人力资源管理模型英文版.doc

When you sit down to evaluate your organization’s performance, what measures come to mind?
Chances are, you first think about your balance sheet measures: how much revenue did we generate last quarter, how much was our growth in sales and profits or what gains did we make in our market share? Next, you may think about the costs: equipment, material, travel and so on. Or perhaps it is your customer measures that come up for consideration: have complaints increased, are they repurchasing our products? These key performance indicators (KPIs) are important and you consider them on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis.
What is often missing from this list is an area that accounts for one of your largest expenses and perhaps creates the most value: your people, or what many now call “Human Capital”. People are one of the most important indicators of an organization’s ability to create and sustain value: they come up with the ideas for new innovations, they delight your customers, and they produce your products. In spite of this, many organizations have difficulty demonstrating how spending on people and people programs produce a return on investment.
Human Capital Measurement (HCM) bridges this gap by helping organizations focus on people measures, to better understand and predict how employees contribute to their success. It allows companies to quantify how employees are impacted by programs such as training and development, recognition and work-life balance. It also assesses how employees react to organizational changes such as mergers or major restructuring. Most importantly, it can provide the same level of rigor that other areas of your business apply to evaluate their investments.
Hewitt Associates has developed a leadership position in the use of Human Capital Measurement. Our Best Employers research supports a growing amount of evidence connecting effective people management with long-term organizational performance. Similarly, we have a number of HCM approaches that we have applied to help organizations sharpen their people investment strategies. In this issue of HQ, we give you some insight into our approach to HCM and describe several specific client situations where this approach has helped them achieve their strategic goals and realize tangible results. Our philosophy toward HCM is to align the approach to your specific situation. We illustrate a wide range of approaches that describe how people scorecards and key organizational performance metrics are developed, optimal people behaviors identified and predictive models framed.
HCM can appear daunting and complex but our consultants can work with you from wherever you are starting and to whatever level of sophistication you desire, to help you understand and realize the value of your human capital. HCM is fun, challenging and a leading-edge work. It provides our consultants with a feeling of success and it produces great value for our clients.
Mick Bennett
Managing Director, Asia Pacific
Hewitt Associates LLC

The average human life span has risen dramatically from a life expectancy of 40 in the early 1900s to 75 years at the turn of the millennium. The human race has learned what factors need to be monitored to increase longevity: a balanced diet, regular exercise, monitoring key measures such as blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. Identifying, monitoring and acting on the right measures has doubled the human life span in one century.
Company life expectancy has not fared as well. In the late 1920s and 1930s the average company life span was over 60 years. Now the average life span of companies is 12-一五 years. So many companies will “die” in their teens and only a handful will survive into the next century.

To complicate the situation, the world as a marketplace is shrinking and competitors straddle the globe. A new service offering is duplicated within hours, a product launch sees competitors'‚ reply on the shop shelves within days and a technical breakthrough is copied within weeks. The sourcing of raw material and talent spans the globe. So does the supply.
Along with these changes, the days of a lone entrepreneur who performed all functions single-handedly or with a couple of apprentices are long gone. Today, world-class factories that house non-stop assembly lines work with hundreds of employees. Products, processes and technology are easily available or duplicated. So why do some companies survive and others fail in a short period of time?
The company’s workforce has emerged as a key asset and is often described as the only competitive advantage that a company possesses. Employee behavior, the knowledge and experience they bring, together with their commitment to the organization are key drivers for sustainability and growth.
Squeezing savings in the supply chain, ensuring higher capacity utilization at the shop floor, continuously upgrading the product and delighting customers with efficient service models are all efforts that are steered by employees. Every business needs workers who take ownership of their work and the workplace. They need to be bargain buyers, effective salespeople, have unfaltering faith in their products, zealously guard their customers, painstakingly track the competition and above all, have an uncompromising commitment, loyalty and honesty towards the organization and its stakeholders.
To survive, sustain and grow in this context, where employee excellence is required more than ever before to achieve sustainable growth, the role of the corporation has been changing too. The old systems of training, monitoring and awarding employees are inadequate. The sheer size of businesses deems that impractical. Businesses now need to focus on attracting, retaining and harnessing the best talent in a more holistic and strategic manner.
To be successful in all this, companies need to measure the value that employees bring to the organization, evaluate their impact on business performance and then align them with the business results. Companies have always measured their investments in more tangible assets such as buildings, equipment and even new products. Yet, many still pay less attention to their employees. Companies continue to focus on physical assets that were crucial historically or whose productivity is easily measurable financially.
“What gets measured gets done” may have described the dynamics of the factory floor but did not have much to do with the human resource department. Moreover, measuring the “soft stuff” or the human capital has been difficult if not impossible That is, till now.
Considerable evidence already exists, both in academic research and in work done by Hewitt Associates, that successful companies know the value that people can bring to the organization, invest appropriately in their talent and measure the impact their investment has on the bottom line. The notion of the employee-customer value chain was first made broadly popular in the January 1998 issue of the Harvard Business Review, which detailed a value driver model at Sears in the United States. (See Figure 1.)
Today many similar models exist in organisations around the world. Hewitt’s Best Employer studies have shown that these companies have higher revenue growth and greater profitability than other organizations. These numbers vary considerably across regions but what is common and consistent is better business performance.
These organizations create an environment that enables employee engagement, capturing the hearts and minds of employees to deliver extraordinary performance. An engaged employee is one who consistently speaks positively about the organization, stays with the organization despite opportunities to work elsewhere and exerts extra effort in work and behavior that contributes to business success. Hewitt’s Best Employer studies, for example, clearly demonstrate that The Best have much higher employee engagement (73% vs. 52%) and lower turnover (10% vs. 一五%) on an average. This global research has conclusively established the high correlation between employee engagement and business performance gauged through key business measures. It has shown that organizations that improved the employee engagement levels simultaneously produced rises in productivity, employee retention, customer satisfaction, total shareholder return (TSR) and sales growth. Using a database of over 100 public corporations that completed an engagement study over a five-year period, Hewitt Associates has demonstrated the following:
² High performing companies have an engagement score that is 20-25% higher than average;
² The correlation between employee engagement and a company’s average five-year TSR is 0.54. This means the level of employee engagement explains 29% of the variation in TSR; and
² A similar relationship exists between engagement and five-year sales growth. The correlation measured here was 0.46, again indicating a strong relationship.
On a micro level, Hewitt’s consulting work with specific organizations has also identified a strong and consistent link between engagement and a variety of measures like financial performance, customer satisfaction and employee and customer retention.
As you will see in a later article, a Hewitt study involving companies that show double-digit growth (DDG, showing cumulative 10%+ growth over a five-year period), also exhibited a much higher level of engagement in the organization. As many as 93% of executives at DDG companies are engaged compared to 52% for all employees in all companies (see Figure 2).
All this research allows us to suggest a generic, high-level model for the important role that employee engagement has in outperforming your competitors. This notion of employee engagement is, we believe, certainly not the only but without doubt the core and fundamental building block of human capital.
A giant step forward from attitude and satisfaction measures of the past, HCM delivers invaluable data regarding employee engagement. And organizations that are following through on strategies to boost their employee engagement are not only improving their short and medium-term business results, but are also solving the talent dilemma and driving long-term value for their shareholders, customers, and employees.
For a detailed discussion of the Best Employers research, see Hewitt’s best selling Leadership and Talent in Asia: How the Best Employers deliver extraordinary performance.

Organizations are beginning to look at their human capital investments with interest. HCM helps them understand the return on this investment as well as evaluate its impact on business performance

Today, it is rare that an organization should not have employees as one of its top three or four expense categories. Salaries, benefits, training and development, recruiting, employee communication, lost productivity due to turnover … it all adds up to a huge investment. While organizations apply rigorous scrutiny to the investments they make in capital equipment, acquisitions of business and similar investment decisions, few apply equivalent rigour to question the multi-million dollar investment they make each year in their employees. Fewer understand their employee investments beyond the cost of salary and benefits and fewer still understand the return on their investment in employees. This is the information that Human Capital Measurement (HCM) provides to help you run your business efficiently.
Employees are not just a cost. Like any other investment, they provide a return.
Employees are not just a cost. Like any other investment, they provide a return. Increasingly, the contribution of employees accounts for more of an organization’s ability to compete, grow and produce value. We all know that there is a large gap between the market value of most organizations and what appears on their balance sheets.
Hopefully for your business that gap is a positive difference — things are serious when it’s negative. In today’s economy, it’s estimated that on average the market value stands at $4.50 for every $1 that appears on the balance sheet. While this number has dropped from the heady highs of $7.50 in March 2000, this 4.5:1 ratio still accounts for a large portion of your organization’s value. Figure 1 shows the results from Baruch Lev’s study of market-to-book ratios – it clearly demonstrates the growth in this ratio since the late 70s.
So what accounts for the difference? Typically, these are the organization’s intangible assets. Intangibles include a variety of factors such as brand strength and reputation, relationships with customers, patents and a variety of factors that we call human capital; these include quality of leadership, employee creativity, productivity, loyalty, passion and knowledge management. Scarcity in one or more of these areas or sub-optimal productivity in them is often more constraining for businesses than financial capital. At times, businesses have been taken over merely to acquire their intellectual or human capital.
“As the correlation between quality of human capital and business performance becomes clearer, the notion of human capital being represented on financial statements has surfaced,” says Mark C Ubelhart, Value-Based Management Practice Leader with Hewitt Associates. Ubelhart has been working on developing methods that can help measure the contribution of human capital and drive decisions to invest in people. He says, “The new frontiers of measuring human value are being developed in financial metrics similar to those being used in everyday investment processes.”
HCM describes a variety of people measurement practices that help organizations understand and quantify their people investments. As an approach, it also helps HR build credibility with the line functions, as HR measures now become more performance focused and demonstrate an understanding of value creation.
It would be wrong to think of HCM as a unified body of practice. There are numerous approaches, models, “offers” and conceptual frameworks. A simple way to try and get an understanding of HCM, no matter how evolved the thinking in your organization, is illustrated in Figure 2.
As organizations begin to adopt these frameworks, HCM is evolving very quickly. Until recently, there were few robust cases or methods for demonstrating the relationships that exist between investments in people and business outcomes. HCM consisted of measuring and benchmarking, for which the measures in vogue were focused on either efficiency or accuracy (for example, the ratio of HR staff to employees, number of payroll errors, time to fill vacant posts etc).
For evaluation, these productivity metrics were then benchmarked against best practices and were not focused on the results they produce – a 10:1 or 20:1 employee to HR staff ratio does not necessarily produce a tangible result. The majority of organizations continue to follow th