When HR surveys and employee perspectives are misaligned
What is people or human analytics? It's a way to use data about what employees do at work in order change how effectively the company operates. Ben Waber, President and CEO of Humanyze, who invented this technique says that it differs from traditional methods such as annual surveys or polls because there are no Group Manager Questions (GMRs) asked during these sessions; instead behavioral information on everything an employee does throughout their shift or day, including things they may not think are important, is recorded by sensors installed around buildings and (or) on people.
This all sounds a bit invasive, but Waber insists that it's not. The data collected is anonymous and used to improve things like the layout of the office, or to identify which team members work best together. "It's not about watching people," he says. "It's about making the workplace better for everyone."
The benefits are clear - but there are also some potential pitfalls.
The first is that people analytics is still in its early days, which means that it's not always accurate or could be far more accurate than typical HR surveys and tools.
The second potential pitfall is more serious: people analytics could be used to micromanage employees. If your boss knows exactly how long you take to write a report or how many emails you send each day, they might start to question why you're not working harder or faster.
领英推荐
This is a legitimate concern, but it's one that Waber says can be avoided by using people analytics the right way. "The data should be used to empower employees, not control them," he says.
It's important to note that while surveys and polls can be a good way of getting an idea about how employees feel, they don't measure what people really think or believe. This means it may not actually reflect reality as much because perception versus truth often differs from one person’s opinion vs another individual who has been polled in exactly similar circumstances with regard their own experiences at work or there's always a chance that the sample size adopted for polls was too small and therefore cannot represent opinions accurately or employees were intimidated to express their true opinions.
Read more on the subject line in the comments section below.
Narghiza E. , Founder of The Golden Ritual
Strategy with Adam
2 年It often feels like HR surveys are just to collect data. Have any of the points individuals made been considered? When does one see changes based on the surveys. And then next year's survey shows up. The individual employee is not interested that 73 percent of the company filled out the survey instead of 71 percent.
Management Consulting firm | Growth Hacking | Global B2B Conference | Brand Architecture | Business Experience |Business Process Automation | Software Solutions
2 年Narghiza, thanks for sharing!
Author of The Leadership Letter weekly column; Consulting Expert with OnFrontiers; advisor and mentor on leadership and public service; retired U.S. Army and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Officer.
2 年I find several faults with these surveys: 1. The results are often ignored in that management pays lip service to identified issues and then it quickly fades back to the regular routine. 2. They are used for retribution. In smaller organizations, it's easy to identify who said what and vindictive managers make life worse for the employees. 3. They lack focus on the subjective. In looking purely at the numbers on the results, they fail to address the root causes, and instead look for simple solutions. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security conducted these surveys every year, and despite similar negative results over time, nothing really changed. Bad bosses stayed in positions, continued to advance, and sought retribution. Real actions to improve working conditions that drove negative comments didn't happen. Revisions to core structure faults remained in place. Upper management even took a fatalistic approach of expecting the same bad results every year which told us they really didn't care. They paid lip service through initiatives, focus groups, and training courses, but without looking at root causes, they were but window dressing.
Content Writer|| Data Entry Specialist || Environmental Scientist || Chemistry Lecturer. I create content to help brands solve environmental problems on their produce, products, and industries.
2 年That is the life a good HR Thanks for the share Narghiza E.