66
Projected age of retirement
for current workers.


"facticious"
Data that is false or fabricated.

gold
The best data scientists turn
distilled information into pure gold.

butter
Too much churn and
companies lose the cream.

guatemala
Guatemala has the largest CW
compared to population in Americas.

1 in 3
# of working Americans in
the contingent workforce.


"jobsolete"
As some jobs become out of date,
others emerge.

rope
In a conformity string, we call attributes
that impact cost and availability of
qualified job candidates "pieces of work".

2%
Projected growth office/clerical
staffing 2013.

44%
Companies implementing proper
measures during offboarding.

singapore
Singapore was world's top CW
productivity market 2014.

male
Data Scientist: the most wanted
job by employers on LinkedIn
in 2014.

belgium
Belgium has the highest tax burden in EU.

247:10k
Ratio of robots to employees in Korea,
highest level in the world.

36%
Employers who find paying
freelancers cumbersome.

stars
The big star in our universe is Data Centauri.

40
% of American workforce projected
to be freelance by 2020.

crystalball
Predictive analysis is only as
insightful as the analysts.

sugar2
Data should never be sugar coded.

bow
A good strategy stretches without
changing its basic shape.

19.6wks
Average length of unemployment
of managerial candidates.

17m
# of workers with tenuous
ties to employers.

37
% of senior HR officers identifying
talent management as top HR issue.

questions


To find answers, we formulate questions.
Then question the questions.

< 20
% of private sector workers receiving
employer sponsored health insurance
by 2025.

16%
CW population at average
large company.

france
France has the highest
tax burden in EMEA.

70
% of Fortune 100 who’ve
implemented a VMS.

-1.5m
Shortage of US managers able to
analyze big data and make decisions
based on findings.

£2.6b
Amount NHS spends on
temp staffing.

shamrock
Independent contractors can
be reclassified by Irish courts.

CWS 3.0: May 8, 2013

By Ben Walker

A couple weeks ago, while facing a three-hour flight delay because of the sequester-induced FAA furloughs, I became interested in how the budget cuts were impacting air traffic controllers.

I found a quote from a representative of the air traffic controllers’ union that listed the effects of the $600 million FAA cuts, including: cancellation of training, delays in modernization projects and increased overtime that could end up costing more than the savings associated with the furloughs.

This reminded me of instances I’ve experienced with corporations implementing workforce policies, such as employee headcount restrictions, or contingent worker tenure limits, resulting in unintended consequences that often limit or completely offset the expected benefits. For example, when an organization mandates employee headcount freezes without related controls in place to manage the number or cost of temporary workers, consulting engagementsor business process outsourcing solutions used, the company’s total costs often rise — not just in the short-run, but in the long-run as the increased size of the contingent workforce becomes the new normal even after the hiring freeze is lifted. In other cases, imposing a tenure limit for one category of the contingent workforce, temporary workers for example, results in a commensurate increase in other categories of contingent workers, such as project-based SOW engagements, that aren’t subject to the same policy. The cost of equivalent resources is often higher for these SOW engagements, purely based on the label they’re given.

Often, those implementing a new policy don’t foresee the consequences on the overall organization, as managers seek other ways to get work done within the ground rules established. When the policy zigs, they zag. This is an understandable but unfortunate “cause and effect” dynamic when the big picture isn’t fully considered. In other cases, those implementing the policy do foresee the unintended consequences, but feel powerless to address bigger picture organizational effects that cut across many different functions beyond their controllable boundaries.

In either case, adding a formal step to the policy creation process can help mitigate these negative results. When drafting a workforce policy, be sure to brainstorm all of the possible effects, both positive and negative, that could result from the change. As with any brainstorming exercise, don’t immediately filter or prioritize the results until your list is exhausted. Then, note who has control over each of the listed effects (whether it’s a person or a function), and identify how either a modification to the draft policy, changes to existing policies, or the parallel creation of a secondary policy might help. Ideally, you’d work with a cross-functional team to create this list. If that’s not practical, consider asking colleagues to review your initial draft after it’s filtered and prioritized. Someone with different responsibilities and professional experiences can bring new thinking to the process. Then, when a draft policy is being reviewed by leadership prior to approval, they’ll be armed with a bigger picture perspective that can at least inform their final decision about whether to implement a new law of the land.

View on the Staffing Industry Analysts website