By Melissa J. Anderson

A new study [PDF] by the Economist Intelligence Unit shows that HR functions at large companies are facing an interesting opportunity. For years, HR was seen as an administrative function, focused on policies and paperwork. But today, much of that administrative work is being outsourced – which leaves HR leaders with a lot more bandwidth.

At the same time, senior management executives are increasingly concerned about talent, worrying that they are missing out on opportunities because they don’t have the right people, or the right people aren’t trained properly.

The report, which was sponsored by IBM and Oracle, suggests that HR use that extra bandwidth to focus on business strategy.

Gretchen Alarcon, Vice President at Oracle HCM Strategy said, “With businesses competing in a fierce race for global talent and focused on optimizing limited resources, senior HR leaders are increasingly being tapped to offer strategic guidance and planning.”

She continued, “As technology helps automate processes and eases administration, HR can focus more time on aligning talent strategies with long-term business goals. This report provides a blueprint for HR leaders to enhance their relationships with CEOs and CFOs, which will help them play a more strategic role in business direction, growth and success.”

The desire to move HR into a more strategic position is there. CEOs say they want it, and so does HR. But at the same time, CEOs don’t seem willing to grant HR leaders that power. That presents a Catch-22 for HR leaders who desire a more strategic role.

Strategic Evolution

According to the EIU study, which polled 235 C-level executives (57 percent CEOs), business leaders believe in the abilities of their heads of HR, but feel they lack the business experience to provide valuable insight into strategy. “This indicates that heads of HR have not completed their transition from administrator to strategic partner in the eyes of the CEO,” the report says.

That’s a problem for everyone involved, though. According to the study, the executive suite sorely needs insight into talent management. EIU found that CEOs are highly concerned about the people side of their business.

“For example, more than half of survey respondents say that “insufficient talent within the organisation as a whole” [56 percent] might harm their company financially within the next 12 months. Significant proportions also worry about “insufficient leadership talent” [43 percent], “lack of alignment of individual and business objectives” [41 percent] and “low employee satisfaction” [38 percent].”

Why then, have HR leaders yet to take on a more integral role in the C-suite? According to the study, CEOs and other C-Suite officers may not have faith in their strategic know-how. “Forty-one percent think their HR heads are “too focused on processes and rules” and 37% say that they don’t “understand the business well enough.”

Best Practices

The report suggests that HR leaders push to be included in strategic discussions and find ways to prove their business know how, to emphasize that they are not simply a CEO confidante, but a function leader who deserves to be at the table.

The EIU says HR leaders should push to get a seat on the board of the executive committee. “This is how the head of HR develops relationships and gains relevancy. At the very least, demand more time
together, in order to have the opportunity to explore higher-level issues.”

Finally, the report suggests that HR leaders ensure they are focusing on strategic topics in meetings with other C-level executives. After all, according to the study, in large companies (over US$10 billion) the primary subject of conversation with HR leaders is executive performance and development (72 percent) – rather than broad, strategic talent management issues.

“The head of HR needs to probe the issues that really matter to both the CEO and CFO—the ones they are concerned may harm the company financially. Demonstrating creative and proactive problem solving on these issues will demonstrate clearly the value of the head of HR.”

By proactively discussing business strategy and talent management solutions to business challenges, HR leaders can prove their value and their know-how to senior management, and earn their space at the table.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to a new research report by SilkRoad, a Talent Management Software Provider, the use of technology like mobile devices, social media, and the cloud by corporate employees is driving the adoption of these technologies by Talent Management professionals.

For example, more and more employees are using their own personal mobile devices in the office – and, while some of that usage is personal, a large portion of it is simply to connect with colleagues and clients. Similarly, recruiters are using their personal mobile devices to reach new hires. The report explains:

“Disruptive technologies and tools, such as personal mobile devices, tablet computing, and social media give the workforce access to a wealth of information beyond the 9 to 5 day. HR professionals must prepare and retrain themselves, so that they can work in multi-disciplinary teams to develop a cohesive strategy for new technology.”

The research also shows that Talent Management functions are increasing their usage of enterprise technology on their own terms – rather than through IT – and that these programs are often piecemeal or not integrated well into corporate systems. Talent leaders have an opportunity to create more streamlined, integrated approaches to Talent Management software that can result in a more forward looking, business focused talent regime for companies.

By Melissa J. Anderson

A new study by researchers at Stanford, MIT, and Harvard shows that, when it comes to board directors, networking matters. The report, “Boardroom Centrality and Firm Performance
,” shows that firms with more networked board members performed better financially.

The authors of the working paper, David F. Larcker, Stanford University Graduate School of Business; Eric C. So, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Sloan School of Management; and Charles C. Y. Wang, Harvard Business School explain that networks are the way information and power flows through the business space. They write:

“Social and economic networks are a central feature of virtually all economic activities. These networks serve as a conduit for interpersonal and inter-organizational support, influence, and information flow. The links between individuals in these networks are the channels by which information is communicated, new relationships are formed, and existing relationships are leveraged.”

They continue, “In this paper, we ask the following question: is there an empirical relationship between a firm’s performance and its position within the corporate boardroom network?” According to the results, there is.

Firms with most networked board directors produced an average risk adjusted return 4.68% higher than firms with less networked directors. Their future growth in return-on-assets is also higher.

By Melissa J. Anderson

A new study by BlessingWhite Research, a division of GP Strategies, shows that engagement levels have ticked slightly up around the world since 2011. This can likely be attributed to the slowly stabilizing global economic environment. But the research noted some interesting regional differences as well, differences that reveal the economy may not be the driving factor behind employee engagement.

Engagement levels in North America, India, and China all rose, while those in Europe, Australia, and those in New Zealand remained relatively flat. Interestingly, BlessingWhite points out, engagement levels are lowest in China relative to other regions.

“Shifts aside, China remains the region with the lowest levels of engagement and India the highest – a long-standing conclusion that highlights the cultural differences between these two countries and dispels the usefulness of the BRICS nomenclature in developing human capital strategies.”

By focusing on the differences in employee engagement between regions, demographic groups, and other segments, employers can better meet the needs of their workforce, driving engagement and therefore productivity and retention.

By Melissa J. Anderson

A new report by the management software company Mindjet finds that workers in the UK are relatively disengaged from their jobs. The firm partnered with Opinion to poll 2,000 white collar workers at the end of 2012.

Only about half (54 percent) of respondents say that they “care passionately about helping their employer be successful,” and roughly the same fraction (49 percent) said they “take their role in their employers’ success seriously.”

But most troubling were responses to the questions on work motivation. About a third of respondents (32 percent) say they need to “change their everyday working practices to drive success.” And about the same percentage (38 percent) said they didn’t see a point in changing their work practices “because no-one notices or cares.”

Mindjet blames the economic situation in the UK for the lack of engagement. Companies have been focused on doing more with less for so long that they have neglected to actively manage or coach staff. As the report explains, “the recession may have left them feeling battle-weary.”

By Melissa J. Anderson

As the global economy continues to spin through a “new normal” of cash flow uncertainty and reduced workforce, a new McKinsey report suggests that companies must start finding ways to alleviate the pressure on executives due to a new kind of resource scarcity: time.

Researchers Frankki Bevins and Aaron De Smet write in the McKinsey Quarterly, “The impact of always-on communications, the growing complexity of global organizations, and the pressures imposed by profound economic uncertainty have all added to a feeling among executives that there are simply not enough hours in the day to get things done.”

Of course time scarcity has always been a challenge, but McKinsey believes today’s situation is new. In the same way that new technology enables people to stay in touch with work anytime and anyplace, they are obligated to. And because hiring has not been prioritized through the economic recovery, already overloaded professionals are expected to take on yet more projects, and to work around the clock, wherever they are.

McKinsey believes that time management has for too long been dismissed as a “personal problem,” for executives to handle on their own. Addressing time management from an institutional standpoint, write Bevins and De Smet, would help companies get more done, hang on to precious funds, and help retain high performers.

“Time management isn’t just a personal-productivity issue over which companies have no control; it has increasingly become an organizational issue whose root causes are deeply embedded in corporate structures and cultures” they write.

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to new research by the UK-based Institute of Leadership & Management, there is a correlation between measures of personal performance and positivity in UK managers. The “positivity-performance nexus,” as ILM calls it, means that managers who rate their performance highly are also the most positive, and vice versa. Manager positivity and performance numbers also have a bearing on the positivity and performance of direct reports.

The top decile of managers in terms of performance were also the happiest, and rated themselves the highest in terms of coping with stress and workload. The lowest decile gave themselves the lowest scores in terms of positivity, as well as in coping with stress and workload. Additionally, managers who rated their direct reports as happy tended to score themselves more highly on performance and positivity topics.

The ILM study, “The pursuit of happiness: positivity and performance among UK managers,” which polled 1,000 managers, also revealed what companies can do to improve managerial positivity and performance. The report explains:

“Happiness flows both up and down through an organisation, from managers to their teams and back again, and is directly linked to confidence in their own performance. By monitoring and maintaining the happiness of their staff, organisations can drive their performance and productivity.”

By pinpointing the factors that drive positivity, leaders can improve performance across their companies.

By Melissa J. Anderson

A new study released by Dale Carnegie & Associates – the 100 year old leadership training company – has identified three key factors that determine employee engagement: their relationship with their immediate supervisor, their belief in senior management, and their pride in working for the company.

The firm set out to identify how and why employees might be engaged because it believes people are main determinant in a company’s competitive edge. The report explains:

“The one thing that creates sustainable competitive advantage – and therefore ROI, company value and long-term strength – is the workforce, the people who are the company. And when it comes to people, research has shown, time and again, that employees who are engaged significantly outperform work groups that are not engaged. In the fight for competitive advantage where employees are the differentiator, engaged employees are the ultimate goal.”

By focusing on the three factors that drive employee engagement, companies can gain the advantage over their industry competitors.

By Melissa J. Anderson

A new study by McKinsey Global Institute indicates that, despite the growing global population, companies should anticipate skills shortages around the world. The problem, McKinsey suggests is not a people shortage, but rather that people will not have the skill sets that companies need in the coming decades.

The authors, by Richard Dobbs, Anu Madgavkar, Dominic Barton, Eric Labaye, James Manyika, Charles Roxburgh, Susan Lund, and Siddarth Madhav, write that skills scarcity should encourage corporations to partner with governments on ensuring that future workers are equipped to operate in tomorrow’s workplace.

They explain, “While market forces will move to eliminate projected imbalances before their full impact is felt, they cannot be avoided entirely without a concerted, global effort by governments and businesses to raise educational attainment and provide job-specific training.”

By Melissa J. Anderson

According to the recently released third annual Reward Risks survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), HR and benefits practitioners are concerned that that benefits packages are not driving employee engagement.

They are also worried about rising costs and the ability to continue to provide rewards packages that attract top performers. Charles Cotton, CIPD Advisor for Performance and Reward, and Andrew Menhennet, Principal Consultant at Yellow Hat Limited write:

“The survey shows that the reward professionals are very aware of the risks of not achieving the right balance between affordability and a competitive reward package. Constrained ability to pay – either as a result of corporate performance or externally driven pay restraint – underpins many of the reward risks anticipated for the next 12 months, suggesting that few expect a change to the situation in the short term.”

The report aims to analyze specific challenges companies are having around implementing rewards packages. Ensuring benefits are both engaging and affordable is a delicate a balance for many organizations.