Presentation on theme: "STAFFING EFFECTIVENESS"— Presentation transcript:
1STAFFING EFFECTIVENESS Dr. Jac Fitz-enzCEOHuman Capital Source
2WHAT TO MEASURE? The Choice of Metrics Depends on Business Initiatives
3PLANNING AND EVALUATING All things being equal…… THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OFPLANNING AND EVALUATING“ceterus paribus”All things being equal……
4CAUSES AND EFFECTS What Happened?: Activity: Cost, Time, Quantity Who – What – Where – When – How MuchWhat Was the Intermediate Effect?: ImprovementQuality – Innovation – Productivity – ServiceGoalProfitability – Market Share(Mission Accomplishment)What Was the Market Effect?:
5SAMPLE: CETERUS PARIBUS FROM CAUSE TO EFFECTQualityHireBetterCustomerServiceCustomerRetention& SpendMarketingSpends onNew ProspectsProfitIncrease
6TIPS, TRICKS & SYSTEMS The One-Minute Recruiter Benchmarking Systems Marc Hutto suggestions:When I first saw this slide it struck me as fairly simplistic (i.e., the clip art and the limited information) and it also left me with questions about the term “One-Minute Recruiter”. May I suggest that there is a tool or an “anchoring” thought that might situate the concept a little more firmly?>>ScanEvaluatePlan>>IntegrateProcess>
7STAFFING: A COMPLEX FUNCTION StrategyStructureProcessesSkillsEvaluationMarc Hutto suggestions:I will echo my comment from the previous slide… If we are providing copies of these slides during the session (and I assume we are), it might be helpful to the members to offer more substance or definition as opposed to this degree of brevity.
8STRATEGIC LEVEL CORPORATE INITIATIVES DRIVE STAFFING DECISIONS Reduce Operating ExpensesShorten Time to MarketImprove Customer ServiceIncrease Gross MarginsMarc Hutto suggestions:Is there an opportunity on this slide to ask the members for other examples of Corporate Imperatives that they experience (i.e., Diversity, Candidate Experience – since many companies recognize their candidates are also their customers, etc.)?
9? STRUCTURE SOURCING vs. RECRUITING / SELECTION Division of Labor and MotivationCommunicationAccountabilityReward and Recognition?Marc Hutto suggestions:Your comments yesterday REALLY hit home for me on these concepts and I applaud them in this presentation! I think you are really going to “name the pain” of those organizations that DO have a division of labor with a separate sourcing team. However, can we also offer counter-balancing strategies to these issues? In other words, I believe you stated that division of labor is not inherently “bad” and some organizations simply must do this. The fact remains (to your points here) that these organizational dynamics are real and troublesome if we aren’t (first) conscious of them and (second) addressing them pro actively and intelligently.Perhaps we can involve the group in some discussion here… “Let me ask the group… what strategies or measures have you put in place to offset or address these dynamics?”
11EFFICIENCY OR EFFECTIVENESS? Cost TimeQuantity QualityReactionMarc Hutto suggestion:Love this one! Please recall that we discussed adding Diversity.
12SAMPLE METRICS QUANTITY TIME QUALITY COST REACTION Number hired / RecruiterAdd RateReplacement RateHire to Requisition RatioReferral RateInternal Fill RateCOSTCost per HireSign on BonusesTIMEResponse TimeTime to FillTime to StartQUALITYFit RatingOffer to Acceptance RateREACTIONManager SatisfactionMarc Hutto suggestion:Here’s another opportunity to get the group involved. Perhaps, this is where we might want to consider asking each table group to provide current or (future) conceptual examples of metrics that might serve these categories. Then, each group gives a quick report out and Dr. Jac and others comment, ask questions, discusses the risks and rewards that they have experienced with the metric proposed by that table group, etc. In other words, let the members learn from Dr. Jac AND each other.
13ACCOUNTABILITY SOURCING RECRUITMENT Select (Cull) Produce Leads: QuantityQualityTimelinessSelect (Cull)InterviewReferConfer/AdviseProcess:QualityTimelinessSatisfactionCOST
14TIME TRACKING POINTS Recruitment Plan . . 2/7 + 6 ACTIVITY DATE ETRequisition /1Recruitment Plan /Begin Sourcing /First List /22 +21Referral /25 +24Selection /15 +64Offer Made /25 +74Accept / Reject /28 +77Onboarding /8 +87Arrival /20 +99Marc Hutto suggestion:If we are supportive of the suggestion on the previous slide, I would advocate that this one can be placed BEFORE the preceding slide in order to offer the group and EXAMPLE for their table assignment/exercise.
15LEAPING THE DATA WALL Measurement Era Analytics Era (VALUE) (ACTIVITY) CorrelationsLeading IndicatorsIntangiblesPredictabilityCausationScorecardsDashboardsBenchmarksAd hoc HRMeasures1980s s sTimeSource: Boudreau & Ramstad, & HCS
16PROCESS EFFECTIVENESS Marc Hutto suggestions:(To illustrate this concept) If you feel it would be of value, please let me know if you would like for me to supply “sanitized” samples of reports that we worked to create with a company that is also one of our current (ExecuQuest*) clients that showed correlations to the following:1. Comparative (HCPS) Hiring Cost Per Source for (a) Print Advertising (b) Employee Referrals (c) Internet sourced candidates (d) the Sourcing team’s candidates.(In other words, what was the total spend on each of these categories divided by the number of hires for each = HCPS)2. Relocation costs correlated to multiple sources. In other words, we sought to validate a belief… Relocation costs increase when you (for instance) advertise a job on Monster since it can invite candidates from ANYWHERE vs. direct-sourced candidates from the local market. The implication is simple… if you want to control relocation costs, don’t invite them by using sources that have a boundless, geographic reach.Diversity by Source. Do some sources produce greater diversity than others (i.e., print ads vs. internet vs. referrals vs. etc, etc.)?Attrition by Source. We sought to validate assumptions like, “Employee referrals are better quality candidates… especially with regard to attrition – since they already know someone at the company that is hiring them.”Finally, please note that we also created a fairly sophisticated tool that allowed the user to enter a alpha/numeric job code in order to instantly produce 12 months of THIS (and other) historical data. This allowed the user (recruiter or sourcer) to forecast the results for diversity, costs, attrition, and relocation and/or consult with the hiring manager on trends along these lines (historically).* ExecuQuest is a sister company to the Though Leadership Institute (Dr. Jac)N= Newspaper, M= Prof Mag, S= Search, E=Referral, J= Job Board, W= Walk InI= Personal Interview, G= Group Interview, T= Test, A= Assessment, O= OnboardingB= Performance, C= Pay Increases, P= Potential Rating, T= Tenure
17LINKED MEASURES INITIATIVES Cost Reduction > Time to Market > Customer Service >Gross Margins >EFFECTIVENESSCost of StaffingProcess TimingFit (Quality)HR ProductivityMarc Hutto suggestion:Is there a tool/take-away opportunity here? For instance, on slide #3, it seems that we can give them a redundant question that “links” the recruiting/sourcing metric to the Imperative (eventually). So, if we ask the redundant question, “Ok what does THAT Metric impact?” over and over again (using slide 3 as the example), this is what the tool might look like (rough draft thought here, of course, requiring further development from us)…(Recruiting Metric) = Hire Quality…. “Ok what does THAT Metric impact?” …. “Customer Satisfaction”Customer Satisfaction… “Ok what does THAT Metric impact?” …. “Customer Retention and Spend”Customer Retention and Spend… “Ok what does THAT Metric impact?” … “Marketing Spend”Marketing Spend… “Ok what does THAT Metric impact?” …. Profit Increase! Voila’ !! There’s your Imperative!
18THE BIG PICTURE sourcing recruiting STATEGIC CAPACITY SCAN External and Internalforces affecting structuralrelational and human capitalsourcingEVALUATION METRICSLeading Indicators andIntangible Measures forPredictabilityCAPABILITY PLANNINGWorkforce andSuccession PlanningrecruitingSERVICE INTEGRATIONIntegrated Delivery ofHuman Capital Productsand ServicesPROCESS OPTIMIZATIONRedesign Human CapitalProcessesInput – Throughput – Output
19OUR PROBLEM S Production Human Resources Sales & R Marketing Customer C&BProductionL&DHumanResourcesPMSales &MarketingRCustomerService
20INTEGRATION “The first thing we've got to do is not to have silos. We had to design our culture and systems to focuson the customer, not on the product line.We reward the behavior we want, which is gettingall of our customers' business.”Dick KovacevichCEOWells Fargo BankMarc Hutto suggestion:We might want to balance the first line of this quote. Silos can be either (purely) structural or operational. For instance, six lines of business with six separate recruiting teams that do not report to one manager of recruiting, ultimately, is an example of structural silos. An example of operational silos is six recruiting teams for six lines of business that DO report to ONE recruiting director but that recruiting director doesn’t expect or demand that they operate as a team and leverage common resources for efficiency.Why is this important? Because the first reaction to the first line of this quote COULD be, “Oh gosh, I have a separate sourcing team that doesn’t report to each of the lines of business (or recruiting teams supporting each line of business) so I must have a ‘bad’ silo.”
24WHAT & HOW TO DO IT 1. Adopt a new vision (Capability) 2. Connect to the Initiatives (Importance)3. Find Competitive Advantages (Change)4. Integrate Planning & Delivery (Synchronize)5. Measure Predictors (Future Focus)
258321 Pinotage Court – San Jose, CA 95135 THANK YOUDr. Jac Fitz-enzHuman Capital Source8321 Pinotage Court – San Jose, CA 95135