staffing and services 2009 survey - willis - global … · staffing and services 2009 survey. ......

STAFFINGAND SERVICES2009 SURVEY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. strategy + tactIcs: the evolvIng hr role 2

II. about thIs report 4

III. Key FIndIngs 6

Iv. worKForce overvIew 8

v. turnover 12

vI. hr department structure 14

vII. hr department responsIbIlItIes and servIces 23

vIII. who handles payroll? 26

IX. hr technology and outsourcIng 28

X. hr staFFIng levels 33

XI. demographIcs 37

XIII. survey Instrument 39

XIv. about wIllIs 41

Xv. hr technology and outsourcIng 43

XvI. use oF manager and/or employee selF-servIce 45

STRATEGY +TACTICS: THE EVOLVING HR ROLE

Staffing and Services 2009 Survey

Willis North America n 3

STRATEGY + TACTICS: THE EVOLVING HR ROLE

It’s been said many times and for good reason: employees are an organization’s greatestasset. Their skills, time and talents underpin and drive organizational success across allareas, so the ability to attract, motivate and retain the most qualified and productiveemployees is a critical factor in the survival of any organization. Successful organizationsdevelop a human capital strategy aligned to overall business objectives, and many HRdepartments have evolved over the past couple of decades to become strategic businesspartners in that effort.

At forward-thinking organizations, HR is being tasked with:

n Leadership and organizational developmentn Developing and deploying a powerful employee value proposition that enables the

company to better attract and retain the necessary workforcen Providing a clear line of sight to business goals and objectives by tying pay to

performancen Being involved at the start of major organizational changes, such as mergers and

acquisitionsn Proactively partnering with line management

At the same time, most HR teams remain responsible for traditional transactional andoperational responsibilities, such as recruitment and selection, employee relations, trainingand development, and compensation and benefits. Increasingly, much of this transactionalwork is being outsourced completely, or handled in-house more effectively through technologyand shared service centers, allowing human resource professionals to focus on more strategicinitiatives. But with all this talk of delivering strategic human resource management, HRprofessionals must remember their chief customers may be top management, but HR mustbe an advocate for the employees as well. HR professionals face a broad challenge: effectivelyplaying a strategic role while ensuring tactical needs are met.

The HR role has never been more central to organizational success. It has also never been socomplicated.

ABOUT THISREPORT


ABOUT THIS REPORT

HR Partner, the HR Consulting arm of Willis, conducted a survey in late 2009 about HRstaffing and how HR responsibilities and functions are handled. We contacted subscribers toWillis’ HR Focus online newsletter. A web-based platform was utilized to collect, measureand analyze data.

Complete responses were received from 708 organizations of varying sizes, industries andgeographic locations: 58% of survey respondents represented companies with 249 or feweremployees; 26% represented employers with 250 to 999 employees; and 16% representedthose employers with 1,000 or more employees. The survey captured an often overlookedgroup – small to mid-size organizations – as 243 respondents came from companies withfewer than 100 employees.

The objective of this survey is to provide a better understanding of how HR is structured andhow it contributes to the organization. We examined four key issues:

n Organizational workforce and turnovern HR department structuren HR department responsibilities and servicen HR technology and outsourcing

We also asked how HR departments are staffed to handle these issues.

This report analyzes the survey results. In most cases percentages have been rounded towhole numbers. The confidence interval is 95% +/- 10%.


KEY FINDINGS


KEY FINDINGS

ORGANIZATIONAL WORKFORCE AND TURNOVER

n The use of part-time employees was not prevalent among survey respondents, with only11% of the total workforce being considered part time.

n Voluntary turnover (10.9%) remains slightly higher than involuntary turnover (9.1%),even though the current state of the economy would suggest otherwise.

HR DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE

n More organizations appear to understand the strategic importance of HR and includeHR as part of top management: 76% of all respondents stated that the top HRprofessional at their organization reports into the C-Suite, with 56% reporting directlyto the CEO or president.

n Organizations have shifted to a centralized HR function, with 77% of all respondentsreporting this type of HR structure.

n The use of HR specialists is prevalent in organizations with 500 or more employees,while smaller organizations are dependent on HR generalists that can handle amultitude of HR responsibilities.

n The majority of HR specialists work in positions that are administrative/clerical orprofessional. They mostly specialize in benefits, recruitment or training anddevelopment. Generalists hold the majority of managerial and HR executive positions.

HR DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND SERVICES

n HR still seems to play a limited role in strategic planning, with only 45% of respondentsreporting this as an activity HR performs for the organization.

n HR generalists spend only 3% of their time on strategic planning activities.

HR TECHNOLOGY AND OUTSOURCING

n With the exception of payroll, HRIS (basic demographic and employee information),time and attendance and HR reporting, many HR activities are still handled manuallyin-house.

n The use of employee and manager self-service systems continues to be limited to largerorganizations and even among them is not widespread.


hr staFFIngratIos

the old standard of one

hr employee for every

100 total employees has

long been outdated. In

fact, organizations with

100 or more employees

report on average one

hr Fte for every 144

employees.

WORKFORCEOVERVIEW


WORKFORCE OVERVIEW

HR staffing levels are typically determined by several factors, including employee headcount, the propensity forturnover at the organization, union status and the number of locations. Understanding the makeup of the workforce iskey to drawing an accurate picture of HR responsibilities and staffing needs.


Table 1 provides a breakdown of the 708 survey participants by size, including average number of employees and averagenumber of full-time equivalents (FTEs). Table 2 shows the average number of locations and states broken out byemployer size. Predictably, the larger organizations reported the broader geographic spread. Later in the survey findingswe will discuss the impact of size and geography on HR staffing.

Table 1: Workforce Overview < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

Average employee headcount 26 73 161 343 690 3785 777

Average number of FTEs? 23 66 144 305 570 3120 648

Answered Question 144 99 170 101 83 111 708

Table 2: States and Locations < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

States 3 3 6 5 7 11 6

Locations 2 2 4 13 20 124 25


The use of part-time employees among respondents was nominal – 11% reported regularpart-time positions, while 89% said all staff was considered full-time. This was somewhatsurprising, given the fact that creating flexible work arrangements continues to surface as away for employers to address several social and economic trends impacting business today:

n Addressing work-life balance has become increasingly important and part-time hoursoffer options in that regard.

n Part-time work appeals to segments of our multi-generational workforce, especiallybaby boomers who may be hoping to retire, but because of financial difficulties in theeconomic downturn must stay in the workforce.

n The recession has forced many organizations to take cost-cutting actions, such aslayoffs. Reducing hours would seem to be a way to cut overhead while maintainingemployee skills and knowledge.

In addition, we found little use of contingent workers (independent contractors andseasonal employees) among survey participants; 176 respondents reported using seasonalworkers and on average hiring 141 per year. Independent contractors were used by 275organizations, who hired on average 34 independent contractors per year. The use andnumber of contingent workers increased with the size of the organization.

BREAKOUT OF WORKFORCE BY STATUS

FULL-TIME: EXEMPT(40%)

FULL-TIME: NON-EXEMPT(49%)

PART-TIME: NON-EXEMPT(10%)

PART-TIME: EXEMPT(1%)


Table 3: Union Representation < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

No employees are unionized 94% 86% 89% 80% 78% 73% 85%

5% or less 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 5% 2%

5% to 9% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% 1%

10% to 24% 0% 2% 3% 4% 4% 6% 3%

25% to 49% 1% 3% 1% 0% 2% 5% 2%

50% to 74% 1% 8% 4% 10% 6% 4% 5%

75% to 100% 3% 0% 2% 3% 6% 5% 3%


Most of the participating organizations (85%), as indicated in Table 3, reported they did not have a union environment,meaning one less responsibility for the HR Department.

TURNOVER


TURNOVER

Turnover refers to employees' permanent separation from anorganization. Involuntary separations or discharges are employer-initiated and can occur for reasons ranging from employee misconduct orperformance to economic conditions. Voluntary separations areemployee-initiated and fall into two categories: unavoidable or avoidable.Unavoidable separations occur, for example, when an employee resigns toretire or take care of family obligations. Avoidable separations result froman employee's dissatisfaction with management philosophy,compensation, the job itself or the work environment.

Turnover can never be eliminated. In fact some degree of turnover ishelpful because it opens up opportunities for new workers and internalpromotions. The shedding of disengaged, poor performers can beespecially beneficial. Turnover of course can be costly, as it may mean anincrease in recruitment and training costs and lost productivity andknowledge.

In part, turnover reflects economic conditions. When the economy ishealthy, voluntary turnover tends to rise, as employees are enticed by anactive job market. In tougher times, we see an increase in involuntaryturnover. For example 7.6 million people have lost their jobs since therecession started in December 2007, according to the January 8, 2010 BLSEmployment Situation Summary.

Not all respondents answered our questions about annual turnover. Of the565 that did, 34 companies reported zero turnover and the remainingcompanies reported an average turnover of 20%.

Among the respondents that noted both voluntary and involuntaryturnover, 54.5% was attributable to voluntary turnover (average voluntaryrate of 10.9%) and 45.5% to involuntary (average involuntary turnover rateof 9.1%). We expected to see a higher number of involuntary separations,given the number of layoffs that have occurred over the last two years.However, the higher percentage of voluntary turnover could reflect theefforts of organizations taking advantage of the recession to pursue toptalent at a lower cost.

Turnover cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be controlled and tothat end, tracking turnover is critical to the early discovery of trends.Understanding “leaver” behavior is critical for organizations as they lookto make adjustments in management strategies or total reward offerings.Once controllable causes are identified, more concrete steps can be takento lower turnover and its resulting costs.


addressIng causes oF turnover

turnover rates usually decrease during

times of high unemployment, but hr

departments should be proactive in

preparing for a turn in the economic

climate. addressing retention issues

now will help companies maintain

valuable employees later. while it is

impossible to control all the factors

contributing to employee turnover, hr

can take steps to reduce it.

n track reasons for turnover in order

to target strategies for lowering

voluntary turnover.

n conduct exit interviews following all

voluntary terminations to better

understand why employees are

leaving.

n create an effective and well

communicated employee value

proposition that includes

competitive compensation and

benefits, as well as recognition

and rewards, timely performance

appraisals and opportunities for

professional growth.

n ensure two-way communication:

managers should be encouraged to

get to know their employees, listen

to employees and encourage upward

communication.

n develop and deploy a comprehensive

on-boarding process to ensure

employees understand the

organization and the value

they bring.

HR DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURE


HR DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE

No two human resource departments are structured exactly the same. They range from single personneladministrators in small companies to teams of specialists at larger firms. Functions range from primarilyadministrative work to participation in all aspects of corporate decision making.

The reporting structure and location of HR staff is greatly influenced by the size of the organization, the number oflocations and the company’s overall business strategy. Organizations should understand that no matter the numberand location of HR staff, their HR resources must be structured in a way that allows HR to deliver on actionable andmeasurable HR goals that are aligned to the company’s strategy.

WHO DOES HR REPORT TO? At top performing organizations, HR has a seat at the executive table. HR is viewed as a critical function and reportsdirectly into the organization’s top executive. However, reporting lines are not the only factor involved in makingsure that HR has the support needed to do its job. For HR to be effective in a strategic role, the person to whom theHR leader reports should:

n Support and help to drive HR initiativesn Partner strategically with HR by involving them in critical business decisions n Ensure effective two-way communication n See the importance of aligning HR strategies with business objectivesn Understand the human capital practices necessary to drive superior performance

In many cases, the role of the CFO is to control and cut costs, while the role of the CEO/president is to drive initiativesand create a vision for the organization. It appears that HR would be positioned better as a strategic partner underthe CEO/president. According to survey respondents the majority (56%) reported that the top executive in their HRdepartment reports to the CEO and/or president of the organization, no matter the size of the organization.


CEO/PRESIDENT (56%)

CFO (16%)

COO (5%)

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OREQUIVALENT POSITION (5%)

VICE PRESIDENT OREQUIVALENT LEVEL POSITION (5%)

DIRECTOR OR EQUIVALENTLEVEL POSITION (3%)

OTHER (10%)

A number of respondents (10%) selected “other” as the person the top HR executive reports to. These respondentsstated that HR reported to the controller, legal counsel, owner, area manager – or that the organization simply hadno HR department.

76% OF ALL RESPONDENTS STATED THAT THE TOP HR PROFESSIONAL ATTHEIR ORGANIZATION IS REPORTING TO THE C-SUITE WITH 56% REPORTINGDIRECTLY TO THE CEO/PRESIDENT.

CENTRALIZATION VS. DECENTRALIZATION

In a typical centralized HR structure, corporate headquarters setsthe HR strategic direction, establishes policies and procedures, anduses the collective group for purchasing power. In a decentralizedoperation, HR reports into the local/regional management and mayor may not have a dotted line to a corporate HR department. Somecompanies combine the two in a hybrid or matrix organization,where HR has a dual rather than single chain of command, reportinginto both the local/regional operations and to corporate HR. Somelarge organizations use a shared-services unit located in thecorporate headquarters or other centralized location.

Historically we have seen organizations shift back and forth betweencentralization and decentralization in regard to many functions,including HR. A centralized approach offers cost savings by reducingheadcount and duplication of effort in the field. However, some HRleaders find they lose touch with employees when HR staff is not inthe field, and HR cannot work as strategically with line managerswhen they are not in the mix every day.

In today’s economy, we see an expected shift toward centralization,as organizations look for ways to cut headcount. In addition, withadvancements in collaborative technology, such as instant messaging,video conferencing and application sharing, many feel that HR’s physicallocation matters less. Location is less of a consideration in hiring ingeneral, as organizations seek out top talent regardless of address.


shared servIces

although we did not address shared

services in this survey, increasing

numbers of organizations are

establishing hr service centers.

primarily used in larger organizations

or those organizations with multiple

locations, these centers consolidate

transactional functions such as

benefits administration, payroll

processing and leave administration at

a centralized location. organizations

that have set up hr service centers

report several benefits:

n lower transactional cost

n Improved operating efficiency

n hr professionals have more time

to provide more strategic support

n higher comfort level than if the

services were outsourced

n better customer service with a

team of professionals that are

experts in employee matters

Field hr may be resistant to the

centralization of these functions, but

in many cases these changes open

opportunities for hr professionals

to take on a more proactive role as

strategic business partners. by

eliminating the transactional work,

the hr professional is better positioned

to work on strategic initiatives and

focus on talent management.


Table 4: HR Reporting Structure < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

Centralized: All report/roll-upinto corporate HR 71% 68% 86% 82% 80% 71% 77%

Decentralized: All report intovarious business units/divisionsand there is not Corporate HRfunction

4% 5% 4% 4% 2% 2% 4%

Mix: We have a mix of corporateHR and Field HR staff that reportinto business units/divisions

4% 5% 4% 12% 13% 25% 10%

Other 21% 22% 7% 2% 5% 2% 10%


Table 4 provides a breakout of the results based on structure and company size. According to survey respondents,regardless of size, most organizations (77%) use a centralized structure while only 4% use a decentralized structure.Hybrid structures were more prevalent in larger organizations: 25% of organizations with 1,000 or more employeesreported a mix of corporate HR and field HR staff. Organizations with less than 100 employees averaged two or fewerHR staff members, so neither approach was applicable to their organization.


HR GENERALIST ANDSPECIALIST

As organizations ask more of their HR staff,they need to make sure their HR team has theright competencies and capabilities to deliveron their strategy. This begs the question: HRgeneralist vs. HR specialist?

An HR specialist typically focuses on one ortwo key functional HR responsibilities, suchas recruitment, benefits, compensation orlabor. A generalist may focus on the biggerpicture or juggles all HR functions.

With so many organizations moving tocentralizing and outsourcing certain HRfunctions, we have seen a reduction in thenumber of HR specialists and a rise in thenumber of generalists. The recession has alsopushed HR departments in that direction.When HR teams are thinned in cost-cuttingmoves, organizations tend to retain HRemployees who can handle diverse HRresponsibilities. When specialized needsarise, they may be more likely to hireconsultants rather than add HR specialists tothe payroll.

The size of the organization also plays a rolein determining the number of generalists andspecialists. Smaller companies rely on smallerHR staffs, creating a greater need forgeneralized knowledge of various HRfunctions. Not surprisingly, in organizationswith 250 employees or less, HR generalistsprevail. Among organizations with 500 ormore employees, 74% report a mix ofgeneralists and specialist. See Table 5.

hr generalIst or specIalIst: who has thegreatest Impact and opportunIty?

the answer lies in whether you would rather navigate the

battleship or build and maintain the engine turbines. both are

vital and crucial tasks for smooth sailing.

my experience has revealed that hr generalists typically prefer

to see the big picture throughout an organization, with a variety

of touch points lending to the personalization of hr. In today’s

workforce, where everyone is pressured to do more with less,

generalists possess greater employability due to their

interpersonal connections and prowess to touch areas outside

of hr such as labor, policy and public relations.

hr specialists, where I have spent most of my career, are

thought to be more siloed in their approach and focused on

the intersecting pieces. they are valued by larger employers,

especially in a shared services environment. their career

opportunities are much more limited as companies streamline

or even outsource their hr processes. however, specialization

can also be part of a natural progression in career advancement

to the generalist/manager level, as specialization leads to

attainment of subject matter expertise.

Greg LohamnDirector of Benefits and Compensation Stein Mart

JOB LEVELS

In addition, to looking at the overall use of generalists and specialists, we also asked where in the organizationgeneralists and specialists could be found. Specialists tend to work in the professional (18%) and administrative/clerical(13%) positions, with very few (10% in total) working in management positions. In contrast, generalists seem to bespread evenly at each level.


PERCENT OF TOTAL HR FTEs THAT ARE GENERALIST vs. SPECIALIST PER JOB LEVEL

ADMINISTRATIVE/CLERICAL

PROFESSIONAL

MANAGER

DIRECTOR OR ABOVE

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

HR TOTAL

HR SPECIALIST

HR GENERALIST

29%13%

16%

32%18%

14%

21%7%

14%

18%3%

15%

Table 5: Use of generalist, specialistor a mix

< 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

HR Generalist ONLY 80% 79% 67% 46% 24% 19% 56%

HR Specialist ONLY 2% 6% 0% 4% 2% 7% 3%

A mix of Generalist and Specialist 18% 15% 33% 51% 74% 74% 41%


WHAT DO THE SPECIALISTSSPECIALIZE IN?

The most common specialists focus onbenefits, recruitment or training anddevelopment. Organizations rarely hire laborrelations, EEO/diversity or wellnessspecialists. Given the small number ofunionized workplaces, the low need for laborrelations expertise is no surprise. With theincreasing attention paid to wellnessprograms, we expect the demand for wellnessspecialists to rise.


PERCENT OF HR FTEs WORKING IN EACH SPECIALIST ROLE

BENEFITS

RECRUITMENT

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

PAYROLL

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS(NON-UNION)

COMPENSATION

BENEFITS AND COMPENSATION(IF COMBINED)

HRIS

SAFETY

WELLNESS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT/DIVERSITY

LABOR RELATIONS

18%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

18%

15%

8%

6%

11%

6%

6%

4%

3%

2%

2%


HOW DO THE HR GENERALISTSSPEND THEIR TIME?

According to Table 6, regardless of companysize, HR generalists focus mostly on benefitsadministration, employee relations andrecruitment. Not surprisingly, for smallerorganizations, those with less than 100employees, HR generalists spend the largestamount of their time on transactionalactivities, such as payroll, benefitsadministration and recordkeeping. This is notsurprising, given that in small organizations,there is often only one HR professionalhandling both HR and payroll.

In large organizations, where transactionalwork is often outsourced, handled byspecialists or by a payroll staff, generaliststend to focus more on employee relations andon recruitment and selection.

Generalists spend little time on strategicplanning activities – only 3% of HR generalisttime is spent on this essential task. Why? Thelikely answers are lack of time in the day,insufficient support from senior managementand inexperience on the part of the HR staff.In some cases, HR generalists may needsimply to explain the importance of bringingHR into strategic discussions.

hr as a strategIc partner

For hr professionals looking to offer more as a strategic

partner, the key challenge may be making others aware of

the value hr brings to the organization. they can start by

remembering how hr can affect profits, earnings and growth

by influencing employee performance. strategic hr

professionals should be able to:

n understand and communicate their personal and

departmental value proposition

n understand the health of the company (revenues,

expenses, net income, earnings per share, etc.)

n understand the perceptions of their constituents

n define what success will look like and how it will

be measured

n design an hr business plan and obtain buy-in from

senior management

n execute the business plan and measure results by

reporting on key hr metrics

n express passion, energy and excitement

n be passionate about sales, profits and financial results

n act as the voice of the company to their constituents


Table 6: HR Generalist Activities < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

Benefits Administration 16% 18% 15% 16% 12% 13% 15%

Employee Relations (non-union) 8% 7% 13% 14% 20% 22% 13%

Recruitment and Selection 7% 7% 13% 13% 15% 14% 11%

Recordkeeping 16% 11% 9% 9% 7% 6% 10%

Payroll Administration andProcessing 17% 13% 10% 7% 5% 5% 10%

Employment Law/Compliance 6% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%

Performance Management 4% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 6%

Compensation Administration 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5%

Leave Administration 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4%

Health and Wellness 5% 5% 3% 4% 3% 2% 4%

Training and Development 3% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Strategic Planning 2% 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 3%

Safety 3% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 3%

Labor Relations 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 2%

Facilities Management 5% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2%


CAREER ADVICE: SPECIALIZE OR GENERALIZE?

Which path offers better opportunities to the HR professional? As generalists become more prevalent, the specializedskills can be hard to find. Generalists with specific needs will often turn to specialists to solve problems. However, thegeneralists tend to rise to the top HR posts. Those with the highest career goals should consider the generalist path – but keep track of their specialist friends so when they run an HR team, they can find the expertise they may need.

HR DEPARTMENTRESPONSIBILITIESAND SERVICES


HR DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND SERVICES

HR departments handle an exceptionally broad range of duties. To keep track of it all, and to better align their servicesand delivery to the needs of their organization, HR leaders should ask the following questions not only of themselves butof the internal clients they serve:

n What activities does HR perform? n How much time is devoted to each activity? n How important is each activity to the overall success of the organization? n How well is HR performing in each activity? n What percentage of time should HR spend on each activity?n What activities should be performed that are currently not being performed?

The ability to measure and communicate the business impact of both strategic and tactical HR activities is critical.Proper alignment and service delivery cannot be done in a vacuum, and all activities should be evaluated from priorityand performance standpoints.

As seen in Table 7, of the 14 HR services listed in the survey, the majority of respondents perform the first 10,underscoring the breadth of HR responsibility. The most commonly provided services include benefits administrationand leave administration, both of which are mostly transactional in nature. Interestingly, strategic planning was on thelower end, with only 45% of all respondents providing this HR service to their organization. Yet strategic input is viewedby many as one of the most important activities that HR performs. This disparity shows the need for HR to be moreintegrated in the development of HR and business strategy.


Table 7: HR Services < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000 All

Benefits Administration 93% 95% 97% 98% 94% 96% 96%

Employment Law/Compliance 76% 94% 93% 92% 92% 89% 89%

Leave Administration 78% 89% 91% 96% 86% 93% 88%

Recordkeeping 92% 92% 88% 91% 89% 78% 88%

Employee Relations (non-union) 67% 79% 92% 94% 93% 91% 85%

Compensation Administration 72% 77% 82% 88% 84% 89% 81%

Health and Wellness 65% 79% 80% 89% 81% 88% 80%

Recruitment and Selection 51% 67% 82% 88% 80% 91% 76%

Performance Management 40% 65% 75% 84% 81% 85% 70%

Training and Development 35% 66% 70% 74% 75% 69% 63%

Safety 40% 60% 58% 53% 39% 31% 47%

Strategic Planning 25% 42% 51% 49% 52% 59% 45%

Labor Relations 18% 31% 25% 35% 36% 39% 30%

Facilities/Office Management 56% 36% 26% 22% 10% 12% 29%


WHO HANDLESPAYROLL


WHO HANDLES PAYROLL?

Should payroll report into HR or Finance/Accounting? The answer to this age-old HRquestion is still a blur. It is also still crucial. Payroll is usually an organization's largestexpense and it directly impacts the organization's most valuable asset, its employees.

HR professionals will argue that because HR facilitates activities such as new hires, salaryincreases, terminations, leaves of absence, and benefits deductions, payroll should fall underHR. Being on the front lines, HR has the data needed to run payroll, and keeping it underHR’s umbrella can eliminate duplication of work.

Finance and accounting professionals may counter that due to the financial impact ofpayroll on the company's books, auditing and tax situations, the payroll function shouldreside with them.

Many organizations in fact employ a hybrid approach, which reflects the need for regulatorycompliance (from Sarbanes-Oxley, for example), the increased sophistication ofHRIS/HRMS systems, and the outsourcing of payroll processing. In hybrid approaches, HRtakes responsibility for the front-end input of employee data into the HRMS system, withprocessing/administration of payroll going through either an in-house system or vendoroutsourcing. Once processing is complete, the responsibility is handed off to Finance so thatjournal entries can be made, taxes can be paid, payroll data can be audited and informationcan be uploaded and populated in the company’s financial systems for month-end reporting.

Which approach is more common? Finance/accounting wins, but not by much. The majority(55%) of respondents stated that payroll typically reports into their finance or accountingdepartment. For those organizations that selected other (9%), the HR department andpayroll functions were combined or the organizations used a matrix approach.


WHO HANDLES PAYROLL

ACCOUNTING/FINANCE(55%)

HR DEPARTMENT(37%)

OTHER(9%)

HR TECHNOLOGYANDOUTSOURCING



HR TECHNOLOGY USE AND OUTSOURCING

As HR technology has become more affordable, it has become a more essential part of HR administration. Initiallydesigned for payroll and recordkeeping, HR technology has expanded into every aspect of human capital management,including recruitment and selection, benefits administration, performance management, employee communication andmuch more. In addition, organizations have not only looked to HR technology in order to increase efficiency and lowercosts, but they have sought to completely outsource numerous transactional activities.


Table 8: Use of HR Technology and Outsourcing

Handled In-House Manually

Handled In-House withAutomation/Software

Largely orMostly

Outsourced

Not Applicable

Response Count

Payroll 8% 67% 22% 3% 648

HRIS: Basic employee demographicsand employment information 27% 65% 2% 7% 658

Time and Attendance 31% 62% 4% 3% 669

HR Reporting (e.g., EEO-1 reports, metrics reports) 32% 56% 5% 8% 660

Benefits Administration 41% 48% 10% 0% 664

Employee Communications (i.e., postinginformation for employees to access,such as policies, procedures, etc.)

68% 31% 0% 1% 672

Recruitment/Applicant Tracking 62% 31% 2% 5% 664

Performance Management 69% 27% 0% 4% 660

Compensation Planning/Management 66% 27% 2% 5% 667

Training and Development (e.g. Content, LMS,) 58% 25% 7% 9% 648

Leave of Absence Administration 70% 24% 3% 3% 670

On-Boarding 58% 13% 0% 29% 640

COBRA 28% 12% 56% 3% 670

Succession Planning 58% 9% 1% 33% 640


We asked participants to indicate how HR functions are handled intheir organization. The results, as seen in Table 8, showed thattechnology or outsourcing is used for payroll processing by most(89%) organizations. Following closely behind were HRIS, time andattendance and HR reporting.

A surprisingly small percentage of organizations use talentmanagement software, which can be used for applicant tracking,performance management, training and development, compensationadministration and succession planning. With so much talk abouttalent management, and so many applications available, we expectedmore usage of software designed to help ensure effective alignment ofhuman capital to organizational goals and objectives.

In a similar surprise, administration of leaves of absences, which isone of the more transactional HR activities, is handled manually bythe majority (70%) of respondents. Federal and in some cases stateand local requirements for administering leave can be time-consuming and challenging. Again, we were surprised we did not findmore organizations outsourcing or using technology to support thisactivity.

In regard to total outsourcing, the most likely function to beoutsourced is COBRA administration. Next was payrolladministration. The majority of the organizations that outsourcetheir payroll function are on the small side – with fewer than 250employees.


Table 9 shows that correlation between the size of the organization and the use of technology or outsourcing. Firms with100 or fewer employees reported much less use of technology and outsourcing services than larger companies. Of coursemuch of this is to be expected, given the economies of scale. The gap was especially wide in the use of talent management(recruitment/applicant tracking) software, with 65% of companies with more than 1,000 employees using such systems.

Table 9: By Company Size < 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000

Payroll 42% 58% 73% 78% 81% 80%

HRIS: Basic employee demographicsand employment information 33% 49% 67% 81% 80% 88%

Time and Attendance 41% 57% 62% 78% 71% 74%

HR reporting (e.g., EEO-1 reports,metrics reports) 25% 40% 61% 63% 68% 84%

Benefits Administration 27% 39% 50% 59% 58% 66%

Employee Communications 15% 26% 33% 35% 40% 46%

Recruitment/Applicant Tracking 9% 17% 25% 36% 44% 65%

Performance Management 12% 20% 25% 35% 35% 39%

Compensation Planning/Management 17% 20% 27% 28% 32% 41%

Training and Development (e.g. Content, LMS) 12% 18% 20% 34% 32% 44%

Leave of Absence Administration 17% 24% 24% 23% 31% 27%

On-Boarding 5% 13% 8% 11% 13% 30%

COBRA 10% 13% 13% 15% 9% 15%

Succession Planning 6% 13% 5% 11% 11% 13%

Answered Question 137 93 165 95 80 106

IN HR AUTOMATION AND OUTSOURCING, SIZE MATTERS


MANAGER AND EMPLOYEE SELF-SERVICE

HR departments are constantly challenged to increase efficiency and provide better employee services. One response isan employee self-service (ESS) system. Employee self-service requires a combination of technology and organizationalchange that enables employees to view their HR data, such as W-2 forms, and in some cases to enact HR transactions inthe workplace, such as requesting time off, enrolling in benefits, or making changes to their contact details. No matterthe type of self-service used, ESS takes work off the HR professional’s desk and gives employees faster turnaround.

According to our survey results, as seen in Table 11, few organizations report using ESS technology. As with the generaluse of HR technology and outsourcing, the use increased with the total number of employees. For a more detailed viewof these numbers, please see the Appendix section of this report.

Of course, even the best technology is only as good as the training given to the end-users. In order to maximize theefficiency of these systems, their use must be part of a cultural change across the organization.

Table 10: By Company Size, which func-tions are largely or mostly outsourced

< 50 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000

COBRA 35% 53% 60% 55% 70% 71%

Payroll 38% 30% 21% 15% 14% 10%

Benefits Administration 11% 11% 11% 6% 6% 13%

Answered Question 137 93 165 95 80 106

In outsourcing, as indicated in Table 10, small companies frequently use vendors to handle COBRA administration butlarge companies do so more than two-thirds of the time. In payroll administration, small companies outpace largecompanies by more than three to one in the use of outsourced vendors. Interestingly, in benefits administrationoutsourcing, the highest uptake is with the smallest and the largest companies.


Table 11: Use of Manager and Employee Self-Service

Handled In-House Manually

Handled In-House withAutomation/Software

Largely orMostly

Outsourced

Not Applicable

Response Count

Reporting 44% 52% 2% 2% 658

Time reporting/approvals (hourly andexception) 47% 50% 2% 2% 660

Pay statements (paperless pay) 13% 49% 21% 17% 662

W-2 viewing 35% 46% 15% 5% 661

Personal information changes, includingaddress, marriage status 54% 44% 1% 1% 667

Direct deposit changes 51% 38% 7% 5% 667

W-4 changes (e.g., tax withholdings) 57% 36% 6% 1% 668

Benefits o pen enrollment 59% 31% 9% 1% 669

Benefits new hires enrollment 66% 30% 3% 1% 663

Benefits life events enrollment 63% 28% 6% 3% 667

Time-off requests/approvals (e.g., vacation) 70% 28% 1% 2% 671

Performance management 70% 24% 0% 6% 654

Salary planning 69% 23% 0% 8% 652

Training registration and approvals 66% 22% 1% 10% 654

Initiating compensation actions 74% 21% 1% 4% 656

Recruitment (screening applicants,scheduling interviews, etc.) 75% 21% 1% 2% 664

Terminating employees 79% 20% 0% 1% 666

HR STAFFINGLEVELS



HR STAFFING LEVELS

One indicator of HR service capacity or organizational efficiency is the HR ratio, or the ratioof HR employees to all employees. The old standard of one HR employee for every 100 totalemployees has long been outdated. Whether this is due to the economy, changes in HR staffcapabilities, technology or outsourcing is unclear. But this shortfall confirms for some theimpression that HR is often an understaffed and undervalued department.

Yet the HR ratio remains an important metric in understanding the relationship betweenthe HR department and the rest of the organization, and can be a useful indicator of overallefficiency of HR services.

ORGANIZATIONS WITH FEWER THAN 100 EMPLOYEESOrganizations with fewer than 100 employees will often see a better HR staff-to-employeeratio because there is a certain baseline of HR support needed for any organization. In theseorganizations, HR will typically wear more than one hat, covering payroll, office management,safety and, in smaller organizations, administrative support. In some cases the persontaking on the HR role may even be the CEO/president or CFO. This was the case for ahandful of survey respondents.

Of the 246 respondents with less than 100 employees, 24 reported that they have no HRFTEs for their employee populations, which averaged 36. Another 14 participants only had apart-time HR person. The larger end of this small company segment, with an average of 54total employees, reported an average of 1.29 HR FTEs.

HR STAFFING FOR ORGANIZATIONS WITH 100 OR MOREEMPLOYEESOnce organizations reach 100 or more employees, we start to see them establishing an HRdepartment, or at least designating an individual who will be solely dedicated to HRfunctions. Table 12 shows that organizations with 100 to 249 employees reported an averageof two FTEs dedicated to HR. Once the employee population passed 250 employees thetarget ratio of one to 100 became more elusive.

In larger, high-performing organizations, we tend to find HR handling a higher number ofemployees per HR FTE, because these organizations typically have the technology and oroutsourcing infrastructure to handle more of the time-consuming transactional activities.The larger the organization, the higher the number of employees per HR FTE.

ImpactIng thesIZe oF the hr department

the size of hr

departments depends

on a number of factors,

such as:

n competencies of hr

staff members

n responsibilities/

services delivered

n technology

n outsourcing

n centralized/

decentralized hr

function

n number of locations

n union presence

n workforce size

n management

priorities

n employee profiles

FACTORS INFLUENCING HR STAFFINGWhen analyzing HR staffing needs, many look solely at employee headcount. We wanted to examine other factors,including, unionization, payroll, number of locations and HR technology.

UNION VS. NON-UNIONWhat if the workforce is unionized? Does that impact the overall number of HR staff needed for the employee population?As shown in Table 13, we found no real difference in the ratio of HR staff members if the workforce was unionized. HRFTEs in a unionized environment handled only three fewer employees than FTEs in non-unionized environments.

PAYROLL ADMINISTRATIONSurprisingly, HR taking responsibility forpayroll did not increase HR staffing. Logicwould seem to dictate that more staff wouldbe needed to handle this large task. It isunclear what impact payroll responsibilityhas on overall HR service, but it does requirea substantial commitment of resources.

NUMBER OF LOCATIONSThe FTE-to-employee ratio increases fororganizations with a small number oflocations. Companies with two to fivelocations nearly approach the magic numberof 100. As the number of location rises, theratio slips to the point where organizationswith 50+ locations reported a ratio of oneFTE for every 315 employees. Organizationswith many locations and few employees ateach of those locations, typically rely on thelocal operations manager to handle HRresponsibilities.


Table 12: HR Staffing Ratios 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 > 1,000All organizations

with 100 Plus Employees

1 HR FTE for every XXX Employees 97 114 150 240 144

Answered Question 167 100 82 109 458

Table 13: Impact of Various Factors on HR Staffing

All locations with 100 or more employees

All locations with 100 or more employees 144

Impact of Unionization HR FTE perXXX EE

Union (n=87) 142

Non-Union (n=371) 145

Impact of Payroll Responsibility HR FTE perXXX EE

Payroll Reporting into HR (n=178) 140

Payroll Reporting into Accounting and Finance(n=250) 143

Payroll Reporting into Other (n=30) 175

Impact of Number of Locations HR FTE perXXX EE

1 Location (n=95) 128

2 to 5 Locations (n=140) 102



50 plus Locations (n=46) 315

* Represents companies with a 100 or more employees

THE IMPACT OF HR TECHNOLOGY ON HRSTAFFING RATIOSThe impact of HR technology and outsourcing on HR staffing ratiosproved to be surprisingly ambiguous.

To assess the impact of HR technology and outsourcing on HRstaffing, we examined the 14 activities listed in question 25 of thesurvey. We assigned a value of one point for anything that theorganization handled through technology/automation or outscoringand a zero for anything the company handled manually or did nothandle at all. A company using software or outsourcing to handle allof the listed HR activities would receive a score of 14.


14 hr actIvItIes lIst

1. payroll

2. hrIs: basic employee

demographics and employment

Information

3. hr reporting (e.g., eeo-1 reports,

metrics reports)

4. time and attendance

5. benefits administration

6. employee communications (i.e.,

posting information for employees

to access, such as policies,

procedures, etc.)

7. recruitment/applicant tracking

8. performance management

9. compensation

planning/management

10. training and development

(e.g. content, lms,)

11. leave of absence administration

12. on-boarding

13. cobra

14. succession planning

Table 14: Impact of HR Staffing as a result ofTechnology and Outsourcing

HR FTE per XXX Employee

3 or Fewer Applications (n=64) 145



10 Plus Applications (n=87) 138

Table 15: Impact of HR Staffing as a result of theUse of Employee and Manager Self-Service

HR FTE per XXX Employee


5 to 8 Applications (n=131) 143

9 to 12 Applications (n=83) 141

13 Plus Applications (n=66) 131

We expected to find that high scoring organizations would also have ahigher number of employees per HR FTEs, because HR would needfewer people to handle the administrative transactions. However, thenumbers did not bear this assumption. The results, as shown in Table14, seemed to follow no clear pattern. Organizations with low tomiddle scores of four to six had the strongest staff-to-employee ratios.

In attempting to measure the impact of self-service applications, wedid see what we expected: a small decline in HR FTEs per employeewhen companies used more employee and manager self-serviceapplications.

DEMOGRAPHICS



Organization by Number of Employees

Less than 50 144

50 to 99 99

100 to 249 130

250 to 499 101

500 to 999 83

More than 1000 111

(n=708)

HR Department Size

Less than 1 HR FTE 42

1 to 4 HR FTEs 474

4.1 to 10 HR FTEs 108

10.1 HR FTEs and above 83

(n=707)

Number of Locations

1 Location 36%

2 to 5 Locations 30%



50 Plus Locations 7%

(n=708)

Organization Sector

Privately owned for-profit organization 66%

Publicly owned for-profit organization 11%

Nonprofit 18%

Government agency 5%

(n=708)

Industry

Aerospace 1.1%

Agriculture 1.1%

Automotive 1.0%

Banking/Finance 4.7%

Business Services/Consulting 4.4%

Construction 9.2%

Consumer Products 1.1%

Education 3.7%

Food Service or Food Related 1.1%

Government 3.1%

Healthcare 9.9%

Hospitality 0.6%

Insurance 2.5%

Legal 2.0%

Manufacturing – Durable 13.0%

Manufacturing – Non-Durable 4.8%

Media/Entertainment 1.7%

Medical Equipment or Products 0.4%

Nonprofit 8.5%

Oil and Gas/Mining/Energy 1.6%

Pharmaceuticals 0.4%

Retail 3.7%

Technology (computers, software, ISP, etc.) 3.4%

Telecommunications 1.6%

Transportation 2.3%

Utilities 0.6%

Other (please specify) 12.3%

(n=708)

DEMOGRAPHICS

SURVEYINSTRUMENT


SURVEY INSTRUMENT

1. Which of the following most closely represents your industry?

2. Which of the following most closely represents your sector?

3. Please provide the estimated total annual revenue for yourorganization.

4. Please provide the estimated total expenses for yourorganization.

5. How many states does your organization operate in?

6. How many total locations does your organization have?

7. What is your organization's (Please do not count Contractors orSeasonal Workers in these numbers)n Total employee headcount?n Total number of FTEs (Full Time Equivalent)?

8. Based on your total headcount above, please tell us whatpercentage is full time or part time based on each employeegroup. (Rounding to the nearest whole number the sum of allboxes should equal 100%, but do not include the % sign in yourresponse.)

9. If used, on average per year how many of the following positionsdoes the organization have:n Seasonal Workersn Independent Contractors

10. What percentage of total employees is represented by a union?(Check One)

11. For the last rolling 12 months how many total new hires has theorganization made?

12. What is the annual turnover percentage rate for the followcategories? (Please use whole numbers without % sign)

13. If known, please provide the following information about theorganization's total annual spend for salaries and benefits.

14. To whom does the top executive in your HR department directlyreport?

15. Which best describes the HR Staff members for yourorganization?

16. Which of the following functions are primarily handled by theHR Department at your organization. (Check all that apply)

17. Which department is responsible for payroll administration andprocessing?

18. What is your total compensation and benefits spend for ALL HRStaff?


19. How many FTEs in TOTAL, does theorganization have working in an HRcapacity?

20. Of the people working in a HRCapacity, how many FTEs are a:

21. Of the people working in an HRCapacity, how many FTEs work at then Corporate Leveln Division, Region, Group or Unit

Leveln Local, Facility, or Plat Level

22. Does your organization haven HR Generalist Onlyn HR Specialist Onlyn A mix of Generalist and Specialist

23. Of the people working in an HRCapacity, how many work in any ofthe following “Specialist” roles,please provide the total FTEs perspecialty.

24. In total, what percent of time do youHR Generalist spend in each of thefollowing activities.

25. For each of the following areas of HRtechnology/outsourcing, pleaseindicate which approach BESTdescribes how this function is handled.

26. For each of the following areas ofmanager/employee self-service,please indicate which approachBEST describes how this function ishandled.

27. If you would like to receive a copy ofthis survey results, please provideyour contact information below. Yourresponses will remain completelyanonymous and your name will notbe given to any external parties.

28. Is there any feedback or commentsyou would like to provide us on thissurvey? We appreciate your input.

ABOUT WILLIS


ABOUT WILLIS

The Willis Human Capital Practice offers a comprehensive suite of brokerage and consulting services to proactivelywork with your organization to design and deploy human resources initiatives. We have decades of experience workingwith companies of every type and size, customizing solutions for each organization’s unique challenges. Below are areaswhere we offer especially strong expertise:

n Employee communicationsn Compliancen Employee engagementn Managing the rising cost of health caren Engaging employees in healthy behaviorn Recruitment and retentionn Vendor managementn Benefits administrationn Reducing absenteeism/presenteeismn Increasing productivityn Adjusting to changing workforce demographics

Our approach is unique: Willis combines the best qualities of a true broker with the tools and resources of a pureconsulting firm to offer a full array of services at competitive prices.


HR TECHNOLOGYANDOUTSOURCING




Handled In-House manually Handled In-House with Automation/Software Largely or Mostly Outsourced Not Applicable

By Company Size 5050 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000

Recruitment / ApplicantTracking 75% 74% 69% 63% 49% 33% 9% 17% 25% 36% 44% 65% 5% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 10% 9% 4% 0% 5% 1%

HRIS: Basic employeedemographics andemployment information

53% 40% 25% 16% 14% 9% 33% 49% 67% 81% 80% 88% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3% 14% 9% 6% 1% 5% 1%

Payroll 18% 11% 5% 3% 4% 3% 42% 58% 73% 78% 81% 80% 38% 30% 21% 15% 14% 10% 2% 0% 1% 4% 1% 7%

HR reporting (e.g., EEO-1reports, metrics reports) 40% 44% 35% 31% 27% 12% 25% 40% 61% 63% 68% 84% 9% 5% 3% 4% 5% 2% 26% 11% 1% 2% 0% 2%

Benefits administration 61% 49% 39% 35% 36% 20% 27% 39% 50% 59% 58% 66% 11% 11% 11% 6% 6% 13% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

COBRA 42% 34% 26% 30% 21% 13% 10% 13% 13% 15% 9% 15% 35% 53% 60% 55% 70% 71% 14% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Employeecommunications 83% 73% 66% 64% 60% 54% 15% 26% 33% 35% 40% 46% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Compensationplanning/management 73% 75% 66% 67% 63% 50% 17% 20% 27% 28% 32% 41% 3% 0% 2% 2% 1% 3% 7% 5% 4% 3% 4% 6%

Performance management 83% 76% 71% 63% 58% 55% 12% 20% 25% 35% 35% 39% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 4% 2% 6% 6%

Time and Attendance 54% 39% 30% 18% 18% 15% 41% 57% 62% 78% 71% 74% 1% 3% 6% 2% 6% 5% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% 6%

Leave of AbsenceAdministration 70% 75% 73% 76% 66% 60% 17% 24% 24% 23% 31% 27% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 12% 12% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0%

On-Boarding 49% 54% 63% 65% 61% 59% 5% 13% 8% 11% 13% 30% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 45% 33% 28% 23% 25% 11%

Succession Planning 54% 47% 55% 71% 61% 63% 6% 13% 5% 11% 11% 13% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 39% 37% 41% 18% 29% 23%

Training and Development(e.g. Content, LMS,) 64% 68% 58% 52% 58% 48% 12% 18% 20% 34% 32% 44% 11% 5% 10% 9% 3% 3% 14% 9% 12% 5% 8% 5%

Answered Question 137 93 165 95 80 106 137 93 165 95 80 106 137 93 165 95 80 106 137 93 165 95 80 106

USE OF MANAGERAND/OREMPLOYEESELF-SERVICE



USE OF MANAGER AND / OR EMPLOYEE SELF-SERVICE



99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000

Benefits open enrollment 69% 70% 65% 52% 54% 37% 17% 20% 27% 44% 38% 50% 12% 10% 7% 4% 8% 11% 2% 1% 2% 0% 1% 2%

Benefits life events enrollment 67% 66% 65% 57% 69% 51% 19% 22% 27% 38% 28% 39% 10% 7% 5% 1% 4% 7% 4% 5% 2% 4% 0% 3%

Benefits new hires enrollment 75% 70% 69% 65% 61% 51% 19% 24% 29% 34% 35% 41% 4% 3% 1% 1% 4% 7% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Direct deposit changes 51% 49% 55% 53% 54% 43% 28% 37% 33% 45% 39% 51% 12% 9% 7% 1% 4% 4% 9% 6% 6% 1% 3% 2%

Pay statements (paperlesspay) 19% 15% 13% 11% 9% 10% 34% 43% 48% 57% 62% 60% 27% 24% 24% 16% 14% 14% 20% 17% 15% 16% 14% 16%

Performance management 84% 76% 70% 63% 61% 62% 10% 16% 26% 32% 32% 31% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 6% 9% 4% 3% 8% 7%

Personal informationchanges, including address,marriage status

70% 60% 54% 47% 45% 41% 27% 38% 45% 51% 54% 56% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

Time-off requests/approvals (e.g., vacation) 83% 70% 68% 62% 60% 68% 15% 27% 28% 35% 39% 28% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 4%

Time reporting/approvals(hourly and exception) 64% 53% 48% 33% 36% 36% 33% 44% 48% 64% 61% 61% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 3%

Training registration andapprovals 72% 76% 70% 64% 61% 48% 10% 17% 15% 31% 32% 40% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 3% 17% 7% 13% 4% 7% 10%

W-2 viewing 37% 41% 34% 31% 36% 32% 38% 33% 49% 54% 50% 50% 23% 23% 11% 11% 8% 11% 2% 3% 6% 4% 7% 6%

W-4 changes (e.g., tax withholdings) 60% 67% 57% 54% 56% 48% 28% 26% 38% 40% 40% 45% 11% 7% 4% 4% 3% 5% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3%

Initiating compensation actions 80% 78% 78% 73% 68% 62% 14% 18% 18% 23% 25% 36% 0% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 6% 1% 5% 2% 5% 1%

continued on next page >

USE OF MANAGER AND / OR EMPLOYEE SELF-SERVICE continued from previous page



99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000 50

50 to

99

100 to

249

250 to

499

500 to

999> 1000

Recruitment (screening applicants, scheduling interviews, etc.)

84% 82% 84% 76% 66% 51% 7% 13% 15% 23% 30% 48% 5% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 4% 1% 0% 4% 1%

Reporting 60% 55% 46% 42% 30% 21% 32% 41% 51% 54% 66% 75% 5% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2%

Salary planning 83% 73% 68% 68% 59% 56% 7% 22% 25% 26% 29% 37% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 10% 6% 7% 5% 10% 7%

Terminating employees 91% 83% 79% 73% 76% 65% 7% 17% 21% 26% 23% 32% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Answered Question 137 92 164 94 80 106 137 92 164 94 80 106 137 92 164 94 80 106 137 92 164 94 80 106


staffing and services 2009 survey - willis - global … · staffing and services 2009 survey. ......

Documents