HR Industry Benchmark Survey 2019 Standard Report

HR Industry Benchmark Survey 2019
– Standard Report
Australia and New Zealand
in
partnership
with
Name Name| ELMO CLOUD HR & PAYROLL | 2019 | Unclassified Public 1

Foreword
In the Australian and New Zealand (A/NZ) market to date, there has been a distinct lack of local, relevant and current HR-specific data sets
available to HR & payroll professionals; which inhibits their ability to make informed, data-driven decisions.
ELMO Cloud HR & Payroll, in partnership with the Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI) has set out to change that by launching the
inaugural HR Industry Benchmark Survey in August 2019. The purpose of this survey was to:
• Bridge the gap in locally relevant data by understanding the maturity level of the HR & payroll functions in A/NZ across the entire
employee lifecycle
• Arm HR & payroll professionals with the insights they need to take their organisation to new heights through data-driven decision-making
The results and insights from this report will help establish benchmarks based on a wide range of qualitative and quantitative data.
Happy benchmarking!
in
partnership
with
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 02
2
Table of contents
PART 1: Insights summaries PART 2: Full benchmark data
• Introduction and respondent profiles Page 04 • Appendix A: Respondent profile data Page 70
• The general state of HR Page 08 • Appendix B: The general state of HR Page 76
• Recruitment and onboarding Page 33 • Appendix C: Recruitment and onboarding Page 109
• Performance management Page 41 • Appendix D: Performance management Page 137
• Succession management Page 45 • Appendix E: Succession management Page 148
• Learning & development (L&D) Page 49 • Appendix F: Learning & development (L&D) Page 155
• Rewards & recognition (R&R) Page 53 • Appendix G: Rewards & recognition (R&R) Page 168
• Remuneration & benefits Page 58 • Appendix H: Remuneration & benefits Page 179
• Payroll and rostering / time & attendance Page 63 • Appendix I: Payroll and rostering / time & attendance Page 186
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 03
3
Introduction and
respondent profiles
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 04
4
Respondent profiles and sample sizes
We would like to thank all HR & payroll professionals who participated in the HR Industry Benchmark Survey. Their
participation has enabled us to provide comprehensive Australian and New Zealand (A/NZ) HR industry benchmark
data that can be broken down into segments such as country, organisation size, seniority level and industry#.
n = 1500+ Seniority Level
In total, over 1500 respondents started the survey and at least completed the first section of questions, with nearly 30%
700 respondents having completed the survey in its entirety. All data captured has been used for the analysis to 27%
provide as large a sample size as possible. Questions at the start of the survey have higher numbers of 21% 20%
respondents than questions towards the end of the survey due to (expected) survey respondent drop-off rates.
2%
Any references to industry segments in this report align with Australia and New Zealand Standard Industry
Classification (ANZSIC) codes. Almost every question in this report has been broken down by country, organisation
size, industry# and respondent seniority level. Junior to mid-level Mid-level Senior Leadership / Other
(individual management management C-Level
Sample sizes^ per question and data segment (referring to either seniority level, country, organisation size or contributor)
industry#) is provided for every data point in both Part 1 and Part 2 of this report, denoted by n =. Where the
number of respondents varied mid-way through a section of questions - for example, if 765 people completed the
first question in a given section but only 745 people completed the last question in that section - the number of
respondents will say n = 745+. Country Organisation Size
In this report, organisations have been rolled up into three high-level categories: 11%
1. Small and Medium Businesses (SMBs) 1-199 employees
17%
2. Mid-market 200-1999 employees 42%
3. Enterprise 2000+ employees
89% 41%
Exactly 30% of respondents were senior managers and 20% were C-suite leaders, meaning that half of the
respondents were senior management level or above. 27% of respondents were mid-level management and the
remaining 23% were either junior level or another type of HR role (e.g. consultant).
The ratio of HR leader respondents is consistent across Australia and New Zealand but higher for SMBs (60%) and Australia New Zealand SMB (1-199 employees)
lower for enterprise organisations (34%). Some industries have a much higher ratio of senior leaders.
Mid-Market (200-1999) employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise (2000+ employees)
# Refer to next page
^ Refer to next page
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 05
5
Industry codes and sample sizes
# While industry data has been collected and segmented for each question during our analysis, industry level information is only called out in the event of a clear pattern or trend that is of interest for a given question. Industry
level data for each question is only made available in ELMO’s Premium (Full) Report, which is available to anyone who requests an ELMO product demonstration, following their demonstration meeting having been held.
^ The general rule is that, in order for responses to have statistical significance, they should have a minimum sample size of 30 respondents. Having said that, inferences can still be made from any data points that have less
than 30 respondents and we have therefore left the data points with less than 30 responses visible in the report for your perusal. It is only a small subset of the industry-segmented data that will have less than 30 respondents
for specific questions.
Industry types (as per the ANZSIC industry list)

PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES 14%
NOT FOR PROFIT 10%
HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE 10%
EDUCATION AND TRAINING 9%
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND SAFETY 8%
FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES 7%
INFORMATION MEDIA AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS 6%
MANUFACTURING 6%
CONSTRUCTION 5%
RETAIL TRADE 4%
ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 3%
ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES 3%
TRANSPORT, POSTAL AND WAREHOUSING 3%
WHOLESALE TRADE 2%
^ MINING 2%
^ ELECTRICITY, GAS, WATER AND WASTE SERVICES 2% n = 1500+
^ AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING 1%
^ ARTS AND RECREATION SERVICES 1%
^ RENTAL, HIRING AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES 1%
^ OTHER 1%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 06
6
Respondent involvement in specific HR areas
Which of the following area(s) are you responsible for or actively involved in?
(n = 1500+)
In the first section of the survey, all DIVERSITY & INCLUSION 32% 44% 24%
respondents were asked to select the
areas of HR they are ‘responsible for’ or EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 37% 43% 20%
‘actively involved’ in. If they were not INDUSTRIAL / EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 42% 33% 26%
‘responsible for’ or ‘actively involved’ in a
specific area, they were not asked the LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 40% 42% 18%
questions relating to this area. Apart ONBOARDING 49% 34% 18%
from payroll and rostering / time &
attendance, which can often fall under ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE 35% 52% 13%
the remit of finance teams, all other areas ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN 26% 43% 31%
of HR had at least 68% of respondents
indicating they were ‘responsible for’ or PAYROLL 20% 31% 49%
‘actively involved’ in the respective area. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 43% 39% 18%
RECRUITMENT 46% 33% 21%
C-suite leaders are the most likely to REMUNERATION 32% 39% 29%
have responsibility for every aspect of
HR, apart from rostering / time & REWARDS & RECOGNITION 34% 42% 23%
attendance and payroll. More ROSTERING / TIME & ATTENDANCE 14% 29% 58%
responsibility is sometimes given to
junior / mid-level HR staff for tasks SUCCESSION MANAGEMENT 28% 41% 31%
relating to onboarding and recruitment. WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY (WHS) 31% 37% 32%
Responsible for Actively Involved Not Involved
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 07
7
The general state of HR
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 08
8
Plans to grow
More than half of the respondents said that their organisation plans to grow over the next 12 months. 40% of
respondents said their organisation plans to remain the same size and 7% said they plan to decrease their
employee headcount. Over the next year, do you
Those who stated plans to increase headcount were asked what percentage they plan to grow by. The average
increase was 28%. Below are the average headcount growth rates for each organisation size segment:
anticipate the size of your
SMB Mid-market Enterprise Overall
workforce to:
(1-199) (200-1999) (2000+) average
Decrease in size Remain the same Increase in size

Average % headcount growth planned 33% 21% 31% 28%
n= 356 323 113 792
7%
The three industries with the greatest number of respondents saying they plan to grow are:
52% 40%
• Information media and telecommunications (68% of respondents)
• Health care and social assistance (63% of respondents)
• Professional, scientific and technical services (62% of respondents)
The three industries with the lowest number of respondents saying they plan to grow are:
• Wholesale trade (34% of respondents)

• Public administration and safety (36% of respondents)
• Manufacturing (41% of respondents)
n = 1500+
Rapid growth was cited by 1 in 6 respondents as a top challenge for their organisation over the next 12 months, but
this was mainly selected by respondents from SMB and mid-market organisations.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 09
9
The time and cost of managing people
Respondent data confirmed that on average: • On average, it takes 40 days to fill a vacant position. Australian companies
typically fill vacant roles within 39.2 days. Recruitment is over one week
slower in New Zealand, with roles being filled in an average of 47.2 days.
40 days $19,000
• The average cost to hire a new employee is ~$19,000 and is almost 4
It takes 40 days to fill It costs $19,000 to fill
a vacant position a vacant position
times as much for C-level executives.
• The majority of the time that HR spends onboarding new employees is

dedicated to ‘conducting role-specific training’. This equates to an average
8 hours per week 149 hours per year of ~8 hours per week.
The majority of the time that HR spends People managers spend ~149 hours
onboarding new employees is dedicated per year conducting performance • On average, people managers spend ~149 hours per year conducting
to ‘conducting role-specific training’, at appraisals, compared to ~65 hours performance appraisals (either ad hoc or formal), compared to ~65 hours
~8 hours per week invested by employees invested by employees.
• ‘Payroll accounting’ and ‘payroll calculation’ take up the majority of HR /

Payroll’s time, requiring an average of 15.2 hours and 12.3 hours per month
15.2 hours per month $10,000 per year respectively.
For payroll, the majority Employees spend ~9 hours per year
of time is spent on undertaking formal training, at an • On average, employees spend ~9 hours per year undertaking formal
‘payroll accounting’ average annual cost of ~$10,000 training, at an average annual cost of ~$10,000 per employee.
^ Note: The general rule is that, in order for responses to have statistical significance, they should have a minimum sample size of 30 respondents.
Having said that, inferences can still be made from any data points that have less than 30 respondents and we have therefore left the data points
with less than 30 responses visible in the report for your perusal. It is only a small subset of the industry-segmented data that will have less than 30
respondents for specific questions. ELMO CLOUD HR & PAYROLL | 2019 | Unclassified Public 10
Employee turnover rates
Average turnover rates per industry

A public benchmark for average employee turnover rates has been missing from the * OTHER 31%
A/NZ market for a long time. Based on the feedback from 987 respondents who took ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES 30%
part in this industry benchmark survey, the average annual turnover rate for both
Australia and New Zealand is 17%. This figure was the same for mid-market and * RENTAL, HIRING AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES 27%
enterprise organisations and only slightly lower for SMBs at 16%. RETAIL TRADE 25%
The two industries with the highest turnover rates are accommodation and food
services (30%) and retail trade (25%). These results are not surprising given the more HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE 19%
cyclical / seasonal nature of roles in these industries. The third highest is information NOT FOR PROFIT 19%
media and telecommunications (20%), followed equally by health care and social
CONSTRUCTION 18%
assistance (19%) and not-for-profit (19%).
ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES 18%
High employee turnover was cited as a top organisational challenge over the next 12 TRANSPORT, POSTAL AND WAREHOUSING 16%
months by 1 in 6 respondents. This ratio was higher for mid-market organisations and
New Zealand organisations, in which 1 in 5 are challenged by high employee turnover. * AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING 16%
* ARTS AND RECREATION SERVICES 15%
The top 5 industries that felt high employee turnover rates would be their top
challenge over the next 12 months are: WHOLESALE TRADE 15%
FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES 14%
1. Retail trade (32%)
PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES 14%
2.
3.
Administrative and support services (27%)
Information media and telecommunications (22%) MANUFACTURING 13%
n = 986
4. Health care / social assistance (19%) EDUCATION AND TRAINING 12% * These industries
5. Financial and insurance services and not-for-profit (18%)
MINING 11% have less than 30
responses for this
ELECTRICITY, GAS, WATER AND WASTE SERVICES 11%
question
A/NZ OVERALL 17%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 11
Turnover rates for new hires
The survey asked a question about turnover rates for new starters within their probation period. The average result was Average new hire turnover rates within probation period:
7%, but this was slightly less in New Zealand at 5%, and slightly higher for mid-market and enterprise organisations at
9%. Alarmingly, roughly half of the respondents who are ‘responsible for’ or ‘actively involved in’ recruitment
New hire turnover rate
responded that they did not know the answer to this question. Even more interestingly, 30% of C-suite leaders and 47% n= Segment
within probation period
of senior management respondents also responded that they did not know the answer to this question.
308 Australia 7%
40 New Zealand 5%
191 SMB 6%
131 Mid-market 9%
26 Enterprise 9%
48% 52% 8 Accommodation and food services 10%
Provided a new hire turnover rate 8 Administrative and support services 5%
3 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 16%
Didn't know know the answer to the question 5 Arts and recreation services 5%
19 Construction 7%
21 Education and training 6%
n = 672 9
32
Electricity, gas, water and waste services
Financial and insurance services
9%
6%
35 Health care and social assistance 9%
Half the respondents who are ‘responsible for’ or ‘actively 14 Information media and telecommunications 10%
involved in’ recruitment do not know how many new hires 24 Manufacturing 13%
leave within their probation period, this ratio is the same for 10 Mining 8%
42 Not for profit 8%
senior management level respondents.
3 Other 1%
52 Professional, scientific and technical services 4%
24 Public administration and safety 3%
3 Rental, hiring and real estate services 14%
Almost 1 in 3 C-suite leaders didn’t know 13 Retail trade 8%
11 Transport, postal and warehousing 2%
the answer to this question
12 Wholesale trade 10%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 12
Top challenges over the next 12 months
The results to the right were broadly the same when compared across A/NZ with the
Top 3 items that will be your organisation’s biggest challenges over
exception of ‘culture change’, which is a focus for 1 in 3 Australian respondents compared to 1 the next 12 months:
in 4 NZ respondents.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 37%
The results were mostly the same regardless of organisation size, however, there were a
couple of interesting differences:
CULTURE CHANGE 34%
• 1 in 5 mid-market organisations are challenged by high employee turnover in comparison
to 1 in 7 respondents from SMB or enterprise organisations CHANGE MANAGEMENT 30%
• 1 in 4 enterprise respondents are challenged by low employee engagement compared to 1 UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY 30%
in 6 SMB or mid-market respondents
LACK OF RESOURCES 28%
When comparing industries, there were a few trends that stood out:
UP-SKILLING, CROSS-SKILLING, RE-SKILLING EMPLOYEES 26%
• ‘Leadership development’ challenges are more prevalent in accommodation and food
services, education and training, and manufacturing, being cited by almost half the AUTOMATING ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS 23%
respondents working in these industries
LOW EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 19%
• ‘Culture change’ challenges are more prevalent in education and training, not-for-profit
and public administration and safety, being cited by almost half of the respondents RAPID GROWTH 18%
working in these industries
HIGH EMPLOYEE TURNOVER 16%
• ‘Rapid growth’ challenges are common, being cited by roughly 1 in 4 respondents
working in professional / scientific / technical services and construction and nearly 1 in 3 BOOSTING PRODUCTIVITY 16%
respondents working in administrative / support services and information
media / telecommunications SUCCESSION PLANNING 16%
• ‘Change management’ is the top challenge for the financial and insurance services DIVERSITY & INCLUSION
industry, cited by nearly half of their respondents
6%
n = 1043
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 13
Areas that take up too much of HR’s time
Top 3 areas that take up too much of HR’s time

The results for this question were all broadly consistent across A/NZ and seniority levels.
relative to the value they deliver:
‘General admin work’ stands out dramatically from the other 12 answer options as the top area
that takes up too much of HR’s time in relation to the value being delivered. This was consistent
across all organisation sizes and industries that returned at least 30 responses. GENERAL ADMIN WORK 74%
In regard to second and third ranking areas taking up too much time, there are a few differences RECRUITING & EXECUTIVE SEARCH 33%
worth highlighting when comparing these results by organisation size:
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 31%
• 2 in 5 SMB respondents say that HR spends too much time dealing with their recruitment and
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 27%
executive search. This ratio seems to decrease as the organisation becomes larger, to only 1 in
4 for enterprise respondents. This is likely to be linked to increased resources, dedicated ONBOARDING / INDUCTION 23%
recruitment roles, technology, increased employer brand reputation, etc.
DRIVING AND MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE / BEHAVIOUR 21%
• Mid-market organisations are slightly more challenged with performance management. This
area is the second most selected option, having been chosen by 1 in 3 mid-market INDUSTRIAL / EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 21%
respondents. ‘Recruitment and executive search’ and ‘operations management’ came in equal
WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT (ROSTERING / TIME & ATTENDANCE) 19%
third with 3 in 10 mid-market respondents having selected this option.
MEETING WITH SENIOR LEADERS / BUSINESS PARTNERS 12%
• For enterprise-sized organisations, the second highest area is ‘operations management’ ,
which was selected by 1 in 3 respondents. This was followed by ‘industrial / employee DEVELOPING HR STRATEGY 10%
relations’, selected by 3 in 10 respondents .
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 8%
Time spent on ‘recruitment and executive search’ seems to be more of an issue for a few
REDUNDANCY MANAGEMENT 7%
industry types in particular. This was cited by roughly 1 in 2 respondents working in construction
or retail trade, and 2 in 5 respondents working in financial and insurance services or TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 6%
n = 1053
professional, scientific and technical services.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 14
Priorities and budgets
Has budget regardless

n = 900+ Priority Level of priority level*
There is a significant disconnect between the LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 38% 42% 13% 7% 80%
percentage of respondents who indicated each
HR area as a high or medium priority, and the
percentage of respondents who have the budget
COMPLIANCE 46% 30% 16% 8% 63%
to align with this.
RECRUITMENT & ONBOARDING 41% 34% 15% 10% 72%
Less than half of the respondents have budget
for the following three areas, yet roughly 2 in 3
say they are a high or medium priority for their
WORKFORCE HEALTH & SAFETY (WHS) 41% 33% 18% 8% 69%
organisation:
EMPLOYEE HEALTH / WELLBEING 34% 40% 19% 8% 67%
1. HR reporting & analytics
2. Workforce planning HR REPORTING & ANALYTICS 29% 39% 20% 12% 46%
3. Diversity & inclusion
Conversely, we see that: DIVERSITY & INCLUSION 27% 36% 25% 12% 45%
• 70% of respondents have budget for HR WORKFORCE PLANNING 25% 38% 25% 11% 43%
technology implementation or consolidation,
yet only 63% say this is a high or medium
priority. HR TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION OR CONSOLIDATION 35% 28% 18% 19% 70%
• 67% of respondents have budget for rewards REWARDS & RECOGNITION 19% 39% 29% 14% 67%
& recognition, yet only 58% say this is a high
or medium priority.
REMUNERATION & BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 15% 37% 31% 18% 53%
High Medium Low Not a priority *Those who selected ‘not a priority’ were
not asked if they have budget allocated.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 15
Priorities and budgets per segment
Comparing Australia with New Zealand, a higher percentage of New Zealand

respondents rated recruitment / onboarding, employee wellbeing, workplace health &
safety (WHS) and remuneration & benefits administration as high or medium
organisational priority and already have budget allocated for investment into these areas n = 900+ n = 800+ n = 100+ n = 330+ n = 400+ n = 150+
over the next 12 months. It has been identified in other parts of the survey relating % that rated each area a HIGH or MEDIUM
specifically to recruitment and onboarding, that New Zealand respondents are facing priority AND have budget allocated OVERALL Australia New Zealand
SMB Mid-market Enterprise
greater challenges than Australian respondents when it comes to skills shortages and the (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
competition for talent. Given that New Zealand organisations are allocating a greater
portion of their budgets than Australian organisations across almost all areas of the HR technology implementation or consolidation 62% 62% 65% 47% 68% 79%
employee lifecycle, perhaps this is how they are looking to attract and retain talent. Recruitment & onboarding 64% 63% 77% 61% 67% 66%
SMBs have greater priority and expenditure placed on recruitment & onboarding and HR reporting & analytics 42% 42% 43% 30% 44% 65%
learning & development (L&D) over the next 12 months. Roughly half are also investing in
Learning & development 73% 72% 78% 69% 77% 72%
employee wellbeing, rewards & recognition, WHS, compliance and HR technology
implementation or consolidation. Rewards & recognition 48% 47% 52% 50% 48% 42%
Employee health / wellbeing 59% 58% 70% 55% 62% 63%
Mid-market organisations are also focused on L&D as their number one priority. In the
mid-market we also see a jump in the priority and budget provided for HR technology Remuneration & benefits administration 41% 39% 52% 39% 41% 44%
implementation or consolidation, with roughly 2 in 3 respondents indicating they are
ready to invest in this area. Almost on par with HR technology are WHS and Compliance 57% 56% 61% 53% 59% 60%
recruitment / onboarding, which rank equally as the third most budgeted priorities. Diversity & inclusion 41% 41% 42% 33% 40% 63%
Ranking fifth is employee wellbeing, which is more of a focus compared to SMBs.
Workplace health & safety (WHS) 61% 60% 73% 53% 67% 68%
For enterprise organisations, roughly 1 in 8 respondents said that HR technology
Workforce planning 38% 38% 33% 34% 36% 51%
implementation or consolidation is a priority for their organisation and they already have
budget allocated. To align with the high desire for HR technology, we also see a big jump
in budget priority around HR analytics and reporting, with roughly 2 in 3 enterprise Saturation map scale:
respondents indicating they are ready to invest in this area. Nearly 3 in 4 enterprise
respondents said that L&D is a budget priority for them. Roughly 2 in 3 said that 0% 100%
recruitment & onboarding, employee wellbeing, WHS and diversity & inclusion are
budget priorities for them.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 16
The current state of HR technology
Which of the following stages best describes your organisation's current state
of HR & payroll technology?
Aside from payroll and rostering / time &
attendance, which are commonly managed PAYROLL 73% 9% 6% 3% 4% 4%
outside of HR, the highest rates of fully
implemented HR software / technology CORE HR 49% 19% 13% 11% 5% 3%
types are core HR (e.g. employee data Fully implemented
management, leave management, etc.) at RECRUITMENT 48% 17% 11% 9% 11% 4%
49% and recruitment software at 48%.
ROSTERING / TIME & ATTENDANCE 46% 13% 8% 6% 20% 7%
Currently implementing
Only 1 in 2 mid-market and 1 in 3 enterprise WORKFORCE HEALTH & SAFETY (WHS) 41% 18% 8% 10% 14% 9%
organisations said they have fully
implemented core HR or recruitment HR SURVEYS 40% 19% 12% 9% 15% 6% Less than 12 months away
software / technology. These figures are
surprisingly low for larger organisations. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 37% 19% 15% 14% 11% 5%
ONBOARDING 35% 23% 17% 11% 9% 5% Greater than 12 months away

Via another survey question, we also
learned that roughly 1 in 2 organisations are COMPENSATION & BENEFITS 32% 14% 12% 14% 20% 8%
still using spreadsheets to manage their Not considering at all
employee data. This ratio was only slightly LEARNING MANAGEMENT 32% 24% 16% 12% 11% 5%
lower at 2 in 5 for enterprise-sized
organisations. EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAMS 26% 23% 13% 13% 18% 8%
I don't know
REWARDS & RECOGNITION 25% 17% 15% 16% 20% 7%
On average, two systems are used to
manage employee data. WORKFORCE PLANNING 18% 18% 15% 18% 21% 10%
SUCCESSION MANAGEMENT 15% 18% 15% 21% 22% 10% n = 1220+
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 17
Projected levels of fully implemented technology
89%
81%
The current investment into HR
76%
76%
software / technology is more than
73%
72%
71%
71%
67%
67%
apparent when we include the
62%
percentage of respondents who are
58%
57%
currently implementing HR
50%
49%
software / technology or said their
48%
48%
46%
solution is less than 12 months away.
41%
40%
37%
36%
35%
32%
32%
25%
The chart to the right shows the
18%
percentage of respondents who
15%
expect to have a fully implemented
type of HR software / technology
within 12 months (approx. August
2020).
Aug-19 Aug-20
n = 1220+
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 18
Projected levels of fully implemented technology
n = 1220+ n = 1080+ n = 140+ n = 520+ n = 510+ n = 190+

% of respondents who will have fully implemented HR
software / technology by August 2020 OVERALL Australia New Zealand
(1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Payroll 89% 88% 92% 88% 89% 90%
Core HR 81% 80% 85% 77% 83% 85%
Recruitment 76% 76% 77% 67% 80% 89%
Onboarding 76% 75% 80% 69% 80% 83%
Learning management 72% 72% 72% 63% 76% 84%
HR surveys 71% 71% 71% 64% 76% 77%
Performance management 71% 71% 68% 70% 69% 78%
Rostering / time & attendance 67% 67% 72% 59% 72% 77%
Workplace health & safety (WHS) 67% 66% 73% 64% 69% 73%
Employee wellness programs 62% 60% 73% 57% 64% 67%
Compensation & benefits 58% 58% 60% 57% 56% 68%
Rewards & recognition 57% 57% 56% 57% 56% 59%
Workforce planning 50% 51% 46% 49% 50% 57%
Succession management 48% 48% 42% 46% 48% 51%
Saturation map scale:

0% 100%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 19
Use of software / technology to minimise challenges
Recruitment: Not fully

Fully implemented
implemented yet or
What are your organisation's key recruitment challenges? technology platform % difference*
not considering one
Half of those who do not use software / technology to aid their
recruitment processes said they are challenged by manual or n = 363 n = 385
inefficient processes, in comparison to 1 in 5 of those who are A manual or inefficient recruitment process 21% 49% 27%
leveraging some sort of software / technology. This is clearly (and Lack of HR resources 18% 23% 6%
unsurprisingly) the main benefit of automating HR processes Creating a positive candidate experience 20% 22% 2%
through technology.
Building a stronger employer brand 35% 35% 0%
There was also a slight improvement in the lack of HR resources: Reducing the time to hire 34% 32% -2%
roughly 1 in 6 respondents using recruitment software / technology Slow decision-making / too many stakeholders 33% 30% -3%
said they are challenged by a ‘lack of HR resources’ in comparison Competition for talent 54% 51% -4%
to 1 in 4 respondents who don’t use any software / technology. Skills shortage 52% 47% -5%
None - we have no challenges 2% 3% 1%
Onboarding: Not fully

Fully implemented
implemented yet or
Respondents who use an onboarding technology platform selected What are your organisation's key onboarding challenges? technology platform
not considering one % difference*
fewer challenges than those who don’t. In particular, they reported
less challenges relating to a lack of formal process, lack of n = 216 n = 416
orientation for new hires and a lack of regular check-ins. Potentially, Ad hoc steps / lack of formal processes 21% 42% 21%
the use of onboarding software / technology is automating Lack of regular check-ins with new hires 29% 43% 14%
administrative onboarding tasks and freeing up more time or
Lack of orientation for new hires 18% 30% 13%
creating mechanisms for HR to address orientations and check-ins.
Too little information for new hires 11% 18% 7%
1 in 6 respondents using onboarding software / technology said Lack of training for new hires 24% 31% 6%
that they don’t have any challenges, in comparison to 1 in 12 Lack of role clarity for new hires 17% 24% 6%
respondents who don’t use any technology. Lack of training for you / your team 8% 12% 4%
Integrating new hires into teams / culture 29% 32% 4%
Length of onboarding process 23% 23% -1%
* Due to whole number rounding, the % Too much information for new hires 28% 26% -2%
difference may appear to have a 1% discrepancy. None - we have no challenges 16% 8% -8%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 20
Learning and development:

Not fully
Fully implemented
Those who are using L&D software / technology are technology platform
implemented yet or
faced with fewer challenges than those who are not. The What are your organisation's key learning & development challenges? not considering one % difference*
challenges that were selected significantly less by
respondents who use a form of L&D software / n = 194 n = 388
technology were: a lack of resources; aligning training
with corporate goals; and providing access to learning Lack of resources 28% 40% 13%
content. Aligning training with corporate goals 19% 30% 11%
1 in 11 respondents who use L&D software / technology Providing access to learning content 16% 24% 8%
said that they don’t have any challenges, in comparison Lack of budget / funding 38% 45% 7%
to 1 in 25 respondents who don’t use any technology. Difficulty demonstrating the return on investment (ROI) of training 21% 28% 6%
Finding the right external partners 18% 23% 5%
Training program logistics 20% 25% 5%
Difficulty scaling 7% 11% 4%
Lack of senior leadership buy-in 23% 24% 1%
Meeting compliance obligations 19% 19% 0%
Low learner engagement 19% 18% -1%
None - we have no challenges 9% 4% -5%
* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

may appear to have a 1% discrepancy.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 21
Performance management:
Not fully
Fully implemented
Those who use performance management implemented yet or
technology platform
not considering one
software / technology are faced with significantly less What are your organisation's key performance management challenges? % difference*
challenges than those who are not. All challenges were
selected less by respondents who use a form of n = 229 n = 385
performance management software / technology, many
of them showing a significant difference. Manual processes 19% 50% 31%
Lack of a formal performance framework 10% 31% 21%
1 in 17 respondents who use performance management
software / technology say they have no challenges in
Lack of manager training 38% 54% 16%
comparison to 1 in 33 respondents who don’t use any. Lack of formal processes 7% 22% 16%
Lack of personal development plans 32% 44% 12%
Lack of support for underperformers 17% 25% 8%
Lack of consistency between managers, departments, etc. 59% 66% 7%
Lack of timely / meaningful feedback 45% 51% 7%
Unclear goals / key performance indicators (KPIs) 36% 42% 6%
Lack of recognition for high performers 28% 33% 5%
Lack of appropriate recognition and rewards 25% 29% 4%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 22
Rewards and recognition:

Not fully
Fully implemented
implemented yet or
Those who are using rewards and recognition technology platform
What are your organisation's key rewards & recognition challenges? not considering one % difference*
software / technology are faced with fewer challenges
than those who are not. Most challenges show a
significant improvement when using rewards and n = 138 n = 383
recognition software / technology.
Lack of personalised rewards & recognition 17% 33% 15%
1 in 7 respondents using rewards and recognition Lack of insight as to what rewards employees would value 16% 29% 13%
software / technology said that they don’t have any
challenges, in comparison to 1 in 14 respondents who Inconsistency (e.g. across managers, departments, etc.) 35% 48% 13%
don’t use any. Lack of budget 26% 36% 10%
Discretionary effort is not recognised or rewarded 17% 27% 10%
Recognition is not timely 15% 25% 10%
Lack of resources 12% 21% 9%
High performers are not recognised or rewarded 16% 24% 8%
Lack of peer-to-peer recognition 16% 24% 8%
Lack of time 8% 14% 6%
Over-reliance on financial reward 19% 20% 2%
Low engagement with program 19% 16% -2%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 23
Remuneration & benefits:

Not fully
Fully implemented
Those who use remuneration & benefits implemented yet or
technology platform
software / technology are faced with a fewer challenges What are your organisation's key remuneration challenges? not considering one % difference*
than those who are not.
n = 162 n = 335
The challenges that were selected significantly less by No structured management process 12% 28% 16%
respondents who use a form of remuneration & benefits
software / technology were: the lack of structured
Misalignment between performance and remuneration 36% 46% 9%
management process and the misalignment between Can't compete with external market rates 31% 37% 6%
performance and remuneration. Lack of transparency 17% 22% 5%
Process is too complicated 8% 12% 4%
1 in 9 respondents who use remuneration & benefits Remuneration budget is frequently over 7% 8% 1%
software / technology said they had ‘no challenges’ in
comparison to 1 in 11 respondents who don’t use any. Lack of flexibility 19% 19% 0%
Process is too lengthy 11% 10% -2%
Remuneration budget is frequently under 12% 10% -2%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 24
Payroll: Not fully

Fully implemented
implemented yet or
Those who are using payroll software / technology are What are your organisation's key payroll challenges?
technology platform
faced with significantly less challenges than those who
are not. n = 269 n = 87
1 in 6 respondents who use payroll software / technology Lack of accurate, real-time reporting 25% 60% 35%
said that they don’t have any challenges, in comparison Disconnect between rostering / time & attendance, and payroll 31% 48% 17%
to 1 in 17 respondents who don’t use any. Too many data input errors 19% 36% 17%
Overpayment of staff 7% 17% 10%
Compliance breaches 6% 15% 9%
Interpretation of Award / Enterprise Agreement 30% 38% 8%
Underpayment of staff 7% 15% 8%
Ensuring employee confidentiality 6% 7% 1%
Geographical differences (e.g. culture, language, legislation) 9% 9% 1%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 25
Rostering / time & attendance: Not fully

Fully implemented
implemented yet or
Those who are using rostering / time & attendance What are your organisation's key rostering / time & attendance challenges?
technology platform
software / technology are faced with a few less
challenges than those who are not. n = 141 n = 139
The challenges that were selected significantly less by Manual processes 31% 50% 18%
respondents who use a form of rostering / time & No real-time reporting 15% 30% 15%
attendance software / technology were: manual Lack of alignment with payroll system 21% 35% 14%
processes; no real-time reporting; and a lack of
alignment with their payroll system. Ineffective leave management 26% 31% 5%
Keeping up to date with Industrial Awards etc. 11% 12% 1%
The ratio of respondents who said that they don’t have Compliance 17% 17% 0%
any challenges is roughly the same, regardless of Too much absenteeism 19% 14% -5%
whether or not they use rostering / time & attendance
Too much overtime 16% 9% -7%
software / technology.
Data input errors 33% 24% -9%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 26
Use of HR metrics
How would you describe your organisation's use of HR metrics?
On average, 1 in 8 respondents (13%) said they are not using any HR metrics.
2%
Unsurprisingly, this ratio is much higher for SMBs (1 in 5) and lower for enterprise-sized 5%
organisations (1 in 25). Alarmingly, over half of the respondents to this question said 5% 13%
they had only basic levels of HR metrics usage or none at all.
Roughly 2 in 5 respondents, regardless of organisation size, said they have basic HR

metrics and they don't factor heavily into business decisions. This was consistent
across Australia and New Zealand.
34%
41%
Roughly 1 in 3 respondents said that they classed their organisation’s use of HR metrics
as ‘developing’, meaning they track HR metrics and use them for decision-making
purposes. This ratio was higher for enterprise organisations, at 2 in 5. Interestingly, the
ratio was also 2 in 5 for New Zealand respondents. Another insight obtained from this
data is that New Zealand respondents have a noticeably higher percentage of fully
implemented technology solutions when compared to Australian respondents. Perhaps
this is the reason why there is a higher ratio of New Zealand respondents at the n = 1006
‘developing’ level – they are finding it easier to track and use HR metrics through
technology solutions.
Overall, only 1 in 14 respondents said their organisation was ‘optimised‘ or ‘advanced’ None: We don't use HR metrics at all
in terms of their use of HR metrics. For SMBs, this ratio was lower at 1 in 20 and this
grew to 1 in 10 for enterprise organisations. There were only a few industries where the Basic: We have some basic HR metrics but they don't factor heavily into business decisions
sample size was over 30. Nonetheless, there were some industries which had a slightly
higher ratio of respondents stating that their use of analytics was ‘optimised’ or Developing: We track HR metrics and leverage these metrics for decision-making purposes
‘advanced’, namely: information media and telecommunications (1 in 8); professional,
scientific and technical services (1 in 11); financial and insurance services (1 in 11); retail Optimised: We track HR metrics and apply descriptive analytics, pulling insights out of historical data to facilitate our decision-making
trade (1 in 11); and education and training (1 in 12).
Advanced: We track HR metrics and apply predictive and / or prescriptive analytics, forecasting future possibilities and options, to better
inform our decision-making
I don't know
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 27
Organisational skill level using HR metrics
n = 1006 n = 888 n = 118 n = 418 n = 425 n = 163
New SMB Mid-market Enterprise

How would you describe your organisation's use of HR metrics? OVERALL Australia
Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
None: We don't use HR metrics at all 13% 13% 14% 19% 11% 4%
Basic: We have some basic HR metrics but they don't factor heavily into
41% 42% 38% 44% 40% 37%
business decisions
Developing: We track HR metrics and leverage these metrics for

34% 33% 43% 29% 35% 42%
decision-making purposes
Optimised: We track HR metrics and apply descriptive analytics, pulling

5% 6% 3% 4% 5% 8%
insights out of historical data to facilitate our decision-making
Advanced: We track HR metrics and apply predictive and / or prescriptive
analytics, forecasting future possibilities and options, to better inform our 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%
decision-making
I don't know 5% 5% 2% 3% 6% 6%

0% 100%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 28
Metrics used to assess HR performance
We have learnt from this survey that the use of HR metrics is sparse across some
areas of HR. The chart to the right shows how many respondents who are
‘responsible for’ or ‘actively involved in’ each area of HR use any metrics to n = 204 n = 245 n = 200 n = 265 n = 297 n = 186 n = 149 n = 312 n = 302
measure the effectiveness of their respective processes.
65%
64%
Roughly 2 in 3 respondents are using at least one metric to measure the
62%
61%
59%
effectiveness of L&D and / or recruitment processes. Less than half are using
56%
52%
52%
metrics to measure payroll, rostering / time & attendance, rewards and recognition
52%
48%
48%
48%
(R&R) or succession management.
44%
41%
39%
38%
36%
When asked in general what tools are being used to gather and report on HR
35%
metrics, the most common responses (by roughly 2 in 3 respondents) were
‘employee survey feedback’ and ‘manual processes’ (e.g. spreadsheets and paper-
based methods). 1 in 4 said they were leveraging data from their human resources
information system (HRIS) and 1 in 5 said they were using a system developed in-
house. 1 in 6 said they use third-party tools or platforms to gather any HR metrics.
When comparing different sized organisations, there was little surprise: larger
organisations are leveraging tools to enable them to gather more metrics when
compared to smaller organisations, particularly third-party reporting tools /
platforms, enterprise resource planning (ERP) platforms, integrated HRIS platforms,
systems developed in-house, and employee feedback surveys.
By far, the most common metrics being gathered to measure the overall
performance of HR departments are employee turnover (45%) and employee
engagement (42%). These are followed by time to hire (24%), employee
absenteeism (22%) and length of service (20%). The results are broadly consistent
across all organisation sizes but the use of ‘employee absenteeism’ and ‘time to
hire’ begins to increase when organisations reach 200+ employees. Of significant
note is the jump in diversity and inclusion targets for enterprise-sized
organisations, with 1 in 3 saying they use diversity & inclusion metrics to measure
overall HR performance.
Metrics used No metrics used / I don't know
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 29
Top challenges implementing usage of HR metrics
The general observation from this section of the survey is that HR teams are still What are the top 5 challenges you have faced / are facing when trying to implement
struggling to link HR metrics with anything tangible. the use of HR metrics within your organisation?
The lack of technology infrastructure is the top challenge faced by more than half of
the respondents and is probably the greatest contributor to this issue. This insight
was broadly consistent across organisations of all sizes and locations.
LACK OF TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE 55%
Identifying quantifiable links between HR and business goals, identifying value- IDENTIFYING QUANTIFIABLE LINKS BETWEEN HR AND BUSINESS GOALS 47%
adding HR metrics and obtaining raw data information all followed closely and
equally with 47%, so just under half of the respondents selected one or more of IDENTIFYING VALUE-ADD HR METRICS 47%
these three challenges.
Identifying quantifiable links between HR and business goals and obtaining raw OBTAINING RAW DATA INFORMATION 47%
data information presents a greater challenge for enterprise organisations. In fact,
larger organisations face more challenges in general with regard to using HR INTERPRETING HR MEASUREMENT WITH CORPORATE MEASUREMENT 38%
metrics, possibly due to systems that are not integrated and the complexity of
obtaining the information required to join the dots. ‘Lack of skills within the HR SUBJECTIVITY OF HR MEASUREMENT 36%
team’ was also much higher for enterprise organisations, with roughly 2 in 3
respondents saying skills were lacking.
MAKING METRICS INFORMATION AVAILABLE 35%
Overall, 2 in 3 HR respondents are still relying heavily on employee survey feedback
(62%) and manual processes – i.e. paper-based methods or spreadsheets (62%) to ASSIGNING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR METRICS 33%
gather their HR metrics. Only one quarter (27%) said they leverage their integrated
HRIS system and one-fifth (21%) are using a system developed in-house. Less than 1 LACK OF SKILLS AMONG HR STAFF 30%
in 5 are using a stand-alone HR technology platform or third-party reporting /
analytics tool or platform.
LINKING INCENTIVES WITH HR METRICS 26%
Not surprisingly, enterprise organisations generally are the ones leveraging
technology more extensively to gather metrics: Integrated HRIS platforms (41%), I DON'T KNOW 13%
third-party reporting / analytics tools (32%) and systems developed in-house (28%)
are the most common form of technology used. WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES 6% n = 955
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 30
Skills that HR professionals plan to develop
Which skill(s) are you aiming to develop for yourself in the next 12 months?
The top two skills that stand out for this question are strategic planning (44%) and
HR reporting and analytics (42%). This indicates that the value in using HR metrics
to guide strategic decision-making is widely known and there is a burning desire STRATEGIC PLANNING 44%
to grow here. Given that our report indicates that the industry is embarking on an
HR analytics journey, this is also a skill that could differentiate HR professionals, HR REPORTING & ANALYTICS 42%
placing those who have these skills ahead of the pack.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT 36%
Other skills that are near the top of the list overall are: change management (36%);
organisational development (34%); and general business knowledge / skills ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 34%
(30%).
GENERAL BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE / SKILLS 30%
Junior level respondents are more likely to upskill in HR reporting and analytics,
with exactly half of them aiming to do this over the next 12 months. This was the COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 25%
top skill they are keen to learn. This is followed by general business knowledge /
skills (44%) and change management (42%). PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 22%
Mid-level respondents are more likely to upskill in both HR reporting and analytics CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PROBLEM SOLVING 21%
and strategic planning, with just under half of them (47%) aiming to do this over
the next 12 months. This is followed by change management (40%). NEGOTIATION SKILLS 19%
Senior management level respondents are more likely to upskill in strategic POLICY / PROCEDURE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT 17%
planning, with just under half of them (47%) aiming to do this over the next 12
months. This is followed by HR reporting and analytics (40%) and change BUDGET MANAGEMENT 16%
management (35%).
RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION 15%
C-suite level respondents are more likely to upskill in strategic planning, with
roughly 2 in 5 (39%) aiming to do this over the next 12 months. This is followed by
OTHER 8% n = 1207
organisational development (33%) and HR reporting and analytics (32%). NONE 5%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 31
Employee engagement
Roughly 6 in 10 respondents said they have a formal process in place to Do you have a formal process in place to measure employee
measure employee engagement. This ratio is lower for SMBs (1 in 2) and engagement?
much higher for enterprise organisations (8 in 10).
85% of respondents who have a formal process said that they run 5% Yes
traditional engagement surveys to capture engagement data and metrics.
66% said they run exit surveys and just 43% run short pulse surveys. 27%
use onboarding surveys to measure the engagement of new starters and 35% No
16% use an employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS®^) survey. 61% I don't know
Low employee engagement was cited by roughly 1 in 5 respondents as a
top challenge for their organisation over the next 12 months. This ratio is
higher at 1 in 4 for enterprise organisations.
n = 956
Out of the 35% of respondents who do not have a formal process in place
to measure employee engagement, one quarter said they are in the
process of implementing one, one quarter said they don’t have the time or
resources and another quarter said they don’t have the buy-in from senior
leadership. n = 847 n = 109 n = 398 n = 407 n = 151
1 in 12 respondents said that employee engagement is taking up too much
of HR’s time relative to the value this delivers. Do you have a formal process in place to New SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Australia
measure employee engagement? Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Yes 60% 65% 48% 67% 81%

No 35% 31% 48% 30% 11%
I don't know 5% 4% 5% 3% 8%

^Net Promoter, Net Promoter System, Net Promoter Score, NPS and the NPS-related emoticons 0% 100%
are registered trademarks of Bain & Company, Inc., Fred Reichheld and Satmetrix Systems, Inc.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 32
Recruitment and onboarding
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 33
Recruitment process insights
Key challenges:
Almost 1 in 3 respondents feel that recruiting and executive search takes up too much of HR’s
Top challenges for SMB and mid-market organisations:
time, relative to the value these tasks bring. This makes it one of the least efficient areas within
HR’s mandate, behind only ‘general admin work’. 1. Competition for talent (52%)
Roughly half of the respondents selected two key recruitment challenges: ‘competition for
2. Skills shortage (49%)
talent’ and ‘skills shortages’.
The difference between Australia and New Zealand in terms of ‘competition for talent’ (50%
compared with 64% respectively) and 'skills shortage' (46% compared with 67%) indicates the
fight for talent in New Zealand is more intense than in Australia. Top challenges for enterprise organisations:
Certain industries are also feeling the impact of these challenges more than others. 1. Reducing the time to hire (52%)
‘Competition for talent’ rated higher for construction, retail trade, health care / social
assistance, education / training and professional / scientific / technical services. ‘Skills 2. Competition for talent (51%)
shortage’ is rated higher for construction, health care / social assistance and manufacturing. 3. Manual, inefficient recruitment processes (47%)
4. Slow decision-making / too many stakeholders (47%)
‘Competition for talent’ and ‘skills shortages’ clearly stand out for SMB and mid-market
organisations as their top two challenges. Enterprise respondents have very similar results 5. Skills shortage (45%)
relating to these two challenges, in addition they are equally challenged with ‘reducing time to
hire’, ‘slow decision-making / too many stakeholders’ and ‘a manual or inefficient recruitment
process’.
Overall, roughly one third of the respondents are still using manual, inefficient recruitment
processes and cited this as a key challenge. This is more prominent for enterprise.
3 in 4 respondents said that recruitment / onboarding is a medium or high priority for their
organisation over the next 12 months. 3 in 4 of these specific respondents say they have budget
allocated. 1 in 3 respondents are 1 in 3 respondents feel that recruiting
challenged by manual, and executive search takes up too
inefficient recruitment much of HR’s time relative to the
processes value these tasks bring
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 34
Measuring the effectiveness of the recruitment process:
3 in 10 respondents do not use any metrics to measure the performance

of recruitment processes. This is more likely for SMB and mid-market-
sized organisations, with just 1 in 10 enterprise-sized organisations
reporting that this was the case for them.
The most common metric used to measure recruitment process

effectiveness is ‘time to hire’, utilised by almost 2 in 5 respondents. This
is followed by ‘overall employee turnover rate’ and ‘turnover rate of new
hires in their first year’, with roughly 1 in 3 respondents using at least one 1 in 4 mid-level and senior management respondents and 3 in 10 C-suite
of these two metrics. leaders do not know the turnover rate for new hires within their
Roughly 3 in 10 SMBs use at least one of the top three metrics. For mid-
probation period
market-sized organisations, the ratio was closer to 4 in 10. For enterprise
respondents, 3 in 5 used 'time to hire' and roughly 1 in 3 used ‘overall
employee turnover’, ‘turnover of new hires in their first year’, ‘cost to
hire’, ‘offer acceptance rate’ and ‘percentage of open positions’.
Roughly half the mid-level managers and senior managers who were Top three metrics used to measure
‘responsible for’ or ‘actively involved’ in recruitment did not know what
their new hire retention rate was within their probation period. For
recruitment process effectiveness:
C-suite leaders, this ratio was lower, with 3 in 10 not knowing what their
new hire retention rate was. For an important metric that is potentially 1. Time to hire (39%)
easy to gather, this was surprisingly high.
2. Overall employee turnover rate (36%)
Overall, these results indicate that gathering and using metrics to 3 in 10 respondents do not use any metrics 3. Turnover rate of new hires in their first
measure the effectiveness of recruitment processes is still something HR to measure the effectiveness of their year (31%)
teams and leaders are learning how to do effectively.
recruitment process
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 35
Tools used to improve recruitment:
While currently 2 in 5 respondents (38%) do not use any tools to improve the recruitment
process, Applicant Tracking Software (ATS) is the most utilised, cited by over a quarter of the
respondents. Roughly one quarter of the respondents are using psychometric assessment or
background screening tools.
Overall, 1 in 14 respondents said they do not use any tools in-house and instead outsource 1 in 4 respondents use Applicant
their recruitment needs to third-party agencies / recruitment firms; however, this ratio varies 2 in 5 respondents do not use
Tracking Software (ATS),
by country, industry and organisation size: any tools to improve the
psychometric assessment and / or
recruitment process and they
• 1 in 10 SMB respondents said they outsource their recruitment needs to third parties, background screening tools to
compared to 1 in 20 mid-market respondents and no enterprise respondents manage it manually in-house
improve the recruitment process
• 1 in 8 New Zealand respondents outsource their recruitment needs to third parties,
compared to 1 in 17 Australian respondents
• The industries most likely to outsource their recruitment needs to third parties are: Public
administration and safety (17%); construction (15%); information media and
Most popular new hire
telecommunications (11%); financial and insurance services (10%); and manufacturing (10%) sourcing channels:
1. Job boards (83%)

Channels used to source candidates:
2. Social media (68%)
To the right we see the top 5 channels used for sourcing new hires. 3. Employee referrals (68%) 3 in 4 respondents find internal
4. External recruiters (60%) talent / succession programs and /
The most effective channels are ‘internal talent / succession programs’ and ‘job boards’ with 3
in 4 rating them ‘effective’ or ‘extremely effective’. 5. Internal talent / succession or job boards to be effective or
program (57%) extremely effective sourcing
Whilst still popular, ‘social media channels’, ‘external recruiters’ and ‘employee referrals’ were channels
slightly less effective. Roughly 3 in 5 respondents rated these three sourcing channels as
effective or extremely effective.
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 36
Recruitment technology
Current state of recruitment technology:
Almost 70% of survey respondents have either fully

implemented or are currently implementing recruitment
software, with an additional 11% less than 12 months away
Not fully
from implementing. This means that 4 in 5 organisations will Fully implemented
implemented yet
have fully implemented recruitment technology by roughly technology
or not considering % difference*
August 2020. What are your organisation's key recruitment challenges? platform
one
Half of those who do not use software / technology to aid n = 363 n = 385
their recruitment processes said they are challenged by A manual or inefficient recruitment process 21% 49% 27%
manual or inefficient processes, in comparison to 1 in 5 of
those who are leveraging some sort of software / technology. Lack of HR resources 18% 23% 6%
This is clearly (and unsurprisingly) the main benefit of Creating a positive candidate experience 20% 22% 2%
automating HR processes through technology.
Building a stronger employer brand 35% 35% 0%
Implementing recruitment software also appears to improve Reducing the time to hire 34% 32% -2%
the amount of HR resources available: roughly 1 in 6
Slow decision-making / too many stakeholders 33% 30% -3%
respondents using recruitment software / technology said
they are challenged by a ‘lack of HR resources’ in comparison Competition for talent 54% 51% -4%
to 1 in 4 respondents who don’t use any software / Skills shortage 52% 47% -5%
technology.

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 37
Onboarding process insights
Key challenges:
Roughly 1 in 4 respondents said that new starter onboarding / induction is taking up too much of HR's time
relative to the value these processes deliver. This was more apparent for SMB and mid-market
organisations, probably because enterprise organisations are more likely to have an HR role dedicated to
ensuring a good new starter experience.
2 in 5 respondents do not 1 in 3 respondents measure the
The top three onboarding challenges are a ‘lack of regular check-ins with ‘new starters’, ‘lack of formal measure the effectiveness effectiveness of their onboarding process
onboarding processes’ and ‘integrating new starters into teams / cultures’. Roughly one third of the
respondents selected at least one of these top three challenges. In addition, roughly one quarter of the
of their onboarding process via their new hire retention rate
respondents face onboarding challenges relating to a ‘lack of training’, ‘lack of orientation’, ‘too much
information’ or a ‘lengthy onboarding process’. The frequency of these issues was fairly consistent
regardless of the organisation size, apart from the length of the onboarding process, which is twice as likely
to be a challenge for enterprise-sized organisations.
Nearly half of the respondents from New Zealand said they are challenged by a lack of formal onboarding
processes.
1 in 9 respondents said that they had no challenges. This ratio was higher for respondents from SMBs. 1 in 9 respondents said they have no challenges, this ratio
was higher for respondents from SMBs
Measuring onboarding process effectiveness:
Roughly 2 in 5 respondents said they do not measure the effectiveness of their onboarding process. This is
more likely for SMB and mid-market organisations, but the results still indicate that 1 in 4 enterprise-sized
organisations are not using any metrics to measure this. Top challenges:
The most common metric used to measure onboarding process effectiveness is the ‘new hire retention 1. Lack of regular check-ins (38%)
rate’, with 1 in 3 respondents saying that they use this metric. The second most common metric is ‘employee
milestones being met’, with 1 in 5 saying that they use this metric. 2. Ad hoc steps / lack of formal processes (35%)
3. Integrating new hires into teams / cultures (31%)
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 38
Onboarding process insights
Length of a formal onboarding program:
The length of formal onboarding programs varies greatly. An equal amount of

respondents, 1 in 5, said their onboarding program lasts one week, one month or
three months.
1 in 11 respondents said their formal onboarding program lasts 1 day but they
were more likely to come from an industry with a higher percentage of manual
workers or those on the road (e.g. manufacturing, trade, transport, etc.) 1 in 9 respondents do An equal amount of respondents,
not have a formal 1 in 5, said their onboarding program lasts
1 in 9 respondents said they have a formal onboarding program that lasts 6
months. This was clearly the preferred program length for respondents from the onboarding program for one week, one month or three months
education and training industry. Only 1 in 50 respondents said they have a
program that lasts more than 6 months.
1 in 9 respondents said they do not have a formal onboarding program. This

result was consistent regardless of organisation size.
The most commonly reported time for a new starter to reach full productivity is
three months, which was cited by 2 in 5 respondents. 1 in 5 respondents said
that full productivity is reached in one month and another 1 in 5 said that it is
reached in six months. However, this can also vary greatly and is likely to be role 3 in 4 respondents said 3 in 5 respondents have a fully
and industry-specific. recruitment / onboarding is a high or implemented onboarding
medium priority for their organisation and platform or are currently
have budget allocated to these areas implementing one
The average time for a new starter to reach

full productivity is 3 months
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 39
Onboarding technology
Current state of onboarding technology:
Investment into recruitment / onboarding has been rated the second

highest priority of all aspects of HR. Roughly 3 in 4 respondents said
recruitment / onboarding is a high or medium priority for their
organisation and three quarters of those specific respondents
already have budget allocated. This makes a lot of sense given that Not fully
recruitment and onboarding have both been listed as one of the top Fully implemented
implemented yet
5 tasks taking up too much of HR’s time relative to the value they technology
What are your organisation's key onboarding challenges? or not considering % difference*
platform
deliver, and that the skills shortage and competition for talent are one
still the biggest issues faced. n = 216 n = 416
Ad hoc steps / lack of formal processes 21% 42% 21%
58% of respondents have a fully implemented onboarding platform
or are currently implementing one and another 17% say they are less Lack of regular check-ins with new hires 29% 43% 14%
than 12 months away from having one implemented. This means that Lack of orientation for new hires 18% 30% 13%
next year, 3 in 4 organisations have or expect to have a fully Too little information for new hires 11% 18% 7%
implemented platform to help them manage the onboarding process. Lack of training for new hires 24% 31% 6%
Lack of role clarity for new hires 17% 24% 6%
When comparing the key onboarding challenges reported by Lack of training for you / your team 8% 12% 4%
respondents who use a fully implemented onboarding platform
Integrating new hires into teams / culture 29% 32% 4%
against those reported by respondents that don’t, there are
significantly fewer challenges for those using technology, in
Length of onboarding process 23% 23% -1%
particular: ‘ad hoc steps or lack of formal processes’; ‘lack of regular Too much information for new hires 28% 26% -2%
check-ins with new hires’; and ‘lack of orientation for new hires.’ None - we have no challenges 16% 8% -8%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 40
Performance management
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 41
Performance management process insights
Key challenges:
Roughly 1 in 4 respondents said that performance management takes up too much of HR’s
time relative to the value it delivers. However, the most pressing challenge by far is ‘lack
of consistency between managers and departments, etc’. Nearly 2 in 3 respondents said
this was a key performance management challenge.
The influence of managers over direct reports is also reflected in the next two biggest Roughly 1 in 4 respondents said performance management
challenges, which were a ‘lack of timely / meaningful feedback’ and a ‘lack of manager takes up too much of HR’s time relative to the value it delivers
training’. Both of these were cited by nearly 1 in 2 respondents.
The next two biggest challenges (with 2 in 5 respondents selecting at least one of these as
a key challenge) were ‘unclear goals / KPIs’ and ‘a lack of personal development plans’.
Top challenges:
One quarter of the respondents do not have a formal performance management
framework in place. The larger the organisation, the more likely it is to have a formal 1. Lack of consistency between managers, departments, etc. (63%)
performance framework, with only 1 in 7 respondents from enterprise-sized organisations
having cited a ‘lack of formal framework’ as a challenge. A lack of recognition for high 2. Lack of timely / meaningful feedback (48%)
performers (31%) is a greater challenge than supporting underperformers (22%). 3. Lack of manager training (47%)
4. Unclear goals / KPIs (39%)
Perhaps underpinning all of these challenges is the fact that nearly 2 in 5 respondents
(38%) are still using manual processes to handle performance management. This is most 5. Lack of personal development plans (39%)
prevalent for SMB and mid-market organisations, where roughly 4 in 10 respondents said
this was a challenge.
2 in 5 respondents are using manual 1 in 4 respondents do not use a formal

processes to manage performance performance management framework
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 42
Measuring the effectiveness of the performance management process:
Performance appraisals are the most popular method used to manage performance by
far, having been selected by almost 7 in 10 respondents. In addition, half of the
respondents said that they use ‘personal development plans’ and / or ‘measurable, role-
specific KPIs (e.g. sales targets, retention rates, etc.)’. One quarter of the respondents
are undertaking 360-degree feedback. 1 in 2 respondents use personal
7 in 10 respondents use development plans and / or role
A possible emerging trend is the use of ‘objective & key results’ (OKRs), cited by 1 in 5
performance appraisals to manage specific KPIs / targets to
respondents.
employee performance undertake performance
management
Measurement of performance management process:
Nearly 2 in 5 respondents do not use any metrics to measure the effectiveness of their Most popular metrics used:
performance management processes. This figure ranges from nearly 1 in 2 for SMBs to 1
in 5 for enterprise.
1. Performance appraisal completion rates (30%)
Of the performance metrics that are used, the most popular are ‘performance appraisal 2. Employee and manager engagement (25%)
completion rates’ (30%) and ‘employee and manager engagement’ (25%). The former is 3. Employee productivity (17%)
particularly popular for enterprise-sized organisations, with half those respondents
selecting this with a significant distance ahead of the next metric used.
1 in 6 respondents use ‘employee productivity’ as a metric to measure performance

management effectiveness.
‘Morale around performance’ and ‘average performance rating’ were used by

1 in 7 respondents.
The most commonly used metric by C-suite executives is ‘employee and manager
engagement’ cited by roughly 2 in 5 respondents in this group. This is significantly
2 in 5 respondents do not use any metrics 2 in 5 C-suite executives use
higher than the rate at which it’s used by more junior roles. to measure the effectiveness of their employee and manager
performance management process engagement as a metric
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 43
Frequency of performance appraisals:
Annual performance appraisals are used most commonly – being used

by almost 2 in 5 respondents – followed by biannual performance
appraisals, which are used by 1 in 4 respondents.
While more frequent performance appraisal cycles are occurring (e.g.

‘continuous feedback’ (4%), ‘weekly’ (1%) and ‘monthly’ (5%)), these are 2 in 5 respondents 1 in 2 respondents have fully implemented 1 in 4 respondents
used sparingly. This is perhaps an indication that these regular check-ins conduct annual or are currently implementing conduct biannual
are being used to feed into the more traditional annual or biannual performance appraisals performance management technology performance appraisals
appraisals.
Not fully
Fully implemented
implemented yet or
Current state of performance management technology: What are your organisation's key performance management challenges? technology platform
Over half the respondents (56%) have either fully implemented or are n = 229 n = 385
currently implementing performance management technology. An Manual processes 19% 50% 31%
additional 15% said implementation will occur in the next 12 months, which
means that 71% of respondents will have fully implemented performance
Lack of a formal performance framework 10% 31% 21%
management technology by roughly August 2020. Just 1 in 9 (11%) said they Lack of manager training 38% 54% 16%
were not considering any performance management technology at all. Lack of formal processes 7% 22% 16%
Lack of personal development plans 32% 44% 12%
Those who are using performance management software / technology are
faced with significantly fewer challenges than those who are not. In
Lack of support for underperformers 17% 25% 8%
particular, there was a significant difference in how many times the Lack of consistency between managers, departments, etc. 59% 66% 7%
following challenges were reported: Lack of timely / meaningful feedback 45% 51% 7%
• Manual processes Unclear goals / key performance indicators (KPIs) 36% 42% 6%
• Lack of a formal performance framework
• Lack of manager training Lack of recognition for high performers 28% 33% 5%
• Lack of formal processes Lack of appropriate recognition and rewards 25% 29% 4%
• Lack of personal development plans None - we have no challenges 6% 3% -3%
• Lack of support for underperformers
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 44
Succession management
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 45
Succession management process insights
Key challenges: What are your organisation's key succession management challenges?
Succession management has a more evenly spread list of
challenges when compared with most other HR functions NO RECORD KEEPING OF CURRENT EMPLOYEES' SKILLS, EXPERIENCE OR
covered in this survey, all of which had two or three key QUALIFICATIONS
33%
challenges that clearly stood out above the rest.
WEAK TALENT PIPELINE 32%
‘No record keeping of current employees’ skills, experience
or qualifications' was the top challenge, selected by 1 in 3 LACK OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 29%
respondents. This becomes more prevalent as organisation
size increases. Almost half of the enterprise-sized
organisations surveyed indicated that this was a challenge LACK OF RESOURCES 28%
for them.
EXTERNAL TALENT SHORTAGE 27%
A ‘weak talent pipeline’ was selected by roughly 1 in 3
respondents, which is consistent with the competition for LACK OF TIME 24%
talent and skills shortage that were identified as a key
challenge in the Recruitment section of this report.
WEAK BENCH STRENGTH 23%
Roughly 3 in 10 respondents said that a 'lack of professional
development opportunities' was a succession management LACK OF BUDGET 21%
challenge. This result was fairly consistent across
organisations of all sizes. NEW OR EMERGING ROLES 20%
Almost 1 in 5 respondents (19%) said ‘lack of buy-in from

NO BUY-IN FROM SENIOR LEADERSHIP 19%
senior leadership’ was a challenge, perhaps indicating that
the respondents perceive senior leadership as not seeing the
value of succession management. This ratio increases to 1 in 4 NONE - WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES 6%
for enterprise respondents.
I DON'T KNOW 6%
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 46
Succession management technology
Current state of succession management technology:
Overall, roughly 1 in 6 respondents (16%) identified succession planning as a top

challenge for their organisation over the next 12 months. This was selected much
less than other challenges such as leadership development, culture change,
change management and upgrading technology. Perhaps this is why there is Fully implemented
Not fully
limited succession planning technology available. Just 33% of respondents have technology
implemented yet
either fully implemented or are currently implementing succession management What are your organisation's key succession management platform
or not considering
% difference*
technology. Within 12 months, 48% expect to have fully implemented technology. challenges? one
This is the lowest take-up rate of all the HR functional areas covered in this
report. n = 65 n = 492
In the Recruitment section of this report, we learnt that ‘internal talent /

No record keeping of current employees' skills, experience or
11% 33% 22%
succession programs’ are rated one of the most effective sources to fill roles, with qualifications
3 in 4 respondents rating such programs as ‘effective’ or ‘extremely effective’. It is Lack of resources 18% 28% 10%
therefore surprising that there is not more value being placed on technology to Lack of budget 14% 21% 7%
aid succession and internal talent programs.
Lack of professional development opportunities 23% 29% 6%
Those who are using succession management software / technology are faced Weak bench strength 17% 23% 6%
with fewer challenges than those who are not. The challenges that were reported
Weak talent pipeline 28% 32% 5%
significantly less by respondents using a form of succession management
software / technology were: External talent shortage 23% 27% 4%
• No record keeping of current employees' skills, experience or qualifications
New or emerging roles 20% 20% 0%
• Lack of resources
No buy-in from senior leadership 20% 19% -2%
1 in 7 respondents who are using performance management software / None - we have no challenges 14% 6% -8%
technology say they have no challenges in comparison to 1 in 17 respondents who
don’t use any.

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 47
Succession management process insights
Measuring the effectiveness of the succession management process:
Half of the survey respondents ‘responsible for’ or ‘actively involved’ in succession

management do not use any metrics to measure the effectiveness of their succession
management processes. This is the lowest usage of metrics for any area of HR covered in
this report.
For those who do use metrics, there is a low take-up rate, with only 1 in 7 respondents
using ‘percentage of roles filled internally’ or ‘turnover amongst high-potential /
performance employees’ and 1 in 8 using ‘engagement levels amongst high-potential / 1 in 7 respondents measure the 1 in 2 respondents do not
performance employees’.
'percentage of roles filled internally’ use any metrics to measure the
or 'turnover amongst high-potential effectiveness of their succession
Succession focus areas: / performance employees’ management process
Nearly 2 in 5 respondents have no succession plans in place.
Of those that do have plans in place, the most likely employee levels to be covered with a
succession plan are senior-level management (31%) and leadership / C-level (31%).
Only 1 in 5 key specialist / technical roles are covered by a succession plan, indicating that Job roles covered by succession plans:
the focus remains on management and leadership roles. Mid-market and enterprise
employers are more likely to have succession plans in place for key specialist / technical
1. Senior-level management (31%)
roles than smaller organisations. Just over 1 in 10 SMBs have succession plans for these
roles. 2. Leadership / C-level (29%)
3. Mid-level management (21%) 1 in 3 respondents have no
The larger the organisation, the more succession planning that is being undertaken for
4. Key specialist / technical role (20%) succession plans in place
more roles.
Australian respondents are twice as likely to focus on leadership / C-suite roles (30%)
than their New Zealand counterparts (16%). However, New Zealand employers are more
focused on the next two levels down the hierarchy: senior-level management (39% for NZ
and 30% for Australia), and mid-level management (30% for NZ and 20% for Australia).
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 48
Learning & development (L&D)
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 49
Learning & development process insights
Key challenges:
All survey respondents were asked to select the top 3 challenges that will
impact their organisation over the next 12 months. The highest ranking
response was ‘leadership development’, with roughly 2 in 5 respondents
stating that this is one of their top challenges. 1 in 4 respondents said that
‘upskilling, cross-skilling and reskilling’ employees was one of their top
challenges. 1 in 4 respondents are still 1 in 4 respondents have difficulty
challenged by a lack of demonstrating the return on
4 in 5 respondents said that L&D is a high or medium priority for their
organisation and / or they already have budget allocated for it. The two leadership buy-in investment (ROI) of L&D
most significant L&D-specific challenges are ‘lack of budget / funding’,
cited by nearly half of the respondents and 'a lack of resources', cited by
one third of the respondents. This indicates that the allocated budgets
and resources for L&D may be tight for some organisations, if they have a
budget at all. Both ‘a lack of budget / funding' and 'a lack of resources’
becomes more of a challenge as organisation size increases.
The third, fourth and fifth most significant challenges, were all cited by
roughly 1 in 4 respondents: ‘aligning training with corporate goals’;
‘difficulty demonstrating the return on investment of training’; and ‘lack 2 in 5 respondents said lack of 1 in 3 respondents said that lack of
of leadership buy-in’. budget / funding is their biggest challenge resources is one of their biggest challenges
4 in 5 respondents said that L&D is a high or medium priority for

their organisation and / or they already have budget allocated
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 50
Learning & development process insights
Measuring the effectiveness of the learning & development process:
Roughly 2 in 3 respondents are using at least one metric to measure the effectiveness of their L&D processes. The
most common metrics are training completion rates (38%), meeting compliance obligations / targets (34%) and the
percentage of employees trained (32%). Roughly 1 in 5 respondents are measuring the lift in individual and / or
overall employee productivity / engagement. This figure is most likely lower due to the fact that these metrics are
more difficult to measure.
2 in 3 respondents are using Only 1 in 3 respondents are using
at least one metric to a metric that links L&D back to an
Delivery of learning & development: measure the effectiveness of increase in engagement and /
their L&D processes or productivity
In general, face-to-face training remains the most popular form of delivery. 8 in 10 respondents say they facilitate
internal face-to-face training and 7 in 10 facilitate external face-to-face.
Roughly 3 in 4 respondents use some form of eLearning, whether that’s developed internally or externally.
Virtual classrooms are an emerging area, but take-up is limited. This option was selected by 1 in 7 respondents. The
bulk of these come from enterprise-sized organisations.
4 in 10 HR professionals are upskilling in strategic planning

Courses undertaken by employees: or HR reporting & analytics over the next 12 months
Out of the top 5 most common courses undertaken by employees, four of them are likely to be compulsory (see top 5
listed on the right).
Most common courses undertaken by employees:
‘Leadership and management’ is the most popular course area that may not classify as obligatory, and also the first
that is likely to focus on ‘soft skills’. In another section of the survey, ‘leadership development’ has been rated the
number one challenge by nearly 2 in 5 survey respondents, so investment into this type of development aligns with 1. Workplace health & safety (48%)
this learning. 2. Technical skills / certification (48%)
3. Compliance (44%)
4. Leadership and management (44%)
5. Induction (44%)
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 51
Learning & development technology
Current state of L&D technology: Fully implemented

Not fully
implemented yet or
technology platform
Just over half of the respondents (56%) have either fully What are your organisation's key learning & development challenges? not considering one % difference*
implemented or are currently implementing L&D
technology, with a further 16% being less than 12 months
away from implementing. This means that nearly 72% of n = 194 n = 388
organisations expect to have fully implemented L&D
technology by roughly August 2020.
Lack of resources 28% 40% 13%
Aligning training with corporate goals 19% 30% 11%
Those who are using L&D software / technology are
faced with fewer challenges than those who are not. The
Providing access to learning content 16% 24% 8%
challenges that were selected significantly less by Lack of budget / funding 38% 45% 7%
respondents who use a form of L&D software /
Difficulty demonstrating the return on investment (ROI) of training 21% 28% 6%
technology were:
• Lack of resources Finding the right external partners 18% 23% 5%
• Aligning training with corporate goals
Training program logistics 20% 25% 5%
• Providing access to learning content
• Lack of budget / funding Difficulty scaling 7% 11% 4%
Lack of senior leadership buy-in 23% 24% 1%
Meeting compliance obligations 19% 19% 0%
Low learner engagement 19% 18% -1%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 52
Rewards & recognition (R&R)
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 53
Rewards & recognition process insights
Key challenges:
Almost half of the survey respondents said ‘inconsistency across managers, departments, etc.’ was the biggest
challenge relating to rewards & recognition. This was consistently cited as the top challenge across most industries
and all organisation sizes; however, it is more prevalent for larger organisations: Almost 2 in 5 SMBs said this kind of
inconsistency was a challenge, whereas 1 in 2 mid-market organisations reported this to be the case and 3 in 5
respondents from enterprise organisations said the same. 1 in 2 enterprise and mid-market organisations use peer nomination
Many other challenges were also reported more frequently as organisation size increased, such as ‘low engagement awards as part of their rewards & recognition programs
with program’, ‘recognition is not timely' and 'lack of personalised rewards & recognition’.
1 in 3 respondents said 'lack of budget' was a key challenge. This is seen consistently across all organisation sizes and
was the second biggest challenge faced overall that relates to rewards & recognition. Top challenges:
Two interlinked areas, 'lack of personalised rewards & recognition' (29%) and 'lack of insights as to what rewards
employees would value' (26%), came in as the third and fourth ranked challenges on the list. 1. Inconsistency across managers, departments, etc. (44%)
2. Lack of budget (34%)
The fifth ranked challenge was ‘discretionary effort is not recognised or rewarded’ (24%).
3. Lack of personalised rewards & recognition (29%)
Types of rewards & recognition programs utilised:
Half the survey respondents use tenure / work anniversaries as an opportunity to reward and recognise employees.
This is the most popular form of recognition across all organisation sizes and most industries; however, it is more
prominent in enterprise-sized organisations, having been cited by 2 in 3 respondents from those organisations.
2 in 5 respondents use ‘informal / ad hoc programs’ or the bottom-up approach of ‘peer nomination awards’. The ratio
for ‘peer nominations awards’ rises to 1 in 2 respondents working in mid-market and enterprise-sized organisations.
Only 1 in 3 respondents said they have programs in place to reward & recognise the achievement of KPIs /
performance targets and / or sales quotas. 1 in 8 SMBs have no formal Half of the respondents use tenure or
Almost 1 in 8 respondents have no formal programs in place, but this is more likely for SMBs (1 in 6) and reduces to rewards & recognition work anniversaries as an opportunity
1 in 20 in enterprise-sized organisations. program in place to reward and recognise employees
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 54
Perceptions of the value of rewards & recognition programs:

How effective do you think your current employee recognition program(s) are?
While 2 in 5 respondents are indifferent about the effectiveness of their rewards &
recognition (R&R) program, roughly one quarter feel that their program is either 41%
‘effective’ or ‘extremely effective’. That still leaves a third of the respondents feeling their
program is either ‘ineffective’ or ‘extremely ineffective’. These results indicate that HR
teams are struggling to get their R&R programs right. In fact, if R&R programs are
deemed to be unfairly applied, this can sometimes cause new issues and challenges. 23% 24%
Related to this is the value placed on recognition programs by Senior Management 10%
(CEOs, Directors, etc.). A third of the respondents believe Senior Management are only
'neutral' about the value they place on R&R programs and roughly one quarter say the 3%
value placed is either ‘low’ or ‘very low’. Fortunately, 2 in 5 respondents said their senior --------------------------------------------------------------
management team does see value. Extremely Ineffective Neutral Effective Extremely
ineffective effective
The perception that leaders have a low appreciation of R&R is reflected in the fact that
only 3 in 5 respondents said R&R is a high or medium priority for their organisation over
the next 12 months and just 2 in 5 respondents have implemented or are currently
implementing R&R technology. 1 in 5 respondents said they are not even considering
implementing R&R technology. In your opinion, what is the level of value that Senior Management
(e.g. CEO, Directors) places on recognition programs?
Interestingly, despite R&R being seen as a low priority, 2 in 3 respondents said their
organisation has budget allocated for R&R. It seems that the majority of organisations
know that they need to do something in the R&R space, even if the perceived value and 33%
priority is low.
28%
18%
9% 12%
--------------------------------------------------------------
Very low Low Neutral High Very high
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 55
Measuring the effectiveness of the rewards & recognition

process:
The high level of indifference and even dissatisfaction with rewards

& recognition programs is also reflected in the low usage of metrics.
Half of the respondents said they do not use any metrics to assess 2 in 5 respondents have implemented or are currently implementing
how effective their program is. More than half of SMBs (55%) do not R&R technology. 1 in 5 are not even considering it
use any metrics at all. This decreases to 52% for mid-market
organisations and 35% for enterprise organisations. Consistent with
other areas of HR covered in this report, the larger an organisation
is, the more metrics are generally used.
The most used R&R metric is ‘employee retention’ at 19%. 'Employee

participation rate' is the second most used metric at 18%. This is well
above ‘manager participation rate’, which is used by only
8% of respondents.
Most popular metrics used:
Very few metrics are used in relation to employee productivity or
performance. ‘Employee performance’ is measured by roughly 1 in 8 1. Employee retention (19%)
respondents in relation to R&R.
2. Employee participation rate (18%)
3. Employee performance (13%) Half of the respondents said they do not use any
metrics to assess how effective their program is
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 56
Rewards & recognition technology
Current state of R&R technology:
25% of respondents currently have fully implemented R&R

technology; but our survey results indicate that within 12
Not fully
months, 57% of respondents will have it fully implemented. Fully implemented
implemented yet or
technology platform
Those who are using rewards and recognition software /
What are your organisation's key rewards & recognition challenges? not considering one % difference*
technology are faced with fewer challenges than those who are
not. Most challenges show a decrease in prevalence when n = 138 n = 383
using rewards and recognition software / technology. In
particular: Lack of personalised rewards & recognition 17% 33% 15%
Lack of insight as to what rewards employees would value 16% 29% 13%
• Roughly 1 in 6 respondents using R&R technology are Inconsistency (e.g. across managers, departments, etc.) 35% 48% 13%
challenged by a ‘lack of personalised rewards &
recognition’ or ‘lack of insight as to what rewards Lack of budget 26% 36% 10%
employees would value’, in comparison to 1 in 3 Discretionary effort is not recognised or rewarded 17% 27% 10%
respondents who don’t use R&R software / technology
Recognition is not timely 15% 25% 10%
• 1 in 3 respondents using R&R technology are challenged by Lack of resources 12% 21% 9%
‘inconsistency (e.g. across managers, departments, etc.)’, High performers are not recognised or rewarded 16% 24% 8%
compared to 1 in 2 respondents who don’t use R&R
software / technology
Lack of peer-to-peer recognition 16% 24% 8%
• 1 in 7 respondents using rewards and recognition Over-reliance on financial reward 19% 20% 2%
software / technology said that they don’t have any
challenges, in comparison to 1 in 14 respondents who don’t
Low engagement with program 19% 16% -2%
use any R&R software / technology None - we have no challenges 15% 7% -8%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 57
Remuneration & benefits
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 58
Remuneration & benefits process insights
Key challenges:
The top challenge relating to remuneration and benefits, cited by approximately 2 in 5

respondents, was ‘misalignment between performance and remuneration’. This
challenge is more apparent in larger organisations. Half of the enterprise respondents
chose this as a key challenge, in comparison to 37% of SMB respondents and 44% of
mid-market respondents. 1 in 2 New Zealand respondents said this was a challenge
compared to 2 in 5 Australian respondents. This is not surprising, as the analysis of
1 in 10 respondents said being either under or over budget was a key challenge
questions relating to Recruitment revealed that New Zealand organisations are having
more difficulties with the 'competition for talent' than Australian organisations.
The second biggest challenge was ‘can’t compete with external market rates’, selected by
approximately 1 in 3 respondents. This seems to be fairly consistent regardless of
organisation size or location. Top challenges:
The third most significant challenge, selected by roughly 1 in 5 respondents, was 'lack of
structured management process'. This may in fact be a cause of several of the less-cited
1. Misalignment between performance and remuneration (42%)
challenges, such as ‘lack of flexibility’ and ‘lack of transparency’, which were also 2. Can’t compete with external market rates (35%)
selected by 1 in 5 respondents, and 'process is too complicated' which was selected by 1 3. Lack of structured management process (22%)
in 10 respondents.
Almost the same number of respondents (roughly 1 in 10) selected being either 'under
budget' and / or 'over budget' as a challenge.
C-suite leaders are more likely to believe there are no remuneration challenges than their
more junior peers. Perhaps this is why remuneration and benefits was down the bottom
of the list of priorities in comparison to other areas of HR. Half of the respondents
surveyed said that remuneration and benefits administration was a high or medium
priority over the next 12 months.
1 in 3 respondents do not use any metrics to 1 in 3 respondents use pay

assess remuneration process effectiveness equity as a metric
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 59
Measuring the effectiveness of the remuneration process:
1 in 3 respondents do not use any metrics to assess the effectiveness of

remuneration processes. This figure is surprising given that 35% of respondents
said their top challenge was an inability to compete with external market rates.
For those who do use metrics, the most popular is ‘market index (comparison 2 in 5 enterprise organisations measure 'pay equity' and 'remuneration reviews
with competitors)’, used by a third of the respondents. completed within budget'. These are their top metrics used
Encouragingly, given the increased focus on diversity & inclusion, ‘pay equity’ is
the second most used metric, being used by roughly 1 in 4 respondents. This ratio
was slightly lower in New Zealand, being used by 1 in 5.
Top three metrics used:
For SMBs, the ratio of those measuring 'pay equity' is just 1 in 5, but this gradually
increases with organisation size: 1 in 3 mid-market and 2 in 5 enterprise 1. Market index comparison (33%)
organisations are measuring ‘pay equity’.
2. Pay equity (28%)
3. Remuneration reviews completed within budget (26%)
4. Employee satisfaction with remuneration (23%)
5. Average annual base-pay increases (21%)
2 in 5 mid-market organisations use 2 in 5 SMB respondents do not use

market index comparisons to measure any metrics to assess the
effectiveness. This their top metric used effectiveness of remuneration
processes
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 60
Remuneration & benefits focus areas:
A third of the respondents are using remuneration to improve retention over

the next 12 months, while almost the same amount hope to attract in-demand
skills. Mid-market organisations are the most likely to be using remuneration
to focus on improving retention and attracting in-demand skills.
Overall, 1 in 6 respondents hope to improve gender pay equality and 1 in 11 1 in 10 respondents want to create more opportunity / equality
want to create more opportunity / equality for minority groups. for minority groups through their remuneration strategies
Enterprise-sized organisations are the most likely to be aiming to improve
gender pay inequality (28%), but there is interest across the board. 24% of
mid-market respondents and 10% of SMBs are focused on this area. Efforts to
provide more opportunity / equality for minority groups is a consistent focus
area regardless of job seniority, location or organisation size.
Most popular focus areas:
Despite the worthiness of these focus areas, remuneration is down the
bottom of the list of HR priorities. Only half of the respondents surveyed said 1. Improving retention (33%)
that they classify remuneration & benefits as being a high or medium priority
over the next 12 months or that they have budget for this area. 2. Attracting in-demand skills (32%)
3. Improving gender pay equality (18%) 1 in 3 respondents are using
remuneration to improve retention
1 in 5 respondents hope to improve gender 1 in 2 respondents classify remuneration &

pay equality over the next 12 months benefits as being a high or medium priority
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 61
Remuneration & benefits technology
Current state of remuneration and benefits technology:
32% of respondents currently have fully implemented

remuneration and benefits technology but our survey results
indicate that within 12 months 57% of respondents will have
it fully implemented.
When comparing key remuneration and benefits challenges Not fully

Fully implemented
by respondents who have fully implemented technology implemented yet or
technology platform
against those that don’t, a number of challenges were less What are your organisation's key remuneration challenges? not considering one % difference*
commonly cited by those who use technology. In particular:
n = 162 n = 335
• 1 in 8 respondents with technology were challenged by
‘no structured management process’ in comparison to No structured management process 12% 28% 16%
nearly 1 in 3 without technology
Misalignment between performance and remuneration 36% 46% 9%
• 1 in 3 respondents using technology were challenged by Can't compete with external market rates 31% 37% 6%
‘misalignment between performance and remuneration’ Lack of transparency 17% 22% 5%
compared to 1 in 2 without technology
Process is too complicated 8% 12% 4%
Remuneration budget is frequently over 7% 8% 1%
Lack of flexibility 19% 19% 0%
Process is too lengthy 11% 10% -2%
Remuneration budget is frequently under 12% 10% -2%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 62
Payroll and rostering / time &
attendance
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 63
Payroll process insights
Key challenges:
Respondents indicated that there is a trio of dominant payroll challenges. Roughly a third of the
respondents reported one of these three challenges:
• Disconnect between rostering / time & attendance and payroll

• Lack of accurate, real-time reporting 1 in 10 respondents said either underpayment or
• Interpretation of Awards / Enterprise Agreements
overpayment of employees is a challenge
Enterprise-sized organisations are also struggling with too many data input errors, with over half of
them selecting this challenge – this is more than double the figure seen for SMBs and
mid-market-sized organisations. ‘Too many data input errors’ and ‘interpretation of Awards / Top challenges:
Enterprise Agreements’ were equally their greatest challenges.
‘Interpretation of Awards / Enterprise Agreements’ is also a significantly greater challenge in 1. Disconnect between rostering / time & attendance and payroll (35%)
Australia than New Zealand, with over one third of Australian respondents citing this: a reflection of 2. Lack of accurate, real-time reporting (33%)
the complexity of industrial relations and the industrial instruments that govern employment in
Australia.
3. Interpretation of Awards / Enterprise Agreements (32%)
4. Too many data input errors (23%)
The same number of respondents (1 in 10) said that either underpayment or overpayment of 5. None – we have no challenges (14%)
employees was a challenge. Roughly 1 in 10 respondents said they had no payroll challenges – a low
number compared to other areas of this report.
Measuring the effectiveness of the payroll process:
Roughly 2 in 5 respondents said they do not measure the performance of their payroll process. This
is more likely for SMBs and mid-market-sized organisations, however, the results still indicate that
almost 1 in 5 enterprise-sized organisations are not using any metrics to measure this.
The most common metrics used to assess the performance of payroll processes are pay cycle
accuracy (cited by 35% of respondents), followed by compliance (cited by 26% of respondents). 1 in 3 respondents from Australia said 2 in 5 respondents do not
interpretation of Awards / Enterprise measure the effectiveness of
The number of employee enquiries escalates according to organisation size. Just over 1 in 10 SMBs
use this metric, rising to just over 3 in 10 enterprise-size organisations.
Agreements was their top challenge their payroll process
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 64
Payroll process insights
Types of pay cycles:
Fortnightly pay cycles are by far the most commonly used, with almost 1 in 3 respondents selecting
this option. This is consistent across all organisation sizes; however, mid-market-sized
organisations lead the way, with 72% of them preferring fortnightly pay cycles.
Monthly pay cycles are used by roughly 1 in 3 respondents. Traditionally 'white collar' industries
favour fortnightly or monthly pay cycles, whereas traditionally 'blue collar' industries favour
weekly or fortnightly.
7 in 10 respondents use 1 in 3 respondents use manual
fortnightly pay cycles processes to manage payroll
Roughly 1 in 12 respondents selected ‘ad hoc’ – encompassing a mix of different cycles to cover
different employee groups, and potentially to factor in corrections, late payments and out-of-cycle
payments.
Top tools to manage payroll:
Tools to manage payroll:
The use of payroll technology is at the most advanced level when compared with all the other 1. Stand-alone payroll software (45%)
areas of HR covered in this report. This is not surprising given how critical payroll is to running an 2. Integrated HR & payroll software (36%)
organisation. 82% of respondents have fully implemented or are currently implementing payroll 3. Spreadsheets (22%)
technology. A further 6% are less than 12 months away from implementing. This means almost 9 in
10 respondents will soon have some form of technology in place to manage payroll.
Almost 1 in 2 respondents utilise stand-alone payroll software to manage payroll processes, while
roughly 1 in 3 have integrated HR & payroll software. 2 in 3 enterprise-sized organisations selected
this option, compared with 1 in 4 respondents from SMBs. SMBs are far more likely to use
accounting software however, when compared to larger organisations.
Half of the respondents
Roughly 1 in 3 respondents still favour tools requiring manual intervention (e.g. spreadsheets or
the ‘box of receipts’), indicating that there is still some way to go before the entire payroll process utilise stand-alone
is fully automated. 8 in 10 respondents have either fully payroll software
implemented or are currently
implementing payroll technology
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 65
Payroll technology
Current state of payroll technology:
Currently, 1 in 4 respondents have some form of fully implemented

payroll technology, but within 12 months this ratio will rise to 9 in 10.
Not fully
Fully implemented
implemented yet or
Those who are using payroll software / technology are faced with What are your organisation's key payroll challenges? technology platform
significantly fewer challenges than those who are not. In particular, there
is a significant reduction in challenges with: n = 269 n = 87
• Lack of accurate, real-time reporting
Lack of accurate, real-time reporting 25% 60% 35%
• Disconnect between rostering / time & attendance and payroll Disconnect between rostering / time & attendance and payroll 31% 48% 17%
• Too many data input errors Too many data input errors 19% 36% 17%
• Overpayment of staff Overpayment of staff 7% 17% 10%
• Compliance breaches
Compliance breaches 6% 15% 9%
1 in 6 respondents who are using payroll software / technology said that Interpretation of Award / Enterprise Agreement 30% 38% 8%
they don’t have any challenges, in comparison to 1 in 17 respondents who Underpayment of staff 7% 15% 8%
are not. Ensuring employee confidentiality 6% 7% 1%
Geographic differences (e.g. culture, language, legislation) 9% 9% 1%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 66
Rostering / time & attendance process insights
Key challenges:
Almost 1 in 5 respondents said that workforce management (including rostering / time & attendance) is taking up too much
of HR’s time relative to the value these tasks deliver. This was consistent regardless of location, job role or organisation size.
Manual processes still dominate rostering / time & attendance. This is the most commonly cited challenge, with 2 in 5
respondents selecting this. This problem was actually reported more as the organisation size increased.
2 in 5 respondents do not use any metrics to measure the
Roughly a quarter of the respondents chose one of the following three challenges:
effectiveness of rostering / time & attendance processes
1. Ineffective leave management
2. Data input errors
3. Lack of alignment with payroll system
Top challenges:
The third challenge above correlates with the Payroll section of this report, where respondents said 'lack of alignment with
rostering / time & attendance' was their number one challenge.
1. Manual processes (40%)
Only 1 in 8 respondents selected ‘keeping up to date with Industrial Awards’, presumably because most software systems 2. Ineffective leave management (29%)
will automatically keep employers up to date with these changes. 3. Data input errors (28%)
‘Data input errors’, ‘ineffective leave management’ and ‘compliance’ issues are more prevalent challenges for larger
organisations.
Measuring the effectiveness of the rostering / time & attendance process:
Roughly 2 in 5 respondents do not use any metrics to measure the effectiveness of their rostering / time & attendance
processes. For those that do use metrics, the three most popular metrics, all cited by 1 in 5 respondents, were: ‘accuracy’;
‘absenteeism / tardiness’; and ‘number of late / missing timesheets’.
SMBs are more likely to use accuracy as a metric than larger organisations, with just over 1 in 5 SMBs (23%) selecting this. 1 in 5 respondents use accuracy 1 in 4 SMBs said they had
New Zealand has lower usage of rostering / time & attendance metrics across the board, relative to Australia. as a metric to assess the no rostering / time &
effectiveness of rostering / time attendance challenges
& attendance processes
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 67
Rostering / time & attendance process insights
Tools to manage rostering / time & attendance:
It is apparent that tools requiring significant manual processes still dominate

rostering / time & attendance. The two most-utilised tools are spreadsheets
(used by almost 1 in 3 respondents) and paper-based tools (used by 1 in 5
respondents).
Spreadsheets are more likely to be utilised in smaller organisations. 1 in 3

SMBs use spreadsheets; this drops to 1 in 8 for enterprise-size organisations. 6 in 10 respondents have either fully 1 in 5 respondents use stand-alone
implemented or are currently implementing time & attendance software
When it comes to automation tools, the most used is stand-alone time &
rostering / time & attendance technology
attendance software, selected by roughly 1 in 5 respondents. 1 in 9
respondents use stand-alone rostering software. However, if all
configurations of integrated systems are combined (e.g. HR and time &
attendance; or HR, rostering and time & attendance), integrated systems are
preferred.
36% of respondents use some form of integrated
‘Integrated HR and time & attendance software’ is utilised by 16% of rostering / time & attendance software,
respondents. This is slightly in front of the more comprehensive ‘integrated
HR, rostering, time & attendance software’ used by 13% of respondents. 1 in 3
e.g. integrated HR and time & attendance
enterprise and 1 in 7 mid-market-sized organisations use ‘Integrated HR and
time & attendance software’.
1 in 3 of C-suite executives use spreadsheets 1 in 3 SMBs use spreadsheets to help

to manage rostering / time & attendance manage rostering / time & attendance
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 68
Rostering / time & attendance technology
Current state of rostering / time & attendance

technology:
59% of respondents said they have either fully implemented or are Fully implemented
Not fully
currently implementing technology to help in this area. An What are your organisation's key rostering / time & attendance technology platform
implemented yet or
additional 8% will be implementing in less than 12 months’ time. not considering one % difference*
This means that by roughly August 2020, 67% of respondents
challenges?
expect to have fully implemented rostering / time & attendance n = 141 n = 139
technology.
Manual processes 31% 50% 18%
Those who are using rostering / time & attendance software / No real-time reporting 15% 30% 15%
technology are faced with a fewer challenges than those who are
not. In particular, there is a significant reduction in challenges with: Lack of alignment with payroll system 21% 35% 14%
Ineffective leave management 26% 31% 5%
• Manual processes Keeping up to date with Industrial Awards etc. 11% 12% 1%
• No real-time reporting
• Lack of alignment with payroll system Compliance 17% 17% 0%
Too much absenteeism 19% 14% -5%
Too much overtime 16% 9% -7%
Data input errors 33% 24% -9%

ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 69
Appendix A:
Respondent profile data
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 70
Seniority level
Seniority Level (all respondents) n = 956
27% 30%
21% 20%
2%
Junior to mid-level (individual Mid-level management Senior management Leadership / Other

contributor) C-Level
n= 1372 177 647 636 266

Seniority Level Australia New Zealand
(1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Other 3% 2% 3% 2% 2%
Junior to mid-level 20% 25% 14% 23% 30%
Mid-level management 27% 23% 23% 28% 34%
Senior management 30% 31% 34% 28% 27%
Leadership / C-Level 20% 20% 26% 19% 7%

0% 100%
respondents for specific questions. 71
Location of respondent
Country New Zealand Locations

n = 1500+ 47%
11%
89% 15% 14% 16%

8%
Auckland Wellington Canterbury Other NORTH Other SOUTH

Australia New Zealand Island Island
33%
27% Australian States
17%
9%
6% 4% 2% 2%
NSW VIC QLD WA SA ACT TAS NT
Organisation size classifications
Organisation Size (no. employees) n = 1549

21%
15%
11% 11%
9% 8% 7%
7% 6%
4%
1 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 149 150 to 199 200 to 499 500 to 999 1000 to 1999 2000 to 4999 5000 to 9999 10000+
SMB (1 – 199 employees) Mid-market (200 – 1999 employees) Enterprise (2000+ employees)
[1] 1 - 199 employees = Small to medium businesses (SMB) 42% of respondents

[2] 200 - 1999 employees = Mid-market 41% of respondents
[3] 2000 + employees = Enterprise 17% of respondents
Which areas are respondents involved with?
Which of the following area(s) are you responsible for or actively involved in?
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION 32% 44% 24%
EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 37% 43% 20%
INDUSTRIAL / EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 42% 33% 26%
LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 40% 42% 18%
ONBOARDING 49% 34% 18%
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE 35% 52% 13%
ORGANISATIONAL DESIGN 26% 43% 31%
PAYROLL 20% 31% 49%
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 43% 39% 18%
RECRUITMENT 46% 33% 21%
REMUNERATION 32% 39% 29%
REWARDS & RECOGNITION 34% 42% 23%
ROSTERING / TIME & ATTENDANCE 14% 29% 58%
SUCCESSION MANAGEMENT 28% 41% 31%
WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY (WHS) 31% 37% 32%
Responsible for Actively Involved Not Involved
n = 1500+
Where does responsibility most commonly sit?
n= 1549 320 416 472 303

Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite
Responsible for: Overall
mid-level management management leaders
Diversity & inclusion 32% 5% 17% 46% 60%
Employee wellness 37% 11% 25% 50% 65%
Industrial / employee relations 42% 13% 30% 59% 66%
Learning & development 40% 17% 27% 50% 66%
Onboarding 49% 30% 43% 59% 64%
Organisational culture 35% 8% 23% 48% 63%
Organisational design 26% 4% 11% 36% 55%
Payroll 20% 8% 14% 22% 37%
Performance management 43% 15% 31% 60% 64%
Recruitment 46% 23% 37% 61% 65%
Remuneration 32% 9% 20% 43% 57%
Rewards & recognition 34% 11% 21% 47% 59%
Rostering / time & attendance 14% 4% 10% 15% 28%
Succession management 28% 4% 15% 37% 59%
Workplace health & safety (WHS) 31% 11% 19% 40% 56%

0% 100%
Appendix B:
The general state of HR
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 76
Organisational growth and decrease plans
Roughly half of the respondents said they plan to Over the next year, do you anticipate the size of
increase the size of their organisation over the next
12 months.
your workforce to:
Decrease in size Remain the same Increase in size
For those who said they will be increasing the size of 7%

their organisation, the average increase rate is 28%.
52% 40%
For those who said they will be decreasing the size of

their organisation, the average decrease rate is 21%.
n = 1510
Organisational growth and decrease by industry
n= Industry Over the next year, do you anticipate the size of your workforce to:
46 Accommodation and food services 4% 46% 50%
47 Administrative and support services 45% 55%
*21 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 10% 48% 43%
*21 Arts and recreation services 10% 43% 48%
78 Construction 5% 44% 51%

7% 50% 42%
137 Education and training
4% 50% 46%
*26 Electricity, gas, water and waste services
11% 45% 44%
111 Financial and insurance services
5% 32% 63%
151 Health care and social assistance
6% 26% 68%
97 Information media and telecommunications
11% 47% 41%
87 Manufacturing
10% 34% 55%
*29 Mining
4% 37% 59%
157 Not for profit
5% 33% 62%
214 Professional, scientific and technical services 13% 52% 36%
118 Public administration and safety 6% 29% 65%
*17 Rental, hiring and real estate services 9% 41% 50%
66 Retail trade 13% 29% 58%
38 Transport, postal and warehousing 19% 47% 34%
32 Wholesale trade 6% 47% 47%
*17 Other Decrease in size Remain the same Increase in size
Organisational growth rates
Average % headcount
n= Industry
growth planned
23 Accommodation and food services 18%
The results on this page are only 26 Administrative and support services 18%
9 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 109%
based on 779 respondents who said 10 Arts and recreation services 15%
their organisation plans to increase 38 Construction 37%
57 Education and training 40%
in size over the next 12 months: 12 Electricity, gas, water and waste services 19%
49 Financial and insurance services 12%
Average % 93 Health care and social assistance 34%
n= Org Size headcount growth 64 Information media and telecommunications 21%
planned 36 Manufacturing 15%
356 SMB (1 to 199) 33% 15 Mining 32%
91 Not for profit 20%
323 Mid-market (200-1999) 21%
8 Other 18%
113 Enterprise (2000+) 31% 132 Professional, scientific and technical services 41%
42 Public administration and safety 10%
779 Average overall growth rate 28%
11 Rental, hiring and real estate services 21%
30 Retail trade 33%
22 Transport, postal and warehousing 11%
11 Wholesale trade 11%
779 Average overall growth rate 28%
Average turnover rates
Average turnover rates per industry
The average turnover rate is * OTHER 31%
17% (based on 986 ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES 30%
Top 3
* RENTAL, HIRING AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES 27%
respondents). RETAIL TRADE 25%
HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE 19%
NOT FOR PROFIT 19%
This is the same for CONSTRUCTION 18%
Australia and New Zealand. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES

TRANSPORT, POSTAL AND WAREHOUSING
18%
16%
* AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING 16%
* ARTS AND RECREATION SERVICES 15%
WHOLESALE TRADE 15%
Average turnover FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES 14%
n= Org Size
rate PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES 14%
439 SMB (1 to 199) 15.8% MANUFACTURING 13%
408 Mid-market (200-1999) 17.3% EDUCATION AND TRAINING 12%
139 Enterprise (2000+) 17.0% * MINING 11%
* ELECTRICITY, GAS, WATER AND WASTE SERVICES 11%
A/NZ OVERALL 17%
n = 986
Average number of HR professionals in organisation
Average No. HR
Org Size n=
Professionals
1 to 49 2 238
50 to 99 2 174
100 to 149 3 132
150 to 199 5 103
200 to 499 6 329
500 to 999 15 176
1000 to 1999 15 131
2000 to 4999 37 111
5000 to 9999 72 64
10000+ 237 91
Average Overall 24 1549
Current state of HR & payroll technology
Which of the following stages best describes your organisation's current state of HR & payroll technology
PAYROLL 73% 9% 6% 3% 4% 4%
CORE HR 49% 19% 13% 11% 5% 3%
RECRUITMENT 48% 17% 11% 9% 11% 4%
ROSTERING / TIME & ATTENDANCE 46% 13% 8% 6% 20% 7%

Fully implemented
WORKFORCE HEALTH & SAFETY (WHS) 41% 18% 8% 10% 14% 9%
Currently implementing
HR SURVEYS 40% 19% 12% 9% 15% 6%
Less than 12 months away
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 37% 19% 15% 14% 11% 5%
Greater than 12 months away
ONBOARDING 35% 23% 17% 11% 9% 5%
Not considering at all
COMPENSATION & BENEFITS 32% 14% 12% 14% 20% 8% I don't know
LEARNING MANAGEMENT 32% 24% 16% 12% 11% 5%
EMPLOYEE WELLNESS PROGRAMS 26% 23% 13% 13% 18% 8%
REWARDS & RECOGNITION 25% 17% 15% 16% 20% 7%
WORKFORCE PLANNING 18% 18% 15% 18% 21% 10%
SUCCESSION MANAGEMENT 15% 18% 15% 21% 22% 10% n = 1220+
Percentage who have fully implemented HR technology
n= 1227 234 326 383 255 1086 141 528 509 190
% of respondents who have HR technology fully Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
OVERALL Mid-level management management leaders
Australia New Zealand
(1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
implemented:
Core HR (e.g. employee data, leave management) 49% 51% 48% 48% 50% 49% 51% 43% 51% 62%
HR surveys 40% 40% 42% 39% 40% 40% 40% 31% 44% 55%
Payroll 73% 76% 70% 77% 71% 73% 78% 72% 74% 77%
Rostering / time & attendance 46% 47% 44% 49% 45% 45% 52% 43% 46% 56%
Recruitment 48% 50% 52% 45% 45% 47% 53% 40% 50% 65%
Onboarding 36% 39% 40% 34% 30% 35% 37% 32% 36% 45%
Performance management 37% 43% 35% 37% 34% 37% 37% 31% 37% 51%
Compensation & benefits 32% 35% 33% 30% 31% 31% 35% 28% 31% 45%
Rewards & recognition 25% 27% 26% 22% 26% 24% 31% 23% 26% 30%
Succession management 15% 13% 14% 16% 16% 15% 14% 15% 14% 18%
Learning management 32% 35% 33% 31% 29% 31% 38% 23% 35% 47%
Workforce planning 18% 17% 16% 17% 20% 17% 19% 19% 15% 23%
Workplace health & safety (WHS) 41% 40% 39% 40% 47% 40% 50% 38% 41% 51%
Employee wellness programs 26% 31% 24% 24% 27% 24% 36% 22% 25% 38%

0% 100%
Priorities and budgets over the next 12 months
What are your organisation's priorities over the next 12 months?
Priority Level Has budget**

LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT 38% 42% 13% 7% 80%
COMPLIANCE 46% 30% 16% 8% 63%
RECRUITMENT & ONBOARDING 41% 34% 15% 10% 72%
WORKFORCE HEALTH & SAFETY (WHS) 41% 33% 18% 8% 69%
EMPLOYEE HEALTH / WELLBEING 34% 40% 19% 8% 67%
HR REPORTING & ANALYTICS 29% 39% 20% 12% 46%
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION 27% 36% 25% 12% 45%
WORKFORCE PLANNING 25% 38% 25% 11% 43%
HR TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION OR CONSOLIDATION 35% 28% 18% 19% 70%
REWARDS & RECOGNITION 19% 39% 29% 14% 67%
REMUNERATION & BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 15% 37% 31% 18% 53%
High Medium Low Not a priority n = 900+
^ Note: The general rule is that, in order for responses to have statistical significance, they should have a minimum sample size of 30 respondents. **Those who selected ‘not a priority’ were not
with less than 30 responses visible in the report for your perusal. It is only a small subset of the industry-segmented data that will have less than 30 asked whether they had budget allocated.
High and medium priorities for the next 12 months
n= 1165 223 307 364 243 1032 133 497 484 185
% of organisations placing high or medium priority Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
OVERALL Australia New Zealand
on these areas of HR: mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
HR technology implementation or consolidation 63% 66% 64% 61% 63% 63% 65% 48% 73% 75%
Recruitment & onboarding 74% 72% 75% 77% 73% 74% 77% 69% 79% 77%
HR reporting & analytics 68% 70% 72% 68% 65% 69% 65% 56% 76% 82%
Learning & development 80% 78% 81% 80% 81% 80% 80% 76% 85% 82%
Employee health / wellbeing 73% 75% 74% 73% 72% 73% 78% 71% 77% 69%
Remuneration & benefits administration 52% 52% 53% 51% 52% 51% 57% 51% 53% 51%
Compliance 76% 79% 76% 78% 68% 76% 73% 73% 78% 77%
Diversity & inclusion 64% 69% 68% 61% 60% 64% 65% 55% 68% 77%

0% 100%
Has budget allocated (regardless of priority level)
n= 1039 198 279 335 214 919 124 428 443 170
Does your organisation have budget allocated to Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
these priorities over the next 12 months? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
HR technology implementation or consolidation 70% 76% 72% 69% 63% 70% 69% 58% 75% 84%
Recruitment & onboarding 72% 76% 72% 69% 72% 71% 81% 69% 72% 77%
Learning & development 80% 83% 78% 79% 81% 80% 83% 78% 83% 79%
Employee health / wellbeing 67% 70% 69% 63% 69% 66% 75% 63% 69% 73%
Remuneration & benefits administration 53% 53% 54% 50% 54% 51% 64% 50% 52% 60%
Compliance 63% 67% 61% 61% 63% 62% 68% 58% 66% 66%
Other 46% 53% 38% 43% 47% 45% 50% 45% 43% 55%
^ Note: The general rule is that, in order for responses to have statistical significance, they should have a minimum sample size of 30 respondents. 0% 100%
High and medium priorities vs budget
HR technology Remuneration &

Recruitment & HR reporting & Learning & Rewards & Employee health Diversity & Workplace health Workforce
implementation benefits Compliance
onboarding analytics development recognition / wellbeing inclusion & safety (WHS) planning
or consolidation administration
SMB (1 - 199) 241 341 276 373 296 351 252 359 270 327 293
Selected Mid-market (200 - 1999) 352 383 365 409 279 374 255 376 326 386 315
high or
medium
Enterprise (2000 +) 138 143 152 151 93 127 94 143 143 146 126
priority
(n=) Australia 645 764 707 827 594 748 525 781 652 750 660
New Zealand 86 103 86 106 74 104 76 97 87 109 74
SMB (1 - 199) 67% 73% 43% 79% 67% 68% 58% 62% 48% 68% 47%
% that Mid-market (200 - 1999) 79% 75% 52% 84% 70% 72% 63% 69% 52% 76% 48%
already
have Enterprise (2000 +) 88% 78% 72% 81% 71% 82% 71% 68% 75% 78% 65%
budget
allocated Australia 77% 73% 52% 80% 68% 70% 61% 65% 55% 72% 50%
New Zealand 78% 85% 57% 89% 78% 82% 71% 73% 55% 83% 51%
Top 3 areas that you believe to be taking up too much of HR's time in your organisation, relative to the
value they deliver:
GENERAL ADMIN WORK 74%

RECRUITING & EXECUTIVE SEARCH 33% Top 3
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 31%
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT 27%
ONBOARDING / INDUCTION 23%
DRIVING AND MANAGING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE / BEHAVIOUR 21%
INDUSTRIAL / EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 21%
WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT (ROSTERING / TIME & ATTENDANCE) 19%
MEETING WITH SENIOR LEADERS / BUSINESS PARTNERS 12%
DEVELOPING HR STRATEGY 10%
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 8%
REDUNDANCY MANAGEMENT 7% n = 1053
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT 6%
n= 1053 197 277 332 224 929 124 440 444 169
Top 3 areas that you believe to be taking up too much

Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite New SMB Mid-market Enterprise
of HR's time in your organisation, relative to the value OVERALL Australia
mid-level management management leaders Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
they deliver:
Onboarding / induction 23% 20% 20% 27% 21% 22% 27% 24% 24% 16%
Meeting with senior leaders / business partners 12% 17% 12% 11% 9% 12% 10% 13% 10% 14%
Industrial / employee relations 21% 15% 26% 21% 20% 21% 22% 13% 25% 31%
Employee engagement 8% 11% 10% 7% 5% 9% 7% 11% 7% 7%
Driving and managing organisational culture / behaviour 21% 23% 23% 19% 20% 22% 17% 20% 22% 21%
Developing HR strategy 10% 12% 11% 8% 7% 10% 6% 11% 8% 9%
Operations management 31% 30% 25% 35% 35% 31% 28% 31% 30% 34%
Performance management 27% 22% 29% 28% 29% 27% 26% 23% 32% 27%
General admin work 74% 76% 71% 76% 73% 74% 78% 72% 77% 73%
Recruiting & executive search 33% 34% 35% 30% 35% 33% 36% 39% 30% 25%
Workforce management (rostering / time & attendance) 19% 17% 16% 20% 22% 19% 20% 19% 18% 19%
Redundancy management 7% 8% 7% 6% 8% 7% 4% 8% 5% 9%
Training and development 6% 9% 7% 5% 6% 6% 6% 8% 5% 5%

0% 100%
Top challenges for the next 12 months
Top 3 items that you believe will present your organisation's top challenges over the next 12 months
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 37%

CULTURE CHANGE 34%
Top 3
UPGRADING TECHNOLOGY 30%
UP-SKILLING, CROSS-SKILLING, RE-SKILLING EMPLOYEES 26%
AUTOMATING ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS 23%
LOW EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 19%
RAPID GROWTH 18%
HIGH EMPLOYEE TURNOVER 16%
BOOSTING PRODUCTIVITY 16%
SUCCESSION PLANNING 16% n = 1043
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION 6%
Top challenges for the next 12 months
n= 1043 194 276 328 222 920 123 435 441 167
Please select the top 3 items that you believe will

present your organisation's top challenges over the OVERALL Australia
next 12 months:
High employee turnover 16% 19% 18% 13% 18% 16% 19% 13% 20% 14%
Low employee engagement 19% 24% 20% 20% 12% 19% 15% 17% 18% 25%
Boosting productivity 16% 13% 13% 19% 18% 16% 15% 22% 11% 14%
Lack of resources 28% 28% 28% 28% 26% 28% 29% 30% 25% 32%
Rapid growth 18% 14% 17% 15% 25% 18% 18% 22% 17% 8%
Upgrading technology 30% 27% 28% 33% 28% 29% 33% 27% 30% 34%
Automating administrative tasks 23% 23% 23% 23% 25% 22% 29% 22% 24% 23%
Change management 30% 29% 31% 30% 27% 29% 32% 26% 34% 29%
Culture change 34% 39% 37% 34% 28% 35% 26% 29% 37% 40%
Leadership development 37% 36% 35% 38% 38% 37% 37% 39% 37% 32%
Succession planning 16% 18% 16% 15% 16% 16% 18% 16% 15% 16%
Upskilling, cross-skilling, reskilling employees 26% 21% 25% 24% 30% 26% 23% 27% 25% 23%

0% 100%
Which skill(s) are you aiming to develop for yourself?
Which skill(s) are you aiming to develop for yourself in the next 12 months?
STRATEGIC PLANNING 44%
HR REPORTING & ANALYTICS 42% Top 3

ORGANISATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 34%
GENERAL BUSINESS KNOWLEDGE / SKILLS 30%
COMMUNICATION AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 25%
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 22%
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND PROBLEM SOLVING 21%
NEGOTIATION SKILLS 19%
POLICY / PROCEDURE CREATION AND ENFORCEMENT 17%
BUDGET MANAGEMENT 16%
RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION 15%

n = 1207
OTHER 8%
NONE 5%
Which skill(s) are you aiming to develop for yourself?
n= 1207 233 319 375 251 1070 137 520 498 189
Which skill(s) are you aiming to develop for yourself Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
in the next 12 months? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Budget management 16% 11% 18% 17% 17% 16% 13% 17% 16% 13%
General business knowledge / skills 30% 44% 29% 25% 26% 30% 34% 29% 30% 33%
Negotiation skills 19% 29% 20% 16% 10% 19% 15% 17% 20% 20%
Communication and employee relations 25% 40% 29% 17% 14% 25% 20% 26% 24% 23%
Conflict management and problem solving 21% 33% 27% 13% 14% 21% 22% 24% 19% 19%
Program development and implementation 22% 30% 24% 22% 14% 21% 29% 20% 22% 30%
Policy / procedure creation and enforcement 17% 23% 17% 16% 12% 17% 18% 20% 15% 16%
Change management 36% 42% 40% 35% 25% 36% 39% 31% 38% 44%
Risk assessment and mitigation 15% 14% 17% 14% 14% 15% 14% 16% 15% 13%
Organisational development 34% 41% 34% 30% 33% 35% 33% 33% 35% 38%
Strategic planning 44% 39% 47% 47% 39% 43% 47% 41% 45% 46%
Other 8% 3% 6% 9% 12% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
None 5% 4% 3% 6% 8% 5% 6% 6% 5% 3%

0% 100%
What are the metrics used to measure the overall performance of your HR department?
EMPLOYEE TURNOVER 45%

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 42% Top 3
TIME TO HIRE 24%
EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM 22%
LENGTH OF SERVICE 20%
I DON'T KNOW 19%
HR COMPLAINTS 19%
COST TO HIRE 16%
DIVERSITY & INCLUSION TARGETS 14%
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SCORE (OTHER THAN NPS®^) 13%
EMPLOYEE NET PROMOTER SCORE (ENPS^) 11%
PAY EQUITY 11%
COST OF HR PER EMPLOYEE 8% n = 1010
HR-TO-EMPLOYEE RATIO 8%
CUSTOMER NET PROMOTER SCORE (NPS®^) 6%
Having said that, inferences can still be made from any data points that have less than 30 respondents and we have therefore left the data points ^Net Promoter, Net Promoter System, Net Promoter Score, NPS and the NPS-related emoticons are
with less than 30 responses visible in the report for your perusal. It is only a small subset of the industry-segmented data that will have less than 30 registered trademarks of Bain & Company, Inc., Fred Reichheld and Satmetrix Systems, Inc.
n= 1010 189 267 322 211 891 119 420 426 164
What are the metrics used to measure the overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
performance of your HR department? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Employee turnover 45% 37% 39% 51% 54% 45% 48% 45% 47% 41%
Employee absenteeism 22% 20% 19% 25% 26% 23% 20% 17% 27% 26%
Length of service 20% 24% 16% 21% 22% 19% 25% 17% 22% 21%
Time to hire 24% 21% 21% 23% 33% 24% 24% 20% 26% 28%
Cost to hire 16% 12% 18% 18% 17% 17% 15% 17% 15% 17%
Cost of HR per employee 8% 5% 7% 8% 10% 8% 3% 7% 8% 10%
HR-to-employee ratio 8% 5% 9% 7% 9% 8% 5% 6% 8% 11%
Pay equity 11% 12% 9% 10% 14% 11% 12% 10% 11% 12%
Diversity & inclusion targets 14% 17% 16% 12% 14% 14% 12% 8% 13% 32%
Employee engagement 42% 36% 38% 45% 51% 41% 52% 40% 45% 43%
Customer Net Promoter Score (NPS®^) 6% 6% 5% 5% 9% 6% 8% 4% 7% 9%
Customer satisfaction score (other than NPS®^) 13% 10% 12% 13% 16% 13% 9% 11% 13% 17%
Employee Net Promoter Score (eNPS^) 11% 11% 11% 9% 17% 11% 18% 10% 12% 16%
HR complaints 19% 18% 16% 18% 24% 19% 18% 13% 23% 20%
I don't know 19% 29% 24% 13% 9% 19% 20% 19% 19% 21%
0% 100%
Tools used to gather HR metrics
Which tool(s) does your organisation currently use to gather and report HR metrics?
EMPLOYEE SURVEY FEEDBACK 62%
MANUAL PROCESSES (PAPER-BASED, OR USE OF SPREADSHEETS) 61% Top 3

INTEGRATED HRIS PLATFORM 27%
SYSTEM DEVELOPED IN-HOUSE 21%
STAND-ALONE HR TECHNOLOGY PLATFORM 18%
THIRD-PARTY REPORTING TOOL(S) / ANALYTICS PLATFORM(S) 17%
THIRD-PARTY AGGREGATOR (E.G. LINKEDIN, SEEK OR REVIEW SITES) 16%
ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) PLATFORM(S) 7%
NONE - WE HAVE NO TOOL 3%

n = 796
I DON'T KNOW 2%
Tools used to gather HR metrics
n= 796 136 206 262 181 700 96 316 342 138
Which tool(s) does your organisation currently use to Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite New SMB Mid-market Enterprise
OVERALL Australia
gather and report HR metrics? mid-level management management leaders Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Manual processes (paper-based methods or use of

61% 54% 59% 64% 65% 60% 72% 60% 66% 51%
spreadsheets)
Enterprise resource planning (ERP) platform(s) 7% 9% 7% 6% 4% 6% 11% 4% 6% 14%
Third-party reporting tool(s) / analytics platform(s) 17% 13% 18% 18% 17% 16% 21% 10% 17% 32%
System developed in-house 21% 19% 21% 24% 19% 21% 25% 19% 21% 28%
Third-party aggregator (e.g. LinkedIn, Seek or Review
16% 15% 16% 16% 17% 15% 19% 14% 16% 20%
Sites)
Stand-alone HR technology platform 18% 20% 20% 15% 20% 18% 19% 17% 18% 22%
Integrated HRIS platform 27% 33% 26% 27% 24% 28% 21% 18% 30% 41%
Employee survey feedback 62% 59% 59% 63% 67% 62% 64% 51% 68% 72%
None - we have no tool 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% 3% 3% 7% 1% 1%
I don't know 2% 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 4%
0% 100%
Top 5 challenges faced implementing HR metrics
What are the top 5 challenges you have faced / are facing when trying to implement HR metrics within your
organisation?
LACK OF TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE 55%
IDENTIFYING QUANTIFIABLE LINKS BETWEEN HR AND BUSINESS GOALS 47%
IDENTIFYING VALUE-ADD HR METRICS 47% Top 5
OBTAINING RAW DATA INFORMATION 47%
INTERPRETING HR MEASUREMENT WITH CORPORATE MEASUREMENT 38%
SUBJECTIVITY OF HR MEASUREMENT 36%
MAKING METRICS INFORMATION AVAILABLE 35%
ASSIGNING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR METRICS 33%
LACK OF SKILLS AMONG HR STAFF 30%
LINKING INCENTIVES WITH HR METRICS 26%
I DON'T KNOW 13%
WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES 6% n = 955
Top 5 challenges faced implementing HR metrics
n= 955 175 248 309 204 846 109 398 406 151
What are the top 5 challenges you have faced / are

facing when trying to implement HR metrics within OVERALL Australia
your organisation?
Identifying quantifiable links between HR and business
47% 45% 48% 51% 45% 48% 42% 47% 42% 63%
goals
Identifying value-add HR metrics 47% 45% 44% 52% 49% 47% 50% 45% 50% 46%
Lack of technology infrastructure 55% 56% 54% 54% 57% 54% 57% 52% 59% 51%
Interpreting HR measurement with corporate
38% 39% 38% 36% 43% 39% 33% 36% 37% 46%
measurement
Subjectivity of HR measurement 36% 31% 36% 34% 44% 37% 28% 36% 37% 31%
Obtaining raw data information 47% 47% 44% 52% 43% 46% 57% 41% 50% 53%
Lack of skills among HR staff 30% 32% 33% 28% 30% 30% 33% 22% 34% 43%
Assigning accountability for metrics 33% 35% 29% 34% 32% 33% 27% 29% 33% 40%
Making metrics information available 35% 30% 37% 37% 37% 35% 37% 32% 36% 41%
Linking incentives with HR metrics 26% 25% 28% 24% 27% 26% 22% 27% 28% 16%
We have no challenges 6% 1% 4% 10% 8% 6% 7% 11% 4% 3%
I don't know 13% 20% 16% 8% 8% 13% 14% 14% 13% 9%
0% 100%
Level of skill using HR metrics
How would you describe your organisation's use of HR metrics?

None: We don't use HR metrics at all
Basic: We have some basic HR metrics but they don't factor heavily into 5% 2% 5%
business decisions
13%
Developing: We track HR metrics and leverage these metrics for decision-
making purposes
34%
41%
Optimised: We track HR metrics and apply descriptive analytics, pulling
insights out of historical data to facilitate our decision-making
Advanced: We track HR metrics and apply predictive and / or prescriptive

analytics, forecasting future possibilities and options, to better inform our
decision-making
I don't know
n = 1006
Level of skill using HR metrics
n= 1006 188 266 321 210 888 118 418 425 163
How would you describe your organisation's use of Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite New SMB Mid-market Enterprise
OVERALL Australia
HR metrics? mid-level management management leaders Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
None: We don't use HR metrics at all 13% 12% 14% 15% 10% 13% 14% 19% 11% 4%
Basic: We have some basic HR metrics but they don't

41% 39% 39% 45% 40% 42% 38% 44% 40% 37%
factor heavily into business decisions
Developing: We track HR metrics and leverage these

34% 29% 35% 33% 42% 33% 43% 29% 35% 42%
metrics for decision-making purposes
Optimised: We track HR metrics and apply

descriptive analytics, pulling insights out of historical 5% 8% 5% 5% 4% 6% 3% 4% 5% 8%
data to facilitate our decision-making
Advanced: We track HR metrics and apply predictive
and / or prescriptive analytics, forecasting future
2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2%
possibilities and options, to better inform our
decision-making
I don't know 5% 10% 5% 2% 1% 5% 2% 3% 6% 6%

0% 100%
Measuring employee engagement
Do you have a formal process in place to measure employee engagement?
5%
35% Yes
No
61%
I don't know
n = 956
n= 956 175 249 309 204 847 109 398 407 151
Do you have a formal process in place to measure Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite New SMB Mid-market Enterprise
OVERALL Australia
employee engagement? mid-level management management leaders Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Yes 61% 60% 58% 62% 66% 60% 65% 48% 67% 81%
No 35% 30% 35% 37% 34% 35% 31% 48% 30% 11%
I don't know 5% 10% 6% 1% 0% 5% 4% 5% 3% 8%

0% 100%
How do you measure employee engagement?
How do you measure employee engagement?
ENGAGEMENT SURVEYS 85%
EXIT SURVEYS 66% Top 3
PULSE SURVEYS 43%
ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS WITH EMPLOYEES 35%
ONBOARDING SURVEYS 27%
STAY SURVEYS 8%
I DON'T KNOW 1% n = 578
How is employee engagement measured?
n= 578 104 143 191 133 507 71 189 268 121
Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise

How do you measure employee engagement? OVERALL Australia New Zealand
mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Pulse surveys 43% 45% 43% 42% 41% 43% 39% 41% 40% 51%
Engagement surveys 85% 79% 85% 87% 88% 86% 82% 85% 87% 82%
Stay surveys 8% 8% 5% 7% 12% 8% 3% 6% 9% 9%
Onboarding surveys 27% 22% 29% 26% 27% 28% 15% 23% 29% 26%
Exit surveys 66% 56% 65% 69% 71% 67% 55% 69% 67% 58%
One-on-one meetings with employees 35% 28% 27% 38% 43% 36% 24% 49% 32% 17%
I don't know 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1%

0% 100%
Why don’t you measure employee engagement?
Why doesn't your organisation have any formal process in place to measure employee engagement?
A PROCESS IS IN THE PLANNING STAGE BUT IS NOT YET IMPLEMENTED 26%
DON'T HAVE BUY-IN FROM SENIOR LEADERSHIP 26% Top 3

TOO BUSY TO IMPLEMENT / NO RESOURCES 25%
DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET 21%
DON'T SEE MEASURING ENGAGEMENT AS A PRIORITY RIGHT NOW 21%
DON'T FEEL THE NEED FOR A FORMAL PROCESS GIVEN THE SIZE OF OUR ORGANISATION 14%
WE MEASURE EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT INFORMALLY, NO NEED FOR FORMAL PROCESS 14%
DON'T SEE MEASUREMENT OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ADDING SIGNIFICANT VALUE TO THE ORGANISATION 7%
n = 318
I DON'T KNOW 6%
Why don’t you measure employee engagement?
n= 318 52 83 111 65 285 33 183 118 17
Why doesn't your organisation have any formal

process in place to measure employee OVERALL Australia
engagement?
Too busy to implement / no resources 25% 38% 20% 25% 23% 26% 24% 22% 31% 29%
A process is in the planning stage but is not yet
26% 29% 20% 23% 40% 26% 27% 26% 30% 12%
implemented
Don't see measuring engagement as a priority right
21% 25% 14% 27% 14% 19% 39% 19% 23% 29%
now
Don't have the budget 21% 21% 20% 23% 18% 22% 18% 17% 25% 35%
Don't have buy-in from senior leadership
26% 29% 27% 33% 12% 27% 18% 24% 31% 29%
(e.g. C-level, Directors, etc.)
Don't feel the need for a formal process given the
14% 12% 14% 14% 17% 15% 12% 23% 3% 6%
size of our organisation
We measure employee engagement informally, no
14% 15% 10% 20% 11% 12% 30% 16% 13% 6%
need for formal process
Don't see measurement of employee engagement
7% 8% 6% 9% 5% 7% 9% 7% 8% 6%
adding significant value to the organisation
I don't know 6% 6% 8% 3% 5% 6% 6% 4% 8% 12%

0% 100%
How does HR manage employee data?
Thinking about the entire HR function, how does your organisation manage its employee data?
SPREADSHEETS 53%
STAND-ALONE PAYROLL SYSTEM 42% Top 3
INTEGRATED HR & PAYROLL SYSTEM 32%
INTEGRATED HR SYSTEM (EXCLUDING PAYROLL) 17%
MULTIPLE STAND-ALONE, BEST-OF-BREED HR SYSTEMS 14%

n = 933
I DON'T KNOW 3%
How does HR manage employee data?
n= 933 172 240 305 197 825 108 387 396 150
Thinking about the entire HR function, how does Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite New SMB Mid-market Enterprise
OVERALL Australia
your organisation manage its employee data? Mid-level management management leaders Zealand (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Spreadsheets 53% 52% 50% 55% 54% 52% 54% 55% 55% 40%
Multiple stand-alone, best-of-breed HR systems 14% 16% 17% 12% 9% 14% 14% 8% 14% 26%
Integrated HR system (excluding payroll) 17% 16% 19% 17% 17% 18% 10% 14% 17% 24%
Integrated HR & payroll system 32% 34% 36% 30% 30% 32% 30% 23% 35% 47%
Stand-alone payroll system 42% 37% 36% 50% 41% 41% 52% 49% 41% 26%
I don't know 3% 5% 2% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4%
0% 100%
Average number of systems used to manage employee data is two. This was the same for all size organisations.
Appendix C:
Recruitment and onboarding
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 109
Key recruitment challenges
What are your organisation's key recruitment challenges?

COMPETITION FOR TALENT 52%
SKILLS SHORTAGE 49%
A MANUAL OR INEFFICIENT RECRUITMENT PROCESS 35%
BUILDING A STRONGER EMPLOYER BRAND 34%
REDUCING THE TIME TO HIRE 33%
SLOW DECISION MAKING / TOO MANY STAKEHOLDERS 31%
CREATING A POSITIVE CANDIDATE EXPERIENCE 21%
LACK OF HR RESOURCES 20%
NONE - WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES 2%
Key recruitment challenges
n= 762 106 187 274 182 668 94 350 314 98
What are your organisation's key recruitment Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
challenges? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Creating a positive candidate experience 21% 25% 21% 22% 18% 21% 22% 13% 25% 36%
Building a stronger employer brand 34% 35% 33% 33% 37% 35% 33% 30% 38% 38%
A manual or inefficient recruitment process 35% 34% 38% 37% 32% 35% 35% 34% 33% 47%
Reducing the time to hire 33% 44% 29% 32% 31% 34% 29% 26% 35% 52%
Competition for talent 52% 43% 51% 55% 54% 50% 64% 47% 57% 51%
Skills shortage 49% 49% 44% 52% 51% 46% 67% 46% 54% 45%
Slow decision-making / too many stakeholders 31% 51% 31% 28% 23% 31% 30% 23% 35% 47%
Lack of HR resources 20% 22% 24% 19% 19% 21% 16% 18% 23% 22%
None - we have no challenges 2% 1% 1% 3% 3% 2% 2% 4% 1% 0%
I don't know 1% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 2%

0% 100%
Tools used to improve recruitment
Which tool(s) does your organisation use to improve the recruitment process?
WE DON'T USE ANY TOOLS, WE MANAGE IT IN-HOUSE, MANUALLY 38%
APPLICANT TRACKING SOFTWARE (ATS) 28%
PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT TOOLS 27%
BACKGROUND SCREENING TOOLS 24%
VIDEO INTERVIEWING PLATFORM 16%
CONTRACT GENERATION SOFTWARE 14%
WE DON'T USE ANY TOOLS, WE USE 3RD PARTY AGENCIES / RECRUITMENT FIRMS 7%
n = 684
I DON'T KNOW 2%
Tools used to improve recruitment
n= 684 96 173 241 161 599 85 316 284 84
Which tool(s) does your organisation use to Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
improve the recruitment process? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Applicant tracking software (ATS) 28% 30% 31% 28% 25% 27% 36% 17% 33% 51%
Background screening tools 24% 28% 23% 19% 30% 24% 24% 16% 27% 40%
Video interviewing platform 16% 20% 16% 15% 14% 15% 16% 10% 15% 37%
Psychometric assessment tools 27% 29% 29% 23% 32% 27% 32% 20% 31% 42%
Contract generation software 14% 15% 15% 13% 16% 14% 14% 7% 18% 30%
We don't use any tools, we manage it in-house,

38% 31% 34% 44% 38% 39% 33% 49% 33% 13%
manually
We don't use any tools, we use third party
7% 8% 10% 6% 4% 6% 12% 10% 5% 0%
agencies / recruitment firms
I don't know 2% 4% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5%

0% 100%
Metrics used to measure the recruitment process
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to measure the performance of its recruitment processes?
TIME TO HIRE 39%
OVERALL EMPLOYEE TURNOVER RATE 36%
TURNOVER RATE OF NEW HIRES (IN THEIR FIRST YEAR) 31%
NONE - WE DON'T USE ANY METRICS 31%
COST TO HIRE 24%
OFFER ACCEPTANCE RATE 18%
% OF OPEN POSITIONS 18%
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE REFERRALS 14%
SOURCING CHANNEL EFFECTIVENESS 13%
SOURCING CHANNEL COSTS 11%

n = 681
I DON'T KNOW 5%
Metrics used to measure the recruitment process
n= 681 96 171 240 161 596 85 315 282 84
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to

measure the performance of its recruitment OVERALL Australia New Zealand
Mid-level management management Leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
processes?
Time to hire 39% 41% 35% 38% 47% 39% 42% 32% 41% 60%
Cost to hire 24% 26% 25% 23% 24% 24% 26% 22% 23% 35%
Offer acceptance rate 18% 14% 18% 17% 22% 19% 11% 16% 16% 33%
Turnover rate of new hires (in their first year) 31% 24% 29% 31% 39% 32% 29% 27% 35% 33%
Overall employee turnover rate 36% 32% 36% 35% 39% 35% 41% 31% 41% 36%
% of open positions 18% 19% 18% 17% 20% 18% 15% 11% 20% 36%
Sourcing channel effectiveness 13% 8% 16% 13% 14% 13% 13% 11% 12% 27%
Sourcing channel costs 11% 10% 12% 11% 11% 12% 6% 11% 8% 21%
Number of employee referrals 14% 15% 11% 13% 20% 14% 13% 12% 16% 14%
None - we don't use any metrics 31% 28% 32% 35% 25% 31% 28% 39% 27% 11%
I don't know 5% 13% 4% 3% 2% 5% 7% 3% 6% 12%
0% 100%
Channels used to source candidates
Which source(s) does your organisation use to find a new hire?
JOB BOARDS 83%
SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS (E.G. LINKEDIN, FACEBOOK) 68%
EMPLOYEE REFERRALS 68%
EXTERNAL RECRUITERS 60%
INTERNAL TALENT / SUCCESSION PROGRAM 57%
ESTABLISHED EXTERNAL TALENT POOL 17%
CAREER FAIRS 16%

n = 681
OTHER 8%
Channels used to source candidates
n= 681 96 171 240 161 596 85 315 282 84
Which source(s) does your organisation use to find Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
a new hire? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
External recruiters 60% 70% 61% 59% 60% 59% 71% 57% 62% 69%
Employee referrals 68% 59% 64% 71% 73% 66% 81% 70% 67% 60%
Job boards 83% 86% 77% 87% 84% 83% 84% 80% 85% 90%
Internal talent / succession program 57% 67% 55% 55% 58% 56% 64% 48% 63% 73%
Established external talent pool 17% 22% 19% 15% 17% 17% 16% 15% 15% 33%
Career fairs 16% 27% 18% 15% 11% 15% 26% 9% 17% 40%
Social media channels (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook) 68% 60% 66% 73% 67% 68% 65% 67% 66% 74%
Other 8% 4% 8% 8% 9% 7% 13% 10% 7% 2%

0% 100%
Effectiveness of candidate search channels
How would you rank the effectiveness of each channel in finding the most suitable candidate?
Extremely effective Effective Neutral Ineffective Extremely ineffective
EXTERNAL RECRUITERS (RESP. 411) 9% 61% 25% 4% 1%
EMPLOYEE REFERRALS (RESP. 460) 20% 49% 27% 4% 1%
JOB BOARDS (RESP. 566) 14% 61% 21% 2% 1%
INTERNAL TALENT / SUCCESSION PROGRAM (RESP. 387) 19% 57% 20% 3% 1%
ESTABLISHED EXTERNAL TALENT POOL (RESP. 117) 15% 46% 32% 6% 1%
CAREER FAIRS (RESP. 109) 6% 33% 44% 15% 2%
SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS (E.G. LINKEDIN, FACEBOOK) (RESP. 460) 9% 50% 32% 7% 1%
OTHER SOURCE (RESP. 54) 24% 57% 13% 4% 2%
Effectiveness of candidate search channels
This table presents the % of respondents who selected either ‘effective’ or ‘very effective’.
n= 566 83 132 208 136 495 71 251 240 75
How would you rank the effectiveness of each Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
channel in finding the most suitable candidate? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
External recruiters 70% 70% 72% 70% 69% 70% 72% 70% 73% 62%
Employee referrals 69% 60% 68% 72% 73% 69% 72% 66% 72% 74%
Job boards 76% 78% 74% 79% 71% 76% 76% 73% 79% 75%
Internal talent / succession program 76% 69% 74% 78% 81% 74% 87% 72% 80% 75%
Established external talent pool 61% 67% 66% 43% 70% 60% 64% 64% 63% 52%
Career fairs 39% 50% 47% 36% 18% 40% 36% 39% 25% 61%
Social media channels (e.g. LinkedIn, Facebook) 60% 55% 61% 58% 64% 59% 65% 55% 62% 67%
Other source 81% 75% 79% 89% 93% 81% 82% 78% 90% 50%

0% 100%
Average number of hours spent on recruitment activities
n= 410 54 103 150 100 362 48 210 159 41
Estimate how many hours you currently spend on these key Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
recruitment activities per new hire. average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Interviewing 6.5 4.8 6.3 8.2 5.2 6.8 4.5 8.2 4.5 5.3
Candidate sourcing 4.9 4.8 5.4 4.7 4.5 5.0 3.7 5.6 3.8 4.7
Applicant review and shortlisting 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.2 4.0 3.5 4.5 3.2 4.0
Applicant tracking 3.0 2.3 4.3 2.7 2.6 3.1 2.5 3.9 2.1 2.1
Interview scheduling 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.2 1.8 2.5 1.7 2.2
Position description 2.1 1.6 3.0 2.2 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.8 1.5 1.3
Reporting 2.1 1.9 3.3 1.7 1.6 2.2 1.7 2.7 1.6 1.3
Offer management 1.9 2.7 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.4
Background / Reference checking 1.9 1.5 2.5 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.4 2.1 1.7 1.6
Psychometric and skills testing 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.0
Careers site management 1.8 2.8 2.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.1
Job posting 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the recruitment process. The number of respondents
listed for each column in the table above refers to the average number of people who provided an answer for these questions, as some 120
respondents may not have answered all questions.
Median number of hours spent on recruitment activities
n= 410 54 103 150 100 362 48 210 159 41
Estimate how many hours you currently spend on these key Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
recruitment activities per new hire. median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Interviewing 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0
Candidate sourcing 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.5
Applicant review and shortlisting 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
Applicant tracking 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
Background / Reference checking 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Careers site management 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Interview scheduling 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Job posting 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Offer management 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Position description 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Psychometric and skills testing 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Reporting 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Average number of days taken to fill position vacancies
n= 428 56 106 154 108 378 50 213 172 44
What is the average number of days it takes to fill the Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Overall average Australia New Zealand
following types of vacant positions in your organisation? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Executives 64.2 64.3 56.7 67.8 64.4 63.3 72.1 65.9 62.0 64.7
Senior-level managers 48.7 49.2 45.7 49.7 46.0 47.7 56.5 48.9 48.4 49.0
Senior-level individual contributors 42.5 44.3 41.6 43.8 40.2 41.1 53.0 42.1 42.0 46.2
Mid-level managers 35.4 36.1 35.3 35.4 34.3 34.5 43.0 34.6 35.2 40.5
Mid-level individual contributors 29.9 31.0 28.4 30.6 29.5 29.0 36.7 29.5 29.1 35.3
Entry level / junior roles 24.2 27.6 23.8 23.2 23.4 23.6 28.9 23.0 23.6 33.3
Average 40.2 40.9 38.0 41.0 39.3 39.2 47.2 39.7 39.5 44.8

Lowest Highest
value value
Median number of days taken to fill position vacancies
n= 428 56 106 154 108 378 50 213 172 44
What is the average number of days it takes to fill the Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Overall median Australia New Zealand
following types of vacant positions in your organisation? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Executives 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
Senior-level managers 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 58.0 40.0 40.0 42.0
Senior-level individual contributors 35.0 40.0 33.5 40.0 30.0 35.0 43.5 40.0 35.0 32.0
Mid-level managers 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 37.5 30.0 30.0 30.0
Mid-level individual contributors 28.0 30.0 28.0 30.0 25.0 25.0 30.0 26.5 28.0 30.0
Entry level / junior roles 20.0 24.5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 28.0
Median 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 35.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Average cost of hiring a new employee
n= 158 16 37 56 49 147 11 83 62 14
What is the estimated cost of hiring a new employee in your Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
organisation? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Executives 34440 84433 40763 28287 23552 34476 33889 22280 26891 122813
Senior-level managers 23059 52693 32614 14880 15978 23628 14925 17087 15788 88014
Senior-level individual contributors 18385 44361 24692 9367 14879 18758 13425 11831 12229 88017
Mid-level managers 17841 27131 34291 9404 11522 18478 9386 9534 9875 116483
Mid-level individual contributors 11454 21500 19350 5501 7569 11935 5250 6397 6761 69025
Entry level / junior roles 9772 17220 18066 5437 6477 10340 2813 5608 5121 54986
Average 18982 38492 28253 12038 13289 19469 12433 11865 12685 90209

Lowest Highest
value value
Median cost of hiring a new employee
n= 158 16 37 56 49 147 11 83 62 14
What is the estimated cost of hiring a new employee in your Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Executives 20000 27500 22500 18000 15000 20000 30000 15000 20000 60000
Senior-level managers 12000 20000 15000 10000 13000 12000 15000 10000 12000 27500
Senior-level individual contributors 6000 14000 9135 5000 5000 5000 14000 6000 6635 17500
Mid-level managers 5000 10000 5000 3750 5000 4175 10000 3250 5000 10500
Mid-level individual contributors 2000 5000 2000 1750 3000 2000 5000 1750 3000 10500
Entry level / junior roles 1000 5000 850 1000 1000 1000 2000 1000 2000 7750
Median 5000 12000 5000 3500 5000 5000 10000 3500 5000 15000

Lowest Highest
value value
Knowledge about turnover rates for new hires
n= 677 96 169 238 161 592 85 314 280 83
What is the turnover rate (%) for Mid-

Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite New SMB Enterprise
new hires in your organisation OVERALL Australia market
mid-level management management leaders Zealand (1 - 199) (2000+)
within their probation period? (200 - 1999)
Provided details 52% 36% 46% 53% 70% 53% 49% 62% 48% 33%
I don't know 48% 64% 54% 47% 30% 47% 51% 38% 53% 67%

0% 100%
n= Segment New hire turnover rate within probation period
308 Australia 7%
40 New Zealand 5%
191 SMB 6%
131 Mid-market 9%
26 Enterprise 9%
Key onboarding challenges
What are your organisation's key onboarding challenges?

LACK OF REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH NEW HIRES 38%
AD HOC STEPS / LACK OF FORMAL PROCESSES 35%
INTEGRATING NEW HIRES INTO TEAMS / CULTURE 31%
LACK OF TRAINING FOR NEW HIRES 28%
TOO MUCH INFORMATION FOR NEW HIRES 27%
LACK OF ORIENTATION FOR NEW HIRES 26%
LENGTH OF ONBOARDING PROCESS 23%
LACK OF ROLE CLARITY FOR NEW HIRES 21%
TOO LITTLE INFORMATION FOR NEW HIRES 16%
LACK OF TRAINING FOR YOU / YOUR TEAM 11%
NONE - WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES 11% n = 645

I DON'T KNOW 4%
Key onboarding challenges
n= 645 102 169 223 141 564 81 291 283 71
What are your organisation's key onboarding Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Ad hoc steps / lack of formal processes 35% 30% 34% 39% 31% 33% 46% 38% 33% 27%
Too little information for new hires 16% 11% 15% 17% 17% 14% 26% 15% 16% 14%
Too much information for new hires 27% 24% 28% 27% 31% 27% 30% 25% 30% 24%
Lack of role clarity for new hires 21% 24% 20% 24% 16% 22% 16% 19% 23% 24%
Lack of orientation for new hires 26% 20% 30% 28% 21% 26% 27% 22% 28% 32%
Lack of training for new hires 28% 25% 25% 34% 23% 27% 32% 25% 30% 30%
Lack of training for you / your team 11% 15% 12% 9% 9% 11% 10% 11% 10% 13%
Length of onboarding process 23% 23% 22% 23% 23% 22% 25% 19% 22% 42%
Lack of regular check-ins with new hires 38% 34% 37% 46% 28% 37% 40% 32% 43% 37%
Integrating new hires into teams / culture 31% 25% 29% 34% 34% 30% 33% 28% 34% 31%
I don't know 4% 8% 3% 1% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%
0% 100%
Measuring onboarding performance
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to measure the performance of its onboarding processes?
NEW HIRE RETENTION 35%
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MILESTONES BEING MET 20%
IMPACT ON TEAM MORALE / CULTURE 15%
TIME TO PROFICIENCY 11%
I DON'T KNOW 7%
HEADCOUNT VS OUTPUT 7%
n = 617
CHANGE IN OVERALL PRODUCTIVITY 6%
Measuring onboarding performance
n= 617 98 162 214 134 539 78 279 271 67

measure the performance of its onboarding OVERALL Australia New Zealand
processes?
Time to proficiency 11% 10% 14% 9% 10% 11% 9% 11% 9% 19%
Employee performance milestones being met 20% 12% 19% 19% 30% 21% 12% 23% 18% 16%
Impact on team morale / culture 15% 13% 14% 14% 22% 16% 14% 18% 14% 7%
Change in overall productivity 6% 3% 8% 5% 10% 6% 6% 9% 4% 4%
Headcount vs output 7% 7% 7% 7% 5% 8% 3% 6% 7% 12%
New hire retention 35% 28% 28% 38% 43% 35% 35% 35% 34% 39%
I don't know 7% 14% 7% 5% 4% 7% 12% 5% 8% 15%

0% 100%
Duration of onboarding programs
What is the average duration of your organisation's onboarding program?
22% 21%
20%
n = 616
11%
11%
9%
4%
2%
1 DAY UP TO 1 WEEK UP TO 1 MONTH UP TO 3 MONTHS UP TO 6 MONTHS MORE THAN 6 NO FORMAL PROCESS I DON'T KNOW
MONTHS
Duration of onboarding programs
n= 616 98 162 214 133 538 78 278 271 67
What is the average duration of your Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
organisation's onboarding program? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
No formal process 11% 15% 9% 12% 10% 11% 13% 12% 11% 10%
1 day 9% 7% 12% 10% 8% 10% 3% 8% 12% 4%
Up to 1 week 22% 19% 18% 27% 21% 21% 26% 25% 17% 25%
Up to 1 month 20% 13% 21% 22% 20% 21% 13% 21% 20% 15%
Up to 3 months 21% 21% 22% 19% 26% 20% 33% 18% 23% 28%
Up to 6 months 11% 14% 10% 9% 11% 12% 5% 11% 10% 10%
More than 6 months 2% 2% 4% 0% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1%
I don't know 4% 7% 4% 2% 4% 4% 6% 3% 5% 4%

0% 100%
Time for new hires to reach full productivity
How long does it typically take for a new hire to be fully productive after they've commenced employment?
37%
n = 615
20% 20%
11%
7%
4%
2%
1 DAY 1 WEEK 1 MONTH 3 MONTHS 6 MONTHS 12 MONTHS + I DON'T KNOW
Time for new hires to reach full productivity
n= 615 98 161 214 133 537 78 278 270 67
How long does it typically take for a new hire to be

fully productive after they've commenced OVERALL Australia New Zealand
employment?
1 day 2% 4% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 3% 0%
1 week 7% 11% 7% 6% 5% 7% 8% 8% 6% 6%
1 month 20% 15% 23% 19% 22% 21% 9% 22% 18% 16%
3 months 37% 28% 36% 42% 37% 37% 33% 37% 34% 43%
6 months 20% 15% 21% 21% 20% 19% 21% 19% 21% 15%
12 months + 4% 5% 4% 2% 8% 4% 8% 3% 6% 4%
I don't know 11% 21% 7% 10% 7% 10% 21% 9% 11% 15%

0% 100%
Average number of hours per week spent onboarding activities
n= 306 53 93 101 57 277 29 160 115 31
How many hours per week do you personally typically spend Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
on these key onboarding activities? average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Role-specific training 8.1 7.4 8.3 7.4 9.3 8.0 8.7 7.3 7.7 11.4
Pre-boarding 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.3 3.8 7.7
Technology access 3.2 4.3 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.3 1.6 2.3 3.6 5.6
Initial follow-ups (first day, first week, first month, etc.) 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.8 1.9 2.2 2.2 7.3
Company policy training 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.6 3.2 2.6 3.0 1.8 3.2 4.8
Onboarding forms 2.4 3.4 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.8 3.1 2.9
Introductions (in-person, via email, etc.) 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.0 2.9 2.4 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.5

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the onboarding process. The number of respondents
Median number of hours per week spent onboarding activities
n= 306 53 93 101 57 277 29 160 115 31
How many hours per week do you personally typically spend Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
on these key onboarding activities? median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Role-specific training 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0
Pre-boarding 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 2.0
Company policy training 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5
Initial follow-ups (first day, first week, first month, etc.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
Introductions (in-person, via email, etc.) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
Onboarding forms 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
Technology access 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the onboarding process. The number of respondents
Appendix D:
Performance management
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 137
Performance management key challenges
What are your organisation's key performance management challenges
LACK OF CONSISTENCY BETWEEN MANAGERS, DEPARTMENTS, ETC. 63%

LACK OF TIMELY / MEANINGFUL FEEDBACK 48%
LACK OF MANAGER TRAINING 47%
UNCLEAR GOALS / KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIS) 39%
LACK OF PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS 39%
MANUAL PROCESSES 38%
LACK OF RECOGNITION FOR HIGH PERFORMERS 31%
LACK OF APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION AND REWARDS 28%
LACK OF A FORMAL PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK 24%
LACK OF SUPPORT FOR UNDERPERFORMERS 22%
LACK OF FORMAL PROCESSES 16% n = 625
I DON'T KNOW 3%
Performance management key challenges
n= 625 100 160 218 138 549 76 226 274 85
What are your organisation's key performance Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
management challenges? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Lack of recognition for high performers 31% 30% 30% 37% 23% 31% 29% 27% 34% 35%
Lack of support for underperformers 22% 24% 24% 23% 15% 22% 22% 22% 21% 25%
Manual processes 38% 29% 34% 50% 33% 38% 45% 38% 42% 28%
Lack of a formal performance framework 24% 21% 23% 26% 22% 24% 22% 28% 21% 16%
Lack of manager training 47% 48% 53% 50% 36% 48% 45% 42% 50% 54%
Unclear goals / key performance indicators
39% 37% 43% 40% 36% 38% 49% 37% 42% 36%
(KPIs)
Lack of timely / meaningful feedback 48% 48% 46% 53% 45% 48% 54% 42% 54% 48%
Lack of appropriate recognition and rewards 28% 27% 29% 32% 20% 29% 20% 26% 28% 29%
Lack of consistency between managers,
63% 65% 65% 68% 51% 62% 64% 55% 67% 73%
departments, etc.
Lack of personal development plans 39% 39% 38% 40% 38% 40% 36% 35% 41% 46%
Lack of formal processes 16% 14% 17% 18% 17% 16% 21% 18% 18% 7%
I don't know 3% 5% 3% 1% 3% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2%
0% 100%
Methods used
Which of the following methods / paradigms are used to undertake performance

management in your organisation?
PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS 68%
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (PDP) 54%
KPIS (E.G. SPECIFIC SALES / RETENTION TARGETS) 51%
360-DEGREE FEEDBACK 23%
OBJECTIVE & KEY RESULTS (OKR'S) 21%
MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES (MBO) 10%
BALANCED SCORECARD 9% n = 610

I DON'T KNOW 5%
Methods used
n= 610 99 156 210 136 537 73 260 266 84
Which of the following methods / paradigms are

used to undertake performance management in OVERALL Australia New Zealand
your organisation?
KPIs (e.g. specific sales / retention targets) 51% 54% 43% 54% 57% 50% 59% 48% 52% 56%
Performance appraisals 68% 62% 66% 73% 68% 69% 63% 68% 69% 68%
360-degree feedback 23% 22% 22% 23% 25% 23% 26% 21% 20% 40%
management by objectives (MBO) 10% 5% 13% 10% 13% 10% 12% 13% 9% 10%
Balanced scorecard 9% 9% 8% 10% 11% 9% 12% 9% 8% 14%
Personal development plans (PDP) 54% 55% 58% 53% 54% 54% 59% 47% 56% 69%
Objective & key results (OKR's) 21% 22% 20% 18% 29% 21% 22% 23% 20% 23%
I don't know 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 6% 4% 2%

0% 100%
Measuring performance management effectiveness
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to measure the effectiveness of its
performance management processes?
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL COMPLETION RATES 30%
EMPLOYEE AND MANAGER ENGAGEMENT 25%
EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY 17%
MORALE AROUND PERFORMANCE 15%
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE RATING 15%
TIME TAKEN TO COMPLETE PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS 8%
TERMINATION RATE FOR PROBLEM EMPLOYEES 7%
I DON'T KNOW 6%
PROBLEM EMPLOYEE RATE 5% n = 608
AVERAGE COST OF TERMINATING PROBLEM EMPLOYEES 2%
REHABILITATION RATE FOR PROBLEM EMPLOYEES 2%
Measuring performance management effectiveness
n= 608 99 156 209 135 535 73 258 266 84

measure the effectiveness of its performance OVERALL Australia New Zealand
management processes?
Performance appraisal completion rates 30% 29% 26% 32% 32% 31% 23% 21% 32% 50%
Time taken to complete performance appraisals 8% 5% 11% 6% 11% 9% 4% 7% 10% 7%
Employee and manager engagement 25% 19% 21% 23% 37% 24% 30% 21% 29% 24%
Morale around performance 15% 14% 12% 17% 19% 16% 14% 17% 14% 14%
Employee productivity 17% 11% 19% 17% 21% 18% 11% 22% 15% 10%
Average performance rating 15% 15% 21% 13% 10% 16% 8% 13% 15% 17%
Problem employee rate 5% 3% 4% 6% 7% 5% 4% 4% 6% 7%
Rehabilitation rate for problem employees 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1%
Termination rate for problem employees 7% 7% 6% 5% 10% 7% 4% 7% 7% 7%
Average cost of terminating problem employees 2% 0% 3% 2% 3% 2% 0% 2% 2% 2%
I don't know 6% 10% 8% 2% 4% 6% 5% 4% 6% 12%
0% 100%
Frequency of performance appraisals
How frequently are performance appraisals conducted in your organisation?
WEEKLY 1%
MONTHLY 5%
QUARTERLY 10%
BI-ANNUAL 26%
ANNUAL 37%
CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK CYCLES BUT NO FORMAL APPRAISAL STRUCTURE 4%
AD-HOC 7%
PROJECT-BASED APPRAISALS 1%
WE DON'T CONDUCT ANY PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS 5%

n = 608
I DON'T KNOW 2%
Frequency of performance appraisals
n= 608 99 156 209 135 535 73 258 266 84
How frequently are performance appraisals Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
conducted in your organisation? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Weekly 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 2%
Monthly 5% 2% 4% 6% 5% 4% 10% 7% 3% 2%
Quarterly 10% 6% 12% 8% 14% 10% 8% 14% 7% 7%
Biannual 26% 31% 28% 22% 26% 27% 21% 17% 28% 45%
Annual 37% 44% 34% 42% 30% 36% 44% 35% 42% 31%
Continuous feedback cycles but no formal appraisal
4% 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
structure
Ad hoc 7% 3% 6% 7% 9% 7% 4% 8% 6% 5%
Project-based appraisals 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
We don't conduct any performance appraisals 5% 1% 5% 6% 4% 5% 4% 6% 4% 2%
I don't know 2% 4% 3% 0% 1% 2% 0% 2% 2% 1%

0% 100%
Average number of hours per year spent conducting performance appraisals
n= 357 50 100 117 89 321 37 166 144 47
How many hours per year are spent on conducting Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
performance appraisals by each of the following roles? average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
People managers 149.2 447.3 77.1 161.7 52.6 95.0 587.2 46.3 248.9 192.1
Employees 64.6 106.0 56.0 72.8 42.2 60.5 98.1 34.9 85.5 110.3
HR team members 52.2 74.8 50.3 56.5 35.8 48.7 88.9 40.5 73.0 31.5

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the performance management process. The number of
respondents listed for each column in the table above refers to the average number of people who provided an answer for these questions, as some 146
Median number of hours per year spent conducting performance appraisals
n= 357 50 100 117 89 321 37 166 144 47
How many hours per year are spent on conducting Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
performance appraisals by each of the following roles? median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
People managers 20.0 10.0 15.0 22.0 20.0 20.0 24.0 15.0 20.0 38.0
HR team members 10.0 12.5 10.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 12.0
Employees 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the performance management process. The number of
Appendix E:
Succession management
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 148
Succession management key challenges
What are your organisation's key succession management challenges?

NO RECORD KEEPING OF CURRENT EMPLOYEES' SKILLS, EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS 33%
WEAK TALENT PIPELINE 32%
LACK OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 29%
EXTERNAL TALENT SHORTAGE 27%
LACK OF TIME 24%
WEAK BENCH STRENGTH 23%
LACK OF BUDGET 21%
NEW OR EMERGING ROLES 20%
NO BUY-IN FROM SENIOR LEADERSHIP 19%
NONE - WE HAVE NO CHALLENGES 6% n = 492

I DON'T KNOW 6%
Succession management key challenges
n= 492 57 118 183 128 435 57 210 216 66

What are your organisation's key succession Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
management challenges? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Weak bench strength 23% 16% 14% 23% 32% 22% 28% 22% 20% 32%
Weak talent pipeline 32% 35% 29% 33% 34% 31% 39% 27% 38% 30%
No record keeping of current employees' skills,
33% 46% 39% 34% 20% 33% 37% 26% 37% 45%
experience or qualifications
New or emerging roles 20% 16% 19% 21% 23% 19% 28% 16% 25% 20%
External talent shortage 27% 26% 24% 29% 26% 26% 33% 25% 30% 23%
Lack of professional development opportunities 29% 28% 36% 31% 22% 30% 28% 30% 28% 33%
No buy-in from senior leadership 19% 23% 23% 19% 10% 19% 14% 13% 21% 27%
Lack of budget 21% 16% 26% 21% 16% 21% 19% 20% 22% 20%
Lack of time 24% 21% 25% 26% 21% 25% 16% 21% 28% 23%
I don't know 6% 11% 10% 3% 2% 6% 2% 6% 4% 11%

0% 100%
Measuring process effectiveness
succession management processes?

PERCENTAGE OF ROLES FILLED INTERNALLY 15%
TURNOVER AMONGST HIGH POTENTIAL / PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEES 15%
RETENTION RATE OF HIGH POTENTIAL / PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEES 14%
ENGAGEMENT LEVELS OF HIGH POTENTIAL / PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEES 13%
TIME TO FILL VACANT ROLES 11%
MANAGER SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF INTERNAL CANDIDATES 11%
I DON'T KNOW 10%
RATIO OF INTERNAL TO EXTERNAL HIRES FOR CRITICAL ROLES 9%
BENCH STRENGTH 9%
n = 491
DIVERSITY AMONGST IDENTIFIED OR PLACED SUCCESSORS 6%
COST RATE OF HIGH POTENTIAL / PERFORMANCE EMPLOYEES 3%
Measuring process effectiveness
n= 491 56 118 183 128 434 57 209 216 66

measure the effectiveness of its succession OVERALL Australia New Zealand
management processes?
Percentage of roles filled internally 15% 11% 14% 15% 18% 14% 21% 12% 18% 12%
Turnover amongst high-potential / performance
15% 9% 18% 11% 20% 14% 19% 12% 17% 15%
employees
Diversity amongst identified or placed successors 6% 0% 4% 8% 6% 5% 9% 5% 6% 8%
Manager satisfaction with quality of internal
11% 5% 13% 12% 9% 10% 14% 10% 12% 9%
candidates
Time to fill vacant roles 11% 9% 13% 10% 10% 11% 12% 6% 13% 17%
Ratio of internal to external hires for critical roles 9% 5% 11% 7% 14% 9% 16% 6% 11% 15%
Engagement levels of high-potential / performance
13% 7% 13% 9% 20% 12% 16% 12% 13% 12%
employees
Retention rate of high-potential / performance
14% 16% 17% 12% 16% 13% 23% 11% 16% 20%
employees
Cost rate of high-potential / performance
3% 4% 0% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2%
employees
Bench strength 9% 5% 9% 9% 11% 9% 9% 6% 10% 14%
I don't know 10% 18% 16% 8% 5% 11% 7% 10% 7% 20%
0% 100%
Succession management programs
Which of the following employee levels in your organisation have a succession plan in place?
NONE -WE HAVE NO SUCCESSION PLANS IN PLACE 37%
SENIOR-LEVEL MANAGEMENT 31%
LEADERSHIP / C-LEVEL 29%
MID-LEVEL MANAGEMENT 21%
KEY SPECIALIST / TECHNICAL ROLES 20%
JUNIOR TO MID-LEVEL (INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTOR) 10%
LONG-SERVING EMPLOYEES (NOT C-LEVEL) 9%

n = 490
I DON'T KNOW 8%
Succession management programs
n= 490 56 117 183 128 433 57 208 216 66
Which of the following employee levels in your Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
organisation have a succession plan in place? Mid-level management management Leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Leadership / C-level 29% 21% 25% 30% 34% 30% 16% 26% 27% 41%
Senior-level management 31% 30% 30% 31% 34% 30% 39% 24% 34% 44%
Mid-level management 21% 16% 23% 18% 26% 20% 30% 14% 26% 24%
Junior to mid-level (individual contributor) 10% 5% 14% 10% 9% 9% 19% 9% 11% 9%
Key specialist / technical roles 20% 11% 21% 21% 23% 20% 25% 14% 25% 26%
Long-serving employees (not C-level) 9% 4% 9% 9% 11% 9% 9% 8% 10% 8%
None -we have no succession plans in place 37% 38% 38% 37% 36% 38% 33% 42% 37% 23%
I don't know 8% 13% 15% 7% 2% 8% 7% 8% 6% 14%

0% 100%
Appendix F:
Learning & development (L&D)
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 155
Learning and development key challenges
What are your organisation's key learning & development challenges?

LACK OF BUDGET / FUNDING 43%
ALIGNING TRAINING WITH CORPORATE GOALS 27%
DIFFICULTY DEMONSTRATING THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) OF TRAINING 25%
LACK OF SENIOR LEADERSHIP BUY-IN 24%
TRAINING PROGRAM LOGISTICS 23%
PROVIDING ACCESS TO LEARNING CONTENT 21%
FINDING THE RIGHT EXTERNAL PARTNERS 21%
MEETING COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS 18%
LOW LEARNER ENGAGEMENT 18%
DIFFICULTY SCALING 9%

n = 595
I DON'T KNOW 5%
Learning and development key challenges
n= 595 102 147 199 136 523 72 267 250 78
What are your organisation's key learning & Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
development challenges? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Providing access to learning content 21% 19% 24% 25% 16% 20% 29% 16% 26% 23%
Lack of budget / funding 43% 42% 44% 46% 38% 42% 44% 39% 45% 49%
Meeting compliance obligations 18% 15% 14% 23% 18% 18% 18% 13% 23% 22%
Aligning training with corporate goals 27% 25% 25% 30% 26% 26% 33% 28% 25% 26%
Difficulty demonstrating the return on investment

25% 29% 25% 23% 26% 25% 25% 24% 25% 31%
(ROI) of training
Difficulty scaling 9% 11% 7% 11% 7% 10% 7% 7% 10% 17%

Training program logistics 23% 20% 23% 27% 20% 22% 29% 18% 28% 23%
Finding the right external partners 21% 17% 16% 30% 17% 20% 22% 24% 17% 23%
Low learner engagement 18% 26% 16% 16% 15% 18% 13% 13% 21% 23%
Lack of senior leadership buy-in 24% 29% 22% 26% 18% 24% 21% 21% 26% 27%
I don't know 5% 8% 5% 4% 1% 5% 4% 4% 4% 8%
0% 100%
Delivery of learning and development
How is learning & development delivered in your organisation?
FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING (INTERNAL) 81%
FACE-TO-FACE LEARNING (EXTERNAL) 70%
ELEARNING COURSES (INTERNAL) 54%
ELEARNING COURSES (EXTERNAL) 48%
VIRTUAL CLASSROOMS 15%
MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES (MOOCS) 9%
n = 586
I DON'T KNOW 2%
Delivery of learning and development
n= 586 100 145 196 134 514 72 262 246 78
How is learning & development delivered in your Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Virtual classrooms 15% 12% 11% 18% 19% 16% 11% 8% 17% 32%
Face-to-face learning (internal) 81% 82% 79% 81% 84% 81% 82% 73% 87% 90%
Face-to-face learning (external) 70% 68% 73% 73% 66% 70% 71% 68% 73% 68%
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) 9% 11% 7% 8% 11% 9% 10% 6% 11% 13%
eLearning courses (internal) 54% 62% 51% 57% 49% 55% 51% 36% 65% 83%
eLearning courses (external) 48% 46% 45% 49% 51% 48% 43% 47% 48% 51%
I don't know 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 3%

0% 100%
Measuring L&D effectiveness
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to measure the effectiveness of your
learning & development activities?
TRAINING COMPLETION RATES 38%
MEETING COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS / TARGETS 34%
PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES TRAINED, CERTIFIED, ETC. 32%
LIFT IN OVERALL EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT / PRODUCTIVITY 21%
LIFT IN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGEMENT / PRODUCTIVITY 18%
TRAINING COST PER EMPLOYEE 18%
LIFT IN TEAM ENGAGEMENT / PRODUCTIVITY 16%
KNOWLEDGE ACHIEVED (VIA FORMAL EXAMS) 13%

n = 586
I DON'T KNOW 7%
Measuring L&D effectiveness
n= 586 100 145 196 134 514 72 262 246 78

measure the effectiveness of your learning & OVERALL Australia New Zealand
development activities?
Knowledge achieved (via formal exams) 13% 9% 14% 14% 13% 12% 19% 14% 12% 13%
Training completion rates 38% 36% 37% 36% 43% 37% 40% 23% 50% 49%
Meeting compliance obligations / targets 34% 31% 32% 35% 39% 34% 35% 26% 39% 44%
Lift in individual engagement / productivity 18% 16% 17% 13% 30% 18% 19% 19% 17% 17%
Lift in team engagement / productivity 16% 10% 15% 17% 19% 15% 17% 15% 16% 15%
Lift in overall employee engagement / productivity 21% 14% 20% 23% 25% 21% 19% 19% 22% 22%
Percentage of employees trained, certified, etc. 32% 30% 32% 34% 35% 33% 28% 22% 38% 49%
Training cost per employee 18% 15% 17% 20% 18% 18% 14% 18% 15% 23%
I don't know 7% 13% 8% 4% 4% 7% 8% 5% 7% 15%

0% 100%
Most common courses undertaken by staff
What are the most common courses (by volume) undertaken by your employees?
WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY 48%
TECHNICAL SKILLS / CERTIFICATION 48%
COMPLIANCE 44%
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 44%
INDUCTION 44%
COMMUNICATION AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT 28%
ETHICS AND CONDUCT 22%
CUSTOMER SERVICE 20%
COMPUTER LITERACY RELATED (E.G. MICROSOFT OFFICE) 19%
SALES 14%
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO) 14%
PROJECT MANAGEMENT 13%
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 8%
FINANCE 7%
PRODUCTIVITY 5%
TALENT MANAGEMENT 3%
SUSTAINABILITY 3%
Most common courses undertaken by staff
n= 585 100 144 196 134 513 72 261 246 78

What are the most common courses (by volume) Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
undertaken by your employees? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Compliance 44% 37% 42% 48% 44% 44% 44% 34% 53% 51%
Productivity 5% 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 4% 8%
Induction 44% 35% 44% 46% 46% 45% 38% 34% 53% 47%
Leadership and management 44% 50% 42% 39% 49% 42% 54% 35% 50% 54%
Ethics and conduct 22% 22% 17% 22% 27% 24% 11% 15% 29% 26%
Equal employment opportunity (EEO) 14% 6% 15% 15% 16% 15% 3% 10% 18% 13%
Finance 7% 7% 6% 7% 10% 7% 7% 9% 7% 5%
Customer service 20% 20% 19% 20% 20% 20% 24% 18% 25% 13%
Communication and personal development 28% 36% 26% 24% 29% 28% 29% 25% 31% 28%
Talent management 3% 1% 4% 1% 7% 4% 3% 4% 2% 5%
Workplace health and safety 48% 42% 45% 51% 51% 45% 67% 38% 59% 47%
Technical skills / certification 48% 45% 42% 53% 50% 48% 49% 47% 48% 49%
Project management 13% 21% 12% 10% 11% 13% 10% 11% 13% 17%
Sales 14% 14% 13% 13% 18% 13% 24% 13% 16% 10%
Business management 8% 12% 8% 6% 10% 8% 11% 8% 8% 10%
Sustainability 3% 1% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4%
Computer literacy related (e.g. Microsoft Office) 19% 23% 17% 16% 22% 20% 11% 17% 22% 18%
I don't know 7% 9% 6% 7% 3% 7% 4% 7% 5% 10%
0% 100%
Average monthly hours spent on learning & development activities
n= 241 37 66 75 59 219 22 110 97 35
How many hours per month do you personally spend on key Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
learning & development activities? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Developing / creating course materials 11.9 14.4 20.8 7.4 7.0 11.2 19.0 6.1 18.5 10.8
Researching materials, methods, etc. 10.2 11.4 15.7 7.2 7.8 10.1 10.4 7.0 13.1 12.7
Developing L&D strategy 9.0 5.2 20.0 6.1 5.4 9.3 6.1 4.1 14.2 10.2
Delivering / presenting course materials 9.0 8.8 13.5 5.5 6.2 8.9 9.8 5.3 11.9 10.4
Conducting training needs analysis 7.0 5.2 12.7 5.1 2.8 7.2 4.5 4.1 10.8 6.3
Reporting 7.0 6.6 9.6 3.8 8.5 7.4 2.8 3.6 8.3 12.6
Compliance related activities 6.6 7.2 10.2 4.6 5.1 6.8 4.3 4.7 8.4 8.0
Administering employee participation / completion 6.4 9.2 7.5 4.7 4.5 6.3 7.5 4.0 8.4 10.1

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the learning & development process. The number of
respondents listed for each column in the table above refers to the average number of people who provided an answer for these questions, as 164
some respondents may not have answered all questions.
Median monthly hours spent on learning & development activities
n= 241 37 66 75 59 219 22 110 97 35
How many hours per month do you personally spend on key Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
learning & development activities? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Researching materials, methods, etc. 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 9.0
Developing / creating course materials 4.5 6.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 9.0 3.0 5.0 4.0
Delivering / presenting course materials 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.5
Administering employee participation / completion 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 4.0
Compliance related activities 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0
Conducting training needs analysis 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Developing L&D strategy 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0
Reporting 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Average time and cost spent on training per year
n= 328 44 80 109 92 295 34 171 123 35

Learning & Development Overall average
mid-level management management leaders
(1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
How many days does a typical employee in your organisation

spend undertaking formal training (i.e. training that takes them 8.8 5.6 4.6 15.6 6.2 9.2 4.8 4.7 14.5 7.0
away from their daily role) per year?
What is the average annual cost of training an employee? 10128 3640 8035 2062 23690 10610 6102 5780 18826 3285

Lowest Highest
value value
Median time and cost spent on training per year
n= 328 44 80 109 92 295 34 171 123 35

LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT Overall median Australia New Zealand
How many days does a typical employee in your organisation

spend undertaking formal training (i.e. training that takes them 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
away from their daily role) per year?
What is the average annual cost of training an employee? 1500 1500 1150 1500 1500 1500 2000 1500 1500 1000

Lowest Highest
value value
Appendix G:
Rewards & recognition (R&R)
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 168
R&R programs
What kinds of rewards and recognition programs does your organisation currently have in place?
TENURE / WORK ANNIVERSARIES 49%
INFORMAL / AD HOC 40%
PEER NOMINATION AWARDS 39%
INCENTIVE PROGRAMS 30%
ACHIEVING KPIS 23%
SALES QUOTA ACHIEVEMENT 18%
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 16%
NONE - WE HAVE NO FORMAL PROGRAMS IN PLACE 13%
LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT COMPLETION 12%

n = 532
CUSTOMER SERVICE 12%
I DON'T KNOW 2%
R&R programs
n= 532 78 134 187 126 465 67 234 230 68
What kinds of rewards and recognition programs Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
does your organisation currently have in place? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Tenure / work anniversaries 49% 54% 48% 46% 52% 48% 52% 38% 55% 65%
Achieving KPIs 23% 23% 18% 24% 26% 23% 24% 22% 25% 19%
Customer service 12% 4% 10% 10% 21% 12% 10% 11% 12% 13%
Employee of the month 16% 13% 16% 15% 21% 15% 21% 12% 20% 19%
Incentive programs 30% 29% 25% 27% 44% 29% 39% 25% 37% 29%
Sales quota achievement 18% 14% 13% 18% 28% 18% 18% 14% 23% 16%
Learning & development completion 12% 12% 10% 9% 21% 11% 19% 11% 13% 16%
Peer nomination awards 39% 41% 39% 35% 43% 38% 43% 27% 48% 50%
Informal / ad hoc 40% 33% 38% 40% 47% 38% 51% 38% 44% 31%
None - we have no formal programs in place 13% 10% 13% 16% 10% 13% 16% 18% 11% 4%
I don't know 2% 3% 5% 1% 2% 3% 1% 3% 1% 4%

0% 100%
R&R key challenges
What are your organisation's key rewards and recognition challenges?

INCONSISTENCY (E.G. ACROSS MANAGERS, DEPARTMENTS, ETC.) 44%
LACK OF BUDGET 34%
LACK OF PERSONALISED REWARDS & RECOGNITION 29%
LACK OF INSIGHT AS TO WHAT REWARDS EMPLOYEES WOULD VALUE 26%
DISCRETIONARY EFFORT IS NOT RECOGNISED OR REWARDED 24%
RECOGNITION IS NOT TIMELY 22%
LACK OF PEER-TO-PEER RECOGNITION 22%
HIGH PERFORMERS ARE NOT RECOGNISED OR REWARDED 22%
OVER-RELIANCE ON FINANCIAL REWARD 20%
LOW ENGAGEMENT WITH PROGRAM 17%
LACK OF TIME 12%
n = 532
I DON'T KNOW 7%
R&R key challenges
n= 532 78 134 187 126 465 67 234 230 68
What are your organisation's key rewards and Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
recognition challenges? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Discretionary effort is not recognised or rewarded 24% 21% 22% 29% 19% 22% 31% 21% 26% 22%
High performers are not recognised or rewarded 22% 22% 23% 25% 14% 21% 30% 18% 24% 25%
Lack of budget 34% 41% 40% 31% 26% 34% 28% 32% 35% 34%
Lack of time 12% 15% 12% 12% 9% 12% 13% 13% 12% 10%
Lack of personalised rewards & recognition 29% 32% 27% 31% 25% 28% 36% 27% 27% 37%
Inconsistency (e.g. across managers, departments,
44% 45% 47% 45% 37% 43% 51% 37% 47% 57%
etc.)
Lack of peer-to-peer recognition 22% 27% 25% 21% 17% 22% 27% 20% 23% 25%
Low engagement with program 17% 27% 19% 13% 13% 17% 15% 14% 17% 29%
Recognition is not timely 22% 26% 25% 22% 17% 22% 22% 18% 25% 29%
Over-reliance on financial reward 20% 21% 18% 22% 19% 20% 16% 17% 21% 25%
Lack of insight as to what rewards employees would
26% 23% 28% 28% 21% 26% 25% 21% 29% 29%
value
I don't know 7% 9% 9% 7% 5% 7% 9% 5% 10% 4%
0% 100%
R&R program effectiveness
How effective do you think your current employee recognition program(s) are?
41%
n = 532
23% 24%
10%
3%
Extremely ineffective Ineffective Neutral Effective Extremely effective
R&R program effectiveness
n= 532 78 134 187 126 465 67 234 230 68
How effective do you think your current employee Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
recognition program(s) are? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Extremely effective 3% 3% 2% 2% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% 1%
Effective 24% 22% 19% 23% 31% 24% 24% 25% 23% 22%
Neutral 41% 36% 41% 40% 44% 42% 34% 39% 41% 44%
Ineffective 23% 26% 27% 22% 18% 22% 30% 23% 24% 21%
Extremely ineffective 10% 14% 10% 13% 2% 10% 7% 9% 10% 12%

0% 100%
Value placed on R&R by Senior Management
In your opinion, what is the level of value that Senior Management (e.g. CEO, Directors)
places on recognition programs?
33%
28% n = 532
18%
12%
9%
Very low Low Neutral High Very high
Value placed on R&R by Senior Management
n= 532 78 134 187 126 465 67 234 230 68
What is the level of value that Senior

Management (e.g. CEO, Directors) places on OVERALL Australia New Zealand
recognition programs?
Very high 12% 10% 11% 9% 18% 12% 13% 14% 10% 13%
High 28% 27% 19% 29% 37% 28% 28% 25% 30% 28%
Neutral 33% 31% 37% 32% 34% 35% 25% 33% 34% 34%
Low 18% 22% 22% 19% 10% 17% 21% 17% 18% 22%
Very low 9% 10% 10% 12% 1% 8% 12% 12% 7% 3%

0% 100%
Measuring R&R program effectiveness
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to measure the effectiveness of its reward &
recognition processes?
EMPLOYEE RETENTION 19%
EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION RATE 18%
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE 13%
REWARD / RECOGNITION FREQUENCY PER EMPLOYEE 10%
EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY 9%
I DON'T KNOW 8%
MANAGER PARTICIPATION RATE 8%
PROGRAM COSTS 6%
CONSISTENCY ACROSS MANAGERS, DEPARTMENTS, ETC. 5%

n = 532
PROGRAM REACH 3%
Measuring R&R program effectiveness
n= 532 78 134 187 126 465 67 234 230 68

measure the effectiveness of its reward & OVERALL Australia New Zealand
recognition processes?
Program costs 6% 4% 6% 5% 9% 7% 3% 4% 7% 12%

Employee productivity 9% 5% 9% 7% 11% 9% 3% 12% 7% 6%
Employee performance 13% 12% 14% 11% 15% 14% 9% 13% 12% 16%
Program reach 3% 1% 3% 3% 6% 3% 3% 1% 5% 4%
Employee participation rate 18% 15% 17% 16% 23% 19% 13% 14% 20% 25%
Manager participation rate 8% 5% 8% 6% 11% 9% 1% 4% 10% 10%
Reward / recognition frequency per employee 10% 13% 6% 7% 13% 10% 6% 7% 10% 18%
Employee retention 19% 13% 19% 19% 22% 19% 18% 20% 17% 22%
Consistency across managers, departments, etc. 5% 5% 4% 5% 6% 5% 6% 3% 6% 7%
I don't know 8% 15% 15% 3% 2% 7% 10% 5% 8% 16%
0% 100%
Appendix H:
Remuneration & benefits
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 179
Remuneration & benefits key challenges
What are your organisation's key remuneration challenges?
MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND REMUNERATION 42%
CAN'T COMPETE WITH EXTERNAL MARKET RATES 35%
NO STRUCTURED MANAGEMENT PROCESS 22%
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY 20%
LACK OF FLEXIBILITY 19%
REMUNERATION BUDGET IS FREQUENTLY UNDER 10%
PROCESS IS TOO COMPLICATED 10%
PROCESS IS TOO LENGTHY 10%
REMUNERATION BUDGET IS FREQUENTLY OVER 8% n = 510

I DON'T KNOW 7%
Remuneration & benefits key challenges
n= 510 75 118 190 121 447 63 225 225 60
What are your organisation's key remuneration Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Can't compete with external market rates 35% 32% 33% 38% 36% 35% 37% 34% 38% 32%
Process is too complicated 10% 11% 15% 8% 9% 11% 6% 7% 12% 17%
Process is too lengthy 10% 16% 11% 9% 6% 9% 16% 4% 12% 22%
Lack of flexibility 19% 21% 20% 18% 17% 20% 13% 14% 20% 35%
Lack of transparency 20% 24% 28% 17% 15% 21% 14% 18% 19% 32%
Remuneration budget is frequently over 8% 7% 9% 7% 7% 8% 8% 5% 11% 8%
Remuneration budget is frequently under 10% 15% 6% 12% 11% 11% 8% 10% 9% 17%
No structured management process 22% 19% 23% 25% 20% 23% 16% 20% 22% 28%
Misalignment between performance and
42% 48% 45% 39% 40% 41% 51% 37% 44% 50%
remuneration
I don't know 7% 9% 9% 6% 4% 8% 2% 9% 5% 7%

0% 100%
Measuring remuneration process effectiveness
remuneration processes?
MARKET INDEX (COMPARISON WITH COMPETITORS) 35%
PAY EQUITY 28%
REMUNERATION REVIEWS COMPLETED WITHIN BUDGET 26%
EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION WITH REMUNERATION 23%
AVERAGE ANNUAL BASE-PAY INCREASES 21%
I DON'T KNOW 7%
TIME TAKEN TO CONDUCT PAY REVIEWS 5%

n = 507
Measuring remuneration process effectiveness
n= 507 75 116 189 121 444 63 224 223 60

measure the effectiveness of its remuneration OVERALL Australia New Zealand
processes?
Remuneration reviews completed within budget 26% 29% 30% 23% 27% 25% 37% 19% 30% 40%
Pay equity 28% 28% 26% 28% 33% 29% 22% 21% 32% 40%
Time taken to conduct pay reviews 5% 7% 7% 3% 3% 4% 10% 1% 6% 12%
Employee satisfaction with remuneration 23% 19% 21% 22% 31% 24% 19% 25% 25% 10%
Market index (comparison with competitors) 35% 36% 33% 33% 39% 34% 41% 29% 41% 33%
Average annual base-pay increases 21% 16% 23% 22% 21% 21% 21% 16% 26% 22%
I don't know 7% 12% 10% 4% 2% 7% 3% 5% 6% 13%

0% 100%
Remuneration & benefits focus areas
Which of the following areas of remuneration is your organisation planning to focus on

over the next 12 months?
IMPROVE RETENTION 33%
ATTRACTING IN-DEMAND SKILLS 32%
NONE - WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DRIVE ANY OF THE ABOVE VIA OUR REMUNERATION
25%
STRATEGY
IMPROVING GENDER PAY EQUALITY 18%
I DON'T KNOW 10%
MORE OPPORTUNITY / EQUALITY FOR MINORITY GROUPS 9%
MINIMISING WAGES 8%
REDUCING CEO-TO-WORKER PAY RATIO 1%

n = 507
Remuneration & benefits focus areas
n= 507 75 116 189 121 444 63 224 223 60
Which of the following areas of remuneration is

your organisation planning to focus on over the OVERALL Australia New Zealand
next 12 months?
Improve retention 33% 36% 29% 32% 34% 32% 37% 32% 37% 18%
Attracting in-demand skills 32% 21% 32% 33% 35% 31% 38% 25% 40% 25%
Minimising wages 8% 7% 3% 11% 8% 8% 6% 8% 7% 10%
Improving gender pay equality 18% 16% 21% 16% 21% 18% 16% 10% 24% 28%
More opportunity / equality for minority groups 9% 7% 9% 10% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 10%
Reducing CEO-to-worker pay ratio 1% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2%

None - we're not looking to drive any of the above
25% 20% 22% 31% 25% 25% 25% 31% 23% 13%
via our remuneration strategy
I don't know 10% 21% 15% 5% 7% 11% 8% 8% 9% 25%

0% 100%
Appendix I:
Payroll and rostering / time &
attendance
ELMO
Monica
CLOUD
Watt
HR| &ELMO
PAYROLL
CLOUD
| 2019
HR &| PAYROLL
Unclassified
| 2018
Public 186
Payroll key challenges
What are your organisation's key payroll challenges?

DISCONNECT BETWEEN ROSTERING, TIME & ATTENDANCE, AND PAYROLL 35%
LACK OF ACCURATE, REAL-TIME REPORTING 33%
INTERPRETATION OF AWARD / ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 32%
TOO MANY DATA INPUT ERRORS 23%
OVERPAYMENT OF STAFF 9%
UNDERPAYMENT OF STAFF 9%
GEOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES (E.G. CULTURE, LANGUAGE, LEGISLATION) 9%
COMPLIANCE BREACHES 8%

ENSURING EMPLOYEE CONFIDENTIALITY 6%
Payroll key challenges
n= 360 46 86 130 95 314 46 155 173 32
What are your organisation's key payroll Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
Too many data input errors 23% 37% 22% 18% 23% 23% 22% 21% 20% 53%
Compliance breaches 8% 4% 9% 8% 7% 8% 9% 5% 9% 19%
Underpayment of staff 9% 7% 13% 12% 3% 10% 4% 8% 9% 16%
Overpayment of staff 9% 13% 12% 9% 6% 10% 7% 11% 5% 25%

Disconnect between rostering / time & attendance,
35% 33% 37% 42% 24% 36% 28% 27% 42% 38%
and payroll
Interpretation of Award / Enterprise Agreement 32% 26% 28% 35% 33% 34% 13% 23% 35% 53%
Lack of accurate, real-time reporting 33% 30% 33% 31% 39% 32% 46% 32% 35% 34%
Ensuring employee confidentiality 6% 4% 6% 5% 5% 6% 7% 5% 8% 0%

Geographic differences (e.g. culture, language,
9% 9% 9% 5% 13% 8% 13% 6% 9% 22%
legislation)
I don't know 8% 15% 15% 3% 2% 8% 7% 8% 6% 13%

0% 100%
Measuring payroll process effectiveness
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to measure the performance of its payroll processes?
PAY CYCLE ACCURACY 35%
COMPLIANCE 26%
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE ENQUIRIES 21%
CYCLE TIME TO PROCESS PAYROLL 14%
I DON'T KNOW 13%
CYCLE TIME TO RESOLVE PAYROLL ERRORS 13%
n = 356
PAYROLL PROCESSING COSTS 11%
Measuring payroll process effectiveness
n= 356 45 86 129 93 310 46 154 170 32
Which metric(s) does your organisation use to Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
measure the performance of its payroll processes? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Pay cycle accuracy 35% 29% 34% 32% 46% 34% 43% 33% 38% 34%
Number of employee enquiries 21% 11% 22% 22% 22% 22% 13% 14% 24% 34%
Cycle time to process payroll 14% 13% 14% 14% 15% 14% 15% 9% 19% 13%
Cycle time to resolve payroll errors 13% 13% 20% 7% 14% 14% 2% 9% 14% 25%
Payroll processing costs 11% 7% 12% 9% 14% 11% 9% 9% 11% 19%
Compliance 26% 27% 27% 26% 26% 27% 20% 19% 32% 25%
I don't know 13% 27% 22% 8% 6% 14% 13% 10% 14% 31%

0% 100%
Types of pay cycles
Across your entire organisation, which of the following pay cycles are run?
66%
36%
n = 356
26%
8%
4% 3%
1%
WEEKLY FORTNIGHTLY (BI- BI-MONTHLY (2 CYCLES MONTHLY QUARTERLY AD HOC I DON'T KNOW
WEEKLY) IN A MONTH)
Types of pay cycles
n= 356 45 86 129 93 310 46 154 170 32
Across your entire organisation, which of the Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
following pay cycles are run? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Weekly 26% 24% 19% 29% 29% 25% 30% 17% 29% 50%
Fortnightly (Bi-weekly) 66% 64% 62% 68% 69% 65% 74% 62% 72% 56%
Bi-monthly (2 cycles in a month) 4% 2% 6% 3% 4% 4% 2% 4% 3% 9%
Monthly 36% 42% 43% 32% 33% 35% 41% 33% 35% 53%
Quarterly 1% 2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3%
Ad hoc 8% 9% 8% 6% 12% 8% 11% 5% 11% 16%
I don't know 3% 4% 5% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 6%

0% 100%
Tools to manage payroll processes
How do you currently manage your organisation's payroll processes?
STAND-ALONE PAYROLL SOFTWARE 45%
INTEGRATED HR & PAYROLL SOFTWARE 36%
SPREADSHEETS 22%
ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE 21%
PAPER-BASED ('BOX OF RECEIPTS') 6%
n = 356
I DON'T KNOW 3%
Tools to manage payroll processes
n= 356 45 86 129 93 310 46 154 170 32
How do you currently manage your organisation's Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
payroll processes? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Accounting software 21% 7% 12% 27% 29% 22% 15% 29% 16% 6%
Spreadsheets 22% 22% 21% 17% 29% 22% 17% 18% 24% 28%
Paper-based ('box of receipts') 6% 11% 7% 3% 8% 6% 9% 3% 9% 6%
Stand-alone payroll software 45% 42% 47% 46% 43% 43% 59% 40% 52% 34%
Integrated HR & payroll software 36% 47% 37% 30% 37% 37% 24% 25% 40% 63%
I don't know 3% 4% 3% 2% 0% 2% 4% 1% 3% 6%

0% 100%
Average hours per month spent on payroll activities
n= 122 15 34 42 31 108 14 62 48 13
How many hours per calendar month do you personally spend Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
on the following key payroll activities? average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Payroll accounting 15.2 4.8 16.4 19.6 12.6 15.8 11.3 4.5 23.4 39.0
Payroll calculation 12.3 26.6 18.1 6.5 5.8 10.3 27.7 7.8 7.1 47.0
Gathering required data inputs 8.4 8.0 12.1 7.3 5.4 8.4 8.4 6.8 7.1 20.2
Reporting 7.9 10.1 7.7 10.8 3.6 7.8 8.8 3.7 11.4 12.9
Data validation 7.9 10.1 12.6 6.4 3.5 7.9 7.6 6.4 5.9 23.6
Reviewing and approving all payroll payments 6.9 12.1 8.9 3.8 7.3 7.1 5.7 3.8 5.8 37.9
Payroll policy administration 6.4 9.0 9.0 5.5 3.9 5.9 9.5 6.6 5.1 11.4
Employee enquiries 5.3 10.7 6.3 3.8 3.9 5.0 8.1 3.5 6.4 11.4
Statutory compliance 5.2 7.7 9.8 3.5 2.4 5.0 6.8 3.9 3.9 17.8
Distributing paychecks 2.9 6.0 2.7 3.0 1.8 3.0 2.2 1.8 4.3 2.4

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the payroll process. The number of respondents listed
for each column in the table above refers to the average number of people who provided an answer for these questions, as some respondents 195
may not have answered all questions.
Median hours per month spent on payroll activities
n= 122 15 34 42 31 108 14 62 48 13
on the following key payroll activities? median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Gathering required data inputs 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 3.5 10.0
Other 5.0 10.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 10.0 2.0 6.5 8.0
Payroll calculation 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.5 5.0
Data validation 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 6.5
Payroll accounting 2.5 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 4.0 5.0
Employee enquiries 2.0 4.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Payroll policy administration 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 5.0
Reporting 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.5
Reviewing and approving all payroll payments 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5
Statutory compliance 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0
Distributing paychecks 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Average hours taken to complete one pay cycle
n= 54 11 18 20 19 54 9 27 28 6
How many hours of work does it take your organisation to Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
complete one pay cycle run? average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Bi-monthly (2 cycles in a month) 103.8 n/a 165.6 92.3 12.3 111.7 25.0 10.8 12.3 520.0
Weekly 43.7 223.3 24.6 14.3 25.8 20.6 167.5 75.5 21.3 48.1
Monthly 34.5 39.1 23.2 27.0 55.8 35.1 31.4 17.4 47.0 66.5
Fortnightly (Bi-Weekly) 31.3 23.9 35.3 37.1 23.3 33.1 20.5 14.1 38.9 111.1
Quarterly 14.0 n/a n/a 13.0 16.0 13.0 16.0 6.0 18.0 n/a
Ad hoc 5.4 2.0 5.2 7.0 5.1 5.2 6.3 8.0 3.8 8.0
Other 2.0 n/a n/a 2.0 n/a 2.8 4.4 3.1 2.7 2.6

Lowest Highest
value value
Median hours taken to complete one payroll cycle
n= 54 11 18 20 19 54 9 27 28 6
How many hours of work does it take your organisation to Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
complete one pay cycle run? median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Quarterly 16.0 n/a n/a 13.0 16.0 13.0 16.0 6.0 18.0 n/a
Weekly 15.1 18.0 17.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 24.0 6.0 16.0 33.5
Fortnightly (Bi-Weekly) 15.0 10.0 15.0 12.0 16.0 15.0 19.0 8.0 24.0 36.5
Monthly 12.5 9.0 15.0 10.0 16.0 10.0 15.0 8.0 16.0 28.0
Bi-monthly (2 cycles in a month) 12.0 n/a 10.0 25.0 10.0 11.0 25.0 11.0 10.0 520.0
Ad hoc 4.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 8.0
Other 2.0 n/a n/a 2.0 n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0

Lowest Highest
value value
Average number of payroll enquires received per month
n= 267 33 70 95 67 233 34 126 121 20
Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise

Payroll Australia New Zealand
average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Considering all of your organisation's pay cycles, how many

payroll enquiries does your organisation receive per calendar
401 2368 241 45 119 457 32 12 102 3985
month (e.g. reviewing payslip info, confirming bank details,
employee reporting errors, etc.)?

Lowest Highest
value value
Median number of payroll enquires received per month
n= 267 33 70 95 67 233 34 126 121 20
Overall Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise

Payroll Australia New Zealand
median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Considering all of your organisation's pay cycles, how many

payroll enquiries does your organisation receive per calendar
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 12 50
month (e.g. reviewing payslip info, confirming bank details,
employee reporting errors, etc.)?

Lowest Highest
value value
Rostering / time & attendance key challenges
What are your organisation's key rostering / time & attendance challenges?
MANUAL PROCESSES 40%
INEFFECTIVE LEAVE MANAGEMENT 29%
DATA INPUT ERRORS 28%
LACK OF ALIGNMENT WITH PAYROLL SYSTEM 27%
NO REAL-TIME REPORTING 22%
COMPLIANCE 17%
TOO MUCH ABSENTEEISM 17%
TOO MUCH OVERTIME 13%

n = 284
KEEPING UP TO DATE WITH INDUSTRIAL AWARDS ETC. 12%
I DON'T KNOW 8%
Rostering / time & attendance key challenges
n= 284 36 65 102 78 244 40 127 134 23
What are your organisation's key rostering / time Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
& attendance challenges? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Data input errors 28% 31% 32% 27% 22% 26% 38% 24% 28% 43%
Lack of alignment with payroll system 27% 25% 31% 32% 17% 27% 28% 25% 31% 13%
No real-time reporting 22% 14% 28% 28% 12% 21% 28% 13% 28% 30%
Ineffective leave management 29% 25% 34% 33% 19% 28% 33% 19% 36% 43%
Too much overtime 13% 22% 14% 12% 6% 12% 18% 7% 17% 17%
Too much absenteeism 17% 14% 22% 14% 15% 17% 13% 13% 18% 26%
Manual processes 40% 28% 46% 46% 33% 41% 35% 37% 42% 48%
Compliance 17% 14% 20% 17% 15% 17% 18% 9% 23% 26%
Keeping up to date with Industrial Awards etc. 12% 14% 11% 11% 13% 12% 10% 5% 16% 26%
I don't know 8% 11% 11% 6% 6% 7% 15% 7% 10% 4%

0% 100%
Measuring rostering / time & attendance process effectiveness
Which metric(s) do you use to measure the performance of your organisation's

rostering / time & attendance processes?
ACCURACY 22%
ABSENTEEISM / TARDINESS 21%
NUMBER OF MISSING OR LATE TIMESHEETS 19%
TIME TAKEN FOR PROCESSING 15%
OVERTIME COST MANAGEMENT 14%
COMPLIANCE (LABOUR REGULATION) 13%

n = 284
I DON'T KNOW 12%
EMPLOYEE HEALTH & WELLBEING 7%
Measuring rostering / time & attendance process effectiveness
n= 284 36 65 102 78 244 40 127 134 23
Which metric(s) do you use to measure the

performance of your organisation's rostering / OVERALL Australia New Zealand
time & attendance processes?
Overtime cost management 14% 11% 20% 14% 12% 15% 10% 12% 15% 26%
Accuracy 22% 17% 26% 20% 23% 24% 8% 23% 21% 22%
Compliance (labour regulation) 13% 14% 17% 10% 14% 14% 10% 6% 14% 43%
Employee health & wellbeing 7% 14% 9% 7% 4% 8% 5% 6% 9% 4%
Absenteeism / tardiness 21% 17% 29% 18% 19% 23% 5% 15% 25% 30%
Time taken for processing 15% 19% 15% 16% 13% 16% 10% 13% 18% 9%
Number of missing or late timesheets 19% 14% 18% 24% 15% 20% 10% 20% 19% 9%
I don't know 12% 22% 11% 10% 9% 10% 23% 10% 13% 9%

0% 100%
Tool to manage rostering / time & attendance
How does your organisation currently manage its rostering / time & attendance processes?
SPREADSHEETS 29%
PAPER-BASED 22%
STAND-ALONE TIME & ATTENDANCE SOFTWARE 21%
INTEGRATED HR AND TIME & ATTENDANCE SOFTWARE 16%
INTEGRATED HR, ROSTERING AND TIME & ATTENDANCE SOFTWARE 13%
STAND-ALONE ROSTERING SOFTWARE 11%
I DON'T KNOW 7%
n = 281
INTEGRATED HR AND ROSTERING SOFTWARE 7%
Tool to manage rostering / time & attendance
n= 281 34 64 102 78 241 40 126 132 23
How does your organisation currently manage its Junior to Mid-level Senior C-suite SMB Mid-market Enterprise
rostering / time & attendance processes? mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Stand-alone rostering software 11% 9% 11% 12% 10% 12% 3% 8% 14% 9%
Stand-alone time & attendance software 21% 15% 20% 28% 17% 22% 15% 17% 25% 26%
Spreadsheets 29% 29% 23% 28% 35% 29% 25% 33% 28% 13%
Paper-based 22% 21% 19% 25% 23% 21% 30% 20% 27% 9%
Integrated HR and rostering software 7% 9% 13% 6% 4% 8% 3% 4% 8% 17%
Integrated HR and time & attendance software 16% 24% 17% 14% 15% 15% 23% 13% 17% 35%
Integrated HR, rostering and time & attendance

13% 21% 14% 10% 14% 14% 8% 10% 14% 26%
software
I don't know 7% 12% 11% 3% 6% 7% 10% 7% 8% 0%

0% 100%
Average monthly hours spent on rostering / time & attendance activities
n= 64 9 20 22 15 58 7 36 23 7
on the following rostering / time & attendance activities? average mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Manual time-card collection / processing 9.9 12.4 16.2 4.7 4.6 8.5 18.2 7.3 5.7 34.8
Data entry 8.3 9.8 11.7 4.3 7.3 7.8 13.5 6.3 5.2 25.5
Reporting and administration 7.1 14.1 9.3 3.9 4.1 6.3 12.5 5.4 4.3 23.7
Ensure staff hours logged are complete / accurate 6.4 7.6 8.9 5.7 3.9 6.1 9.1 5.4 5.1 21.3
Other 6.3 n/a 5.5 8.3 5.0 6.3 n/a 5.2 9.0 5.0
Managing regulatory compliance 5.8 8.9 10.5 2.8 2.6 5.3 13.8 3.3 3.7 25.4
Rescheduling shifts 5.2 4.8 5.1 6.4 4.3 5.0 10.0 3.8 8.1 8.3
Keeping attendance records 4.5 5.2 6.1 3.7 2.9 3.8 13.2 3.8 2.6 12.9
Correcting errors 3.8 8.5 3.3 2.5 3.4 2.9 12.7 3.4 2.9 9.7
Checking employee availability 3.7 3.0 4.8 4.1 2.4 3.5 10.0 3.4 3.8 5.3
Leave management 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.9 2.6 3.2

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the rostering / time & attendance processes. The number of
Median monthly hours spent on rostering / time & attendance activities
n= 64 9 20 22 15 58 7 36 23 7
on the following rostering / time & attendance activities? median mid-level management management leaders (1 - 199) (200 - 1999) (2000+)
Other 5.0 n/a 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 n/a 2.0 2.0 1.0
Data entry 4.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 6.5 3.5 3.0 12.5
Ensure staff hours logged are complete / accurate 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0
Rescheduling shifts 4.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.5 10.0 2.0 4.0 10.0
Checking employee availability 3.0 3.0 4.5 2.0 1.0 2.5 10.0 3.0 1.3 5.0
Manual time-card collection / processing 3.0 10.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 20.0 4.0 2.0 5.0
Reporting and administration 3.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 5.0
Correcting errors 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 5.0
Keeping attendance records 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 1.0 4.5
Managing regulatory compliance 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 9.5 2.0 2.0 5.0
Leave management 1.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.5

Lowest Highest
value value
Note: This question asked respondents to provide values relating to several aspects of the rostering / time & attendance processes. The number of
Questions?
www.elmosoftware.com.au
contactus@elmosoftware.com.au
ELMO Cloud HR & Payroll
ELMO_Software
ELMOSoftware
Name Name|
ELMO CLOUD
ELMO CLOUD
HR & PAYROLL
HR & PAYROLL
| 2019 || 2019
Unclassified
| Unclassified
Public Public 209

HR Industry Benchmark Survey 2019 Standard Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HR Industry Benchmark Survey 2019 Standard Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HR Industry Benchmark Survey 2019

Name Name| ELMO CLOUD HR & PAYROLL | 2019 | Unclassified Public 1

PART 1: Insights summaries PART 2: Full benchmark data

Industry types (as per the ANZSIC industry list)

Responsible for Actively Involved Not Involved

Decrease in size Remain the same Increase in size

n= 356 323 113 792

• Wholesale trade (34% of respondents)

• The majority of the time that HR spends onboarding new employees is

• ‘Payroll accounting’ and ‘payroll calculation’ take up the majority of HR /

Average turnover rates per industry

Top 3 areas that take up too much of HR’s time

Has budget regardless

Comparing Australia with New Zealand, a higher percentage of New Zealand

ONBOARDING 35% 23% 17% 11% 9% 5% Greater than 12 months away

SUCCESSION MANAGEMENT 15% 18% 15% 21% 22% 10% n = 1220+

n = 1220+ n = 1080+ n = 140+ n = 520+ n = 510+ n = 190+

Saturation map scale:

Recruitment: Not fully

Onboarding: Not fully

Learning and development:

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

Rewards and recognition:

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

Remuneration & benefits:

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

Payroll: Not fully

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

Rostering / time & attendance: Not fully

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

How would you describe your organisation's use of HR metrics?

Roughly 2 in 5 respondents, regardless of organisation size, said they have basic HR

n = 1006 n = 888 n = 118 n = 418 n = 425 n = 163

New SMB Mid-market Enterprise

Developing: We track HR metrics and leverage these metrics for

Optimised: We track HR metrics and apply descriptive analytics, pulling

Saturation map scale:

Yes 60% 65% 48% 67% 81%

Saturation map scale:

Measuring the effectiveness of the recruitment process:

3 in 10 respondents do not use any metrics to measure the performance

The most common metric used to measure recruitment process

Tools used to improve recruitment:

1. Job boards (83%)

Current state of recruitment technology:

Almost 70% of survey respondents have either fully

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

Length of a formal onboarding program:

The length of formal onboarding programs varies greatly. An equal amount of

1 in 9 respondents said they do not have a formal onboarding program. This

The average time for a new starter to reach

Current state of onboarding technology:

Investment into recruitment / onboarding has been rated the second

* Due to whole number rounding, the % difference

2 in 5 respondents are using manual 1 in 4 respondents do not use a formal

Measuring the effectiveness of the performance management process:

1 in 6 respondents use ‘employee productivity’ as a metric to measure performance

‘Morale around performance’ and ‘average performance rating’ were used by

Frequency of performance appraisals:

Annual performance appraisals are used most commonly – being used

While more frequent performance appraisal cycles are occurring (e.g.