The HR Metric of Champions?

Do your managers give a hoot about HR metrics?  If not, recent research from i4cp suggests that you aren't alone:

Fewer than a quarter of companies (24%) make human capital decisions based on data (i4cp Predictive Human Capital Analytics Survey, April 2010).

Only 20% of organizations say they have a workforce measurement strategy to a high degree (i4cp Talent Management Measurement Survey, April 2010).

One issue:  Our tendency to produce and drag around reams of data feature minute, not-very-meaningful distinctions between employee populations, rather than focus on something simple and practical.  In our recovering economy, as talent retention moves back onto the radar screens of employers nearly everywhere, i4cp suggests that Quality of Attrition is the measurement most central to gauging overall talent management effectiveness.

How to calculate Quality of Attrition?  In their own scorecard, i4cp focuses on a combination of six metrics, presented below for your consideration.

• Regrettable termination rate - Metric of employees who left the firm but whom the firm had
planned to retain.

• Non-regrettable termination rate - Metric of employees who left the firm but whose departure
did not negatively affect the firm.

• Controllable separation rate - Metric of employees who left the firm for a reason that, if
known, the firm may have been able to address (e.g., dissatisfied with career opportunities).

• Uncontrollable separation rate - Metric of employees who left the firm for a reason that, if
known, the firm could not have prevented (e.g., spousal relocation).

• New-hire separation rate – Metric of employees who left the firm within a specified period
after their hire date.

• High-performer separation rate – Metric of employees designated as high-performers who
left the firm. The designation is determined by organizational performance evaluation ratings.

Is Quality of Attrition indeed the HR Metric of Champions?  Or is it Management's Favorite People Measure, as i4cp submits?  Learn more about the interesting possibilities of this metric by accessing their recent webinar on the topic (free registration required to access).

Image courtesy of: cjsocpols.armstrong.edu

Comments

[Gina]

I think companies need to take a good honest look at how the team is functioning as a whole. How is the culture? They won't really be able to understand why good people are leaving until they can see the problems they have that caused that person to leave. It will just continue to happen.

[E James (Jim) Brennan]

HR or Comp staff must take care to present the metrics requested by their managment team. If top executives don't care about a certain metric, you face an uphill battle. Best to involve them in discussing, defining and formatting the desired variables to be studied and reported, to create ownership and buy-in.

[LoyalNation]

Its a funny thing about numbers. They can pretty much represent anything that the user wants them to. More power to HR to help managers understand the issues behind the trends.

[Ann Bares]

Gina:

Good points ... and I don't mean to suggest that a good metric gets you out of the work of a holistic look at the work environment and culture. As I see it, the metric is just a tool to spot where you might have issues worth further investigation and appraisal.

Jim:

No arguments here - gathering and presenting metrics that the management team doesn't care about is no recipe for success. At the same time, good to have some ideas and recommendations to present to them for consideration and discussion.

LN:

Hence the best-selling book "How to Lie with Statistics", which many of us cut our data analysis teeth on. Our challenge, I guess, is to rise to the occasion and ensure that metrics are used in as systematic, objective and consistent a manner as possible.

Thanks, all, for the thoughts and comments.