The other day I was reading some data (be still my heart!) and ran across something that didn’t initially surprise me. However, the more I think about it the more I am puzzled that this is still an ongoing issue. I reported on some other data a while back that ties in pretty closely with this topic.
Sometimes you have to stop and wonder where common sense has gone. Companies are expecting more from their HR team than ever before, but according to data gathered by XpertHR, companies are increasing the number of employees relative to the number of HR professionals.
This leads to a number of trickle-down effects, but the major one is forcing those human resources employees into a more administrative function. There’s no hands-on, friendly interaction. There’s no face-to-face discussion of what the company has to offer to you as an individual. Read more about the HR to employee ratio.
So, in short, the more employees you have relative to HR pros, the more transactional the HR team has to be. Now let’s take a peek at the latest and greatest on HR strategy:
Only a little over one in three respondents (36.5 percent) say that their organization has a documented HR strategy.
Where such a strategy exists, nearly three in four (73 percent) say it was developed as an integral part of the overall organizational strategy, while just 18 percent say it was developed as a follow-up exercise once the overall organizational strategy was adopted. Just under one in ten (8.4 percent) said that their HR strategy was developed independently of the overall organizational strategy, suggesting a potential disconnect from, or lack of integration with, the organization. Source
Approximately 63% of organizations have no HR strategy in place. That just astounds me. The business world needs HR pros to provide business-minded, strategic leadership, but the profession as a whole can’t seem to get its act together and take charge of setting its own path.
I think the conversation around branding an HR department is applicable here. No matter what you say, your actions will always betray your true motives. Don’t just talk about being a strategic partner–live it.
What are your thoughts on this data? Is it surprising? Why or why not?
Some of the most fun opportunities I have include joining HR professionals like you at events around the country. I can write and speak all I want, but having the opportunity to sit next to other trench HR folks and talk about the issues they are facing is something I truly enjoy. Speaking of events…
Next month, I’m going to be joining the social media team in support of the Tennessee State SHRM Conference. The event will be held at Sevierville Convention Center September 17th-19th (more info here).
Fun fact: I was trying to find a “Huntsville” location for my video background since that’s where I am based. The first thing that came to mind was the NASA Space and Rocket Center. The Center is one of the main tourist attractions in the area and features many artifacts and other fun items from the nation’s history of space exploration.
Not only will the social media team be covering the event from a social perspective, but we’ll also be participating in two sessions on using social for HR and recruiting. I’m really excited about the opportunity to interact with some of the great HR pros in and around Tennessee and to share with them how we can leverage new tools to improve our HR service and delivery.
If you’re going to be at the event or think you want to participate, I’d love to connect with you! Shoot me an email (firstname.lastname@example.org) or comment below.
Today we’re talking about the importance of differentiating your HR practices to increase your value and the satisfaction of your customers, both internal and external. Check out the video (subscribers click through to view):
The bottom line? You should explore the possibility of differentiating your offerings where you can. I’ve long said that as technology and globalization make the world smaller, the gap between competing companies shrinks. The best way, therefore, to stand out from the crowd is through excellence in HR service delivery. World class HR helps organizations deliver world class service.
Differentiate your HR practices from other organizations. Customize your offerings to the degree you can.
But beware the trap of trying to be all things to all people. below you’ll see some excellent advice on how to know when to accept or reject an opportunity to customize your HR service delivery.
The argument for and against customization
Here’s a snippet from my friend Kris Dunn on how customization can be used to improve your HR service delivery based on lessons learned in a software development environment.
The bottom line is that customization causes complexity. The same logic holds true for your HR shop. If you’re good, you’ve got a set way of doing things, and if you do it the same way often enough, it’s going to work pretty well. But you’ll have requests from your client group often to do it different ways. It’s hard to say no, but you should say no when you can. Complexity eats away at your ability to deliver in an efficient way.
You know when customization for your HR client group really makes sense? The same time that it makes sense for a software company. When the work that you’ll do to customize creates features that can be rolled out to more than one person/client.
Say yes to custom work that results in your HR practice being deeper and capable of delivering more. Make sure you approach it like a product manager, to make it replicable.
Run away from other custom work if you can. But the take above means that if you run away every time custom work is requested, you’re probably transactional – not strategic. Source: The HR Capitalist
I’d love to hear from some of you about what you do to differentiate/customize your HR practices to increase the value you’re offering to your candidates, employees, managers, and customers.
Today we’re honored to have a guest post from a long-time friend and fellow HR practitioner. Jane Jaxon is the rockstar HR Director for a tech company in Boston. Learn more about her in the bio below the article.
Building a caring work environment and increasing talent density: compatible or mutually exclusive?
If you’re reading this entry for an answer, skip ahead to the comments section, because you definitely won’t find it here. The question is of critical importance to where we are as a company and I’m actively debating it in my quieter moments. People – their collective personality and their performance – are our differentiator in a tough tech market.
Is building a supportive environment a goal of your organization?
A little background: our company culture is built on integrity, ownership, simplicity, service and balance. We’ve strictly held to our core values in hiring decisions, resulting in a place that people enjoy working because they get to work with intelligent, driven and truly amazing people they care about. Our people also know that HR, the Leadership team and our co-founders care about them on a personal level, which is both a key to retention and to recruitment.
But to build a successful company that scales, we need the most talented team possible. Talent attracts and retains talent and builds a better product. There’s the idea that winning teams succeed because they have the best players on their team. Successful sports teams cut fan favorites to upgrade their roster and aren’t slow to trade away players when underperforming. It’s all understood as part of the business of winning. But it also feels very impersonal and at odds with the familial culture we’ve built.
Is there a happy medium? Can a company truly care about its employees while remaining committed to increasing the level of “A-players” on the team? How does one handle the model employee that just isn’t up to the task at hand?
As I shared, I’m not sure what the answer is, but I think it’s possible for a company to toe the line by investing in “coaching up” struggling employees, being clear about expectations and where the gaps are, and making a genuine effort to get people to where they need to be. To be sure, this requires a genuine commitment from the top of the organization and far more effort than any alternative, but I think it can and should be done.
There will always be cases where things just don’t work out. Treat departing employees with dignity, respect and honesty. Ask yourself, “Does this feel right?” Others in the organization will know if you gave the departing team member a fair shake to keep their job, and will take note of how you treated them on the way out. If you can navigate this maze, I think you can have both talent density and a caring corporate culture. Who knows what success awaits from that point forward?
About the author: Jane Jaxon is the HR Director of a high-growth tech company in Boston where she gets to focus on building a great workplace and scaling people operations. Jane’s favorite buzzwords of the trade are eNPS, talent density and (of course) people operations. She likes neither pina colada’s nor getting caught in the rain, but sure loves marathoning critically-acclaimed tv series, reading in the sun, plotting her fantasy football world domination and, lastly, keeping a stealthy social media presence. Find her on LinkedIn.
I got a pitch the other day for some new research from the CMO Council. At first glance I started to trash it (I’m into marketing, but I’m willing to bet most of you aren’t!).
Then I took another look. I think the principles in the summary can shed some light on how HR pros can improve their position, make more money, and be seen as more competent overall. Got your attention? Read on!
CMO compensation is directly related to reporting structure. Those making more… are more likely to report directly to the CEO.
You have to be more innovative if you want more reward.
This one makes sense, but it’s a good reminder. Want to earn more? Work your way up until you’re reporting to the CEO. Or be good enough to become the CEO, but that’s another post for another day.
The highest paid CMOs have developed strong alliances with CIOs and CFOs.
Success in business is driven in part by the key relationships you develop. This applies to the HR function as well. Learn to connect with CFOs and other executives. Speak their language, earn some credibility, and put that network to use.
CMOs earning the highest levels of base compensation tend to be focused on driving business performance (e.g., top-line growth, market share, efficiencies, etc.).
Want to be successful long term in your role? Focus on driving business performance. The rest will take care of itself.
CMO base compensation is correlated with firm size. The larger the company, the more likely that the CMO will make more in base compensation and the more likely they will have bonus compensation.
Want to earn more money? Work for a larger company (and referring back to the first example, work for a larger company in the top tiers of management).
Digital marketing skills are important. CMO salary tends to increase as their firm’s digital marketing performance improves.
This is an easy one. The more value you can prove your function is bringing to the organization, the more you can command in terms of compensation. Have an HR mission statement that describes your aims and then make them happen.
Marketing titles (i.e., CMO, VP of Marketing, SVP of Marketing, etc.) don’t significantly correlate with base compensation.
Titles matter less than what you do. Your value is not in a title–it’s in your performance and the performance of your team.
Key accomplishments of the top earners… are centered on restructuring marketing to drive results, improving the yield/accountability of marketing, and building digital capabilities.
The top earners focus on results, not “the way things have always been done.” Improving capabilities, driving results in areas that are traditionally not seen as value add, and making tough choices are the activities that are rewarded. Keeping up the status quo not only isn’t rewarded–in many of these types of organizations I’d say it is probably weeded out.
So, what are your thoughts? Anything here that particularly rang true for you? Any action items that stepped on your toes to drive you to action?
If you’re an in-the-trenches HR pro, the Affordable Care Act has brought multiple emotions to bear: frustration, worry, and more. I know exactly how it feels, but I have also come to appreciate a particular side effect of the law.
The “good old days”
The creepiest thing I could find referencing the ACA online.
Five or ten years ago, the benefits administrator for a fully insured organization would receive a rate renewal notification from the insurance company with the new premiums for the coming plan year. In most cases, that rate was set in stone and the organization had to grin and bear it. We’ve been over the ACA health insurance premium increases before, but that’s not what we’re focusing on today.
I was speaking with a friend earlier this week about some changes his organization’s leadership team is debating related to health insurance for employees. There was a time in the past where this type of internal discussion would have made me a little uncomfortable; however, with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, it would be crazy not to spend some time talking about how the market is changing, what trends are evident, and how to develop a strategy for moving forward.
The single most important result of the ACA is this: perspectives are finally changing.
I received a press release recently titled “Corporate Recruiters Suggest Most Marketable College Degrees.” Okay, I’ll bite.
Tell me this revelation.
Enlighten me as to what degrees are the most marketable.
Who knows, maybe they know something I don’t? Here’s the list:
Accounting and Finance
Business and Marketing
Communications with a writing focus
Well, I can’t say I’m surprised in the least. Despite colleges offering degrees in puppetry, pop culture, or the Beatles (yes, really), the list above is not very surprising.
When students come to me asking what they should major in, I tell them to find something they are interested in that others in the marketplace will value. Note that I don’t encourage them to pursue German music or art history. Just because it interests you doesn’t mean it will help you to find a job, earn a living, and all that jazz. It needs to also satisfy a need in the marketplace. Hello, economics 101.
The title of this post says it all. If I have a degree in computer science, you know (generally) what I have learned and what I should be capable of. Same goes with accounting, marketing, business, etc.
If you have to spend ten minutes explaining what your degree is in or how you’ll use it, then it might be time to reconsider.
Then again, maybe you should just skip the degree and get to work. In this rant I talk about the myth of “giving back” and how it’s critical to teach students how to become productive citizens primarily. College isn’t a requirement, and many believe we have too many college graduates as it is.
According to the BLS, only 27 percent of us need college degrees for our jobs. Yet, 47 percent of the workforce currently has a college degree. This 14.9 percentage point difference equates to 21 million overqualified degreed workers in a workforce of 140 million; or the size of the 2013 fall postsecondary enrollment.
If these data are taken at face value, given an expected class of 2.1 million new first-year college students each year in the nation’s colleges and universities — at least from an economic point of view — we should consider shutting the nation’s two and four-year colleges down for the next 10 years to absorb the existing surplus of graduates. Source: PBS
In addition, there’s the crazy ongoing issue of these kids graduating with an average of $35,000 in student loan debt. Some really good insights on that topic (and how to avoid it for your own kids) are found here.
Food for thought.
Now let me get back to my studies. I’m trying to wrap up a course in shipwreck archaeology…