Ways HR is thinking about attracting and retaining Gen Z talent
Ways HR is thinking about attracting and retaining Gen Z talent
- The impact of Gen Z on the workforce may be greater than the pandemic and a potential recession.
- Top HR executives are taking notice and adapting their recruiting and employee management practices around how to get and keep these younger workers.
- Gen Z wants to work for employers that care about their mental well-being and offer opportunities to advance their careers.
A global pandemic and a possible U.S. recession are reshaping the workforce, but the impact of Gen Z may be greater than both.
Top HR executives are taking notice and adapting their recruiting and employee management practices around not only the needs but desires of this younger class of workers. This is a clear generational divide, said Don Robertson, executive vice president and chief human resources officer at Northwestern Mutual.
“This generation isn’t like previous generations, they know, they want to make an impact,” he said. “They want to connect with leaders, they want to be interacted with, they want it to be very personal and very intimate.”
The professional intimacy and connectedness that Gen Z seeks in the workplace is something that Robertson said has caused a break in the traditional employee-leadership relationship.
Having lived through the Covid-19 pandemic that modernized the way they learned and worked, Gen Z is charging through the workforce and reimagining what it means for companies to take care of their employees.
These younger workers have been characterized by their willingness to leave jobs that don’t provide enough personal help and professional development. The key to retaining them in the years ahead, said experts, is making their jobs about more than a good salary.
Their asks are pretty straightforward.
Apple Musni, vice president and people partner at Chipotle, has broken down the key wants of this younger generation into three areas.
“It’s mental well-being, an equitable and socially responsible workplace, and then pay,” she said.
Musni said that although these three aspects of a job are something that previous generations have also considered important, Gen Z has turned these workplace characteristics into “a must-have and a business requirement rather than a nice-to-have.”
Prioritizing mental health concerns
As the pandemic forced Gen Z into remote learning and working environments, the need for employers that can accommodate rising mental health concerns is a crucial deciding factor for Gen Z applicants.
What is most often missing from these conversations, Robertson said, is providing the space for workers to regain autonomy over not just their work but their lives as well.
According to Robertson, companies can help workers reclaim that control by being flexible about things like mandatory in-office days and allowing parents to adjust their schedules to attend to caregiving responsibilities.
Pay transparency and growth opportunities
States like New York and California are requiring companies to list salary ranges to bring more transparency to wages.
“I think whether it’s on the job description, like some states have mandated, or through the recruiting process, pay transparency is critical,” Musni said.
However, this is just one part of the plan to attract talent, she added. The key to retention is offering a clear path for growth within the organization.
“Pay is one of those benefits that allows you to attract, but I think what really retains talent are growth opportunities, the culture that we have in our organization, and then continuing to evolve our employee value proposition, and meeting teams where they matter most,” Musni added.
Robertson agrees, and said that alongside these growth opportunities, the most important thing for Gen Z workers is providing opportunities for them to connect.
“It’s all about building relationships, helping them develop and building inclusivity,” he said. “They want to be included, they want to make an impact, and they want to be part of something that’s making an impact.”
Ways HR is thinking about attracting and retaining Gen Z talent (cnbc.com)
++++++++++++++
Companies Thought They Could Ignore Geopolitics. Not Anymore.
Deglobalization is changing corporate behavior as boardrooms start paying attention to war.
"So dire is the situation for the corporates surveyed that Russia and China now account for the largest political risk losses, followed by India, Brazil, and (thanks to Brexit) the United Kingdom."
By Elisabeth Braw - APRIL 19, 2023
Once upon a time, a very long time ago, about two years ago, companies—like the beloved children’s character Winnie the Pooh—lived, if not all by themselves, then at least far from geopolitics.
How rapidly the world has changed since then. Last year, a staggering 93 percent of multinationals reported losses linked to political instability, up from 35 percent in 2020, a new survey from WTW and Oxford Analytica found. Companies should brace themselves for even more turbulence this year. And next year. And the year after that. Businesses, which have for decades operated in a world where they could float above any squabbling among countries, are discovering that charmed era has ended.
Weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine, BP decided to let go of its 19.75-percent stake in the Russian oil and gas giant Rosneft and two joint ventures in Russia—which meant it had to write down more than $20 billion in the first quarter of 2022. The German DIY chain Obi Baumarkt sold its Russian stores to local staff for 10 euros. The Italian bank UniCredit has lost $1.3 billion, ExxonMobil has lost more than $3 billion, and H&M has lost nearly $200 million. Indeed, every company leaving the country (and hundreds have made announcements to that effect) is incurring substantial losses—if they manage to leave.
Companies wishing to depart need the approval of Russian authorities, and as of March this year, they also have to make a “mandatory donation” to the Russian government. Meanwhile, companies operating in China, or exporting to the country, know that they risk becoming a target if their home governments say or do something that displeases Beijing; this has happened to companies as diverse as Ericsson and Taiwanese pineapple farms. And when President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan met U.S. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in California earlier this month, Beijing responded by dispatching an “inspection flotilla” to the Taiwan Strait, where its threat of inspections was certain to wreak havoc on shipping companies and their customers in one of the world’s busiest waterways. This time, the flotilla didn’t carry out any inspections, but global shipping companies and manufacturers rightly concluded there will be more such outings.
Such events have delivered a brutal awakening to companies, which until just a couple of years ago persisted in believing that they could keep operating in a largely peaceful sphere. The 2023 political risk survey conducted by Oxford Analytica for the insurance broker WTW, published on April 18, delivers sobering figures. Last year, 68 percent of companies bought political risk insurance, which provides cover for war, civil wars, coups, government expropriations, and similar misfortunes, up from 25 percent in 2019.
Even compared to last year, the fear of geopolitics has skyrocketed. In the 2022 survey, 16 percent of the executives interviewed predicted deglobalization would significantly strengthen; in this year’s report, 48 percent do (and another 38 percent believe it will simply strengthen). Last year, 12 percent of the executives predicted decoupling from China would significantly increase; now 42 percent do. Beijing has been all too happy to oblige. The Financial Times reported that between mid-February and mid-April this year, China imposed sanctions on the U.S. defense contractors Lockheed Martin and Raytheon; launched an investigation into U.S. chipmaker Micron; and harassed the U.S. due diligence firm Mintz, Japan’s Astellas Pharma group, and the Big Four consultancy Deloitte.
A sizable majority of executives have lost faith in globalization. “It’s a sea change in companies’ attitudes about geopolitical risk,” Sam Wilkin, WTW’s director of political analysis, told me. “There has been a huge change in perception, mostly as a result of the conflict in Ukraine and, for U.S. companies, the confrontation with China. Companies have started taking wars and conflicts seriously.” (Full disclosure: I serve as an occasional advisor to another division of WTW.)
Companies are taking wars and conflicts seriously because they’re being affected by both—including conflicts of the less visible kind. Twenty percent of the companies surveyed have sustained political risk-related losses in Russia or Ukraine, and 48 percent have done so in the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. “Political uncertainty manifested in the war in Ukraine and the growing uncertainty around China and a potential war in the Pacific over Taiwan: Link this to continued uncertainty over rogue states like North Korea and Iran, and it’s no surprise that political uncertainty and the impact it has on international business is growing,” said Simon Bergman, the CEO of M&C Saatchi World Services. “The West’s inability to accurately predict large state actors’ behavior has been manifest over the past 12 months, and this will continue into 2024 and beyond.”
Political risk insurance cover was created years ago with the backing of several Western governments to allow companies to operate in riskier countries. Today, though, simply operating in the globalized economy is so risky that nearly 7 in 10 companies are buying this insurance. “Companies’ ability to do business in Russia and China will continue to deteriorate,” Bergman said. “When, and it’s when, China acts on Taiwan, the international reaction will significantly impact global businesses, and many of them depend on China for commercial products. The impact will be significant if not crisis-bringing.”
Nearly two-thirds of the executives surveyed by Oxford Analytica are concerned about state-backed cyber aggression, and nearly 60 percent worry about sanctions targeting individuals and companies. More than 50 percent worry about state-backed manipulation of financial markets, and more than 40 percent are concerned about state-backed intellectual-property theft.
So dire is the situation for the corporates surveyed that Russia and China now account for the largest political risk losses, followed by India, Brazil, and (thanks to Brexit) the United Kingdom. In 2020, companies sustained their largest political risk losses in Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Angola, and Libya—a much more predictable bunch of countries, and much more manageable losses because most companies had smaller operations there than in Russia or China. China taking the place of the Angolas and Libyas of the world, measured in business risk, is a dramatic turn of events.
“The risk the business community is most worried about is the West vs. China, because Western countries are showing that they’re willing to treat China as a systemic competitor,” Wilkin said. “And now it’s possible to imagine a major economy leaving the globalized economy. In 2020, we still had some of the usual suspects ranking as the world’s riskiest. Back then, you could operate in politically risky countries because you had diversified operations including many countries with no or little political risk. Now political risk has shifted major world economies that used to be major investment destinations. Companies are worrying about going out of business as a result of political risk.”
It has come to this: Businesses are worried about going bust not as a result of misunderstanding the market or making foolish investments—but as a result of geopolitics. Western companies in particular are extremely vulnerable now that globalization’s ultimate prize, China, is not just battling the United States over global power but also battling its own private sector, lest it become uncomfortably powerful. So severe was Beijing’s recent crackdown of China’s most successful tech giants that the companies’ shares plummeted when President Xi Jinping was reelected to a third term last fall.
“If the rate of change on the outside exceeds the rate of change on the inside, the end is near,” GE’s legendary CEO Jack Welch said. It’s not looking good for the companies that have done precisely what they were supposed to do and spent the past three decades integrating themselves into the globalized economy.
About: Elisabeth Braw is a columnist at Foreign Policy and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on defense against emerging national security challenges, such as hybrid and gray-zone threats. She is also a member of the U.K. National Preparedness Commission.
Companies Can't Afford to Ignore War Anymore (foreignpolicy.com)
++++++++++++++++++
Can diplomacy end the fighting in Sudan?
Even if the country is too big to fail, observers see challenges in restoring peace before the unrest spreads to neighboring countries.
April 21, 2023
Sudan’s transition is worth saving
A once-promising transition in Sudan is collapsing amidst a showdown between two military leaders who are instrumental to the process, but seemingly not committed to its outcome.
On one side is Sudanese Armed Forces Commander Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, who seized power in 2021 and upended the carefully negotiated civilian transition; on the other is Lt. Gen. Mohamed ‘Hemedti’ Dagalo, head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which began as the Janjaweed militia associated with the Darfur genocide. Mahmoud Salem has an upcoming piece that breaks down the parties.
Hostilities broke out on April 15 after the collapse of an agreement to integrate the RSF, which reportedly numbers 100,000 fighters, into the Armed Forces. So far more than 330 people have been killed and more than 3,000 injured, according to the World Health Organization. Fighting continued today despite a cease-fire for the Eid al Fitr holiday.
Jeffrey Feltman, former US envoy for Horn of Africa, warned that “a cynical cease-fire premised on power-sharing between the warlords will not be stable.”
A cease-fire is the urgent and necessary first step. Burhan continues to say he is committed to civilian rule, but it is hard to tell. Dagalo has the Wagner Group and Libyan militia leader Khalifa Hiftar in his corner. The good news is that all sides have been talking, and the deal on the table is hard-fought and worth keeping there. Meanwhile, the civilian leaders involved in the process, including former transitional prime minister Abdullah Hamdok, can merely watch from the sidelines until the generals put down their guns.
Risking collapse?
The fighting in Sudan comes in the context of a grim economic forecast, heightening the prospect of a chronically failing or collapsed state. A US official speaking on condition of anonymity to Jared Szuba expressed concern that foreign involvement could lead Sudan’s crisis into a Libya-like conflict.
The IMF World Economic Outlook projects Sudan’s economy to retract this year by 2.5%, the worst of all states surveyed in the Middle East and Central Asia (MECA). Inflation is expected to be 71.6% and unemployment 32%, also the worst in the region. About a third of the population lives below the international poverty line of $2.15 per day, and close to 70% below the middle income poverty line of $3.65 per day, according to the World Bank. The bank has classified Sudan under its "fragile and conflict situations” metric as a state facing “high levels of institutional fragility.”
These numbers were tabulated before the war of the generals broke out last week. Expect a revised, downward outlook.
Sudan should be too big to fail, given the stakes of regional powers in the country’s stability. Its population is estimated at 47 million, second to only Egypt in the Arab world, and the tenth largest in Africa. By area, Sudan is the third largest African country behind Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has the 13th-largest gold reserves in the world and exports over 130,000 barrels of oil per day, in addition to possessing access to Nile waters and key ports and shipping lanes.
Instability and conflict in Sudan don’t stay in Sudan. Its neighbors include Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Eritrea, Chad, and the Central African Republic. (The latter four are also listed on the World Bank’s fragility and conflict situation list). Sudan both influences and is influenced by its neighbors, including the Libyan and Ethiopian civil conflicts. It is also a central player, aligned with Egypt, in negotiations with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Damn (GERD). UNHCR estimates close to 60,000 registered Sudanese refugees in Egypt.
UAE well placed for diplomacy
The UN brokered a new political framework between the civilian and military factions in December 2022 to get the transition back on track. That it blew up seems, from the outside, not the fault of diplomats. This is an inside game, between the generals.
“Something went wrong between the parties,” said UAE professor and columnist Abdelkhaliq Abdulla.
The UAE, in particular, has been heavily invested in Sudan, as it has been throughout the Horn of Africa. Its engagement has led to an understated and unusually effective diplomatic approach. Its initiatives have been closely coordinated with the UN and its “Quad” partners — the US, UK, and Saudi Arabia — as well as Arab and regional allies such as Egypt.
“The UAE may be best positioned for diplomacy in Sudan and the Horn, where it has a number of interests shared by others,” said Abdulla, including stability in Egypt and preventing the return of the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists.
“The UAE would never take sides in Sudan, not a chance,” said Abdulla, dismissing some reports that the UAE backs Hemedti.
“Our interest is in stability, and we have outstanding relations with all Sudanese, including Hamdok and the civilian parties,” he added.
The UAE helped negotiate the release of Egyptian troops taken captive by the RSF this week.
End of a ‘new chapter’
Given the events of the past week, it might be difficult to recall the genuine excitement associated with the demonstrations that began in Sudan in December 2018 and eventually deposed Sudanese dictator Omar Al-Bashir in April 2019.
There was Alaa Salah, also known as “Kandaka” or “the Nubian queen,” who led crowds of singing and dancing protesters against Bashir.
Sudan foreshadowed a kind of sequel to the Arab Spring, as popular demonstrations erupted in Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. Its role in the region became increasingly impactful, and enthusiasm was high that a seemingly endless cycle of chronic poverty, abusive and corrupt governance, and, in Darfur, genocide, had been broken in Sudan via a new social contract and plan for civilian rule.
In March 2021, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed a “new chapter” in US-Sudan relations after Khartoum paid $335 million to compensate victims of al-Qaeda terrorism in the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and removing Sudan from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Sudan’s delisting had been in the works for a while, but was accelerated by its decision to join the Abraham Accords in January 2021.
The good news kept coming. Hamdok, a highly regarded Sudanese and international public administrator with a background in economics, seemed the right fit to help ease Sudan’s transition to civilian rule. In June 2021, the IMF approved Sudan for its Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) for debt relief. The country’s debt was dropped from $56 billion to $28 billion via its admittance to the program. More relief was expected as Sudan continued its economic reform program under the transition.
One casualty of the collapse of the framework agreement and the present conflict is that Sudan is unlikely to take the final step to normalize ties with Israel anytime soon. Ben Caspit has the scoop here, including on Israel’s mediation efforts and Mossad’s contacts with Hemedti.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has also been in touch with both Burhan and Dagalo, after an attack on a US diplomatic convoy attributed to the RSF. The US is preparing contingency plans to evacuate its embassy staff, as Jared Szuba and Elizabeth Hagedorn report.
The End++++++++++++++++++