In this article we discuss the theme talent agility and unpack its definition, consider outdated employment models, look at the emergence of the open workforce, define the talent agility gap, how to assess the talent agility gap and conclude with considerations to bridge the talent agility gap. — Rénier Krige, HRDirect and Dolf van Rooyen, Megro Lowveld
For many years the human resources function has been attempting to establish and improve its legitimacy. Many books, articles and journals have been written on what “HR Champions” should be doing. So with all this guidance, thought leadership and competency frameworks - why is it that we still do not have a “place at the table” and be called business partners – a title which we have endowed on ourselves but do not have the legitimacy that we so desire. — Advaita Naidoo, Principal, Jack Hammer
For senior leaders of single-business companies, making high-level strategic decisions can be a daunting challenge. The difficulties involved in such decisions only increase with the number of businesses under the company umbrella. With multi-business firms, the problem shifts from achieving competitive advantage within a certain industry or market, to achieving corporate advantage—i.e., managing interactions between businesses in a portfolio so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.—Phanish Puranam, Roland Berger Chair Professor of Strategy and Organisation Design, INSEAD
On 15 July 2016 the Constitutional Court in the case of Solidarity and Others v the Department of Correctional Services and others held that the Department of Correctional Services (“the DCS”) engaged in an unfair labour practice and unfairly discriminated against certain of its employees. — Tanya Mulligan, Associate, Cowan-Harper Attorneys
Changing the way executives in professional service firms are compensated can help organisations address some tough organisational dilemmas. The global financial crisis in the late 2000s saw a trend among law firms and other professional service companies towards corporate compensation structures ensuring those partners who contribute to firm goals are compensated at higher levels. While this move from traditional seniority-based, lockstep structures to more merit-based forms of compensation may appear a fairer way of allocating profits, little attention has been given to its impact on the organisation of work within a company. — Olivier Chatain, Associate Professor, HEC Paris andPhilipp Meyer-Doyle, INSEAD Assistant Professor of Strategy
Leveraging Human Potential – Mapping Self to Work Culture
People are often frustrated and unhappy at work, particularly, but not exclusively, in those organisations with complex hierarchies and seemingly unhelpful processes and procedures, and where values are not matched by consistent policy in actions. Angus McLeod offers an approach that permits a novel method for exploring these issues by way of similarities and differences, together with a psychological artifice to provide new insights.
Key issues in developing a compensation strategy
In the 18th century it was accepted practice to employ slave labour for all but the most complicated of tasks. But by the late 19th century the principle of remunerating individual workers differentially according to the complexity of tasks they performed, had become the entrenched industrial practice. Innovation in pay systems and structures began to flourish in the 1900s. The wealth- generating share option schemes so visible at executive level today, actually became popular in the US in the pre-Wall Street crash years. It was during the ‘roaring 20s’ (1920 to 1929) that the Dow Jones industrial index soared from 72 to 3 000, creating some of the first seriously wealthy industrialists.