Chatting About Valuing Your Workforce with David Creelman

I chatted last week with our board member David Creelman about how companies can maximize the contribution of their frontline workforce and how they might report that value to investors in the future.  David has been deeply involved in a SHRM-led effort to develop an ANSI standard for what human capital information should be reported to investors.  As it turns out, some controversy has arisen about this effort between SHRM and the  Human Resources Policy Association, a lobbying group that includes HR leaders from more than 300 of the largest US organizations.  The former are lobbying for more transparency for investors when it comes to valuing an organization’s workforce.  The latter argue that reporting these metrics would place an unecessary administrative burden on organizations.

As a special bonus, we also talked about David’s chapter in our book, Elements of Successful Organizations.  Here he talks about what organizations can do to embrace employees’ unique strengths to better their business, while balancing that against the needs for product, process and services standards needed for scale.

Listen to the podcast below and take our poll to let us know where you come down on the workforce metrics issue:

9.6.12 Chat with David Creelman

[poll id=”21″]

2 thoughts on “Chatting About Valuing Your Workforce with David Creelman

  1. David provides a great recap of the work being done on standard metrics on human capital management to enable investors to make better investment decisions. I also liked the description of the debate on whether standards are a good idea included in Peter Cappelli’s column in HRExecutive Online. It’s at I think David is right — some sort of standards are inevitable.

  2. I think that this is an important discussion that needs to happen for the HR function to continue to evolve. Standard measurement will very likely drive better results in the long-term. “Proven” HR techniques, processes, systems, etc. will be put to the test. Those that have a consistently positive impact (as measured using standardized metrics and rules) will rise to the top and be more broadly adopted. Those that don’t have the advertised / intended impact will be exposed for what they truly are and will subsequently be either improved or discarded.
    I suspect a similar debate occurred when GAAP rules were first mandated. GAAP enables “apples to apples” comparisons of different organizations with one another. In this way outcomes are visible allowing for the unbiased investigation into root cause. Wouldn’t it be predominantly positive if the same dynamic occurred for HR? Seems like the benefit would outweigh the initial burden.

Please share your comments

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.