PwC's new report entitled 'Managing people in a changing world' - now subtitled Key Trends in human capital' - has instigated the usual debate with the usual responses -see 'Senior HR figures reject claims......'.
Given the scope of the report, a global perspective in 48 pages is pretty impressive if you like your information at 50,000 feet whilst viewing an area at 50 feet above ground.
Before I review the comments from either side, can we just clarify that PwC is primarily an accounting firm that does some 'benchmarking' (what remains of Saratoga) of the HR function and gets involved with systems integration projects which include HR shared services, which is not quite the same as those specialists in human capital management.
With that rider I'll move on.......
There's some fairly useful information to be gleaned from the report although there is a very little 'newness' in that most has already been covered before.
Metrics - we've been here before
The (?) metrics and their associated definitions (figure 24 on page 34) are presented. For those who have read various publications from VaLUENTiS and ISHCM you will note that we have time and again raised caution with these metrics as in using them as benchmark comparisons and that further adjustments need to be made to provide an 'evidence-based' comparison. I'm not going to repeat the rationale here because it gets boring - see our 'Cracking the Human Capital Code' if you must.
The other 'metrics' are the usual suspects which can provide useful intelligence but all too often don't since they require context and sub-level measures below the aggregate. You see, at the aggregate level if you had benchmarked some ten years ago you will find that many numbers have hardly changed because it's not the level that is insightful. I've never understood why people subscribe to aggregate single-dimension benchmarks on an annual basis?
One-dimensional metrics as these are are pretty limited which is why our VB-HR Rating scorecard is 360 multi-dimensional and infinitely more insightful.
PwC even get around to finally mentioning employee engagement though it's a bit patchy.
HR function
The piece on the HR function is possibly (and expectedly) their strongest, but it's let down by two things (i) the 'voice of the customer'. NOW I'LL SAY IT ONCE MORE - HR FUNCTIONS DON'T HAVE CUSTOMERS THEY HAVE CUSTOMER-AGENTS. FULL-STOP; and (ii) HR functional delivery is really much bigger than the 'Ulrich line'. Full-stop.
But I agree with their summary provided in the HR function implications albeit I'm not sure that we are looking to 'arrest the decline in status'. On the contrary, we, as a professional services firm and School, are looking to positively enhance the status of the profession and function which we find is best initiated at ground level as much as at the higher echelon of corporate HQs.
The other thing to state regarding human capital measurement is that - Organisations need to get it, not just HR functions as PwC imply. The 'organisation-HR function' relationship is a system - it's not two disconnected boxes as accounting would like.
And just a word of caution, I have to take with a pinch of salt these days some of the data gleaned from CEOs on which a lot of this report is based.
My only other concern is that the quotes contained with in the PT article by those 'defending' seem to be 'mashing' the HR function with the HR profession. The two are not necessarily the same. But nonetheless their comments provide a positive rebuttal. PwC's report is based much on the HR function.
One final comment
Since the 'pulling' of the OFR, PwC have been pretty quiet since and 'appeared' in a market sense, to have downgraded their practice in this whole area judged on their limited output.
I am left with the feeling that this report is basically a 'market catch-up' document. If you find anything of value or insightful you really must have been living in a cave - or you certainly haven't read our voluminous output in human capital management amongst others in the interim.......
'Tatty-bye'
