Absolutely correct. Equally, absolutely stupid.

Think Teresa says it all!

Blunt and to the point. Rude. But as said the substance is correct.

He is the CEO but not much of a leader.

Hi Blair

This (IMHO pretty arrogant) statement is it seems to me wrong as regards the ‘none of your business’ assertion: in that it appears to ignore / deny the existence of any corporate governance.

A CEO usually of course does have responsibility to run the company, but for example if it really is a limited company, that will be on behalf of the Bosrd of Directors of that company, and ultimately on behalf of its shareholders.

It’s a bit like the captain of a ship - for example if the captain of the Concordia is running the vessel corporate and all who sail in her onto the rocks, then of course it’s your responsibility. Or if you find out that the captain is acting unlawfully then it’s your responsibility also to bring them to justice.

None of us are omnipotent Gods ( even if some CEOs might think and act as if they are ).

In reply to David:

I agree that at the extremes there are occasions when things need to be escalated but I would suggest these are pretty rare and in the normal run of things it is far more about opinion and judgement and on those occasions support functions are there to give their professional judgement and advice but the CEO is there to make any decisions under the power delegated to him /her by the Board / Owner.

We indeed as professionals under our codes and professional responsibility have an obligation to shout out very loudly when the captain is steering the ship onto the rocks. But if the Captain is choosing to steer a route we simply do not like or one where we would prefer to go a different sunnier route then we should make our representations, advise, recommend and try and persuade but ultimately its the Captains decision (depending on the corporate governance) to choose the most appropriate route - there is rarely just one.

I think in this example its about a lack of any respect for the HR function and any understanding or appreciation about what a proper people strategy well executed can do for the business. Its also potentially about an arrogant or not connected HR function failing to understand the direction of the business and failing to help move the business in that direction. The CEOs comments speak from frustration for me as well as arrogance.

Would depend on the context and whether any other qualifying remarks exist.

For example, HR may recommend a different solution to those preferred by finance and IT teams; the CEO then has to make a decision as to the way he will go which could be any of the suggestions, a compromise or none of them. In this situation, it is clearly his call and no-one else's. That is what makes a CEOs job much more complicated than many others - part of his jobis to choose solution that will globally be better for the company, even if they go against the grain of the interst of particular departments or actors - there is rarely a black and white "right" solution when it come to the CEO's decisions

We lack context of course.  

The bit I object to is:- "Whether or not I take your advice is none of your business as I run the company, not you."  

Again depending on how it was said, I know my wife would have said something directly to him and told him that she didn't like the way she was spoken to.  When I was scaffolding  I knew quite a few lads who would quite happily have given the CEO a black eye  - at least!  But really it depends on the cirumstances.

I ran an outdoor centre but whilst I can't remember a similar occasion I certainly would have said the some thing had I been given repeated 'instructions' from one of the staff on what dto do and how to do it.  I'd hope that I'd have the good manners not to say it such a rude manner..

I don't think it is HR's job, or anyone else's to tell the CEO what they should or should do.  I think it is HR's job to advise the CEO of the choices and possible outcomes of any particular decision.   I know sometimes I've given advice to the CEO where the riskier choice , but more financially lucrative one, was  the chosen even though I personally wouldn't have risked it.  And not a few times have I suggested routes I would take which were riskier were rejected for reasons which I was informed about and couldn't have taken them into consideration.  

But that is the point.  He/she was the CEO - not me! 

Running a business isn't about staying safe.  Sometimes its about taking great risks (or opportunities ?) and that is often not something many HR departments like doing.  Hence the kind of advice we often  give is; "Don't do this there is the possibility you may end up in court", even when the probability is  extremely unlikely.  As an example, it now seems normal practice to avoid anything else than tombstone references, although I can only remember one case where a company faced civil action over a reference, and even that was an FSA company where there are specific rules around giving references.

Not in fact quite so simple.

The CEO, like the HR Manager, is an employee of the company. The company being a separate "entity" created and owned by its shareholders. Therefore both CEO and HR Manager are duty-bound to serve its interests. (Even if the CEO holds all the shares).

On that basis there is a point at which, if the HRM is convinced the CEO is making a decision which is against the company's interests and will ultimately cause it harm (lets say something like choosing not to employ women in senior roles) they must say: "No".

Having offered the necessary explanation, if the CEO persists, thy will either be dismissed, must resign as constructively dismissed, or may submit the matter to legal authority as of Public Interest (if they deem it to be so).

Either way, the resolution is a matter for decision at law, where the CEO's decision will be assessed in the context of its authority over the HR standpoint, and (if found wrong) then based upon that outcome will undoubtedly also be considered at the next shareholder's meeting.

As professionals we accept on obligation to act on our duties both to our employer (the business, not the person running it) and to our CoC. There are some lines we therefore cannot cross, some positions we cannot compromise, relying upon the law that demands that position to also defend us in our defiance.

...and hopefully our professional body to (one day) also support us practically in our defence, if needed, with more than a 15-minuter phone conversation (as do TUs)

But meanwhile we can rely on our "Community" here to offer at least some support, without limit :-)

P

I disagree that is 'isn't any of HR's business', as if the CEO is making a decision that is illegal/un-ethical/ damaging then it could be very much their business.

I imagine we have all had occasions when the CEO/ MD/ management have gone against our advice and that is part of the course. However the tone of this (and obviously we don't know the context) sounds particularly dismissive.

In reply to Teresa:

Love this reply. I think you nailed it.

Blair - whats your view? Where did the question come from? Some background now you have had a few comments would be helpful to all I am sure

It depends on the scenario. The Response of the CEO seems to be coming out from a frustration. It could be that the HR function is not providing solutions that are adding value to the business and not being understanding.
Another way the scenario could be looked at, is that the CEO has a big ego basically and does not respect the HR function. Either way, everyone needs to be respected and the level of response from a CEO level is not acceptable nor appreciated. If I am the HR Manager in that company, I would run away from that type of environment (no respect for people, and people opinions and voice are not heard).

I largely agree with David. However if this CEO thinks he runs the company he is wrong. Self employed one man bands run the company he has a community of staff that run it. HR has a contribution to make, not least of all avoiding legal action. mentally my response would be, I handle the human resources of this company you just make decisions and take the glory. I would handle him or her as any other employee, with respect and gentle nudging. Offer advice, ask them to share their decisions and how they used or ignored your advice, reflect back to them the impact of this, repeat. essentially maintain your professionalism and gently coach them. Seems the ego of this CEO needs to believe they are the most important, that's a them issue. It may also be a company issue and so keep looking for other opportunities whilst doing your role well.

Nothing 'simple' about advising a CEO (particularly one with that attitude), - 'advising' is about influencing and convincing. A key role of an effective HR professional is to be able to create the case for why we are advising the solution being presented and to do that in a compelling way. Good leaders will quickly see that a strong people strategy is essential to their success when they are trying to 'run the company' and the passion of their people expert is something to nurture and partner with, not to dismiss. However, if the CEO still decides he wants to be his own HR expert then in the end we are all CEO of our own career and that is our business not his.

Some very interesting responses here - thanks all for your input.

My initial thoughts were a mix of both - ultimately he is the CEO and he has the final say, but why employ HR experts to manage the HR functionality of the business if you aren't going to take their advice on HR matters into consideration?

The issue was (being vague here as not to share internal information readily on the internet for all to see) an issue arose which HR strongly insisted the company could not continue on the current plan of action as was a blatant breach of direct discrimination legislation and were opening ourselves right up for a tribunal claim.

I will admit that on this occasion HR were being stubborn on this (as opposed to usually, trying to influence, persuade and negotiate and then accepting if a different course of action was taken) which did increase frustration from the CEO, but this isn't typical in day to day.