- JooBee's Newsletter
- Posts
- #43 JooBee's newsletter
#43 JooBee's newsletter
TL;DR
š¤ Your Founder doesnāt care about your HR data. Hereās why
š² No one says we canāt ā so why isnāt HR owning business metrics?
š§ Listen to the newsletter here
This newsletter edition is brought to you by Zelt š
![]() | HR leader, are you seen as strategic or stuck in admin?Iāve created the Strategic HR Readiness Quiz to help you find out where you stand and get a personalised report with clear actions to step up your influence and impact. |

Reflection: I canāt believe it! It just hit me. Everything Iāve been using to make the case for HR is based on opinion, not fact. š±
Your Founder doesnāt care about your HR data. Hereās why
Over the last few months, Iāve 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 ādataā is landing. And hereās the root cause of the problem:
Most of what we call ādataā in HR is subjective. Open to interpretation. Easy to challenge. Easier to dismiss.
Yes, it pains me to say this. But itās costing us influence. š
If we want a seat at the strategic table, weāve got to understand the difference between opinion and evidence ā and start building our cases like business leaders, not just people leaders.
Objective vs subjective data: Know the difference or lose the room
Hereās a simple explanation:
Objective data (Evidence): Hard facts. Measurable. Observable. The kind of data you can back with tangible evidence.
Subjective data (Opinion): Personal views. Individual judgement. Feelings. Valuable, yes ā but not bulletproof.
Let me bring these 2 types of data to life.
One summer, I was working in the office, roasting at my desk š„µ. I was convinced the heating was still on. I turned to Tessa beside me to complain ā only to find her wrapped in a scarf, woolly hat and cardigan like it was mid-winter in Oslo!
Same room, same temperature.
Two completely different experiences.
Thatās 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 ā if we donāt balance opinion with evidence.
So what? Why this matters for HR leaders
Because this is exactly what happens with employee engagement data. Itās 100% subjective. And if thatās the ONLY data point we walk into a boardroom with, we're wide open to challenge.
For example, if a survey says your employees āfeelā unsupported or disengaged, thatās important, but itās not irrefutable. A CEO or exec who doesnāt share the same perception can easily dismiss it. āWell, I donāt see it that way.ā And just like that, our influence slips through our fingers.
Their opinion is just as valid. THATās the problem.
This doesnāt mean subjective data is useless. It means itās not enough.
The strategic shift: Pair subjective with objective
Letās be clear, Iām not saying ditch engagement data. We need it! But it cannot be our only lens. Weāve got to:
Pair subjective sentiment with objective outcomes. For example:
Show how ālow trustā scores correlate with poor team performance (and Iām not talking about managersā ratings, because those are just more subjective data. Think quality drops, slower delivery, missed targets, etc.).
Connect ālack of alignmentā scores to productivity metrics.
Link ālack of recognitionā to cost of attrition of high performers
And so onā¦
We build a compelling case when the feelings align with the facts
So next time you're pitching a people initiative, ask yourself:
Whereās the objectivity?
Whereās the irrefutable proof?
Where are the numbers that scream āyou canāt ignore thisā even if they donāt feel the same way?
We move from āthis is how people feelā to āthis is the measurable business impact of how people feel.ā
Thatās when you start influencing decisions at the top. Thatās when your CEO starts listening.

No one says we canāt ā so why isnāt 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.
"Itās 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,
āWhy are you doing these?ā
She had her answers ready. Strong rationale. Clear logic. Real conviction. Her teamās 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:
āIf thatās the result youāre trying to drive, why isnāt that your HR team's measure of success?ā
She stared at me like Iād grown another head š².
There was a pause. Then the confusion landed.
"But⦠thatās the tech teamās key result."
Why shouldnāt HR co-own business metrics?
Because if weāre serious about being a strategic function ā if weāre truly enabling the business to succeed ā 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:
Revenue per employee
Speed to market
Customer retention
Feature release velocity
Sales cycle time
Team productivity
These arenāt āsomeone elseās metricsā. If our work impacts them, we should be measuring ourselves against them.
People performance IS business performance
If weāre rolling out a leadership programme, it should move the needle on delivery, not just tick the box on attendance.
If weāre investing in culture, it should show up in cross-functional execution and retention, not only in pulse scores.
If weāre improving onboarding, it should reduce time-to-productivity, not just raise satisfaction scores in week one.
HR doesnāt 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 ā but we measure in isolation. And thatās why we struggle to influence.
Our credibility gap comes from tracking what we control, not what we change.
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.
You can now āLISTENā to the newsletterIāve turned my newsletter into audio, voiced by AI podcasters. Itās in beta, so give it a listen and tell me what you think! | ![]() |
Scaling your start-up?
Letās make sure your leadership, people and org are ready. Here are 3 ways I can help:
š LinkedIn | š JooBeeās blog | š¤ Work with me