By Greta Roberts, CEO, Talent Analytics, Corp., @gretaroberts
Program Chair, Predictive Analytics World for Workforce
In early August, our Director of Marketing reached out to the Editor of a well-known online magazine. They are described as one of the leading voices in the HR profession that serves human resource leaders and professionals. (We agree).
We approached them offering two high value, well-received articles that use an analytics approach to understand employee attrition. These articles described how to calculate the true cost of employee attrition, how to identify where the largest costs are and how to think about, map and visualize how attrition plays out in an organization.
Understanding and visualizing real attrition cost can often be the impetus employers need to begin a strategic project to reduce attrition – typically in high volume roles like sales, call centers, insurance agents, bank tellers and the like.
We realize Editors need to be responsive to the needs of their readers – and only provide timely and interesting content. We know not everyone finds our research or opinions as interesting as we find them. We’d want to reject material that didn’t fit too.
What shook us was the reason given for not being interested in this content. Read the transcript below for reasons our articles were not chosen.
———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Article submission – solving employee attrition
I am going to pass on these for a couple of reasons.
- These seem like marketing pieces for talent analytics, and our magazine is obligated to be “vendor neutral and non-promotional.”
- Lots of charts and graphs in the second one, and probably more than the typical reader wants to dig through.
- I like this kind of stuff and yet I had a hard time following along or staying engaged. My guess is that typical readers might feel the same.
So, thanks for sending but I am going to pass this time around.
———- End Forwarded message ———-
I was compelled to write this blog because it’s a bigger issue than them not featuring our articles. We have plenty of outlets.
Every other area of business is ramping up analytics to create a knowledge-based culture. Rather than embracing this advance, this publication is actively making choices to keep Human Capital in the dark.
News sources such as this feed the impression that “HR doesn’t deserve a place at the table,” or that HR is “soft” or “vague.” It is disappointing to see forces actively holding our industry in this place.
Charts and graphs are at the core of analytics. We have found that professionals are well capable of understanding when important concepts are being displayed with a chart or graph.
We’re all fed and influenced by online news feeds, magazines and so called experts. We expect Editors to provide content that keeps us current, to push the envelope a little, to open us up, to challenge our HR leaders and professionals and prepare them for what they need in order to stay competitive.
High ROI is discussed everywhere in areas like customer analytics, voter analytics, and patient analytics (each a different kind of human behavior fully utilizing the value analytics can bring). I don’t see these discussions as often in the area of human capital as in other areas.
Our human capital ecosystem needs to get smarter. We need Editors who get excited about reading charts and graphs and assume leaders in the HR Profession do too.
Want to read the 2 articles? Request Churn 201 and Churn 202.
For those of you excited about Charts and Graphs and what they can teach about Employee Attrition – click here to request Churn 201 and 202 (the 2 articles Greta discusses above) and we’ll be happy to send them along.