After a brief break and a presentation from CIPHR on their future roadmap, we have an employment law update from Shoosmiths from Stuart Lawrenson and Gemma Robinson.
Stuart began by showing how the Tribunal system is under strain, giving examples of some 3-5 day hearings taking upwards of 12 months to reach an outcome, and how this creates some risk for employers as their main witnesses may leave during that time.
He then covered some recent legislative developments, starting with Gender Pay Reporting which will be prevalent in the media in coming months. He thinks many organisations are still not ready and will file last minute or late. He also outlined that Ethnicity Pay Reporting and Executive Pay Reporting are on the agenda and will come in sooner rather than later.
The #MeToo trend was given some coverage and it was interesting to note that many US states are now making it a requirement for employers to train their staff on sexual harassment – this move may be replicated to some degree in the UK too…
GDPR was covered too but not in massive depth as there wasn’t the time. A little bit of time was given to recent developments in Gig Economy cases, with a focus on Pimlico Plumbers, Uber and the like but with a clear message for employers to look at their use of consultants too.
In a difficult slot, Gemma from Shoosmiths took over and started with a Brexit update, which was almost impossible to cover but she did a good job in outlining some of the knowns and unknowns – and in good detail too.
In the Q&A session afterwards, the most popular question was about the most common area HR fall foul of GDPR. Stuart said it is data retention – for example you don’t need an employee’s bank details once you’ve paid them everything they are due post-termination, but some bits of data you do need to keep for up to 40 years if its H&S related – but often HR teams apply a one size fits all approach.
And then its lunch.
I changed my mind during lunch about which of the breakout sessions to attend, and headed to the Analyse stream, chaired by David D’Souza and involving Nick Court plus Andy Charlwood and Tricia Howarth, and which attempted to answer the question “How does HR become more evidence-based?”.
The panel started off giving their views on what EBHR actually is – and largely agreed with each other. I liked Nick’s view that really EBHR is not new, but it IS a difficult skillset for many HR practitioners and is often hindered by “crap in, crap out” data systems.
DDS did a straw poll that showed that only two or three people in the audience had come from a maths or statistics background, which further served to illustrate how difficult this is.
All panelists agreed that if HR can rely upon and use robust and reliable data then its impact becomes greater, but this needs to avoid bias within the data or the person making the decision too.
I asked a question via Slido about whether gut instinct can be classed as data to be used in EBHR. Tricia said it can’t be ignored, but one needs to be realistic about whether your gut feel is 100% suited to purpose, eg does it effectively answer the question being posed?
Building on this, the panel considered what kind of data is “best” and how does one prioritise it and avoid data analysis paralysis. Nick answered, saying data and data sets need to be representative and relevant – there’s no such thing as “best” data.
Andy built on this theme – its about the matching of data and evidence to the particular purpose, and sometimes it is about ensuring the right question is asked – unless we ask the right question its difficult to gather the right evidence.
The panel made very good use of the Sli.do functionality to gather and answer questions from the audience, and the feature does tend to work very well with a panel style debate.
A point reiterated by all of the panel was not to buy engagement surveys – its data that clouds the actual picture.
Another point made was that HR really need a statistical analysis skillset and that there aren’t enough of us with that skillset or mindset.
The panel then also began to discuss what HR can do to become more comfortable with EBHR. Nick Court said ditch pie charts and 3D charts, and instead look at how you can use data to drive insight rather than something that just looks good?
DDS pointed out that the CIPD EBSCO database and factsheets are good sources of help, as is the Centre for Evidence Based Management, and the Organisation of Science for Work. These would all be recommended start points for anyone wishing to learn more about data analytics and EBHR.
There was an interesting question about trust in data, particularly where data has been inaccurate or incomplete and where the organisation may have lost faith in the data. Tricia said to say sorry but draw a line in the sand and correct it. Andy pointed out that those who enter the data need to take ownership of the data and understand that it is human error that makes data wrong most of the time.
We finished by going back to gut instinct – there’s a danger there is too much data and we lose the human approach towards HR. Don’t create an industry for its own sake – use data that is relevant, proportionate and helpful.
Till next time…