Not every employee is capable of selling products or services to potential customers.   The selling process requires an employee to possess a particular set of interactive and persuasion skills, as well as a compatible personality profile (garrulous, self-confident, unafraid of rejection, etc.).   While some employees enjoy the challenge, most want no part of it and only a minority are neutral about the idea.  For those tasked with a selling job it’s typically a reflection of individual personality that would generate success or struggle.

For compensation practitioners having the right person involved in the selling process can be more important than the compensation program itself, because dangling potential rewards in the face of the wrong person can be a waste of money and represents lost business opportunity.

It’s All About Motivation

Success in the selling process depends upon the right motivating elements aimed at the right employee personality.  To do this correctly within a sales compensation program requires the design to take that into account, to focus financial rewards toward whatever engages, whatever motivates the employee to perform in the manner the organization wishes.

Costly mistakes can be made when an organization assumes that all employees will react in the same fashion to the same stimulus.

Have you considered what motivates your sales employees?  Chances are that not everyone would have the same answer.

• Money:  Everybody’s first response is that all you have to do is offer the opportunity for a cash bonus and the employees are off and running.  But in chasing the almighty dollar, employees could also drive your company in the wrong direction – even off a cliff – because they may take the path of least resistance (difficulty) and greatest financial reward.  If those activities fail to align with what the company needs to assure business success, money is not only wasted but used to reward behavior that could be detrimental to the company.

Do you really want to reward the sale of a money-losing or low margin product?

• Mission:  Especially prevalent with not-for-profit organizations, many employees have a “fire in the belly” belief in what the organization espouses, be it products, services or awareness.  This internal value system often provides motivation enough to ensure concerted efforts.  In such a scenario, money is deemed less important (though not dismissed) as a motivator.  Employees are already motivated by the worthiness of the organization’s mission.

Helping others or helping a cause can be reward enough for some employees.

• Brand identification:  If you identify with the organization’s offerings and have a belief in what you are selling, you’re already halfway to becoming an effective sales representative.  For these employees the ingrained belief in what they sell is already present; they just need a  bit of training.

Employees are proud to be associated with a particular product or service.  They’re always wearing the logo shirt and are the organization’s biggest fans.

• Self-motivation:  Here the employee possesses an internal reserve of self worth that helps to make excellence its own reward.  It’s a state in which success in one’s endeavors is self-fulfilling.  The reward system for these employees is often a nice addition, but isn’t necessarily the prime motivating factor.

A certain level of performance would be forthcoming, no matter what financial rewards are offered.

• Challenge:  The mindset here is the joy of climbing the hill, especially if there’s a pot of gold at the peak.  Similar to self-motivation, some personality profiles relish a good challenge, and if you provide a reward for goal attainment, so much the better.

For such employees, the game is always afoot.  They enjoy breaking down barriers, solving problems and grabbing for the brass ring.

• Competition:  The fierce desire to be better than others; where winning (which means that others lose) is critically important.  Note: such employees might not be effective team players.

Sometimes this motivational factor is less about achieving company goals than simply doing better than other employees.  Like a loose cannon, these players may have their own definition of winning, which may not be synonymous with yours.

The takeaway point here is to understand what motivates your employees and then to place your rewards in front of them in a fashion that leads and directs their behavior.

Because if you design your incentive program with the wrong assumptions about what engages your workforce, you’ll risk missing your targets, misspending your financial assets and perhaps not even achieving the required level of success – regardless of the money paid out in rewards.

Designing A Better Carrot

When putting together the elements of your incentive program it would be worth your effort to focus rewards in a manner that recognizes the type of activity and performance you’re aiming for.   That sounds like a simple and straightforward concept, yet is all too often missed by plan designers.

• Change in behavior:  Providing an incentive opportunity should hinge on performance that you would not ordinarily receive.  Don’t waste money paying extra for what you can gain for free.

• Longer term focus:  Building relationships is often just as important as making a quick sale.  Repeat and additive sales are much easier to achieve than finding a new customer.

• Worthwhile rewards:  If the reward isn’t deemed worthwhile (“why should I put myself out for so little?”) the motivational factor will be diminished – leaving you with only employee self-motivation to rely on.  In such a case your incentive plan would be viewed as worthless.

• Reasonable targets:  If the employees don’t see their performance targets as “reasonably attainable,” their effort and engagement will suffer.  They should have an expectation that they can succeed and that they can reach their target.  Without that belief no incentive plan in the world will be able to stimulate the right degree of motivation.

To motivate sales employees to achieve a win-win solution, where they deliver the right performance and achieve financial rewards, while the company achieves operational success, you have to push the right buttons.  But always be mindful that it’s not as easy as simply waving a dollar bill.

When you’re on the international stage and designing programs to recognize and reward an employee’s extraordinary achievements, it’s important to understand the cultural implications of these programs.  Because not everyone thinks the same way.  Companies with a truly global operating mindset will take into account national and cultural differences that distinguish its widespread employee populations.  On the other hand, domestic-oriented organizations with international operations often struggle with their viewpoint, preferring a standardized strategy.

One size rarely fits all.  One size rarely pleases everyone.

You might think that the positive aspects of employee recognition programs are a universally accepted principle, but that’s only partially correct.  Critical distinctions do exist.  In some cultures / national identities the role of the team is such a core element of employee identification that seeking out an individual contributor for recognition would not be a welcome practice.  Some employees might be reluctant to step forward, not wanting to be pushed into the spotlight.

In other countries you will find that the perceived value of cash as a recognition award varies a great deal.

Case study

A former employer of mine once implemented a global Spot Award program for its worldwide employees – without including their international HR community in the planning discussions.  Finalized program elements and procedures covered employees in over 20 countries in exactly the same fashion.  The premise was to provide immediate (read that, fast) recognition and financial rewards (Spot Awards) for those non-incentive-eligible employees who demonstrated performance above and beyond their normal job roles.  Nominations for awards would come from the employee’s direct manager, though employees could recommend co-workers as well.

While the program was deemed a success in the US (defined by the dollars spent), it proved much less successful elsewhere among the company’s far-flung international operations.

Lessons Learned

The first problem was that Managers outside the US placed a much more conservative financial value on so-called “extraordinary” employee contributions.  Or put another way, the U.S. Managers were more generous in their payment awards than elsewhere.  The result was that the cash payments on a per-employee basis were widely skewed to the U.S. employee.  Notwithstanding the vagaries of the various currency exchanges, the international offices did not spend their allotted recognition reward monies as frequently or as generously as their U.S. counterparts.

I recall one scenario where a US employee received thousands of dollars for a particular project effort, while their European counterpart was given a non-cash award (recognition dinner).  This created more than a few awkward moments when the two employees shared experiences.

The second challenge was that many international employees did not want to be individually spotlighted by the recognition program.  They were willing to receive the award, but would prefer that the recognition remain confidential.  Given that Corporate had planned an internal communications campaign to highlight individual award winners, that reluctance proved quite a hindrance.

Compounding the preference for anonymity was the desire for team over personal awards, as individual employees proved resistant to receiving the planned fanfare or preferential treatment – especially in front of their co-workers (team members).

The bottom line was that the recognition and reward program recognized a smaller than anticipated number of non-US employees, less reward money was spent per international employee, and Corporate Communications was hard pressed to find international employees amenable to being highlighted for the program.  Not exactly what the program designers had intended.

Corrective action

The solution seems straightforward.  If a global program is to affect all employees, then potential national or cultural distinctions among groups should be addressed well in advance.  Taking that step would mean including representatives from those groups in the design and communication phases of the project.  However, such a simple step seems a difficult one to take for many corporate global plan designers.  Why?

When they have the bit between their teeth developing a program that affects the majority of employees, management is often reluctant to change course to include the differing sensitivities of small populations, especially if those populations do not speak with one voice.  What they prefer to do is have local representatives accept the global directives, or at best “tweak” the round peg into the square hole.

How does that approach work for you?  I can tell you that such a tactic doesn’t work for your international employees.

The time will come when you find yourself between a rock and a hard place at work.  Your ability to produce project deliverables will be challenged by staff shortages, multiple projects simultaneously coming due, or the requirement of particular skill sets not possessed by your existing personnel.  And while you’re stressing out those problems Senior Management won’t let matters slide until circumstances are more convenient.

You need help.  You need it now.  But do you need a hired-gun professional, a consultant?

Reaching Out For Help

You could try to find a temporary Compensation Analyst to run some numbers for you, and if that solves your immediate dilemma you need not read any further.

However, if your challenge is deeper and broader than simple spreadsheets, you might seek out the services of a seasoned expert, one who can provide hands-on advice and counsel, who can take data from the analyst and advance your agenda: What does this information tell us?  What can we do now?  Where are the risks?  What corrective strategies can be employed?

The following circumstances are examples of when the use of outside expertise can be beneficial:

• Technical knowledge is not currently available to existing staff (i.e., international, executive, expatriate or sales compensation).  This may not be the time for on-the-job training.

• When the current staff is overwhelmed and you need temporary assistance to take charge and drive your multiple project(s) forward.

• Interim replacement for absent staff (separation, leave, etc.).  Someone to fill the gap, holding things together and advancing the agenda until the replacement is secured.

External professionals have the experience and broad perspective to impact your business, not simply report on it.  If used properly and in a focused manner subject matter experts will save you time, money and sleepless nights.

Caution: many professionals currently between jobs (“in transition”) consider themselves temporary consultants while continuing their job search.  Dependent on your time line these individuals may not be able to provide the focus or dedicated support (staying power) that you need.  They’re still looking for their next permanent job.

As you would expect, specialists cost more than general labor, on account of their broad and deep subject matter capabilities that are available “on demand.”  However, consider whether the expense is justified before you commit.

• An improper one-time “fix” will cost a great deal more over time (dollars, morale, turnover, training etc.) than if the problem was properly corrected in the first place.
• Consultants have the seasoning and long service expertise to look past the figures to the root causes and underlying issues.
• Someone who has a broad background working with diverse industries, geographies and employee segments can provide a richer perspective as to how best to approach your particular challenges.

Or Choose To Go It Alone

Of course you can decide to do the work yourself.  Perhaps you don’t have the budget, have never gone “outside,” or simply feel defensive about admitting you need help.  But that “little engine that could” strategy can present its own challenges.

• Your staff may be slow to focus on projects additive to their full time jobs, plus they will need to overcome numerous day-to-day distractions.  Project time lines will be drawn out.

• Internals tend to focus on easy-to-achieve short term improvements, like low hanging fruit, vs. what core issue decisions are needed to affect a permanent solution.  This is not solving the problem, but shoving it into a closet – with the other skeletons.

• Managers are often in a hurry to check off the project (problem) as completed (fixed) or “addressed” – the so-called “check mark” management style.

• Internal staff is often restrained in their thinking by experiences limited to the What and Why of their organization.  They may not be able to see out of the box into the wider universe of possibilities.

Help Needs To Be Monitored

If you have decided to bring in outside assistance, exercise care that you utilize them effectively to gain the maximum value:

• Proper scoping of the project saves time and money.  Understand the challenge you need addressed, as confusion here leads to greater expense and longer time lines.

• Scrub your data before handing it over; otherwise you’ll be paying for “grunt” work easily completed by inside staff.

• Monitor work progress, lest you end up with charges for unanticipated (though not specifically prohibited) work.  The grey areas will cost you every time.

• Avoid consultants who are themselves incented by billable hours; they may encourage additional steps that render your project(s) more complex / expensive.

• Be cautious of fancy report formats and four-color charts; you’re paying extra for the fluff, which can sometimes disguise a scarcity of core material.

Seasoned external experts have the advantage of concentration; they focus on the project at hand, while avoiding the trap of non-productive time (socializing at work, interruptions, meetings, other distractions from the work at hand).

So if you need a bit of help to address your Compensation challenges, to help you achieve your objectives in the face of staffing issues and simultaneous projects, give some thought to calling for roadside assistance.

It’s fairly common these days to find articles written by those who advocate increasing the eligibility of employee incentives.  Their recommendation is to push inclusion further and further down the organization’s hierarchy.  The argument is that all employees affect a company’s success, that every employee will chase the almighty dollar of variable pay, and that the opportunity for ever larger rewards will motivate them to do great things.  All of which would in turn deliver improved financial results for the company’s bottom line.

Maybe.

And maybe it’s not such a good idea after all.  Perhaps it’s a bit of a crap shoot as to whether higher compensation costs (which would be a certainty) will result in improved financial gains (possible, but not guaranteed).   Let’s take a look at the challenges to be faced when you consider a broader eligibility for your annual incentive program.

What’s The Plan?

Start with a re-examination of the basics.  What do you consider an incentive element when designing a compensation program?  My definition is a reward for performance that goes above and beyond the norm, beyond what is expected.  Thus it shouldn’t be a reward for performance that would have occurred as a matter of course.  The intent for offering an incentive is to prompt a change in behavior, to get employees to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily have done, and to get them to do it because they have been offered a financial reward.

That should be the plan.

And because these objectives are noteworthy, you would expect that they would differ from year to year as the needs of the organization evolve and adapt to changing business conditions.  This emphasis on annual objectives reinforces the intent that incentives should be designed to reward effort above and beyond those duties listed in the job description.  They should not be repetitive, year upon year.  That’s what the job description is for.

Incentive rewards should also not be provided simply because an employee performs their job well.  That particular carrot should be the role of the annual merit increase.  In fact, such an exercise would be considered “double-dipping,” paying for the same performance twice.  You should not be using an incentive as an inducement to get employees to perform their expected duties.  Again, that’s paying twice to reinforce the same behavior.  It’s also using compensation to replace the leader’s own responsibility to manage their staff.

Some would consider this using pay as a babysitter.

Is There An Advantage For The Company?

When deciding on whether to add a variable pay opportunity to an existing base salary compensation model, you need to ask yourself, “what will the company receive in return for the increased costs (variable pay) of an incentive program?”  If you are planning to increase your targeted compensation costs by 5% or 10% of the base salaries of an affected group, how will you answer the ROI question?

Caution:  You had better provide a business (financial) rationale, and not subjective phraseology like “survey says” or “everyone else is doing it” or even “it’s the right thing to do.’  Management tends to frown on such trivial rationalizations.

It’s also worth noting that employees lower in the hierarchy have a greatly reduced line of sight between their actions and business success.  This entails having to create quantifiable objectives for performance (you are quantifying, right?) that should integrate vertically with department, functional and / or organization objectives.  If you don’t integrate what you’re telling employees to do, you may find yourself paying out incentive rewards when the company as a whole has not been successful.

As a counterargument to the eligibility question I’m often asked about Gainsharing programs.  These initiatives can be a useful method of introducing incentives to select employee groups who have a direct line of sight to potential savings.  They can affect real change.  However, successful plans eventually kill themselves off as viable gains are achieved (low hanging fruit) and payments decrease after the easy pickings are collected.

So, to recap, let’s review the business urgency for lowering incentive eligibility to below the management ranks.

• Is the employee line of sight (performance / business results) direct, or remote?  If remote, what are you paying for?

• Can you quantify the expected ROI?  The wrong answer here suggests a giveaway.

• Can you balance the increased compensation costs against hard financial gains for the company?  Are the bean counters nodding their heads?

• Would the variable pay become strictly an added cost, or would any portion of base salary be at risk?  “No pain, no gain,” or “no risk – icing on the cake?”

If you have a reasonable doubt on any of the above points, I suggest you think long and hard before implementing such a program.  It would be very difficult to dig yourself out of that hole.

You’ve seen the company’s search ads and heard the pitch from your recruiters; you offer competitive wages to qualified candidates.  That’s got to be a strong hook for attracting talent, right?

Big deal.

Your pay structures are regularly updated based on competitive market trends, so the opportunities you offer employees are aligned with your retention and motivation strategies, right?

Not enough.

Most employees presume that their company is already meeting (or aspiring to meet) the goal of competitive pay.  Companies routinely advertise the practice (“we offer competitive wages”) and candidates in return expect this of potential employers.  But what happens when your goal of offering competitive pay is finally achieved?  Are employees grateful?  Can companies rest in their efforts to attract, motivate and retain?

I’m afraid not.

What Doesn’t Happen

What doesn’t happen when you offer competitive pay is that your recruitment problems do not magically disappear, your employees won’t be satisfied and your compensation programs have achieved little more than being average – and isn’t that a “C” grade in school?  Is that how you want to position your compensation strategy?

As far as aspirations go, it’s only middle-of-the-road.

If your company does pay “the going rate,” that still means that approximately 50% of the companies out there are paying more than you.  That’s what average gets you, with half doing more and half doing less.  Is that what your company aspires to achieve?  You won’t see that fact pointed out in recruiting campaigns.

No one quits for less money – so all you’ll hear through the grapevine is about how so-and-so left and is now making more somewhere else.  And as it’s human nature to hear only what supports your own notion  –  your employees won’t pay attention to the broader rewards package, just the points that confirm their opinion that your company isn’t paying enough.

The only way to avoid this scenario is becoming the premier paying company in your market or industry – and can you afford that cost?

Lest we forget though, it’s important to differentiate between having a salary structure (grades, salary ranges and midpoints) that provides competitive rate “opportunity” and actually paying employees at those rates.  Some describe this as whether the company is “walking the talk.”  I recall a client who was boastful of the fact that their salary ranges were continually adjusted to mirror market rates, but was later embarrassed to discover that their actual pay practices fell well below midpoints.  The company said one thing by their pay structure, but did another by the way they implemented that structure.

For their own part, employees relate to the pay they receive, not the midpoint of a salary range or other such declared “opportunity.”  For them the company’s “competitiveness” can be more illusion than fact; especially if they’re experienced and have been with you for awhile.  Thus the company needs to keep its focus on actual vs. opportunity pay.

Why Don’t Employers Pay The “Going Rate?”

Typically it is not an organization’s strategy to avoid paying out competitive rewards, but more likely a series of practices that have evolved over time.

• Some candidates will accept a lower employment rate than should normally be paid for their knowledge and experience, and managers tend to view this as a cost savings.  Though it is more like putting a skeleton into the closet and hoping it doesn’t jump out at you down the road.  One day these employees will change their minds.

• Once you’ve started down the slippery slope of paying some employees below market rates the practice is soon compounded by internal equity.  Managers don’t want to pay similarly qualified new people more than existing employees, so the new hires can be offered below market pay.

• Pay-for-performance systems have a hard time keeping up with the increased marketability of employees.  A minimally qualified employee hired at the minimum rate will gain knowledge and experience (and thus marketability) faster than the company’s annual merit system can recognize.  This is compounded when you have to hire a qualified worker and discover that the market requires you to pay more than what you’re paying your more experienced employees.

So, what’s the answer?  Management won’t agree to become the premier payer in your area, so you should consider instilling more flexibility into your pay practices.  Consider targeting key jobs (highly skilled, difficult to replace, mission critical, etc.) and make sure those jobholders are well paid for the market.

And don’t forget to pay attention to your customer-facing employees.  To many a customer, those folks are your company.

Other positions you have deemed less skilled and more easily replaceable could continue with your “competitive opportunity” strategy.  This approach is akin to ring-fencing key talent, protecting them against poaching while recognizing and rewarding those with the most potential impact on your business.

Bottom line?  Be careful when you claim how your company provides competitive wages.  You may not be correct, but if so – big deal.

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

Today we remain stuck in the mire of a severe economic malaise, a situation that is causing enormous employment anxiety, deep concern for the future and perhaps more than a few sleepless nights.  As organizations ponder the question of whether employees can handle the true state of affairs (health and future prospects) they can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal communications.

The troubling issues raised could be pending layoffs, reduced or frozen pay increases, hiring freezes, reorganizations or other such “bad news.”

Management messaging can either be straightforward regarding current events – addressing the cause of problems and how economic circumstances would likely affect employees – or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges (i.e. excuses).  In other words, employees could be fed “corporate-speak.”

Corporate Speak

By this I mean a headquarters-generated sleight-of-hand communications effort, typically prepared by smooth-tongued professional writers instead of 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 in these communications is usually a combination of feel-good phraseology intended to instill a sense of confidence.   The target of the communications is expected to walk away feeling that, whatever the problem, management is a) doing the best they can, b) not at fault, c) continues to have 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, most employees turn to their direct managers in an effort to obtain straight information.  However, when the going gets rough (challenging, complex, contentious), many managers will waffle, dribble their thoughts, obfuscate and start to make their own excuses.  They may even point a finger in the direction of Human Resources.  Poorly prepared managers have difficulty facing issues important to employees without trying to pass the buck.  Employees want to know the why, the what next and what about me?, but managers are rarely equipped to offer an effective response.

So when the straight story is not forthcoming, employees will tend to read between the lines and form their own perceptions of the company message, and that perception is less reliable than the grapevine for spreading accurate information.  It is 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 and have little 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 can easily be replaced, like a commodity.

Not surprising, the 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

• As insincerity is recognized employee listening (and attention) stops – like shutting off the TV – 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 is hard to see the glass as half-full when attitudes have soured.

On the other hand, when the message is honest, straightforward and without guile the opposite reaction tends to occur:

• Organizational credibility is strengthened

• Company loyalty is fostered

• Engagement levels and management support are strengthened

The implication is clear:  employees can handle the truth, should rightly expect it 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.

Picture the scene;  you’ve just completed a presentation to senior management, complete with analysis and recommendations for next year’s compensation program.  Now you stand ready for the question and answer session.  Now is the time to defend your proposals.

With a carefully blank expression on his face your COO poses a single question . . . why so much?

Justification Or Excuse?

But you’re prepared.   You’ve anticipated the question.   You know that properly answering the “why” question is your once-a-year opportunity to make your mark, show off your CCP designation and help direct the reward programs for your organization.

So chances are you won’t respond with, “because that’s what everyone else is doing.”  Uttering that lame comment would suck the air right out of the room – and likely your career with it.   So you won’t say that.  However,  just between us, would that actually be the truth of it?  Are your recommendations based on the unique status of your own organization’s external competitiveness, internal equity, overriding Compensation strategy and financial affordability, or have you simply parroted what the Compensation surveys report that everyone else is supposedly doing?   Have you pushed the EASY button and followed the all-powerful “common practice?”

Beneath the simple question above your senior leadership is really asking whether your proposals set a course to  simply follow the pack, or do they lead toward solutions crafted for your organization’s own needs?  Follow the crowd or strike out your own path?

Are your recommendations for the company’s compensation programs a compilation of “everyone else is doing it” rationale, or are those proposals based on what you feel is necessary for your own organization – regardless of the “average?”

Are Decisions Being Made For You?

Is your view of presenting competitive programs a reaction to the behavior of others, or because certain tactics also make sense for you as well?

• Raising Salary Ranges: surveys will report the projected average increase in salary range midpoints for next year.  But how does that figure relate to the competitiveness of your own situation?  Do your ranges need a similar adjustment?  What would you recommend if you didn’t have a survey whispering in your ear?

• The Average Spend: if survey sources report a projected average spend of 3.0% for next year, is that your recommendation as well?  And when responding to the why question, what else do you have to offer as justification?  Does the 3% make sense for you?  Can you afford it?

• Pay Decisions: is the survey source a reliable indicator you can point to as the prime reason for making individual or group pay decisions, or are external sources only one aspect of your analysis, one element of your reward program strategy?  If the market says $47,512 does that figure become your new competitive target?

So before you make that next reward presentation ask yourself whether your decisions and your recommendations are adding value to the organization.   Or was your analysis complete once the survey data suggested a common trend?  Once you saw the answer.

The easy way is to point at others, to argue the common sense of common action.  However that strategy bespeaks more of a Compensation Administrator than one who is charged with overseeing the proper design, competitiveness and effectiveness of the company’s reward programs.

To be fair, sometimes what everyone else is doing is the right action for you.   I suppose that’s why so many companies are doing it.  Then again, the reported “average” may be no more than an arithmetic exercise that is less a strong trend than rather a convenient manipulation of data points.  Who’s to say?

So be careful before you sign on to tactics decided upon by other companies.  That nameless average of common practice is not responsible for your organization’s compensation programs.  You are.  And you’d better have a better reason for your proposals than that’s what the survey said.

Photo courtesy of pmarella

Company management is always asking, “what is the market value of our jobs?”   But just how precise does your market pricing analysis really have to be?  To what extra lengths will you go, or should you go,  to increase the level of precision in your analysis, and would that effort prove worthwhile?   Does the appearance of a more precise figure bring meaningful results for you and for your management?

For example, would you consider that a market rate of $47,512 is an accurate reflection of current national trends for the subject job, or is that figure simply an arithmetic average that looks precise?  Would you fall on your sword over the accuracy of your analysis?

Regardless of need, how precise can you be?

The competitive “marketplace” is an imprecise animal, not often well defined and subject to numerous variations and interpretations.

• One survey doesn’t use the same companies as the next survey.

• The job matching spectrum swings from easy (benchmark) to difficult (unique jobs).

• Surveys provide different mixtures of industries and revenue (size).

• Weighted Average / Average / Median / 50^th Percentile formats are not always consistent, and they are not the same.

• International data is often a shadow of what is available in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the market itself is a moving target, never static, always changing, and the use of aging factors to bring it up-to-date will add a degree of guesswork.   For icing on the cake many practitioners round their analysis to the nearest Currency 100, in order to emphasize the “pulse” of the marketplace.   A minor distortion, I’ll admit, but exactitude is often an illusion anyway.

Each of us, in our respective roles, needs to ask of ourselves, what degree of precision is necessary?   Not what is attainable, but what is necessary to achieve our goals.  Is it sufficient to report the pulse, or does your organization require a digital thermometer that slices whatever data is available to a much finer degree?

When survey data is not robust (limited participation and scant industry and / or revenue segments) the extra effort expended in the search for precision can result in short cuts, assumptions and questionable (stretch) job matches – all to deliver a data capture anomaly that has only the appearance of exactitude.

Remember that the average of two survey sources doesn’t necessarily indicate a market trend, but only an arithmetic average – in effect, a splitting of the difference between two credible, or incredible figures.  That’s not a sign of anything.

A useful rule of thumb to consider is that any incumbent figure within +5% to -5% of a reported “market rate” is close enough to be considered as “on target.”   There are some who think that figure should be 10%, but to my thinking that leaves too wide a range for a so-called “going rate.”

Caution:  lots of analysis – paralysis jockeys out there advocate increasingly precise techniques to zero in on what they call your true market rate.  Toward that end several vendors have built a business model around encouraging organizations to slice and dice available information, trying to define and refine exactly what a “market” is, what jobs are exact matches and after a fashion how their singular survey source is the answer to your needs.

Part of that marketing strategy is to use custom designed evaluation techniques and their proprietary job matching system.  Such a strategy effectively marries the organization to the vendor, as one cannot easily co-mingle proprietary language and techniques with methodologies used by other survey sources.  Apples and oranges.

The hunt for precision can deliver less perceived value

Sometimes the pressure to report ever more refined analysis might actually result with the opposite effect; weakened credibility as the figures face challenges.

• When too few companies are reporting data.

• When having to stretch survey descriptions to match unique job content.

• When dealing with locations having volatile inflation spikes.

• When management doesn’t need to “dot the I and cross the T.”

At the end of the day, what does the client or your company management desire from your view of the competitive marketplace?  Chances are they simply want an understanding of approximately what the job is worth.   To gain a “ballpark” figure that could be used in planning, in recruiting, in assessing their reward programs.  You won’t have to report $47,512 to paint that picture.

On the other hand a simplistic sore thumb analysis is not an effective solution either, but instead let me suggest that a balance of time, effort and cost be used when conducting market analysis.  The key question is, what level of precision is really necessary?  What level will deliver credible results?

Do you really need such analytic exactitude to make a business decision?

I think you don’t, no matter what the over-analyzers suggest.  But then again, it may be rocket science in your organization.

With the fall of the Autumn leaves the attention of most senior management personnel shifts to the upcoming changeover of the business year.   And that click of the fiscal year calendar is accompanied by the beginning of their new annual incentive plan cycle.  So while the left hand is busy processing performance assessments and award payouts as an end-of-year project the right hand is getting ready for the new cycle.

In many companies this fresh start is automatic, an administrative process not given much thought past doing what they did last year, and the year before.

Here’s a thought.  Instead of issuing another rubber stamp copy perhaps now might be a good time to review your annual management incentive plan and take the opportunity to breathe new life into it.   Because if left on autopilot too long it’s surprising how many extra names find themselves added to the incentive-eligible rolls, slowly adding what can become significant costs, and all without proper review.

Eventually senior management will notice the ballooning costs and clamp down, either by reducing eligibility in a broad-based fashion, and /or by reducing incentive payment opportunities.  Perhaps both.  You don’t want to get to this point.

The Sneak Attack On Your Payroll

Has your company made too many people eligible for the incentive program?  Take a quick look at a 3-year growth curve of positions and employees being included.   Would you consider all these deserving?  Is someone making that decision, or has title or grade designation become the deciding factor?  Meanwhile, can you explain the ROI for the growing total in management incentive pay?

Employees deemed eligible for an incentive opportunity should have a line of sight between their performance against measureable objectives and award payments.   If they don’t, what are you rewarding?  Your plan shouldn’t be a profit-sharing scheme, where eligible employees light a candle in the window and hope that the company does well.

Companies typically use the “Manager” title as an eligibility cutoff, but perhaps what you name a position should not be the sole criteria.  What about those whose responsibilities include managing people, versus individual contributors who manage a budget, or a non-staffed function, or a specific responsibility?  Sometimes they’re all called “Manager.”

Perhaps the title is a gift, regardless of roles and responsibilities.  I’m thinking of a “First Impressions Manager.”

Using a grade designation can have its own problems; is everyone in a grade eligible, and if not how do you differentiate between positions, when the company has already deemed each to be similarly valued?  Slippery slope here.

If you’re suffering from title inflation and have granted puffed-up titles for certain employees, are these Managers actually managing at all, are they only supervising, or are they really only technical experts with a gratuitous title?

Have a care that your pay-for-performance management incentive program doesn’t evolve into an entitlement program.

Where’s My Check, Please?

Something else to look at: is the incentive award at risk?  How many of your eligible employees do not receive an award each cycle?  If practically everyone receives an award, perhaps instead of an incentive plan what you have is a delayed reward program; managers put in their twelve months and expect a bonus payment.

Does your incentive program require behavior above and beyond, with individual objectives linked to broader company goals?  Or are your objectives only finalized at the end of the cycle, simply to comply with some Human Resource assessment form that must be completed?

At the lower limits of incentive eligibility some companies start with an incentive target of 5%.  However that low a reward opportunity is not a carrot for anyone.  For that small amount of reward you won’t change anyone’s behavior, never mind maintain their attention for 12 months, so why bother?   If behavior isn’t going to change, if you’ll receive the same performance as before, but now for an additional  5%+ cost increase, what is your return on your investment?  In my view this money is often wasted.

Now is the time that you should have a look-see at the effectiveness of your annual management incentive plan – and to suggest meaningful improvements.   Because once the current payment processing cycle is complete the pressure will be on to roll-out the 2012 program.  And at that point the die will be cast until the following year.

It will be too late.

A lot of talented folks are unemployed or “in transition” these days, working full time in their efforts to land a new job.

When that goal is finally reached, when someone says, “we love you, please come to work for us,” the tendency will be to respond with “thank you, YES.”  However, that immediate, knee-jerk reaction could be a mistake, as at that point you’re a desired candidate with options, while tomorrow you’ll be one of the staff – with little leverage at all.

When the moment of decision occurs, most Human Resource professionals would advise you to give the person who extended the offer a warm thank you, but then to take a little time for reflection on the particulars – the details.  The higher up the food chain you are, the more moving parts will comprise your employment offer.   No one is going to force you to decide right away, so don’t.

Presuming that the career implications are positive, that you don’t have to move to Northern Alaska, and that you want to accept the offer, let me suggest a few tactical strategies to help you make the most of what was offered.  Because with a bit of luck you can do better.

The Recruiter

Internal recruiters can be difficult to work with at times, but you need them.  So keep a smile on your face and play nice throughout the interview process.  At some point your recruiter may be called on to negotiate with management on your behalf, so the relationship you have with this individual is critical.  Why?  As your offer was likely developed from the combined thought of the hiring Manager and Human Resources, the recruiter would play the part of the messenger.  So if you wish to negotiate revised terms it’s the recruiter who needs to “sell” your point of view for a better deal.

The Package

I always advise clients to look past the base salary to the rest of the package, considering the offer in its entirety.  And make sure you have the offer in writing.   All the necessary elements should be included (i.e., title, salary, incentive, vacation, relocation, stock options, retirement, etc.), as there may be a cornucopia of opportunity to negotiate improvements by expanding your line of sight.

Cash Is Still King

It’s a safe bet that the company has left itself some wiggle room with its base salary offer, but the trick is to gauge how much room is left.  So be cautious.  Don’t be greedy by asking for a major increase, as that will alienate the hiring manager and your new friend, the recruiter.  Also, avoid giving the impression that you think they’ve low-balled you.  You can lose a lot of goodwill with that tact.

Perhaps an early performance review (six months?) will give you the time to prove your worth; or a sign-on bonus to improve your first year earnings.  Both are less visible within the organization than base salary, and management is often amenable to such “compromises.”

What’s Negotiable?

Once you’re past the cash part of the offer the company may prove more flexible, as the transparency of cash can be a limiting factor due to possible internal equity concerns.

Unless the company is restricted by plan documents, policy or statutory obligations they may be accommodating to certain requests, especially as they are eager for your acceptance.   As verbal promises carry little weight even a signed note in the margin of the offer letter would be sufficient authorization, so consider vacation days, early eligibility for incentives and options, perquisites as well as flexibility on relocation as possible improvements.

But have a care before asking for changes to tax-advantaged programs or those where equity issues might be a concern.  You will have little success here.

The Push Back

To open the negotiations first profess your genuine appreciation for the offer, then express an excitement at becoming part of the company team.  Only then should you mention your “disappointment” with whatever aspect of the offer package has created concern.

Note: make sure your list of disappointments is small.

When you ask for consideration of an improved offer remind the recruiter of your extensive background and experience, and the type and degree of contribution you will soon be making – but be specific.   Give the recruiter enough ammunition to help represent you.  Don’t leave the impression that you simply want more, but that you deserve more.

Final Thought

Your hard work at job search will pay off, that offer of employment will come your way.   When it does make sure you finish the job by not leaving opportunities on the table.  You can’t go back later to pick them up.