HR Alignment Discussion

User Generated

barcvrprcvengr

Writing

Description

Discussion 1: HR Alignment

Alignment issues in organizations drive much of the organizational changes seen today. The HR function has the responsibility of constantly asking how it can better align with the organization to help accomplish its strategic goals. For example, if an organization wants to have its employees working in new and innovative ways, organizational leaders might recognize that the current organizational structure is not the most practical one for employees to work to their full capability or that the structure is bureaucratic. Or, the organization may want to be aggressive, but its employees and its culture are risk-adverse. These are examples of alignment challenges.

Using the organization you previously identified, answer the following as if you were developing HR-driven organizational metrics. For this Discussion, you will use an HR Scorecard approach discussed in your course text.

With these thoughts in mind:

By Day 3

Post a cohesive and scholarly response based on your readings and research this week that addresses the following:

  • Explain the benefits of assessing how well the HR goals align with the organization's strategy.
  • Discuss the role HR has as a partner and driver of change when meeting the organization's strategy.
  • Discuss how using a systems view can better align HR goals with the organization's strategy.
  • Be specific, and provide examples with references to the literature.

References:

The Bureau of National Affairs. (2010). Survey looks at reasons for using metrics, functions most measured. HR Focus, 87(7), S1–S4.

Handler, T., & Jasinski, T. (2010). MetLife learning and development: Redesigning an organization to enable business performance. People and Strategy, 33(3), 46–50.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

A SU PPLE M E NT TO ® SPECIAL REPORT ON HR METRICS Survey Looks at Reasons for Using Metrics, Functions Most Measured HR professionals increasingly are gaining a voice in corporate strategic planning initiatives by demonstrating the positive contributions their departments can make to the bottom line. One of the ways in which HR professionals have been able to get the attention of top management is through the use of HR metrics that measure the effectiveness of HR programs in increasing performance and profits. Respondents by Business Type Manufacturing Wholesale/ Retail/ Distribution Financial Services Health care Govt./Education/Non-profit Business Services/Consulting Other 7.7% 6.2% 21.5% 15.4% 20.0% 15.4% 13.8% A BNA Graphic/HRFa071a HR metrics tend to focus on data about employees, including information on turnover, salaries, benefits, absenteeism, and hiring. Metrics often are represented as a ratio or percentage. Ideally, metrics drive a company to change. In its latest survey, conducted in late spring, HRfocus examines the reasons HR professionals are using metrics in their organizations, as well as the types of metrics used most often, broken down by industry, region, and organization size. Breakdown of respondents. The largest group of respondents were in the financial services industry (21.5 percent), followed by government/education/ nonprofit organizations (20 percent). These groups were followed by the business services/consulting and health care industries (both at 15.4 percent). Manufacturers represented 7.7 percent of the respondents, and wholesale/retail/distribution represented 7.7 percent. Other industries made up 13.8 percent of the respondents. Of the respondents, 29.2 percent work for companies with over 1,000 employees, 16.9 percent work for companies with 501 to 1,000 employees, 21.5 percent work for companies with 251 to 500 employees, 13.8 percent work for companies with 101 to 250 em- Respondents by Employee Size Up to 100 101 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 1000 More than 1000 18.5% 13.8% 21.5% 16.9% 29.2% A BNA Graphic/HRFa072a Respondents by Region Northeast Southeast North Central South Central West Coast 17.2% 26.6% 35.9% 14.1% 6.3% A BNA Graphic/HRFa073a ployees, and 18.5 percent work for companies with up to 100 employees. Regional representation was headed by the North Central region of the United States, which had 35.9 percent of the respondents. That was followed by the Southeast region, with 26.6 percent of the respondents; the Northeast region, with 17.2 percent; the South Central region with 14.1 percent, and the West Coast, with 6.3 percent. S-2 (No. 7) Why are metrics used? Overall, the majority of respondents (61.5 percent) said one reason for using HR metrics is to indicate the achievements and progress of their departments. An assessment of the success or failure of various initiatives was indicated as another reason by 47.7 percent of the respondents overall, followed by the need to compare performance with other organizations (40 percent), or to gather information for return on investment (ROI) calculations (27.7 percent). Respondents were able to provide more than one reason for using metrics. Among the other reasons for using metrics, cited by 15.4 percent of the respondents, were to support key performance indicators, to address the internal performance of their talent attraction and retention efforts, and to monitor costs. Broken down by industry, 92.3 percent of government/education/nonprofit organizations use HR metrics to indicate department achievements and progress. The health care (80 percent), manu- facturing (60 percent), and financial services (57.1 percent) industries also had this as their primary reason for using HR metrics. However, 75 percent of the respondents in the wholesale/retail/distribution industry said metrics are used to gather information for ROI calculations, and 60 percent of the respondents in the business services/consulting industry had assessing the success/failure of its initiatives as the top reason for using metrics. Looking at company size, all of the organizations surveyed, except those with fewer than 100 employees said the top reason they use metrics is to indicate HR department achievements and progress. The main reason cited by those respondents with fewer than 100 employees is to assess the success/ failure of initiatives. How do the responses tie in with HR efforts to be a part of strategic planning? Clearly, in those organizations where HR has been given a stronger voice at the table, they have first had to demonstrate the HR Functions Measured with Metrics, by Business Type Manufacturing Employee skills Employee attitudes toward job/organization Recruiting Hiring Onboarding Turnover Training use Training return on investment (ROI) Promotions HRIS return on investment Outsource vendor performance Service center operations Feedback about HR from other departments Use of HR consultants Other metrics (please specify) No metrics used now and no plans to do so No metrics used now but the department plans to begin using metrics in the next 12 months Wholesale/ Retail/ Distribution Financial Services Health care Govt./ Education/ Non-profit Business Services/ Consulting Other Overall 0.0% 50.0% 7.1% 20.0% 7.7% 30.0% 0.0% 13.8% 20.0% 25.0% 21.4% 60.0% 30.8% 30.0% 11.1% 29.2% 40.0% 60.0% 20.0% 60.0% 40.0% 25.0% 50.0% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 28.6% 50.0% 21.4% 78.6% 42.9% 70.0% 80.0% 30.0% 90.0% 50.0% 69.2% 84.6% 15.4% 84.6% 30.8% 50.0% 40.0% 20.0% 50.0% 10.0% 33.3% 66.7% 22.2% 88.9% 22.2% 47.7% 63.1% 20.0% 75.4% 33.8% 20.0% 25.0% 14.3% 20.0% 15.4% 20.0% 0.0% 15.4% 20.0% 0.0% 35.7% 50.0% 30.8% 30.0% 22.2% 30.8% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 30.0% 7.7% 10.0% 11.1% 10.8% 0.0% 25.0% 7.1% 10.0% 7.7% 20.0% 0.0% 9.2% 0.0% 0.0% 42.9% 30.0% 23.1% 0.0% 33.3% 23.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 10.0% 0.0% 3.1% 20.0% 0.0% 21.4% 50.0% 15.4% 0.0% 11.1% 18.5% 20.0% 25.0% 7.1% 0.0% 7.7% 10.0% 11.1% 9.2% 20.0% 0.0% 14.3% 10.0% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 9.2% A BNA Graphic/HRFa074a July 2010 COPYRIGHT 姝 2010 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. HRF ISSN 1059-6038 (No. 7) S-3 HR Functions Measured with Metrics, by Employee Size Employee skills Employee attitudes toward job/organization Recruiting Hiring Onboarding Turnover Training use Training return on investment (ROI) Promotions HRIS return on investment Outsource vendor performance Service center operations Feedback about HR from other departments Use of HR consultants Other metrics (please specify) No metrics used now and no plans to do so No metrics used now but the department plans to begin using metrics in the next 12 months Up to 100 101 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 1000 More than 1000 Overall 33.3% 25.0% 41.7% 41.7% 16.7% 41.7% 33.3% 33.3% 25.0% 0.0% 8.3% 25.0% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 25.0% 0.0% 22.2% 0.0% 55.6% 0.0% 77.8% 22.2% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 0.0% 21.4% 57.1% 71.4% 28.6% 85.7% 28.6% 7.1% 21.4% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 35.7% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 18.2% 27.3% 63.6% 72.7% 9.1% 81.8% 18.2% 9.1% 36.4% 0.0% 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 18.2% 9.1% 15.8% 42.1% 57.9% 68.4% 31.6% 84.2% 52.6% 21.1% 47.4% 15.8% 21.1% 10.5% 31.6% 0.0% 47.4% 0.0% 13.8% 29.2% 47.7% 63.1% 20.0% 75.4% 33.8% 15.4% 30.8% 4.6% 10.8% 9.2% 23.1% 3.1% 18.5% 9.2% 8.3% 11.1% 7.1% 9.1% 10.5% 9.2% A BNA Graphic/HRFa075a department’s capabilities. The finding that 61.5 percent of firms use metrics to indicate achievements and progress may be part of an effort to become a greater part of strategic planning initiatives. HR functions measured. The average number of metrics tracked was highest (19.3) among government/education/nonprofit organizations, according to the survey findings, while the median number was highest (15) among manufacturing firms. The average number tracked was lowest (2.8) in the wholesale/retail/distribution industry, while the median number was lowest in the financial service industry, the survey found. Number of Metrics Tracked, by Business Type Manufacturing Wholesale/ Retail/ Distribution Financial Services Health care Govt./Education/Non-profit Business Services/Consulting Other Overall Average Median 14.0 2.8 11.9 9.8 19.3 10.1 6.6 11.5 15.0 3.5 3.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 6.0 8.0 A BNA Graphic/HRFa076a HRFOCUS ISSN 1059-6038 Number of Metrics Tracked, by Employee Size Up to 100 101 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 1000 More than 1000 Overall Average Median 8.4 3.1 7.1 20.5 15.3 11.5 6.0 2.5 5.0 15.0 12.0 8.0 A BNA Graphic/HRFa077a By employee size, the average number of metrics tracked was highest (20.5) among those firms with 501 to 1,000 employees; the median number tracked also was highest (15) among firms of this size, the survey showed. The lowest numbers were found in organizations with 101 to 250 employees, with the average number of metrics tracked being 3.1 and the median number being 2.5, according to the survey. Overall, turnover was the metric tracked the most by survey respondents, with 75.4 percent indicating that they do so. Turnover is a metric that can track not only the number of employees leaving, but why they are leaving and how much it costs the company annually. The survey indicated that, across all of the industries, this was the most important metric that BNA July 2010 S-4 (No. 7) Why Does Your Organization Use Metrics? by Business Type Wholesale/ Retail/ Manufacturing Distribution Financial Services Health care Govt./ Education/ Non-profit Business Services/ Consulting Other Overall To gather information for ROI calculations 20.0% 75.0% 35.7% 40.0% 23.1% 10.0% 11.1% 27.7% To compare performance with other organizations 40.0% 25.0% 50.0% 70.0% 15.4% 30.0% 44.4% 40.0% To indicate HR department achievements and progress 60.0% 25.0% 57.1% 80.0% 92.3% 30.0% 55.6% 61.5% To assess the success/ failure of initiatives 20.0% 50.0% 42.9% 70.0% 46.2% 60.0% 33.3% 47.7% Other 20.0% 25.0% 7.1% 30.0% 0.0% 10.0% 33.3% 15.4% A BNA Graphic/HRFa078a was being tracked in organizations. This was also true regardless of company size. Hiring was second on the list of metrics most tracked, according to the survey, which found that 63.1 percent of respondents overall track this metric. As with turnover, that was the case across all industries and regardless of size. This was followed by recruiting, which 47.7 percent of the respondents indicated that they measure with metrics. These two functions look at the actual number of people brought into an organization, and the amount of time it takes to get them into the organization. For example, tracking hiring can help organizations determine where the talent in the organization is located, and the importance of those functions in helping the organization succeed. Tracking hiring can help organizations determine where they are most likely to find talent, how much it costs to attract that talent, and how long it takes to find the talent. The least tracked HR function, according to the survey, is the use of HR consultants, with only 3.1 percent of the respondents overall mentioning that they track this function. Looking at the industry breakdown, only business services/consulting (10 percent) and government/education/nonprofit (7.7 percent) track it at all. By industry size, this broke down to 8.3 percent of the companies with up to 100 employees, and 9.1 percent of the companies with 501 to 1,000 employees. The survey found that 9.2 percent of the respondents do not track metrics and have no plans to do so. The wholesale/retail/distribution industry had the highest percentage of respondents (25 percent) stating that metrics are not used. All of the respondents from the health care industry use metrics. The highest percentage, by company size, that does not use metrics is those companies with fewer than 100 employees (25 percent). Another 9.2 percent of respondents overall said they do not use metrics, but that they plan to begin using them in the next 12 months. The highest percentages in this group, by industry, were manufacturing and business services/consulting firms, both with 20 percent stating their plans to do so in the next 12 months. By company size, 11.1 percent of those with 101 to 250 employees, and 10.5 percent of those with over 1,000 employees don’t do so now, but intend to begin using metrics in the next 12 months. Why Does Your Organization Use Metrics? by Employee Size To gather information for ROI calculations To compare performance with other organizations To indicate HR department achievements and progress To assess the success/failure of initiatives Other Up to 100 101 to 250 251 to 500 501 to 1000 More than 1000 Overall 25.0% 33.3% 25.0% 58.3% 0.0% 22.2% 11.1% 44.4% 22.2% 33.3% 14.3% 50.0% 71.4% 42.9% 14.3% 36.4% 45.5% 81.8% 45.5% 9.1% 36.8% 47.4% 73.7% 57.9% 21.1% 27.7% 40.0% 61.5% 47.7% 15.4% A BNA Graphic/HRFa079a July 2010 COPYRIGHT 姝 2010 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC. HRF ISSN 1059-6038 Copyright of HR Focus is the property of Institute of Management & Administration and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. MetLife Learning and Development: Redesigning an Organization to Enabie Business Performance By Toni Handler and Tom Jasinski, MetLife, Inc. Á The current economic recession occurred at a time when the U.S. insurance industry was already undergoing significant change: consolidation, shins in customer preferences and increasing competition in a marketplace characterized by mature, commoditized products and services that are hard to differentiate. The companies who win will do so through the effective selection, development and retention of leadership and professional talent. MetLife's Learning and Development organization has had to transform itself in order to meet this challenge. Growth as a Public Company In 2000, following a 130-year history as a mutual company, MetLife became a public corporation. Since then, MetLife Human Resources has grappled with the dilemma of how best to define, configure and deploy resources to maximize needs-based value delivery to the business. The challenge has heen especially great for the Learning and Development organization, which had to prepare a workforce to meet a whole new competitive landscape. The outwardly focused public company required a new set of competencies and a higher level of performance from its employees. Human Resources responded by quickly expanding its capabilities and developing an array of programs and policies to match bestin-class industry practices. However, by the end of the last decade, HR found it had become a costly function that produced many good but expensive ideas that it tried to push out to the whole company. The HR leadership imperative was to become an efficient and consultative service provider responding to organizational-pull; that is, a function highly focused on delivering a set of needs-based solutions, closely tied to the business strategy. The key idea was that HR should not be just responsive to the business strategy, but rather influence the talent and organization decisions that business leaders make when creating the strategy and then make the hard choices within HR how to support this work. The idea of targeting efforts was a significant change for the HR function and the Learning and Development unit, in particular. Since becoming a public company, the function had used common benchmarks of numbers of HR staff to overall employees to guide staffing. It treated all areas of the business relatively equally. Now, the HR strategic focus and resource allocation would be set to follow investments in the business with a much more differentiated allocation of people, time and effort. To make such a shift we recognized the need to change the fundamental organizational model for HR overall—in particular Learning and Development. We applied for ourselves the organization design principles, methodology and tools that we had been developing for our business clients. The results were a faster change process, lower costs and improved business relevance. Today, the Learning and Development function is perceived as a much more customer-driven unit. A Client-centric HR Design As of 2009, MetLife HR had evolved into an organization with several client-facing interfaces: HR Generalists, Learning and Development Consultants, Strategic Staffing Specialists and other departments that had specific offerings of potential value to the business client. On the back end was an Operations group that built transactional and self-service capabilities. While it had some clear successes, this HR model — common to many large companies — was inefficient in terms of cost, duplication of effort among functions, confusion for the client due to multiple interfaces, and lack of clarity identifying and responding to specific needs. As the Operations group took on more transactional work, everyone else became involved in self-defined "strategic work." Across the organization and deep into lower management levels, HR generalists and L&D staff were responding to client requests from the bottom up and often in competition with one another. The new HR model was intended to meet four design criteria: 1. Influence the formation of client business strategy. 2. Create, implement, and manage a comprehensive business HR plan, coordinated through a primary client interface. 3. Flexibly deploy resources to the area of greatest business need. 4. Build HR's business acumen. If the old model's goal was to gain HR a seat at the client's table, the new model seeks to influence what is being served. To build these organizational capabilities, the organization made a number of organization changes (illustrated in Exhibit 1): • The Generalist organization was reinvented as a leaner HR Business Partner (HRBP) organization tasked with serving as the primary client interface and coordinator of expert internal HR services. Their work is primarily diagnostics, development of a human capital plan (call the Business HR Plan), and the brokering key resources from within HR to accomplish the plan. The new model makes clear that the HRBP manages HR's work agenda and commitments to the client, although teams of HR cross-functional staff execute on designing and delivering the work once it has been contracted. • Some generalists were given new roles called Functional Consultants. These staff report into the subject matter centers of expertise (COE), but collaborate with the HRBPs to identify and fulfill client needs. >• VOLUME 33/ISSUE 3 — 2010 47 The closer alignment with the center, rather than the business unit, ensures that deeper technical skills are developed, work is coordinated, and best practices are shared. • Employee Relations and Information Management has been internally centralized, further reducing the generalist population in the field and creating more capacity for the HRBPs to act strategically. EXHIBIT 1 : THE METLIFE HR OPERATING MODEL Learning &c Development Transformation By 2009, L&D had evolved over many years from the keeper of corporate training programs to a fully centralized function providing abundant and often highly customized offerings for nearly every stated and assumed need—from elaborate 60-day call-center representative training, to specialized IT competency modeling, to leader education that could be tailored to suit the unique needs of the audience. The old model, shown in Exhibit 2, represents what had become a complex organization of specialized groups largely configured around business units that delivered high value—or so we thought. Primary client contact Program Manager HR Business Consuitant Functional Consultants The model allows us to deploy our resources to where the business needs are rather than tying them up in business units, where HR staff may be busy but not always focused on the highest priorities of the enterprise (Kates, 2006). Learning and Development is a major center of expertise for MetLife. L&D exerts almost daily strategic and operational influence on the human capital variable of the business equation through its design, development and delivery of job-relevant skills and competency-learning solutions, leadership development, corporate compliance training and other critical activities that build a business's strategic organizational capabilities. Also, it is L&D that over a period of months underwent the most radical design transformation, so that it could drive and model the achievement of a cost-effective model of HR value delivery to the business. HR Business Partner HR Leadership & Governance Links expertise to solutions , is Outputs > 2:
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Surname 1
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Human Resource Alignment
Benefits of assessing how well the HR goals align with the organization's strategy
Assessing Human resource goals is done by metrics. The metrics enable HR leaders to
assess achievements as well as progress in an effort to be part of the overall organizational
strategic planning initiatives. The survey by the Bureau of National Affairs (2) found out that
61.5% use metrics to highlight their achievements in an attempt to align with the organizational
strategic plans. Some of the main HR goals are hiring and employee turnover, which is meant to
support the organization towards success. Hiring tracking and turnover can be assessed to
determine why employees leave the organization, the number of employees leaving as well as
the annual cost that the company has to incur as a result of the departures (Bureau of National
Affairs 3). Therefore, asse...


Anonymous
I was struggling with this subject, and this helped me a ton!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags