Image by Rebecca
This article is part of the Renegade Manifesto Series.
In order to create HR programs that inspire people to do great things that drive your business, you need great data. Of course, not all data is created equal.
If you want to develop better programs, use your employees as guinea pigs.
The problem with benchmarks
HR pros have a benchmark problem. The first thing most of us do when designing a new program is benchmark what other organizations have done.
I’m not suggesting you reinvent the wheel every time you create a program. But I am saying that benchmarks have many limitations, and aren’t necessarily the best place to start (or end) when designing a strategic HR program.
Benchmarks will tell you what other companies do, but not if what they do is successful. They don’t look at cause-effect relationships.
For example, a benchmark will tell you that an organization uses stock options to retain key employees. What it won’t tell you is that when options vest there is a mass exodus of people. If you’re designing a retention program around stock option grants, that’s pretty important to know!
Benchmarks also hinder the development of innovative HR programs. When you start copying what others have already done, you can only be just as good as your competition – never better.
Benchmarks definitely have their place in HR – strategic compensation, for example – but program design isn’t it.
The Guinea Pig Method
When designing strategic HR programs, you should act like a scientist. Conduct research, develop an experiment, observe the results and collect data.
Instead of benchmarking, look for empirical research. These are studies that explore cause-effect relationships. They often include information about how the study was conducted, what the specific variables were, and what the outcome was.
This is the information you really want to know:
- What did they do?
- How did they do it?
- Did it work?
- Why or why not?
Finding a few articles like this will give you far more useful information than any number of benchmarks will. Develop a program based on your research.
Your program is your experiment. Here’s where many HR pros get it wrong. They develop a program, and then roll it out to everyone. Instead, start with one team, one department or one location. They’re your guinea pigs.
See what happens. Collect lots of data, both before the experiment and after. Measure things that drive your business. Even though you’ve done your research, programs may work differently in your culture.
If it goes well, congrats! You can roll the program out organization-wide. And if it fails, you can tweak it (or scrap it altogether) without screwing up the whole organization.
RSS
Chris- I like the idea of approaching new programs in a scientific way. I am personally fond of researching ideas before implementation and also a proponent of pilot programs. It’s also easier to convince leadership to try things in small doses rather than rolling programs out to an entire division or company.
Informative post!
Trisha – thanks for the comments. Great point – a pilot group gives you great internal data to say, “See, this works!” to leadership.
For years, American business has suffered from “Perfect Planning Syndrome.” Symptoms are a believe that you can plan the error out of human enterprises, that the future or the needs of a market can be accurately predicted, and the idea that the plan and its implementation are two different things.
@Wally – interesting perspective, but I’m not necessarily seeing the connection between your comments and this post. Help me connect the dots?
i feel the same way about benchmarks or best practices. they *can* offer insight. they also can offer an expeditious, and not always appropriate way to do things in your org. since programs need to be implemented and implementation involves communication, i’d also advocate for early involvement of your friendly communication pro. he or she can add important perspective when you’re designing, running, and evaluating the pilot program.
@Fran – Thanks for the comment!