The paradigms in your article reflect the typical business arena where the hierarchy of the office, CEO to Worker also matches the distribution of money. As you put it, the more responsibility, the more pay.
Interestingly, the sports world, does not operate in this type of hierarchy. In most cases, the person with the most accountability, the coach, is paid less than the team's key contributors. In the sports world model, the money goes to those whose skills contribute the most to the team's success. Granted, the number of players on a team is significantly lower than a typical office, however, what if the business world adopted a similar strategy?
It's time to re-examine the bonds of what I consider to be outdated 'norms' for managing people within a company. Why should there be artificial limits on merit increases or on how many levels one can be promoted in a single year? Could compensation be better tied to individual contributions to the bottom line, thus providing better motivation to workers? Perhaps it's time for leadership to examine the role of HR and change it's focus from preventing risk to the company to actually managing Human capital to motivate people to perform.
That's a great point about the difference between business and the sports world for compensation strategies. We can probably throw in the compensation dynamics of the entertainment industry. The more popular the entertainer, the more pay. I think sometimes that popularity factor spills over into business for public companies too. Some leaders are more like celebrities than organizational leaders.
I also like your insights about the changing focus of HR from risk mitigation to human empowerment. It reminds me of a time while waiting at a stop for public transit when I observed two people arguing about the role of HR. One's stance was risk mitigation and the other was about maximizing human potential.
The paradigms in your article reflect the typical business arena where the hierarchy of the office, CEO to Worker also matches the distribution of money. As you put it, the more responsibility, the more pay.
Interestingly, the sports world, does not operate in this type of hierarchy. In most cases, the person with the most accountability, the coach, is paid less than the team's key contributors. In the sports world model, the money goes to those whose skills contribute the most to the team's success. Granted, the number of players on a team is significantly lower than a typical office, however, what if the business world adopted a similar strategy?
It's time to re-examine the bonds of what I consider to be outdated 'norms' for managing people within a company. Why should there be artificial limits on merit increases or on how many levels one can be promoted in a single year? Could compensation be better tied to individual contributions to the bottom line, thus providing better motivation to workers? Perhaps it's time for leadership to examine the role of HR and change it's focus from preventing risk to the company to actually managing Human capital to motivate people to perform.
That's a great point about the difference between business and the sports world for compensation strategies. We can probably throw in the compensation dynamics of the entertainment industry. The more popular the entertainer, the more pay. I think sometimes that popularity factor spills over into business for public companies too. Some leaders are more like celebrities than organizational leaders.
I also like your insights about the changing focus of HR from risk mitigation to human empowerment. It reminds me of a time while waiting at a stop for public transit when I observed two people arguing about the role of HR. One's stance was risk mitigation and the other was about maximizing human potential.
Thanks for the feedback.