People usually equate high performance with employee engagement. Yet engagement is not the same as productivity and performance. How engaged people are depends on the work design, and the work design itself can promote productivity separately from employee engagement. Individual ability also is a critical contributor. Together they are the three main contributors to job performance: state of mind, ability, and job design. Engagement refers only to the first, yet the other two are arguably more important, especially for sustained performance over an extended time.
I solemnly swear … an HR data and analytics manifesto
In the spirit of the election season, I would like to propose a type of nonpartisan party platform for candidates for analytical leader or officer positions within organizations. And even if you aren’t in charge of analytics, these are good principles to live by as someone who has to wrestle with what the analyses in your organization really mean and how best to use them – or ignore them.
Let ‘em eat Pi: Making sense of the HR analytics revolution
In honor of Pi Day (March 14), I decided this is a good time to channel Marie Antoinette and take stock of the current state of the HR analytics revolution. Just like with any revolution, the current state of HR analytics appears to have its share of zealous converts, soldiers and civilians, active resisters, and PR that obscures what’s really happening on the front lines. And perhaps the biggest question is whether it’s a genuine revolution that’s truly advancing the “national interests” of the business or a distraction that’s drawing attention away from where the real battles should be waged. As the risk of the analytics hoards storming the castle in protest, here are some personal reflections. (more…)
Benchmarking engagement and spans only is not strategic
Key insights:
- Benchmarking employee engagement, survey data, and spans of control is not strategic
- You have to embed that data in the larger context of work design and what drives organizational performance to truly understand what’s actionable and where you need more info to drive change in the right direction
Leaders love to benchmark, which is how they evaluate operational performance. So benchmark data play a central role in a lot of analytics carried out both in the business and by HR. (more…)
Strategic Analytics is a team sport
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…)
Choose impact, not process: Evaluate HR program intent, not just the design
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…)
HR Perfect Processes are the Enemy of What’s Good for the Business
(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.
The Right Way to Scorecard HR (Don’t Focus on Turnover and Safety)
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…)
ROI falls short for evaluating human capital and HR
In my previous post I discussed why ROI falls short as a tool for making business decisions. Here I address why ROI doesn’t live up to the promise it’s supposed to have for evaluating human capital and HR.
HR is often asked to show the ROI of its programs and processes. Think about how this usually plays out. When applied to human capital or HR, ROI is almost always used defensively to justify programs and policies for which there is not enthusiastic support. At the same time, there often is unwavering support for people and processes that key stakeholders “know” are critical for strategic success. So if ROI is not the preferred method for understanding how people and processes contribute to strategic success, what is? And how can organizations better diagnose what levers they need to pull to improve strategy execution and organizational effectiveness? (more…)
Employee engagement does not cause performance
We know from decades of research and practice that performance leads to job satisfaction. When people are productive, accomplish their objectives, get good feedback on their performance, and are rewarded for being productive, they usually are satisfied with their jobs.
The counter argument – employee engagement causes performance – makes intuitive sense yet does not necessarily hold empirically. The easiest way to make most employees happy is to keep their compensation the same and cut their responsibilities in half. However, doing so would completely destroy profits. Thus employee engagement does not always “cause” improved organizational performance.