Evaluation of HR – Why evaluate?

What is meant by evaluation? “A set of planned, information gathering, and analytical activities undertaken to provide those responsible for the management of change with a satisfactory assessment of the effects and/ or progress of the change effort” (Beckhard, R., & Harris R.T. 1977)

Why Evaluate HR? Determine future investments in HR Improve HR processes Identify alignment of HR with business strategies Build intellectual capital within the organisation Stop doing what isn’t effective Be accountable to stakeholders and ensure employee and management accountability Reflect on and improve the overall climate and health of the organisation Avoid fads and ‘flavours of the month’ Lead the organisation in keeping employees motivated and productive Improve HR’s image within the organisation

HR Metrics A study by Benabou (1996)identified that many HR measures are activity based rather than performance based. Even when the measures used are performance based, there’s virtually no way to show that the outcome measures result from something that HR has done

Metrics currently used in HR departments Employee attitudes Employee turnover Satisfaction with HR service HR transactions processed Training utilisation Training programme effectiveness Promotions Employee skills levels HR consulting services utilisation

Is there a perfect solution? There will never be a perfect solution to the complex question of HR evaluation. No matter what approach is chosen there will always be problems. However there are strengths and weaknesses to some common approaches which can be utilised

Kirkpatrick’s four levels of Evaluation (50’s, 60’s, last updated 1998 1. Reactions (usually measured by a short survey, though focus groups are sometimes used) 2. Learning (usually measured with a written test or demonstration of performance) 3. Behaviour (based on observations of supervisor, a third party, or self-report) 4. Organisational Impact (bottom-line measures)

benefits There are many reasons why Kirkpatrick’s model has proven to be so capable of withstanding decades of use and review. Perhaps the two most common are that it is simple and easy to understand The levels are well understood, providing the profession with a common vocabulary There is also the implication of a systems perspective because the system is multivariate and explores a variety of outcomes that one might expect from an HR intervention, in particular (Strategic HR Review 2005)

Weaknesses • Lack of research validation • The term “level” is inappropriate; one level doesn’t necessarily lead to the next • No help in identifying how to do level four, by far the most important and most difficult of the four levels • Simplistic; a taxonomy (contents) rather than a model • Designed primarily for evaluating training and may not fit other HR functions very well

Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the following Service level agreements Key performance indicators Benchmarking Balanced score card Staff surveys Line manager/employee feedback Risk management Data gathering

HR’s strategic imperatives There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach to evaluation. There are areas which have been identified which can help HR to be the most effective in performing its functions

What does hr need to do? Tie every HR activity to the company’s strategy Know what management expects from HR and deliver it Work strategically with partners in the company Measure what is important to management Share the outcomes of effective HR widely within the organisation

Conclusion HR specialists know how important HR are to an organisation; as HR professionals, they have the obligation to ensure that management also knows how important HR are HR must use what they know, provide effective evaluation and avoid fads and traditions that don’t work well HR that isn’t business driven will not survive – that is not good for the organisation, for it’s people or for HR professionals!