Skills Required for Leaders in Performance and Reward: Part 1

Part 1: What is in a name?

The ‘Reward’ function has evolved in the years since I published an article entitled Reward Skills Required for a FTSE 100 Head of Reward.

An immediate observation is a change in the ‘title’ of the leader of the team delivering an organisation’s reward remit, plus the name given to the team itself. This is what I am going to focus on here. But before I do I will also state that I think we have moved beyond ‘Skills Required for a FTSE 100 Head of Reward’. 

Much of what I will comment on in future ‘instalments’, with regard to the ‘Rewards’ team’ is relevant to all organisations, whatever the ownership model and sector, and also to smaller and scaling organisations that want to establish a sound infrastructure from which to leverage delivery of their organisational ambitions.

In many organisations the remit and accountabilities of what was termed the ‘Rewards’ team’ have broadened to encompass the requirements brought by the new and changing demands of regulators, shareholders, employees and societal expectation.

Additionally, for some teams, the naming of their team has changed to reflect the accountabilities shifted from colleagues within or outside of the broader people function, as example Wellbeing, HR Systems, Global Mobility and Risk.

The ‘Reward Kingdom’ has expanded and with that expansion has come an evolution of the knowledge, capability, skills and contribution of the Rewards’ team. This evolution has also led to a change in demands and expectation on the Remuneration Committee, and their equivalent. You can read more about this in PARC’s recent report on Remuneration Committee Effectiveness (September 2024).

There was never a single naming convention that reflected a consistency or truth of remit and accountability across organisations, and there isn’t now, but from my experience of member activities and the increasing breadth of the scope of ‘reward practitioners’,  some of the current naming conventions for leaders and their teams is a much better reflection of the critical thinking and contribution being made by those accountable for ‘reward strategy’ (however defined – another instalment!).  

It is my view, and that of PARC, that a reward strategy can only be a success if irrevocably linked to the overarching strategy for ‘business and organisational performance’. Personally, I would love to see a reference to ‘Performance’ in every Reward Leader’s title plus their team’s designation. That stated I do acknowledge that everyone in an organisation should understand their contribution to organisational performance goals and how their business makes money; even better, profit.

If a new naming convention helps to signpost more clearly to other colleagues what the team actually does, then great, but it can also help to highlight the important work that should both be acknowledged and have visibility across an organisation – any organisation – not least those who state a focus on organisational performance and sustainable, profitable growth. 

I think it valuable for Reward practitioners to be more visibly promoted as having a critical role to play in supporting the execution of business strategy and in turn performance strategy. I believe it will also help to attract commercially focused, curious and brilliant minds into this area of work. Certainly, we have seen more colleagues from finance, law, sales, plus other areas of HR, move into their Rewards team as a means of developing and changing their career path.

There may be a reason we only put a member’s personal and company name on their event ID now, but certainly these titles inform the breadth, challenge and importance of the work being undertaken by member teams.

Read Part 2: Let’s get to those skills here >>>

---