1. People Analytics 2016

3. Evolving:
• HR Leaders are starting to
understand the space
• Talented analysts are seeing
the potential
• Excitement about advanced
technologies
• Move to more pragmatic
solutions
People Analytics
2016 Trends
Always Trending:
• Attract
• Develop
• Retain

4. Embarking on the People Analytics “Journey”
• It’s a linear progression; start with the basics
• Know where you are
DATA METRICS TRENDS ANALYTICS
Operations Generalists HRBPs/Leaders Analysts
“How Many” “Average”
“Compared to
last year”
“Strategic/
Predictive”?
#

5. Attract:
Determining
which colleges
to recruit
Use Employee Engagement Survey
data
Compare results from those that stayed
and those that left regrettably
Row # Employee ID College 1st Performance Rating Months to 1st Promo
1 10071 Waterloo 4 - Exceeds 12
2 10080 Stanford 3 - Meets All 19
3 10115 MIT 4 - Exceeds 14
4 10138 Harvard 5 - Redefines 11
5 10225 Waterloo 2 - Meets Most 18
6 10326 Georgia Tech 3 - Meets All 18
7 10402 MIT 4 - Exceeds 15
8 10425 Cal Tech 1 - Does Not Meet 20
9 10495 Waterloo 4 - Exceeds 14
10 10502 Austin 3 - Meets All 17
11 10592 Olin 2 - Meets Most 21
12 10595 U. Washington 5 - Redefines 10
13 10639 Harvard 5 - Redefines 13
14 10650 MIT 3 - Meets All 18
15 10688 Stanford 4 - Exceeds 16
16 10714 Olin 3 - Meets All 15
17 10914 Georgia Tech 3 - Meets All 17
18 10917 UT Austin 4 - Exceeds 14
19 10957 Harvard 5 - Redefines 12
20 11012 Georgia Tech 3 - Meets All 17
21 11154 Cal Tech 4 - Exceeds 15
22 11192 UT Austin 4 - Exceeds 14
23 11309 Harvard 2 - Meets Most 18
… … … … …
… … … … …
100 15281 Stanford 3 - Meets All 16
Applicant
Tracking
System
Perf. Mgmt. &
Compensation
The university recruiting team hires
software engineers from college
campuses; they’re looking to be as
effective as possible

6. Rating Avg:
3.3
————
Promo Avg:
17.3
2.9
————
16.7
3.9
————
15.5
3.7
————
15.2
4.3
13.4UT Austin
UC Berkeley
UW Seattle
Georgia Tech
Stanford
4.1
14.5
3.4
18
2.7
21
Olin
Harvard
Row # Offer ID College Accepted
1 SF75535 Waterloo Yes
2 NY15120 Stanford No
3 SF45519 MIT Yes
4 SF45621 Harvard No
5 NY61352 Waterloo Yes
6 SF46467 Georgia Tech Yes
7 NY78015 MIT Yes
8 SF31276 Cal Tech No
9 NY47229 Waterloo Yes
10 NY15753 Austin Yes
11 SF47664 Olin Yes
12 SF31786 U. Washington No
13 NY63836 Harvard No
14 SF31950 MIT Yes
15 SF32064 Stanford No
16 SF48213 Olin No
17 SF65484 Georgia Tech Yes
18 NY32752 UT Austin No
19 SF32872 Harvard No
20 NY16518 Georgia Tech Yes
21 SF83655 Cal Tech Yes
22 NY33576 UT Austin No
23 NY84820 Harvard Yes
… … … …
… … … …
500 SF54209 Stanford No
Acceptance: 77%
Acceptance: 77%
Acceptance: 58%
Acceptance: 81%
Acceptance: 43%
Acceptance: 60%
Acceptance: 88%
Acceptance: 52%
Attract:
Determining
which colleges
to recruit
Applicant
Tracking
System
Perf. Mgmt. &
Compensation
Carnegie Mellon

7. 2
3
4
5
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Georgia Tech
UC
Berkeley
UW Seattle
Stanford
Olin
UT
Austin
Redefines
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Meets All
Expectations
Meets Some
Expectations
Acceptance Rate (%)
Step 1: Collect your data
• Use two or more data sources
• Link them (Employee ID works best)
Step 2: Build a “metric that matters”
• Productivity/Performance
• Retention
Step 3: Incorporate trend if applicable
• Helps complete the picture
• Insights hide in data
Step 4: Analyze, then tell a story
Attract:
Determining
which colleges
to recruit
Carnegie Mellon
Harvard
Applicant
Tracking
System
Perf. Mgmt. &
Compensation

8. Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Salesforce
The sales enablement team has been
tasked with improving the
effectiveness of the sales team via
Udemy for Business coursework.

9. Row # Employee ID Udemy Enrollment Q2 Sales ($) Q2 Sales Quota Q2 Attainment (%) Market
1 10009 Prospecting 317,060 259,989 122.0 Mid-Market
2 10102 Body Language 350,947 291,286 120.5 Mid-Market
3 10166 180,176 136,934 131.6 SMB
4 10170 Body Language 417,359 425,706 98.0 Mid-Market
5 10178 Prospecting 1,003,426 1,063,632 94.3 Enterprise
6 10369 887,804 1,056,487 84.0 Enterprise
7 10421 983,699 983,699 100.0 Enterprise
8 10505 Prospecting 410,987 337,009 122.0 Mid-Market
9 10511 87,918 100,227 87.7 SMB
10 10590 133,087 159,704 83.3 SMB
11 10593 Prospecting 359,960 359,960 100.0 Mid-Market
12 10707 Body Language 951,456 856,310 111.1 Enterprise
13 10832 688,462 640,270 107.5 Enterprise
14 10854 Prospecting 328,986 236,870 138.9 Mid-Market
15 10865 254,746 277,673 91.7 SMB
16 10911 Prospecting 134,818 141,559 95.2 SMB
17 10951 Body Language 511,224 475,438 107.5 Mid-Market
18 10985 153,311 168,642 90.9 SMB
19 11045 Prospecting 548,828 554,316 99.0 Enterprise
20 11186 Body Language 1,038,330 1,018,330 102.0 Enterprise
21 11333 931,059 726,226 128.2 Enterprise
22 11380 Prospecting 626,781 714,530 87.7 Enterprise
23 11400 Body Language 410,215 340,478 120.5 Mid-Market
… … … … … … …
… … … … … … …
100 14992 Body Language 210,634 240,478 87.6 SMB
Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Learning &
Development
Data
Salesforce
The sales enablement team has been
tasked with improving the
effectiveness of the sales team via
Udemy for Business coursework.

10. SalesAttainment(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Supercharged Prospecting
Sales And Body Language
Did not enroll in L&D coursework
Quarterly Sales (000’s)
Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Learning &
Development
Data
Salesforce

11. SalesAttainment(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 125 250 375 500
Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Quarterly Sales (000’s)
Supercharged Prospecting
Did not enroll in L&D coursework
Sales And Body Language
Learning &
Development
Data
Salesforce

12. SalesAttainment(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Quarterly Sales (000’s)
Supercharged Prospecting
Did not enroll in L&D coursework
Sales And Body Language
Learning &
Development
Data
Salesforce

13. SalesAttainment(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200
Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Quarterly Sales (000’s)
Supercharged Prospecting
Did not enroll in L&D coursework
Sales And Body Language
Learning &
Development
Data
Salesforce

14. SalesAttainment(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Supercharged Prospecting
Did not enroll in L&D coursework
Sales And Body Language
Develop:
Calculating
Learning &
Development
Effectiveness
Step 1: Collect your data
• Use two or more data sources
• Link them (Employee ID works best)
Step 2: Build a “metric that matters”
• Productivity/Performance Rate
• Retention
Step 3: Incorporate trend if applicable
• Helps complete the picture
• Insights hide in data
Step 4: Analyze, then tell a story
Quarterly Sales (000’s)
Learning &
Development
Data
Salesforce

15. Row # Employee ID Demographic Data
Regrettable Term
within 1 year
Participated Q1 Q2 … Q25
1 10001 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
2 10002 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
3 10003 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
4 10004 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
5 10005 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
6 10006 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
7 10007 Yes Yes ? ? ? … ?
8 10008 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
9 10009 Yes Yes ? ? ? … ?
10 10010 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
11 10011 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
12 10012 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
13 10013 Yes Yes ? ? ? … ?
14 10014 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
15 10015 Yes Yes ? ? ? … ?
16 10016 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
17 10017 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
18 10018 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
19 10019 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
20 10020 Yes Yes ? ? ? … ?
21 10021 Yes Yes ? ? ? … ?
22 10022 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
23 10023 Yes No ? ? ? … ?
… … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … …
2000 12000 Yes No ? ? ? ? ?
2014 Engagement Survey
Retain:
Identifying Key
Engagement
Drivers of
Retention
Engagement HRIS
The HR Business Partners have been
tasked with identifying the key
retention drivers at the company

16. 40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12
Survival Chart: I feel empowered to make
bold decisions
Time since Engagement Survey
Moderate Driver of Retention
Answered Favorably
Answered Unfavorably
Answered Neutrally
Retain:
Identifying Key
Engagement
Drivers of
Retention
Engagement HRIS
88%
78%
62%

17. 40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12
Survival Chart: I am given opportunities to
develop skills relevant to my interests
Answered Favorably
Answered Unfavorably
Answered Neutrally
Retain:
Identifying Key
Engagement
Drivers of
Retention
Time since Engagement Survey
Engagement HRIS
Strong Driver of Retention
92%
76%
45%

18. 40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Month 3 Month 6 Month 9 Month 12
Survival Chart: I believe my total compensation
is fair, relative to similar roles at other companies
Answered Favorably
Answered Unfavorably
Answered Neutrally
Retain:
Identifying Key
Engagement
Drivers of
Retention
Time since Engagement Survey
Engagement HRIS
Weak Driver of Retention
79%
76%
71%

19. Stop Relying On Anecdotes

20. Where are you in your journey?
DATA METRICS TRENDS ANALYTICS
Operations Generalists HRBPs/Leaders Analysts
“How Many” “Average”
“Compared to
last year”
“Strategic/
Predictive”?

21. Common Hurdles:
• Don’t have the analytics capabilities (talent)
• Don’t have enough data
• Don’t have enough resources (money)
My suggested approach:
• Gather your data and test your own hypothesis
• Find something interesting and gauge interest
• Ask for more time, data, and resources to explore the topic
“Young Company”
Profile
The

22. “Mature Company”
Common Hurdles:
• Don’t have the executive sponsorship
• Don’t have enough time
• Don’t have employee trust
My suggested approach:
• Take a reporting request and find the “question behind the
question”
• Propose an analysis that would help take an anecdote to an
evidence-based decision
• Ask for the time and white space to explore the topic -
without pressure for a finding
Profile
The

23. Take Action

24. Questions? Connect with Culture Amp!
email: stevenh@cultureamp.com
linkedin: thestevenhuang
More Resources:
www.peoplegeeks.com
People Geekly: http://bit.ly/pplgkly
People Geek Slack Channel: http://bit.ly/pplgeekslack
Steven Huang
Data & Insights Strategist