Oracle/Taleo published a great PDF talking about survey results on the perceptions between CEOs, CFOs, and HR. It's a great info graphic to look at. Click here for "The Relationship Between C-Suite & HR".
Several years ago I spoke at a SHRM chapter event about HR vs HC and who should be in the C-suite. I'm so pleased to see this gaining traction now!
The PDF shows a few interesting trends, none of which are too surprising:
So none of these are a surprise, right? We have traditionally groomed HR people to be almost solely focused on transactions and process. These skills are inherently clear to any one who hires and works with heads of HR. In these times of regulation we need individuals who can focus on the transactions and process to keep companies compliant. So why would CEO's and CFO's, and other c-suite executives, look to the head of HR to be in the c-suite? It takes a totally different skill set to manage and balance the strategy of people and business.
Enter - the Chief People Officer
This is the individual that C-suite executives need to bring to the table, a new breed of individuals who understand business and its drivers but also understand the issues around people strategy, not just the process and procedures found in HR. The CPO works WITH the head of HR, but is a completely different function. The CPO, like their other c-suite executives, works cross functionally in an organization, looking at the macro people issues (HR being only one of those). The smart CPO is watching global industry trends, understands the business and its key drivers, works with leaders throughout the organization and is not "tied" to the HR organization alone. Some of the key responsibilities of the CPO include:
These key functions, along with other ones, should be the key focus on the Chief People Officer. Just like the emergence of the C-Technology-O, the C-Marketing-O, or any other relatively new "C" position, the Chief People Officer is not the Head of HR, but a new emerging position that the C-suite needs to consider.
Those who know me know I've been writing about HR metrics and data for years (see April 2011 HR Armed with Data). It's been a topic on my various blogs but I am really happy to finally see the topic has spread throughout the business and HR worlds. Today you can find plenty of information on the topic.So what has me writing another blog post on the topic? ...the conversation has finally shifted from the boring, and not-so-telling, metrics of time to hire and butts in seats, etc. to things that are meaningful to business leaders...people.
Yves Lermusi (@YvesatCheckster), wrote a blog post back in early June entitled, "The Quest for Quality of Hire". It was an ERE Conference session with speaker Rob McIntosh (@TheRobMcIntosh), senior vice president of global talent acquisition and recruitment of Avanade. All I can say, it's a great start to the conversation about HR metrics.
My take on the entire topic of HR metrics? It's a necessary evil that I have a fascination with. Why? Because metrics help us ground ourselves in reality, something that has been greatly lacking when it comes to people in the workplace. And without getting myself too worked up about that, metrics - data- real information - gives us a "real" picture about where we stand. The other big reason is that business loves data points, and as long as your data sources and methodology can be explained, the data can be useful to help get additional resources for human capital. Oh yes...and things like M&A, etc. want data...yes that too!
So back to our topic on QoH!
Quality of a Hire (QoH) is really a key, universal business driver. This one metric will tell you a lot about the quality of your recruiting organization BUT it also tells you a lot about hiring manager expectations and the communication around that. So the QoH metric is a multi-function, multi-departmental responsibility; which, I would argue, you want as an executive.
This metric can tell you several things (this is not an exhaustive list):
I could come up with more, but these are the first that come to mind.
The dilemma of determining the QoH metric is that for every question above, can you determine a quantifiable number?. It requires standardization of what are typically subjective measures of success (i.e. performance reviews, for example but pick any of the 6 above and you see what I mean). [Side note, yet another reason I greatly dislike the concept of using performance review data in business analytics.]
If your organization is looking for a key HC metric, start by working on this one first. How is a "quality hire" measured in your organization, and by whom? How could it be measured, what parameters are collected or would need to be? There are a lot of great questions that surround this. Lermusi points out that setting clear expectations of hiring managers ahead of time is one of the biggest obstacles to quality hire success because most managers know they need a person in a position but can't articulate exactly "what" they need...or at least in a meaningful and quantifiable way.
At HCM2020, we use a series of tools called the "Kolbe Wisdom" to do just that...identify in a meaningful and quantifiable way, the expectations of the hiring manager. We can then map a candidate's likelihood for success based on another Kolbe Index, to determine whether the candidate's natural way of working matches with the expectations of the hiring manager. Again, we can get quantifiable data measured during the hiring process and again at intervals throughout the candidate's first year of employment to show alignment or misalignment.
There are other numbers that would be factored in the QoH metric, and those have to be tailored to individual organizations, but I am so thrilled to finally see meaningful conversations about one important metric, the Quality of Hires.
Thanks to Rob for sharing his thoughts at the ERE conference and thanks to Yves for continuing the conversation!
At an event a few years ago, I was asked what I thought was the number one thing that organizations needed to focus on in the current economy. My answer is always the same...your people. "Take good care of your people in this economic downturn, especially the ones you want to keep, because when the economy picks back up those organizations that take good care of their people will retain them, and those that don't will see them leaving." But as things go, the economy went farther south than anyone was expecting and 'taking care of your people' was hard to do. I get this. However, what we are seeing in the workplace is exactly what I had predicted. Great employees are now looking for a better opportunity, a better culture, authentic leadership, a great place to work, a bit more flexibility...all sorts of things and they are not always about 'more money'.
Among our research efforts, we track the job search market here in the DC Metro area to see who is hiring and why. Where are people going? Which organizations have a large number of openings, and why.. all of these things give us clues as to what is really happening in the marketplace.
What can you do if you seem to be loosing some of your best talent? Four things:
See a few key themes here? Real data and information is critical. Getting real about the situation and coming to terms with reality. Being authentic and speaking truth to your employees. Examining culture is critical. All of these things lead to a healthy organization and help to retain your best talent who remain during a healthy economy as well as the downturns.
Amy Riccardi is the Chief People Officer and Founder of HCM2020. She's a guest lecturer at Georgetown and George Washington Universities and works with executive teams and CEOs to help scale and grow their business.