The Workforce 2020 study conducted by Oxford Economics on behalf of
The central theme of the first report on this study seems to revolve on the HR’s seat at the table, that is, their weight in the strategic business decisions of their organizations. I think they make the case for it well. It suggests that “people management will need to become more strategic and evidence-based to accommodate the increasingly flexible and diverse workforce of the future.”
While 52% of study participants say workforce issues drive strategy all the way up to the board level, and 53% say that workforce development is a key differentiator to the growth of the firm and bottom-line results.
The contention, however, is that this is all happening with little input from HR at this level. For example, 24% say HR is consulted after high-level decisions have already been made, while 26% say HR is not consulted at all about business planning.
What challenges HR departments according to the survey is the difficulty to translate the qualitative language of workforce excellence into the quantitative language of growth and profitability. Bear in mind there are plenty of quantitative tools (process transactional performance, social interaction analytics, demographics), and qualitative tools (surveys, focus groups, interviews) at hand for HR needs.
They may not be deployed everywhere and I think there is not enough investment in data scientists in HR. The survey considers that HR is playing catch up, with only 42% saying that they know how to extract meaningful insights out of their data, and 38% have ample data about their workforce. However, to me this is actually an optimistic outlook. I was expecting much lower numbers. Yes, it is less than half to just over a third of organizations indicating readiness in these areas. Looking at these, I would not say HR lacks the tools or talent to understand their workforce.
However, this does not seem to be asking a more basic question. Have the metrics and factors that define excellence changed? You can be ready all you want to gather data the way you always have, but if you don’t examine if those factors are becoming less relevant on an industry competitive level, then it matters little. Your HR department will simply keep busy running in place, while others find a competitive edge.
What do I mean? If you are busy tracking how many people fill your fixed definition profiles, then you probably aren’t paying as much attention to an individual’s own changing skills and engagement, or to the changing flows of knowledge that redefine what skill means. If you’re focusing on how well people execute processes, then you may not be looking at the how ready they are for the dynamic networked work of today.
If you are just counting how many participate in groups, communities or conferences, and not how others actually value the participation of a specific individual, then you’re not getting the full picture. If you’re looking into how people really understand how to interact with those from different cultural backgrounds, then you’re missing the opportunity to understand how and where you can improve their skills to communicate, persuade, make decisions and plan with each other.
Taking uniquely shaped people and fitting them into fixed shapes and stereotypes does not do enough to understand and leverage individual characteristics, capabilities and special skills. Technology has reached the point where we can do this more easily with less cost, but that won’t matter until HR departments put the effort into recognizing talents more individually.
How do we go from the qualitative language of capabilities to the quantified language of profitability? We can ask the C-Suite to shift from an output centered worldview to a service and quality centered view. The better question is to ask what is that profitability based on. If the biggest lever on profitability comes from financial legerdemaining, pushing the workforce to burn the candle at both ends to accelerate output, or efficiency through cost-cutting, then this short-termist approach sacrifices the workforce, the company and its future. Growth and profitability based on a flourishing workforce is the sustaining alternative that HR can offer to the board level.
The metrics now focus on accountability to complete accepted work; the degree of ability to engage and collaborate (not just interact); the flows of skills applied (and verified); the flows and anticipated future of available skills; the complexity of problems that the talent can solve; matching of skills and accountability to the capabilities needed in the organizational vision; and how to compensate on per project skill performance and accountability.
The Workforce 2020 study is a fine sensor for what is happening now in organizations today, and more importantly, what factors to prepare for. Now it is time to interpret the results into how we can impact HR to become more relevant and offer its contribution to the energy of the organization.
You may also want to see these other pieces:
