Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘talent’

So…let me rant….Generation Xers you are beginning to sound like Boomers! And the volume has gotten a lot louder this past week with the Jay Leno vs. Conan O’Brien fiasco.

You know…to borrow text from Steve Boese @HR Technology “Leno is just a few months shy of 60, placing him squarely in the Baby Boom generation…O’Brien is 46, and could be considered at the upper end of Gen X, and after waiting patiently for his chance (to be fair, one that was promised to him) at the ‘big job’ suddenly finds himself getting squeezed by a Boomer that won’t retire. Steve goes on to describe Jay Leno as a “long-tenured Boomer with the plum job that he can’t or won’t let go” though he does acknowledge that Jay “has a track record of success (Leno was regularly the ratings leader in his old time slot)” and Conan is described as “talented, yet frustrated Gen X dude waiting in the wings eager for his chance.” In another blog, the lament focused on the guarantee that NBC gave to Conan back in 2003 to keep him from jumping ship to ABC and how it wasn’t fair that Leno wouldn’t move over.

I am struck by similarities between the whining I often hear from Boomers (and I am a Boomer) about how “the man” reneged on guarantees of lifetime employment, inflation-adjusted wage increases, and retirement benefits, and Gen Xers complaining about fairness and Boomers not moving over. And my response to both groups is “there are NO guarantees” of anything, ever! (they are illusions that we bought into) so get over it and make a life.

And can we have the real conversation about talent…who is the best person for the role, who gets results, how do we attract and retain that best talent, and how do we plan for talent transition…irrespective of race, gender, age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation?

Read Full Post »

Most of us are aware of the public outrage over big Wall Street bonuses being paid out especially in light of Wall Street’s contribution to the financial collapse last year. Given this year’s theme of “Bold” and “Courage”, I wonder what HR’s role could be in 2010 in creating the strategies and influencing the structure of executive compensation plans.

My experience is we are often called upon to provide the important work of administering executive compensation – working with external executive compensation vendors to develop compensation models, massaging (in the best sense of the word) the data so that it translates to the goals/outcomes of our businesses, presenting the output to our senior HR leadership and possibly to the Board of Directors and then administering the plans once approved.

So if we claimed “Bold” and ” Courage”, what would our role look like? Would we move beyond the important work of administration? What does true leadership look like? Can we (HR) define the big hairy audacious goals (BHAGs) for executive compensation? Are we equipped – we know the business, how it makes money and grows profitability, its strategy and its current objectives; the compensation levers; the talent we want to incent and retain; and the impact of plan design on achieving both short-term and long-term objectives? Are we willing to go head-to-head with those who would exclusively craft short-term focused executive compensation plans (usually in the name of keeping certain talent) that often do not serve the business and its long term profitability goals?

There are many more questions…and I am aware that the time for questions is quickly passing as we (HR) need to quickly get in front of this one. I am calling myself and all HR professionals to stand in the space of “Bold” and “Courage”, as we move forward on this very important business lever.

Your thoughts?

Read Full Post »

So I reread the Fast Company article from December 19, 2007 on Why We Hate HR by Keith H. Hammonds. The article had the same effect on me today as it did back in 2007 – felt like a smack upside the head! It is clear that Keith does not like HR and he lays out pretty damming arguments of why we [HR] suck! What hit me the hardest is his contention that “after close to 20 years of hopeful rhetoric about becoming ‘strategic partners’ with a ‘seat at the table’ where the business decisions that matter are made, most human-resources professionals aren’t nearly there. They [HR] have no seat, and the table is locked inside a conference room to which they [HR] have no key. HR people are, for most practical purposes, neither strategic nor leaders.

POW! to the right and left of the head!

He argues that:

  • The HR profession does not attract and keep top talent.
  • “HR represents a relatively low-risk parking spot.”
  • HR professionals aren’t “interested in, or equipped for doing [the real work of ] business.”
  • HR delivers the “administrivia” [of payroll, benefits, hiring, compensation, learning & development] because it is easier.
  • HR doesn’t understand any approach to policy beyond one-size-fits-all.
  • HR’s goal is sameness [compliance] vs. delivering long-term business value [talent].
  • HR can bring “strong technical expertise to the party” but no/little understanding of business strategy and how HR drives that strategy.

So I am sitting here looking at the list of arguments and feeling angry at us [HR] – we have not built The Case for HR! In many cases, we [HR] have defaulted on the opportunity for delivering competitive advantage to the business “through the lens of people and talent” and instead, have provided compelling evidence for Keith’s complaints against HR.

So I am back to the original invitation to a conversation. I know that we [HR] are smart, capable of delivering short-term/long-term business value, and understanding/engaging/delivering on the business strategy of talent! And I am confident that we [HR] refuse to be “stuck” in the box of “Why We Hate HR.”

Read Full Post »