From The Filing Cabinet to the Computer

From The Filing Cabinet to the Computer Making the case for modernizing academic talent management 1

College. The very word invites images of ivy-covered brick buildings, students reading classic literature and then debating philosophy with their tweed-jacketed professors while sitting on leather couches in a dusty library. An ivory tower aesthetic that places knowledge above all else and resists change. Of course, college today in no way resembles the ideal described above except perhaps for the last part. While today s colleges and universities cope with the rising influx of students the number of students attending higher education increased by a third (32 percent) between 2001 and 2011, from 15.9 to 21 million 1 they also must face the realities of modernizing outdated processes and replacing an aging workforce. Enter talent management, the processes by which organizations hire, train and recruit employees, ensure compliance with state and federal laws and regulations, and plan for the future. Such processes have proved successful in the business world; could they work in academia? In the 2014 Talent Management in Higher Education survey, Human Capital Media Advisory Group, the research arm of Workforce magazine, in partnership with Cornerstone OnDemand, set out to explore the function and scope of human resources in higher education, and discover successes and opportunities within that field. We explored how HR leaders viewed their roles within the larger context of their academic organizations, examined what processes colleges and universities have in place to develop employees and ensure academic compliance, and discovered that while some organizations have modernized their talent management processes, many have quite a way to go to bring their methods into the 21st century. PARTICIPANTS For more information, see Appendix. The 2014 Workforce Talent Management in Higher Education survey polled 258 HR and talent management professionals working in higher education about the talent management practices at their institutions. Study participants represent a variety of institution sizes and scopes: 2-year, 4-year and vocational/technical schools, as well as public, private and for-profit universities. KEY FINDINGS We re developing but not measuring. HR leaders are prioritizing improving talent management, but few organizations are measuring the effect of those efforts. We re training but not integrating. Hiring and training are top priorities for HR leaders, but their efforts are stymied by siloed processes and misaligned organizational goals. We ve prioritized the result but not the strategy. Many HR processes are still using manual systems, which puts organizations at risk for compliance and accreditation issues. 1 Snyder, T., and Dillow, S. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics 2012. U.S. Department of Education. December 2013, 338 621. 2

DEVELOPING BUT NOT MEASURING Academia as a whole comprises nearly 1.5 million faculty members (out of 4 million workers) at 4,700 degree-granting institutions. 2 Whether students attend a two-year community college, four-year institution or vocational/technical school, all students need a good education to secure their future; by 2020, an estimated 65 percent of all job openings in the United States will require some form of post-secondary education. 3 With so many students attending college, it s critical that colleges and universities maintain adequate student-to-faculty ratios to ensure students receive high-quality education. Hiring and training new employees will become critical as the current academic workforce ages and retires during the so-called Silver Tsunami. The mass baby boomer retirement event has been predicted for years 4 and with the mean age of all faculty members creeping ever higher 5 how are universities faring at hiring new employees? HR leaders recognize the seriousness of their situation and are taking steps to prioritize hiring. Hiring the right employees is the No. 1 priority for HR leaders in higher education over the next three years, with more than half (68.1 percent) defining the priority as high-to-critical. Hiring new employees to replace the retiring ones is nothing, however, without training those Figure 1: WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY MEASURING SUCCESS IN TALENT MANAGEMENT employees to ensure minimal institutional knowledge loss. Here, too, HR leaders identify this as a priority with 43 percent reporting developing employee skills and competencies as a high-to-critical priority. Without metrics in place to measure the impact of programs, there is no way to tell if programs are successful, and here is where many organizations fall short. A third (34.7 percent) of all organizations aren t measuring talent management successes and nearly as many (29.7 percent) don t track talent management functions. Medium, large and public universities are among those organizations without tracking tools in place; the number of institutions with more than 10,000 employees not tracking talent management success is more than 4 in 10 (42.9 percent); the numbers are slightly higher for medium institutions (44.7 percent) (Figure 1). Not tracking talent management is a huge missed opportunity for HR leaders to tout the success of their programs. Without quantifiable proof, HR leaders will face challenges when it comes to explaining their successes to university heads. There is already some evidence that this is happening, as HR leaders at many institutions feel their goals for talent management aren t well-aligned with organizational goals (Figure 2). Figure 2: THE TALENT MANAGEMENT FUNCTION IS CURRENTLY WELL-ALIGNED WITH THE GOALS OF MY INSTITUTION All organizations 4-year universities 34.7% 38.6% Agree Disagree Public universities Universities with 10,000+ employees Universities with 3,000-10,000 employees 40.6% 42.9% 44.7% 51% 49.0% 2 Ibid. 3 Carnevale, A., Smith, N., and Strohl, J. (2013). Recovery: job growth and education requirements through 2020. Georgetown University, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, center on Education and the Workforce. June 2013. 4 Snyder, M., (2011). 16 statistics about the coming retirement crisis that will drop your jaw. Business Insider. 5 Chronister, J., (1997). Faculty Retirement and Benefits. The NEA 1997 almanac of higher education. 113 128. 3

Figure 3: WHAT IS YOUR CURRENT TALENT MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY MIX? Manual In-house Vendor 71.4% 62.1% 53.3% 49.0% 40.3% 51.0% 44.9% 42.9% 42.9% 57.1% 34.1% 21.8% All organizations Small organizations Medium organizations Large organizations Clearly there is a communication breakdown between HR leaders and university leaders if more than half of all HR practitioners feel like their programs are misaligned with their institution s goals. Why is there such a disconnect between the two groups? HR is not tracking success, which may be preventing them from establishing a seat at the executive table. A few other factors are also working against HR, such as department siloing and antiquated systems/ lack of software. TRAINING BUT NOT INTEGRATING HR leaders have many options when leveraging technology in talent management today. HR can advertise and recruit employees through an online recruiting tool, train employees using online portals and content management systems, conduct performance appraisals on the computer and file everything away in the cloud for easy reference and retrieval during future performance reviews. HR is entering a digital golden age, but the academic sphere has not kept pace, with many organizations unwilling or unable to upgrade from pen and paper. More than half of all organizations (53.3 percent) continue to use manual systems (including Microsoft Excel) for talent management, more so than self-developed in-house systems (49 percent) or external vendor solutions (34.1 percent). Small, private universities are more likely to use manual systems for talent management.three-quarters of large organizations may have upgraded to an in-house system, but 4 in 10 also still use manual systems to some degree (Figure 3). While not every problem demands a technological solution, the limitations of using manual systems to track talent management cannot be overstated. Technology is capable of so much and its absence means missed opportunities for reporting successes, preventing failures, tracking trends and reporting compliance issues. Our respondents identified a number of areas where lack of technology 4

limits their reporting capabilities, such as leadership development and recruiting (Figure 4). Many factors exist for faculty resistance of adopting technology in higher education, such as fear of organizational change, lack of technical expertise and lack of access. 6 However, switching from manual to automated systems improves talent management in many ways, as the organizations using integrated systems can attest. Unfortunately, technology isn t a magic solution for improving academic HR (although it does help), because other barriers exist to building a successful talent management strategy. Chief among these barriers is department siloing. Academic HR differs from HR in the business world in one key aspect: at many organizations, the talent management function falls under the purview of deans or separate department heads instead of a centralized human resources department (Figure 5). On the surface, having a dean or department chair own talent management in their department may make sense. Deans are closest to the faculty members at their college; deans are the first ones to recognize potential talent and work to train and retain quality employees. Yet, fracturing the HR function this way has the potential to overwork deans (who are already being asked to teach, fundraise, research, publish and advocate for their schools) 7 and add needless levels of bureaucracy to all talent management processes, as well as cause budget redundancies. For an example of how HR duplication can lead to budget inefficiencies, one needs to look no further than the University of California school system. In 2010, the University of California, Berkley commissioned a study on its operations, and found numerous redundancies that added to the cost of talent management operations. 8 The organic growth of our operations over decades has led to many redundancies, complexities, and inefficiencies, which will be challenging to unwind. Local optimization, although well-intentioned and efficient on an individual basis, has unintentionally undermined pan-university effectiveness and has increased overall institutional costs and risk. UC BERKELEY OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE STEERING COMMITTEE Figure 4: IN WHICH AREAS DOES LACK OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION/REPORTING LIMIT THE ABILITY OF YOUR ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE DATA-DRIVEN DECISIONS? Leadership development Performance development Succession planning Learning and development Employee engagement Recruiting/ talent acquisition 40.2% 53.4% 53.0% 51.1% 50.8% 50.0% Figure 5: WHICH DEPARTMENT OWNS TALENT MANAGEMENT AT YOUR INSTITUTION? 11.7% 28.5% 3.6% 2.9% 53.4% Human Resources Dean or Department chair Other Business office Board of trustees By studying their processes, UC Berkeley realized just how much they were overspending by duplicating tasks 6 Khalil, S. From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia. Open Praxis, vol. 5 issue 2, April-June 2013, pp. 151 163. 7 Sensing, T., (2003). The role of the academic dean. Restoration Quarterly, 45 (First Quester), 5 9. 8 Bain & Company. (2010). Achieving Operational Excellence at the University of California, Berkeley. 5

among local organizations. Only after they identified where duplicate processes existed were they able to take steps to consolidate certain functions. Berkley s proactive stance can serve as a model for other institutions. Using unified technology that allows for visibility at all levels within the organization is the way of the future and the way to combine talent management functions from siloed departments into one strategic plan at an institution. While it may be difficult for academic stalwarts to relinquish control of the HR function to a centralized team, the business case for such a move offers many benefits, such as a streamlined training and development process, improved budged controls and better visibility into strategic data. Having a tech-savvy, centralized team overseeing talent management may improve visibility numbers, although currently 1 in 5 organizations don t have any visibility regarding strategic data on a number of key areas, a number that reaches 1 in 4 regarding lack of visibility in succession planning (Figure 6). HR leaders know they have to improve things like succession, engagement and development. Unfortunately, while organizations have prioritized the results they desire, they lack a cohesive strategy for achieving those outcomes. Figure 6: PERCENTAGE OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH NO STRATEGIC DATA VISIBILITY IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS Succession planning Compensation management Leadership development Employee engagement Recruiting/ talent acquisition 22.8% 20.5% 26.1% 25.3% 42.1% PRIORITIZING THE RESULT BUT NOT THE STRATEGY While academic institutions have identified the desired outcomes for their various challenges, few organizations have a reliable strategy in place to achieve the results they desire. Organizations are facing challenges from all sides, and they count hiring employees, developing employees and managing compliance issues as critical priorities (Figure 7). Identifying challenges is a start, but without a strategy to solve them, many organizations will fall short of their goals. Organizations need visibility into employee development and easily searchable databases to prove compliance. However, with paperwork still existing as paperwork and processes siloed among different departments, information often simply doesn t exist in a single location for easy tracking and reporting. Figure 7: WHAT ARE THE HIGH/CRITICAL PRIORITIES IN THE TALENT MANAGEMENT AREA AT YOUR INSTITUTION FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS? Hiring the right employees Managing employee compliance and risk issues Developing employee skills and compotancies 44.3% 58.6% 52.9% Outdated processes are problematic for many reasons: They slow down the hiring process, prevent employees from seeing their performance at a glance and prohibit easy oversight. This last is especially troubling for schools looking to keep accreditation. Accreditation is important for all academic institutions, as accreditation serves as a seal of quality for the particular school as well as making that school eligible for federal funding. 9 Loss of accred- Retaining talented employees 43.3% 9 U.S. Department of Education. Accreditation in the United States. National Recognition of Accrediting Agencies by the U.S. Secretary of Education. 6

itation, whether it s because of a lack of compliance or other factors, can ruin an academic institution. Just ask Sojourner-Douglass College, a tiny 1,100-strong college in East Baltimore that came under threat of accreditation loss because of inadequate financial resources, student learning outcomes and goal setting. 10 Small organizations are particularly concerned with ensuring accreditation compliance (Figure 8); however, accreditation loss doesn t just affect small colleges. The City College of San Francisco a community college serving 90,000 students annually has been locked in a bitter accreditation dispute since 2012. While the college won a two-year reprieve in January 2015, it still faces shutdown if compliance issues are not addressed. 11 While larger organizations seem less concerned with losing accreditation (Figure 8), the preceding examples illustrate that if organizations don t upgrade their processes and address compliance issues, they will run afoul of their accreditation bodies no matter their size. Figure 8: ACCREDATION IS A PRIMARY CONCERN WHEN IT COMES TO COMPLIANCE ISSUES Large organizations (more than 10,000 employees) Medium organizations (1,000-10,000 employees) Small organizations (less than 1,000 employees) 22.9% 39.3% 53.9% CONCLUSION Academic institutions face a variety of challenges related to talent management, including department siloing, manual system reporting and developing talent. All these challenges can cause issues with succession planning, compliance and accreditation if left unchecked. Our respondents identified a number of high-priority areas for the HR function at their organizations, including identifying top talent (internally and externally) and developing and training that talent. Identifying desired outcomes is only a first step, and organizations will need to address their talent management strategy to retain top talent, maintain proper student-to-faculty ratios and avoid accreditation and compliance issues. Modernizing processes and amalgamating the HR function into a unified department and technology solution could do much to ensure the growing student body will have highly qualified professors to learn from and employees to provide for an excellent university experience in the future. 10 Campbell, C., and Pegher, K. (2014). Sojourner-Douglass College to lose accreditation in June. Baltimore Sun. 11 Asimov, N. (2015). CCSF wins reprieve: Shutdown averted with 2-year extension. SFGate. 7

APPENDIX Survey dates September 2014 January 2015 Demographic information Total number of respondents: 289 Organizational size Less than 1,000: 48.7 percent 1,000-10,000: 38.3 percent More than 10,000: 13 percent Organizational structure Public institutions: 54.3 percent Private institutions: 34.1 percent For-profit institutions: 11.6 percent Organizational type Two-year schools: 18.6 percent Four-year schools: 70.2 percent Vocational/technical schools: 11.2 percent ABOUT CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND Cornerstone OnDemand (NASDAQ: CSOD) is a global leader in cloud-based learning and talent management software. The company has pioneered solutions to help organizations realize the potential of a new world workforce. From recruitment, onboarding, training and collaboration, to performance management, compensation, succession planning and analytics, Cornerstone empowers a lifetime of learning and development that is fundamental to the growth of employees and organizations. Based in Santa Monica, California, the company s solutions are used by more than 2,200 clients worldwide, spanning more than 19.1 million users across 191 countries and 42 languages. To learn more about Cornerstone, visit csod.com, twitter.com/ CornerstoneInc and facebook.com/csodcommunity. ABOUT WORKFORCE MAGAZINE Workforce is a multimedia publication that covers the intersection of people management and business strategy. Our community of senior-level human resources executives and C-level officers are the key decision-makers on talent management matters in the 2,500 largest corporations in America. They read us for our editorial focus and relevance to help them improve their business and their bottom line through effective management of the workforce. While employees and executives often bemoan the bureaucratic nature of HR processes, companies increasingly realize they need to be smarter about the ways they attract, retain and train their workforce. Our content helps HR professionals approach their jobs from a more strategic, bigpicture, business-results perspective. ABOUT HUMAN CAPITAL MEDIA The Human Capital Media (HCM) Research and Advisory Group is the research division of Human Capital Media, publisher of Chief Learning Officer, Talent Management and Workforce magazines. The Research and Advisory Group specializes in partnered research solutions customizable and proprietary deliverables that integrate seamlessly with existing sales and marketing programs. Leveraging our access to senior-level decision-makers and proven HR industry expertise, we undertake market and thought leadership research in the human resources industry. Creating custom content and presenting thought leadership research are all part of the Research and Advisory Group s focus. If you have any questions, contact Sarah Kimmel, director of research and advisory services: skimmel@humancapitalmedia.com. 8