Comments - Only the best recruiters need apply - RecruitingBlogs2024-03-29T06:33:42Zhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=502551%3ABlogPost%3A259060&xn_auth=noJosh, thx for the input - nev…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-09-20:502551:Comment:2590952008-09-20T14:19:18.941ZSteve Levyhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/Dieselevy
Josh, thx for the input - never said this was going to be as easy as it was for Wall Street to snow the masses...
Josh, thx for the input - never said this was going to be as easy as it was for Wall Street to snow the masses... Great post - unfortunately, I…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2008-09-20:502551:Comment:2590932008-09-20T13:56:06.698ZJoshua Letourneauhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/JoshuaLetourneau
Great post - unfortunately, I'm just now drinking coffee and have little value to add (which may be just as true after 5 cups as it is after 0) :P<br />
<br />
Here are some thoughts on your recommendations:<br />
<br />
1. Cap the ratio of CEO base pay to a reasonable multiple of the average worker's salary in an organization. The days of 30-40 times multiples are over.<br />
Comment: Jeez, if the CEO was making purely a 30 - 40 multiple over the top 10%'s mean salary, we'd be rocking and rolling (meaning if the top 10%…
Great post - unfortunately, I'm just now drinking coffee and have little value to add (which may be just as true after 5 cups as it is after 0) :P<br />
<br />
Here are some thoughts on your recommendations:<br />
<br />
1. Cap the ratio of CEO base pay to a reasonable multiple of the average worker's salary in an organization. The days of 30-40 times multiples are over.<br />
Comment: Jeez, if the CEO was making purely a 30 - 40 multiple over the top 10%'s mean salary, we'd be rocking and rolling (meaning if the top 10% average is $200k, then a 40 multiple would put the CEO salary at $8 million). Unfortunately, most CEO comp is tough to directly lay out since so much is paid out in stock . . . yeah, another area that is gamed profusely!<br />
Idea: How about there be utter and completely transparency as to "golden parachutes"? I want to know if there will be another Bob Nardelli debacle if the CEO is unsuccessful in creating shareholder value.<br />
<br />
2. Let the CEO's performance compensation be based upon a suite of metrics agreed upon by a majority of employees AND shareholders - not just the corporate comp committee. These metrics must include the creation of new in-country jobs as a percentage of new jobs, an IRR for talent development.<br />
Comment: Great idea . . . however, how could we get shareholders on the same page? How could we be a part of delineating a comp package? I love the idea, but the logistics worry me (perhaps an online 'vote' for anyone with a certain amount of shares . . . however imagine how even that would be gamed!) Also, what I see often are shareholders that talk a good game (i.e. "Keep all our jobs here in the U.S.") . . . but then when that happens and their coinciding return wasn't quite as high as it would have been if the company outsourced, guess what happens? That's right - people dump the stock and loan their capital in other areas (or companies, funds, etc.) that will "generate a higher return." I'm sure we've all seen this kind of behavior before.<br />
<br />
[Note: An IRR for talent? I'm with you that we need to leverage portfolio theory when it comes to talent investments . . . but now we're getting into financial-speak, and one of the big reasons HR doesn't honestly have a seat at the exec roundtable is because they can't speak the financial language. Perhaps we'll see that shift - I just wrote a post for FOT (not posted yet) about looking into EBITDA (per SBU, per product/service line, per customer segment, etc.) as a metric that can be useful in terms of identifying where to invest TA/Sourcing dollars . . . ]<br />
<br />
P.S. I have to run, but great post. I like these discussions because they drive progress - although I often see conversations shifting more toward the tactical, I truly believe that the tactics aren't our issue; it's business acumen and strategic thinking. Tech vendors are introducing new tactical tools each day, but these tools exist solely to meet market demand; demand fueled by orgs and recruiters/sourcers looking for "magic bullets" instead of doing deep-dives into strategy and a better understanding of why TA's thought processes of today more mirror paradigms of not only an industrializing economy, but a pre-industrializing economy!<br />
<br />
P.S.S. If there are any VP's or Leaders of Talent Acquisition out there, please start going to conferences and/or start demanding strategic conversations about these things! Our industry is dominated by the 'tactics' (or tactical conversations, like how to get more names) . . . but it's like we're building a house on a terribly weak foundation.