tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8277129101242163417.post621129986634191529..comments2023-08-15T14:02:11.053+01:00Comments on Graeme Martin's HR and People Management Blog: Corporate Reputations, Executive Pay and Shaping the Future of HRGraeme's HR Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14734917634350985679noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8277129101242163417.post-87644580899176338462009-03-24T14:02:00.000+00:002009-03-24T14:02:00.000+00:00Yes, CV, I agree that this is the typical view of ...Yes, CV, I agree that this is the typical view of HR, but it does differ from country to country, sector to sector and firm to firm. For example, having taught/ worked in both the US and UK, I find that HR is treated more seriously in the latter, partly because of a greater need and partly because the professional institution, the CIPD, has helped it raise its status more than SHRM. Also in sectors such as public sector organizations such as healthcare in the UK and labour intensive industries such as vehicle manufacture and retailing, HR is a main board appointment. I guess the work I've been doing for the CIPD in particular is about HR raising its game and making an impact in strategically important areas such as company reputations/governance, so it is more of an aspiration for some (but a reality for others). For example, I'm working with two groups of HR people just now, some of whom are main board directors. That's the reason I've written the chapter on HR and governance and what underlies most of the reputation stuff I've been banging on about.<BR/><BR/>The second comment you make is spot on as far as I'm concerned, especially in the US where average workers salaries have really been hit by comparison to highly paid over the last twnety years and, indeed, in absolute terms (so the stats tell us).<BR/><BR/>Need to meet up at the AOMGraeme's HR Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734917634350985679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8277129101242163417.post-31082315855670935562009-03-23T21:18:00.000+00:002009-03-23T21:18:00.000+00:00Graeme, This question about why HR has been relati...Graeme, <BR/><BR/>This question about why HR has been relatively silent about fairness issues related to executive vs. rank & file employees' compensation made me question some of the assumptions I have about HR as a discipline and a function. <BR/><BR/>My perception is that HR is (still) viewed as applicable to regular employees but not to C-suite executives. While executive evaluation and pay is assessed by the Board and the Exec Compensation Committee (if there is one), HR is for "everyone else". <BR/><BR/>And, there is no expectation that HR has any oversight or influence on either the Board's decisions or the executives' decisions. Even when HR professionals and scholars argue for Strategic HR, it still means bringing HR to the table as a partner in developing and executing firm strategy, and not necessarily engaging HR in any analysis and planning around executive behavior.<BR/><BR/>If this assumption is true at all, then the economic crisis is showing us some important gaps in how we think about what HR can and should be doing... And maybe the next step is for HR advocates proactively to broaden their circle of concern and to make this part of their 'strategic' purview. Maybe it speaks to a need for more wholesale rather than incremental re-imagining of HR? <BR/><BR/>Also, I always find the calculation of how many 'regular' workers could remain employed for the same cost as the CEO's bonus to be compelling. Even more than the ration between the lowest paid and highest paid workers, the job (1) for jobS (many) comparison seems to hit home. Especially now, when we know some of those folks at the plant whose jobs could have been spared if funds were allocated more rationally (e.g., reinvested rather than paid as exec bonuses) or if a sense of fairness characterized the business itself.CVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01877880737628874481noreply@blogger.com