Human Resources

How to Measure HR Success Like Capital One
http://blogs.bnet.com/bnet1/?p=548&tag=nl.e713
The Find: HR functions can sometimes seem far removed from a company’s strategic core, but new techniques of “evidence-based” HR are allowing much-maligned talent managers to show the links between soft HR programs and the cold, hard realities of the bottom line.

The Source: A soon to be published study from the Conference Board.
The Takeaway: In the abstract, everyone acknowledges that talent can make or break a company, but HR still retains a less than glamorous reputation as an unscientific warren of paperwork and gut instincts far from a company’s strategic core. Perhaps that’s because it’s been hard to link specific HR practices with a company’s bottom line. The Conference Board is stepping into this gap with a new report entitled “Evidence-Based HR in Action,” which shows how HR departments can make the seemingly intangible, tangible.

What’s evidence-based HR (or EBHR)? Using newly developed HR metrics to “empirically demonstrate [human capital’s] impact on business outcomes.” The Conference Board acknowledges that the approach is not yet widespread but offers case studies to show how EBHR can benefit a range of organizations.

The human resources folks at Capital One, for example, not only do the all the usual hiring, paperwork and employee performance evaluations, but also have a “workforce analytics function.” Using EBHR they have developed quantitative measures that establish links between touchy-feely HR policies like the executive coaching program and key performance metrics such as “teller attrition, customer satisfaction, and revenues per account at retail branches.”
The Conference Board also takes a look at two other companies that have jumped on the EBHR bandwagon - Harvard University and Hewlett Packard - to see how they have put they put the idea into practice. Intrigued? The full report will soon be available at the Conference Board’s website.

The Question: Is HR “possibly the most vital yet overlooked means of establishing competitive advantage” as the Conference Board claims?

Making talent a strategic priority
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/Making_talent_a_strategic_priority_2092 Review: Excellent article summarising 10 years of McKinsey research on the 'War for Talent'.

Realigning the HR function to manage talent
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/newsletters/chartfocus/2008_08.html
Extract: Although McKinsey surveys show that business leaders around the world are deeply concerned about the intensifying competition for talent, few companies make it an integral part of a long-term business strategy, and many even try to raise their short-term earnings by cutting talent-development expenditures. Other factors compound the difficulties of recruiting enough appropriate talent: minimal collaboration and talent sharing among business units, ineffective line management, and confusion about the role of HR, not to mention challenges such as Generation Y employees seeking greater work/life balance, expansion into global markets, and the specific needs of the fast-growing category of knowledge workers.

The exhibit below focuses on another problem: the declining influence of the human-resources function. Yet only HR can translate a company’s business strategy into a detailed talent strategy. HR professionals should assert their influence and provide credible and proactive business counsel and support for individual business units.

Talent retention and development are the most critical business issues for FY08/09
http://www.zdnet.com.au/special/announce/BNET/BNET_concern_release/BNET_concerns.htm Extract: Despite consumer concerns around inflation and rising petrol prices, it is the battle for talent, skill development and staff retention that is of the greatest challenge this new financial year according to a recent reader poll by BNET Australia (http://www.bnet.com/). As the leading resource for over 4.5 million Australian managers, BNET Australia developed the survey to benchmark the needs of the nation’s business community at the cusp of the new fiscal year.

The online survey of 250 Australian managers included industries ranging from business services, consulting, government, retail and telecommunications. It was designed to provide a reflection of the top-of-mind concerns of Australia’s management community as many organisations take the opportunity to replan and reprioritise for growth and development at this important time of the business year.

“The end of the financial year is a key period for business, regardless of size, to plan toward improved professional and fiscal performance as budgets are set and reported and performance reviewed” said Brian Haverty, Editorial Director for BNET Australia. “The comments of BNET Australia readers have really reflected the notion that learning is a career-long process. Our research demonstrates that organisations need to focus on skills, learning and development opportunities for management and employees to alleviate tensions and concerns which could ultimately result in staff departures, both in the short and long term”.

The long-discussed battle for talent is still dominating the minds and business plans of Australian managers with professional development, skill shortage and staff retention issues each cited by 14 per cent of respondents as their most key concerns for FY08-09. Despite this though, managers are feeling confident about client retention and customer growth with just 10 per cent seeing the issue as a concern moving forward. The research was conducted across multiple sized companies ranging from businesses with under 100 employees and up to 500 and above.

While consumers, unions and media have debated the virtues and vices of the Rudd government, Australian managers are taking a ‘business as usual’ approach with the new leadership cited by only 3 per cent of respondents as being of a concern to their prospective business performance. Petrol prices (7 per cent) and inflation (6 per cent) are considered, but again contrast as less important factors affecting business performance in comparison to the performance and capabilities of customer and industry facing staff.