Glass ceiling v competence

I read the letter from Sharon Johnston (Glass ceiling is alive and well. Human Resources magazine, issue 41, page 2) with great interest. The letter seems to imply that males or females in predetermined number are an advantage or disadvantage in the way that a human resources function is administered. It is suggested that nothing could be further from the truth.

One’s sex is not and should not be the determinant for a position at senior level in any organisation. With increasing transparency in large organisations, sex does not seem to become a denominator. Competency and skills are the true measure of the people that should be providing direction in the workplace.

Selective use of statistics can be produced to support any argument. Using a different demographic (such as local government) Ms Johnston may have found the statistics to prove women have broached the glass ceiling already. Women have thrived in local government not because of affirmative action, but because of competence!

It should be of greater concern to Ms Johnston and all HR practitioners, that competence is being lost as a result of ageism at management levels in the workforce. High order skills are being lost in the workplace and not replaced as a result of the dilution of the over 45s in the workforce due to cost and supposed efficiency measures. Instead of profitability being enhanced and corporate messages being reinforced, new staff are constantly having to learn and be trained to acquire personal practical knowledge rather than using the acquired intuitive knowledge of the skilled and mature employees. There is nowhere more apparent to demonstrate this than human resources management where the majority of practitioners are at the younger end of the scale.

Experience in human resources appears to be of a lower priority to some recruiters than cost factors associated with recruitment. I conclude by asking, when was the last time that there was an advertisement published for an HR director/manager that stated “must have in excess of 20 years experience”!

Geoff Cripps, managing consultant, Directra

Work/life balance v money

I read your editorial on the work-life balance backlash. (Human Resources magazine, issue 41, page 2). The question of work/life v money has raged now for over 50 years and great intellects such as Mayo, McGregor, Hertzberg have already debated this issue at length. Libby Sartain in her latest book HR from the Heart also suggests that pay for performance leads to an upward spiral of salaries and expectations that are unsustainable.

Companies need to provide a range of benefits which are of value to the individual in the various life stages that they find themselves – how to do this equitably, maximising productivity and retention at least cost is the real challenge for HR.

As you mentioned, you used to look forward to the social functions, but now that you life has changed you find them a drag. Therein lies the real work/life challenge for HR professionals.

Human Resources magazine has been a real boost to this industry – well done.

Damien Berglas, people manager, QCOM Australia

Semantics of old

In your Editor’s Note (see Human Resources magazine issue 42, p3), you use the adjective “ageing” to apply to the workforce.

This is a reflection of reality and not a judgmental or pejorative term. However, I hope your banner headline of your piece: ‘Andrews focused on aged workers’ on page one is not betraying anyone’s unsubstantiated HR bias against the same section of the workforce – on which Australia must shortly continue to depend! You employ the adjectives “older” and “ageing” within your pieces so possibly the bold banner headpiece was simply typesetting dictating fewer letters?

One would hope so. As an older but not “aged” worker (I prefer the adjectives “experienced” or “mature”) who, as already a registered psychologist, recently undertook several years of study at considerable sacrifice and personal cost to gain a Masters degree in Business (winning an AHRI Award for Excellence, incidentally) as I really wanted to move into work in HR, I am rather sensitive to this issue and the short-sighted myths underpinning any HR biases in the area. This I guess is due to my failing utterly over several years to obtain a position in HR. Those I’ve asked can only attribute this to being an “ageing worker” (like everyone, in reality!). It certainly mystified some kind HR folk who attempted to mentor me into a position. I still greatly enjoy reading Human Resources. Keep up the good work.

Gregg Chapman