ORC Sightlines
April 2008
In this issue:
- Has Self-Service Gone Too Far? A Self-Service Checklist
- U.S. Progressing on Global Classification and Labeling System for Hazardous Chemicals
- Market Pricing Helps Companies Create Global Compensation Platforms
- Senior HR Officers Build Community, Relationships, Business (and Houses)
Has Self-Service Gone Too Far? A Self-Service Checklist
Self-service has become the delivery model of choice for many HR services, from hiring to benefits enrollment, salary administration to training. It is intended to save money, to free up HR people to focus on more strategic work, and—at least the argument goes—to empower managers and employees at large. But has something important been lost along the way? Some organizations are reporting push back from managers and employees who miss the person-to-person contact of the old model and feel disconnected from the company’s center.
At a recent meeting of ORC’s Human Resources Technology Solutions Network (HRTS), members discussed whether self-service has moved companies too far away from the “high touch” model. The group identified a set of criteria that could be considered when deciding which activities might be good candidates for self-service and which might be better handled between the employee and a real HR representative. These considerations, presented below, constitute in themselves, a self-service checklist HR managers can use to help make service-delivery decisions.
Self-Service Decision-Making Checklist
- How easy or complex is the task?
- How frequently does the task need to be completed?
- What level of decision support is needed to execute the task?
- Is the automated self-service application replacing something employees or managers were already doing for themselves in nonautomated form, or was the task previously done elsewhere (e.g., by the HR “valet”)?
- Is there a need for a documentation/audit trail to meet compliance requirements?
- What is the corporate culture in terms of self-sufficiency versus the valet concept?
- What condition is the process in? Is it well defined and tightly managed or is it messy and undisciplined?
- Are key leaders “walking the talk” or are they delegating self-service tasks to their own administrative support people?
- Is there a good reason for having the employee/manager execute the task (e.g., a better-quality outcome)?
- To what extent can you provide support for self-service (e.g., live chat)?
- Are self-service tools integrated and consistently branded, or do they all look different and function differently?
- Are there any data integrity barriers to successfully executing the task?
- Is the task consistent with the employees/managers’ sense of their roles (i.e., it’s not my job)?
Another consideration is the nature of the audience or, in most cases, audiences. There may need to be different delivery solutions for different populations, depending on their location, culture, and so forth. For example, shop floor workers without access to private computers may require a different type of service than managers in offices do. Managers in offices remote from HR personnel may benefit from self-service in situations where those at headquarters prefer more personal delivery methods.
Where self-service actually contributes to the business—by improving the quality of decisions or increasing efficiency—and where the organizational culture and systems are well configured to support it, self-service remains a viable and valuable tool. But, HRTS members concluded, it should not be entered into without a clear understanding of what is needed to make it work and what might be given up in the process.
The Human Resources Technology Solutions Network is a forum for directors and vice presidents in charge of their organizations’ HR information systems or technology, business systems, HR applications, technology and operations, HR operations, or administrative services. For more information, contact Cynthia Laird at +1-310-846-4206 or Jodi Starkman at +1-310-374-6270.
U.S. Progressing on Global Classification and Labeling System for Hazardous Chemicals
Sixteen years after the United Nations endorsed a global system for standardizing the way hazardous chemicals are classified and labeled, implementation efforts are underway around the world. ORC consultant Ann Brockhaus predicts that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is unlikely to have the Globally Harmonized System for the Classification and Labeling of Hazardous Chemicals (GHS) in place this year as had been hoped. However, the agency should be able to meet its self-imposed deadline of December 2008 for publishing proposed rules that, once approved, would launch the program in the US.
Brockhaus, whose comments appear in the April 2008 issue of Safety+Health, commends OSHA on its commitment to the GHS and the progress it has already made towards composing hazard communications rules consistent with the global standards. The rule-making process is complicated, however, by the regulatory process in the US, which provides opportunity for input from stakeholders, and the need for other agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to modify their own rules.
The good news, according to Brockhaus, is that “there is a great deal of support [for GHS] in the United States among a broad array of stakeholders…simply because it is a trade issue.” Congress has also demonstrated its interest in the GHS, and has required OSHA to explain any delays in its action plan.
Market Pricing Helps Companies Create Global Compensation Platforms
Many companies with truly global workforces are attempting to build global job architecture and compensation programs that will facilitate the transfer of jobs and talent anywhere in the world. It is a tricky business, though—designing a system that will maintain internal equities across countries and regions while at the same time responding to local conditions.
A number of ORC clients are finding that SIRS® leveling in combination with market pricing is a very workable approach. Market pricing marries internal and external equity because it uses actual data from the competitive market to determine the internal hierarchy. There are a number of advantages:
- The methodology provides an objective platform for determining organization strata and for establishing job hierarchies and equivalencies.
- Job evaluation and competitive pricing of jobs, usually two separate, consecutive steps in the process, are collapsed into one.
- The internal job hierarchy, defined as it is by the market, is easy to explain and defend.
- Because it is anchored in real market data, “grade creep” is less likely to slip into the system.
- The methodology works equally well for large or small organizations.
The first step in the market pricing process is to identify benchmark jobs that represent the different types of work performed in the organization and readily identifiable functions. Benchmarks should encompass a significant portion of the employee population, including a cross section of levels. Those benchmarks are then priced against appropriate survey data and the data analyzed to identify market reference points. Jobs are arrayed in hierarchical order based on those reference points and nonbenchmark jobs slotted appropriately. The salary administration structure can then be built from here.
Tying the compensation system this tightly to the market may not be the best approach for every company. Getting started requires a full-scale market review, and nearly all jobs need to be priced, which generally requires data from multiple surveys. Fortunately for subscribers to ORC’s SIRS® Salary System, the SIRS® comprehensive benchmarks and leveling framework provide an excellent basis for performing this sort of analysis globally.
For more information about market pricing or SIRS®, contact Joan Naudts at +1-212-852-0345, or your SIRS® representative.
Senior HR Officers Build Community, Relationships, Business (and Houses)
Members of ORC’s Senior HR Officers Networks teamed up with Habitat for Humanity and spent a day of their annual conference building a new home for Joy and Charles Baker in New Orleans. The Bakers’ home was submerged by ten feet of water when a levee broke in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The family found temporary housing out of state, only to have it, too, destroyed by another hurricane. They lived in Atlanta for over a year until FEMA delivered a temporary trailer to their property, where they’ve been living while their house is reconstructed. They expect to finally move in to their new home by the end of May. By helping to rebuild the lives of this one family, Network members contributed to the rebuilding of a whole community. The experience was an inspiring lead-in to the rest of the conference, which was spent building relationships among members and examining the ways that relationships and culture affect business growth.
Dov Seidman, author of how: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything…in Business (and in life) asked participants:
- Can you name your company’s top 15 performers?
- Can you name the company’s top 15 ethical and inspiration leaders?
- Are they the same people?
If not, those currently on the “top performing” list may not remain there. In an increasingly connected world where information travels at light speed, Seidman believes, it is no longer possible to manage corporate reputations through spin or containing information. Leaders need to focus instead on earning a reputation for the company based on consistent, values-based conduct—that is, on what the company does and how it does it.
Of the three basic ways to influence behavior—coercion, motivation, and inspiration—Seidman maintains that inspiration is most effective. To inspire their organizations, leaders must be trustworthy themselves and nurture an environment of trust. Only in such an environment will employees feel safe enough to take the risks that lead to innovation and, ultimately, business success.
Seidman takes his thesis further, arguing that organizations built on trust eventually evolve a culture of values-based self-governance. The likelihood and desirability of such an outcome was the subject of some debate among members. Judging from the spirited conversations around the lunch table, Seidman’s presentation provoked deep thought about the culture and governance structures that will be most effective in 21st century companies.
For more information about ORC’s Networks for chief HR officers, please contact Karen Kachadoorian, +1-212-852-0312.