🤔 Is your HR data undermining your credibility

TL;DR

🤔 Your Founder doesn’t care about your HR data. Here’s why

😲 No one says we can’t — so why isn’t HR owning business metrics?

🎧 Listen to the newsletter here

This newsletter edition is brought to you by Zelt 💛

Your Founder doesn’t care about your HR data. Here’s why

Over the last few months, I’ve heard the same epiphany on repeat. In my Bootcamp. In my Masterclasses. In candid conversations with frustrated HR leaders trying to get their initiatives taken seriously. 

They show me engagement survey scores, feedback themes, heatmaps, mood scores. None of this “data” is landing. And here’s the root cause of the problem: 

Most of what we call “data” in HR is subjective. Open to interpretation. Easy to challenge. Easier to dismiss.

Yes, it pains me to say this. But it’s costing us influence. 😞

If we want a seat at the strategic table, we’ve got to understand the difference between opinion and evidence — and start building our cases like business leaders, not just people leaders.

Objective vs subjective data: Know the difference or lose the room

Here’s a simple explanation:

Let me bring these 2 types of data to life.

One summer, I was working in the office, roasting at my desk 🥵. I was convinced the heating was still on. I turned to Tessa beside me to complain — only to find her wrapped in a scarf, woolly hat and cardigan like it was mid-winter in Oslo!

That’s the difference. The objective temperature? 23°C. The subjective experience? Completely opposite. And in a business context, that divergence can undermine the credibility of our HR pitches — if we don’t balance opinion with evidence.

So what? Why this matters for HR leaders

Because this is exactly what happens with employee engagement data. It’s 100% subjective. And if that’s the ONLY data point we walk into a boardroom with, we're wide open to challenge.

For example, if a survey says your employees “feel” unsupported or disengaged, that’s important, but it’s not irrefutable. A CEO or exec who doesn’t share the same perception can easily dismiss it. “Well, I don’t see it that way.” And just like that, our influence slips through our fingers.

Their opinion is just as valid. THAT’s the problem.

This doesn’t mean subjective data is useless. It means it’s not enough.

The strategic shift: Pair subjective with objective

Let’s be clear, I’m not saying ditch engagement data. We need it! But it cannot be our only lens. We’ve got to: 

Pair subjective sentiment with objective outcomes. For example:

We build a compelling case when the feelings align with the facts 

So next time you're pitching a people initiative, ask yourself:

We move from “this is how people feel” to “this is the measurable business impact of how people feel.”

That’s when you start influencing decisions at the top. That’s when your CEO starts listening.

No one says we can’t — so why isn’t HR owning business metrics?

In a recent coaching session, I was reviewing OKRIs with an HR leader. When we got to defining Key Results (the actual measures of success), she hit a wall.

"It’s really hard to measure objective data without relying on engagement scores," she said.

So I looked at the set of HR initiatives (projects) she was planning to execute and asked,

“Why are you doing these?”

She had her answers ready. Strong rationale. Clear logic. Real conviction. Her team’s work was focused on enabling the tech team to move faster, specifically increasing the speed of feature release.

So I asked the obvious next question: 

“If that’s the result you’re trying to drive, why isn’t that your HR team's measure of success?”

She stared at me like I’d grown another head 😲.

There was a pause. Then the confusion landed. 

"But… that’s the tech team’s key result."

Why shouldn’t HR co-own business metrics?

Because if we’re serious about being a strategic function — if we’re truly enabling the business to succeed — then we should co-own the metrics that define business success.

Not just engagement. Not just attrition. Not just learning hours logged.

We need to be looking at:

These aren’t “someone else’s metrics”. If our work impacts them, we should be measuring ourselves against them.

People performance IS business performance

If we’re rolling out a leadership programme, it should move the needle on delivery, not just tick the box on attendance.

If we’re investing in culture, it should show up in cross-functional execution and retention, not only in pulse scores.

If we’re improving onboarding, it should reduce time-to-productivity, not just raise satisfaction scores in week one.

HR doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Our job is to build people systems that drive business results. So we measure ourselves the same way the rest of the business does: by outcomes, not effort.

Your HR impact is bigger than you realise

We work hard, launch HR initiatives, collect feedback — but we measure in isolation. And that’s why we struggle to influence.

If the business is aiming to increase customer satisfaction, and your HR initiative directly supports that, then that should be your success metric.

If your HR work is designed to drive business performance, then your measures of success must reflect business performance.

Co-own the outcome. Align with the business. Win together.

Scaling your start-up?

Let’s make sure your leadership, people and org are ready. Here are 3 ways I can help:

🔗 LinkedIn | 🌎 JooBee’s blog | 🤝 Work with me