Abstract
M Com (Human Resources Management)
The aim of this study was to explore and describe foundational assumptions in
selection of human capital metrics, unpacked within three broad categories of
meaning, namely: why?, what?, and how? we measure human capital.
A literature study was conducted to demystify conceptual elements and to report on
the status quo. A modernist qualitative research methodology, with purposive and
snowball sampling to recruit a limited number of practitioner experts in the field of HC
and HC measurement in South Africa, was employed. With the aid of computerised
qualitative data analysis software, thematic analysis was inductively applied to data
generated during unstructured, in-depth interviews.
Twenty-four assumptions found and positioned within the three broad categories of
meaning (why?, what?, and how?) provide some understanding of selection in
human capital metrics. Significant clusters of findings are: the supply of decisionlevel
specific human capital information (which originated heuristically and
inferentially), the limited value attached by senior managers to transactional and
compliance information, the systemic integration (vertical and horizontal) of the
business strategy into the business value chain, supported by multiple and parallel
value chains, and an emerging measurement framework within HR. These clusters
are representative of two emerging and overarching paradigms, namely: the current
and entrenched Performance Measurement Paradigm (transactional), and the
aspiration towards the fruition of a Human Capital Contribution Paradigm.
It is clear from this study that there is still conceptual confusion regarding the terms
human capital and metrics as presented in literature and understood and applied in
practice. Recommendations are offered to eradicate conceptual confusion and to
assist HR in moving towards a Human Capital Contribution paradigm.