Category: hr

People Analytics vs. HR Analytics Google trends

People Analytics vs. HR Analytics Google trends

A few years back I completed my dissertation on data-driven Human Resource Management.

This specialized field is often dubbed HR analytics, for basically it’s the application of analytics to the topic of human resources.

Yet, as always in a specialized and hyped field, diifferent names started to emerge. The term People analytics arose, as did Workforce analytics, Talent analytics, and many others.

I addressed this topic in the introduction to my Ph.D. thesis and because I love data visualization, I decided to make a visual to go along with it.

So I gathered some Google Trends data, added a nice locally smoothed curve through it, and there you have it. As the original visual was so well received that it was even cited in this great handbook on HR analytics. With almost three years passed now, I decided it was time for an update. So here’s the 2021 version.

If you would compare this to the previous version, the trends look quite different. In the previous version, People Analytics had the dominant term since 2011 already.

Unfortunately, that’s not something I can help. Google indexes these search interest ratings behind the scenes, and every year or so, they change how they are calculated.

If you want to get such data yourself, have a look at the Google Trends project.


In my dissertation, I wrote the following on the topic:

This process of internally examining the impact of HRM activities goes by many different labels. Contemporary popular labels include people analytics (e.g., Green, 2017; Kane, 2015), HR analytics (e.g., Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004; Levenson, 2005; Rasmussen & Ulrich, 2015; Paauwe & Farndale, 2017), workforce analytics (e.g., Carlson & Kavanagh, 2018; Hota & Ghosh, 2013; Simón & Ferreiro, 2017), talent analytics (e.g., Bersin, 2012; Davenport, Harris, & Shapiro, 2010), and human capital analytics (e.g.,
Andersen, 2017; Minbaeva, 2017a, 2017b; Levenson & Fink, 2017; Schiemann, Seibert, & Blankenship, 2017). Other variations including metrics or reporting are also common (Falletta, 2014) but there is consensus that these differ from the analytics-labels (Cascio & Boudreau, 2010; Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004). While HR metrics would refer to descriptive statistics on a single construct, analytics involves exploring and quantifying relationships between multiple constructs.

Yet, even within analytics, a large variety of labels is used interchangeably. For instance, the label people analytics is favored in most countries globally, except for mainland Europe and India where HR analytics is used most (Google Trends, 2018). While human capital analytics seems to refer to the exact same concept, it is used almost exclusively in scientific discourse. Some argue that the lack of clear terminology is because
of the emerging nature of the field (Marler & Boudreau, 2017). Others argue that differences beyond semantics exist, for instance, in terms of the accountabilities the labels suggest, and the connotations they invoke (Van den Heuvel & Bondarouk, 2017). In practice, HR, human capital, and people analytics are frequently used to refer to analytical projects covering the entire range of HRM themes whereas workforce and talent analytics are commonly used with more narrow scopes in mind: respectively (strategic) workforce planning initiatives and analytical projects in recruitment, selection, and development. Throughout this dissertation, I will stick to the label people analytics, as this is leading label globally, and in the US tech companies, and thus the most likely label to which I
expect the general field to converge.

publicatie-online.nl/uploaded/flipbook/15810-v-d-laken/12/

Want to learn more about people analytics? Have a look at this reading list I compiled.

Book: What we know about people in the workplace?

Book: What we know about people in the workplace?

My former colleague at Tilburg University, dr. Brigitte Kroon, summarizes decades of scientific evidence in the field of human resource mangement in her new bookEvidence-based HRM.

She published it open access, so everyone can access it for free.

Brigitte explains what science can (and can not) tell us about the most effective ways to organize and treat people in the workplace. She was able to nicely distill the practical insights from the theoretical frameworks and perspectives.

Read the rest yourself!

Human Resource Management is about managing the labor side of organizations. As labor resides in people, managing labor involves managing people. Because people can think and act in response to management, effective management of people involves a good understanding of psychology, sociology, laws, and economics. Any person in a managerial position should therefore have some basic understanding of human resource management. However, since not every organization is the same, and because the challenges that organizations face are different, there is no ‘one best practice suits all’ recipe for doing HRM. Hence, organizations need people who know where to find the best HRM interventions for the issues that they face.

Brigitte Kroon, Evidence-based HRM
https://www.openpresstiu.org/catalog
Book tip: On the Clock

Book tip: On the Clock

Suppose you operate a warehouse where workers work 11-hour shifts. In order to meet your productivity KPIs, a significant number of them need to take painkillers multiple times per shift. Do you…

  1. Decrease or change the KPI (goals)
  2. Make shifts shorter
  3. Increase the number or duration of breaks
  4. Increase the medical staff
  5. Install vending machines to dispense painkillers more efficiently

Nobody in their right mind would take option 5… Right?

Yet, this is precisely what Amazon did according to Emily Guendelsberger in her insanely interesting and relevant book “On the clock(note the paradoxal link to Amazon’s webshop here).

Emily went undercover as employee at several organizations to experience blue collar jobs first-hand. In her book, she discusses how tech and data have changed low-wage jobs in ways that are simply dehumanizing.

These days, with sensors, timers, and smart nudging, employees are constantly being monitored and continue working (hard), sometimes at the cost of their own health and well-being.

I really enjoyed the book, despite the harsh picture it sketches of low wage jobs and malicious working conditions these days. The book poses several dilemma’s and asks multiple reflective questions that made me re-evaluate and re-appreciate my own job. Truly an interesting read!

Some quotes from the book to get you excited:

“As more and more skill is stripped out of a job, the cost of turnover falls; eventually, training an ever-churning influx of new unskilled workers becomes less expensive than incentivizing people to stay by improving the experience of work or paying more.”

Emily Guendelsberger, On the Clock

“Q: Your customer-service representatives handle roughly sixty calls in an eighty-hour shift, with a half-hour lunch and two fifteen-minute breaks. By the end of the day, a problematic number of them are so exhausted by these interactions that their ability to focus, read basic conversational cues, and maintain a peppy demeanor is negatively affected. Do you:

A. Increase staffing so you can scale back the number of calls each rep takes per shift — clearly, workers are at their cognitive limits

B. Allow workers to take a few minutes to decompress after difficult calls

C. Increase the number or duration of breaks

D. Decrease the number of objectives workers have for each call so they aren’t as mentally and emotionally taxing

E. Install a program that badgers workers with corrective pop-ups telling them that they sound tired.

Seriously—what kind of fucking sociopath goes with E?”

Emily Guendelsberger, On the Clock
My copy of the book
(click picture to order your own via affiliate link)

Cover via Freepik

2019 Shortlist for the Royal Society Prize for Science Books

2019 Shortlist for the Royal Society Prize for Science Books

Since 1988, the Royal Society has celebrated outstanding popular science writing and authors.

Each year, a panel of expert judges choose the book that they believe makes popular science writing compelling and accessible to the public.

Over the decades, the Prize has celebrated some notable winners including Bill Bryson and Stephen Hawking.

The author of the winning book receives £25,000 and £2,500 is awarded to each of the five shortlisted books. And this year’s shortlist includes some definite must-reads on data and statistics!

Infinite Powers – by Steven Strogatz

The captivating story of mathematics’ greatest ever idea: calculus. Without it, there would be no computers, no microwave ovens, no GPS, and no space travel. But before it gave modern man almost infinite powers, calculus was behind centuries of controversy, competition, and even death. 

Taking us on a thrilling journey through three millennia, Professor Steven Strogatz charts the development of this seminal achievement, from the days of Archimedes to today’s breakthroughs in chaos theory and artificial intelligence. Filled with idiosyncratic characters from Pythagoras to Fourier, Infinite Powers is a compelling human drama that reveals the legacy of calculus in nearly every aspect of modern civilisation, including science, politics, medicine, philosophy, and more.

https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/book-prizes/science-book-prize/2019/infinite-powers/

Invisible Women – by Caroline Criado Perez

Imagine a world where your phone is too big for your hand, where your doctor prescribes a drug that is wrong for your body, where in a car accident you are 47% more likely to be seriously injured, where every week the countless hours of work you do are not recognised or valued. If any of this sounds familiar, chances are that you’re a woman.

Invisible Women shows us how, in a world largely built for and by men, we are systematically ignoring half the population. It exposes the gender data gap–a gap in our knowledge that is at the root of perpetual, systemic discrimination against women, and that has created a pervasive but invisible bias with a profound effect on women’s lives. From government policy and medical research, to technology, workplaces, urban planning and the media, Invisible Women reveals the biased data that excludes women.

https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/book-prizes/science-book-prize/2019/invisible-women/

Six Impossible Things – by John Gribbin

This book does not deal with data or statistics specifically, but might even be more interesting, as it covers the topic of quantum physics:

Quantum physics is strange. It tells us that a particle can be in two places at once. That particle is also a wave, and everything in the quantum world can be described entirely in terms of waves, or entirely in terms of particles, whichever you prefer. 

All of this was clear by the end of the 1920s, but to the great distress of many physicists, let alone ordinary mortals, nobody has ever been able to come up with a common sense explanation of what is going on. Physicists have sought ‘quanta of solace’ in a variety of more or less convincing interpretations. 

This short guide presents us with the six theories that try to explain the wild wonders of quantum. All of them are crazy, and some are crazier than others, but in this world crazy does not necessarily mean wrong, and being crazier does not necessarily mean more wrong.

https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/book-prizes/science-book-prize/2019/six-impossible-things/

The other shortlisted books

Survival of the Best Fit: A webgame on AI in recruitment

Survival of the Best Fit: A webgame on AI in recruitment

Survival of the Best Fit is a webgame that simulates what happens when companies automate their recruitment and selection processes.

You – playing as the CEO of a starting tech company – are asked to select your favorite candidates from a line-up, based on their resumés.

As your simulated company grows, the time pressure increases, and you are forced to automate the selection process.

Fortunately, some smart techies working for your company propose training a computer to hire just like you just did.

They don’t need anything but the data you just generated and some good old supervised machine learning!

To avoid spoilers, try the game yourself and see what happens!

The game only takes a few minutes, and is best played on mobile.

www.survivalofthebestfit.com/ via Medium

Survival of the Best Fit was built by Gabor CsapoJihyun KimMiha Klasinc, and Alia ElKattan. They are software engineers, designers and technologists, advocating for better software that allows members of the public to question its impact on society.

You don’t need to be an engineer to question how technology is affecting our lives. The goal is not for everyone to be a data scientist or machine learning engineer, though the field can certainly use more diversity, but to have enough awareness to join the conversation and ask important questions.

With Survival of the Best Fit, we want to reach an audience that may not be the makers of the very technology that impact them everyday. We want to help them better understand how AI works and how it may affect them, so that they can better demand transparency and accountability in systems that make more and more decisions for us.

survivalofthebestfit.com

I found that the game provides a great intuitive explanation of how (humas) bias can slip into A.I. or machine learning applications in recruitment, selection, or other human resource management practices and processes.

If you want to read more about people analytics and machine learning in HR, I wrote my dissertation on the topic and have many great books I strongly recommend.

Finally, here’s a nice Medium post about the game.

https://www.survivalofthebestfit.com/game/

Note, as Joachin replied below, that the game apparently does not learn from user-input, but is programmed to always result in bias towards blues.
I kind of hoped that there was actually an algorithm “learning” in the backend, and while the developers could argue that the bias arises from the added external training data (you picked either Google, Apple, or Amazon to learn from), it feels like a bit of a disappointment that there is no real interactivity here.

People Analytics: Is nudging goed werkgeverschap of onethisch?

People Analytics: Is nudging goed werkgeverschap of onethisch?

In Dutch only:

Voor Privacyweb schreef ik onlangs over people analytics en het mogelijk resulterende nudgen van medewerkers: kleine aanpassingen of duwtjes die mensen in de goede richting zouden moeten sturen. Medewerkers verleiden tot goed gedrag, als het ware. Maar wie bepaalt dan wat goed is, en wanneer zouden werkgevers wel of niet mogen of zelfs moeten nudgen?

Lees het volledige artikel hier.