Financial status and rewards in most organizations are based on the types of jobs people do. This approach is based on the assumption that job worth can be determined and that the person doing the job is worth only as much as the job itself is worth….
It is not clear that the worth of people can be equated with the worth of their job. This approach clearly does not fit with a company that depends on people for its competitive advantage. The alternative that is being increasingly adopted is person-based pay. It bases pay on each individual’s skills and competencies.
Great perspective from Tom Peters on HR, once again from Re-Imagine!: Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age (pp 256-257; as before, all the punctuation like the “…” is his, with the exception of any brackets):
I have long believed that human resources people should sit at the Head Table. I’m a fan of “HR.” It is … after all … an age of talent.
Problem [big problem, IMO]: All too often “HR folks” are viewed (all too) correctly as “mechanics.” Not as … Master Architects … who aim to … Quarterback the Great War for Talent.
I’ve devoted my career to the “people thing.” I desperately want “HR” to “WIN.”
Why doesn’t it happen?
Simple: A FAILURE OF IMAGINATION.
I wasn’t born yesterday. I understand there are thousands upon thousands of pages of petty laws and regulations that HR “must administer.” But that still does not excuse HR from … Re-imagining itself.
As … THE … leaders. [I don't know if I would go that far.]
So work to “deserve it.” [There's a stunning indictment.]
His next point is “Forge a Bold HR Strategy!,” where he goes on to say:
If you work for a big company, it no doubt has a “strategic plan,” a voluminous document that is the offspring of ceaseless deliberation.
Question: HOW BIG A “CHAPTER” (AND WHICH CHAPTER?) OF THAT “STRATEGIC PLAN” IS DEVOTED … EXPLICITLY … TO THE “HR STRATEGY”?
Maybe I’m out of touch. But most “strategic plans” I’ve seen don’t even have an “HR Strategy.”
There needs to be one.
Our “strategic approach” to tackling the “talent thing” is more important than our market analysis. (Or surely as important, eh?) (Forget that: MORE IMPORTANT!)
HR … I … WANT YOU … at … the … Head Table.