Get Started for FREE
Sign up with Facebook Sign up with X
I don't have a Facebook or a X account
 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!
Blame it on aggressive public policy – and an aging society, says one professor Via Jay, Mark E. Deschaine, PhD 
No comment yet.
Sign up to comment
|
Scoop.it!
In the July/August issue of HBR, Ram Charan argues that the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) role should be eliminated, with HR responsibilities funneled in two separate directions — administration, led by traditional HR-types, reporting to the CFO; and talent strategy, led by high-potential line managers, reporting to the corner office. While my colleague and I vehemently agree that HR’s status quo is an inhibitor to growth, it is with the same fervor that we disagree with Ram’s proposed solution.
Really? Break up a strategic function in response to underperformance in the wake of severe market disruptions? Put the most strategic pieces into the hands of up-and-comers passing through the leadership-development revolving door? What would the capital markets look like today if a similar tack had been taken when the CFO role was ripe for transformation? Via The Learning Factor
The Learning Factor's curator insight,
July 31, 2014 6:35 PM
The Chief Human Resources Officer role is where the CFO role was 30 years ago. 
Fola Obadina's curator insight,
August 3, 2014 9:08 PM
Hr should fish talent out internally when a promotion occurs because talents in their level of positions have been trained in the job for years and so some are equipped to handle higher position and just need to be identified. This I feel should be part of hr's strategy task, too. Truly, appreciate Charan's article! |
