Productivity

Monitoring HR Practices

by
welcomia/Shutterstock

Organizational strategic planning has three distinct components. The first component is the establishment of the plan, which includes the high-level setting of vision, mission, and organizational objectives. The second is making the plan operational, and includes the implementation of the plan throughout all levels of the company, so that departments and business plans align in support of the planned strategy. The final element is that of monitoring all of the organizational activities, which is critical for ensuring the workforce is moving in the direction set by the plan, in order to meet the strategic objectives.

While HR plays an integral role throughout the strategic planning process, workforce monitoring (the third step) is the purview of the HR function. It is the role of HR to track and measure what the workforce is doing. HR provides the monitoring framework to ensure that not only is everyone headed in the same direction, but that the workforce activities are meeting timelines and required projections.

The concept of monitoring the workforce is not new. The means in which workforce monitoring takes place, however, has adjusted significantly with the evolution of HR technology. For example, the use of artificial intelligence platforms allows for computer keystroke monitoring. This is used as a measurement tool to track and report on employee performance levels. While the impetus for this type of monitoring stems from the need to track, measure, and report on productivity as a performance metric, it does come with a negative perspective. As noted in this article, keystroke monitoring has a distasteful aspect of spying or snooping on employees. The use of this intrusive software is made worse in these days of remote workforce management, due to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis. Is the continued practice of workforce monitoring with spyware necessary?

A recent post in the Canadian HR Reporter provides us with a refreshing approach to meeting the current challenges that face the remote work environment. The article highlights the real opportunities that HR can put into place by eliminating unnecessary practices in order to sustain business continuity for the organization. Rather than obsessing about employee productivity levels, through the elimination of unnecessary and intrusive practices, a simplified HR approach can lead to a new way while still maintaining support for the organizational strategic plan.

Discussion Questions:

  1. To what degree do you think the employer should be able to monitor the remote workforce?
  2. Instead of keystroke monitoring software, what other mechanisms can be put into place to track and report on employee performance?
  3. How would you react if you found out your employer was using spyware to monitor your work patterns? Explain your rationale.

Perilous Productivity

by

productivity chart sign on blackboard
woaiss/Shutterstock

In our strategic HR planning discussions, we focus heavily on the cost-benefit relationships of Human Resources operations to the organization. Using the human capital approach, the value that employees as a commodity bring into any organization is linked directly to the output that is produced for the organization. We assess employee value by ensuring that human productivity is constantly measured, evaluated and monitored as part of a best practice approach to human resources management.

It all makes sense from a pure HR planning perspective. When we move from theoretical planning to actual implementation, however, the human element of the human resources equation pops up again to remind us that we are always dealing with people, not just products.

In a recent research article the authors explore the negative impact of the incessant need modern organizations have to monitor employee productivity.

Click here to read the article.

As noted in this article, it seems that the Human Resources function has been trapped into measuring and promoting policies that contribute to increased employee anxiety. Increased employee anxiety leads to lower productivity and more employee dis-engagement. Are we, as HR professionals, responsible for contributing to the ‘mirage’ of successful productivity by avoiding the real implications of constant workplace pressure on our fellow human beings? In an effort to measure what people do, are we also contributing to the mechanism of who gets blamed when the results of what is measured go wrong?

Human Resources champions have fought long and hard for a seat at the corporate table. We argue that Human Resources has the strategic edge to brings the business numbers and the people numbers together so that decision-making produces organizational benefit. While our Human Resources champions do not want to give up that seat or that fight, we must be reminded of why we wanted to contribute to organizational success in the first place.

We represent the Humans in any organization. Human Resources must champion human achievement and organizational success, but not at the cost of worsening the human condition in the workplace.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What types of employee productivity measures do you think contribute to increased employee anxiety?
  2. Why would organizations (like the example of Volkswagen mentioned in the article) knowingly engage in the ‘misrepresentation’ of productivity data?
  3. In your opinion, does an ‘accountability culture’ breed a trust environment in the workplace? Why or why not?

Does Canada Lack Innovation and Productivity?

by

Is Canada falling behind because of lack of training investment?

HR Directors should raise the alarm! Canada is falling behind in productivity and innovation and it is due to lack of training and development for employees.

Click here to read the article

Statistics Canada has identified Canada as ranking in 20th place in the world for investment in employee training.  That is shockingly low for such a great country.

HRM ONLINE reports:

  • Just 30% of Canadian employees, aged 25 – 64, felt that they were receiving enough training to be able to do their job to the best of their abilities.
  • The Canadian figure sits far lower than that of the US, where 45% of employees reported receiving adequate training.
  • US businesses spend an average of 50% more on training their employees than Canadian companies do.

Think about it; we all know, in order to improve your organization you must develop your employees. The United States is training their employees and Canada is not! No wonder Canada is not improving our productivity, we are not investing in development or innovation.

Maybe the province of Quebec has got it right with all organizations with over $1 million in payroll have to invest 1% into employee training. It is too bad that other organizations don’t see the writing on the wall – If you don’t invest you don’t succeed!

HR Professionals must take a lead, raise the alarm, and get corporate training and development on the radar of corporate executives. Canada should be embarrassed that we are not in the top ten ranks for development. Corporations should make a conscious effort to invest more in corporate training and improve our productivity.

Discussion Questions

  1.  As a HR Professional, what arguments would you make to get increases to employee training?
  2. How serious do feel the lack of employee training investment is to Canada’s growth and productivity?

 

 

Working Moms and Family Status

by

If working moms are more productive, how can you ask the question about “family status” in an interview? Babies on the wall and all!

Click here to view the article.

This article seems to fly in the face of asking questions related to family status. If working moms are more productive, how can HR practitioners ensure that entire recruitment process is still fair and equitable to all applicants?

Businesswoman With Daughter
Photo Credit: Fuse/Thinkstock

As HR practitioners, we use the interview process to make sure that the ‘best’ candidate comes forward through each stage of the recruitment process. At the same time, we need to be wary of treading into preconceived ideas as to who is more effective as a worker especially when we start dealing with ‘typical’ labeling or stereotypes based on what is trending or current in dealing with workplace issues.

Supermoms may exist. So do Superdads. Does having children matter when we look to a commitment by the individual when they make a decision to join your particular workplace? Maybe we should be clear about what type of work environment the candidate is walking into so that they (the candidate) can decide whether or not the work that is required best suits their own lifestyle and work-life choices.

Discussion Questions:

  • Is it ever okay to ask the question regarding family status in an interview?
  • How do we evaluate potential employee productivity during the recruitment process?
  • What kinds of scheduling considerations should the HR practitioner put into place when dealing with employees who may have parental obligations?
  • What kinds of workplaces would be best suited to providing a ‘child’ friendly work environment?
  • Does having family friendly HR policies cause levels of discrimination?
  • What are the policy considerations that the HR Practitioner should be developing?