For me, the HR information system is one of the two pillars of a business’s information system, along with the finance information system.
I put them ahead of the other business tools. Why do I do this? Because if you don’t manage human capital and money well , even with the best processes and the best business tools, you won’t get far, or not for long.
So, of course, they’re sort of at the bottom of the IS Maslow pyramid, but I’m not talking about their usefulness, interest or even pleasure in using them in relation to the subjects they address, simply because they address two vital functions without which the rest is futile.
Think about the value of excellent physical fitness when you’re blind and mentally impaired, and you’ll understand.
HRIS doesn’t get the consideration it deserves
But I agree that putting HRIS so low on the pyramid is a little unfair. It could, and should, be present on more than one floor, as the subject it manages is as fascinating as it is essential. It’s not just a vital administrative tool, it’s a vital development and management tool. Or it should be.
Unfortunately, tools are only what we make of them, with the vocation we give them (Businesses know their employees. Really ?).
In front of a shovel, some people see the possibility of knocking someone out, while others imagine the trees they’re going to plant in their garden. One room, two atmospheres, one tool, two uses.
As an enthusiast on this subject, I’m an ardent promoter of a comprehensive HRIS delivering value to all stakeholders, but as a manager/executive I’ve always come away a little frustrated with its use, and I’m not the only one.
But the subject seems taboo, between those who don’t dare criticize a tool that has cost a lot of money, and those who have long since given up the fight and accepted that it’s an administration tool for HR , and that they themselves have little value to gain from it.
In short, no matter how much publishers talk about their subject and their desire to change the dimension of HRIS , in the eyes of businesses and users it remains an administration tool, and by no means a business tool. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a question of design, implementation or perception: “perception is reality”.
Let’s take a quick look at how managers view HRIS.
HRIS focuses on administration, not management
The majority of HRIS systems are designed to meet the needs of HR functions: leave tracking, payroll management, legal reporting, etc. These functionalities provide added value in terms of compliance and administration, but only marginally meet the needs of managers. These functionalities provide added value in terms of compliance and administration, but only marginally address the challenges faced by managers.
How do you motivate a team? How to develop individual skills? How to improve collaboration or resolve conflicts?
Case in point: today’s HRIS enables real talent management, the antithesis of what was cobbled together on Excel spreadsheets 20 years ago. But this is done in an administrative, even quasi-logistical way, because skills are considered as a commodity.
Skills are listed, skills are acquired, their development is monitored, their holders are guided towards certain positions, but nothing is done to facilitate their implementation in the field, which is the manager’s mission, through the way he manages, organizes work, promotes a particular work style, supports and follows his teams, etc.
Managers will find little or nothing to help them on the subject, nor a way to track and measure the impact of the actions they try to take on the subject.
They expect more from a tool that supports them in their day-to-day management of people.
HRIS focuses on administration, not management
The majority of HRIS systems are designed to meet the needs of HR functions: leave tracking, payroll management, legal reporting, etc. These functionalities provide added value in terms of compliance and administration, but only marginally meet the needs of managers. These functionalities provide added value in terms of compliance and administration, but only marginally address the challenges faced by managers.
How do you motivate a team? How to develop individual skills? How to improve collaboration or resolve conflicts?
Managers will find little or nothing to help them on the subject, nor a way to track and measure the impact of the actions they try to take on the subject.
They expect more from a tool that supports them in their day-to-day management of people. Yes, we’re not talking about resources here, but about people with a job, a mission, a work context and emotions.
HRIS contains rich data, but little use for it
HRIS systems collect a massive amount of data: performance appraisals, training courses taken, absenteeism rates, and so on. However, this data is often presented in the form of standardized tables or graphs, without any in-depth analysis or usable recommendations.
For a manager, access to this raw data can become a source of information overload rather than a decision-making tool.
Worse still, the HRIS does not make the link between HR data and business data…
Lack of integration with strategic needs
HRIS systems are rarely aligned with an organization’s strategic priorities, and even less with its operational management.
For example, a manager faced with a reorganization can hardly rely on his HRIS to identify key skills, anticipate tensions in his team, or better manage workloads.
The HRIS contains assessments, but performance in the business is contained and measured in the CRM, project management tools, etc., the tools where day-to-day business takes place.
For example, and this is the most blatant case, a sales rep’s development may be more or less objective, biased, or even carried out with more or less care. But this is not cross-referenced with the only tangible objective data: that of the CRM. They don’t tell the whole story, but they’re still part of the subject.
Similarly, if HRIS thinks in terms of skills, managers also want an approach in terms of knowledge (Will AI save Knowledge Management?), and it’s amazing that some innovative and relevant answers have come to us from the world of search engines (The implicit social network according to Sinequa).
HR and business are both living in their own bubbles , and it’s not going to change anything to hide the misery of HRBPs (Why it’s time for HR Business Partners 2.0):
“Because by its very definition, Systemic HR transforms HR from a siloed service provider into an integrated, consultative function that tackles a company’s most pressing business challenges.
According to our research, only 11% of companies operate a truly Systemic HR function“
Or (Aligning HR With the Business):
““Know the business. While there are elements common to all businesses, each organization has a different operating philosophy. HR professionals need to know how the business works, who its customers are and how it makes money.””
And just as tools follow function, siloed functions give siloed tools.
An unintuitive interface – a time-consuming activity
Many managers tell me the same thing: many HRIS systems suffer from complex interfaces that are poorly adapted to the needs of end-users. Often overwhelmed, they see these tools as additional elements that add to their workload instead of simplifying it.
Here I only half agree, but there’s a major lesson to be learned all the same.
I disagree because, like most business applications, HRIS have made a spectacular leap forward in terms of user experience and interface in recent years.
Yes, they are made up of a host of modules, but each module corresponds to a need, the question being more whether this need is that of HR or of managers, and how easily managers can find value in them.
Finally, the complexity of using a tool depends only on the complexity of the processes it supports. Complicated processes lead to complicated tools, not the other way round, and we can’t say that simplifying HR processes from a “user centric” or “employee centric” perspective is yet the norm.
One might have thought that the rising tide of employee experience would continue to settle the issue, but that’s not the case: unfortunately, these programs are mainly QWL-oriented , and when they do address the issue of HR processes, it’s from the angle of cosmetics around the processes (interface), not the heart of the matter (the process itself and the user journey through the tools) (2023 Employee Experience Barometer: the employee experience confronted with its contradictions).
But just as “when you want to kill your dog, say it has rabies”, managers are quick to invent flaws in the HRIS so as not to use it.
But behind this semblance of bad faith lies the real cause: the HRIS customer is HR, and it’s up to them to derive value from it; the manager is often no more than a contributor who feeds it.
That’s what someone said to me recently: “I spend hours entering appraisal interviews, but what’s the value for me? It’s my team, I know them, and I get nothing out of reading things I’ve written myself!
When you’re not the client of a tool, you don’t see its value for you, and using it becomes time-consuming, so you dress it up with all the faults and sometimes botch the job.
What does HRIS need to win over managers?
There are a few things that HRIS lacks to make it attractive to managers. Not much, but things that count, and which sometimes have to do with functionality, product design (HR is not the only customer), implementation (technical, configuration and change management), the way in which the business designs its HR processes and services (software publishers are not responsible for everything) and, ultimately, managers’ perception of the HRIS.
Here are a few ideas:
First of all, focus on human skills. An effective manager is first and foremost a leader capable of inspiring, motivating and guiding his or her team. Digital tools should therefore incorporate coaching support functions, managerial scenario simulation or adaptive feedback based on interactions with employees.
Then personalize recommendations to become proactive and useful. Tools should offer predictive analysis and tailor-made recommendations such as “If you increase the frequency of one-to-one interviews, your team’s engagement rate could improve by X%”. But for this to happen, the tools involved need to talk to each other, and data needs to be shared, whereas all too often this is done in silos.
It’s also important to integrate tools into the workflow. Solutions need to fit naturally into the manager’s routine, for example via intuitive mobile apps, smart notifications or personalized dashboards. Here, it’s not so much a question of what HRIS can do, but what it does, when and how, with the primary concern being relevance to the manager and his or her available attention span.
Finally, “last but not least”, go beyond administrative management. HRIS must also help to manage the strategic and emotional dimensions of management: critical skills management, conflict prevention, team dynamics assessment and much more. Particularly in the age of AI and data, we also need to build bridges between HRIS and business applications.
Bottom line
Managers consider HRIS to be insufficient to meet their needs. They’re not just looking to automate tasks or access raw data: they need real, relevant and strategic support. To go even further, software publishers and businesses alike need to think about solutions that place people and leadership at the heart of managerial performance, while making the link with business performance.
Two questions now arise.
The first is managerial performance. It’s a rather clichéd term, but we need to agree on a definition and a way of measuring it.
Then there’s the question of how this evolution of HRIS could or should take shape. An evolution of market solutions? Better collaboration between businesses and employees in their deployment and in the codesign of the HR offering and its implementation? A radically new tool for managers? Towards a true managerial information system?
I’ll be exploring these topics in the near future, but I’m curious to get your feedback on the subject.
Image : angry manager by AriSys via Shutterstock.