Across the sectors—philanthropy, nonprofit, and for-profit—we’ve experienced a shift in how “people management” is defined. My profession, which was once described as “personnel,” changed into “human resources” and is now transitioning to “talent management.” This evolution reflects an increasingly progressive view of how organizations should perceive and value employees.
A product of this evolution is the increased tendency of organizations to classify talent as an asset, measured and analyzed similar to other contributions to the bottom line or mission. Employees are no longer measured solely by salaries and headcount. And the rise of the knowledge worker and the rapid mobility of the workforce has forced employers to be more deliberate in how we attract, train, retain, and develop our employees.
In my experiences supporting talent management, I’ve realized the value of a metrics-based approach to tying employee behavior to organizational change. In one instance prior to joining CEP, I helped management recognize the correlation between an abnormally high rate of employee referrals and an overly homogenized workforce. As a result of relying on employees’ referrals, the organization was replicating many of the problems that were stagnating performance. By identifying this trend and tying it to the impact of a too-similar work group, we were able to adjust our hiring practices and diversify our workforce.
Additionally, I’ve seen a for-profit consulting organization analyze their turnover rate and use the data to implement performance management practices and drive management training initiatives, which resulted in higher retention rates. Regardless of industry or sector, metrics matter when it comes to managing talent.
After joining CEP, my primary objective was to refine our approach to talent management. In doing so, I had to identify what was working, what could be enhanced, and what should be eliminated. Finding these answers required an analysis of our employment practices, trends, and processes. Simply relying on anecdotes wouldn’t suffice. Without data, any answers that I established would be misguided and likely wrong.
One example of our use of metrics to manage talent comes from our annual Staff Perception Report, which CEP itself has used ever since launching the tool. In order to meet our high standards of quality and client service, CEP can be an exceptionally demanding place to work. And in our 2011 Staff Perception Report, staff expressed dissatisfaction with their work-life balance as a result of those demands.
In response, we developed a teleworking program for our staff and reduced schedules, allowing employees to balance their personal commitments and interests with their roles at CEP. Without surveying, measuring, and responding to this feedback, we would not have realized this need for workplace flexibility.
A metrics-based approach to talent management has also provided insights when we analyzed our hiring patterns. As a relatively small organization of 37 staff members, CEP has employed 82 professionals since our founding in 2001. Thirty eight, or almost 50 percent, of current and former staff have been hired into our Research Analyst role, which typically is filled by candidates up to a year out of college.
The data shows that our average tenure for this role has been 2.4 years, well below the 4.6 year average reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in September 2012. While it would be naive in this day and age for any employer to expect a majority of their entry-level hires to stay for nearly 5 years, understanding our historic rate of retention has helped us mitigate and address the impact that turning over this role has on our operations.
We also know that 58 percent of our former Research Analysts left the organization to attend graduate programs rather than other jobs, a percentage that has been relatively consistent over the years. This knowledge allows us to not only forecast the turnover in this role but to also better frame the opportunities of the position to prospective candidates. Additionally, we are developing a more defined career path for those analysts hoping to grow within our organization.
As an organization driven by data, using metrics to manage our talent is in keeping with our logic model—we gather data, act on the results, test, and refine our practices. However, we also take care to remember that whether we are talking about personnel, human resources, or talent management, we’re still talking about people. Without considering metrics, behaviors will always seem random. Without considering behaviors, metrics will just be numbers. Valuing both allows us to holistically manage, support, and understand our people and, in turn, develop them most effectively.
Brian Hughes is Director of Talent & Administration at the Center for Effective Philanthropy.
