This is a priority for 60% of HR leaders, and 24% say their leadership development approach does not prepare leaders for the future of work.
As organizations and society evolve, so do the expectations for what leaders are responsible for, making their roles increasingly complex. Today’s work environment requires leaders to be more authentic, empathetic and adaptive. These three imperatives represent a new call for leadership: “human” leadership.
Even though HR leaders try to build commitment, courage and confidence in leaders to help them answer the call, human leaders remain few and far between. Leaders do need commitment, courage and confidence to be effective human leaders; however, HR’s typical approaches do not address the barriers that are holding leaders back. These obstacles include their own (very human) emotions of doubt, fear and uncertainty.
To help leaders deliver on the need for human leadership and prepare them for the future of work, recognize their humanity and directly address these emotional barriers.
Priority No. 2: Organizational design and change management
This is a top priority for 53% of HR leaders, and 45% say their employees are fatigued from all the change.
Digital transformations, economic uncertainty and political tensions have led to much disruption and change. As such, organizational design and change management remain a top priority for CHROs, especially now, as organizations are seeing the fallout of too much change and uncertainty.
Employees are also growing more resistant to change — in 2016, the Gartner Workforce Change Survey showed 74% of employees were willing to change work behaviors to support organizational changes, but that number dropped to 38% in 2022.
Change fatigue has clear ramifications. HR leaders must help employees to navigate change and mitigate the impact that change may have on their work and, more importantly, their well-being.
Priority No. 3: Employee experience
This is a top priority for 47% of HR leaders, and 44% believe their organizations do not have compelling career paths.
Many HR leaders struggle to identify the internal moves that employees must make to grow their careers. In a recent Gartner survey on employee career preferences, just 1 in 4 employees voiced confidence about their career at their organization, and three out of four looking for a new role are interested in external positions.
Typically, career development follows three steps:
Set a trajectory and communicate role benefits and requirements.
Find in-role opportunities for potential new roles.
Identify internal roles to achieve goals.
However, that pathway is less clear now that work experience is changing. Career options are less visible with less time in offices; current skills are becoming obsolete and employees aren’t prepared for future roles, and current options don’t satisfy employee needs as people rethink the role of work in their life. This presents new career imperatives for HR leaders to create best-fit careers for employees.
Priority No. 4: Recruiting
This is a top priority for 46% of HR leaders, and 36% say their sourcing strategies are insufficient for finding the skills they need.
Fifty percent of organizations still expect the competition for talent to increase significantly in the next six months, regardless of broader macroeconomic conditions.
This means recruiting leaders must reprioritize recruiting strategies to align with current business needs, plan for multiple potential scenarios in this shifting market and make decisions with great confidence using data.
Focus on three strategies to support strong talent and business outcomes in today’s market:
Build an intelligence-based sourcing capability.
Create an equitable internal labor market.
Build onboarding for engagement.
Priority No. 5: Future of work
This is a top priority for 42% of HR leaders, and 43% say they do not have an explicit future of work strategy.
The “future of work” continues to be synonymous with a remote and hybrid workforce. But while this shift is a seismic change for many organizations, it is only part of the equation. Workforce planning — anticipating future talent needs — is at the epicenter of a future of work strategy and is a top priority for HR leaders. But today’s workforce planning is disconnected from reality and current strategies are ineffective at combating the disruptive landscape. Think: shifting skills, scarce talent, high turnover and a shift in the employee-employer dynamic.
Instead of assuming we can predict future skills needs, access enough talent, fill future gaps by buying and building, and dictate when and where employees work, we need a new approach that unlocks new strategies.
In short:
HR leaders continue to face an unprecedented amount of disruption.
Gartner surveyed more than 800 HR leaders about their top 5 priorities for 2023.
At the top of their list is leader and manager effectiveness, but many HR leaders will also prioritize change management, employee experience, recruiting and future of work.
Author: Jordan Turner
Board leadership is critical to making any changes happen. The board leader sets the tone for the culture of the board, and in many cases leads and drives the assessment process. In fact, 85% of directors indicate that a strong focus from the board chair or lead director is an effective method to drive board refreshment.3 Without a strong leader, it doesn’t matter how meaningful your assessment process is.
A close look at board culture and whether directors really can be candid when providing feedback is also needed. This involves understanding the way that directors make decisions, handle disagreements and share information. If the board is to continue to grow and improve, the culture has to be open to the idea of giving — and receiving — regular feedback. And, board leadership is key to ensuring this environment exists. 
Let’s face it, the word “assessment” can have a negative connotation. It can put people on edge, even in a boardroom of high-performers. Because of the collegial nature of many boards, it can sometimes be hard to deliver less than glowing feedback about a fellow director — which can turn the process into “something to get finished” rather than a way to enhance board performance. So what can boards do?
Take a fresh look at the approach: Boards can improve the value of their assessment process by focusing on continuous improvement and board excellence. Effective assessments should look at ways to enhance board dynamics, composition, oversight and practices. They should reinforce what is working well and highlight those obstacles that are limiting strong performance. And, the assessment is best viewed as an ongoing process rather than just a once a year event.
Some boards have embraced a continuous improvement mindset by adding more frequent opportunities to discuss effectiveness as part of their agendas. Others have instituted a formal process for providing director feedback or coaching throughout the year. Boards can also take a fresh look at their assessment approach and evolve the format or ask different questions to drive a better outcome. They may even find it valuable to dive deeper on a few particular areas where they believe there is potential improvement.
Get early buy-in: Before the assessment process begins, directors should discuss the approach and decide on any changes they wish to make. This involves engaging directors early and giving them a chance to provide input and voice their concerns so these items can be addressed appropriately. The discussion should cover the assessment’s scope and objectives, how it will be conducted and reported back, and the need to openly share and receive feedback. The goal is to get agreement on what the assessment process should accomplish and obtain commitment and support for it. 
What holds boards back from top performance? Board culture and interpersonal dynamics tend to be the most common sources of dysfunction in the boardroom. Dysfunction can take various forms, whether it is a lack of trust between the board and CEO, disruptive or disengaged directors, factions in the boardroom or poor decision-making processes. These issues, though sometimes apparent to those in the boardroom, can be the most difficult to address. \
Committing the time to review the results of the assessment process and having an open discussion about the findings are critical. But boards often fall short as they spend too little time — or even no time — discussing and acting upon assessment findings. This is a missed opportunity.
Agree on action items and develop a plan for change: Directors should work together during the assessment process to identify and agree on areas in which the board would like to improve. Areas for improvement might be to add a director with particular experience, increase the board’s diversity, schedule a board retreat that focuses on strategy, create more opportunities to communicate with the CEO or hold more frequent executive sessions. At the individual level, a director may be advised to attend an educational program to enhance knowledge in a particular area, engage more often in discussions or change behavior in the boardroom. 
Shareholders are seeking more information about how boards address their own performance, including whether they are using assessments as a catalyst for refreshing the board. Today, disclosures are increasing in this area. Twenty-two percent (22%) of S&P 250 companies included a graphic to illustrate their evaluation process in the 2019 proxy statement. Eight percent (8%) provided results and steps in place to address any issues.8
Benchmark disclosure on assessments and consider voluntarily expanding it: Boards are generally doing more than they disclose. And, with the increasing spotlight on board performance, the time may be right to reassess these voluntary disclosures and provide more insight. The Council of Institutional Investors (CII) suggests that “[s]uch disclosure is an indication that a board is willing to think critically about its own performance on a regular basis and tackle any weaknesses.”9
CII highlights two best practice models for disclosure. One focuses on the mechanics of the assessment process, illustrating the process the board uses to identify and address gaps in its skills and performance. The other focuses on the most recent assessment, recapping the key takeaways and plans for improvement.
CII notes that depending on the board’s process, disclosure may include:
A description of the steps in the board evaluation, including who is reviewed and how reviews are conducted
A discussion of continuous improvement initiatives and the activities that directors participated in during the past year
Whether the board engaged an external adviser to conduct the board evaluation and the role that the adviser played (for example, interviewing board members)
The objectives for the evaluation and how the board will use the findings
Follow-up discussions that occurred. For example, some boards report having a mid-year check-in to evaluate the progress made in addressing areas of focus identified in the annual evaluation
Boards can ask management to benchmark the company’s disclosure about the board assessment process with that of peer companies. They can also ask them to draft a sample enhanced disclosure that includes additional information on the board’s assessment practices and considers insights drawn from management’s review of other companies’ disclosures and shareholders’ perspectives. This information can help the board to critically evaluate whether it should voluntarily enhance its proxy disclosures.
Be prepared for potential engagement with shareholders on self-assessments: Direct communications between board members and investors has grown considerably over the last several years. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of directors now say their board has such engagement. Shareholders are more often meeting with nominating/governance chairs and asking about board assessments as part of their engagement program. One survey found that in nearly 14% of cases, board-shareholder engagement was conducted under the guidance of the nominating/governance committee chair. If board composition is part of engagement, shareholders may want to understand how boards are assessing their own performance and the skills and expertise needed to oversee the company’s long-term strategy. They also want to understand the board’s position on director turnover, succession planning and diversity. Some high-performing boards even conduct “opposition research” to understand and identify what a tough critic would say about their board’s composition to be prepared for any potential engagement. 
