UnPlugged

Over the last 30 years, CEO compensation has been one of the most debated topics in the business press. Much of this discussion has focused the ‘excessive’ levels of CEO compensation and the allegedly weak relation between CEO pay and corporate performance. The consensus view of critics is that the compensation is broken: boards are ineffective and not independent of management, and pay is both too high and disconnected from performance. If the CEO compensation system were guilty as charged, then firms would be able to reap huge gains by providing CEOs with more modest compensation packages featuring sharp incentives to improve performance. I believe that that this consensus view is enticing but has one annoying drawback -it is fundamentally incorrect. In fact, the consensus perspective may itself have contributed to one of problems it bemoans, the high monetary value of CEO compensation packages.

It goes without saying that significant corporate changes require skilled management to co-ordinate and oversee the alterations to a business. The way in which an organisation changes is secondary to how competent employees perceive management to be. We offer our guidance to HR managers on how to support leaders to develop the right skills to manage change. Poor leadership, for example, can mean an absence of hope and a lack of trust in the management team. Once this trust is lost, it’s difficult to re-establish that connection with employees.

I have worked in this space for many years now and have seen many changes for the better. There is no doubt that we have come a long way since the Dagenham machinists had to strike for the right to the same pay as their male colleagues. Businesses are now taking their responsibility much more seriously than before and many have auditable processes in place.

There’s been plenty of research to show that levels of employee engagement in the UK are alarmingly low. The government has even set up a taskforce of HR experts to look into this important issue. Many businesses already appreciate the link between rewards and benefits and employee engagement; one in four employers we surveyed rated benefits and rewards as a key driver in engaging workers in their organisation. The recent industry research outlined by Employee Benefits magazine (in their 2011 Benefits Book) reflects this, naming staff engagement and appreciation as key priorities for employers.

Employment regulation v job creation and growth? The ‘red tape’ debate has sprung into life again. On the one hand, there are question marks over why the Equalities Act 2010 is featuring on the government’s ‘Red Tape Challenge’ website. At the same time, controversy is rife over the CIPD’s recent report, The Economic Rights and Wrongs of Employment Regulation, which states that ‘the idea that employment regulation is always and everywhere “bad” – and deregulation therefore correspondingly “good” – is as simplistic as the opposite idea that regulation is always the best way to promote job creation or boost workplace productivity’.

Very few people would suggest that the procurement of HR software is straightforward or without hiccups. A greater proportion would be likely to say that there are usually a number of hurdles to overcome before considerable progress can be made. But given that procurement usually represents a significant investment for any company – even more so perhaps when budgets and financial expenditure are being scrutinised – it’s important that every possible step is taken to ensure challenges are turned into opportunities, and the process is managed as effectively as possible.

Bringing in an interim manager, as part of your management team may be an option when you have considered the following:

It’s estimated that only 10%-30% of training is ever used by staff in the workplace. This poses an interesting challenge. L&D professionals have a key role to play in ensuring that as much learning as possible is retained, and more importantly, applied in the workplace, to ensure ROI is delivered and the business case for learning continues to resonate. So what's the most efficient and effective way to maximise the transfer of learning into usage in the workplace?

OK – let’s get one thing straight. The Court of Appeal did NOT say that Sharon Shoesmith was ‘unfairly dismissed’ as has been reported by various media sources. This high-profile case was nothing to do with ‘unfair dismissal’ in the sense that HR knows it.

The Bribery Act prohibits a number of offences, including paying bribes, receiving bribes and, controversially, failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery. This last offence is likely to have a real impact on you, as it relates to internal governance – a company convicted of failing to prevent bribery could receive an unlimited fine. To avoid strict corporate liability, organisations need to demonstrate that they have ‘adequate procedures’ in place designed to prevent the bribery in their organisation.

The UK witnessed the pinnacle of the banker-bashing season last year, and 2011 is showing all the signs of heralding the opening season for the new sport of union bashing. The Industrial Relations (Voting Procedures) Bill, recently rejected by Parliament, is an interesting case in point.

Over many years HR’s role in organisations has changed with many practitioners becoming ‘business partners’ and ‘advisers’ with more and more responsibilities being transferred down the line to managers. This in many ways may well be a good idea but some issues struggle to be addressed in this approach. Disability issues often suffer because addressing these seems to be challenging for many managers and perceptions play a big part in how they are addressed. Also it can mean that the wider issues about managing disability at a strategic level don’t really get resolved.

Buy off-the-shelf, build from new or take the middle road and customize existing content? That is the question facing many organisations looking to use competency models today. There are advantages to each approach and in some cases the route taken will be dictated by how unique the competencies are to the organisation, how much budget is available and how quickly the project needs to be delivered.

There have been some eye-catching reports recently of cases in the area of defining what amounts to a ‘philosophical belief’. The reason that this is of interest is due to the fact that under current law, now contained in the Equality Act 2010, people have protection against suffering from discrimination on the grounds of their ‘philosophical belief’.

There’s always a sense of putting on the kid gloves when addressing any employment-related issue with employees who are pregnant or on maternity leave! In most instances, that approach is absolutely the right one, as there is a high degree of protection relating to maternity and pregnancy in the workplace. It is often commented that the protection afforded to employees in this position is disproportionate, and can be seen to overly favour pregnant employees to the detriment of male employees.

Robust sickness absence reporting procedures will be key if the proposed annual leave carry over provisions are enacted. Unscrupulous employees may try to defer annual leave by falsely claiming sickness while on holiday. Employers should therefore require notification of sickness as soon as possible. Even when the employee is out of the country on holiday, the employer might insist they call their manager and provide them with a copy of a fit note or the equivalent, as evidence of illness.

The PAYE treatment of post termination payments has changed. Before 6 April 2011, if a termination payment was made after the termination date and the issue of the P45 and was taxable (that is, it didn’t fall within the £30,000 exemption), then the employer had to use the BR tax code for PAYE purposes.

Another spate of top executive pay disclosures in global businesses and of less than impressive results reinforces yet again the complete lack of any really effective link between pay and performance at the top of global organisations.  This time it’s Goldman Sachs, but they are not alone.

Despite the fact that 1 in 6 workers experience a mental health problem, in many workplaces mental health can be seen as an ‘add on’ that only rears its head when there is a problem with sickness absence, discrimination or grievance proceedings.

The latest youth unemployment figures showed that nearly 1 million 16 to 25-year-olds are out of work, a record high for the UK. The government maintains that there are 500,000 recorded vacancies in the economy. This must surely mean that the UK has a skills problem!