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