Talent Management Trends in Higher Education

Transcription

1

2 Introduction Managing human resources processes in higher education institutions requires a balancing act. It involves managing complex processes across the entire employment lifecycle, from recruiting, to managing and retaining employees. At the same time, HR professionals must be able to track, audit, and defend personnel decisions often with more job applicants and fewer internal resources than in years past. For the second consecutive year, PeopleAdmin a leading provider of web-based talent management solutions designed for higher education and government organizations has created the Talent Management Trends in Higher Education Report to help HR professionals benchmark their talent management practices with those of their peers. The goal of the report is to provide a solid understanding of talent management trends unique to higher education institutions, while providing the data HR professionals need to benchmark their progress against like-sized institutions. Key Findings The Talent Management Trends in Higher Education Report includes survey data from more than 500 respondents. The survey included questions about challenges respondents are facing across all aspects of talent management from recruiting and onboarding to position and performance management. The survey results reveal the following: Succession planning, workforce planning, performance evaluations, performance review feedback, and online competency testing are the most difficult areas for HR professionals to manage. 68.8% of institutions have automated the applicant tracking process, and 66.1% have automated the faculty recruiting process. The top five recruitment process challenges are: integrating hiring data with other HR systems, delivering reports and metrics, managing the faculty hiring process, improving hiring workflow, and managing the adjunct hiring process. The higher education market continues to adopt technologies to manage the recruiting process and expresses high levels of satisfaction with automated processes. 68.8% of institutions have automated the applicant tracking process. Fewer institutions have adopted technology for position management (38.4%). There is a significant opportunity for institutions to gain efficiencies in this area. Only 20% of organizations are delivering reports and metrics in an automated and efficient fashion. The most important metrics are EEO, time-to-fill, first year turnover, and cost-per-hire. These point directly to four key areas of effective organizational management compliance, efficiency, quality and cost. PeopleAdmin 02

3 Audience Demographics More than 500 higher education institutions participated in the 2011 survey. Of the respondents, 71.3% manage job vacancies each year, and 73.3% manage ,000 applications per year. How many employees are in your institution? How many jobs do you have open on an annual basis? 71.3% of higher education responders manage vacancies per year, and 73.3% manage ,000 applications per year. How many applications do you receive on an annual basis? PeopleAdmin 03

4 Talent Management Challenges When asked to rank top talent management challenges, the respondents rated the following in the top five: succession planning workforce planning performance evaluations performance review feedback online competency testing The first four challenges listed above were also rated in the top five challenges in last year s study. However, ensuring new hires are on-boarded effectively also made the top five list last year. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being least difficult and 5 being most difficult, please rate the following talent management processes. Effective succession planning 3.26 More effective workforce planning 3.08 Managing employee performance evaluations 3.08 Delivering performance review feedback 3.02 Providing online competency testing 2.92 Ensuring new hires are on-boarded effectively 2.92 Managing position descriptions 2.91 Managing employee compensation 2.91 Providing online skills testing 2.82 Utilizing web 2.0 technologies 2.80 Faculty contract management 2.73 Sourcing candidates to fill open positions 2.66 Tenure application process management The results also showed that smaller organizations had different challenges than their larger counterparts with online competency testing, social media and on-boarding new employees all appearing in their top five. Responses by organization size Employees Succession planning Online competency testing Social media On-boarding Workforce planning 251-5,000 Employees Succession planning Performance Evaluations Workforce Planning Performance Review Feedback Managing Position Descriptions 5,001+ Employees New hire on-boarding Succession Planning Workforce Planning Performance Evaluations Performance Review Feedback PeopleAdmin 04

5 Recruiting Process Challenges When asked to rank top recruiting process challenges, respondents rated the following in the top five: integrating hiring data with other HR systems delivering reports and metrics managing the faculty hiring process improving hiring workflow managing the adjunct hiring process The first four challenges listed above were also rated in the top five challenges in last year s study. Last year, managing search committees made the top five list. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being least difficult and 5 being most difficult, please rate the following recruitment processes. Integrating hiring data with other HR systems Delivering recruiting reports and metrics Managing the faculty hiring process Improving hiring work-flow Managing the adjunct faculty hiring process Managing position descriptions Managing search committees Selecting the most qualified candidates Providing an effective employment site Handling EEO compliance Managing the student employment/work study process Effective integration of job site with.edu site Communicating with candidates Scheduling candidate interviews Providing accessibility to disabled candidates Advertising positions on external websites Managing civil service hires Responses were fairly consistent, regardless of size of organization. The one exception was managing search committees and managing position descriptions, which rated in the top five in responses from the smallest organizations only. Responses by organization size Employees Reports and metrics Integrating hiring data Hiring workflow Position descriptions Search committees 251-5,000 Employees Integrating hiring data Reports and metrics Faculty hiring Adjunct faculty hiring Hiring workflow 5,001+ Employees Integrating hiring data Reports and metrics Faculty hiring Adjunct faculty hiring Hiring workflow PeopleAdmin 05

6 Hiring Process Automation and Satisfaction In this year s survey, 31% of institutions are managing their recruitment process manually or with basic tools such as spreadsheets. This is down from 39% in the 2010 study, implying that the adoption of recruitment automation technology continues to increase in higher education. When asked to rate their satisfaction with the hiring process, those that use a third-party applicant tracking system are 4.6 times more likely to be satisfied with their process than those who have yet to automate. Respondents using a third-party applicant tracking system are 4.6 times more likely to be satisfied with their hiring process. which best describes your hiring process today? We use paper applications and track the process manually We use a combination of paper and online tools such as spreadsheets We use an automated system developed internally We use an applicant tracking system purchased externally Other 70.0% % Highly Satisfied with their process 60.0% 50.0% 62.4% 40.0% 44.5% 30.0% 20.0% 25.2% 10.0% 13.3% 0.0% We use paper applications and track the process manually We use a combination of paper and online tools such as spreadsheets to track the process We use an automated system developed internally We use an applicant tracking system purchased externally PeopleAdmin 06

7 Faculty Hiring Process Automation and Satisfaction Of those respondents indicating they are responsible for the faculty hiring process, 24.9% are managing this process manually or with basic tools such as spreadsheets. A majority of institutions are using their applicant tracking system for both faculty and non-faculty hiring. When asked to rate their satisfaction with the faculty hiring process, those that use a thirdparty system for faculty recruiting rate satisfaction with their process 160% higher than those who have yet to automate. Respondents using a third-party system for faculty recruiting rate 160% higher satisfaction with their process. which best describes your hiring process today? We use paper applications and track the process manually We use a combination of paper and online tools such as spreadsheets We use an automated system developed internally We use our applicant tracking system purchased externally We use a separate system purchased externally for faculty recruiting Other 100% Faculty Recruiting Process Average Satisfaction Rating 75% 50% 63.7% 68.9% 25% 33% 33.4% 0% We use paper applications and track the process manually We use a combination of paper and online tools such as spreadsheets to track the process We use an automated system developed internally We use an applicant tracking system purchased externally PeopleAdmin 07

8 Position Management Process Automation and Satisfaction Of those respondents indicating they are responsible for position management in their organization, 51.9% manage this process manually or with basic tools such as spreadsheets. When asked to rate their satisfaction with the position management process, those that use a third-party system for position management are 25 times more likely to be satisfied with their process than those who have yet to automate. Respondents using a third-party system for position management are 25 times more likely to be satisfied with their process. How would you best describe your position management process? We do not have a defined process We have a defined process that is documented on paper We have an automated system that was developed internally We have an automated system that was purchased externally Other 70.0% % Highly Satisfied with their process 60.0% 50.0% 62.6% 40.0% 30.0% 40.0% 20.0% 10.0% 2.5% 15.8% 0.0% We do not have a defined process We have a defined process that is documented on paper We use an automated system developed internally We have an automated system purchased externally PeopleAdmin 08

9 Performance Management Process Automation and Satisfaction Of those respondents indicating they are responsible for performance management in their organization, 59.7% have a paper-based process. When asked to rate their satisfaction with the performance management process, those that use a third-party system for performance management are 4.3 times more likely to be satisfied with their process than those who have yet to automate. Respondents using a third-party system for performance management are 4.3 times more likely to be satisfied with their process. How would you best describe your performance management process? We do not have a defined process We have a defined process that is documented on paper We have an automated system that was developed internally We have an automated system that was purchased externally Other 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% % Highly Satisfied with their process 48.5% 59.4% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% We do not have a defined process 13.7% We have a defined process that is documented on paper We use an automated system developed internally We have an automated system that was purchased externally PeopleAdmin 09

10 Recruiting Metrics In this year s survey, 73.2% of respondents are either not measuring the recruiting process/ function or are using basic reports, indicating enormous opportunity for improvement in this area. Of those actively measuring, EEO, time-to-fill, first-year turnover, and cost-per-hire are the top areas of measurement. Which best describes your use of recruiting metrics today? We are not using recruiting metrics We create basic reports manually or in spreadsheets We deliver reports through our talent management tools We integrate data from a variety of sources and deliver metrics Other Which of the following recruiting metrics do you track regularly? EEO 61.3% Time-to-fill We don t measure any of the above First-year turnover Cost-per-hire Quality of hire Candidate satisfaction Manager satisfaction Other 24.2% 17.3% 12.4% 7.6% 7.3% 6.7% 6.0% 34.0% PeopleAdmin 10

11 Conclusion In this year s study, we found that human resources professionals in higher education institutions continue to face many of the same recruiting and talent management challenges that they faced last year. Though we did not ask survey respondents specifically about the effects of the economy on their talent management challenges, we believe that HR professionals in higher education institutions are facing significant recruiting and talent management challenges while also managing more job applicants with fewer internal resources than they have had in years past. At the same time, the higher education marketplace continues to see the benefits of adopting recruiting and talent management technologies. In fact, institutions that have taken on such technology initiatives are citing higher rates of satisfaction across the board for hiring, position management, and performance management processes. We also found that the majority of human resources professionals are measuring few, if any, metrics around recruiting. Given the importance of tracking and analyzing recruiting metrics to improve recruiting processes over time, we believe that HR professionals are not ignoring this aspect of recruiting, but are simply managing it in a more reactive fashion with basic tools. We expect to see vast improvement in this area as organizations adopt enabling technologies. No matter where a higher education institution falls in comparison with the results of this study, the trends are clear: an increasing number of higher education institutions are using recruiting and talent management technologies to automate complex processes and gain efficiencies. And, those that do are more satisfied than ever with their processes. PeopleAdmin 11

12 About People Admin As a recognized leader in Talent Management solutions specifically designed for Higher Education and Government, PeopleAdmin helps customers build better organizations so that they can build a better future. The company s unique web-based solutions empower customers to gain new efficiencies and bring order to the talent management lifecycle by enabling them to: automate and streamline the hiring process; effectively manage position descriptions and employee performance; develop compliant and defensible audit trails to minimize risk and defend talent management decisions; and utilize industryleading reporting and metrics. Delivered through a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model, PeopleAdmin solutions are rapidly deployed, easy-to-use and supported by the company s deep commitment to customer service and satisfaction. More than 650 organizations throughout North America rely on PeopleAdmin to strengthen and simplify their talent management process. The company has a diverse customer base made up of city, county and state governments and numerous public and private colleges and universities. PeopleAdmin s customers include City of Austin, Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Gahanna, Princeton University, Dartmouth College, University of Chicago, University of Notre Dame and University of Pennsylvania. For more details, please visit PeopleAdmin 12