Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Randstad's Employer Brand Research 2018 - USA

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 32 Ad

Randstad's Employer Brand Research 2018 - USA

Download to read offline

In this tight labor market, the war for talent is tougher than ever before. Now more than ever, an employer’s reputation is critical to attracting skilled workers. According to the 2018 Randstad Employer Brand Research, we are seeing dramatic shifts in attitudes that indicate employees want more than just an attractive salary and benefits. This year's U.S. report will give you insights into:
-the attributes job seekers value most in an employer
-what makes employees stay or leave their companies
-the attractiveness of your sector and how it compares to others

In this tight labor market, the war for talent is tougher than ever before. Now more than ever, an employer’s reputation is critical to attracting skilled workers. According to the 2018 Randstad Employer Brand Research, we are seeing dramatic shifts in attitudes that indicate employees want more than just an attractive salary and benefits. This year's U.S. report will give you insights into:
-the attributes job seekers value most in an employer
-what makes employees stay or leave their companies
-the attractiveness of your sector and how it compares to others

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Randstad's Employer Brand Research 2018 - USA (20)

Advertisement

More from Randstad USA (19)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Randstad's Employer Brand Research 2018 - USA

  1. 1. employer brand research 2018 country report: usa.
  2. 2. content. country results1 sector insights2 about REBR3 deep dive4 methodology5 | 2© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  3. 3. | country results. 3© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  4. 4. || what potential employees want when choosing an employer. 2017 2016versus 2017 4 5 most important criteria 59% 34% 36% 45% 47% salary & benefits good training work atmosphere work-life balance job security 60% 32% 37% 46% 46% 62% 30% 48% 43% 49% © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  5. 5. || what potential employees want by socio-demographic profile. men find good training slightly more important than women do. 35% the workforce aged 18-24 considers strong management more important than the workforce over 25 does. 40% the workforce aged 25-44 believes long-term job security is more important than the workforce under 25 does. 47% the workforce aged 45-64 finds salary and benefits more important than the workforce under 45 does. 64% women find salary and benefits more important than men. 63% the higher-educated workforce finds good work-life balance more important than the lower- educated workforce. 50% the middle-educated workforce believes long-term job security is more important compared to the lower- or higher-educated. 49% the lower-educated workforce finds good training more important than the middle- or higher-educated do. 39% men women age 18 – 24 higher educated age 25 – 44 middle educated age 45 – 64 lower educated 5© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  6. 6. || what potential employees want: top 5 by job category and industry. blue collar workerswhite collar workers manufacturing information and communication (ICT) base: n=219 base: n=165 6© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa. 59% 52% 49% 35% 35% salary & benefits job security work-life balance career progression good training 60% 48% 47% 37% 36% salary & benefits job security work-life balance strong management work atmosphere 61% 53% 44% 35% 35% salary & benefits work-life balance job security strong management career progression 53% 48% 45% 43% 35% salary & benefits job security financially healthy work-life balance career progression
  7. 7. employees in the US seek employers in the US offer gap top 3 1 salary & benefits 1 financially healthy 1 salary & benefits 2 job security 2 uses latest technologies 2 job security 3 work-life balance 3 very good reputation 3 work-life balance 4 pleasant work atmosphere 4 job security 5 career progression 5 career progression 6 financially healthy 6 salary & benefits 7 very good reputation 8 pleasant work atmosphere 8 interesting job content 8 work-life balance 9 giving back to society 9 interesting job content 10 uses latest technology 10 giving back to society employee - employer exchange a gap between what employees seek and what employers offer is a valuable opportunity for your EVP. | 7 in the US. © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  8. 8. || how do employees top 5 channels used to look for a job 20% 26% changed employers in the last year plan to change employers within the next year 8| 8 68% 63% 46% 48% 45% 46% 45% 42% 38% 37% job search engines (eg. indeed.com) google personalconnections / referrals job boards (eg. monster.com) company career site plan to change employers changed employers look for jobs? © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  9. 9. || why do employees top 5 reasons to stay* top 5 reasons to leave** *of the respondents who said they stayed with the same employers for the past year and who do not plan to leave in the coming year ** of the respondents who said they changed employers in the past year or plan to do so in the coming year 9 stay or leave? © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa. 45% 44% 42% 40% 34% salary & benefits location job security work-life balance flexible arrangements 44% 43% 30% 29% 28% compensation too low limited career path work-life balance issues insufficient challanges organization shows poor leadership
  10. 10. || why do employees stay: men are more likely than women to stay with their current employers if they have a sense of job security. 47% the workforce aged 18-24 is more likely to stay with employers when they offer flexible working arrangements than the workforce over 44. 37% the workforce aged 25-44 is more likely to stay with employers if they have a sense of job security, when compared to the workforce under 25. 45% the workforce aged 45-64 is more likely than the workforce 18-24 to stay with employers if they have convenient locations. 45% women are more likely than men to stay with their current employers if they get the opportunity of a good work-life balance. 42% higher-educated employees are more likely to stay with their employers for salary and benefits than lower- or middle-educated. 52% middle-educated employees are more likely than lower- or higher- educated to stay with employers when the employers are financially healthy. 33% the lower-educated workforce is most likely to stay with employers if they have convenient locations. 41% men women age 18 – 24 higher educated age 25 – 44 middle educated age 45 – 64 lower educated 10 by profile. © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  11. 11. || why do employees leave: men are more likely than women to leave their current employers because of a lack of recognition or rewards. 22% the workforce aged 18-24 is more likely to leave than the workforce over 24 because they lack challenges in their jobs. 38% the workforce aged 25-44 is more likely to leave than the workforce aged 18-24 due to lack of growth opportunities. 45% the workforce aged 45-64 is most likely to leave employers due to lower compensation compared to other age groups. 47% women are more likely than men to leave their employers due to lack of growth opportunities. 46% the higher-educated workforce is more likely to leave employers than lower-educated due to lack of growth opportunities. 48% the middle-educated workforce is most likely to leave due to lower compensation compared to other age groups. 46% the lower-educated workforce is more likely to leave than middle- educated because they experience work-life balance issues. 34% men women age 18 – 24 higher educated age 25 – 44 middle educated age 45 – 64 lower educated 11 by profile. © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  12. 12. || top 5 actions employees take in order to stay employable. 12 58% 49% 44% 42% 32% I am open and flexible to change I am willing to accept flexible working hours I keep my skills up to date by trainings, courses etc. I am sociable with colleagues, superiors and my professionalnetwork I adopt the latest techniques and technologies © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  13. 13. || actions employees take in order to stay employable: men are most likely to be open and flexible to change in order to stay employable. 56% the workforce aged 18-24 is more likely to accept flexible working hours than the workforce over 24. 53% the workforce aged 25-44 is more likely to keep their skills up to date by trainings, courses etc. compared to the workforce over 44. 45% the workforce aged 45-64 is most likely to be open and flexible to change. 59% women are more likely than men to be sociable with colleagues, superiors and their professional networks. 45% the higher-educated workforce is more likely than the lower- or middle-educated workforce to keep their skills up to date by trainings, courses etc. 52% the middle-educated workforce is more likely than the lower- educated workforce to be open and flexible to change. 61% the lower-educated workforce is more likely to accept flexible working hours compared to the higher-educated workforce. 50% men women age 18 – 24 higher educated age 25 – 44 middle educated age 45 – 64 lower educated 13 staying engaged as an employee, by profile. © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  14. 14. | sector insights. 14© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  15. 15. || FMCG motor vehicles, machinery & parts manufacturing media & IT finance, banking, and financial services industry & manufacturing telecommunications pharmaceutical & healthcare retail food restaurant other services retail non food HR insurance consulting, scientific & engineering services aerospace & defense transportation & logistics hospitality & entertainment hospital management awareness attractiveness high highlow low top performing sectors in the US: high awareness having a high awareness means that employers in the sector are widely known. high attractiveness a sector with high attractiveness contains more highly attractive companies than other sectors. 15 by awareness and attractiveness. © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  16. 16. || sector 1 2 3 01 media & IT uses latest technologies financially healthy very good reputation 02 FMCG financially healthy very good reputation job security 03 aerospace & defense uses latest technologies financially healthy salary & benefits 04 consulting, scientific & engineering services uses latest technologies financially healthy career progression 05 hospitality & entertainment financially healthy very good reputation uses latest technologies 06 pharmaceutical & healthcare financially healthy uses latest technologies job security 07 hospital management uses latest technologies financially healthy job security 08 industry & manufacturing uses latest technologies financially healthy salary & benefits 09 transportation & logistics 10 telecommunications financially healthy uses latest technologies uses latest technologies financially healthy job security career progression US sectors score best on these 3 EVP drivers. top 3 EVP drivers 16 1/2 © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  17. 17. || top 3 EVP drivers 17 US sectors score best on these 3 EVP drivers. 2/2 © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa. sector 1 2 3 11 motor vehicles, machinery & parts manufacturing financially healthy uses latest technologies very good reputation 12 finance, banking, and financial services financially healthy uses latest technologies career progression 13 HR financially healthy uses latest technologies very good reputation 14 retail food financially healthy very good reputation job security 15 other services financially healthy job security very good reputation 16 insurance financially healthy job security uses latest technologies 17 retail non food financially healthy very good reputation uses latest technologies 18 restaurant financially healthy very good reputation uses latest technologies
  18. 18. | about REBR. 18© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  19. 19. || why employer branding matters. Companies with positive brands get twice as many applications as companies with negative brands, and they spend less money on employees.1 agree that alignment of personal values with a company’s culture is a key factor in their satisfaction working there.3 of candidates research companies on social media before applying.5 millennials and minorities agree that being part of the right company culture really matters to them.3 of candidates say they wouldn’t work for a company with a bad reputation – even with a pay increase.1 of workforce leaders agree that a strong employer brand has a significant impact on their ability to hire a great workforce.2 As people work for cultures, not companies, their perceptions of you as an employer is of paramount importance. Both recruiters and candidates cite company culture as one of the most important determinants in employer choice. Candidates actively research the culture of companies to understand if they’ll fit. If candidates see positive employee and candidate experiences on review sites, they feel more confident submitting their resumes and making a career move. joined a company specifically because of cultural fit.3 have left a company specifically because of its culture.3 companies with bad reputations pay 10 percent more per hire.4 50% 80% 96% 62% 88% 87% 80% 19© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  20. 20. || what is the randstad employer brand research? • representative employer brand research based on perceptions of the general audience. Optimizing 17 years of successful employer branding insights. • independent survey with over 175,000 respondents in 30 countries worldwide. • valuable insights to help employers shape their employer brand. 20© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  21. 21. || 30 countries surveyed covering more than 75% of the global economy. | Austria Australia Argentina Belgium Brazil Canada China Czech Republic Dubai France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary Italy India Japan Luxembourg Malaysia New Zealand Netherlands Poland Portugal Russia Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland UK USA countries surveyed 21 worldwide • over 175,000 respondents • 5,755 companies surveyed sample • aged 18 to 65 • representative on gender • overrepresentated on age 25 – 44 • comprised of students, employed and unemployed workforce country fieldwork length of interview • 4813 respondents in the U.S. • online interviews • between December 6 – 21, 2017 • 16 minutes © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  22. 22. || 1 16%northeast (1) 24%midwest (2) 40%south (3) 18%west (4) US sample composition: socio-demographics, employment situation and region. total sample: n=4813 fieldwork: December 6 – 21, 2017 gender age education 51% 49% female male 22 57%working 9%self-employed/freelance 11%seeking/unemployed 12%housewife/husband 7%student situation region 16% 62% 22% 18 - 24 25 - 44 45 - 65 29% 59% 12% low middle high 1. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont 2. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin 3. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia 4. Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa. stay-at-home
  23. 23. || 1 agriculture 2% oil & gas 1% manufacturing 7% electricity & gas supply 1% water supply & sewage 1% construction 6% trade 8% transportation & storage 3% accommodation & food 3% ICT 5% finance & insurance 5% real estate 1% professional & scientific 6% administration & support 5% public administration 2% education 8% human health/social work 7% arts & entertainment 4% international organizations * services 25% sample composition: sector, function. sector function 23 1 managers 23% professionals 20% technicians 11% clerks 14% service/sales 17% skilled agricultural 1% craft/trade 6% machine operators 3% elementary occupations 3% armed forces occupations 1% base: currently employed (n=3152) © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa. * subgroup not present in sample
  24. 24. | deep dive appendix 1. 24© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  25. 25. || what potential employees want: the most important criteria when choosing an employer. versus 2017 25 60% 11% 13% 16% 21% 15% 24% 29% 32% 32% 29% 32% 32% 37% 46% 46% 10% 62% 11% 18% 27% 14% 18% 39% 36% 30% 35% 21% 30% 48% 43% 49% 59%salary & benefits 12%uses latest technologies 14%gives back to society 17%quality products 17%interesting job content* 18%diversity & inclusion 25%very good reputation** 28%financially healthy 32%location 33%flexible arrangements 33%career progression 34%strong management 34%good training 36%work atmosphere 45%work-life balance 47%job security important criteria characteristics highest rated by the labor force. stressing these elements or improving them is critical for your EVP because they contribute most to the strength of your employer brand. 2017 2016 *2017: work that is stimulating and challenging/ **previous years: strong image/strong values © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  26. 26. || EVP driver importance: by gender. femalemale 26 salary & benefits good training career progression strong management work atmosphere work-life balance job security 27% 55% 35% 31% 35% 35% 32% 43% 48% 63% 46% 46% 39% 32% 34% 32% 39% 33% flexible arrangements location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 financially healthy very good reputation 32% 19% 16% 14% 20% 18% 27% 24% 23% 19% 14% 15% 14% 8% diversity & inclusion interesting job content quality products gives back to society uses latest technologies © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  27. 27. || EVP driver importance: by education. high middle low 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 flexible arrangements 34% 30% 32% salary & benefits 59% 62% 52% job security 44% 42% 49% work-life balance 50% 38% 47% good training 33% 26% 39% strong management 38% 33% 36% career progression 34% 33% 32% work atmosphere 38% 31% 36% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 uses latest technologies 12% 15% 12% location 31% 32% 32% financially healthy 25% 31% 29% very good reputation 23% 29% 24% interesting job content 16% 23% 16% quality products 19% 16% 18% gives back to society 13% 16% 17% diversity & inclusion 19% 16% 21% © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  28. 28. || EVP driver importance: by age. 45+ 25 - 44 18 - 24 28 flexible arrangements 32% 32% 38% salary & benefits 64% 59% 51% job security 38% 54% 47% work-life balance 44% 43% 46% good training 34% 29% 40% strong management 31% 34% 40% career progression 36% 27% 33% work atmosphere 34% 36% 39% uses latest technologies 12% 11% 14% location 36% 31% 26% financially healthy 23% 30% 29% very good reputation 25% 29% 24% interesting job content 16% 18% 18% quality products 18% 16% 18% gives back to society 14% 12% 19% diversity & inclusion 18% 21% 15% © randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  29. 29. | methodology appendix 2. 29© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  30. 30. || methodology why smart sampling? In the past, companies were evaluated by 140 to 1400 respondents. Having analyzed the data and error margins, it was concluded that a large sample was not necessary when reliable data can also be obtained with a smaller sample size. Therefore, since REBR 2017, companies are evaluated between 140 and 400 respondents. The actual number of evaluations per company depends on the awareness of the company. The error margin is determined by the percent of respondents giving a certain answer and the sample size to which the question has been asked. The highest error margin occurs when 50 percent of the respondents give a certain answer. The error margin is lower when 30 percent (or 70 percent) of the respondents give a certain answer. example 140 respondents have evaluated company X. Of these 140, 50 percent find the company nice to work for. Taking the error margin at n=140/50% into account, the real answer lies between 42 percent and 58 percent. 400 respondents have evaluated company Y and of these 400, 50 percent finds the company nice to work for. Taking the error margin at n=400/50% into account, the real answer lies between 45 percent and 55 percent. 1200 respondents have evaluated company Z and of these 1200, 50 percent finds the company nice to work for. Taking into account the error margin at n=1200/50%, the real answer lies between 47 percent and 53 percent. Therefore, the difference in error margin is very small between n=1200 and n=400 evaluations per company (5 percent margin vs 3 percent margin at the most). As such it can be concluded that maximum 400 evaluations per company are sufficient in order to determine a reliable attractiveness per company. In practice, this means that every company with an awareness over 35 percent will have max 400 respondents evaluating the company. Companies with an awareness below 35 percent will be evaluated by 140 to 400 people (depending on awareness). 30© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.
  31. 31. || source bibliography. 1 Betterteam Blog https://www.betterteam.com/blog/employer-branding 2 PwC, A marketplace without boundaries? Responding to disruption https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/2015/assets/pwc-18th-annual- global-ceo-survey-jan-2015.pdf 3 JWTInside, “The Evolving Culture-scape and Employee Expectation” Research Study 2014, High Performance Employees https://www.slideshare.net/JWTINSIDE/culture-scape-1028-sm 4 Harvard Business Review, A Bad Reputation Costs a Company at Least 10% More Per Hire https://hbr.org/2016/03/a-bad-reputation-costs-company-at-least-10- more-per-hire 5 HR in Asia, Do You Think Your Employer Brand Can Be Ruined by Social Media? www.hrinasia.com/employer-branding/do-you-think-your-employer-brand-can- be-ruined-by-social-media/ 31© randstad 2018 | employer brand research 2018, country report usa.

Editor's Notes

  • Here we looked at and highlighted the highest significant differences between the groups (man vs women, 18-24 y.o. vs. 25-44 y.o. vs 45-64 y.o, and higher vs middle vs lower educated. Where there are no significant differences, the most interesting finding is shown per group.
  • White collar workers (professional, managerial, or administrative work):
    Managers
    Professionals (e.g. doctors, teachers, engineers etc.)
    Clerical support workers
    Service and sales workers
    Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers

    Blue collar workers (non-agricultural manual labour):
    Technicians and associate professionals
    Craft and related trades workers
    Plant and machine operators, and assemblers
    Elementary occupations (e.g. cleaners, agricultural workers, street vendors etc.) Armed forces occupations
  • Here we looked at and highlighted the highest significant differences between the groups (man vs women, 18-24 y.o. vs. 25-44 y.o. vs 45-64 y.o, and higher vs middle vs lower educated. Where there are no significant differences, the most interesting finding is shown per group.
  • Here we looked at and highlighted the highest significant differences between the groups (man vs women, 18-24 y.o. vs. 25-44 y.o. vs 45-64 y.o, and higher vs middle vs lower educated. Where there are no significant differences, the most interesting finding is shown per group.
  • Here we looked at and highlighted the highest significant differences between the groups (man vs women, 18-24 y.o. vs. 25-44 y.o. vs 45-64 y.o, and higher vs middle vs lower educated. Where there are no significant differences, the most interesting finding is shown per group.
  • Sources are available in the appendix.
  • The sector and function names have been shortened for the sake of the design of the report. In case you need to see how these 2 questions were exactly asked, please consult the REBR questionnaire.

×