Is the criticism of HR in the article justified?
Yes and no! The quote in the article from Dona Roche-Tarry is fairly damning. She states the HR team should be equally responsible as they work alongside the CEO and MDs to recommend strategies for pay and bonuses. Whilst HR may work alongside the senior decision makers, they can only make recommendations. The ultimate decision and power lies with the CEO. However, another perspective could be that HR need to be influencers, and should be more efficient at managing upwards.
What are the main accusations being laid at the door of HR in this scenario in terms of its competence?
Not being responsive
Lack of knowledge
What are the implications for HR here in relation to professional ethics, integrity and confidentiality?
The main implication is being seen to be unethical to stakeholders. This could result in HR being seen as not communicating and could have a negative impact on how people perceive HR to be importance wise. Integrity is also damaged by not being seen to have provided a voice in relation to political equality.
How might HR been able to influence the situation more?
By managing relationships better across hierarchies, and also by forward planning, being market savvy, and risk management. Predicting the issues before they arose and either finding ways to avoid them or developing damage limitation scenarios and plans.
What other key behaviours from the CIPD’s HR professional map do you think are critical here for HR to display?
Courage to challenge
What learning can HR take away from this experience/situation?
The main learning is to be more responsive, and take more of an active role in discussions regarding important issues such as renumeration Being seen to consult stakeholders and provide senior stakeholders with a more accurate company and market view. Improved communication across all levels needs to be implemented.