• Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 8 subscribers
  • Views 13378 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

"HR pays well" they said... but what constitutes "well"?

Maria

Hello everyone,

I have recently learnt a curious fact, that you can look up anyone's salary freely in Norway to ensure an absolute tax and reward transparency. Whereas in the UK the topic of pay has always had a tinge of controversy, coupled with being mildly squirmish when asked about own pay. 

My angle on this is a little different. I have seen people on this forum say different things, such as "HR pays well" or "Well, we're obviously not in it for the money..." 

... which brings my question. What constitutes "well" for you (in the UK)? I know there will be regional discrepancies, but overall, what would you say is a good salary for an entry, mid and senior level HR professional? Is it £20k, £30k, £100k?

I wish I could make this into bands and put in into anonymous survey mode!

Parents
  • Surely, as HR professionals, we should be the first to understand that a truly good compensation package is about a great deal more than the number at the bottom right of the payslip.

    HR is well rewarded if:

    1. We get to do a job we enjoy and which gives us satisfaction.
    2. We feel our advice is valued and we contribute meaningfully to the success of our organization.
    3. We have a sense of personal control over our workload.
    4. We have opportunties to learn and develop.
    5. Our work aligns with our personal values and aspirations.
    6. We have enough time not working in which to build relationships and enjoy experiences.
    7. We can pay our bills and plan for the future.

    Only one of those has anything to do with the number on the payslip.
  • in reply to Robey
    Wholly agree with you Robey. One of my hobby-horses is making sure that management and staff are aware of the totality of their package : cash elements, benefits (soft and hard) working environment, career opportunities..... Provided the cash elements are comfortably (but not excessively positioned) the factors that deliver retention are to be found in these other areas. Let's not forget that companies like Google and Microsoft pay fairly low salaries, but people are queueing up to work for them because of the working environment.
    Total Reward Management is seriously uder-utilised by companies and by HR so they rarely extract the maximul from the packages they choose to offer
  • in reply to Ray
    because of the working environment

    Eh. From those I've spoken to, it's more because it's seen as a mark of excellence on a CV to have these names on it. Google, especially, is struggling because it recruits high-quality talent and then can't retain it because, once the employee has the professional "scalp" of Google they immediately begin planning their next career step.

    I gather than Microsoft has done a lot better in recent years by abandoning trendy Silicon Valley culture and being more data-led.
  • in reply to Robey
    Indeed Robey, but remember that the modestly paid Google/Microsoft model accepts high turnover of people - it also benefits from fresh ideas and views cycling in and out of the organisation on a regular basis.
    The exceptions to this treatment are for those mega-talents with clearly identified potential to add major value. For this latter group little or no expense is spared in efforts to retain them. Consequently - from their point of view - not retaining ambitious people who are not in the "added-value/mega-talent" category is not a problem....
    Of course this voluntarily chosen model is relevant to Google/MS context and should not be blindly copied as (shock, horror) "best practice" - it is simply "best fit" for them in the context they face today :-)
Reply
  • in reply to Robey
    Indeed Robey, but remember that the modestly paid Google/Microsoft model accepts high turnover of people - it also benefits from fresh ideas and views cycling in and out of the organisation on a regular basis.
    The exceptions to this treatment are for those mega-talents with clearly identified potential to add major value. For this latter group little or no expense is spared in efforts to retain them. Consequently - from their point of view - not retaining ambitious people who are not in the "added-value/mega-talent" category is not a problem....
    Of course this voluntarily chosen model is relevant to Google/MS context and should not be blindly copied as (shock, horror) "best practice" - it is simply "best fit" for them in the context they face today :-)
Children
No Data