Four Challenging Questions– “Issues for HR Committees”

Four Challenging Questions– “Issues for HR Committees”

The April 9 session of The Directors Series “Issues for the HR Committee” covered some new ground on the evolving role of Human Resource committees on board of directors.  There were some great questions that came in from participants - and limited time to do them justice.  Here are four themes from the remaining questions which caught my attention:

Please comment further on the potential for data analytics in the HR function.  What are some specific important applications and what questions should the HR committee be asking management about the use of analytics in general?

How deeply should the HR Committee get involved in leadership development matters? Are there some examples of how a good HR Committee can add value? 

Are there preferred ways for boards of government agencies and not-for-profits to adopt “pay for performance” compensation programs notwithstanding the sensitive political and stakeholder environments in which they operate?

Could Paul Cantor elaborate further on his approach to dividing the responsibility for HR matters between the HR Committee and management?  Would he draw the dividing line differently in different kinds or size of organization?

I’d love to hear thoughts from panelists, viewers and others about these questions – and will offer my own reflections in an upcoming posting.

To access the archived video of the April 9th Directors’ Series session please follow this link:

 

Ken Hugessen

CEO at Hugessen Consulting Inc.

8y

Thanks Heather - one question we were not able to get to during the session was the applicability of pay for performance concepts in the public sector and crown corporations, many of whom must operate under stringent cost and pay control programs It is difficult to generalize given the wide variety of constraints different employers must operate under - If individual pay levels are frozen, it will be difficult to change much - on the other hand, if the constraints are on payroll overall, then yes you can implement pay for performance but often only coincident with reducing staff - never fun. As with private companies, the key is the identification of measurable outcomes against which to assess and reward performance - and of course individual performance can be rewarded with the same tools - promotions, higher than average increases in pay, and higher bonus awards Part of the solution can be negotiating appropriate delegation of responsibility from the government in question to the governing board - as many crowns have shown, with a suitable delegation, the board can manage compensation similar to a private issuer - think of our large public pension funds - by delegating pay and staffing decisions to the board, who in turn can pay for performance, these funds are able to insource investment management expertise which has saved stakeholders large amounts of money as compared to their US counterparts, who are compelled, at least in part because of pay controls, to outsource the investment management function, which is much more expensive. But as I note above, every situation is different - you will need to assess how much flexibility you have (or can get through broader delegation) before determining to what extent you can apply pay for performance principles - if you are successful, the benefits can be substantial, as our world beating public pension fund industry clearly shows

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Explore topics