In part 3 of this exclusive series, Nadia Nagamootoo discusses how organisations can create a more equal playing field for men and women alike within the organisation. She looks at the importance of culture in creating gender parity for men.
We are seeing an exciting trend in recent months as more client organisations structure their people vision alongside innovative and practical deployment plans that are very specifically matched to their business goals.
Over recent years, businesses have been focused on cost utilisation and spend, understandably given the economic environment we've been in.
I’ve used Uber a few times, but have to say I’ve been a Black Cab kind of girl for years and there is something familiar about them that makes me stick with them.
Yesterday though I started to think differently. My last few trips to London have involved a Cab ride, none of the drivers have known where to go and the cost, compared to what an Uber would have been almost double the cost and the card machines haven’t been working so cash has been paid, one driver even dropping me at a cash machine.
Making sense of people data is a struggle for many HR professionals. People analytics is only effective when data collection is focused on achieving a particular management objective - such as improving talent management processes, such as recruitment or retention, or to demonstrate HR's contribution to the value/ROI of these processes. Despite this core concept of people analytics, many companies simply analyse the data nearest to hand – with the results being anything but insightful.
Once upon a time, ATS systems stored millions of stale resumes of any candidate that happened to cross its path. When new roles opened and well-meaning human beings attempted to apply or refer, these systems would mostly say, “Resume already exists in database.” If one were lucky, the ATS would say, “Hey! New resume. Let me replace the old one” and if luck had truly run out, it would save two versions leaving the poor recruiter confounded. Then suddenly, GDPR happened.
Growing up we are taught (and throughout life we observe) what is frequently referred to as the Golden Rule. For many of us it started as (and maybe still is) the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, and while the exact wording is flexible the central message is common to all.
In principle, the concept champions a two-way, reciprocal and mutual relationship between two or more parties.
This indeed is a very admirable idea, but it has a fundamental flaw that is amplified when brought into the workplace.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times
The jobs market is flooded with embellished CVs, fake references and dirty data. 86% of employers have uncovered lies or misrepresentations on a resume, and the other 14% presumably don’t look hard enough. Candidate verification is expensive and slow for the recruiter, and off-putting for the candidate – hence why we are witnessing an upsurge in movements like Hiring Without Whiteboards, and a disdain for HR and recruiters in general.
It’s another milestone in the race to artificial superintelligence:
A study conducted by legal AI platform LawGeex in consultation with law professors from Stanford University, Duke University School of Law, and the University of Southern California, pitted twenty experienced lawyers against an AI trained to evaluate legal contracts. Their 40-page report details how AI has overtaken top lawyers in accurately spotting risks in everyday business contracts.
The Participants:
Have you ever responded negatively to a text or a written message?
I have.
Nine times out of ten I’m able to stop myself from responding.
But then there is that odd time where I do respond. I ‘flash’ and although it feels good for about ten seconds I almost always regret it.
Why do we do this?
Professor Steve Peters explained why we do this in ‘The Chimp Paradox’ where he explained about the three parts of the brain.