Interesting insights. It is heartening to see that they use the findings to address attrition and think about ways they can promote retention of their employees. I agree with the concern you have and I can see these being magnified in a downturn such as what we’re facing. Companies will need to make tough choices on whether to retain their employees and how to structure their compensation. In a certain way it might make sense that Credit Suisse could decided to axe those who were likely to quit anyway, but on the other hand it could be letting go of potential rockstars who needed a little motivation to unleash their true potential. Not entirely sure where I come out on this.
Interesting thoughts Toni. There’s a lot to unpack in your initial question. I’d say, for better or for worse, we’re heading towards an age where employees are cogs in a machine and the notion of being trusted partners will be a ‘luxury’ of sorts for only those in the upper echelons. The big tech companies of now might offer a glimpse into what to expect going forward.
While I agree that models are a redacted version of reality, I am not entirely sure that depending on human intuition will necessary lead to outcomes where there is more trust. Indeed there are situations where models (probably less in the people analytics space but I can think of other disciplines) can be definitely more trustworthy that human judgement. Maybe as people analytics becomes more sophisticated we might see a switch in this space as well.
Also on board that surveys, self reported or otherwise, are not a great tool to capture an accurate picture of what people actually feel or think. What’s somewhat frightening however is that with the introduction of more data collection tools (such as complex wearables or sensors) surveys might not be necessary in the first place.
Interesting thoughts Jad. And I can definitely see the worry here in attempting to define humor based on a static, specific sense of what’s funny. Not only does it lead to more homogeneity but also a lack of creativity which can be counterproductive. Something said in one context can be hilarious, but completely fall flat in another. How do you account for that?
In a way it almost brings to mind art in the middle ages when the church would dictate what constituted art (or didn’t). Only much later did we discover that this was not the way to go.