Now you may be asking yourself, why is he talking about this? Isn’t it rather obvious, like 2 + 2 certainly equals 4? Doesn’t everyone reward employees for their individual efforts?

But no, sad to say there really are organizations out there that don’t view the employer – employee relationship in quite the same way as the rest of us. Their thinking is, “We pay them a salary for doing their job. Why should we pay more? Case closed.”

Okkkkk, but taking a page out of an old Compensation 101 textbook let me list the reasons that such a negative attitude about your workforce can become a problem for your organization, both short and long term.

• You need to pay competitive wages: While this point is seldom argued your comparative marketplace is a moving target. What looks like competitive today soon won’t be, so unless you have a process for updating your competitiveness those pay rates will start to slip behind. And that slippage will pick up speed over time.

• Business costs rise over time; so does life for your employees: The price of most items is higher today that it was a year ago, and in some cases the rise is dramatic. If your employee costs (pay levels) are fixed / frozen your employees will have an increasingly difficult time making ends meet.

• Behavior rewarded is repeated: It’s an old saying but is worth repeating again and again until everyone “gets it.” If you reward desired behavior (good performance) you’ll likely get more of it. Conversely, the lack of reward tends to encourage average behavior, or worse.

• Do you want a high performance culture?: If you fail to provide employees with equitable and competitive pay that is linked to their job performance, what you’ll get instead is a lot of Joe Average performance. Because an employee’s personal self motivation (they’ll work hard anyway) is not sustainable. That personal battery of enthusiasm will drain down and shut off.

• Employee expectations: Yes, they expect to be paid a reasonable base salary for their work, but they also expect to be both acknowledged and rewarded (pay increases) for making a continuous effort on the company’s behalf. No one will work well for very long with their pay frozen or the likelihood of more money being a “maybe” or a “we’ll see.”

• An elemental cost of doing business: This may be hard for some to understand, but if you’re going to operate a business there are certain costs that need to be incurred. Otherwise don’t bother. And one of those costs is to properly pay and reward the people who are working for you. They keep the business going, and you should never forget that.

• Honoring your commitment: Do you proudly tell everyone who will listen that you’re a “pay-for-performance” company? Do you believe that employees drive business success? Well then, you had better walk the talk. Because employee trust is at stake, and the failure to hold up to your promises will ensure business mediocrity, if not a slow descent into failure.

• You should fear the alternative: If you decide to march to the beat of a different drummer, to say “nahhh” to the above, then consider what your future likely holds in store for you. Because when employees start to say, “why bother?” you’re in trouble.

• Dissatisfaction with management: This is both negative and infectious. Disgruntled people are not quiet people.

• Reduced morale: Sad faces and blank looks are not signs of an engaged workforce. And the talk around the break room will lean toward other “opportunities.”

• Reduced productivity: Employees take their foot off the gas pedal. What you get from them starts to drop off from a desired 110% effort to somewhere south of 100%.

• Higher degree of disengagement: When your employees start to say as well as think, “I don’t care” – that attitude will spread, either slow or fast. What it builds is a low performing culture. Think of your business as a car driving around town with the brakes on.

• Increased turnover (leavers) – of the wrong sort: The wrong sort are the better performers, who always have an option in the marketplace. Someone else will tell them, “We love you. We’ll take care of you. Come work for us.”

If you believe that employees are important to the success of your organization, then not having a proper pay-for-performance program in place to recognize and reward job performance on a regular basis is a mistake of the highest caliber.

Then again, perhaps some believe that employees are an easily replaceable commodity, that their pay is a cost worth trying to reduce, rather than an investment. That they are not people, but simply cells with a spreadsheet, or blocks on an organization chart.

Just remember that what you sow is what you’ll reap.

It used to be a common perception that the Human Resources department in large companies was more sophisticated, more professional, and more forward-thinking than what you’d expect to find from HR in smaller companies.

We all presumed that the “big guys” knew what they were doing.

But current thinking among practitioners now challenges that presumption.  In fact, the pendulum of thought has begun to swing the other way.  Sophisticated has become cumbersome, professional has become bureaucratic and forward-thinking has created a chasm of credibility between philosophical concepts and the practical realities that managers deal with every day.

Remember the K-I-S-S principle (keep it simple, stupid)?  Many large organizations seem to have forgotten that common sense caution as they saddled their reward programs with more forms, procedures and bureaucracy.

The Evolution of Performance Appraisal

A good example of HR systems gone wild is the difference between a small company performance appraisal and the convoluted processes often followed by large companies.  Herein lies a stark contrast not only of styles but of methodologies and core beliefs that a more complex better way will increase the effectiveness of employee reward programs.

This growth of complexity is commonplace; by the time an organization achieves a certain population size HR feels compelled to “improve” their processes – usually in the name of increased employee sensitivities and a broader definition of performance review.  What worked well when the business was smaller is suddenly suspect, deemed somehow less effective, less desirable.

What began as direct cause and effect, individual job performance followed by assessment = reward suddenly becomes more complex, more confusing to some, more aggravating to others.  While communication is critical it is often flawed and ineffective as both employees and managers question the additional complexity.

What follows is a brief comparison between how small and large companies tend to approach the critically important performance appraisal process.

The Small Company Experience:

• The employee’s performance is assessed against what’s expected of them.

• Performance discussions usually take place on the anniversary of either employment or promotion.

• Forms are basic, even simple.  They may not be standardized, and one or two pages are usually enough.

• The process doesn’t take a lot of time.  Meetings tend to be short and focused, so both parties can get back to work.

• What the boss says – is what’s going to happen.  The approval chain is abbreviated.

• The money discussion (pay increase) is front and center, a cause-and-effect dialogue.  “You have performed thus and so, and your pay will be changed from x to y.”

The Large Company Experience:

• The employee’s performance may be assessed against other employees, as much as against what’s expected of them (based on their job description).

• Performance discussions use a Focal Point strategy, where everybody is reviewed at the same time.  For managers with more than two or three subordinates, this represents a challenge in terms of time spent and quality of assessments.

• Managers are often required to use multi-part, multi-page forms.

• Employee performance may be viewed against a desired bell-shaped curve of results.  Individual assessments may be modified to fit the expected / budgeted shape of the curve.

• The boss makes upward “recommendations,”  subject to approval.  Thus the reward conversation with the employee can end on a “we’ll see” basis.

• Other topics like developing future performance, improvement strategies / action plans, and “where are we going“? discussions may predominate.  Sometimes talk of pay is deferred, raising the question of whether performance actually relates to reward.

With size of the organization the process tends to become more impersonal, forms-centric, process controlled, and standardized.  Is that better than before?

How did the organization evolve into something potentially less helpful, less effective?  Perhaps the poking and prodding of systems and procedures in the name of improvement went too far, until they created a convoluted and twisted version of their desired state.

When the state of affairs has gone off the tracks, how many times have you heard – or used the phrase, “let’s get back to basics”?

Perhaps that thought could be useful today, no matter what size organization you hail from.  Return to the fundamentals, the simple formula of performance = reward.

It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that.

K-I-S-S

The other day I was chatting with a new college graduate, one who was expressing interest in Human Resources – specifically within the field of Compensation.  After a while the question was raised whether I could describe the typical relationship and interactions between Line Managers, Compensation practitioners and the Finance function.  This newbie sensed from their classroom experiences that a tense if not contentious relationship was commonplace.

So I told this little story

One very hot and humid summer afternoon three guys walked into their neighborhood tavern; a Manager, a Compensation guy and a fellow from Finance.  Tables were crowded so they grabbed a seat at the bar, ordered a cold one and started a conversation with the bartender.

After a while the Manager glances around the room, taking in the noisy din of those escaping the heat of the day and then says to the barkeep, “I think it would be a great idea if you gave everyone here a cold beer, on the house.  They all look like they could use one.”

Hearing this the Compensation guy does his own look-see around the bar, then scratches his chin and mutters, “Well now, perhaps not everyone deserves a fresh beer.  Some folks have already had a few, while others have only just arrived and a few tables are drinking the upscale hard stuff.  Let’s rethink the mechanics of your “beer on the house” idea.”

While this is going on the Finance guy is frowning at his colleagues.   Finally he says, “Where did all this generosity come from, spending someone’s else’s coin, and did you factor in how much this idea is going to cost the owner?  Does he have enough money?  Will he get anything out of this besides increased costs and a shrunken inventory?”

So the three companions break into a squabble, with each trying to talk over the other two, not really listening to each other but instead pushing their own point of view with increasing enthusiasm.

Finally the bartender shouts above the racket, “wait a minute!” then slaps his hand down on the bar.  “I own this place.  What are you guys talking about?”

To the Manager he says:  “You’re too free and easy with spending my money.”

To Compensation Guy he says:  “You sound like you’ll analyze things to death if I let you, all the while losing sight that my business could be at stake here.”

And finally, to the Finance guy:  “I like you, and I’ll listen to what you have to say, because you’re the only one who seems to be looking out for me.”

And the moral is . . . .

My new graduate friend slowly nodded his head, taking in the wisdom of my thoughts.  “So you’re saying that Senior Management will listen first to Finance, no matter the strength of other proposals.”

“That’s why the Finance guy usually sits next to the CEO at meetings.”  Which means that if you want to change this dynamic, you’ll need to partner with Line Managers and with Finance to ensure that you understand their issues and how their concerns, as well as your potential solutions would impact the business.

If you can’t get your act together and collaborate, work together toward common goals, know that the default decision almost always goes to the bean counters.  Because they hold the purse strings and are quick to criticize promised “soft” savings or increased revenue (based on likely projections) when compared against “hard” costs (the reality of actually spending money).

Always remember that cost is king, or at least a royal prince when it comes to selling an idea.  And the cost should come with a demonstrable benefit that makes the expense worthwhile.

———–

That being said, I toasted the graduate and then we ordered another beer.

Have you ever considered what sort of an impression you make on others at work? No man is an island and all that, so consider that each of us causes ripples among the people we interface with, whether direct or indirect. We leave a mark, for good or ill.

Likely there are three audiences who are interested and watching you; the management above you, peers and colleagues at your approximate level, and those below you in the organization’s hierarchy – whether subordinates or rank and file employees. Now picture each of these groups pondering your actions and developing an opinion.

• Management: Bosses and senior leaders who can have a direct impact on your career. You want these folks to nod their head and smile when they think of you. You would like to be known by name and face.

• Peers: You have to work with these people, to interface with enough human relations skills to get things done. Your goal is to assist work processes and the people surrounding them, in order to ensure that things run as smoothly as possible. You want respect here.

• Rank and file: Either your subordinates or those affected by your decisions / recommendations. These are employees who may be dependent on you, but who may also whisper about you, or spread nasty rumors – or can rally to your cause. You ignore these people at your long term peril.

Each group has a separate agenda, and over time you as a professional practitioner or manager will have developed a reputation by your actions, your decisions (or lack) and through the word of mouth of those who interact with you. The net result is a label, a persona that surrounds you, describes you and marks you as a “type.”

We all get reduced to a “type.” Now ask yourself, would the people you work with, or work for, want to spend time with someone like you? In other words, are you someone admired, someone viewed as a valuable source of experience, someone to learn from? Someone worth knowing?

Or would these same folks cross the street to avoid you?

And this is important because . . . ?

Would you want to have a drink with someone like yourself? If you would, what is it about that persona that you think would make sharing social time a worthwhile effort? If you’d rather not waste your time, what is it about that person in the mirror that’s such a turnoff?

Most in the profession are very intelligent; many are even brilliant technical practitioners. But that’s not what this is about. This a matter of whether that technical savvy, that textbook learning can be converted on a daily basis into the effective application of that knowledge and skill within the work environment; how that application impacts and interacts with those around you.

Too many managers and practitioners “don’t get it” when it comes to dealing with employees – and as Compensation has a direct and constant impact on those employees, this ability to deal with the human element becomes of necessity a critical component of your success – or failure.

Do you see yourself as others see you?

• Do you have a reputation as a numbers person, or as a people person – or perhaps you’re viewed as presenting a balance between the company and the employees?

• Is your interpersonal style one of engagement, or do you prefer to be left alone, to operate as an individual contributor best left to their own devices?

• Are you more comfortable dealing with theories and concepts, or facts & figures, vs. dealing hands on with the political and emotional realities of the workplace? Numbers people are often uncomfortable when required to interact with other employees.

• Are you sensitive to this question being asked? Do those around you sense empathy or arrogance – or simply aloofness?

Recently I refereed an argument about whether the cost of living or the cost of labor was more important in setting annual merit spend budgets. The debaters battled with charts & graphs, regressed formulae and reams of statistics – when a bit of common sense and practical experience would have shown how senior management would react to the question.

Both practitioners missed the point, lost within the argument over technical accuracy and blind to the dynamics of human nature; both ignored common sense and the reality of employee perceptions. Both turned off their audience by their high-toned professorial statements.

Not the sort of reputation you’d like have at work, is it? Not with everyone watching, keeping score.

A well-rounded compensation pro not only understands the technical side, the analytical side to providing competitive rewards in an effective and efficient manner, but is equally comfortable dealing with the softer side, the people side of the profession.

Having an understanding that real people are affected by recommendations, that morale, productivity and engagement have a price tag as real as payroll dollars flowing out of the company, is a critical awareness that every manager should have.

Once you have that combination in place, adding a bit of persuasiveness, of knowing how to change behaviors, will be like owning the mortar that holds all the bricks together.

Then you’ll have a complete (mostly) compensation pro.

That’s someone I’d like to have a drink with.

It’s human nature to look for simple solutions to perplexing problems.  Simple avoids confusion, keeps you “on message” and helps (you think) create greater employee awareness and an appreciation of reward programs and policies.   However, when you’re dealing with the diversity and complexity of international compensation it’s just not that easy – nor should it be.   For those seeking the simple life it can be difficult to understand and accept that each country operates in a different environment from the next.

There’s no cookie cutter out there.

Perhaps because of its long history of isolationist tendencies, or a bit of Yankee arrogance, but U.S. managers tend to struggle with the challenge of this “no, we’re not all the same” concept more than many other players on the global scene.

For the most part U.S. managers don’t want to hear that pay levels in Finland, or Argentina or Tunisia are different from the U.S. – even for identical jobs.  Instead, they would rather treat everyone the same, call it globalization and with a pat on their shoulder consider themselves a one-world player.  But those who push such an agenda of simplicity foment and spread a misleading distortion of the facts, a twisted sense of reality that they’ll find very costly to implement, and its inevitable results will more than likely irritate key talent within their workforce.

Consider the senior manager who simply wants to convert a foreign national’s salary into U.S. dollars – based on a concern over what they call “internal equity.”  The assumption the manager is under is that everyone pays approximately the same for an “XYZ Manager” – or should.

“We pay USD60,000 for the job; what’s that in Euros“?  Or worse . . . .

“When we convert our UK employee ‘s pay to dollars the amount is less than their U.S. counterpart.  We have to do something.”

No, no, no.

Other considerations:

• If simple conversion was a viable approach, why don’t we see such formulae prominently displayed by highly reputable salary survey providers?  Why are all figures reported in local currency?

• Local national employees will be skeptical of the simplistic approach, as in their mind too many local realities would be ignored in favor of what is perceived as Company standardization for the sake of administrative ease.  And that somehow they’re saving money at the employee’s expense.

• Lacking a strong correlation between country pay levels you will either needlessly increase your compensation costs, or under-value your employee talent and risk disengagement – or worse.

I once developed a formulaic approach that explained to a COO why he should not establish internal equity between the U.S. and the UK by simply converting GBP into USD.   I factored in a host of elements, including local taxation, competitive pay levels, incentive practices, cost of living, required social charges, benefit costs, etc. to make my case.   My point was that a simple conversion would be a distortion of the economic realities that drive pay levels in both countries.

Sad to say, but the explanation was ignored and the COO, though he acknowledged the logic of my argument, continued to prefer a simple conversion to establish relative values in his own mind.  So every time the conversion issue arose we had to rehash the myriad differences between countries in order to remind decision-makers that apples are not oranges.  That there is no universal fruit.

To operate successfully on a global basis management needs to understand, to truly believe that each country operates like a separate and sovereign national entity, with distinct economies, taxes, competitiveness, employment laws, culture, statutory benefit requirements, etc. that make a 1:1 comparison with any other country a distortion that will cause you to either over spend or under spend your reward dollars.  Either result should be avoided.

Recently I was asked by a U.S. client why I recommended that they create an international assignment policy for their expatriate employees.  After all, they only had a few employees overseas and previously had resisted the call to “play the lawyer card.” They felt that management could effectively deal with the circumstances of individual situations as matters came up, and were reluctant to lose what they considered their prerogative – to set terms and conditions as they thought appropriate for each employee.

It’s not unusual for small companies or non-profit organizations to send an employee overseas with little more than a verbal agreement and a series of vague assurances.  These organizations wish to avoid bureaucracy and move quick.  However, often these casual and hurried arrangements have proven painful experiences:

• The shock faced when coming to grips with actually living in a foreign country.  The realities of daily life, combined with cultural differences compared against “back home” become quite a wake-up call when no longer insulated by the transitory nature of a business or vacation trip.

• The constancy of unforeseen and confusing local situations (medical claims, driving licenses, bank accounts, schooling, language, etc.) proved such a frustrating distraction that employees lost focus on the job – the reason they were there in the first place.

• Relationships with headquarters suffered as the employee asked for consideration (increased coverage) to redress what they considered gaps in their terms & conditions.  The trust element was weakened as employees felt they were being short-changed.

Coming from an environment where every expatriate was given a detailed assignment letter “before” getting on the plane, I was taken aback by the client’s question – because the absence of mutually agreed terms and conditions is almost certain to prove disruptive.

So why is providing an assignment letter good practice?

• Protection:  Like any contract, confirming assignment details protect both parties from misunderstandings, misinterpretations and assumptions – before expenses are incurred.

• Clarity:  Accepting an overseas assignment is a major step for any employee, as well as for family members.  The more you clarify the assignment terms, the more likely you are to ensure a smooth experience for everyone.

• Cost control:  Defines expenses that the company will pay for and conversely what they will not.  An agreement will mitigate issues arising once the expatriate is on the ground overseas.  Concerns raised once the assignee is relocated usually result in increased company costs, as negotiating leverage is lost and the company feels compelled to avoid alienating an expensive investment.

• Standardization:  Your international policy should strive to treat expatriates in the same fashion.  Unique circumstances do occur but the basic principles should be followed for every assignee.

So how bad can it be, playing it by ear and leaving terms & conditions to be developed over the duration of an employee’s assignment?   Prepare yourself for:

• Higher and unbudgeted costs.

• Frequent negotiations to improve the expat’s situation.

• Disgruntled assignees and / or affected family members.

• Greater risk of failed assignment.

Short cuts usually limit the financial and emotional protection the employee and their family rely on, after the company has committed  substantial monies to place them overseas.

Terms and Conditions

When preparing an international assignment letter, certain key elements should be included.

• Title, compensation and assignment duration – critical elements of status and reward in the host country.

• Housing and cost of living allowance – should include the amounts involved and frequency of review.

• Benefit coverage (medical, dental, life, vacation, etc.) – how home country benefit protections are handled in the host country.

• Relocation – overseas movement of household goods, both ways.

• Property management (as applicable) – managing the home country residence.

• Tax preparation – employee obligations in both countries.  Usually a statement of company liability for “additional” taxes.

• Home leave – how often, and under what circumstances?

• Schooling, language, cultural orientation (as applicable).

• Repatriation – a balance is usually struck here between employee concerns and the company’s natural vagueness for what the future might bring.

These items represent only a portion of the questions that your expatriate candidate will have.   So if your company considers taking a casual approach to sending an employee overseas, unsupported by a signed assignment letter, be aware of the risks involved.

It’s often said that each of us can learn a great deal from having a good boss to work for, a solid role model of just how a manager is supposed to act.  We hear about learning the “right” way from our mentors, from people we admire, from good leaders.  And we can also benefit from associating with other good employees, learning from the experienced and high performers how things should be done.

That’s all true enough, but how many of us are fortunate enough to find ourselves in that position?  Who even has a mentor these days?  More often than not we find that our leaders are flawed individuals, possessing an odd assortment of quirks, personal biases, affectations and just plain bad habits that we as their subordinates have to live with.  That we have to put up with.

Yes, I’m talking about the lousy boss.

And then of course there’s always  the malingerer down the hall, the employee who is forever out to beat the system, or the clock watcher who won’t make the effort to get out of their own way.  These are each examples of behavior we see practiced all too often, if not every day at work.  Sometimes it’s as though we’re encircled by the dregs of the company’s workforce, from the top of the organization chart to the bottom.

Yet sometimes there is a candle lit against the darkness.  Sometimes we can learn a great deal by the personal failures that surround us.  We don’t have to succumb to it.  But we have to keep our eyes and ears alert, along with an open mind.

The next step is yours.

We can grow tired of fighting the system, of being the lone ranger, seemingly the only one who cares.  It’s natural to have the battery of self-motivation and sense of professional self wear down.   So we can let ourselves drown in this sea of incompetence, work malaise and indifference, becoming absorbed by it, becoming part of the same problem.

Or you can turn lemons into lemonade.  You can take a negative and squeeze out a positive learning experience.  Sometimes it’s simply a matter of knowing not to do what the Bozo does.

What can we learn from the bad behavior that surrounds us?

> What strategies don’t work:  If certain tactics drop you off a cliff, blowup in your face or drive you straight into a brick wall, learn the why behind the failure and promise yourself not to try similar approaches.

> Why poor treatment of others always backfires in the end: When tactics or behaviors fail to engage employees, or worse, elicits worsened performance , morale and attitude, learn the why behind the employee perspective.  Then it’s likely that when you have the chance you won’t make the same mistakes.

> Losing and gaining respect:  When those for whom you have personal and professional respect show little regard of their own for the poor performers, the poor managers, the bad behaviors, take that experience to heart and make sure that you don’t follow a similar tact and end up disappointing those you seek approval from.

> Or you can simply say, “I won’t ever do that!:”  The most basic learning device is to simply go in the opposite direction from tactics, attitudes and behaviors that you’ve seen fail.  At least you won’t have a history of failure automatically repeated.

Granted, learning from bad examples is a hit or miss strategy,  but if you’re paying attention, if you’re watching the results of someone else’s decisions, you’ll have a better sense of cause and effect.  When something doesn’t work, when someone’s actions cause justifiable upset, when someone’s behavior is inappropriate – each are potential teaching moments.

Every action or non action is a decision.  Sitting on the sidelines and watching the world flow by is a decision. But if you’re paying attention each decision or even lack of action can be an opportunity for you to learn to grow, to test the work environment.

You’ll be a better manager, a better employee and best of all a better person because of it.

… Never made a skilled sailor

I saw this phrase the other day and it really caught my attention.  Folks on LinkedIn, Facebook and other social media are always posting cute, profound or overused phrases that describe personal motivation, self-discipline or even the meaning of life, and I usually ignore them.   I can’t figure out the point of highlighting the obvious.

But this one gave me pause.

Think about it.  If you want to progress in your career, then you have to show those who are higher up than you that you have what it takes.  That you’re capable of rising to the occasion, making the tough decisions and by your knowledge, skill and experience getting the job done.  And how do you show that?  Fix something, improve a process, change behaviors, save money, make the act of change work for you and your organization.  Have an impact.

Conversely, those who only administer reward programs (sometimes known as treading water) don’t do much of that change stuff and are often viewed as having reached a “career plateau,” or as others might view it – they’ve reached a dead end.   Administrators are not the cream of the profession, and rarely rise to the top.

Is it time to look in the mirror?

Where are we going?

Of course, you have to be in the right environment in order to have the opportunity to shine, to enact those wonderful results.  And while we would all like to be employed by smooth running operations, the heroes of our success story are those who created all that smoothness and efficiency.  Not those who came after, who benefit from it today by pushing the “continue” button..

In a practical sense though, how many really smooth running businesses are out there?  It’s a fair statement to make that just about every organization has some program, policy or procedure that isn’t working right.  They all have some aspect of their reward programs that might not be broken, but could be seriously bent or considered charitably as less than effective.

Not sure of your environment?  Try this.

• Ask questions:  Become the “Curious George” of your organization and learn all there is to know about your current reward programs.  You’ll need to understand the “why” as well as the “what” and “how.”

• Talk to management:  Gain from their perspective as to expectations, comfort level with the status quo and their willingness to accept change.

• Set up metric milestones:  Set up a series of base line statistics that describe current elements of your reward programs.  From there you can measure progress toward specific goals. And you’ll also have a graphic story to show management.  Numbers can trump words.

Change for the sake of change

On the other hand, have a care that you don’t try to force an issue.  I’ve seen compensation practitioners push hard to inject new policies, procedures and even cultural initiatives where they simply would not work.  Something they should have known from the start.  We’ve likely all experienced some form of the “round hole, square peg” scenario – where certain ideas are doomed to fail due to management bias, a deeply entrenched culture, employee demographics or a host of other reasons unique to that organization.

But some practitioners will still push an aggressive agenda, more for their own betterment  (resume enhancement, improving their personal experience, career checkmarks, etc.) than for the improvement of their organization.

I’ve seen it done.

So have a care; using your organization as a personal experiment or Petri dish to try out the latest trends can be a problem for you.  And for your organization.

Ouch.  That phrase coming from senior leadership is still ringing in your head.  You just delivered a fact-based and what you considered compelling argument in support of your compensation program recommendations, and the best you received in return was an indifferent “nahhh“?

They don’t want to do it.  They didn’t even give you much of a reason to ponder, to argue against, never mind provide you with a rationale that you might be able to circle back on with an adjusted recommendation.  The door was shut.  They’re not interested.

It happens

Frustrating as the experience is, anyone who has been in the compensation profession for any length of time can tell you that yes, rejection happens.  Sometimes it happens a lot.  It’s not unusual for those in senior leadership to harbor pre-conceived notions, biases, and preferences (pro and con) that are coupled with a stubborn or even arrogant demeanor.   It may seem that they don’t even listen.  They know better than you and they run the business.  Deal with it.

Talk about trying to push a boulder up a hill!

You do have options though.  To avoid smacking your head against the wall you could serve up proposals that reflect only what you already know they want to hear.  You could be their “yes man” and play to their preferences or help feed their biases by agreeing with them.  That may not be doing your job as a compensation leader, but it would increase the likelihood of receiving a YES response – or at least better your odds.

But if you go down that road what do they need you for? That’s using you to hold up a mirror, and then to administer whatever it might be that they agreed to support.

You could do that.  I’ve seen it done.  I’ve seen people make a career out of that strategy.  Keep your head down so that it doesn’t get chopped off.  Compensation management becomes compensation administration.

Because changing the mind of senior leaders with their heads in the sand, or those safeguarding their own self interests can be a difficult and stressful process.

Odd man out

Then again, maybe you want to stand for something, to believe in something.  Maybe as a professional compensation practitioner you feel strongly enough about something (program, policy, procedure, decision) that you’re willing to raise your hand and say, “wait a minute.”  You know something is wrong and you know how to fix it.  Or at least you know that the ship is going in the wrong direction.  You could be the principled fellow with the persistent voice of persuasive argument, the architect of change, the champion of compensation professionalism.

You could also find yourself out of a job.  Because sometimes rocking the boat can get you tossed overboard.

Or, you could decide that you would find greater job satisfaction by working somewhere else.  Having to deal with mental dinosaurs and the stubbornly backward may be more than you want to keep struggling with.

Strike a balance

But have a care first.  Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.  Perhaps the right direction for you is neither right (what they think they want) nor left (what your profession suggests is the better strategy), but closer to the center by presenting a balanced viewpoint.  So bend a little, become knowledgeable of those management biases and present reasoned arguments that both incorporate those preferences and still move the organization in the direction you feel is better

Rome wasn’t built in a day, but they got it done, one building at a time.  If you push in the right direction you may only get half a loaf from a recalcitrant management, but it’s progress.   And the next time you might get more.  Just keep (gently) pushing.

Frustrating?  Yes.  Will you lose some battles?  For sure.

But what an achievement you could gain.

Because to give up is to become an administrator.  Would that work for you?

Have you ever faced a situation where management ignored your advice?   Where they went left when you said go right?

Of course you have.  Likely it’s happened to you more than once.  The experience is a frustrating one, isn’t it?  And can provide more than a little dent to the ego,  if you dwell on it.  After all, you’re the professional, the knowledge expert responsible for Compensation in your organization.  That’s what you’re being paid for.  To know what to do.  Not only should management  be listening to you, or so you think, they should be agreeing with you.

Wake up and smell the coffee

But this isn’t the classroom or a WorldatWork or SHRM certification seminar.  What all too often happens in the real world can be quite a bit different than what you see in the textbooks or hear from conference or webinar speakers.  Sometimes management takes your input, listens to your reasoning and proposals,  but then decides to move in a direction different from what you had recommended.  And they may not even explain why.

Every seasoned practitioner at some point needs to become accustomed to the realization that the recommendations they present to management, be they for large projects or part of day-to-day advice, aren’t always going to be accepted – and not necessarily because they’re bad ideas.  When management decides to go “rogue” on you it’s not necessarily a reflection of your capabilities or professionalism.   Or even mistakes that you might have made.  They simply have a different perspective than you.

In such circumstancesthe decision-makers usually have more angles to consider than only the compensation point of view.  Whether they’re looking at business projections, the potential impact of share price, financial strength of the company or simply confidential plans going forward that you’re not privy to, they need to weigh your recommendations against what else they know that relates to the matter at hand.  Or what they consider more important.  Or simply their own biases for and against certain ideas.

After all, it’s their business, their budgets, their employees.  They can do what they want.  Hard as that may be for you to swallow.

What you have to be careful about is how much you want to push your viewpoint in the face of management reluctance, self-interest or just flat-out personal bias.  Which may not be a career enhancing move.

You need a thick skin

When leadership chooses a different path than the one you’ve recommended, that decision doesn’t necessarily diminish your role in the organization, or the degree to which your viewpoint is valued.  If you’ve done your job and made sure that the relevant information and decision points are on the table, and that your leadership therefore has their eyes open to the issues and the ramifications of choice, you can relax that you’ve done all that there was to do.  You can sleep well tonight.

Because your responsibility is to advise, to offer the best professional recommendations that your knowledge and experience has prepared you to offer.  Management is counting on you to provide this.  That is the measure of your importance.

Consider the police officer making an arrest.  Their job is to gather information (clues) and apprehend a suspect based on those clues.  But then someone else is responsible to prosecute that suspect, using the information gathered by the police.  Or for various reasons they could decide not to prosecute.  It’s their decision.

But we’re still human, and it can rankle.  Often we’ll find that our ego is in full bloom once we make a recommendation – as if anyone who disagrees with us doesn’t respect us or value our opinion.  That they don’t love us anymore.

Get over it.  Shake it off.  Because they’ll be another issue tomorrow.  And you can be a hero then.