PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the key ingredients that people analytics teams require to contribute to organizational performance. As the information that is currently available is fragmented, it is difficult for organizations to understand what it takes to execute people analytics successfully.Design/methodology/approachTo identify the key ingredients, a narrative literature review was conducted using both traditional people analytics and broader business intelligence literature. The findings were summarized in the People Analytics Effectiveness Wheel.FindingsThe People Analytics Effectiveness Wheel identifies four categories of ingredients that a people analytics team requires to be effective. These are enabling resources, products, stakeholder management and governance structure. Under each category, multiple sub-themes are discussed, such as data and infrastructure; senior management support; and knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) (enablers).Practical implicationsMany organizations are still trying to set up their people analytics teams, and many others are struggling to improve decision-making by using people analytics. For these companies, this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current literature and describes what it takes to contribute to organizational performance using people analytics.Originality/valueThis paper is designed to provide organizations and researchers with a comprehensive understanding of what it takes to execute people analytics successfully. By using the People Analytics Effectiveness Wheel as a guideline, scholars are now better equipped to research the processes that are required for the ingredients to be truly effective.

Purpose This study aims to examine the relationship between the agile way of working and team performance and engagement. Furthermore, psychological safety climate was investigated as a mediator of this relationship. As organizations are increasingly adopting the agile way of working method beyond the information technology (IT) setting, the authors researched its effects in teams across a variety of functional domains. Design/methodology/approach Survey data was collected from 97 agile teams working in various functional domains in a multinational bank. The data was analyzed using structural equation modeling. Findings Results indicated that the agile way of working is directly and positively related to team engagement and performance. Moreover, psychological safety climate acted as a partial mediator of each of the respective outcomes. Originality/value This study illustrated that the agile way of working is beneficial for teams beyond the IT setting, as it is positively associated with psychological safety climate, engagement and performance across functional domains.

While it is generally assumed that employees who feel well are also productive, research has shown that this is not always the case. Specifically, some employees seem to experience low well-being while performing, and vice versa. As employee well-being and performance are both required to achieve corporate sustainability, the purpose of this research was to identify energy-related well-being/job performance profiles among 5729 employees from the Dutch division of a large bank and identify their antecedents. Using latent profile analysis, we found five profiles: 1. low well-being/low performance, 2. low well-being/medium performance, 3. high well-being/medium performance, 4. high well-being/high performance, and 5. high well-being/top performance. Using multinomial regression, we found that more learning and development opportunities, more social support from colleagues, more autonomy, and less role-conflict were related to the high well-being profiles. Second, more role clarity, more performance feedback, more autonomy, and less work-pressure were related to the high- and top-performance profiles. Finally, communication and social support from the manager were found to be relatively weak antecedents of the different profiles. This study thus highlights that the job demands and resources of employees may affect their well-being and performance.