What HR Wants to Do: Not Compensation & Benefits

Sharlyn Lauby, author of HR Bartender - one of my favorite HR blogs - has been conducting a couple of surveys over the past few months, asking her HR colleagues what they currently do and also what they want to do in their jobs.

The results of the surveys, discussed by Sharlyn in a post earlier this week, are presented side by side below (click for a pop-up window showing the charts):

 

Interesting, is it not?

What's going on here?  A number of things, it would seem.  Currently HR pros are spending the lion's share of their time on employee relations.  This may not be surprising, as Sharlyn notes, given the level of employee frustration and disengagement today.  Far less time is currently being spent on compensation and benefits, staffing and recruitment, and training and development - the former, for many, probably continued investment in figuring how how to do more with less.

What would HR like to be working on?  Clearly, training and development.  And very, very clearly - not compensation and benefits.  I was struck by the contrast between the "does" and "wants to do" green bars.  I mean, few of my own generalist colleagues and clients love compensation and benefits work, but I wasn't prepared for it to make this poor a showing.

Sharlyn's take, in an exchange we had about the results: it isn't that pros dislike rewards, but they would rather just spend time on the essence of it.  This makes sense to me.  Most of the HR people I know will get engaged in a discussion about reward philosophy and the question of linking pay to performance.  For many, though, their eyes glaze over when conversation turns to the details of the pricing, modeling and analytical work that underlies the design and management of most reward programs.

What's your take on these findings?  What do they reveal about HR pros and their attitude about employee rewards?  Is there an issue here that should concern us - or not?  And, if there is, what do we do about it?

Thanks, Sharlyn, for stirring the pot!

Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of the Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and is a bookhound and aspiring cook in her spare time.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

 

Comments

[Dan Walter]

WOW. I expected a disconnect, but not a complete break. This seemingly explain a lot about why compensation programs may not work as well as they can. If the HR people aren't engaged in these programs, how can we expect them to be designed and communicated well?

[Sharlyn Lauby]

Thanks for the mention Ann. I'm glad to see the survey is creating some conversation.

[Michael D. Haberman]

Ann:
This is the same glazed over look when you talk to HR people about metrics, analytics or anything to do with something that smacks of "math." "Can I use a calculator?" It is the same reason reason we don't understand an income statement or balance sheet and it is a BIG problem we need to get over.

[Jacque Vilet]

This is a sobering but "telling" post. I would love to offer an article responding to this. I can't say this enough ---- this a very apt description of what is wrong with HR today.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Top Managment controls the HR priorities. Otherwise, it obviously would be quite different. With more support (money and attention) to T&D, ER would be more effective and less time/attention would required to "compensate" people for those lacks. The status quo reflects a C-suite agenda of cutting costs and buying time in reactive short-term measures versus the more sensible long-term strategy of planning for a better future. They mistake the comparative costs, thinking the wrong one will be less expensive. IMHO, of course.

[Ann Bares]

I see my original set of replies got eaten by Typepad (thank you very much TP)...

Dan:
Agree that there is a lesson here that suggests our need to better engage our HR colleagues in understanding and, in turn, communicating about compensation.

Sharlyn:
Thanks for prompting such a great discussion with your survey!

Mike:
A very solid point, perhaps I've let us off too easy here. It is, in all likelihood, very symptomatic of a big problem in/with HR.

Jacques:
Agreed - and looking forward to YOUR post on the survey findings!

Jim:
I don't disagree on the leadership misprioritizing; but you're saying that HR wants to do less C&B because they recognize that many of these programs represent short-term fixes, not because they don't enjoy the math/analytical stuff that accompanies those disciplines? Hmmm. Not sure I agree, but it is an interesting alternative interpretation. Others?