BACK TO SECTION 3
Section 4: Human Resources and Diversity
The fourth section of the questionnaire asks respondents their opinions about the demand for and availability of specific types of workers, employee-related areas of concern, and workplace diversity.
The next two questions ask about the demand for and availability of specific types of workers. Results of responses to both questions appear in Figure 11.
Note that responses to Question 12 regarding demand appear on the horizontal axis while responses to Question 13 regarding availability appear on the vertical axis. The presentation of responses to both questions in a single graph allows the reader to simultaneously assess perceptions of demand and availability. However, it is worth emphasizing that the questions are somewhat asymmetrical in that Question 12 asks about demand for a type of worker by the respondent’s organization specifically, not demand for that type of worker in general, whereas Question 13 implies a more general availability for that type of worker.
The diagonal line represents an exact match between perceptions of demand and availability. Worker types above the line would represent those for which perceptions of availability exceed perceptions of demand, while those below the line indicate a perception of demand exceeding availability.
It should be apparent that availability for all types of workers is perceived to be relatively high, ranging from means of about 4.2 (life sciences) to about 5.2 (administrative/clerical). However, there is significantly wider variability in perceived demand, ranging from a low of about 2.4 (life sciences) to a high of about 5.1 (sales/marketing).
According to Figure 11, respondents believe that demand will slightly exceed availability for sales/marketing and information technology workers. Availability is expected to slightly exceed demand for administrative/clerical workers, engineers, and skilled trades workers. Respondents expect availability to exceed demand by a wider margin for workers in the life sciences, para-professional and manufacturing classifications.
Apparent "mismatches" between availability and demand may be due to a variety of factors including a potential underrepresentation in our sample of organizations that are likely to employ specific types of workers. In other words, one should definitely not conclude that within the state as a whole, there will be a surplus of workers in categories above the diagonal line.
Finally, it is interesting to look at the changes in ratings from last year to this year. Most significantly, there has been a drop in the perceived availability and an increase in the perceived demand of engineering and manufacturing workers. Although both professions are still above the diagonal line (signifying that availability exceeds demand), a continuation of this trend may indicate a potential tightening of labor markets for these professions. There has also been a decrease in perceived availability of information technology workers, and an increase in the perceived availability of life science workers.
The next question asks executives to rate their level of concern with each of several issues related to the organization and its workforce. Responses to this question appear in Figure 12. Note that concern is significantly higher for four of the six issues compared with the 2007 ratings.
"Acquiring talented managers" remains the highest rated item as a workforce concern, though it must now share that ranking with " job satisfaction." Also high on the concern scale are "loyalty in the workforce" and "turnover or attrition."
"Acquiring talented managers" receives a significantly higher rating from respondents outside of central Indiana (6.0) than from those in central Indiana (5.5), perhaps indicating some difficulty in attracting managers outside of the Indianapolis metropolitan area. Likewise, larger companies are more concerned with hiring managers than are smaller companies (5.8 versus 5.3). Women executives express a higher level of concern with hiring managers than do their male counterparts (6.1 versus 5.5).
While " job satisfaction," "loyalty in the workforce," and "turnover or attrition" are all rated moderately high across all respondent groups, larger companies appear to be significantly more concerned with " job satisfaction" and "turnover or attrition" than do smaller companies.
"Finding skilled trade workers" and "immigration" both receive ratings below the scale midpoint indicating these issues are of less concern to our respondents. These concerns are more important to larger companies than they are to smaller companies. Respondents outside central Indiana once again register higher levels of concern than do central Indiana respondents on the issue of finding talented workers, in this case, skilled trade workers.
The final question in this section addresses diversity (see Figure 13 for mean responses). Perceptions of diversity issues in Indiana workplaces appear to be mixed with some apparently seeing improvement on this front while recognizing Indiana organizations still have much room for improvement.
All statements receive ratings statistically equivalent to ratings received last year with one exception. Overall, respondents agree to a lesser extent that diversity is absent at the highest levels of Indiana companies. It is unclear whether this decrease is due to an actual increase in diversity in Indiana organizations, a perception of an increase, or perhaps due to increased visibility of diverse business and organizational leaders. In addition, respondents tend to agree that the "Indiana workforce continues to become more diverse."
However, on average, respondents seem to only slightly agree that "common ethnic stereotypes adversely impact business in Indiana" and slightly disagree that it is "easy to attract/retain a diverse workforce in Indiana." These results indicate a recognition that Indiana has much room for improvement on these issues.
