Why do we assume that practically any survey data we see is an accurate reflection of a competitive market? And by “we” I mean both compensation practitioners and senior management alike.

Just asking. Because many times I’ll have a client chomping on the bit to race down the hallways, excitedly waving a piece of paper and shouting, “I have the number!” Now they know what to pay Bob and Mary, or Frank and Sally. Because the survey said so.

But no, they don’t have the number. Likely what they should be whispering instead, is that they have an arithmetic calculation of perhaps questionable origin; one that may or may not reflect what’s truly being paid out there in what they call their “competitive marketplace.”

One doesn’t run down the hallway with that sort of wishy-washy information.

Questionable origin?

Well, that puts a pin in the balloon, doesn’t it? To suggest that maybe that number you took from the survey isn’t a smoking gun after all. That’s like challenging our core beliefs, like mom, the flag and apple pie. If it’s in the survey it has to be right, doesn’t it?

Perhaps.

Perhaps the survey is right. Or the number you’re looking at is simply an accumulation of guesses.

Let’s take a look at why it’s a good idea to be cautious.

Have you ever wondered, who is it that completes those survey forms? Senior compensation professionals with an intimate knowledge of job roles, reporting relationships and the impact of title inflation? Or is it the lowest rung of staff member, the newbie, perhaps even an intern? Last in, first assigned to fill out survey questionnaires.

Users look at surveys and have a tendency to assume that everything is ok with the numbers. They’ll look right past the quality issue and let the discussion shift immediately to job matching, aging, use of median or average, which companies are in the survey, etc.

But what if the foundation of the survey itself, the data being input from the myriad participating companies is flawed from the start? If garbage goes in, that’s all that can come out. If anyone is looking that way.

Consider the probable experience of the person completing these survey input questionnaires:

• How many of these input forms do I have to complete for the survey? And how many surveys do we have to participate in?

• Do I have the time to do all this? Maybe I’ll have to hurry a bit. Maybe I can just copy data from one survey to another.

• Do I have to read our own descriptions and compare them, one by one against the survey definitions? Wow, that’s going to take awhile. And the survey definitions keep changing on me. Maybe I can just use the title.

• How do I balance our four page job description against a survey’s 25 word paragraph?

• What do I do when the survey doesn’t have a Lead category, or a Senior Manager? We have four levels within certain job categories, but the survey only counts three.

• I don’t understand some of the the job descriptions I’ve been given, and that happens a lot. And I don’t have time to chase after managers to seek out what they meant. So I’ll make a good faith guesstimate for the survey match. That should be close enough.

• I really hate doing this. What time is it? Ready for lunch?

Put any two of these comments / attitudes together and I’d worry that your organization’s survey questionnaire wasn’t the best effort that you could manage. Multiply that experience across the majority of survey respondents and . . . you the picture. So perhaps the data should be taken with a grain of salt; it isn’t Moses coming down from the Mount with the tablets (answers). It’s Bob the intern, or Mary the new hire, scratching their heads and hoping they got it right. If they even care.

Pricing guide vs. “the answer”

So what are you going to do?

A good rule of thumb is to consider that your compensation survey sources, single or multiple, actually provide you with more of a “pricing guide,” and not a “smoking gun” of what to pay. Use the survey data to guide the decision-making process, whether it be setting up salary structures, hiring a candidate or offering the right promotional increase. The data is not a hammer of exactitude.

And that’s the key. Consider the survey figures as “feeling the pulse” of the job market. They aren’t precise, there is no singular number to use. The arithmetic average “answers” you glean from the survey sources are better used as a rough idea of what other organizations are paying for like (or similar) positions. Nothing more. Those numbers may or may not relate to your particular circumstances.

Yes, you need a number. But not any number will do.

The worst thing is to blindly accept what those harried, stressed out and over-taxed data input folks are telling you. Because they might not know themselves.

Garbage in and all that.

Doesn’t it seem that everywhere you turn these days you face a bombardment of professional how-to advice from self-proclaimed “experts”?   Especially in Human Resources these people assure you that they understand your problems, and that they have the right solutions for you and your business.  All you need do is read a book, attend a webinar or better yet contract for their consulting services.

Sounds like a diet pill, doesn’t it?  Simple and quick.

Promises of such quick fixes and overnight solutions cover every aspect of our business and personal lives.  Pick an issue and the answer is out there.  Someone can help us, and that someone is our “answer man.”  We only have to listen, watch or read whatever it is that they’re offering.   For a fee, of course.

You can’t escape the TV infomercials, the newspaper advertisements, magazine articles or even blogs and social media sites without an endless flow of subject matter gurus telling you that they have the answer you need.

• “Guaranteed to quadruple sales within twelve months”

• “Maximizes HR effectiveness and value through the use of . . .”

• “Keeping Leadership Talent Engaged”

• “Designing Employee Policies for an International Workforce”

• “The Five Causes of Low Morale – and how to avoid them”

• “Our products, services and advice are certified, hospital-tested, government sponsored”

• Etc, etc, etc

You get the point.

Now, here’s the but . . . .

If that’s the case, that the answer is out there – and for a price waiting for you – why do we continue to face the same problems over and over again?  Why are managers still making poor decisions, wasting money and creating employee morale screw-ups from dawn to dusk?  Why are the business headlines constantly reporting litigation over wrongful or illegal management behavior, or the dubious business decisions that send companies spiraling into financial trouble?

Isn’t anyone paying attention to the answer man?  Or is the advice simply a load of horse manure?  Are these experts really just spouting head-game theories and viewing business problems from an academic vs. practical viewpoint?  Are they rehashing old methodologies with new language and passing off their solutions as “new” thinking?

Whichever it is, these “I have the solution” messages never seem to stop.   Like a constant propaganda campaign radio-beamed across the border – the broadcast light is always on.  The buzz phrases may change from time to time, but our appetite for quick fixes doesn’t seem to ever diminish.

My theory or yours?

If the “experts” do have the answers – color me skeptical – we need to ask why their message is so often ignored.  Several scenarios are possible:

• Subject matter authorities often speak over our heads, using buzz phrases and $100 words

• Reading or listening to this stuff is hard work; the text is dry, boring and not often engaging

• Too much of the advice is contradictory to what you read / heard already – so who is right?

• Academics often lack credibility in the real world; they “just don’t get it”

• Folks aren’t paying attention, on account of their own ingrained biases and personal agendas

Whatever the reason, the drumbeat of advice, whether new or traditional,  is not being absorbed and acted upon – because the problems are still there.

Therefore . . . .

I’m struck by the merry-go-round aspect of constant advice without real solutions.  We see a continuous need to enlighten people and businesses on how to be effective, but it’s a need that never seems to end.

Maybe the analogy to a diet holds some truth; consider how many books are out there on that subject – yet up to 30% of the population remains obese.

There’s an old saying, that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will make a path to your door.   If common sense and up-to-date technical knowledge point the way to a better tomorrow, why do so many companies and their leaders stay in the dumb zone?

If the cure is out there, why is the patient still sick?

I’m thinking that the message is wrong, the audience isn’t listening, or perhaps we’re all being scammed by re-packaged “new” thinking.

Which is it?

Do you want to be admired and respected by your colleagues, recognized by senior leadership for who and what you are?  Do you want to be known throughout your universe as a go-to person, as a hero amidst the minions?

Then solve a problem.  Stand up and show someone how to get things done.  Clear the pathway; support someone’s idea, save a step somewhere.  Do what it takes to cross the finish line.  It’s a target-rich environment out there, so pick something.

Just do it

It’s not hard, really.  It’s a matter of thinking not so much of yourself first and foremost, but of a greater value that is broader than yourself – and of focusing your attention on getting the results that help the department, the team, the business.   It’s called a giving of yourself.  Of extending yourself.  But at the same time you can benefit in return.

All too often what we see from many employees at all levels of the organization is an effort to be the star, the success story, even at the expense of someone else.  “Look at me,” these eager A-types seem to shout, “look at what I have achieved.”  These are folks who seem to have missed reading the memo on team effort.  These are the “selfies” of the workplace.

We all have them in our organizations.  They surround us.  And don’t we resent them?

Here’s a thought, though.  Isn’t it better to be lifted up (reward, recognition, the pointed finger, etc.) by someone else, then to be constantly trying to push yourself up there?  Doesn’t that ego rush get a bit tiring, what with the constant pressure of looking over your shoulder to gauge the competition?  Do you suffer from periodic stress headaches, where the muscles at the back of your neck tighten to stone?  Are you sleeping well?

Now picture yourself receiving that award, with the accompanying recognition, spotlight, accolades etc.  Nice feeling, isn’t it?  A proud moment.

Not all recognition is the same

I think it does make a difference in how one gets recognized.  I suppose that there are levels of self-satisfaction, but the highest must be when you’re lifted on someone else’s shoulder.   When you hear the cheer of the audience.  Self advertisement, political deal-making and a passive resistance that attempts to hold others back simply cannot provide the same level of genuine personal satisfaction.  Because deep down you’ll know that you cheated to get there.

And others will know it too.

Think about someone whom you really admire, in whatever field of endeavor you like.   Chances are it’s a person who has accomplished something, delivered the desired results, made something of themselves.   They stood up for what they believed in.  They meant something.  Likely that person you admire so much isn’t someone who took shortcuts, pushed others aside, ignored the call for help or otherwise kept their focus solely on the mirror.

Success can be fleeting, especially if built on thin ice.  So why would you want to taint yourself, like success with an asterisk?

Of course you wouldn’t.  But now reflect a bit on how you practice at your relationships at work.  Do you admire only yourself, and act accordingly,  or can you spruce up your act and become more of a team player?  Can you start using the word “we” more than “I”?

Naive?  Perhaps I am.  But I think we need more heroes out there, more decision-makers, more team players and more people willing to make a stand for what they believe in.

But that’s just me.

Picture the scene:  your company is seeking to employ a Department Manager, and the leading candidate is currently “in transition.”  Human Resources has pegged the market value of the job at $75,000, but you suspect that the preferred candidate (Bob) will accept $65,000.  A seasoned and experienced professional, Bob was previously paid $77,000 by his last employer, but was caught up in a restructuring staff reduction.  He’s been out of work for almost a year and is getting desperate, worried about feeding his family and paying the mortgage.

When the decision point arrives other, less qualified candidates are already making $70,000 and are asking for $75,000 and up.  Some hiring managers would look at this situation as a no-brainer.  “Let’s hire Bob and save $10,000 to $15,000” would be the smug decision.

That wasn’t hard, was it?   A preferred candidate has been gained at a low ball price.  The hiring manager deserves a pat on the back for saving the company money.   But . . . wait a minute.   Perhaps it should be a boot in the butt instead.

A savvy professional like Bob will have a sense of the competitive market, so he’ll be aware of having taken a significant pay cut to land this job.  So how excited will he be with the offer?  Oh sure, today he’ll be delighted and will celebrate getting a job and finally having money coming in again.  Tomorrow, not so much enthusiasm.

How long before his resentment grows, knowing that he was taken advantage of – gotten on the cheap?  What will happen to his energy level, his engagement, even his morale?  What will he now think of the company, never mind his hiring manager?

The likely future

It’s safe to presume that how you treat a candidate will be discovered at some point by that same new employee.  So when Bob confirms for himself the low ball treatment, what reaction can you expect?

• Angered by a sense of being taken advantage of he could continue with his job search – looking for a better opportunity – while still working for you.

• His job performance might suffer, dropping from 110% to automatic pilot to somewhere south of Satisfactory.  He’ll be going through the motions – not exactly the dynamo you thought you had hired.

• His attitude will turn negative and he’ll morph into another disengaged employee – critical of the company and management, doing no more than he must in order to get by.

• He’ll ultimately quit, but on his terms and timing.  His anger will have kept simmering and he’ll likely feel little concern as to how his departure affects the organization.

What you now have is a bad hire – a situation that’s unnecessary and easily avoidable if you treat candidates fairly.  Look at it from the candidate’s perspective; when your back is to the wall and you feel your “rescuer” is taking advantage, that feeling causes a pit-of-the-stomach resentment that lingers and festers.  And it costs.

Let’s tally up the cost

The manager claimed a cost savings by the hiring decision.  But when you factor in the longer term ramifications of that decision, how do the initial savings hold up?

• The hiring decision saved $10,000 to $15,000 per annum by consciously underpaying the candidate.

• What’s the discounted value of a disengaged employee who doesn’t perform as expected or desired?

• What’s the value of time lost when Bob quits and the job is vacant again while a replacement is sought?

• What’s the value of hiring a potentially more expensive replacement (plus agency costs) and perhaps relocation?

• What’s the value of productive time lost while a new employee gets up to speed?

• Finally, what’s the subjective value of a discontented employee in your midst, one who is possibly poisoning the attitude of other employees?

So the next time a hiring manager proudly announces how to save a bunch of money on a candidate who’s in transition, take a moment to think it through.  You may want to consider a boot in the butt instead.

Do you remember this line from the movie, “A Few Good Men”? Jack Nicholson told Tom Cruise that average folk couldn’t deal with the harsher facts of life, so as a result higher ups would tell them what they wanted to hear. They would offer excuses, clever verbal hedges that sidestepped reality and offered the illusion of comfort.

Today many companies continue to struggle, to claw themselves out from the ravages of the recent economic recession. But a tenuous situation remains, one that causes job stress, concern for the future and perhaps a few sleepless nights. In these circumstances management can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal staff communications, as they face the question of whether employees can handle the truth about what’s going on.

The issues raised could be about possible layoffs, limited pay increases, temporary hiring freezes, reorganizations or other such “bad news” affecting employees.

Crafting the message

Management messaging can either be straightforward about these scenarios, i.e., why it was happening and how circumstances would affect employees, or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges. In other words, employees could be fed corporate-speak.

By corporate-speak I mean a headquarters-generated sleight-of-hand communications effort, typically prepared by smooth-tongued professional writers vs. subject matter experts. The prose, approved by corporate legal to insure that no liability is stated or implied, minimizes the negative and accentuates the positive. The intent is to say little of substance, while at the same time making a self-congratulatory production of their communication efforts.

Content is usually a combination of feel-good phraseology intended to instill a sense of confidence that, whatever the problem, management is a) doing the best they can, b) not at fault, c) has the interests of the employees firmly in mind, and d) will be providing more details soon.

When these officious corporate pronouncements inevitably provide little in the way of satisfactory answers, employees turn to their managers to get straight information. However, when the going gets rough (challenging, complex, contentious), many managers will waffle, dribble their thoughts, obfuscate and in turn create their own excuses. They may even point a finger in the direction of HR. Poorly trained or ineffective managers often have difficulty facing issues important to employees without trying to pass the buck. Employees want to know why?, what next? and what about me?, but managers are rarely equipped to offer an effective response.

Hearing the message

When the straight story is not forthcoming, employees will tend to read between the lines and form their own perceptions of the company story, and that perception is as reliable as the grapevine for spreading information. It’s also more skeptical.

What employees “hear” can usually be generalized by the following attitudes:

• “Where are they going to go?”: Employees are trapped in their jobs, having no choice but to remain, because other jobs will be hard to find. Management has implied, “We don’t need to do anything for them.”

• “Everyone else is cutting back, so we have to as well”: This trite phrase only gets dragged out when the circumstances being described save the company money. Has the “everyone else” phrase ever been used to support giving something to employees?

• “In anticipation of difficult economic times ahead we are forced to / reluctantly / have no choice but . . . “: This is a pre-emptive strike while the sun is still shining. It’s a particularly onerous practice if rewards for past performance are cut, and is often viewed by those on the receiving end as a breach of trust.

• “We employ average workers, so they should be satisfied . . .”: Perhaps an after-the-fact rationalization, but sometimes your senior leadership feels that most employees are easily replaced, like a commodity.

Not surprising, the employee reaction to such doomsday communication efforts is always negative, planting seeds in your workforce for a bitter harvest of lowered morale and increasing disengagement.

• The ineffective message lacks credibility with an increasingly skeptical audience, as does the messenger and the organization behind it.

• Employee listening (and attention) ceases, like shutting off the TV, as insincerity is recognized, so the communication effort is wasted.

• Engagement and performance levels drop as trust, confidence and loyalty erode and employees start to ask themselves, “why bother?”

• The supposition gains traction that the company is lying, holding back or not telling the whole story. It’s hard to see the glass as half-full with this reaction.

On the other hand, when the message, even if not positive, is still perceived as honest, straightforward and without guile the opposite reaction occurs:

• Organizational credibility is strengthened

• Company loyalty is fostered

• Engagement levels and management support are strengthened

The implication is clear: employees can handle the truth, rightly expect same from their employer, and will not take kindly to bland corporate-speak. So don’t get caught making excuses; it didn’t work when you tried it with your mother, and it won’t work with your employees either.

Child care psychologists tell us that a common mistake that parents make during their children’s development years is trying too hard to be their friend.  Instead of being their parent.  That desire to be buddies often results in a reduced emphasis on rules, a less than firm guiding hand and loosening of the requirements for proper behavior, while in turn placing a greater emphasis on letting individuals “be themselves,” all of which is coupled with relaxed supervision and “parenting.”  The results, so the studies say, trends toward increasing self absorption, greater what-about-me? selfishness and for many an elevated degree of social awkwardness when trying to fit in.

What we’re told is that, when parents don’t act like parents those raised in that environment usually find themselves beset with greater challenges in later life as they try to meld into normative society.

The boss who cares – too much?

It’s not uncommon to see a similar display of misplaced friendliness in the workplace, as evidenced by numerous examples of management cadre, including compensation managers.  Some of these leaders, especially those newly promoted and facing a subordinate staff for the first time make a similar “buddy system” mistake with their employees.  They want to be liked.  Call it a “collaborative” management style, espousing a team effort, we’re in this together, etc., but the intent is to be inclusive and participatory with their employees.  Have you heard the phrase at work, “we’re family here“?

Such an attitude can work out just fine, as most management development pundits will tell you, until it’s time for performance assessment and pay review decisions.  That’s when the rubber meets the road.  Because if I’m trying to be your friend I don’t want to pass judgment on you at the same time.  Being cast in the role of judge and jury regarding your performance, and whether you should receive an increase in pay, can be hard decisions for any manager.  Decisions that could negatively impact the manager’s desired state of “family.”

This is why some managers prefer general increases or other forms of pay “decisions” that are made by others.  “Don’t look at me, they did it.”

And I say that these judgment calls can be hard because it’s also easy for managers to pass the buck, to defer otherwise difficult choices and kick the can down the road.  Let’s just avoid the problem.  “Everybody deserves a raise,” is an oft heard refrain from managers looking out for their employees, and if they’re not about to fire you doesn’t that qualify you for something?

Having the cake and eating it too

In other words, it’s easier for managers to become an integral part of the team as collectively the unit looks at the challenges ahead.  Looks outward at the work, the planning, the activities of the next quarter and beyond.  It’s a rougher road for a manager to look inward and judge their employees.

These managers like the title and the compensation associated with their role, but many can be reluctant to actually take on the responsibilities of their office.  Managers are expected to manage their staff, and isn’t the individual performance element one of the most important criteria for measuring the success of staff employees?  And if you’re reluctant to perform that mission?

The question then becomes, are you managing, or even supervising?  Or are you simply administering?

And while you might be consciously looking the other way, chances are the employees you’re trying to “protect” are able to clearly see what in fact you’re doing.  Your better performers are likely upset with you, your average (and below) performers are pleased with your “we owe them” attitude, but just as likely over time they all will lose respect for you.  They’ll know when they’re being managed, when they’re being administered and when the boss is using the pay system as a babysitter.

Ask yourself, what is your goal as a compensation manager, being liked or being respected?  Because it’s an odd case when you can achieve both.

“Loud and angry doesn’t make you right.  It just means that you are loud and angry”

 (author unknown)

Have you ever worked for or with someone like that – a shouter?  Someone who felt that just by force of will – or decibel level – they would get their way?  That they would get you to do what they want, simply because they said so?  Some managers are like that.  It’s not so much what they say, but how they say it – usually with a scowling facial expression that coordinates well with a loud, blustery voice.

I am who am, so do what I say.

Those who rely on their title, their loud voice, or other trappings of power to force compliance by subordinates or colleagues do so simply because they can, and because they’re rarely able to gain an audience any other way.  It’s like a parent who, when lacking more effective strategies finally blurts out to misbehaving kids, “because I said so.”

Is that who you have to face every day?  How much personal or professional respect do you have for that manager?  Chances are it’s not much.  If these managers had something useful to say, something important, or even reasonable, they wouldn’t be shouting.

Leadership isn’t about shouting.  Intimidation is.  It’s not what effective management is about.

Painting the picture

Let’s see if you recognize other aspects of the manager that no one likes.

> Doesn’t listen to anyone: Tends to always have the answers, giving lip service to contrary opinions and acting as if their mind was made up before the discussion.  Meetings are usually a process of  going through the motions.

> Surrounds themselves with “yes people”: Holds “discussion” meetings, but typically with hand-picked subordinates who tend to agree with the manager’s opinion.  Contrary voices are discouraged through passive resistance or by simply being ignored.

> Quick to take credit: When things go well, they are quick to point out who was in charge, whose idea it was, who was right all along.  The word “I” is used a great deal.

> Equally quick to place blame: When things don’t go quite so well, they’re equally quick to disengage themselves from responsibility, often distracting attention by pointing elsewhere.  Subordinates become useful scapegoats.

> Plays the political game: Focuses time and energy to become well connected in the organization, aligning themselves with perceived “winners” among senior management.  Their own opinions become fluid and secondary to the support of their political mentors.

> Is all about “optics”: Displays a tendency to avoid time and energy on personal core values and beliefs; instead is all about what “looks good” to senior management.  Culprits are especially concerned with own standing among key leaders, and are often seen as followers within the leadership circle.

> Subordinates are expendable: Cannot be trusted to support subordinate development or decision-making.  They’re more likely to throw subordinates under the bus when results, procedures or activities are challenged.

When I first considered the personality traits described above a name or two came to mind from my own career experiences.  How about you?  Think of someone?  Someone you’re working for today?

When you don’t like someone, when you lack professional respect, what happens in the workplace?  Do you help them?  Or do you stand by and let the chips fall where they might?  Do you let them fail?  Do you find yourself still performing at your usual 110%, or perhaps your efforts have slackened off a bit?

What to do? 

In my experience I’ve come to realize that you’re not going to change these people.  They’re set in their ways, comfortable with their management style and likely feel that they are in fact successful managers.  They could also be protected from above.  Thus you can’t talk to these people, never mind get them to address personality flaws.

Complaining to HR is often a fruitless exercise, as their hands could be tied as well.  And as a whistleblower your career prospects within that organization could be negatively affected.

So you either swallow twice and live with it, or you exit the organization as soon as you can.

Meanwhile, it’s my fervent hope that when you look at yourself in the mirror you don’t see examples of “the boss from hell” staring back.

Because I don’t want to work for you.  I don’t want to work with you.

For as long as I’ve worked in Human Resources the common solution most often suggested by all ranks and segments of the population for a host of employee issues was to simply pay more.

Yep, just push that EASY button of simplistic, no-thought, one-size-fits-all logic, and like a snake oil concoction sold by con artists the promise was that you’d start feeling better tomorrow. Or as it turned out with the magic elixir salesmen, soon after those making the promise could get out of town.

Why is it that some people always think that the reason behind almost every employee issue is that the pay is wrong? Simple and uncomplicated reasoning, I suppose. Just the way we like our problems. So that therefore the logical and easy-to-understand solution is to pay more.

Like a pebble caught in your shoe, all you have to do is flick your problem(s) away.

Life is more than A + B = C

Sometimes though, you really need to look beyond the simplistic to find the REAL problem. Placing band aids on symptoms will not be a cure-all for what ails you. Instead, by masking the “hurt” you might be making things worse by focusing in the wrong direction. Really harmful problems need time to fester before they erupt into crisis, so band aids often become misguided placebos to make one think that things are getting better. Or will soon improve.

When managers complain about a sales incentive system, the answer could be the compensation. It could also be territory size, unreasonable targets, poor product quality, administrative errors, inadequate training, etc. It isn’t always about pay.

When turnover statistics worsen the organization’s supposed low pay becomes the “kicking boy” for why employees have left. However studies have consistently shown that to be a false logic, which if left unchallenged could direct attention away from the real problem.

As a practicing compensation consultant many of my clients have assumed that their problem was pay; they should be improving pay in some fashion. But no, that isn’t always the case. In fact, more often than not the problem isn’t pay. But using pay as an easy target of complaint is simple to explain, offers the chance of “more for me” and often succeeds in getting employees and even senior management to mindlessly nod their heads. Because perhaps they don’t want to dig a little bit deeper. Perhaps they just want the problem to go away – and (they think) more pay would do just that. No fuss, no muss.

Wrong.

The ease of chasing a distraction

Many times pointing the finger at pay is serving up a distraction for those whose primary interest is in dealing with a quick fix. It’s similar to a dictator who risks war with a neighboring country simply to hide the fact that their own economy is near collapse. Illusionists call it a sleight of hand. Those using this practice will have you looking at everything and everywhere but where the real culprit is – or should be.

So when your foot hurts, don’t rush to throw out your shoes. Think about it. Maybe it is only a pebble that could easily be removed. But maybe the problem isn’t what you think it is. Isn’t what you want it to be. Maybe the problem is more ingrained within the organization, more complex and doesn’t offer a quick fix solution.

To make things right maybe you’ll have to conduct some research, spend a little time considering possible ramifications, unintended consequences and roll-on effects. So talk to affected employees, gather a wider perspective from those closest to the sore points, delve into the weeds, get behind the symptoms and face the root causes.

Offering a greater incentive dollars to the sales force when quotas are unreasonable isn’t going to get you anywhere.

So don’t simply kick the can of problems down the road, because that can will roll to a stop and you’ll be facing the same challenges again and again and again. Problems will not go away by themselves. Instead, if left ignored they worsen. And if your quick-fix solution addresses a symptom instead of the real problem, you’re wasting time and money while what really ails you will grow worse and ever more difficult to resolve.

You may think that your problem is like a pesky little pebble in your shoe. Have a care that you could be seriously wrong.

Have you ever found yourself relaxed in a comfy chair, either warm by the fire or enjoying a good read with a favorite beverage close by?  Perhaps you’re just letting the day wash over you as you watch TV, or even dosing off a bit?  Maybe there’s a sleeping cat on your lap, curled up against any intrusion.

Now that’s a great picture of someone who’s not living in the moment, but is content with what life has to offer.  Ahhhhh.

Careful now – don’t you go and bother with that image; life is fine and dandy just the way it is, and they want to keep it that way.

And then there’s reality

However, what if you did adjust that picture of warmth and content just a bit, shifting to an office environment with a manager sitting back in their chair, eyes closed with a contented smile.  Now this would be a less rosy picture, at least from a business perspective.  True enough, the imagery would remain a snapshot of someone content with the status quo.  They would exhibit the same relaxation, the same carefree attitude, the same reluctance to move from where they are.  But now the image doesn’t give off the same positive glow.  Something is wrong.

Have you seen this picture at work?  Or have you imagined something like this behind the closed doors of certain individuals that you can name?  Maybe your boss?  Or other higher ups?

But not you, right?

Chances are that a manager with a contented let-life-flow-by attitude isn’t exactly what the boss had in mind at the time of hire or promotion.  Didn’t the job description say something about managing the compensation function, directing the company’s reward programs or even becoming a change-agent for improving pay practices and solving problems?

How is that going to happen with the feet up and the eyes closed?

Who are you?

Ask yourself a simple question.  Are you leading programs and employees, or are you administering  them?  Are you directing what’s going on, or simply going with wherever the flow takes you?  Are you willing to make waves to get things done, or are you content to tread water as the clock ticks on?

There are those out there who have reached a plateau and have little or no fire in the belly for more.  I’ve seen them, and likely so have you.

• They have little stomach for the constant office politics

• They want to be liked, which means they avoid any responses that don’t start with “yes!”

• They may not feel up to the task of making real improvements, so if it isn’t broke they don’t want to fix it.

• They have the right title, they have the right compensation; they don’t want to risk either.

• They’re not going anywhere.  They’ve burrowed in until retirement.  Life is good, and they want it to stay that way.

All this isn’t necessarily a bad deal, and I understand the tendency for risk avoidance.  But if the job requirement calls for you to swim to shore, not simply to tread water, then are you performing the job that you’re being paid for?

Admittedly, some companies are fine with administration.  For whatever reason they don’t need to pay for a go-getter, for someone who is going to stir things up.  They’re content with the status quo and only want someone to keep things afloat.  If you have that job, good for you.  Join the bowling team.

But I’m guessing that most companies want more from their Compensation management.  They want leadership, a sense of direction and someone having the gumption to push things in the right direction.  And if that’s the job you have, then relaxing in the comfy chair of program maintenance, being content to continue with the same pay practices, year after year, will define you as a square peg in a round hole.  Eventually senior management will have a “wait a minute!” moment.

Bottom line?  Don’t be treading water when you need to swim.

Get out of your chair and make a difference.

One of the most negative management stereotypes you’ll come across in the workplace is the “yes-man,” that weak-kneed subordinate who is always quick to agree with the boss.   This is an empty suit having no other opinion other than agreement.  Picture a nodding head and vacant smile.

In a similar vein, do you recall the old saying, “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil“?  The modern version of this adage describes one who looks the other way, who refuses to acknowledge and even feigns ignorance when confronted with practices they should otherwise say or do something about.

Do the compensation practitioners in your organization, including the one looking back at you from the mirror, provide objective and unbiased counsel to management, or do they sometimes simply offer support and justification for what management wants to do?

Do you stand up?

There are always opportunities to turn a blind eye / closed mouth to improper practices taking place in the organization:

• Finance has lobbied Senior Management that the average merit increase next year should be x%, and you’ve been asked for your recommendation.

• The performance appraisal process is poorly designed and administered;  rewards are often granted without legitimate justification.  And you say . . . ?

• A Vice President wants to create a puffed-up Office Manager title for a long serving Secretary.  This would also entail a higher grade and promotional increase.

Are you one to stand up and be counted, or do you let these and other possibly contentious events wash over you without voicing concern?

• Are your recommendations primarily based on competitive research, an understanding of compensation strategy and knowledge of business operations?

• Do you question those managers who wish to grant rewards for the wrong reasons?

• Do you strive to hold the line on meaningless titles that increase costs, create employee inequities and provide the company with little or no return value?

What’s the worst that can happen?

Perhaps you’re concerned that having an opinion out of step with senior management will damage your “team player” image.  That your career would suffer because you can’t get along with others, that you “don’t get it“?  Perhaps it’s easier to simply go along for the ride.

It’s my view that practitioners should provide the best advice they’re capable of, on the basis of technical knowledge, experience and seasoning with business operations.  Let management make the decision.  They have a perspective that’s wider than a singular compensation view, and it’s their company, budget, operations, etc.  Your responsibility is to provide the best objective advice possible, to ensure that decision-makers have their eyes open and understand the ramifications involved.

Life isn’t a tableau of  black-and-white images, but a series of swirling grays.  We should acknowledge that there are contingencies and alternative possibilities available.  But we should not temper either our judgment or our opinions solely on the basis of what the boss wants to hear.

Management tends to respect straightforward analysis and honest feedback.  However they won’t respect your input if it’s been tainted by political maneuverings or a “how many ways are there to say yes”? mentality.

Your job is to add value

You don’t have to fall on your sword career-wise to make a point, to stand up for yourself, to add value to the decision-making process.  Sometimes you just know that the direction management is taking is the wrong path to take, but that doesn’t mean that you should step away from doing your job.

One of the best ways to establish yourself as a valuable contributor is to have an opinion, and not be afraid to voice it.  Even when the management steamroller is moving and you have to get out of the way or be run over, you should always provide your professional input.   You can do this by offering options and alternatives for management to consider.  That’s where you’ll be able to present your own recommendations alongside the management point-of-view.

Get them thinking; that’s your responsibility and how you add professional value.  It’s also how you build credibility and an invaluable personal awareness with Senior Management.