The Emergence of Web 2.0 | People and Technology

Concerned with technology systems that support interactions with a variety of user types such as HR experts, managers and employees, and modern systems allow these interactions to be performed through Web browser software. These systems, however, mostly operate pre-defined processes, controlled by the organisation. The most recent developments in Web-based technology represent a move away from prescriptive, organisation-centred systems to collaborative Web-based applications, collectively called social media technologies or Web 2.0.

This section, which draws heavily on a CIPD report, describes the key elements of these new technologies and how they are being used to support strategic HR initiatives.

The term Web 2.0 is now freely bandied around in the popular press and has been the subject of recent articles in HR professional publications such as people management. However, the available evidence on the use of these social media technologies in Human Resource Management (HRM) and people management suggests that HR professionals have little understanding of the nature and potential of these technologies, though they are aware of the risks of allowing employees access to social networking sites at work and of employee 'misbehaviour' on blogs and social networking.

According to experts in the field, these media have enormous potential to change the way people collaborate, communicate, organise their work and give voice to their opinions and expectations, especially when they are physically dispersed across time and space. Equally important, they help organisations communicate with and learn from a new generation of employees which have grown up with such technologies — the so-called V(irtual) Generation. Because of these features, Web 2.0 offers HR professionals an opportunity to transform its 'business model' — new ways of adding value to internal stakeholders and a more contemporary organisational architecture — to make a greater contribution to their organisations' strategic and reputational aims

Planning the Elements of the Technology Project

The timing and sequencing of the different elements of the technology project are key to successful implementation. To realise an integrated solution, it is important to understand the technical and data requirements for each stage of the development. Figure 1 highlights the underlying system architectural requirements within the context of a four-stage technology-enabled project road map. This sequencing of the development is equally important when considering the change and training requirements at the implementation stage of the project, for example, by introducing discreet levels of functionality into the organisation so as not to swamp the potential users with complex operations. Also, developing the technology-enabled HR service brand and not over-stretching HR's ability to support the systems will all become important criteria in the overall success of the project. 

 

Figure 1: Phased steps to a comprehensive technology-enabled HR service.

The timing and sequencing of the different elements allows the HR function to articulate its vision for the project and forms the basis of a more detailed business case with which to persuade the organisation to make the investment decisions.

At this stage, it becomes apparent which modules must be delivered first to create a 'foundation layer' for the services that follow. Importantly, it provides a graphical illustration of investment that must be made 'upfront' with the prospect of minimal benefit until other modules are added or integrated to provide progressively more advanced services.

To assist practitioners with these considerations, Table 1 sets out some key factors that shape the technology architecture and associated outcomes and refers to other chapters that deal more comprehensively with each factor.

Table1: Factors influencing the adoption, implementation and integration of technology-enabled HR.

Factors	Examples
The drivers behind the implementation of the technology-enabled HR service model	Transactional — that is, cost reduction,automation, productivity? Improving the delivery of HR services and improving managers' ability to make informed decisions Transformational — that is, about creating cultural or organisation change, releasing HR professionals to focus on value-added activities
The approach to needs/requirements analysis	Time made available and the quality and experience of the analysts The extent and variety of stakeholders included (e.g., senior management, IT professionals, employee reps., etc.) The nature of analysis: whether the analysis was process-driven (i.e., buy technology that fits the existing processes) or technology-driven (i.e., adapt the processes to fit the chosen technology)
The approach adopted to technology and suppliers	The number of vendors approached and how they were assessed Building technology in-house versus buying technology Whether a single HR system is procured or different modules from different suppliers are sourced (the 'best of breed' approach) The extent to which the organisation is willingto change or adapt its processes to accommodate the technology The extent to which the internal IT department itself is willing and able to work with HR or place technology-related HR requirements as a priority within its IT strategy
Expectation setting	The degree to which expectations were accurately set by the technology supplier(s) to HR,and by HR to the wider business
The approach to implementation	If the decision is to buy off-the-shelf technology, the extent to which it is customised (changed) versus configured ('vanilla') Whether deployment is phased/incremental or 'big bang'
The management of change	Change within the HR department(s), including job losses, job changes, re-skilling The need for and provision of training to both HR people and other users, for example, managers and employees The use of senior and/or local champions to promote adoption Whether or not a pilot system is deployed initially
Outcomes	Whether broader cultural or organisational change is attempted as part of the implementation, or left until the technology is embedded in operational practice (Transformational Outcomes) Whether cost cutting is achieved and employees and managers appreciate and use new self-service tools for transactional purposes (Transactional Outcomes)

Another way to inform the decision-making process is to undertake an analysis of where your organisation is positioned on the 'maturity scale' set out in Figure 2. Key questions to ask are:

• Where are we on this model?
• Where do you want to be?
• What needs to change in HR and the business and what do you need the technology to do?

 

Figure 2: Maturity model.

The answers to these questions inform the 'starting' and envisioned 'future' positions, which in turn influence the approach to technology adoption. 

Technology Choices and Architectures

It is important to understand that any HR technology implementation requires a 'core' HR system. This is often referred to as the Human Resource Information System (HRIS) and is the primary transaction processor, editor, record keeper and functional application system that lies at the heart of all computerised HR work.

Figure 1 highlights the factors that influence the overall technical solution, which will comprise the core HR system and other functional elements. How each factor impacts on the various elements of the solution depends on the importance that an organisation applies to each. However, all these factors will have a significant impact on the overall cost. For example, legacy systems could be used 'as is', 'upgraded' or even 'replaced' by newer, more advanced systems. These decisions depend on factors such as the capabilities of the legacy systems, the nature and scope of existing contracts with third parties, and the expected functionality required in the long term. Each choice will have a cost and benefit which has to be weighed against the desired outcomes. Further elaboration of these considerations can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Benefits and disadvantages of each of the main technical options 

	Benefits	Disadvantages
Option 1: company system	Predefined process Low complexity of data connectivity between modules Relatively low level of internal IT support for implementation and operation required Ease of upgrades and regression testing over system Similar user functionality across all modules Ease of reporting across modules Organisation management and workflow engines span all modules	High cost of implementation and licensing Rigid process structure leads to system driving process re-engineering rather than system adopting best fit for organisation Difficult to configure beyond basic look and feel Some modules are not necessarily 'best in breed' Can require constant external operational support if there are low levels of IT skills within the organisation
Option 2: separate internal modules and core HRIS	Allows 'best in breed' purchase of each HR module Potentially allows for a 'cheaper' option than the core HR system Ability to negotiate better prices for each module Allows system configuration for each module to match company processes better	Complex connectivity issues between individual modules and core system Higher levels of support required for each separate system User interfaces have to be configured more heavily to ensureconsistency in the user portal Workflow and organisation management and reporting become more complex to manage across different systems
Option 3: internal core HRIS with ASP modules	Managed services require less internal HR and IT skills Particularly good for complex HR modules that require a high degree of skill, for example, benefits management and pensions management Less operational risk to HR.No requirements to keep on top of change, legislation and good practice Reduced complexity in HR cost planning	More expensive for a managed service HR has reduced control over delivery of services to the business Complex connectivity issues with core internal HR systems Increased configuration to ensure standard user interface Increased complexity in managing workflow organisation management and reporting Increased complexity in security across the net, encryption and single sign on for users
Option 4: outsource all systems	Reduces risk to the business Reduces requirements for HR admin and IT skills in the business Reduces complexity of cost planning and resourcing in HR Fully managed and supported service Contracts and SLAs to support required service levels Economies of scale and ability to share good practice across all outsource clients	High cost Could involve significant, detailed process mapping and long implementation time table if existing operational arrangements within client organisation differ markedly from those of the outsource provider Complex contracts and services levels have to be agreed in advance Rigid service delivery to the organisation Ad hoc and unforeseen services create high cost for the business Lack of control over service provision Loss of administration skills internally

 

Figure 1: Factors that drive the technical approach to technology adoption.

Essentially, there are four options:

• Option 1 — HR core system with integral modules that can be 'switched on and configured' to create a 'single' HRIS.
• Option 2 — HR core system with modules bought, configured and hosted separately (still on internal networks) and connected back to the core system.
• Option 3 — HR core system with modules hosted and managed externally and connected back over the Web to a core system — also known as application service provision (ASP).
• Option 4 — Outsource of all systems including the core HRIS.

The benefits and disadvantages of these options are outlined in Table 1. The decision about which option to take is most important because it affects the complexity of the build, architecture and cost.

Note: it is possible to have a combination of options 2 and 3 where some modules are outsourced and others are hosted internally.

Informing the People and Technology Debate

There is a rich seam of literature which addresses 'people and technology' and in broad terms the themes which arise are set out diagrammatically in Figure 1. The appearance or promise of liberation, empowerment and decentralisation is shown with its contrast of control, domination and centralization.

 

Figure 1: Contrasting impacts of technology.

Different forms of technology and technological change have been at the heart of many of the issues concerning the management of people and the work of human resource professionals for many years. In more recent times, however, these issues emanate from the role of newer technologies in transforming societies, transforming economic progress and in how we work in such societies. Excellent overviews on different aspects of the role of information and communication technologies (ICT), the 'new' economy. This has resulted in a renewed interest in the relationship between these new technologies and the management of people.

These more macro and intellectual concerns have been accompanied by the actual influence of technologies on the practice of human resource management. For example,technology as a transforming force, especially in the e-enablement of HR and its impact on the creation and transfer of knowledge.

As we have explained in earlier chapters, signs have been mounting for some time that previously accepted concepts of organisation and strategy have come to an end. The fundamentally Newtonian paradigm of organisations as machines and strategy by numbers has given way to structural change that shifts the emphasis from physical inputs and outputs to intangible ones such as knowledge, learning, creativity and initiative. The old paradigm of top-down control and hierarchical organisation appears to have exhausted its capacity to generate innovative responses to turbulent business conditions and intensifying global competition — indeed, far from fostering innovation, many managers feel it is holding them back.

The preliminary analysis of the literature — old and new — helps to inform the debate about the impact of, and relationship between, new technologies and people management. It suggests that these technologies are a moving target, which is likely to pose new problems and new contexts for organisations, especially as they move into newer stages of technological development.

With the new knowledge-based technologies advancing at a rapid pace, people management becomes an important mechanism for challenging the 'forces of conservatism', whether found in management or the workforce, and hence enabling organisations to more rapidly translate investments into better performance. This implies that in a knowledge-based economy, organisations certainly need to invest more in research and development, technology and capital equipment and skills, but these are not sufficient in themselves to make a step change in performance. Therefore to work, they need to be knit together in a truly people-centred business model, working as a system to learn and improve the offering to customers.

How the business models of organisations exert an array of competing pressures on HR functions, which create ambiguities and tensions in what it delivers, how it delivers, how effectively it delivers and to whom it delivers.

To deliver HR strategy, organisations typically respond to the competing pressures with a mix of re-organisation of the HR function itself and new ICT approaches. The re-organisation of the HR function involves new HR service delivery approaches models, often based on a tri-partite model of shared services, centres of excellence and strategic or business partnering along the lines  with outsourcing and, in some cases, off-shoring of key services, especially shared service centres. The introduction of ICT, often in combination with new HR delivery models can then rationalise or transform HR's internal operations.

It should be emphasised at the outset that these organisational, process re-engineering and ICT solutions are interdependent. Without progressively sophisticated ICT, new HR delivery models would not be as effective: indeed it is the increased reach and richness of technology-enabled information and organisational learning that have facilitated simultaneous centralisation and delegation of decision-making in HR, cited by academics, observers and practitioners as the single most important claimed distinctive capability of new HR delivery models. One of the logical consequences of these developments is the potential 'virtualisation' or, at least, significant 'leaning' of HR which results from simultaneously reducing the numbers of specialists required to deliver HR services internally while improving the quality of these same services and developing new HR business models.

The introduction of technology, therefore, offers the potential to transform HR's role. It promises to do this by:

• increasing the HR function's influence as consultants focused on the needs of managers and employees;
• enabling new flexible and responsive methods of delivering HR services, such as self-service via the Internet or Intranet;
• expanding HR's reach as the experts of the organisation's people processes and the developers of value propositions for different employee groups.

Thus, the 'bandwagon' of technology-enabled HR solutions seems to be growing at a rapid rate driven by some evidence of promising practices and positive evaluations of technology and outsourcing projects. However, this bandwagon in support of technology adoption is also fuelled by some 'dangerous half-truths' or 'total nonsense'.

To address the various challenges set out earlier, we now offer advice, supported by theoretical frameworks which are based on recent research and case study evidence. Our collective experience gained through working with a variety of companies to transform their HR functions through the design and implementation of technology shows that technology investments are frequently under-used and do not release the full benefit to the organisations concerned.

Challenges for HR

Challenges remain for HR to truly deliver value. Using the Ulrich and Brockbank criteria set out would be a good starting point to frame a discussion on HR value add. Similarly, engaging colleagues in HR and other parts of your organisation in thinking through the four drivers of value presented — identifying what HR does well/ could do better would also be an excellent starting point. Whichever you use, the important point is that you do something to understand what stakeholders in your organisation value about HR and to identify what HR can do to raise its contribution. So that is the first challenge: Ask your stakeholders what they value about HR.

In our discussions with senior practitioners we identified four other challenges:

Challenge 2: HR must understand the critical drivers of success in their organisation. How do HR professionals see their world? When we talk about our organisations do we see them through an HR lens or a business lens? An example given to us by one of our practitioners referred to a meeting they once attended when a senior group of HR business partners were each asked to present their business unit to their colleagues to build understanding of the whole business. Clearly this is a worthy objective! However, what was presented focused on headcount numbers, payroll costs, organisation charts, spans of control and turnover. There was no focus on strategic goals, critical business issues, change challenges, leadership capability/bench strength, etc. This is a good example of changing the way we think about what HR is and ensuring that we understand what makes our organisation successful.

Challenge 3: We need to change the way we engage with our stakeholders. So many HR professionals still struggle with the notion of peer or upward challenge. HR pulls its punches and this is not healthy nor will this approach help us add value. As Frances Allcock (BBC) put it: 'we need to bring a way of thinking and working that is future orientated, commercially focused and data driven so that we change the conversations we hold with business colleagues. We need to be prepared to challenge, bring fresh thinking to the table and be courageous. Rather than undermine relationships, this approach will build relationships as it is based on getting the best outcome for the business and we all want that'.

Challenge 4: HR needs to shape and not just implement the change agenda. As we enter a period of unprecedented economic change and uncertainty, the ability of organisations to change quickly and purposefully is even more critical. Knowledge sharing, collaboration, creativity/idea generation and capture are also significant challenges faced by many organisations. We know that most change efforts fail to deliver the anticipated benefits because organisations do not get the people side right. So there is much to play for. We also know from our review of recent research that equipping HR professionals so that they are skilled to play this role remains a challenge.

Challenge 5: We need to keep working at delivering transactional and process value. For those HR functions that have already delivered significant savings, the ongoing challenges are to:

• keep refining the cost base to realise further productivity gains;
• assure data integrity through quality controls;
• deliver information in a 'manager-friendly' way;
• provide timely and accurate advice — whether through on line or help desk support;
• deliver real data insights;
• produce stronger, data driven, business cases showing how proposals will impact organisational performance (including financial impact).

We believe that there is still much to be done in driving process value. As generation X becomes generation V (virtual) this personalisation of processes will become even more important. Process value will not just be the domain of the HR function either, it will also challenge managers to create the climate (on-boarding, recognition, freedom to perform, releasing people's skills and talents, etc.) for people to succeed.

How might you respond to these challenges? Here are some suggestions:

• Think of your organisation, the context it finds itself in, its overall goals and some of the dilemmas you may need to work through, for example, you may be asked to reduce headcount and raise levels of employee engagement. Then use the four value drivers to identify what areas are most likely to drive value in the short and medium term.
• Consider who you are driving value for. As the Lepak research suggests there are likely to be multiple stakeholders and you need to think what matters to each. If you do not know, think about how you might find out, for example, if you do not normally get exposed to what investors want talk to investor relations or colleagues who may know.
• Think about relevant measures of value. This is not about 'measurement frenzy'. Identify a small number of lag (measuring the past, e.g., profit per employee) or lead (setting goals to be reached in the future, e.g., to be recognised as one of the top 50 best places to work within 3 years) measures.
• Engage with relevant people in order to identify how to move work forward in this area and how to put in place an appropriate range of measures.

Four Scenarios of Communication and Collaboration in Organisations | Web 2.0

Bringing these two ideas together — engagement and control — we can envisage four scenarios that describe modes of communications and collaboration in organisations (see Figure 1). These scenarios might help us think about the challenges which HR faces and possible strategic choices over communications and collaboration.

Figure 1: Scenarios for Web 2.0

Scenario 1: — Traditional Face-to-Face Communications and Collaboration

This scenario represents the typical, existing face-to-face system of collaboration and communications, the latter of which is typically conducted through the formal collective bargaining system. Union representation provides the main medium for employee voice, and knowledge management and collaboration continues to be viewed as a 'contested terrain'. Knowledge and skills are seen as issues to be bargained over since knowledge is power and not something to be readily given up by employees, who seek to capitalise on their often tacit knowledge and skills.

In this scenario, the challenges to both managers and union representatives are that:

• New generations of employees begin to use Web 2.0 technologies as a means of expressing their own, often negative, voice, as unions are seen by an increasing number of workers to be less relevant in expressing their interests
• Employees do not engage in much formal or informal collaboration and knowledge sharing with one another since their tacit knowledge and skills are their main source of power to enhance their careers at work.

Managers view employees' use of these technologies in a largely negative light, often attempting to proscribe their use at work, or else ignore them as a means of finding out what employees think and want to discuss.

Such a scenario may be typical of many organisations in traditional manufacturing and service industries, and in certain parts of the public sector with high levels of manual and basic administrative grades.

Scenario 2: — Modern Face-to-Face Communications and Collaboration

This represents a modern, consultative system in which communications take place through working parties, joint consultation and regular attempts to tap into employee voice through attitude surveys and the like. Collaboration and knowledge management are typically based on face-to-face team working, project teams and traditional employer-centred knowledge management systems, which attempt to capture knowledge, store it and disseminate it in a top-down fashion.

Such a scenario is probably typical of most organisations in the UK in many of the knowledge-intensive and creative sectors of the economy, including 'professional bureaucracies' such as healthcare, education and professional services, in defence, the prison and police services, and in industries such as financial services. It is often the case that data protection in these organisations is a sensitive issue, as are concerns over protecting brand identities and the desire to exercise a duty of care.

HR's role in this scenario remains focused on policing, rather than encouraging, the innovative and experimental use of Web 2.0 social media. Thus, it is no surprise that the majority of his blogger respondents coming from these sectors.

Scenario 3: — Laissez Faire Web 2.0

This represents a relatively anarchic situation in which some organisations may find themselves in the not-too-distant future. Organisations may begin in scenarios 1 and 2 but come to resemble a more decentralised system of informal bottom-up communications and knowledge sharing as more and more people, especially members of the V-generation, become employees. Much communication becomes virtual, in which knowledge sharing and employees voice their concerns outside of formal employer-controlled media, especially in locations geographically and functionally distant from head office among remote workers and among higher educated and paid networked workers.

It is this scenario that seems to worry a number of HR professionals in those organisations represented by scenario 2. As we have noted it is the lack of organisational control over Web 2.0 and the ease with which employees can engage with various applications which causes many organisations and HR professionals to worry about these social media, with some organisations placing outright bans on their use at work or substantially restricting the ability of employees to access them at work. Time-wasting at work and the potential for organisational misbehaviour by disenchanted employees has dominated the HR agenda over Web 2.0.

The Government Communications Network's (2007) review of social media is particularly relevant here. Drawing on questionnaires to government departments and interviews with specialists in the field, it found a number of barriers to a more widespread adoption of Web 2.0 among various departments, even though as we have noted, government ministers have begun using these techniques to communicate and engage users in dialogue. These barriers were:

• a lack of understanding and expertise among civil servants, especially higher level ones;
• following on from this lack of understanding, a lack of high level support for wider use;
• lack of data and uncertainties about the costs and benefits of various media;
• the risk of public exposure, damage to customer and employer brands and general loss of control;
• the limitations placed on Web 2.0 by IT departments that did not want to damage the integrity of their systems.

Underlying such concerns were the very features that make Web 2.0 attractive to organisations and employees. These were its openness, the ease of use for employees and users to engage with Web 2.0 technologies (spontaneity, conversational and democratic), its new rules of engagement and the different behaviours required by civil servants and its newness and experimental nature.

Scenario 4: Enterprise 2.0

Enterprise 2.0 is recognition that social media technologies are fast becoming a fact of life among the higher educated and paid networked workers and new generations of employees — see Box 1. This scenario is one where organisations are driven by the V-generation or by the need to secure the collaboration and voice of increasingly geographically dispersed workers, often in other countries, working from home or who rarely visit head office locations. Organisations attempt to regain control by developing the technologies of Web 2.0 inside of their firewalls and encouraging or facilitating employees to make use of these technologies.

Box 1: Defining enterprise 2.0

---

McAfee defines Enterprise 2.0 'as the use of emergent social software platforms within companies and their partners or customers'. He uses the term 'social software' to describe how 'people meet, connect and collaborate through computer mediated communication and form online communities'. Platforms are defined as 'digital environments in which contributions and interactions are widely visible and persistent over time'. Emergent means the software is freeform, in the sense that people can choose to use it or not, is egalitarian and can accept different forms of data. He rules out (a) open Web-based platforms, such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Flickr and MySpace, because they are widely available to individuals, (b) corporate Internets because they are not emergent and (c) traditional email and SMS because they are not persistent.

According to Andrew McAfee from Harvard University, who is usually credited with coining the term 'Enterprise 2.0' in 2006, this route is probably the most promising way forward for organisations seeking the benefits of Web 2.0 but wishing to minimise the downside.

Figure 1 shows a potential trend away from the very open Web 2.0 towards Enterprise 2.0. The diagram also hints at the potential trend away from traditional media used to give employees a say in decisions, such as face-to-face representation in consultative committees, focus groups and online surveys towards Enterprise 2.0 read—write media. Just as the Web has allowed the so-called power law to operate in firms such as Amazon by allowing them to cater to the long tail of profitable customers comprising only 20% of its total sales, so organisations can now reach out to the long tail employees. These comprise previously marginalised or disengaged groups who were not economically possible to reach or who rejected the normal consultation process through union representation and organisationally determined (and often meaningless to them) questionnaires.

Reputational Value | What has HR Done to Add Value?

Reputational value has both an internal and external focus. Internally, it is about whether people think this is a great place to work, whether they would recommend people to work for the organisation, whether they speak highly of the organisation publicly. How this translates into value is whether people's regard for the organisation makes them want to go the 'extra mile' — whether they are prepared to give high levels of discretionary effort to get the job done — and whether organisations are able to hold on to those people, 'key talent', they need to. This is a key component of employee engagement and, we believe, an under-emphasized facet of the employer brand. Externally, it is about how multiple stakeholders (shareholders, customers, governments, potential employees, etc.) perceive the organisation and whether it is an organisation they want to do business with. In the 'war for talent' reputation differentiates employers. How differentiation is achieved is through the employer brand, good governance, corporate social responsibility, public reporting and leadership. In the public sector, public value can also be added to this list.

John Kay, one of the UK's leading economists, has argued that reputation is one of only three bases on which companies in developed economies can compete (the others being brand and knowledge) — and that all three rest on an organisation's ability to develop strong trust relations with multiple stakeholders. We all know that good reputations take many years to develop but a very short time to destroy.

What does this mean for HR? This is probably the area where HR functions have the most work to do. Below we identify four implications.

First, the kind of employer you are matters — not just for current employees but to multiple stakeholders. How you communicate yourself to the public matters. Ethics, social responsibility and corporate stewardship count.

Second, there will undoubtedly be an increasing requirement for greater public reporting on the people aspects of organisation — whether mandatory or voluntary. Whether we call these people profit and loss accounts or human capital accounts is immaterial. Greater public scrutiny of the investment made in people will be a feature of greater regulation and an enhanced role for government in the economy. An example of this is the increasing requirement on firms tendering for government contracts to report on measures to ensure non-discrimination at work.

Third, corporate governance will receive stronger attention, particularly executive compensation. Organisations will need to be more accountable than ever before about the way people, especially senior executives, are rewarded.

Fourth, employer branding will become a key way for organisations to differentiate.

Robert Peston, the BBC's Economics Editor, expressed well the challenges faced by organisations in driving reputational value when he wrote (8 December 2008): 'Those running our biggest commercial businesses will have to be more visible. They'll have to manifest a genuine understanding not only of the anxieties of their employees but of all taxpayers. Those chief executives who succeed will be those who imbue in their businesses very simple, commonsense standards of decency. And they'll almost certainly be paid less for doing so'.

An example of how an organisation has taken deliberate steps internally to build reputation (to address both an internal and external audience) is at KPMG. We present this case study below.

Case Study

KPMG in the UK has won the Sunday Times Best Big Company to Work for three times in the past 5 years, winning in consecutive years 2008 and 2009. These awards are based largely on the views of KPMG employees. This level of external recognition was not always the case. Back in 2004 KPMG UK faced significant obstacles to achieving its goal of becoming the best professional services firm experiencing significant retention, morale, people management and development issues. In response Managing for Excellence was introduced and stands at the heart of KPMG's people strategy. Its aims are straightforward — to professionalise the way people are managed: to embed effective line management. What it has achieved in practice marks a culture shift in the way that people are managed and developed: moving the focus from process compliance to a people centric. The results have been dramatic not least a halving of employee turnover and year on year increases in employee engagement. As Rachel Campbell, Head of KPMG's Global People, Performance and Culture and partner in the UK firm says 'Achieving sustainable competitive advantage is all about attracting, developing and retaining diverse talent and doing it better than our competitors. Our people strategy is not just about securing competitive advantage, it's also about defining what sort of firm we are, what we stand for. It's about doing the right thing by people even when it's difficult — especially when it's difficult. It's about being open, honest, fair, consistent, fulfilling promises, keeping confidences. All of these are important in their own right and they are all at the heart of Managing for Excellence'.