2024美国大选对招聘行业的深远影响，HR应如何应对？ How the US elections could affect recruiting随着2024年美国大选的临近，选举结果可能对招聘趋势产生重大影响。根据Appcast首席经济学家Andrew Flowers的分析，选民最关心的三大问题——经济（包括就业和股票市场）、移民和通胀（包括生活成本）——都与招聘紧密相关。移民政策影响招聘人员的可用人才库，而通胀和生活成本则影响薪酬和工资增长预期。
Flowers在2024年10月15日的网络研讨会上探讨了美国大选可能对2025年招聘战略产生的影响。他列举了四种可能的选举结果，并对每种情景的招聘影响进行分析。例如，Harris获胜的情况下，可能对劳动力需求、供应和工资影响较小，而共和党全面执政则可能导致劳动力供应减少，工资增长。
选举的结果对招聘市场将产生不同的影响，从关税、税收政策、移民政策到工资增长等多方面，招聘人员必须为多种可能性做好准备。Flowers指出，这次选举结果悬而未决，总统选举结果接近50-50，众议院和参议院的控制权也未定。
“总统选举结果极其接近，”Flowers强调道。“任何结果都有可能。”此外，无论哪个党派掌握众议院和参议院，都可能影响未来的招聘政策，招聘人员应关注候选人的关税政策、移民执法和税法变化。
他提出的四种情景包括：1. Harris胜选，国会分裂或由共和党掌控，可能对劳动力市场影响中立；2. 共和党胜选并控制国会，可能导致移民政策收紧，工资增长；3. Trump胜选并国会分裂，可能对工资和移民政策影响较小；4. 民主党全面执政可能有利于劳动力供应和工资增长。
Flowers总结道，他的分析旨在提供非党派的观点，招聘人员应密切关注选举结果对未来招聘战略的影响。
人们在选择候选人时认为最重要的三个问题——经济（包括就业和股市）、移民和通货膨胀（包括生活成本）——都与招聘密切相关。
例如，移民影响了人才库以及招聘人员能够招聘的对象，程序化招聘广告提供商Appcast的首席经济学家Andrew Flowers在一次网络广播中表示。另一个方面，通货膨胀和生活成本会影响薪酬和预期的工资增长。
Flowers的网络广播《美国大选如何影响2025年招聘策略》于10月15日举行，旨在提供对选举影响的非党派观点。
“无论哪位候选人当选，我们都处于一个高度通胀的环境，”他说，并补充道，选民似乎并不愿意削减支出。
Flowers强调，由于这次总统选举竞争非常激烈，招聘人员面临着严峻的形势。
“总统职位基本上是五五开，”他说。“选情非常接近……可能会朝任意一方倾斜。”
Flowers还指出，美国众议院和参议院的控制权也悬而未决。尽管预测人士认为参议院可能会从民主党翻转到共和党，但众议院的控制权将在11月选举中紧张角逐。
影响招聘的因素还包括候选人是否引入更多关税、他们对驱逐非法移民的政策以及2017年《减税和就业法》下的个人税率，这些税率将在2025年底到期。
Flowers提出了四种情景：
情景1：卡马拉·哈里斯获胜，而国会则可能分裂或由共和党控制两院。这个情景的概率为45%，Flowers表示，这对劳动力需求、供给和工资的影响将是中性的。关税和税收政策将保持现状，边境执法将仅有适度收紧。
情景2：共和党占据总统和国会两院的主导地位。这个情景的概率为30%。Flowers表示，这对劳动力需求的影响可能是中性的，潜在的关税可能会减缓经济增长，而可能的税收减免则可能促进增长。然而，可能的大规模驱逐移民的政策可能对劳动力供给产生负面影响。不过，由于通胀、财政、贸易和移民政策的影响，工资可能会上涨。
情景3：唐纳德·特朗普赢得总统大选，国会则可能分裂或由民主党控制两院。Flowers认为这种情况的可能性为20%。在这种情况下，潜在的关税可能会减缓经济增长，税收状况可能维持现状。劳动力供给的影响将是中性的，边境执法也将仅有适度收紧。通胀的财政和贸易政策可能对工资产生正面影响，导致工资上涨。
情景4：民主党占据总统和国会两院的主导地位。这个情景的概率仅为5%，Flowers表示，这对劳动力需求的影响将是中性的。然而，它可能对劳动力供给产生正面影响，移民政策将保持强劲，儿童保育政策也将得到实施。同时，随着劳动力权力的上升，结合通胀的财政政策，工资可能会上涨。
距离11月5日的选举还有三周，Flowers强调，他的分析旨在以非党派的角度审视事实，而不是支持某个特定的候选人或政党。
原文来自 https://www.staffingindustry.com/news/global-daily-news/how-the-us-elections-could-affect-recruiting
观点
2024年10月16日
观点
ADP Lyric HCM, The Next-Gen HR Platform Many Have Waited ForJosh Bersin 写文章介绍了ADP的 Lyric HCM，给予了高度评价。ADP于2018年启动了一项秘密项目，目标是开发下一代企业人力资源管理平台。这个项目最终被命名为ADP Lyric HCM，它的设计旨在应对当代灵活多变的工作环境。Lyric HCM基于高度可扩展的微服务架构，能够处理包括全职、兼职、临时工、自由职业者等多种员工类型，同时支持多重管理结构。该平台具有灵活性，可帮助企业快速适应组织重组、兼并收购等变化，且能够实现全球薪资和税务管理，提供符合各地法律法规的自定义规则。
Lyric HCM的设计不仅注重系统的灵活性，还融入了大量的AI功能，使其在用户体验上更加智能化和易用。通过ADP Assist这一AI工具，用户可以通过自然语言与系统互动，轻松进行复杂的HR操作。此外，Lyric HCM还提供实时的行业基准数据，帮助企业根据最新的薪酬和岗位信息做出决策。该系统的“人本位”架构使其更具灵活性，相比传统以职位为基础的系统，它可以更好地满足当代企业多重任务、多角色管理的需求。
Lyric HCM不仅支持多种HR功能，如招聘、绩效管理、培训和发展，还拥有一个统一的员工体验平台，员工可以通过简单的查询完成例如婚假申请等事务。此外，ADP还建立了强大的全球服务团队，确保客户获得定制化的实施和长期支持。
自上线以来，ADP Lyric HCM已经吸引了超过120个大型客户，证明了其系统的稳定性和可扩展性。其核心市场定位是为全球化、分布式的企业提供服务，尤其是在零售、医疗保健、餐饮等行业。作为一款融合AI技术的全新平台，Lyric HCM展示了未来人力资源管理系统的潜力，并成为Workday、Oracle、SAP等主要HCM供应商的有力竞争对手。
In the Spring of 2018 I attended a confidential meeting in New York City to learn about a project called Lifion. ADP had hired a new team of engineers convened in a secret mission to build the “next-generation platform” for ADP’s offerings in the enterprise market.
This new system, designed ten years after the release of Workday, was intended to be a highly scalable, configurable, micro-services based system, capable of managing payroll, HR processes, and all talent applications for any category of employee. The system had to support dynamic teams, many worker modalities (full-time, part-time, hourly, gig, contract), and enable a company to manage many organization structures within its corporate function, each with different business rules and overlapping employees.
It was designed, in a sense, for the highly flexible, dynamic companies of the post-pandemic era.
In addition to this flexible architecture, the system was designed to support workers with multiple managers (and multiple time sheets), dynamic reconfiguration for M&A or new business entities, and global payroll and tax services with custom business rules that might be variable across the company. It needed to include a recruiting module, a variety of options for goals and performance management, tools for onboarding and development, excellent reporting, and an easy-to-use narrative interface that let any employee, manager, or HR professional use, configure, or run reports on the system.
In my initial meeting I walked away impressed, and I wrote an article describing this project. Today, almost six years later, this product has a name (ADP Lyric HCM) and it has reached general availability for ADP customers with 1,000 customers or more.
Today ADP has 120+ large accounts so the system is proven. And since its inception Lyric HCM has been infused with extensive AI features (ADP Assist is on par with SAP Joule as a true AI interface) and benchmark information from ADP’s data cloud.
In other words, this system has the potential to be a “The Next Generation” HCM platform in the market.
What Is ADP Announcing And Offering
The core HR system has to do a lot of things. Not only does it have to manage payroll, benefits, and tax rules (in a global, constantly changing regulatory environment), it has to be flexible, easy to configure, and filled with easy-to-use interfaces for employees and HR. And by “flexible” I mean the system has to make it easy to open a new org structure, move employees around, and create multiple modes for a “manager” or supervisor.
Almost all traditional HCM providers, Workday, Oracle, and SAP, were not designed to work this way. These vendors built contract work add-ons but in most cases when you want to flatten your organization, merge with another company, or reorganize roles it’s difficult. Flattening the organization often means “re-implementing” your HRMS. Most companies only do it once a decade.
ADP Lyric HCM is designed to fix this. Imagine a company like Gold’s Gym where the company is constantly opening new Gyms and hiring new managers, with employees dual reporting to multiple managers.
I talked with Gold’s Gym and as you can imagine the company went through a transformation during the pandemic. Started as a Southern California fitness company, Gold’s was acquired and is now a global organization branching into many new offerings. Facilities were consolidated and each local fitness center operates with a lot of management independence.
For example, an employee who is a trainer in one gym with one manager may also be a trainer or support staff in another gym with another manager. This type of “work-centric” (as opposed to “job-centric”) operation is becoming very common. Lyric HCM supports these multi-manager work models, including features for performance management, time tracking, and contract workers.
Think about any retailer, healthcare company, or other highly distributed operation. One Gold’s Gym may pay overtime in one way, another in a different way. You can imagine the permutations. Every company has situations like this.
I was recently at Rolls-Royce where they are centralizing engineering teams away from product groups, making 30 to 40% of their engineers “floaters.” Rolls has enormous contracts with government and commercial customers, each with different financial models. They need a system like this just like a gym, restaurant chain, or elder care network.
There’s more. In addition to these HRMS and global payroll features, ADP has built an employee experience platform, employee communications system, and learning and development system. You simply type a query like “I’m getting married” and the system shows a page that consolidates tasks and resources in one place. If an HR manager wants to “pay a bonus” the system asks what organization, shows a list of people, and lets the manager define the bonus without hunting for menus and panels.
Highlights Of The Next Gen Approach
Since this system was architected in the age of AI, it has some very unique capabilities out of the box.
First, in the area of flexibility, this is a “person-based” architecture, as opposed to a “role-based” architecture. That feature alone enables all these features to be possible.
Second, in the area of usability, the system is among the most “AI-enabled” interfaces I’ve seen. While most HCMs are building assistants to speed through transactions, Lyric HCM literally “learns” what you’re trying to do and prompts you through the process. Remember these HCM systems are complex (Workday’s “Users Guide” is 2500 pages long), so we want the system to feel approachable not intimidating.
As you can see from this slide, ADP also offers embedded benchmarks as well as a nudge engine. The benchmarks come from ADP’s data cloud, giving companies up to date salary ranges and other metrics by job title and job level (no other HCM platforms do this). The nudge engine is used for Lyric HCM’s onboarding and development system, reminding users of tasks or activities they need to perform.
ADP Assist, the company’s Gen AI tool, lets you ask questions about any employee or group, legal and tax issues, and payroll or financial data. It’s quite powerful and I would say it rivals Joule as a conversational interface for HCM.
Third, the system has a novel and approachable interface for employees. Rather than offer people a variety of “centers” or “portals” to find things, the system is smart enough to give employees exactly what it thinks they need. Typical HR transactions like changing your family status or address, or looking at benefits or pay are simple. Persona-based dashboards are designed for payroll or tax managers. And any HR professional can customize the interface for their use.
Because the system is so dynamic, users can set up smart reports and other views to pinpoint the data and organizational unit they’re interested in. And ADP has built a management development tool (to take newly promoted supervisors through development), an onboarding system, and many features for performance and goal management.
Where Will This Go? ADP Services
When we think about ADP’s platforms we have to remember that ADP is not just a cloud software company. Most of the company’s revenue comes from services: payroll, PEO, and license fees around those offerings. This means ADP’s sales and service organization is very service-centric and highly trained in all areas of HR. (Most HR software sales teams are not HR domain experts.)
To support Lyric HCM the company put together a global service team combined with dedicated client success executives to make sure each customer has a personalized, outcome-based implementation plan. This means ADP Lyric HCM is not just a great platform, but a set of people to help with configuration, utilization, integration, and long-term planning. ADP is starting to work with integrators, but likely will handle most of their customer implementations themselves.
Impact On The Market.
At this point Lyric HCM is positioned as an offering for mid to large companies headquartered in the United States with global workforces. This means Lyric HCM is directly positioned to compete with UKG, Ceridian, Workday, Oracle, SAP, and vendors like Darwinbox, HiBob (which is going upmarket), Lattice, and others. The “Pay” companies (Paychex, Paycor, Paycom) are focused primarily on smaller companies, but as they grow their offering they may compete as well.
That is not to say ADP can solve every client need. These platforms mature over many years and each vendor has different industry and focus features. At this point I believe ADP will most likely win in industries like retail, hospitality, health care, and other distributed, hourly workforce companies. And given ADP’s focus on small and medium business, it will take time for ADP to reach large companies.
Nevertheless, it’s time for change in HCM. Designed for agility and infused with AI, ADP Lyric HCM shows us a future we’ve been looking for.
观点
2024年09月23日
观点
AI Agents, The New Workforce We’re Not Quite Ready For (Agentic AI)Josh Bersin 刚刚谈到：AI代理人的兴起标志着工作方式的一次革命。这些AI代理人不仅仅是工具，而是未来的团队成员。从开发培训课程到管理招聘过程，AI代理人的能力正被企业系统广泛利用。科技领袖和投资者对此展现出了极大的兴趣和投资。企业需要为这种变革做好准备，包括安全性和管理实践的更新。
我们一起来看下，英文原文附录链接在最后！
AI智能体，新一代劳动力，我们还没有做好准备
智能体正在到来，智能体正在到来。
如果你关注AI技术市场，你就会知道，最近有很多关于“智能体AI”的讨论。换句话说，我们的AI助手开始拥有更多自主能力。不再只是回答问题和写诗，它们现在可以代表我们“做事情”。
这正是长久以来预测的AI下一个大趋势。埃里克·施密特最近谈到了这一点，微软也在讨论，像Mayfield这样的投资者正在投入资金。而这种演变确实将彻底革新我们的系统。
可以这样想：“大语言模型”是我们过去两年一直在学习的内容，它们现在正逐步转变为“大行动模型”。智能体不仅仅会回答问题，它还会为我们做事情。
消费场景是无穷无尽的：为我预订航班，为我买票，向我的朋友发送电子邮件。但在商业领域，这种转变将颠覆并破坏我们的许多企业系统。它还将改变我们工作的方式、管理的方式以及我们对团队的思考方式。
考虑我们与供应商讨论的两个HR用例。
学习与发展（L&D）AI智能体
想象一下，你指示一个L&D AI智能体“为我们的销售人员创建一个15分钟的课程，以教授他们如何定位我们的新产品”。AI智能体将根据你的输入（课程时长、目标受众等），向主题专家发送电子邮件，视频记录他们的评论和专业知识，整合新产品信息，构建课程，并将其发送给L&D负责人进行验证。作为经理，你可以审查课程，并指示智能体收紧信息或添加更多主题，课程将重新创建，然后你可以说“可以上线了”。智能体随后会将课程发布到学习管理系统（LMS）中，向所有销售人员群发电子邮件，并开始监控学习活动。几小时后，智能体会运行分析，并向经理反馈进展情况。
是的，这在今天完全可能。而且很快就会启动。
再来看第二个例子。
招聘AI智能体
人才招聘负责人收到了大量关于高级软件工程师的职位要求。她指示招聘AI智能体开始搜索。智能体询问招聘人员的地点偏好、职位级别选择、薪资范围和技能要求，然后开始工作。智能体扫描LinkedIn和其他招聘工具，查看ATS中的现有候选人，同时也查看所有内部员工的合格技能。智能体随后优化这份名单，创建一个“面试候选人短名单”，并回到招聘负责人那里征求意见。在就地点和薪资范围达成一致后，智能体返回并向这些候选人发送了一封富有吸引力的电子邮件，并附上一个视频面试门户链接，让他们进行面试。面试被录制下来，AI智能体使用面试智能工具来评估和筛选候选人，询问他们的时间安排，并为他们安排现场面试。在此过程中，AI智能体会查看他们的背景，搜索社交媒体，查看他们的各种联系，并可能查看他们的GitHub等平台和其他凭证，然后为每位候选人创建一个档案。
这些智能体很快就会出现，对我们许多人来说，它们看起来和感觉上会像“员工”一样。我们将不得不对它们进行培训、入职和指导。随着它们在各自的角色中“成熟”并成长，我们将它们连接到更多的系统、更多的人和更多的数据上。
Lattice的首席执行官萨拉·富兰克林大约一个月前实际上提出了这个概念，尽管遭到了反对声音，但我认为她是对的。这些智能体实际上将属于组织结构图的一部分。我们的工作将是管理它们，确保它们的安全，并监督它们的安全性。
还有更多内容即将到来
虽然感觉像科幻小说，但这一切正在发生。而且它不仅将改变我们的HR技术堆栈，还将改变整个企业技术格局，也让我们的HR角色变得更加轻松。
原文来自: https://joshbersin.com/2024/09/agentic-ai-ai-agents-the-new-workforce-were-not-quite-ready-for/
观点
2024年09月06日
观点
Indeed 职业定义中的年龄歧视引发的轩然大波 The Uproar Over Ageism in Career Definitions by Indeed最近的Indeed报告将45岁定义为“职业晚期”、55岁以上为“职业衰退”，引发了对年龄歧视的批评。专家如Lyndsey Simpson强调，这种标签不仅有害，还忽视了老年工作者的潜力。尽管该报告旨在描述职业阶段，但其用语引起了广泛反响，最终导致信息图的删除。像Elizabeth Isele这样的倡导者强调，多代工作力的好处，如更强的人才管道和增强的工作稳定性。
最近，Indeed的一份报告因将45岁定义为“职业晚期”、55岁以上定义为“衰退”而被批评为“年龄歧视”。来自Freelance Informer的报道指出，55Redefined Group的创始人兼首席执行官、全球老龄化人口价值专家Lyndsey Simpson在LinkedIn上发文，批评该平台发布了她所视为“公然的年龄歧视和不负责任的内容”。
Indeed的信息图将45岁定义为“职业晚期”、55岁以上为“衰退”，同时将35-45岁称为“职业中期”。根据Freelance Informer的报道，该信息图在多次投诉后已被撤下。
Simpson表示：“在55岁以上，数百万人正在他们选择的职业中找到自己的步伐，或者正在重新技能培训，重新回到劳动力市场，或者开始新的企业。”
Simpson认为，Indeed的指南延续了有害的刻板印象，削弱了老年工作者的潜力。她敦促公司认识到老年工作者的价值，并起来反对过时的偏见。
Next Up招聘机构的首席执行官Victoria Tomlinson说：“感谢成千上万分享、评论和发送电子邮件的人——Indeed已经撤下了这篇文章。”
尽管在Tomlinson的评论之后该图形仍可见一段时间，但现已被删除。
全球经验丰富的企业家精神研究所创始人Elizabeth Isele为Indeed的报告做出了贡献。她在报告中说：“多代工作力具有明显的竞争优势，原因有很多。立即，雇主就能开辟更强大、更广泛的人才渠道。你会得到一个更大的想法基因池。提高你的劳动力的连续性和稳定性。并在该劳动力中保留知识。”Isele指出，预计到2030年，55岁以上的工作者将增加1.5亿。
观点
2024年09月03日
观点
Why it’s time for HR Business Partners 2.0文章中强调了人力资源商业伙伴（HRBP）从通才到战略顾问的演变。最初旨在将人力资源战略与商业目标对齐，HRBP经常被日常运营任务分散注意力。Kathi Enderes 主张通过加强培训、指导和系统性的人力资源方法来复兴这一角色，这种方法整合了商业咨询能力。她引用了TomTom和乐高集团的例子，这些公司已成功地将其HRBP角色转变为更具战略性、数据驱动和有效促进业务增长和创新的角色。文章指出，只有11%的公司完全整合了这种模式，但见证了更高的增长和创新。
Kathi Enderes的观点强调了在当今由AI驱动的市场中，将HRBP转变为战略顾问不仅是一种改变，更是一种必需。
Global Industry Analyst Kathi Enderes, SVP of Research at The Josh Bersin Company, sees the need to clear the dust off a 30-year great idea of HRBPs.
Expert Insight
HRBPs are a crucial part of the success of the HR functions, and organizations as a whole.
However, as Kathi Enders, SVP of Research at The Josh Bersin Company, shares in this exclusive OpEd, they need to move from being a jack of all trades to becoming a business savvy consultant.
Here's how to achieve this!
Thirty years ago, HR embraced a groundbreaking concept: the HR Business Partner (HRBP).
The idea was that these professionals would collaborate closely with business leaders and line managers to align people strategies with the organization’s broader business objectives.
This remains a crucial concept and a contribution that organizations desperately need.
The problem is that somewhere along the way, we lost sight of the strategic part of the equation.
As a result, we’ve ended up misusing resources and devolving the role of the HRBP into a much more tactical, and less globally impactful, function.
In fact, the HRBP role is the most critical, yet the most misunderstood, of all HR jobs.
But by refreshing and modernizing the original concept and investing in HRBP capabilities, we can revitalize the role and get it back to its even more strategic purpose.
How we got here, and where we have to go next
We introduced HRBPs when we transitioned to the tiered HR service delivery model in the 1990s.
Originally, the HRBP was envisioned as a crucial connector between the various HR Centers of Excellence (COE) and the business.
But before too long, a lot of operational tasks were loaded onto their plates by business managers who needed immediate assistance with less strategic, day-to-day issues—think, “I need to hire someone but don’t know how to submit the requisition in the system,” or “I need to transfer someone: can you help me with that?”
When this happens frequently, the HRBP unintentionally becomes more of an HR workflow admin assistant.
While this helps solve short-term issues, it detracts from the original strategic intent of the role.
Consequently, many HRBPs end up not working “at top of license”—acting more like HR generalists than the specialized, strategic partners they could be.
To get things on track and empower HRBPs to grow into the strategic role you hired them for (and what they came on board to do), look to:
accept and encourage them to become business consultants, not just advisors or general admins, and support them in developing strong relationships with business leaders and the rest of HR
build the level of HR business partner capabilities they need to do that
organize their roles in new ways, and communicate clearly how you expect them to operate and contribute.
Leading the development of this critical in-house resource
It’s important to emphasize that all three elements noted above are crucial to the success of HRBPs – and they are interconnected.
Implementing just one recommendation won’t achieve the desired outcomes.
Equally importantly, this isn’t about increasing headcount costs; it’s about enhancing the training and utilization of the people you already have.
Indeed, in some organizations, there are significant numbers of HRBPs; myself and The Josh Bersin Company have worked with organizations where there are 200 or more in place.
So, the mission of the CHRO is to develop them, help them build the right relationships across the business, give them the support they need, and consciously organize them for success.
For capability development, some of that investment will go towards formal learning programs.
However, a significant portion will also be dedicated to facilitating mentorships and fostering connections.
This approach works best by consciously placing HRBPs in project roles where they can expand their knowledge and gain valuable exposure.
How to move to next-gen HRBP ground-level support
A Systemic HR approach, a concept The Josh Bersin Company introduced to the market last year, can be the driver of transformation here.
Why? Because by its very definition, Systemic HR transforms HR from a siloed service provider into an integrated, consultative function that tackles a company’s most pressing business challenges.
By doing so, the HRBP evolves from an HR ‘jack of all trades’ to a highly-skilled, data- and technology-savvy business consultant.
According to our research, only 11% of companies operate a truly Systemic HR function, so there is huge opportunity here – and these organizations have much higher company growth, delight their customers, innovate more, and create a great place to work.
Next-generation HRBPs can accelerate the journey towards Systemic HR and drive successful business outcomes.
However, to achieve this, you must be prepared to both pose and find answers to questions such as:
What are my new-style HRBPs’ specific accountabilities?
What does success look like?
How will our newly-energized and skilled-up HRBPs interact with managers and leaders?
Evidence from front-rank organizations, like TomTom, a geolocation technology company that specializes in mapping, navigation, and real-time traffic information services, suggests a move to a more integrated, fully data-driven, Systemic HR framework can deliver significant benefits.
In its case, TomTom has strategically restructured its HRBP team, moving away from a traditional, rigid HR model to a more fluid, team-based approach.
Its HRBPs are now organized into cross-functional teams that operate with flat hierarchies, allowing for quicker decision-making and more responsive HR practices.
Its HRBPs also now sit on the HR strategy and strategic business partnering team, which also includes HR strategy, people analytics and insights, HR portfolio management, and organizational development.
Working across this group, collaborating with the business, and supporting the highest-priority initiatives makes the HR function much more impactful.
Through this organizational model, TomTom ensures that its HRBPs are well-equipped to support the organization’s dynamic needs, driving effectiveness and efficiency.
Achieving ‘Master Builder’ HRBP capability
TomTom is not the only one looking at a new way to utilize HRBPs. Famous Danish toy leader The LEGO Group has taken a proactive approach to building HRBP capabilities.
Specifically, it implemented a series of initiatives aimed at enhancing business acumen, leadership skills, and understanding of complex organizational dynamics.
This includes specialized training programs to equip HRBPs with skills in change management, organization design, and coaching and developing leaders.
This new approach to the HRBP also centers on supporting their participation in cross-functional projects so as to develop a deeper understanding of its multiple business units and achieve a truly holistic view of the organization.
Doing so broadens their perspective and enhances their ability to contribute to strategic discussions and initiatives. This is an approach many other organizations can and should explore, as it’s a great way to develop full-stack HRBP capabilities.
In summary, HRBPs are incredibly important to organizational success, but along the way, we lost sight of how to maximize their potential fully.
As businesses accelerate under the influence of AI and other factors, this oversight becomes a luxury we cannot afford.
Therefore, the CHRO must prioritize developing HRBPs to enable their business to outperform competitors, nurture talent, and cultivate the innovation-driven organization necessary to thrive and endure.
原文来自：https://www.unleash.ai/strategy-and-leadership/why-its-time-for-hr-business-partners-2-0/
观点
2024年08月31日
观点
National Advertising Division Finds Certain Deel Payroll and HRIS Claims Supported; Recommends Others be Modified or DiscontinuedBBB全国项目的国家广告部（NAD）对Deel公司在其薪资和人力资源信息系统（HRIS）方面的广告声明进行了审查，回应了竞争对手Rippling提出的挑战。NAD认为，Deel的部分声明，如“每年节省高达$20,000”和“行业领先的全球薪资软件”是有依据的。然而，NAD建议修改或停止某些其他声明，特别是关于与Rippling的比较、法律合规性和客户支持的声明。NAD认为，Deel的“本地化”和“内部运营”薪资服务声明需要进一步澄清，并建议调整对Rippling的比较方式。此外，NAD要求停止使用“全球HR市场领导者”的称号，因为没有确凿证据支持这一说法。Deel已表示将遵守NAD的决定，进一步确保其广告的真实性和透明度。此次审查反映了NAD对广告真实性的持续关注，确保消费者能够获得准确的信息，同时促进公平竞争。
In a challenge brought by competitor People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division determined that Deel, Inc., in connection with its Payroll and Human Resource Information System (HRIS), provided a reasonable basis for certain claims, including Deel’s “save up to $20,000 per year” claim and accompanying chart, as well as the claim that Deel has an “industry leading global payroll software.”
New York, NY, Aug. 08, 2024 -- In a challenge brought by competitor People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division determined that Deel, Inc., in connection with its Payroll and Human Resource Information System (HRIS), provided a reasonable basis for certain claims, including Deel’s “save up to $20,000 per year” claim and accompanying chart, as well as the claim that Deel has an “industry leading global payroll software.”
However, the National Advertising Division (NAD) recommended that Deel modify or discontinue certain other claims, including comparative claims versus Rippling’s native payroll software, legal compliance, and customer support.
The parties are human resources and payroll service providers that offer multiple services.
Native and In-House Payroll Claims
Rippling challenged claims about “native” and “in-house” payroll systems that appeared in charts on Deel’s website:
“Payroll service is native and operated in-house in every country – Deel ✓, Rippling X”
“Payroll service is native and operated in-house in every country – Deel ✓ Yes, Rippling X No, they currently use partners in some countries.
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that customers could reasonably take away the message that native payroll includes native payroll software. Further, customers may reasonably take away the message that Rippling does not offer in-house and native payroll in all the countries in which it offers global payroll (outside of employer of record).
Therefore, NAD recommended that Deel modify these claims by clearly and conspicuously defining what “native” means and clarifying that the comparison with Rippling also includes countries where they offer payroll as part of their employer of record services.
Industry-Leading Payroll Claim
Deel claims on its website to have “[i]ndustry leading global payroll software” and, in a smaller font, “Deel is a leader in multi-country payroll and contractor payments, according to G2 user reviews.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the phrase “global payroll software” means that Deel offers payroll software globally—whether that is in-house or through a third-party. Further, NAD considered the language and the context in which the “industry leading” language appears and concluded the claim does not convey a superlative message. Consumers are likely to take away the message that Deel is among the top in the industry, but not necessarily the best.
Since the record indicates that Deel has significant revenue, market presence, and a large global footprint, and there is no dispute that Deel and Rippling are among the many leaders in the global payroll market, NAD concluded that this claim was not false or misleading.
HRIS Comparative Claims
Rippling challenged claims on Deel’s website that customers can “[s]witch to Deel HR and save up to $20,000 per year.” An accompanying chart below the claim lists seven product features with Rippling and Deel displaying checkmarks for each feature. The chart states that Deel is “Free for companies with less than 200 employees” while Rippling costs “$8 employee/month.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) concluded that because both products offer the touted features, it is not misleading to characterize Deel’s software as having those product features and that the product comparison chart is not misleading.
HRIS Superlative Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that there was no evidence in the record to support an unqualified claim that Deel is #1 in the market. Therefore, NAD recommended that Deel discontinue the claims:
“The market leader in the Global HR space.”
“Build confidence in your compliance with the #1 Global HR platform.”
Preference Claim
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that data relied on by Deel is not a good fit for its claim that “Teams prefer Deel over Rippling for global HR and Payroll” because it did not indicate a preference for one product over another. Accordingly, NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
Compliance Claims
Rippling challenged claims about legal compliance that appeared in charts on Deel’s website:
“Network of 200+ local legal hiring experts around the world -- ✓ Yes, Rippling X No”
“Compliance document collection for contractors, on top of EOR, constantly reviewed and updated.”
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that in context it is reasonable to take away the message that Rippling has an inferior network of legal experts around the world, and it does not offer compliance document collection. Since Deel submitted no evidence in support of these two claims, NAD recommended it discontinue the comparative part of these claims as they relate to Rippling and cease conveying the messages that there are legal risks associated with using Rippling products and that Rippling’s products are not compliant.
NAD noted that nothing in its decision would prevent Deel from advertising its network of local legal hiring experts or comparing its compliance services to Rippling’s so long as they do not claim that Rippling lacks a network of 200+ local legal hiring experts around the world or compliance document collection for contractors.
Customer Support Claims
The National Advertising Division (NAD) determined that the comparative claim that Rippling does not offer multi-channel support is not false or misleading.
However, NAD concluded that the unqualified claim, “Deel’s support is in-house, reliable, and faster than Rippling” is not supported and recommended that it be discontinued or modified to make clear the circumstances and times when its support would be faster and avoid conveying the message that Rippling’s customer support is unreliable.
Further, NAD determined that Deel’s claim “Same level of service in every country with centralized communications – Deel ✓ Yes, Rippling X No, as they use partners in some places,” is not supported because there is no evidence about the level of service provided by Rippling in any country. Therefore, NAD recommended that the claim be discontinued.
During the proceeding Deel permanently discontinued and modified certain claims. Therefore, NAD did not review these claims on their merits and will treat the claims, for compliance purposes, as though NAD recommended they be discontinued.
In its advertiser statement, Deel stated that it will comply with NAD’s decision.
All BBB National Programs case decision summaries can be found in the case decision library. For the full text of NAD, NARB, and CARU decisions, subscribe to the online archive. This press release shall not be used for advertising or promotional purposes.
About BBB National Programs: BBB National Programs, a non-profit organization, is the home of U.S. independent industry self-regulation, currently operating more than a dozen globally recognized programs that have been helping enhance consumer trust in business for more than 50 years. These programs provide third-party accountability and dispute resolution services that address existing and emerging industry issues, create a fairer playing field for businesses, and a better experience for consumers. BBB National Programs continues to evolve its work and grow its impact by providing business guidance and fostering best practices in arenas such as advertising, child-and-teen-directed marketing, data privacy, dispute resolution, automobile warranty, technology, and emerging areas. To learn more, visit bbbprograms.org.
About the National Advertising Division: The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs provides independent self-regulation and dispute resolution services, guiding the truthfulness of advertising across the U.S. The National Advertising Division reviews national advertising in all media and its decisions set consistent standards for advertising truth and accuracy, delivering meaningful protection to consumers and leveling the playing field for business.
观点
2024年08月10日
观点
Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit
文章讨论了在Workday诉讼中，代理法的相关法律问题。原告声称，Workday的AI筛选工具因种族、年龄和残疾而对他进行了歧视。这起案件提出了HR技术供应商是否可以对歧视性结果直接负责的问题。法律的复杂性包括AI在招聘决策中的角色、代理责任以及对雇主和AI开发者的潜在影响。此案件提醒雇主在实施AI招聘工具时要谨慎，并确保避免法律风险。AI开发者也必须确保其产品无歧视行为，因为该诉讼可能会树立重要的法律先例。
Editor's Note
Agency Law and the Workday Lawsuit
Agency law is so old that it used to be called master and servant law. (That's different from slavery, where human beings were considered the legal property of other humans based on their race, gender, and age, which is partly why we have discrimination laws.)
Today, agency laws refer to principals and agents. All employees are agents of their employer, who is the principal. And employers can have nonemployee agents too when they hire someone to do things on their behalf. Generally, agents owe principals a fiduciary duty to act in the principal's best interest, even when that isn't the agent's best interest.
Agency laws gets tricky fast because you have to figure out who is in charge, what authority was granted, whether the person acting was inside or outside that authority, what duty applies, and who should be held responsible as a matter of fairness and public policy.
Generally, the principal is liable for the acts of the agent, sometimes even when the agent acts outside their authority. And agents acting within their authority are rarely liable for their actions unless it also involves intentional wrongs, like punching someone in the nose.
Enter discrimination, which is generally a creature of statute that may or may not be consistent with general agency law even when the words used are exactly the same.
Discrimination is generally an intentional wrong, but employees are not usually directly liable for discrimination because making employment decisions is part of the way employment works and the employer is always liable for those decisions.
The big exception is harassment because harassment, particularly sexual harassment, is never part of someone's job duties. So in harassment cases, the individual harasser is liable but the employer may not be unless they knew what was going on and didn't do anything about it.
It's confusing and makes your head hurt. And that's just federal discrimination law. Other employment laws, both state and federal, deal with agent liability differently.
Now, let's move to the Workday lawsuit. In that case, the plaintiff is claiming that Workday was an agent of the employer, but not in the sense of someone the employer was directing. They are claiming that Workday has independent liability as an employer too because they were acting like an employer in screening and rejecting applicants for the employer.
But that's kinda the whole point of HR Technology—to save the employer time and resources by doing some of the work. The software doesn't replace the employer's decision making and the employer is going to be liable for any discrimination regardless of whether and how the employer used their software.
If this were a products liability case, the answer would turn on how the product was designed to be used and how the employer used it. But this is an employment law and discrimination case. So, the legal question here is whether a company that makes HR Technology can also be directly liable for discriminatory outcomes when the employer uses that technology.
We don't have an answer to that yet and won't for a while. That's because this case is just at the pleading stage and hasn't been decided based on the evidence. What's happened so far is Workday filed a motion to dismiss based on the allegations in the complaint. Basically, Workday said, "Hey, we're just a software company. We don't make employment decisions; the employer does. It's the employer who is responsible for using our software in a way that doesn't discriminate. So, please let us out of the case. Then the plaintiff and EEOC said it's too soon to decide that. If all of the allegations in the lawsuit are considered true, then the plaintiff has made viable legal claims against Workday.
Those claims are that Workday's screening function acts like the employer in evaluating applications and rejecting or accepting them for the next level of review. This is similar to what third party recruiters and other employment agencies do and those folks are generally liable for those decisions under discrimination law. In addition, Workday could even be an agent of the employer if the employer has directly delegated that screening function to the software.
We're not to the question of whether a software company is really an agent of the employer or is even acting like an employment agency. And even if it is, whether it's the kind of agency that has direct liability or whether it's just the employer who ends up liable. This will all depend on statutory definitions and actual evidence about how the software is designed, how it works, and how the employer used it.
We also aren't at the point where we look at the contracts between the employer and Workday, how liability is allocated, whether there are indemnity clauses, and whether these type of contractual defenses even apply if Workday meets the statutory definition of an employer or agent who can be liable under Title VII.
Causation will also be a big issue because how the employer sets up the software, it's level of supervision of what happens with the software, and what's really going on in the screening process will all be extremely important.
The only thing that's been decided so far is that the plaintiff filed a viable claim against Workday and the lawsuit can proceed. Here are the details of the case and some good general advice for employers using HR Technology in any employment decision making process.
- Heather Bussing
AI Workplace Screener Faces Bias Lawsuit: 5 Lessons for Employers and 5 Lessons for AI Developers
by Anne Yarovoy Khan, John Polson, and Erica Wilson
at Fisher Phillips
A California federal court just allowed a frustrated job applicant to proceed with an employment discrimination lawsuit against an AI-based vendor after more than 100 employers that use the vendor’s screening tools rejected him. The judge’s July 12 decision allows the class action against Workday to continue based on employment decisions made by Workday’s customers on the theory that Workday served as an “agent” for all of the employers that rejected him and that its algorithmic screening tools were biased against his race, age, and disability status. The lawsuit can teach valuable lessons to employers and AI developers alike. What are five things that employers can learn from this case, and what are five things that AI developers need to know?
AI Job Screening Tool Leads to 100+ Rejections
Here is a quick rundown of the allegations contained in the complaint. It’s important to remember that this case is in the very earliest stages of litigation, and Workday has not yet even provided a direct response to the allegations – so take these points with a grain of salt and recognize that they may even be proven false.
Derek Mobley is a Black man over the age of 40 who self-identifies as having anxiety and depression. He has a degree in finance from Morehouse College and extensive experience in various financial, IT help-desk, and customer service positions.
Between 2017 and 2024, Mobley applied to more than 100 jobs with companies that use Workday’s AI-based hiring tools – and says he was rejected every single time. He would see a job posting on a third-party website (like LinkedIn), click on the job link, and be redirected to the Workday platform.
Thousands of companies use Workday’s AI-based applicant screening tools, which include personality and cognitive tests. They then interpret a candidate’s qualifications through advanced algorithmic methods and can automatically reject them or advance them along the hiring process.
Mobley alleges the AI systems reflect illegal biases and rely on biased training data. He notes the fact that his race could be identified because he graduated from a historically Black college, his age could be determined by his graduation year, and his mental disabilities could be revealed through the personality tests.
He filed a federal lawsuit against Workday alleging race discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981, age discrimination under the ADEA, and disability discrimination under the ADA.
But he didn’t file just any type of lawsuit. He filed a class action claim, seeking to represent all applicants like him who weren’t hired because of the alleged discriminatory screening process.
Workday asked the court to dismiss the claim on the basis that it was not the employer making the employment decision regarding Mobley, but after over a year of procedural wrangling, the judge gave the green light for Mobley to continue his lawsuit.
Judge Gives Green Light to Discrimination Claim Against AI Developer
Direct Participation in Hiring Process is Key – The judge’s July 12 order says that Workday could potentially be held liable as an “agent” of the employers who rejected Mobley. The employers allegedly delegated traditional hiring functions – including automatically rejecting certain applicants at the screening stage – to Workday’s AI-based algorithmic decision-making tools. That means that Workday’s AI product directly participated in the hiring process.
Middle-of-the-Night Email is Critical – One of the allegations Mobley raises to support his claim that Workday’s AI decision-making tool automatically rejected him was an application he submitted to a particular company at 12:55 a.m. He received a rejection email less than an hour later at 1:50 a.m., making it appear unlikely that human oversight was involved.
“Disparate Impact” Theory Can Be Advanced – Once the judge decided that Workday could be a proper defendant as an agent, she then allowed Mobley to proceed against Workday on a “disparate impact” theory. That means the company didn’t necessarily intend to screen out Mobley based on race, age, or disability, but that it could have set up selection criteria that had the effect of screening out applicants based on those protected criteria. In fact, in one instance, Mobley was rejected for a job at a company where he was currently working on a contract basis doing very similar work.
Not All Software Developers On the Hook – This decision doesn’t mean that all software vendors and AI developers could qualify as “agents” subject to a lawsuit. Take, for example, a vendor that develops a spreadsheet system that simply helps employers sort through applicants. That vendor shouldn’t be part of any later discrimination lawsuit, the court said, even if the employer later uses that system to purposefully sort the candidates by age and rejects all those over 40 years old.
5 Tips for Employers
This lawsuit could have just easily been filed against any of the 100+ employers that rejected Mobley, and they still may be added as parties or sued in separate actions. That is a stark reminder that employers need to tread carefully when implementing AI hiring solutions through third parties. A few tips:
Vet Your Vendors – Ensure your AI vendors follow ethical guidelines and have measures in place to prevent bias before you deploy the tool. This includes understanding the data they use to train their models and the algorithms they employ. Regular audits and evaluations of the AI systems can help identify and mitigate potential biases – but it all starts with asking the right questions at the outset of the relationship and along the way.
Work with Counsel on Indemnification Language – It’s not uncommon for contracts between business partners to include language shifting the cost of litigation and resulting damages from employer to vendor. But make sure you work with counsel when developing such language in these instances. Public policy doesn’t often allow you to transfer the cost of discriminatory behavior to someone else. You may want to place limits on any such indemnity as well, like certain dollar amounts or several months of accrued damages. And you’ll want to make sure that your agreements contain specific guidance on what type of vendor behavior falls under whatever agreement you reach.
Consider Legal Options – Should you be targeted in a discrimination action, consider whether you can take action beyond indemnification when it comes to your AI vendors. Breach of contract claims, deceptive business practice lawsuits, or other formal legal actions to draw the third party into the litigation could work to shield you from shouldering the full responsibility.
Implement Ongoing Monitoring – Regularly monitor the outcomes of your AI hiring tools. This includes tracking the demographic data of applicants and hires to identify any patterns that may suggest bias or have a potential disparate impact. This proactive approach can help you catch and address issues before they become legal problems.
Add the Human Touch – Consider where you will insert human decision-making at critical spots along your hiring process to prevent AI bias, or the appearance of bias. While an automated process that simply screens check-the-box requirements such as necessary licenses, years of experience, educational degrees, and similar objective criteria is low risk, completely replacing human judgment when it comes to making subjective decisions stands at the peak of riskiness when it comes to the use of AI. And make sure you train your HR staff and managers on the proper use of AI when it comes to making hiring or employment-related decisions.
5 Tips for Vendors
While not a complete surprise given all the talk from regulators and others in government regarding concerns with bias in automated decision making tools, this lawsuit should grab the attention of any developer of AI-based hiring tools. When taken in conjunction with the recent ACLU action against Aon Consulting for its use of AI screening platforms, it seems the time for government expressing concerns has been replaced with action. While plaintiffs’ attorneys and government enforcement officials have typically focused on employers when it comes to alleged algorithmic bias, it was only a matter of time before they turned their attention to the developers of these products. Here are some practical steps AI vendors can take now to deal with the threat.
Commit to Trustworthy AI – Make sure the design and delivery of your AI solutions are both responsible and transparent. This includes reviewing marketing and product materials.
Review Your Work – Engage in a risk-based review process throughout your product’s lifecycle. This will help mitigate any unintended consequences.
Team With Your Lawyers – Work hand-in-hand with counsel to help ensure compliance with best practices and all relevant workplace laws – and not just law prohibiting intentional discrimination, but also those barring the unintentional “disparate impact” claims as we see in the Workday lawsuit.
Develop Bias Detection Mechanisms – Implement robust testing and validation processes to detect and eliminate bias in your AI systems. This includes using diverse training data and regularly updating your algorithms to address any identified biases.
Lean Into Outside Assistance – Meanwhile, collaborate with external auditors or third-party reviewers to ensure impartiality in your bias detection efforts.
原文来自：https://www.salary.com/newsletters/law-review/agency-law-and-the-workday-lawsuit/
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
观点
扫一扫
添加客服
