John_M
07-12-2007, 01:43 PM
The following comment by Kevin in the thread titled: "Current job market - HR professionals" struck a chord with me:
... they are not always advertised as "HR Generalist", we quite often see HR Manager positions which are basically generalist roles. In my search for a HR Manager or Senior HR Advisor role, I have been astounded at the number of more junior roles I have had to wade through in responses from Seek, MyCareer, CareerOne, etc.
In discussion with other HR practitioners and Recruitment Agents, all agree there seems to have been an increase in HR roles paying less than (some a lot less than) what we would value for a HR Manager. Today on the boards, there are roles appearing at $60K for HR Managers. I agree with Kevin - from what I have seen, the description of these roles does not support the title. Maybe its a marketing ploy to attract candidates wanting either status &/or to quickly climb the corporate ladder? Am I being sceptical or is it just poor work by Agents in advising their clients?
The most effective way I have found to ensure some sort of alignment between recruiters and my own understanding of the HR "level" involved, is to include salary banding when discussing the scope of HR positions, and use of salary surveys. All agents I have discussed this with have agreed on general banding for the various common HR roles. That way we are on the same page to begin with.
Thoughts anyone?
John
... they are not always advertised as "HR Generalist", we quite often see HR Manager positions which are basically generalist roles. In my search for a HR Manager or Senior HR Advisor role, I have been astounded at the number of more junior roles I have had to wade through in responses from Seek, MyCareer, CareerOne, etc.
In discussion with other HR practitioners and Recruitment Agents, all agree there seems to have been an increase in HR roles paying less than (some a lot less than) what we would value for a HR Manager. Today on the boards, there are roles appearing at $60K for HR Managers. I agree with Kevin - from what I have seen, the description of these roles does not support the title. Maybe its a marketing ploy to attract candidates wanting either status &/or to quickly climb the corporate ladder? Am I being sceptical or is it just poor work by Agents in advising their clients?
The most effective way I have found to ensure some sort of alignment between recruiters and my own understanding of the HR "level" involved, is to include salary banding when discussing the scope of HR positions, and use of salary surveys. All agents I have discussed this with have agreed on general banding for the various common HR roles. That way we are on the same page to begin with.
Thoughts anyone?
John