A guide to the PMAP Employer of the Year award criteria
PMAP Thought Leader
President, Philippine Society of Fellows in People Management
(Last of 2 parts)
5. Social Responsibility (5%)
Attribute Description: A key responsibility given high importance by excellent organizations is good citizenship, community relations and environmental protection. This attribute also covers business ethics, the protection of public health and safety, the promotion of volunteerism and the sharing of best practices.
Excellence Indicators:
A well defined policy, goals and programs vis-à-vis its contributions to the community and the environment
Employees are encouraged to actively volunteer and participate in community service programs
CSR programs are multi-stakeholder directed, have positive impact on business results and are integral to the nature of the business
A transparent governance system consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements is in place
6. HR Competence & Credibility (5%)
Attribute Description: A pre-condition of the first attribute (line management and HR partnership) is the HR unit’s competence and credibility. Credibility comes from the HR practitioners’ personal values and professional maturity while competence comes from their conceptual, business and HR functional expertise.
Excellence Indicators:
Leaders and employees speak well about the HR function
HR programs are seen as responsive; they stand out as innovative, above run-of-the mill HR initiatives
HR practitioners are admired for their integrity, credibility and professionalism
HR practitioners demonstrate the following competencies:
o Interpersonal skills
o Good understanding of individual, group and organizational dynamics
o Customer and business orientation
o Tech savvy
o Change management know-how
Scoring Guidelines
The HRM Excellence framework provides a roadmap towards becoming an exemplar employer. A scoring system provides additional clarity and transparency to this roadmap. The scoring is based on two evaluation dimensions: (1) Approach; and (2) Deployment.
Approach refers to how the organization addresses the criteria requirements or the methods used. Factors to evaluate “approach” would include the following:
– the overall effectiveness of use of the methods
– benchmarked against world class standards
– degree of innovativeness in the use of the approach
– degree to which the approach is repeatable and integrated
– the incorporation of learnings from past application
Deployment, the second dimension refers to the extent to which the approach is implemented by work units in the organization, by function, level and geography.
The following table serves as the scoring guide for the approach and deployment dimensions:
Score approach and deployment
0 – 10pts No systematic approach is evident; information is anecdotal and approach appears to be ad hoc
10-30 pts -The beginning of a systematic approach is evident
-Major gaps exist in deployment that would inhibit progress
-Early stages of a transition from a reactive approach to a general improvement orientation is noted
40-50 pts -An effective, systematic approach is evident
-The approach is deployed, although some areas or work units are in an early stage of deployment
-The beginning of a systematic approach to evaluation and improvement of key processes is evident
60-70 pts -An effective, systematic approach is evident
-The approach is well deployed, although it may vary in some aras or work units
-A fact-based systematic evaluation and improvement process is in place
80 – 90 pts -An effective, systematic approach is evident
-The approach is well deployed, with no significant gaps
-A fact-based, systematic evaluation and improvement process and learning sharing are key management tools
-There is clear evidence of organizational level analysis and sharing
100 pts -An effective, systematic approach is clearly evident
-The approach is fully deployed
– A very strong, fact-based systematic evaluation and improvement process and extensive sharing are key management tools
Assessors and judges should share objective data (from available documents , interviews and observations) and collectively reach judgement based on these data. Rate the applying organization against each attribute using the scoring guide. First decide which scoring range (e.g. 60-70) best fits the organization. Best fit means choosing the scoring range which best describes the organization’s systems and deployment status and would generally meet the qualitative description corresponding to that scoring range. Assigning the actual score within the range requires evaluating whether the response is closer to the statements in the next higher range or next lower range. After giving the appropriate score, factor in the weight to get an overall score for the attribute.
Embarking on the Journey to HRM Excellence
The six attributes, their corresponding weights and excellence indicators are intended to provide a clearer picture of what it takes to become a high performing and people-focused organization.
Research indicates that excellent organizations employ processes which are systematic, integrated and consistently applied. Systematic refers to the method or order that is put in place in the organization’s approach and deployment. In addition, these processes are innovative and responsive to the needs of the organization. For example, EOY winners have exceptionally well-defined approaches, are novel and innovative and are responsive to the organization’s needs. Another characteristic of excellent organizations is the extent of deployment or application of their HR systems. This includes implementation of these systems or processes in all functional or operational areas and at all levels of the organization. A third characteristic found in past EOY awardees is a clear link between their HR initiatives and business results.
An organization desiring to win the EOY Award could use the framework as a guide in terms of examining their current HR systems and practices against the six attributes and excellence indicators. The same guide could be used by assessors and judges of the EOY Award.
The author:
Enrique V. Abadesco, DPM is the President of the Philippine Society of Fellows and was 2008 PMAP National President. He is considered a pioneer in the Organization Development (OD) field in the Philippines and is currently the deputy Chair of the Asian Institute of HRM. Ric was an internal assessor of the Malcolm Baldrige Performance Excellence Criteria in ExxonMobil Corporation, USA, has trained Philippine Quality Award (the Philippine equivalent of the Malcolm Baldrige Award) assessors under the auspices of the Development Academy of the Philippines and the Department of Trade and for several years, served as a judge in the Philippine Quality Award. He is a Certified Productivity Practitioner, conferred by the Tokyo-based Asian Productivity Organization.
