An HR Survey

The Survey

The survey, commissioned by Strategic Dimensions, was a three page questionnaire given to candidates they were dealing with. These were given out for 18 months to over 120 people. In all 84 (70%) responded. The questionnaire was designed and analysed by Professor Adrian Furnham, University College, London.

The Sample

Candidates were asked to give their current job title: 38 had HR in the title (most HR Manager), 9 personnel in the title; four training, seven developments and eleven consultants. They came from an exceptional range of industry sectors from engineering to entertainment, food to franchising; consultancy to chemical; publishing to the police. In all over 30 different sectors were represented.

They were asked how many job changes they had experienced in the past 10 years (including promotions). The range was 10, the median 5. They were also asked how many years they had been working in HR: the range was 3 months to 34 years and the median was 14 year.

They were asked about their education: 64 had degrees (26 at post graduate level). In all 20 were doing part-time study, six post-graduate qualification and 12 CIPD qualifications.

They were asked also to indicate their current salary band. In all a third were on £25-£35,000 but a fifth were on £65,000 and above.

This was not a random, stratified or representative sample but it was sufficiently big and diverse to get an insight into people at this level in Britain today.

The Results

A. Reading

They were asked to note what HR/Business publications they read and to rank order them. By far, Personnel Today came out top (62) followed by People Management (20) followed by the Harvard Business Review (6). Only 12 magazines were mentioned in all. Candidates for these publications were nearly all personal (as opposed to corporate) subscribers; they claimed to read most issues; they read selected articles (rather than the whole thing) and they read it for product and market knowledge as well as general updates.

They were asked if they were reading or had read any salient books over the past 6 months. In all 43 listed books. Covey, Furnham, Handy & Schein were the authors most widely quoted.

It is difficult to know if senior/middle managers in marketing or engineering or finance would come across differently in their reading. In terms of magazine and books the group seemed very restricted in their range and it is perhaps surprising that nearly half claimed not to have read a salient book in the past 6 months.

B. Advice

Respondents were asked where they would go for advice on a complex HR topic / issue. They were given five choices to tick. Most (88%) chose their peer group or informal network; the next choice was a major general HR Consultancy (61 %) with almost the same number going to the web (60%). A smaller number (53%) mentioned a smaller niche consultancy firm but a large number had other suggestions: the CIPD, legal specialists, reference books, the company solicitor.

Friends and lawyers seemed the first call for these HR specialists. It says a bit about what they do!

C. Models

Respondents were invited to complete two open-ended questions. They read: "There are various models of corporate change / corporate culture. Which are you aware of and have had reason to use/make reference to." In all 33 (39%) gave an answer to the corporate/change model. Various were quoted the most frequently referenced in order were: Moss Kanter, Kotter, McKinsey and Burke-Litwin. Slightly fewer, 32 (38%) answered the corporate culture question. Most frequently cited were Handy, Hofstede, Schein and Trompenaars Models. On both questions only about half the respondents who completed the section could or did put a name to the model they meant. They certainly did not seem confident in their answers.

D. Psychometric Tests

The respondents came up with a list of over 30 tests of which most were tests of personality rather than ability. The five tests that were mentioned by 10 or more were the OPQ (50%), Myers Briggs (25%) and 16PF (27%) Saville & Holdsworth Verbal Numerical Reasoning (20%) and Thomas International (14%). Others mentioned by 5 or more included the Belbin Team Role Inventory, the PAPI, the FIRO-B and the learning style questionnaire.

It was noticeable that knowledge was based more on test publishers activities than evidence of psychometric validity.

E.  Reputation

Respondents were asked, "do you believe that HR professionals are not accorded the status that they deserve?" In all 56 (exactly two-thirds) circled true, the remainder false

Those who circled true were invited to give a short explanation. The entire list of responses is recorded below verbatim. It makes interesting reading.

• Too few board places
• Lower Pay
• HR does not align itself closely enough with the delivery of solutions to meet the needs of the business.
• Business managers do not understand how to optimize effective HRM.
• Need to justify their worth more than other support functions such as IT or Finance.
• Major Blue Chip Organisations have HR Presence at Board Level. People centered values are recognised as being key to organisational success
• In some organisations HR is seen as a support function only, not contributing to the 'bottom line' and is often the first casualty of redundancy. HR may be the wrong term, perhaps outdated. It is about performance management and OD, etc
• Still perceived as welfare workers who are a company's social conscience rather than respected for business understanding and potential contribution.
• Not seen as front line business
• Varies depending on the organisation working within
• Not many board positions
• Often lack of strategic input/board membership
• As a function we try to be all things to all people
• The contribution of HR to Business success is rarely acknowledged
• Not enough HR people are CEO potential
• Not enough HR Directors on Boards
• It is up to each HR person to make a high quality contribution to the company and to earn Recognition
• Poor director knowledge
• Often seen as an overhead and not directly contributing to the bottom line
• Lack of business knowledge
• Historically HR has failed to demonstrate significant, tangible contribution to the achievement of organisational goals. Also HR tends to deliver long term benefits
• Organisations often focus on year-end only
• Articles in many HR magazines highlight this issue: Discussion with HR peers in many other industries indicates that this is often the case (and my own experience)
• Due to the, at times, unprofessional/reactive/welfare/administrative approach to Business    issues
• They are often in a no win situation with their customers and are not considered strategic thinkers
• Not enough representation at Board Level. Function often seen as extension of legal/ company secretarial function, often reporting into Finance Director
• It is not treated seriously in a lot of organisations as some line managers do not believe it is a strategic function or adds volume.
• Many feel HR are just administrators
• More are using HR as a business partner
• In some companies HR is still seen as an administration function, and not a professional body of individuals who can add value to the business strategy
• I think other areas do not fully understand the remit in HR and it's importance. Others get confused by what HR stands for, whether it is personnel or training or both
• Do not have a direct link to profit coming in - only seen as a support function
• HR is sometimes believed to not be in touch with requirements of the business and is lacking in general business skills and experience
• Individual performance is the main contribution to HR professionals credibility
• Within our business, HR is represented on the main board and all subordinate boards as well
• It is definitely within our control. Our competence and capability will drive the change
• HR is not strategic in most businesses and MD's/CEO's think that they can do the 'people' bit themselves
• Lack of integration/interest in the commercial aspects of business - too 'technical
• History of 'staffing' and 'admin' departments
• 'Welfare' tag been detrimental in promoting professional/business focused role
• Within financial services the importance of HR is being increasingly recognised but in the past it was the revenue generating functions which have had most influence
• I think that some HR professionals are very strategic and add a lot of value to the organisation. I think many are not and therefore don't deserve the status
• Language used is discontinuous from organisation language
• Logic is often counter intuitive
• Lack of short-term, clear-cut results. Change takes years
• This is often reflected in status/salary inclusion
• There has been significant improvement in the last 2-5 years
• Old stigmas - HR is glorified personnel - stick to pay and rations
• Those outside HR do not appreciate issues of confidentiality
• Failure to champion business partnerships

They were then asked: "Is HR represented on the board of your current organisation?" In all, 53 (63%) said yes and they were then asked: "If yes, does HR make a full and varied contribution to the development and direction of business strategy?" Of this number, less than half said yes, while the remainder had guarded comments, e.g. it should/could be better.

Finally, they were asked if they believe "that an HR Director should have operational experience in another function before appointment?" Of those that replied, 61 % said yes

Personal Drivers

Two final questions were asked:

"When considering your long-term future, do you see this in HR or in an operational role within a wider context?"

Three quarters said HR.

The final question warrants a full display of data. They were asked:

When considering your next career move what are your personal drivers?"

16 Herzbergian factors were listed. Results were as follows:

One way of analysing this data would be to classify the 16 factors into "motivator" and "hygiene" factors. The top four (the bottom one on the list) were quite clearly motivator factors but pay came out as fifth highest. Curiously, three things often linked to pay were in fact rated lowest on this system including job security

Conclusions

This survey consisted of a number of applicants for middle to senior jobs in HR. It was not a representative sample but big enough to tap into the thinking of people at this level. The questionnaire was completed anonymously and sent, by letter, to a named academic so there is no good reason to believe there were serious problems of discrimination or impression management

There were three themes to the questionnaire: how well informed/educated/up-to-date these managers were; their meta-perception of their reputation; and a self-discussion of the factors that motivated them at work

Overall the respondents seemed to read more books than magazines and most "top sellers" were listed. They seemed reasonably informed about models and tests but very much market lead. For instance, though many psychometric tests were mentioned the vast majority would be judged by academic psychometricians to have serious shortcomings and may be surprised that much better and more valid tests were used

Respondents seemed not to believe the reputation of HR pay. Indeed they were eloquent on this issue and other responses reflect the extensive debate in the area. One could be forgiven as an outsider for thinking that HR Managers were or should be depressed by the situation and eager to leave the specialty but this was clearly not the case. Some would see this self-centered stance as both realistic and helpful as it motivates this group to change their reputation

What drives these respondents who are in fact applying for a new job. The answer appears to be both hygiene and motivation factors. Whilst it may seem a requirement to 'admit' the desirability of motivator factors like Opportunity for Personal Growth and Development it was noticeable that the vast majority also ticked pay and company image. Indeed the academic literature has always acknowledged that both factors are closely related

Poorly informed, self-critical and avaricious, or up-to-date, realistic, and typical of modern management? An interesting discussion!

Adrian Furnham is Professor of Psychology at University College London and author or Personality and Intelligence at Work pubished by Psychology Press (2008)