It's hard to look like an investment when you act like a cost.
Budget season 2017 is on the horizon and a lot of HR leaders are already hunkering down to deal with this same old reality. “Costs” inevitably end up at the “budget whipping post”.
Start by putting yourself in the place of an investor. What would you need to know about this business in order to make an investment?
First, you would need to understand the business model and the assumptions that make it work. When it comes to people, the key question is “what intellectual capital are we depending on to drive cash flow and what talent do we need in order to create and sustain it?” Intellectual capital makes up the majority of value growth in most businesses today.
Often you can name the key intellectual capital that drives a given industry: brands and trademarks driving consumer products, research and patents driving pharmaceuticals, engineering and technologies driving high tech. Also, within industries, varying strategies drive another level of intellectual capital – leading in innovation drives one strategy, while mastering partnerships and collaboration might drive another.
At the heart of intellectual capital at both these levels is the particular talent required to generate it. The roles designed for this talent are the roles that require a different degree of investment from all others throughout the entire talent life cycle. This is the lynchpin to a talent strategy and a convincing investment plan for Talent Acquisition, Talent Management, and the rest of HR. With the right dose of financial discipline, HR can be uniquely positioned to express talent investments in these terms. Although management intuitively understands this dynamic, they have to hear it in HR plans. Without it, they will react with uncertainty and non-commitment. Anything short of this rational thinking feels like a cost rather than investment proposition.
In summary, the 5 steps to creating an effective investment plan are:
Step 5 is instrumental in winning the Finance vote. Because of the nature of critical roles, HR calculations that would otherwise be unconvincing, become convincing if focused on these. For example, quantifying the impact of higher quality talent becomes less of a leap of faith for critical roles than for all roles in general, and so on and so forth. Finance people and CEOs do not react favorably to the rote averaging that has become a way of life in traditional HR analysis. They want rational, pointed analysis and self-evident conclusions.
As a former CFO, I advise taking on a new attitude of “out-financing Finance” by adopting disciplined HR investment criteria, and avoiding another trip to the whipping post.
* Critical roles have a direct link and are dedicated to the work stream that creates or sustains a particular component of intellectual capital; these are usually primary rather than supporting roles. Getting and retaining the best talent for these roles is imperative to growing value.
Learn more about speaking your CFO's language in this recent article: Big Leap Forward for Human Capital Disclosure