Presented by: Emily Weinacker

Dissertation Defense

2

Dissertation Title

A Descriptive Study Of Human Resource Operations In

Higher Education:

Are They Value Added?

3

Dissertation Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of CEO's in 1,422 higher education institutions as to whether human resource operations have adopted value-added service delivery strategies as defined by the Value Proposition Model (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005).

4

Topic Background

Takes up where Brault & Beckwith (2003) left off in their book Human Resources Adding Value in Higher Education.

5

Topic Background

Builds on the work of Dave Ulrich and Wayne Brockbank (2005) from the University of Michigan who are experts in the area of human resources.

6

Value-Proposition ModelKnowing external business realities

(technology, economics, globalization, demographics)

HR Value

Proposition

Serving external and internal stakeholders (customers, investors,

managers and employees)

Crafting HR practices (people, performance, information, and work)

Building HR resources

(HR strategy and organization)

Ensuring HR professionalism

(HR roles, competencies, and development)

Note. From The HR Value Proposition (p.10), by D. Ulrich and W. Brockbank (2005), Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Copyright 2005 D. Ulrich and W. Brockbank. Used with permission of the copyright holders.

7

Dissertation Questions

1. What five elements that define the HR Value Proposition have been adopted by HR in higher education?

2. Which of the 14 criteria presented in the Value Proposition Model are reflected in higher education HR?

3. What differences exist in overall levels of HR value-added adoption in different types of higher education institutions?

8

Variables

32 Variables – (click to view Code Book)

• 5 Elements of VPM

• 14 Criteria

• Overall Value-Added Score

• Institution Size, Type, and Control

9

Survey

• Adapted with permission from Ulrich & Brockbank (2005)

• Field Tested with Expert Panel of Higher Ed and HR Professionals

• On-Line Administration

• Final Instrument

10

Sampling

• 1,422 random sampled from stratified sample of Carnegie Institutions

• Institutions selected then CEO email addresses purchased from Higher Education Publications, Inc.

• Sample size utilizing probability sampling, 95% confidence

• Assumed a 20% response rate

11

Data Collection

• Based on Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000)

• Initial invite (no survey)

• Ethic statement and survey link

• Survey reminder

• Survey thank you

12

Return Demographics  Sample

SizeN %

       Institution Type      

Two-year 714 147 20.59

Four-year 702 87 12.39Graduate/Professional 6 59 a

       

Institution Control      

Public 973 178 18.29

Private, for-profit 455 26 5.71

Private, not-for-profit 294 89 30.27

       

Institution Size      

Very Small <500 FTE 403 31 7.69

Small, 500-1,999 487 89 18.28

Medium, 2,000-4,000 337 102 30.27

Large, 5,000-9,999 161 49 30.43

Very Large, >10,000 28 22 b

       Totals 1,422 293 21.0

13

Survey Reliability

Total Overall Level of Value Added Adoption Reliability: .90

  Element 2 Element 3 Element 4 Element 5

         

Number of Survey Questions 4 4 2 11

Alpha Reliability .77 .78 .73 .84

         

14

Initial Results

  N %

     

Composite Score 14-28 was low level of adoption 8 2.7

Composite Score 29-55 institution was in transition 225 76.8

Composite Score 56-70 was high level of adoption 60 20.5

     

Overall Level of Value-Added Adoption

15

Question 1

  Element 1 Element 2 Element 3

  N Pct N Pct N Pct

             Do Not Know 8 2.7 1 .3 1 .3

No Extent 1 .3 9 3.1 13 4.4

Low Extent 16 5.5 54 18.4 69 23.5

Medium Extent 105 35.8 144 49.1 129 44.0

High Extent 110 37.5 82 28.0 79 27.0

Very High Extent 53 18.1 3 1.0 2 .7

  Element 4 Element 5

  N Pct N Pct

         Do Not Know -- -- -- --

No Extent 10 3.4 3 1.0

Low Extent 39 13.3 30 10.2

Medium Extent 111 37.9 139 47.4

High Extent 104 35.5 109 37.2

Very High Extent 29 9.9 12 4.1

16

Crafting HR Practices

  Low Level of Adoption Institutions in Transition

High Level of Adoption

  N Pct N Pct N Pct

             

Total N 8   225   60  

Do Not Know 1 12.5 0 0 0 0

No Extent 4 50.0 9 4 0 0

Low Extent 3 37.5 66 29.3 0 0

Medium Extent 0 0 120 53.3 9 15

High Extent 0 0 30 13.3 49 81.7

Very High Extent 0 0 0 0 2 3.3

17

Question 2

Link to Criteria Results

18

HR Roles

Employee advocate

HR leader

Strategic partner

Human capital developer

Functional expert

Statistics Employee Advocate

Human Capital

Developer

Functional Expert

Strategic Partner

HR Leader

           

Mean 3.33 3.10 3.23 2.94 3.39

Median 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Mode 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00

SD .90 .99 1.20 1.20 1.04

           

19

HR CompetenciesBusiness

knowledge

Strategic contribution

HR delivery

Personal credibility

HR technology

Statistics Strategic Contribution

HR Delivery

Business Knowledge

Personal Credibility

HR Technology

           

Mean 2.95 3.64 3.27 4.15 3.35

Median 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

Mode 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

SD 1.01 .87 1.12 .81 1.15

           

20

Implications

The analysis of Criteria 12 and 13 have implications for HR professionals who are attempting to transform their operations by adopting value-added approaches. Research has shown that developing competency in strategic contribution can enhance the role of HR professionals as a strategic business partner, and thus, have an impact on their ability to connect with key stakeholders or help line managers deliver strategy through increased organizational capabilities. HR professionals are encouraged to adopt HR roles other the functional expert, and develop additional HR competencies before they will be able to transform HR operations from traditional HR functions to value-added service delivery functions (Kemper, 2001; Brault & Beckwith, 2003; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005).

21

Question 3

Size: (F (4, 288) = .798, p = .528)

Type: (F (2, 290) = .154, p = .857)

Control: (F (2, 290) = .205, p = .815)

22

Implications

The impetus for adopting value-added service delivery strategies may not be related to any institutional characteristics, or may be related to other institutional characteristics such as institutional culture.

Because there were no differences in the level of value-added adoption between public and private institutions, it also would appear that the VPM is equally applicable to all types of institutions, institutions with different missions, and both small and large institutions. This would support the premise that the VPM, while developed within the private, corporate sector, can also be adapted to the public environment of higher education.

23

Limitations

• Snap Shot Picture in Time

• CEO Perspective

• Corporate terminology

• Response rate anomaly

24

Future Research

• How do the five elements interface during transition? Is there a natural progression of elements during transition?

• What did HR operations do differently when crafting HR practices from low value-added to high value-added?

• Do HR professionals need to transform themselves before moving from traditional to value-added? If so, what steps do they take during transformation?

• How is the level of value-added service delivery different for institutions of different cultures (Berquist, 1994)

• How do the 60 highly adapted HR operations compare to those in transition and those who had low ratings? What significant differences exist?

25

Conclusion

A value-added paradigm of HR holds a great deal of prospect for the future of higher education HR. The results of this study support the applicability of the Value Proposition Model, and its potential to serve as a blueprint for HR transformation in higher education.

HR has never before had an opportunity for greater influence in the organization. By taking a proactive approach to HR service delivery and adopting value-added approaches, HR professionals can have a direct and powerful influence on the future of their organization, and gain a seat at the higher education leadership table.