I am of the view ‘Compensation’ is a counter productive term. With effective job matching of employees’ talents and temperament with the duties and conditions of the job there can be high intrinsic value in almost any job, and engaged employees. So why 'compensate?
a formal performance review process is still critical to organization effectiveness, but maybe not for everyone, especially if pay is not linked to performance
Performance reviews of the CEO by his/her chair, especially under 'Carver' governance rules, is often flawed in at least two ways: First, the performance of the ED often is undifferentiated from the performance of the agency as a whole. Second, the adequacy of the information upon which a judgment must be based.
Despite the criticism of the annual performance review ritual, employees still want to know, on the record, where they stand. [...]
For years, performance reviews have been criticized. There is a current movement in the literature decrying the annual performance review ritual as archaic and ineffective, irrelevant, and possibly even counterproductive . This despite the fact that employees frequently report in surveys that they lack adequate feedback on their performance and behaviour. And it's unfortunate. Because the annual performance review is a key event in the ongoing cycle of managing expectations. It comprises four components: ...
Employment and societal prospects darken in 2011.
Careerists should do their own succession planning and find their own replacements. Evaluate their immediate team and provide development assignments and coaching.
HR as a strategic partner by being the champion of employee engagement
HR as a strategic member of the executive team.
Managers only need HR Professionals because they themselves are imperfect in managing people and need advice and guidance.