(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 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…)
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…)
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.