How effective is your HR function..

We all keep hearing about the strategic role HR needs to play, HR presence in the boardroom and the impact that HR can have on business decisions. But how many of us have sat back and ever evaluated the current functioning of our HR teams.

Is the HR team geared up to cater to the requirements of the business..Is there some way of reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of the HR function in relation to what is expected out of them..While there is no quick answer to these questions, it can be done in a structured manner thereby providing a mirror to the HR team reflecting what they do best and where they need to improve.

I will talk about an outside-in approach as displayed in the image below:

1. Step 1 would entail understanding the expectations that your internal customer has and the perceived effectiveness of the services provided. This would also help us understand the process and performance expectations out of the HR team.
   
2. The next step is a cause and effect analysis of what is causing the perceptions gathered in relation to the findings in Step 1. Where is each member of the HR team spending his / her time, what activities are they performing? Are they playing an advisory role to the business or are their functions more administrative in nature? Is HR playing a solution providing role and facilitating business requirements? All these questions need to be answered in this step.
   
3. The final step is the assessment of the skills and capabilities of the HR team against the roles / responsibilities / competencies defined for the HR function. This needs to be mapped against the results of step 2 which will give us an idea of where skills need to be redeployed, new skills brought in or existing skills to be improved.

An analysis of the steps above will showcase an assessment of the service delivery model of the HR function, its structure and reporting relationships, distribution of activities between corporate and regional HR and where automation can be brought in the HR function.

However, this entire exercise should not be done in isolation. The inputs of the key stakeholders need to be incorporated at each step. Because while process improvement is an ongoing exercise, we should not forget that the end result has to be adding value to the business.

Employee Satisfaction vs. Engagement vs. Commitment

This started with an innocent question I was asked in office.

”What is the difference between an Employee Satisfaction Survey, an Employee Engagement Survey, and an Employee Commitment Survey”

While most HR consultants/HR practitioners use these terms interchangeably, I ventured to dwell on the difference between them. Let us think of the difference between these from three perspectives:

a) If we go by definition: Looking at the pure definitions (Source: Dictionary.com),

Commit: to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance;
Engage: To gain over; to win and attach;
Satisfy: to fulfill the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of (a person, the mind, etc.);

So looking at the definition, it looks like the HR managers might have to fulfill the basic needs of the employee first, what we know very well as hygiene factors. These might range from something as basic as the seating area of the employee, the compensation being offered, or transport to and from the office.

Once the employee is fairly satisfied with his working conditions, the next step for an HR manager would be to try to win over and convince the employee that the organization cares for him/her beyond the work environment. These could range from outbound programs for a relatively younger workforce to bringing in the families of the employees for various engagement programs and other work-life balance initiatives.

Employee commitment can be garnered only when the satisfaction and engagement measures are backed by strong career growth measures, a feeling of trust and constant development in the personality of the employee.


b) From the Employees’ perspective:

I have seen very few employees who are “satisfied” with the compensation they are getting. While other “hygiene” factors might be taken for granted, a typical employee is satisfied only when the right engagement measures are put in place.

In terms of commitment, there is a school of thought that says that a lot of it is intrinsic. However, I have seen a number of employees who are highly committed in the initial few days in an organization. But they lose steam over time simply because the other factors (those essential for satisfaction and engagement) are not in place. So while I agree to some extent that commitment comes from within, it has to be backed by other factors and constant reinforcement for it to remain on track.




c) From the Employers’ perspective:

As far as the organization is concerned, the first step is to segment the population of employees and try to identify what would satisfy and what would engage which group of employees.

For the critical set of employees, the organization would want to identify a clear gradation of measures moving from satisfaction to engagement to commitment. For others, depending on the budgetary constraints, they may decide on identifying the key measures to be taken.




So we see that the 3 terms are different and have different meanings for the employee, the employer and even the dictionary. Let us not club the 3 and project them all in the sane vein!!