“The research shows that employer health and wellness efforts fall short despite company investments in on-site gyms, ergonomics and healthy food choices...”
Summary results from a survey of 1,600 professionals shows the right air, light, water, and temperature are more important to employees than perks like fitness facilities and healthy food choices.
If your wellness programs aren't working, maybe it's time to go back to the basics.
While digital skills remain important, soft skills have surpassed them in importance for executives around the world."
Kids are learning skills today for jobs that won't exist by the time they graduate. Skilled people fuel the global economy, but the half-life of useful skills is shrinking at a rapid rate. AI will pick up some of the load making retraining a crucial corporate function and uniquely human skills even more valuable. Behavioral skills such as agility and flexibility, ability to set priorities, innovation and creativity, ethics and integrity will be prized.
Amazingly, 50% of organizations are whistling past the graveyard with no skills development strategies today. And those that do have one are going to have to find new ways to find, train, and retain talent. Using analytics to predict and infer skills supply and demand will be essential.
This report will help you understand the issue and provide three intriguing solutions: make it personal, turn up the transparency, and look inside and out.
While digital skills remain important, soft skills have surpassed them in importance for executives around the world.
The half-life of skills continues to shrink, while the time it takes to close a skills gap has ballooned. Executives must find ways to stay ahead of skills relevancy.
Chief executives from the Business Roundtable, including the leaders of Apple and JPMorgan Chase, argued that companies must also invest in employees and deliver value to customers.
There was no shortage of commentary about the need for a new corporate purpose that came from the collective mouths of the chief executives of Apple, Pepsi, Walmart, and nearly 200 other organizations last week. Basically, these organizations agreed they must look to satisfy not just their investors, but a wide range of stakeholders including employees, suppliers, and the environment.
Isn't this what WE has been championing for years? While there's nothing really new here, and the sentiment was criticized by many for its lack of specific commitments, it may be a harbinger of C-suite receptiveness toward many of the programs we support. It's time to show they're good for not more than the bottom line, they're good for people and planet too.
Harvard study reveals surprising impacts when employees are allowed to work not just from home, but anywhere
A study found that “work from anywhere” policies increased productivity.
A team from Harvard used 8 years of data from the US Patent & Trademark Office to examine the difference in outcomes between work-from-home (WFH) vs. work-from-anywhere (WFA) programs. Here are the highlights of the 50+ page study
- They confirmed earlier research showing productivity was higher for all remote workers
- The productivity increase was greatest among WFA workers (4.4% percentage points higher than WFH), and lowest among WFH who lived >50 miles from the office (with the productivity increase among those who lived <50 miles from the office falling in between)
- Older WFA workers were more likely to move out of the region (Alexandria) than younger WFA workers, but both groups experienced a reduction in the cost-of-living
- For remote workers whose job required significant interaction with colleagues, having a mandated set of IT tools increased productivity even further (3%)
- There was no decline in quality among either group of remote workers
PTO's remote worker avoided 84 million miles of travel thus reducing emissions by 44k tons
PTO saved $38M in RE
The study valued the productivity from PTO's remote work program at $1.3 billion. It reduced commuter travel by 84M miles and emissions by 44k tons. And it saved the agency $38M in real estate costs.