So, for the two to work collaboratively, both should have equal weight and influence. For this reason, Liz Ryan suggests that professionals in the top HR spot should receive the same compensation as the CFO. After all, “Why would a company hesitate to pay its top people officer just what its top money officer is earning? Beats me -- unless the company doesn't value its people as much as it says it does.” Ryan writes.
Interestingly, according to Michael Page’s Salary Survey for 2007/2008, a CFO at an established company receives an annual salary of HK$ 1.5 - 3 million+ whereas the HR Director at a large company earns HK$ 1.4 million+.
This discrepancy demonstrates that:
• Firms are more interested in past harvest (apples) than in future earnings potential (apple tree roots),
• Firms value Finance’s oversight role on how and where dollars are spent more than HR’s role in talent management,
• Firms appreciate building a fiscally sound company (Finance) more than an organizationally sound company (HR),
• Finance departments are incapable of applying financial thinking to an area where value is largely intangible (HR) and therefore do not support a significant investment in the people officer position,
• HR departments are incapable of addressing the value that they create in financial terms and therefore cannot change its image of cost centers.
Yet, for both areas, there is a long way to go to be strategically significant; for HR to be able to create intangibles and for Finance to be able to grasp them in a future-oriented Intellectual Capital Balance Sheet.
No comments:
Post a Comment