Is the bonus awarded to the CEO of the CIPD Justified?

Personnel Today picked up on my Jackie Orme story and laid out the case with a link to my blog along with an official response from the CIPD.

"There is an element of Jackie’s package which is performance-related, and which is linked to a scorecard of clear objectives. The main point is that against that scorecard, the Institute has had a successful year….. That level of detail is between the remuneration committee and Jackie Orme.”

Let me translate: ‘It’s none of your business. We decide and that’s that!’

Listen, we all understand that the Remuneration Committee technically decides on these things, but it is not enough to simply state you’ve had a successful year with not a single word of support, especially as the stated facts suggest the opposite.

You can see from the annual report that the CIPD have had anannus horrbilis:

Jackie Orme’s bonus up by 49% to £87,000, BUT:

Commercial income down by 23%
Research down by 57% and ridiculed (report pulled and CEO apology)
Magazine imploded (down 83%)
Revenues from the branches down by 45.6%,
Investment returns bombed (down 74.7%)
And don’t forget that there was also a dramatic 50% increase in the number of staff on £60k plus from 14 in 2009 to 21 in 2010.

5 Responses

DonaldClark says:

November 28, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Afraid not…..

NO 94%, YES 6%!
Personnel Today picked up on my Jackie Orme story and laid out the case with a link to my blog along with an official response from the CIPD.

"There is an element of Jackie’s package which is performance-related, and which is linked to a scorecard of clear objectives. The main point is that against that scorecard, the Institute has had a successful year….. That level of detail is between the remuneration committee and Jackie Orme.”

Let me translate: ‘It’s none of your business. We decide and that’s that!’

Listen, we all understand that the Remuneration Committee technically decides on these things, but it is not enough to simply state you’ve had a successful year with not a single word of support, especially as the stated facts suggest the opposite.

You can see from the annual report that the CIPD have had anannus horrbilis:

Jackie Orme’s bonus up by 49% to £87,000, BUT:

Commercial income down by 23%

Research down by 57% and ridiculed (report pulled and CEO apology)

Magazine imploded (down 83%)

Revenues from the branches down by 45.6%,

Investment returns bombed (down 74.7%)

And don’t forget that there was also a dramatic 50% increase in the number of staff on £60k plus from 14 in 2009 to 21 in 2010.
russlater says:

November 29, 2010 at 9:15 am

“against that scorecard the institute has had a succesful year”

This rather suggests that the scorecard is seriously flawed….has anyone’s head actually rolled for this very very very big error?

The evidence says not, but common sense should say that IF the success criteria were so out of kilter with the existence of the organisation then either a number of people made very serious errors of judgement or the motivation behind the setting of the scorecard objectives was at the very least dubious.
User deleted says:

November 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Members ought to revolt…

I resigned my membership of CIPD many years ago when the organisation’s self-serving policy became obvious. Does the CEO deserve the 49% bonus? – absolutely not. Does the CIPD deserve to be taken seriously? Absolutely not. I’m surprised more people haven’t seen the light and removed themselves from any association with this corrupt organisation.
DonaldClark says:

December 2, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Call to members..

AGM is at 13:15 on Tuesday 7 December 2010 at the Royal College of Physicians, open to all members. Go along and ask a few scary questions!
garry platt says:

December 7, 2010 at 3:05 am

Voting Now Finished

363 Votes Cast 7% Yes 93% No Fairly damning I’d say.