By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Abstract: This article discusses alternative metrics that HR leaders should track beyond just operational data in order to get a more holistic view of organizational performance and sustainability. It explores measuring employee engagement and well-being through qualitative feedback and indicators like stress, burnout and work-life balance. For diversity, equity and inclusion, the article recommends moving beyond just representation to examine inclusion, participation rates, and experiences of underrepresented groups. For learning and development, it suggests assessing competency growth, skill application, and return on investment. Other metrics proposed include analyzing internal career mobility, gauging an innovation-friendly culture, assessing adaptability to change, and evaluating the maturity of succession planning programs. Tracking these types of indicators through both qualitative and quantitative methods can provide deeper insights into employee experiences, strengths, and cultural factors influencing organizational success in the long run. The article argues that considering a broader set of meaningful metrics allows HR to play a more strategic role.
As HR leaders, we often find ourselves bogged down in the day-to-day measurable metrics that often overlook the more important indicators of an organization’s long-term success and sustainability. While tracking headcount, turnover rates, and time-to-hire are certainly important operational metrics, solely focusing on these can blind us from gauging how we are truly impacting our people and advancing our organizational mission. Through my experience consulting with various organizations and research in the field of positive organizational psychology, I have found that expanding our view of what deserves measuring reveals a more holistic picture of strengths to enhance and areas for growth.
Today we will explore alternative metrics that you should consider tracking as an HR leader to better understand what really moves the needle for your unique organization.
Employee Engagement and Well-Being
A consistent finding in research on high-performing organizations is the positive impact of engaged and energized employees (Saks, 2006; Truss et al., 2013). Yet traditional measures of engagement often only scratch the surface. To gain meaningful insights, assess engagement qualitatively through roundtable discussions where employees feel comfortable sharing honestly about the key drivers and barriers (Saks, 2006). Additionally, monitor indicators of employee well-being such as stress, burnout, work-life balance and perceptions of senior leadership (Harter et al., 2002). For example, at a leading technology firm I consulted with, we discovered high engagement scores masked pockets of burnout in some departments due to a hyper-growth culture. Targeted initiatives to promote recovery and recognition helped reinvigorate those teams. Employee well-being is also positively associated with physical health, productivity, and creativity - all of which contribute to sustainable organizational success (Harter et al., 2002; Sonnentag, 2003). Make engagement and well-being ongoing priorities to measure, not just check-box annual surveys.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Metrics
Given the importance of diverse, equitable and inclusive cultures for innovation, problem-solving and attracting top talent from all backgrounds, it is critical that diversity metrics move beyond just demographic representation (Herring, 2009; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Track inclusion indices through qualitative feedback and quantitative metrics like participation rates in employee resource groups. Also examine representation and progression at all levels, paying particular attention to groups that remain underrepresented. A global technology firm I partnered with found strong diversity in entry-level hires but stagnant diversity in management, highlighting an important gap to address. Consider climate surveys,360 reviews assessing inclusive behaviors, andexit interviews specifically with underrepresented groups to better understand barriers or discrimination experiences (Kaplan et al., 2017; Sabharwal, 2014). Continuous measurement is needed to sustain progress.
Learning and Development Effectiveness
As the nature of work rapidly evolves, continuous learning has become table stakes for thriving organizations. However, typical metrics of training hours completed or budgets spent dont fully convey impact. Pair those with competency self-assessments pre-and post-learning activities to gauge growth, and measure knowledge application through project outcomes and performance reviews (van Rooij and Merkebu, 2015). Also survey managers to assess whether learned skills are being utilized and valued on the job. For example, at a fast-growing healthcare nonprofit I worked with, post-training surveys found skills like change management and strategic thinking being under-leveraged. This revealed an alignment gap we addressed through manager coaching. Design robust methods to quantify return on learning investment through factors like increased productivity, reduced errors, higher certification rates that build credibility for future learning budgets (van Rooij and Merkebu, 2015; Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
Career Mobility and Movement Throughout the Organization
The ability to develop internal talent through career growth opportunities strengthens engagement and retention. However, promotions alone dont necessarily indicate a healthy pipeline. Analyze internal movement data to uncover where movement may be stagnant versus fluid. Cross-divisional assignments that expose employees to new challenges is also a valuable development approach associated with higher job satisfaction and retention (Ng et al., 2005). At a Fortune 500 manufacturer, reviewing career paths showed a "revolving door" pattern between two divisions but limited connections elsewhere. Strategic rotations were implemented to broaden perspectives across the business. Track quality of development conversations, number of stretch assignments, and interim career checkpoints to better foster ongoing growth mindsets (Ng et al., 2005; Dragoni et al., 2014). Make the employee experience of career development just as important a metric as outward career outcomes.
Innovation and Risk-Taking Climate
Cultures where employees feel empowered to drive new ideas forward and take prudent risks are linked to competitive advantages through new products, services and ways of working (Gilson et al., 2005). Thus, measure indicators like the percentage of work time available for innovation activities, participation rates in hackathons or ideation challenges, and managerial support expressed for failures from risks that dont pay off (Gilson et al., 2005; Kim and Yoon, 2015). Some questions to consider: how quickly are innovative concepts funded or moved forward? what percentage of annual revenues come from products/services less than two years old? Paying attention to employees perceptions of an innovations-friendly climate through surveys and feedback discussions can offer leading indicators of where culture may hinder or foster reinvention(Gilson et al., 2005; Kim and Yoon, 2015).
Adaptability to Change
In parallel with innovation is the ability to swiftly adapt operations and strategies to shifting market needs and disruptions. Assess openness to change and agility through both qualitative and quantitative indicators. Qualitatively, roundtable discussions and interviews can surface top barriers or enablers to change campaigns. Quantitatively, track metrics like the speed of policy or process overhauls, percentage of new vs. legacy initiatives, and the shelf life of strategic plans before requiring refreshment. Surveying employees on change fatigue levels and managerial competency supporting change can identify where change management practices may need honing (Kotter, 2008; Judge et al., 1999). A hospital system I partnered with observed strong patient outcomes but slow responsiveness to industry changes - a gap uncovered through an adaptability assessment we used to spark revamped strategies.
Succession Planning and Leadership Development Maturity
Ensuring continuity of strong leadership directly impacts organizational sustainability and performance for years ahead. Robust succession planning programs should consider quantifiable metrics such as the depth of leadership pipelines (number of high potentials identified per role), quality of individual development plans, and retention rates of succession candidates. Beyond metrics of current outputs, assess the evolving maturity and rigor of your overall talent review and leadership development philosophy through surveys and progress against goals set in past cycles. For instance, expanding criteria for "ready now" candidates from just functional expertise to also include capabilities like driving change or coaching direct reports indicates an advancing model (Charan et al., 2011). Monitoring your succession planning systems longevity and continued refinement offers leading insights into future leadership strengths.
Conclusion
While operational metrics will always play an important role, supplementing them with the alternative indicators explored here can deliver deeper understandings of employee experiences, strengths to preserve and grow, and cultural factors propelling or hindering organizational success. Through a multifaceted and ongoing process of measurement tied to action, HR can help chart a course for sustainable high performance. The path forward requires envisioning new conceptions of what deserves our attention as much as - if not more than - our standard metrics. By taking a broader view of what matters most, HR is better positioned to see around corners and be a strategic driver within its organization.
References
dragoni, l., suriano, c., & van der heijden, b. (2014). Delivering effective socialization through assignment design: The role of HRM practices and basic training. Human Resource Management , 53(2), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21564
Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness?. Academy of Management Journal , 48(3), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407916
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87(2), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review , 74(2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 84(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.107
Kaplan, S. E., Klein, A. K., & Prinz, A. (2017). Changes in diversity and inclusion practices and their effects on employee job satisfaction. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy , 36(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2017.09.005
Kim, T.-Y., & Yoon, G. (2015). An investigation of proactive personality and career satisfaction. Journal of Career Development , 42(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845314533420
Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Harvard Business Review , 86(5), 96-108.
Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 58(2), 367–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology , 52(1), 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management , 43(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(3), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.518
Truss, C., Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (2013). Employee engagement in theory and practice. Routledge.
van Rooij, S. W., & Merkebu, J. (2015). Alignment of training evaluation and business strategy: A case study of a large airline company. European Journal of Training and Development , 39(4), 388-409. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-07-2014-0051
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior , 20, 77-140.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Beyond the Obvious: Expanding Your View of What Really Matters as an HR Leader. Human Capital Leadership Review, 11(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.11.2.10
Yorumlar