By Fateme Banishoeib

No conversation about male/female equality can begin without first acknowledging the reality of ‘implicit bias.’ Let me share a personal story from a few years ago, which will help you understand what the role of implicit bias plays in our personal definition of equality. I was at the lead of a department in a global company based in the United States. I had just been appointed, and was ready to bring my excitement to every event I attended, especially to those organised by the company-dedicated group for women leaders. Their mission was to focus on strategies to advance women in leadership roles.

As a woman leader, it was my responsibility to create a change and foster an environment open for that change to happen. I worked on a proposal to portray women in leadership positions, to applaud them and, above all, to build a movement that valued the feminine traits in leadership. The goal was to shift perception and dialogue around how a woman is supposed to show up as a leader. A desire for authentic and inclusive leadership. I talked with various people and connected volunteers, supporters, and sponsors.

The day I would unveil the campaign had arrived. I entered the meeting room; the women-dedicated group panel was already there. I shook hands with everyone, connected my computer, and started my presentation with a background of photos I had taken of women leaders in the organization. The pictures portrayed them in their roles and work environment highlighting the traits they, themselves, considered as feminine and wanted to show more in the work they did.

As soon as I mentioned the word “feminine” and the need to show up in leadership with feminine traits, I noticed awkward movements of my audience and faces turning away. All signs of discomfort. I paused and asked if there were any questions. The leader of the group told me:

“You cannot mention the word feminine in public. We do not want you to take pictures of women portraying feminine traits of leadership. Maybe you could take pictures of them with their families.”

For months, I double guessed my judgement and thought maybe they were right and the word “feminine” wasn’t that important overall – the habit of questioning ourselves as women working in a male dominated environment – until one day I realised what this was all about: implicit bias and the need to see or identify with “feminine” only when it is reassuring, comforting, and not threatening. This example wasn’t only my personal perception, or an isolated case. There was a real closure towards feminine – a closure for which not only men are to be blamed.

I see similar reactions and patterns when reading articles on women in the business world, I often find myself (after the initial excitement vanishes) concerned about implicit bias.

I see a peculiar choice of words which gives me the impression that those women in the headlines are the passive receivers rather than the active authors of their career. Almost like an object which is made powerful by somebody else.

I think this is the result of the implicit bias we all carry. Yes, me included, and you who are reading, too. One of the main roadblocks to equality is implicit bias which, if not addressed, will continue to drive the way we do business and politics, and live our lives. The perfect example is a certain cultural bias that sees women as not eligible to take the power unless it is given to them. Unless somebody makes them powerful.

While equality is big among corporations and governments, there are still double standards aimed at women that are hard to get rid of, as they are part of our heritage and culture. I am sure that when asked, the vast majority of people believe women and men are equally capable of serving as top corporate leaders. Yet, we have to acknowledge that when male CEOs talk, it’s fair to say no one’s thinking instead about what he’s wearing.

There are studies which prove that the small number of female CEOs is due to the fact that women are held to higher standards than their male counterparts. Similarly, other research finds that female CEOs are far more likely to be pressured and second-guessed by shareholders than men occupying the same leadership position. Even today, after all the equal opportunity laws, professional women too often have to bring much more to the table than a man to get a job, higher pay, or simply recognition for achievements. Men and women may believe female leaders are just as qualified as their male peers, but certain stigmas persist. One of the reasons is that unconsciously we do not associate the word “leader” and its traits with “female.” Our bias sees female leaders as abnormal, and therefore they face more resistance than men in leadership roles. Assertive women are punished for being unfeminine; women who conform to stereotypes are deemed too meek for top jobs. We must admit our own expression of discomfort with women in positions of power to get past it. If you are now telling yourself that you have no discomfort or bias, let’s all do a quick test together. Close your eyes and picture a CEO. Is that person wearing a suit or a dress? Chances are, you’re not picturing a lady.

There is a current predominant focus on the numbers, on the “how many” women, nationalities, age representations, you name it, rather than on inclusion. It has become a battle of numbers that in my view will increase the gap as it does not address the real issue: lack of inclusion.

We have the responsibility to acknowledge and discover our own biases, and call each other out if we want to become more inclusive. Inclusion must be an intentional choice.

We, as women, do play a crucial role in it. The real questions to be asked are about a system and a model that is not inclusive. How did we fall into the trap of that model? How many women have encountered resistance in corporate jobs by showing feminine traits and how many have succeeded instead by neglecting their feminine side? Do we think that portraying “feminine traits” is highlighting how many children a woman in a leadership position has?

For one moment I ask you to forget about the number of women on your team, and instead go talk to them about feminine traits in leadership. Are you comfortable discussing this? Are these women comfortable talking about it, and do they give their definition of what feminine traits looks like in the workplace?

I do not think we can close the gender gap by counting how many female CEOs there are in the world. A better question would be what is their definition of a “feminine leader,” and how much did they have to carve out to get where they are? How hard did they have to push appearing “abrasive” or “aggressive” (what we typically call a woman in business who had to avoid being feminine to fit in)?

There is only one way to reach equality and that is inclusion – inclusion of both feminine and male traits into a business model that values those traits as equally important and necessary in a leader, regardless of gender.

Founded in 1997 by Seamus and Helen McGardle, SRI Executive Search was initially conceived as an executive search firm focused solely on the Not-For-Profit and Life Science sector. Since then, the organization has evolved and developed, becoming a global consulting practice. Specializing in Executive Search, Diversity, Leadership Development, and Board Services, SRI Executive offers a variety of services in the Not-For-Profit and Life Sciences arena.

As there is so much development in these sectors, we asked Seamus McGardle, Managing Director of SRI Executive, about the shift in the business context and the impact he is seeing across organizations.

Whirling Chief: Seamus, can you tell us a little bit about SRI Executive’s background and your niche expertise in Life Sciences and the Public Sector?

Seamus McGardle: Establish in 1997, SRI was originally conceived as a search practice that could support the life science sector within Ireland initially and then further afield. This was seen as a niche market, as search practices did not fully understand the life science sector and the expertise required to identify, assess, and evaluate scientists and technical experts. From there the practice grew to other areas such as the NGO, IGO, and development sectors due in part to our understanding of these areas and our interest in supporting organisations that are seeking to make a difference in today’s environment.

Whirling Chief:In 2015, PwC published research citing top concerns for CEOs. The top three, in order, were Regulation, Talent, and Government. How do you see the changes in the business environment resonate with the public sector?

Seamus McGardle: In today’s working environment, one must be cognizant of the economic landscape companies and organizations are seeking to make strategic partnerships between both the private sector and the public sector to become more relevant. Organizations are also conscious that the traditional ways of sourcing funding are no longer as viable, and therefore they are seeking out more innovative ways of accessing funding. Funding roles are becoming more important for this reason.

In line with this, the organizational strategy needs refining, and companies are conscious that their strategy needs to speak to today’s polices and global issues.

Whirling Chief: As the world is evolving, how is the Talent Acquisition space evolving?

Seamus McGardle: Clients are now seeking candidates that not only match the technical capabilities of the position, but have skills in leadership and the ability to interact with external parties, and demonstrate innovative thinking to look outside the “box” for less traditional answers to issues.

Whirling Chief: What impact will technology and digitalization have in your field of expertise?

Seamus McGardle: While technology will always play a part in what we do, and support how we are able to work with clients and candidates in any part of the world, there will never be a replacement for human contact. Verbal communication on a one to one basis or in a face to face environment, where you can observe and measure the behaviours and traits that are unique to everyone, can tell you more about a person than any online assessment. Technology has its place and has made it easier to connect, but a conversation will always out-trump any nonhuman interaction.

Whirling Chief: We see a lot of capability building strategy redesign in our work with NGOs. How do you explain that within the current context?

Seamus McGardle: A lot of today’s organisations are under pressure to now deliver something more than their original mandate. They are taking “stock” of their contribution to the world and how relevant they are in the current economic environment. Many organisations are funded from the same funding partners, so each organisation is now looking at what they can change, how they can contribute in a more sustainable way, and how their strategy and mandate will support the SDG’s. To do this, they need to understand how they can deliver with their current workforce, how to motivate their staff, and how to go about a change management programme that is relevant and workable to achieve the organisational goals.

Whirling Chief: How is sourcing for candidates different today?

Seamus McGardle: The sourcing of candidates is more structured. Clients have become more discerning as they want the best and highest calibre of candidate for the role. It is no longer the case that you can just place an advertisement and they will apply. It is the candidates that are not seeking new opportunities, those candidates that are passive, that are the most appealing. There is more direct outreach in identifying potential candidates, looking at profiles online and drilling down through those profiles to find that one thing that makes that candidate stand out.

Whirling Chief: Research shows us the talent pool will become more and more specialized. How should organizations think about this evolution?

Seamus McGardle: Organisations are already aware of how specialised candidates have become. They are seeking these candidates out when looking for their next CFO, COO, or HR Director, to bring in another dimension to the position and the organisation. You will always have the traditional organisations that will resist this change, but most are aware that the change is necessary and needed to survive.

Whirling Chief: You launched the Fit for Purpose framework for organizations in the public sector. Can you tell us a bit more about your offering?

Seamus McGardle: In recent years, the international development landscape has undergone a significant shift in framing the expectations of key stakeholders. 2015 marked the creation of many landmark agreements, such as the Paris Agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) of the Third International Conference on Financing for Development; and the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Transforming our World, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets. Consequently, many governments were compelled to re-think their positions, and assess how developmental aid would be used to meet these new challenges.

As with many past recipients of development assistance, now donors themselves, new relationships are continually being created as a result. However, institutionally the landscape remains far from static. With the creation of the Asia Infrastructure and Investment Bank, the BRICS New Development Bank, the Green Climate Fund, the Silk Road Fund, and the World Green Economy Organisation, new players are emerging that seek to respond directly to the economic growth ambitions of developing countries, while respecting the global imperatives that make achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, so essential.

All of this seems swift, perceptive, and responsive, but is it? The question is, are the development agencies and institutions really adjusting to this fast-changing landscape, or are they simply re-packaging tried and trusted services to a perceived change in demand? Do we really take the time needed to understand the changes around us and adjust accordingly? Is what we do as unique and useful as it was five years ago, or have markets changed and spaces become more crowded? Are the skills we have in-house, and the partnerships we trust, still best suited to tackle the issues of today? Can new institutions create an added value that is unique? Will they be able to strike the balance between “people,” “planet,” and “prosperity” that has all too often eluded us so far?

This is where our Fit for Purpose programme evolved from: our understanding of the challenges faced, and the ability to succinctly articulate these challenges and the change needed for organisations to move forward. The Fit for Purpose is a holistic solution for an organisation and it is designed to provide the tools and the platform for organisations to change.

Whirling Chief: Any tips for hiring managers of the future?

Seamus McGardle: The key is to hire people who have the ability to stretch their capability into other disciplines and roles.

Whirling Chief: Thank you very much Seamus. It was a pleasure talking to you.

My husband comes home the other week and asks, “Mrs. Psychologist, when faced with the challenge of a project deadline – which you know is going to kill your team! – how do you prioritize? Do you take sides with the workload or the people?”

When it comes to prioritization, I hate to say it but there is no magic bullet. We all look for ways to be efficient when it comes to organizing and managing our life activities; everyone has their own distinct recipe, depending on where they find meaning, excitement, inspiration, and relief.

Having said that, for the second part of the question (regarding results vs. people) I told my husband one should always side with people. He said he thought so, too, thank God! ☺

Kidding aside, the question is a valid one.

In the short term, for a manageable period, and with transparency and communication, it’s perfectly acceptable for you to ask people to skew their habits and work extra hours to meet a certain deadline. What you will find is that the majority of people are understanding. In fact, there was a study, ‘Working Overtime Hours,’ conducted back in 2004 with Dutch workers as subjects, which explored a possible correlation between overtime and motivation. It was concluded that moderate overtime has no negative impact on motivational factors and, conversely, has a motivating factor for high performers.

In the long run, however, people will react differently to overtime. Exhaustion will eventually win out over our internal drive, and for those high flyers who tend to push themselves and their teams hard, it can lead to unintended burn out.

Remember, leadership demands that we look out for others’ interests, despite the personal tendencies we may have. At the end of the day, project work can always be delegated, but your people? Well, you can’t easily replace them, and it is they who are going to get you sustainable results.

Last week, I was in the U.S. supporting project teams for our client work, and attending a leading HR Conference.

The HR Tomorrow Conference is the premier professional development event, presented by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Human Resources and Labor Studies. This annual, day-long conference highlights current trends, issues, challenges, and opportunities in the field of human resources and labor relations, and features exceptional speakers and presentations on cutting-edge HR practices and leading faculty research, and outstanding networking opportunities.

The conference attracts more than 300 attendees each year, including senior HR executives from the Twin Cities, greater Minnesota, and across the country, as well as students from the Carlson School’s Human Resources and Industrial Relations (HRIR) program, and faculty and staff of that program.

This year, our focus topic was ‘Trends and Transformations.’

HR is a constantly evolving function, and the rise of technological breakthroughs in the workplace has only accelerated the progression. But when everything is constantly changing, what does it mean to be ‘cutting edge?’  What does the future of work hold and what are future traits of our function and leadership? How do we effectively develop new strategies and lead organizational transformations?

These are the kinds of questions we explored, as well as how some organizations are melding HR and business operations to push the boundaries of what is possible.

I was so humbled to spend time with my HR colleagues, and to have the opportunity to share the stage with keynote speakers Jacqueline Williams-Roll, Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer, General Mills, Inc. and Tom Dybsky, Managing Member, Organizational Effectiveness Consulting, whose success with Tennant Company became a Harvard Business Case.

A few highlight topics included:

• Transformational Leadership
• HR Strategies for Driving Successful Change
• Inclusion As a Business Strategy
• Using People Analytics, Data, AI & Deep Learning
• Trends in Compensation

As for our topic, I shared much about our collaboration studies (across our academic and business partnerships) regarding the ‘Future of Work,’ and what it means to ‘Lead Human Resources into 21^st Century.’ For all the agenda topics and material presented that day, including ours, you can visit here.

For those who may be interested in joining the Conference next year, you should note that the HR Tomorrow Conference has been approved for 6.25 HR (General) recertification credit hours toward PHR, SPHR and GPHR recertification through the HR Certification Institute. ☺

Welcome back to our HRM 101 series for Human Resources and Business Professionals. Today’s video is related to another key pillar of business and people operations – Performance Management.

There is a ton of discussion around the future of Performance Management. What does it look like going into 21st century? What should be the main focus? Which tools should we leverage? What role should a manager vs. an employee play? Should it support employee development, etc.?

Next to these existential process questions, during our consulting practice and in real-life conversations with business leaders, we get asked a lot of the same questions around Performance Management. In the past, we had published a video on Ever-Lasting Principles of Performance Management and this time, we decided to address top three questions quickly in a video blog.

We hope you enjoy and let us know if there are any further thoughts/ questions from your side.

Thank you!

Last week, we shared a summary of our notes from ILO’s global Future of Work dialogue.

There were several live polls taken during the session and we leveraged a new technology to take in comments and questions across hundreds of people in attendance and on line. This week, our team has analysed and grouped themes of questions in discussion. For HR thought leaders, academic leaders and bloggers, here is a summary of headers. Hope to see more research findings, thought papers and blogs on the topics listed!

By Sandro Krug

Talent Management is a top priority for most companies. To attract the right talents and to develop them in balance with the company’s strategic focus – and the employee’s aspirations and needs – remains challenging, but is key to success.

Without considering the employees’ aspirations, plans, or needs, we risk losing important capabilities & skills that are needed to successfully compete. A dismissal may also lead to the effect of unwanted costs (e.g., hiring costs, on-boarding costs, time spent helping new colleagues get up to speed, etc.). So one better tackle this topic wisely.

Does having a talent qualify you as ‘High Potential’?
Outcomes of the specific company talent management strategy are reviewed on a regular basis at all corporate levels. This is an effective way to assess the company’s strengths and needs for the upcoming years.

But before we start to identify different aspects of talent management, we first need to clarify what “talent” really means.

The business dictionary defines talent as either a) a natural ability to excel at a duty or action, or b) a group of people, such as employees, who have a particular aptitude for certain tasks.

Both definitions refer to a certain talent in a particular area. They cannot claim a certain person is a talent, but has a talent in a specific area. And here it begins to become interesting.

Most companies make heavy use of talent definitions like High Potential, High Professional, Significant Contributor, Rising Star, etc., to cluster employees in a certain category.

This is an effective way to get an overview of the strengths and needs of the assessed employees, and the perception of them in the eyes of their line managers. It also lays a great foundation for future training and education activities to better execute the company strategy.

On the other hand, this can also lead to an undesired outcome when people perceive they have been “labeled.” Having been nominated as High Potential or Rising Star feels good.

By categorising people into clusters, we step away from saying an employee has a certain talent in a technical or functional area, but rather assign people to a talent category that is often misunderstood and associated with certain expectations.

Someone who has been nominated as High Potential because of his outstanding technical skills might be promoted to a higher position with the effect that he also needs to a lead a bigger team in a complex matrix structure. The fact that some development steps in leadership have not been addressed upfront leads to an enormous stretch for this individual.

So is this High Potential overall a talent or a technical talent? How many High Potentials have been supported throughout their careers with exciting assignments, career plans, and promotions? And how many of them were discussed in talent sessions with 2-3 talents in a special field, but were treated as jack of all trades? How many of them needed to quit because they were promoted too quickly and may be in the wrong positions? How many of them got sick and are still suffering from not having met the expectations of the company for their High Potentials due to the Peter principle?

So, are these labels really meaningful and is this the right way to get an overview of the future leaders of a company?

From an employee’s perspective, the talent management concept of his employer might not be of special interest. The main focus in his view should always be the company’s interest in his career development plan and his aspirations. His line manager should discuss his short-, mid-, and long-term career aspirations and support him in reaching those milestones. That may all sound about right, only now things start to get tricky.

In development discussions, strengths and needs of the employee should be discussed and it should be a joint effort to continuously improve areas of improvement and strengthen one’s talents.

Communicate talent status
You should tell the people their designation, but you should be very careful what you communicate. Do not portray any talent category as an elite status or privilege. Do communicate that the designation is context-bound and one could be assigned with a talent category based on the future assessment of projects, assignments, or performance.

One of the roadblocks preventing most companies from communicating the designation to their people is the inability of managers and executives to have career-focused, positive, corrective, and actionable feedback with all of their direct reports.

Telling people how they are positioned and perceived is important in creating a transparent succession management process. Transparency is a differentiator of a high impact succession management system. It produces the requisite talent needs of the organization in a just-in-time fashion, allowing the organization the ability to be flexible and successfully responsive to their changing issues, problems, and challenges. In addition, this leads to positive effects, such as increased employee engagement, increased employee retention, timely feedback to employees, improvement of manager abilities to provide feedback, targeted development, a culture of high performance, and enhanced employee exposure.

When talent is scarce, a “do not tell” talent management policy is counterproductive. Instead, organizations are best served by improving the communication skills of managers and providing them with a “language of talent.”

To use the language of talent across the organization clearly, you should establish some guiding principles.

• Let people know that their status is only for the current year, and that the status might be changed. Not only will this help you avoid any sense of entitlement, people will stay motivated to perform and to continue their development. In addition, if people know they will be reviewed annually and that their status could change, this will take the pressure off when you have to let someone know they are no longer in this or that category. Also, by limiting a status for one year, you can benefit from the fact that High Potentials feel that they have to stay in this category for years, or even a lifetime. This can reduce stress and associated expectations that may lead to the definition of the respective High Potential category a company may have.
• Create a communication strategy. Have a plan to ensure that all employees understand the requirements and expectations; know what they need to do to be considered a high performer and high potential; and understand that if they are not nominated one year, they have the opportunity to be reconsidered in the future.
• Train line managers how to conduct a development discussion and educate them on how to lead constructive discussions with a mid- and long-term outlook.
• Create a culture of inclusion and make sure that all people who contribute feel respected and valued for their contribution to the company. Avoid diva thinking by reducing the duration of talent status to one year.

I spent two eventful days last week with thought leaders from around the globe at the home of the International Labour Organization. The topic du jours? The future of work. Unsurprisingly, we had plenty to discuss: What does work mean going forward, how is it tied to societal realities, how do we better distribute income, drive inclusion and equality, how can we better balance exercise of power with accountability, how is work going to be organized, what will the workplace look like, and how should work practices and leadership styles evolve in the 21st century.

In many articles, here on Whirling Chief and on other platforms, I often bring up the topic of leadership and how it is now a concept universally available to anyone. One of the key attributes of leadership is to serve others through sharing.

Share of  smiles, share of humanity, share of caring, share of knowledge, share of information, share of learnings and of success moments…In that spirit, I, too want to share something with you: my notes from our discussions.

First, a bit of background. As the world is inevitably going through major changes, to understand and to respond effectively to new changes in the workspace, the International Labour Organization launched a “Future of Work Initiative” back in 2013. Serving its core mission with this initiative, ILO is looking to further advance its mandate for social justice, while at the same time help us get in front of some much-needed research on workforce preferences.

There were four major parts to our discussion, plus a special session focusing on youth.

• Meaning of Work
• Work and Society
• Organization of Work
• Governance of Work

Meaning of Work

In this session, we discussed in detail what we consider work today vs. historically, whether we see work as necessary, and how it is perceived and experienced in different geographies. We even questioned whether work is compatible with human nature and where it starts/stops in relation to leisure.

There is an obvious past/ future delineation here, which I tried to capture in a small chart below:

The very key take-away is that people today are looking for three main things to experience work as anything close to ‘fun’:

1. Autonomy
2. Mastery
3. Purpose

Work and Society

In this session, we discussed long and hard about social-political, economic, and technological advancements, focusing on how we can best provide ‘decent’ jobs for the majority across the globe. We debated where jobs may come from in the future, what they may look like, how they will continue evolving in the market, whether automation is really going to take over, and how we can provide better equity for all workers.

We busted a lot of myths. Take the canard of work hours increasing. In actuality, they’re decreasing very fast, and the job gap is also decreasing. Why, in G20 countries alone, we have ~54 million unemployed today.

We weighed in on very heavy factors such as changing demographics, migration, unpaid work (including internships – and while I’m at it, may I ask all my executive colleagues to stop offering unpaid internships to our youth?!) and gender disparities.

Organization of Work

In this session, we discussed what the new forms of employment will look like, whether and to what extent employee-employer relationships will continue to focus on ‘protection,’ when may be a good time for us to move into a capability-building model (for sustainability) vs. offering representation, how the cooperatives may take shape, etc.

I think it was during this topic when conversations got heated several times and even Ambassadors from multiple countries asked some challenging questions.

There is a very harsh reality we all face here: the fact that a competitive advantage exists where a few brands dictate how goods/services, supply chains organize themselves in the market. It is a very real scenario for thousands of employers to be serving one brand in the eco-system. And where we are yet to settle on international standards of such a ‘leadership’ role and governance, it is a hard debate to have on how to re-appropriate political power so we can function with balance and health across industries, sectors, and geographies.

The key take-away in this dialogue was that during the transition period, and despite the factors, we are unable to individually (or even collectively) control if each employer and employee focuses on the quality of employment – ensuring there is clear purpose and value to the relationship, that we may be able to offer safety for each other for the time being.

Governance of Work

In this last session, we dived deeper into practice and policy. We questioned how the world of business can respond to the erosion of established regulatory frameworks, whether we need new governance structures to regulate work, work practices, and policy, and what they could look like.

Another hard reality we faced during this conversation: the issue of democracy. In a world that’s so big, fast, and complex, where the frame of democracy is standing  and substance is missing for many people on the ground, how do we do right by our people?

This is where I see us business leaders and HR leaders playing a very important role. We may not be able to influence broader regulatory bodies yet, but we do have power to exercise over everyday decisions we take to deliver social, psychological, and income equality across our workforce.

Finally, Youth Perspective!

One of my key values as a leader is to drive inclusion; therefore, singling out a generation or a group is often not of interest to me. That said, the younger generation is a group I am deeply vested in – not because they are a single demographic, but because they are the future leaders of our world.

They are part of our workforce today and they are often not granted positions with influence in traditional structures. It is imperative we give them a voice… And here is what they had to say:

1. The most important thing on their minds regarding employment is the quality of the work experience.
2. They’d like to see more female leaders.
3. They’re worried mostly about equality and sustainability.
4. They care to extend opportunities to emerging markets, leveraging current technologies.
5. They want to simplify governance.
6. They care deeply about inclusion and climate change.

In the next few days, I will try to summarize and group attendee questions, and list further discussion points for consideration.

One final observation and a personal wish: I was bummed to see no big-brand business leaders, no technology firm leaders and no scientists at the dialogue. Truly.

At Whirling Chief, our mission is built on a premise of bridging science with practice. There is a huge gap between where the world of business is headed and what we do in practice. The workforce studies show us numbers that are miserable:

• Conference Board reports ~48% of people feeling ‘unsatisfied’ at work.
• Gallup reports ~32% of US workers are engaged vs. ~13% of global workforce.
• NIOSH reports 40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful and job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family problems.
• American Workplace VII reports 25% have felt like screaming or shouting because of job stress, 10% are concerned about an individual at work they fear could become violent.
• BLS reports 2.9 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses reported by private industry employers.
• WEF reports the gaps between women and men on economic participation and political empowerment remain wide, with about 59% of the economic participation gap has been closing and is projected to close by 2186.
• SHRM reports respectful treatment of all employees at all levels was rated as very important by 67% of employees in 2015.

As employees, business leaders, HR leaders, representatives, and academic leaders, we all share a stake in our future and in the evolution of business. I really wish to share more podiums with my extended community.

To hear more on topics focusing on how to further humanize the global workplace, please do subscribe to our platform and/or follow us on social media channels:

YouTube

Twitter

Facebook

At Whirling Chief, we are on a mission to further humanize the global workplace.

Sounds crazy, right?! I know it does… ☺
Our vision is fuelled by the belief that traditional ways of working are long gone. Instead, we desire to explore new and revolutionary business and human resources practices, in all their richness and depth, as they may best fit into our complex and dynamic 21st century lives. We want to bring meaning, wisdom, and humanity into workplaces and workplace practices, so more of us around the globe can live up to and realize our full potential.

Why? Because so many of us continue to ‘suffer’ at work.

When I left my corporate position in 2014, I informally started studying people’s work experiences. The results were just awful. 1 out of 3 people I spoke with wanted to leave their jobs to go after their ‘true’ desire, whether or not they knew what that was… I was shocked. Looking across global studies way bigger than mine, here are the statistics I found:

• Conference Board reports ~48% of people feeling ‘unsatisfied’ at work.
• Gallup reports ~32% of US workers are engaged vs. ~13% of global workforce.
• NIOSH reports 40% of workers reported their job was very or extremely stressful and job stress is more strongly associated with health complaints than financial or family problems.
• American Workplace VII reports 25% have felt like screaming or shouting because of job stress, 10% are concerned about an individual at work they fear could become violent.
• BLS reports 2.9 million nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses reported by private industry employers.
• WEF reports the gaps between women and men on economic participation and political empowerment remain wide, with the economic participation gap closing by 59% and projected to close entirely by 2186.
• SHRM reports respectful treatment of all employees at all levels was rated as very important by 67% of employees in 2015.

How does that feel?

Well, it felt to me like we needed to do something about it. Think of how many hours we collectively spend at work and this is how we feel about it???

At Whirling Chief, we want to stop the agony. We like to picture a work experience where more of us:

• Understand and acknowledge our humanity: the physiology and psychology of human beings
• Have the necessary skills to continuously develop self-awareness, self-affirmation and self-control
• Understand industrial and organizational psychology, to become productive members of organizations and to contribute in meaningful ways
• Adopt and utilize people practices that are better suited for the human self, motivation, and productivity, and in alignment with today’s realities (i.e., technology, data management)
• Lead by example
• Live healthier and happier lives 

And for this we need to bridge together human experience and science. We need to work with our community to understand their experiences, partner up with academia to study it further, and then to later turn findings into applicable business practices for corporations to adapt.

That’s what we’re after these days. What say you?