Best practices for headcount reporting : future workforce planning efforts must systematically account for alternative worker types

Headcount reporting is supposed to be a simple counting process with a tangible outcome. However, counting the "number of people a business employs on a global basis" is not as straightforward as it should be. In one recent case, a corporate human resources (HR) report showed that the company's global workforce was comprised of 4,100 persons, while a tabulation across business units came to 3,570, and a finance report showed 4,320 persons. While all were arithmetically correct and tabulated for the same day, each report adopted a different construct. The HR report counted full-time employees, temporary workers who replaced full-time workers on leave, and part-time employees. The business units reported only full-time workers, and the finance report was based on full-time workers, part-time workers, temporary workers, and contractors. Above and beyond these tabulations, the budgeting headcount was 4,000, and the workforce planning number for the comparable period of the previous year was 3,915. An objective observer could say these counts are technically all correct. A frustrated executive would say there should be one, and only one, answer. This article explores why headcount reporting problems exist and will likely worsen, especially for multinational companies, unless improved workforce planning frameworks are implemented.