The Korn/Ferry Institute recently published this whitepaper about how the revitalized Nuclear power sector will be short on resources as it grows in the coming years, very similar to what Oil and Gas faces. While timing is tough to predict – for example, it could take up to a half decade for shovels to hit the ground after a plan is laid out on a new reactor – the paper expects the labor market to be in short supply for key skills and future leaders. As well, many organizations in the industry face a high risk of knowledge loss due to challenges in transferring that knowledge and experience between the exiting generation and the shorter-tenured and new members of the workforce.
The paper recommends the best organizations will apply a mix of internal and external talent management solutions, which I’ll call “algorithms for success”, from partnerships with educational institutions to internal development programs and sourcing of talent from outside the traditional pipelines. It also suggests a global perspective will be required. While there are many skills and competencies that are highly specific to nuclear, people can be brought in from industries employing people with similar tangible skills (e.g., engineering degree-holders) – and intangible skills (e.g., engineers’ mindsets with a keen bent for safety). The automobile industry seems like a great fit – similar skills and lots of people looking for jobs as of late.
I think the paper hits home on the rest of its key themes, such as the idea that no one-size-fits-all approach will necessarily work for the industry, and that the nature of the jobs can dictate the sourcing of the right talent for those jobs. As well, retention of key players and high-value/low supply skills is definitely critical, and the potential delay of retirements due to the economic collapse can give organizations extra time to manage the knowledge transfer to the next generations. Another strong point is that embracing and leveraging globalization as a critical, previously unseen (in Nuclear) paradigm for success, but the paper only touches briefly on the prossibility of success due to collaboration between organizations.
Seems that a macro-level Workforce Plan by major collaborations such as the Center for Energy Workforce Development (CEWD), which already has organizations sharing general workforce management best practices and partnering with educational institutions, would significantly benefit the American Nuclear Industry as a whole and could provide a roadmap for other industries to proactively manage their talent supply. Sure, it sounds “pie in the sky,” and many barriers would need to be overcome – corporate politics, regulatory dynamics and competition, to name a few, but a collective attempt to understand individual organizations’ algorithms for success could lead to a well-coordinated and broad-reaching approach to optimizing talent supply across multiple scenarios for demand.
And scenarios are the key, as some significant questions brought about in the K/F paper remained left unanswered – indeed, most of which may be unanswerable. What portion of the experienced workforce not yet ready for retirement is actually at risk of leaving for consulting gigs? What if the retirement delay turns out to be a myth, or hits a greater percentage of the population as pension funds continue to shrink? (I have heard from more than one organization that is concerned about how they’ll manage, let alone afford to keep, their growing number of retirement deferrees) What if thorium grows or achieves a tipping point as the nuclear fuel of choice? What if the recession drags on, squeezing margins ever thinner and halting the projected industry expansions by five or ten or twenty years? And what are the financial implications for the workforce in each of these scenarios?
I hypothesize that a diligent methodology of analyzing talent supply and demand, then forecasting and planning for multiple scenarios over multiple time periods, followed by collaborative talent management efforts to prepare for the several likeliest of the scenarios, would ease the talent supply concern and create a much stronger industry as a whole. A strong, data-oriented approach could even answer the financial “what ifs.”
What do you think – is it possible?
Tags: Energy, Globalization, Nuclear, Talent Shortage, war for talent
As the authors of the Korn/Ferry white paper on talent in the nuclear energy industry, we want to thank you for acknowledging the piece and want to address the questions you raised:
Yes, collaboration among organizations could benefit the industry, though it’s arguably more accurate that the nuclear industry trails other industries in North America in pursuing this path. Relationships with post-secondary schools and broader promotion of careers in the industry are most efficiently and widely handled from a sectoral perspective as opposed to the individual efforts of specific companies. That said, there are lots of ways for individual companies to make a contribution and the leading players already recognize their responsibilities to make the effort.
It would be difficult to estimate the portion of experienced workforce that isn’t ready to retire and might leave for consulting opportunities given the diversity of the workforce and the nature of what constitutes a “consulting engagement.” On the one hand, it is likely a reasonably small population since those kinds of assignments typically attract a more risk-friendly and mobile individual. The bad news is those kinds of individuals are disproportionately the change agents and leaders any organization can least afford to lose.
The fuel source is not a primary constraint to growth in the industry. To the degree that thorium becomes a more compelling option, the diversity in fuel sources — and the corresponding implications for different kinds of operating practices and technological solutions — will only tax the existing and projected talent pool that much more.
Access to capital is an enormous constraint and there is no surprise that the most active nuclear jurisdictions currently are in those parts of the world with access to sovereign wealth funds or other kinds of public investment. Nonetheless, for those jurisdictions without access to large scale hydro-electric resources, nuclear remains their only real low-cost alternative for base load generation that does not bring with it the carbon footprint of coal.
Determining the financial implications for the myriad of scenarios the industry faces is difficult, but there is no question that the nuclear sector — like pretty much every part of the marketplace — can do a much better job with workforce planning. A couple of challenges in nuclear specifically come to mind:
1) The long lead times of training nuclear operators, engineers and other technical personnel extend the forecasting period dramatically. This, in turn, makes the forecasts that much more sensitive to exogenous factors, which can dramatically impact the number of professionals required.
2) While forecasting and planning lends itself to the engineering mindset in utilities and nuclear, the cultural risk of the sector is that planning is conducted in place of actually making the decisions and investments required to address the challenges in the immediate term.
–Gordon Orlikow and Richard Preng
Many thanks in return for your comment! You certainly underscore the tenet that Workforce Planning (WFP) absolutely can not happen in a vacuum, even (especially?) in a single business entity, and reinforce how WFP’s obvious dependencies on all stages of the business cycle suggest that it should be driven by those responsible for business plans and strategies, which usually means HR should play a support/facilitation role.
I’d be interested in exploring the possibility of leveraging the partnerships and inter-company dependencies you identified to better the industry’s talent supply and talent management preparedness as a whole.
Thanks again for your article and sharing your thought leadership!
andrew.jacobus@infohrm.com