worse for healthcare. Complex, new problems need tacit knowledge to solve them but few people have the experience. A less experienced individual (which is nearly every coder at this point since ICD-10 is so new) have to rely on explicit knowledge. But because a whole new pool of rookie coders will be needed to complement the existing shrinking pool of skilled codes, most coders will have to rely on what they know in a job that requires application and critical thinking skills to bridge the gap between data and conclusions.
Transferring essential knowledge to a horde of snorkelers (and likely even inexperienced swimmers) quickly seems to be an impossible task. This tacit knowledge however is exactly the knowledge that organizations need to capture. It is the competitive advantage of an organization, held by a few people who make the connections between all the content that differentiates your organization from the competition.
The bottom line is that essential and valued coder skills will be needed for managing, interpreting, validating, transforming, communicating and acting on ambiguous and fast changing information. And those skills are and will be at a premium.
Yahoo’s recent decision to ban telecommuting has created quite a buzz. Reactions have ranged from outrage to praise. You could almost hear the huge sigh of relief expelled from managers worldwide who hate the concept of workers working from home and can’t give up the anachronistic style of management by walking around.
Time will only tell if Marissa Mayer’s decision will lead to her induction into the CEO Hall of Fame or Den of Shame. (Remember former CEO “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap?) But as an outsider looking in, the decision is rife with pitfalls and consequences and lots of bad examples of how to communicate with your employees.
Like many other observers, I don’t have inside information to the discussions and strategies leading up to this decision. All I get is what I read in the news and on blogs. In that vein, let me first say that I believe the announcement was likely taken out of context and subsequent responses were exaggerated, often to fit personal agendas. Regardless, nearly everyone agrees that the impact at Yahoo will be significant. Whether that impact is good or bad remains to be seen.
Now let me move on to my take on this decision.
First and foremost and most curiously, if face-to-face interaction is so valuable and productive, why was a memo sent? Why wasn’t a meeting of managers called to announce, explain, and discuss the decision? Why weren’t the people most affected by the decision contacted prior to any memo being circulated, confidential or not?
While creativity may be enhanced by face-to-face collaboration, the potential loss of key talent and acquisition of new talent comfortable with going to work each day may overwhelm any advantages gained by ending telecommuting. Even if the strategy turns out to be the right one, the tone of the message was harsh and cold. It read like a mandate, not a hard-to-swallow but necessary “Win One for the Gipper” rally the troops speech.
The decision was also interesting considering the new-Mom status of CEO Mayer. With 50 percent of the workforce now women, many working Moms and parent caregivers depend upon flexible, more compassionate, less autocratic leadership styles and work environments. Many of the most successful recruitment and retention efforts succeed based on the flexibility that telecommuting offers.
Yahoo recruits mostly college grads. Well over 60 percent of college students are female. It is even higher in many graduate programs. This decision paints Yahoo as a non-worker-friendly, non-family, non-work-life-balance workplace. That image excludes an even larger demographic necessary for recruitment. I assume that message wasn’t the intent and consideration for the impact on women, young workers, and college grads was given adequate scrutiny. But if it was, the message certainly wasn’t communicated clearly.
In coming weeks and months, it will be interesting to watch overall employee engagement. Will incumbent employees react positively to this definitive decision or view this dramatic change in policy as a last act of desperation from the captain of a singing ship? Some observers have even intimated that voluntary downsizing – employees leaving the company in response to the policy – might be behind the decision. This change could very well cause employees to quit before they are terminated, eliminating expensive severance packages and prolonged employment of disgruntled employees.
I’m also curious to know what type of innovative breakthrough Mayer is looking for that might be gained by forcing employees to “work side-by-side.” Few could argue with the comments by Yahoo EVP of People and Development Jackie Reses that “some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings.” If occupying the same space is a requirement for collaboration, does that mean that Yahoo will be consolidating their 20+ global offices in California and requiring all its employees to travel regularly or move closer?
Yahoo needs a big bodacious breakthrough and maybe on-site collaboration is the right catalyst to jumpstart innovation. But employee performance and productivity must be aligned with a strategy. What is Yahoo’s strategy? Better yet, what is its purpose, its unique proposition? Who is Yahoo and what does it do? If its goal is to be a better Google, Yahoo will lose. With three CEOs in a twelve month period, you have to ask – what is its business model? Does it even have one? You can’t expect employees to meet expectations if the only goal is inflating its stock price. If Mayer is looking for its workers to come up with the next great idea to save the company, banning telecommuting has as much chance of succeeding as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Reses’ memo continues, “speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home.” Maybe that’s true in some roles. But imposing this policy for all types of work just doesn’t make good business sense. It also flies in the face of recent studies on the value of telecommuting. In 2012, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted a survey concluding that telecommuting has “become instrumental in the general expansion of work hours, facilitating workers needs for additional work time beyond the standard workweek, and/or the ability of employers to increase or intensify work demands on their salaried employees.”
While creativity and innovation may flourish when engineers and marketing people interact face-to-face, a no-telecommuting policy may have a negative impact on more functional jobs like finance and accounting. It might reduce productivity and performance by lowering morale and limiting the pool of talent that the company attracts and retains.
Yahoo’s decision to ban telecommuting offers many valuable lessons for companies considering a significant policy change. What do you feel are the most valuable take-aways for CEOs and HR when making significant employee policy changes?
The United States has become a nation of “non-tinkerers,” a survey shows, and it may harming the way we live and work according to manufacturers.
In a poll of 1,000 U.S. adults, nearly six in 10 said they had never made or built a toy. Twenty-seven percent had not made or built even one item from a list of eight common projects, including furniture and a flower box. Sixty percent avoided doing major household repairs themselves, noted the survey from The Foundation of the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, based in Rockford, Ill.
“Many Americans simply do not work with their hands anymore, whether it’s to tackle a hobby for pleasure or to handle a necessary household repair. Young people essentially have no role models when it comes to fixing things or taking pride in building something,” said Gerald Shankel, the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association president.
There’s a growing shortage of tinkerers and people with hands-on skills in the workplace. Many studies predict a severe labor shortage as waves of blue-collar workers reach retirement age. A national poll of 500 teenagers, however, showed that 73% had little or no interest in those hands-on careers. Six in 10 teenagers had never visited or toured a factory, according to another The industrial heritage of the United States was based on tinkerers. In the future, who will fix our running toilets, creaky doors, and stalled engines?
I’ve written many articles and blogs about how the definition of work and the meaning of a career has changed. In the past differences have been targeted at age demographics and/or generations. But today the new paradigms are pervasive and affect workers and employers regardless of age, generation, or geography.
Below is a table highly the old verses new paradigms about work and careers.
| Job Security | … | Employability Security |
| Longitudinal Career Paths | … | Alternate Career Paths |
| Job/Person Fit | … | Person/Organization Fit |
| Organizational Loyalty | … | Job/Task Loyalty |
| Career Success | … | Work/Family Balance |
| Academic Degree | … | Continuous Relearning |
| Position/Title | … | Competencies/Development |
| Full-Time Employment | Contract Employment | |
| Retirement | … | Career Sabbaticals |
| Single Jobs/Careers | … | Multiple Jobs/Careers |
| Change in jobs based on fear | … | Change in jobs based on growth |
| Promotion tenure based | … | Promotion performance based |
There is an elephant in the management suite – an impending talent pipeline crisis. The crisis doesn’t stop at the top. There is also a serious shortage of skilled workers for key positions, from maintenance positions to service technicians to nursing. The problem is only going to get worse. Succession planning needs more attention than lip service.
According to the Department of Labor by 2018, 1 in 4 workers will be over the age of 55. The need to build a talent pipeline is critical and the clock is ticking.
The process of building this pipeline is often called succession planning. Unfortunately the mere mention of succession planning infers senior leadership. At best it reaches down the ladder to management. But rarely do organizations identify critical key roles that left unfilled or filled with the wrong employee could cost the organization revenues and competitive advantage.
Just yesterday morning I described to a local SHRM chapter why the scope of succession planning in most organizations is too narrow. A definition from a State of Iowa Workplace Planning document offers one of the most accurate and inclusive descriptions:
Succession planning is a process whereby organizations ensure that employees are recruited and/or developed to fill each key role within the organization.
A recent article described two types of succession planning: Operational Workforce Planning and Strategic Workforce Planning.
Operational Workforce Planning typically occurs with your annual budgeting cycle and forecasts staffing needs and planning for the coming year to 18 months. Sixty-seven percent of all companies conduct workforce planning on a purely operational and as-needed basis.
Strategic Workforce Planning looks into the future planning for and evaluating your organization’s staffing plans and forecasts one to five years even ten years into the future. A Strategic Workforce Plan is a full-scale evaluation and plan that identifies rick, change, and potential areas of opportunity.
To management, a strategic workforce plan looks like a daunting task. To some extent it is. But the failure to identify the risk factors associated with retaining and recruiting for key roles is significant.
During the SHRM meeting, a few members identified key positions in their organizations that remain unfilled and the risk for future openings was high. The HR manager for a poultry processor noted that the lack of maintenance workers put quality and safety at risk. A manufacturer cited the inability to recruit service technicians (installers) as one reason production has been cut and revenue projections reduced.
Despite the known and associated challenges of recruiting skilled workers not a single hand was raised when I asked the following questions:
Organizations must begin to stop giving lip service to the importance of succession planning. According to a new CareerBuilder study, seven out of 10 workers admit that they search for jobs as part of their “regular routine.” Thirty-five percent say that they start searching for a job within weeks of starting a new position. The risk of losing additional key employees in the future is substantial. The risk is imminent.
It behooves every organization – large and small – to take time to build a critical talent plan and pipeline. I offer the following 8 steps.
Connect with Us