Strategic Workforce Planning Tag Archive

Strategic Analytics is a team sport

November 10, 2015| People, Systems|

Right now senior leadership in both the business and in HR are leaving value on the table. We have to end the “business as usual,” nonintegrated way enterprise analytics and human capital analytics are conducted.

The lack of coordination is understandable at first glance. People are very busy: dividing business and HR process management and the accompanying analytics up into separate domains makes it easier to tackle the tasks. That way the leadership of the business and the leadership of HR stick to what they know best, including the analytics needed to monitor and assess progress. But the divide-and-conquer approach is precisely where things go wrong. (more…)

Read More →

The Dangers of HR Data Mining

October 20, 2015| People|

HR is becoming more and more data based and analytical. Yet the insights that we’re getting from the data are not increasing as quickly as the rapid proliferation of software tools, seminars, and people with “data scientist” titles. Why is that? A big part of the problem lies in the kinds of analysis we’re doing, with too much emphasis focused on techniques that appear to provide new insights, but which more often than not are a distraction: data mining and linkage analysis. (more…)

Read More →

Choose impact, not process: Evaluate HR program intent, not just the design

September 26, 2015| People, Systems|

In my previous post I argued that HR needs to stop focusing on “best practices” and making its processes world class. A related problem happens when it comes to evaluating how HR is doing, and what criteria should be used. The problem is that HR too often focuses on the programs as designed, not whether they really address what the business needs. Three examples illustrate this point: compensation, leadership development and competency models, and training and development.

Compensation. A key issue in evaluating an HR program is whether you evaluate the program’s design or its intent. For example, merit raises are supposed to motivate people to perform. The design goal of the program is to differentiate compensation based on performance, which is one target measurement. The program’s intent—providing increased motivation to perform—is separate and much more difficult to measure. (more…)

Read More →

HR Perfect Processes are the Enemy of What’s Good for the Business

August 21, 2015| Organizations, People, Systems|

(a.k.a. Are You Helping to Improve Strategy Execution Where It’s Most Needed?)

For decades HR has been searching for the right ways to make strategic contributions to the business. I have my own opinions about how HR can do that, some of which are detailed below and in previous posts (for example, on HR scorecards and on measuring ROI). But even more important than what it should do is what it should not do. HR needs to stop obsessing over making HR processes world class.

(more…)

Read More →

The Right Way to Scorecard HR (Don’t Focus on Turnover and Safety)

August 10, 2015| People, Systems|

The balanced scorecard has popularized the idea that organizations should regularly measure and monitor key metrics about people. And if there are data available that describe what is going on with the people in your organization, what’s the harm in reporting them? Isn’t more information better than less?

The answer is “yes and no.” Sticking your head in the sand and acting as if there are no data to inform human capital decisions ignores reality. But reporting HR data simply for the sake of sharing is not smart. If you present data without knowing its full value and how to act on it, you will create more problems than you solve. You need a model of what’s driving the behavior you’re observing and why you should care about it. (more…)

Read More →
↑