You just received an above average performance rating, which put a big grin on your face.  Which was soon wiped away when you heard that you’d receive only one percent (1%) more of a salary increase than “Joe Average” down the hall (there are no secrets out there).

One percent more?  For giving 110% effort for a full year?  Not worth it, you say?

What Does One Percent Gain You?

The pundits say that performance rewarded is often repeated.  So what if good performance is not rewarded?  In the eyes of the recipient.  Likely you won’t see the same level of personal contribution again next year.  Instead, what you’ll see is more of “Joe Average,” or worse.

So how much of a reward difference between you and Joe is enough to keep you and other high performers motivated and feeling appreciated?  Because Joe seems to be content with his lot in life, and you’re not.  Is a fair differential 2%, 3%, or even more?

Does the organization realize that such soul searching is happening among those employees they most want to retain?  Can their recognition systems balance the need to reward better performers against the reality of tight budgets?  It might mean that one would have to take from Joe to pay Bob – because the pool of reward dollars is not likely to expand.

But that idea flies against the practice that most managers follow – of trying to reward everyone – to keep everyone happy.  After all, if you’ve put in your twelve months you deserve a raise at the end, don’t you?  Kind of automatic, especially if the average spend isn’t much.

Have a look-see at how your high performers are being rewarded, then compare that against Joe’s contribution and reward.  Are you being fair?  With Joe, probably, but how about with the high flyers?  You can afford if Joe left.

Can You Make a Performance Decision?

Another consideration for determining fair rewards is the number of performance ratings you have in your appraisal system.  For example, with a seven scale system (from Walks On Water to Show ’em The Door) the need to provide percentages for at least five assessment scores makes things rather tight.  And if you try to maintain a two percentage point differential between performance levels, the numbers might become higher than what’s affordable (if a 3 rating [Average] gains you 2.0%, then what do you do for a 7 rating?).  And what’s the population density of those receiving a 4, 5 or 6?

And while you’re ruminating over that dilemma, would Joe Average  be satisfied with a 2.0% increase?  He’s going to grumble and complain about what’s “fair” for those twelve months he spent on the job.

So you say, a proper rating scale looks to be three factors, right?  Wonderful, Pretty Good and Needs Improvement.  With three factors it’s easier to provide reward differentials that make a difference.

But then reality bursts that nice fantasy you had going.   Many companies experience managerial ambivalence (can’t make a decision) around performance assessments, where the desire is great to place employees in between ratings, as in 1.5 or a 2.5 score.  Somehow the employee(s) just don’t fit right into those three neat buckets.  “We need more choices,” they say – and so the five scale system was borne.

When the managerial ambivalence is acute, more than a few companies have decided that even five performance ratings aren’t enough to accurately reflect employee performance; thus the seven scale system was created.

And in each case the ability to differentiate performance with rewards  has lessened.  How do you reward a 7 or 6 rating, vs. a 5, vs. a 4, vs. a 3, etc,  when the average spend for everyone might be only 3.0% – or a tad less?

You don’t.  At least not if you try to reward everyone.  You won’t have enough money.

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

This is not the first time I’ve been asked that question, as it’s not unusual for small companies or non-profit organizations to send an employee overseas with little more than a verbal agreement and a series of vague assurances.  These organizations wish to avoid bureaucracy and move quickly.  However, often these casual and hurried arrangements have proved painful and expensive experiences:

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

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

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

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

So why is providing an assignment letter a good idea?

• Protection:  Like any contract, confirming the terms & conditions of the assignment protect both parties from misunderstandings, misinterpretations and assumptions – before expenses are incurred.

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

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

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

So how bad can it be, playing it by ear and leaving terms & conditions to be developed over the duration of an employee’s assignment?  Aren’t flexibility and quick thinking positive management traits?

Yes, but when courting the inherent risks that accompany an undocumented assignment, you should be prepared for:

• Higher and unbudgeted costs.

• Frequent negotiations to improve the expat’s situation.

• Disgruntled assignees and / or affected family members.

• Greater risk of failed assignment.

Short cuts usually limits the financial and emotional protection the employee and their family will rely on, while the company has committed  substantial monies to place them overseas.  That is not a good management practice.

Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

• Relocation –coverage for the employee’s home country residence, to include overseas movement of household goods.

• Property management (as applicable) – what will happen to the home country residence?

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

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

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

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

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

Job Evaluation:  an assessment of job tasks and responsibilities in order to create a top-to-bottom hierarchy reflective of the relative value that the company places upon its jobs.

Throughout my Compensation career I have never enjoyed having to evaluate jobs.  Quite the opposite.  As soon as I progressed high enough in my organization I delegated responsibility to a subordinate and washed my hands of it.  Job evaluation is a thankless task, with the evaluator subject to criticism from all sides.

• If you agree with an evaluation request, you are only admitting to the obvious.

• If you disagree and value the job different (lower), you clearly do not understand the key duties and responsibilities.

• The subjective nature of the process is viewed with suspicion by everyone.

• Job evaluators do not receive Christmas cards.

In spite of my disdain for the process the act of evaluating jobs has been found useful by companies since the 1930’s.

• They need a method to establish a hierarchy of job importance (A is bigger than B, B is bigger than C, etc.).

• They need to explain the relationship of jobs, one to another (A is how much bigger than B?).

• They want to set employee expectations and manage the Reward process (price the jobs).

Job Evaluation does have other purposes as well.  The internal assessment sets career progression steps and assists with organizational development (which jobs are necessary).  It also allows the company to avoid criticism that the competitive labor market (external forces) has dictated which jobs should be paid more or less than others.

Despite these worthy contributions the criticism of the process continues to come from many directions:

• Job descriptions are often poorly written, with content manipulated by managers to gain advantage.

• Pressure is often brought to bear on the Evaluator to increase (almost never the opposite) a rating.

• Evaluation language, forms  and procedures are often complicated and confusing to employees and managers alike.

• Senior management support for the integrity of the process is often limited.

• Employees are skeptical of an inherently subjective process where decisions are made by someone from outside their functional area.

For those who use a job evaluation process (whole job or quantitative), a further step of valuation is to place a price tag on each position – and to do that you need to conduct a study of the competitive marketplace.

Market Pricing

Here is the one process that gets you straight to the core of the matter – placing a monetary value on your jobs.  Some of its advantages as an evaluation process are:

• It is more objective, especially if using multiple survey sources.

• It is easier for management to accept, vs. the judgment of “some analyst in HR.”

• It is easier to defend results to otherwise biased managers.

• The evaluator is subject to less criticism (a personal favorite).

Most companies follow both processes, job evaluation and then market pricing.  Does that two-phased effort add value?  I have my doubts, especially if the prime goal is to establish a salary structure.

Sometimes the competitive market conflicts with your hierarchy.

What if the marketplace indicates a job is worth @$50,000, but as a result of your evaluation process the current midpoint is either much higher or much lower?  Ignoring the market could prove costly, in terms of either dollars or employee disengagement.  But if you follow competitive practice – then what is the point of your internal, job content-based evaluation process?

When faced with a choice most companies would make the change.   Dealing with reality, they would say.  So at the end of the day the true indicator of the value placed on your hierarchy is through market pricing.

Another concern is that, while Job Evaluation can be a long and tedious process it isn’t a sufficient end in itself.  You still have to price the jobs to create an effective salary structure.  The external survey data needs to be “interpreted” by a skilled analyst in order to ensure position matches are appropriate and the subsequent data properly integrated.  We call this “massaging the data.”

Some examples of how market data can be massaged between the survey source(s) and the salary structure:

• When you cluster diverse market data points into a graded salary structure.

• When you are not able to afford competitive rates you may lower the value of each position and create a below market salary structure.

• When you move jobs into certain grades to reflect the organizational realities of your company (the senior analyst must be either one or two grades higher than the core analyst).

• There will also be “favored sons,” positions that must be slotted a certain way in your hierarchy, regardless of market data.

If your goal is to price the internal and external value of your positions you do not need an involved job evaluation process, but you do need market pricing.   I would suggest a market pricing effort first, to establish competitive pay levels, and then if desired for other purposes follow up with some form of whole job evaluation process (keep it simple).  Finally, the evaluator(s) should recommend a degree of massaging to ensure that the final results “make sense,” both from an internal as well as external viewpoint.

The one constant theme that Human Resource professionals emphasize when it come to international assignments (expatriate employees) is that the experience costs a great deal of money.  Most of you reading this will simply nod your head at such a cautionary warning, yet not fully understand the why of it.  Perhaps the topic doesn’t concern you, for now, but as managers who may become involved in such adventures down the road, you need to know the cause if you ever hope to manage this expensive proposition.

While companies continue to try new strategies for employing talent overseas (shorter assignments, use of third country nationals, extended business trips, shared responsibilities, etc.) two central premises remain; 1) companies will continue sending employees on overseas assignments, and 2) the cost of those assignments continues to be a big pill to swallow.

Fueling Persistent Cost

If you accept the premise that an employee sent overseas should be kept “whole” (expense-wise) with their home country situation (maintaining their income and expense exposure as if they had never left the U.S.), then certain incurred liabilities naturally fall to the company.

This premise is an important point, and a foundation for future planning.   The  assumption is that the employee should not economically suffer, but neither should they receive a windfall.  To the employee the experience should be cost-neutral.  However the same cannot be said for the organization.  They often have to shoulder a sizeable burden.

First of all, the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where – no matter where you work – you continue to incur a tax liability on your earnings – while also being liable for earned income taxes in the host country as well.  Uncle Sam demands his share, and will follow you around the globe.

The difference is though, that any additional tax liability would ultimately be paid by the company.

And the second dark cloud over expats?  When establishing the terms and conditions that will govern an international assignment, remember that whatever the company provides the employee beyond what they would have received had they remained in the US, is considered taxable income to the employee.

For example, such taxable items would include, but not be limited to:

• Home leave transportation:  A personal expense (vs. a business trip) that includes air fare, taxis, meals enroute, etc.  Terms and conditions usually allow for one trip per calendar year – though that can be negotiable.

• Cost of living allowances:  That monthly allowance you receive to make up the difference in living costs . . . it’s taxable.

• Housing allowances: If you continue to maintain a U.S. residence (usually advised) the company will provide accommodations, but the cost of that residence is taxable to you.

• Utility payments: From electric to water to phone to garbage collection and more, if the company pays for it then it’s a taxable item.

• Supplementary benefits (host country): Additional local coverage (i.e., National Health Service) to ensure immediacy of care wherever you might find yourself overseas.

And don’t forget the family.  Those expenses paid out to provide dependents with programs or services are also deemed as taxable income of the employee.  For example:

• Language lessons: English may be the international language of business, but not so much in the supermarket.

• Orientation: Teaching the expat and family members about the local culture, how to get along, how to fit in and what to expect, while always useful, is especially important when the local language is not English.

• American-style schooling:  Usually a point of insistence for expats with school age children, the concern here is to ensure that the children are educated in a fashion that would be recognized (credit received) by school authorities back home.

You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know

To compound the internal challenges, too many managers know too little about the true costs of expat assignments.   This ignorance leads to misconceptions, misleading comments to employees and in some cases a too casual consideration of costs.

• “They speak English, so just get on the plane.”  It’s a common refrain, as if we all have the same legal system, health care, work attitudes, etc., and any minor differences could be solved by a short conversation.

• “The money’s been budgeted.”  A classic excuse, as if that in any way justifies an expense.

• “Let’s go around company policy to save money. ”  Short term thinking (and shortcuts) that more often results in a failed assignment.  And how expensive is that going to be?

Having spent five years overseas on an expatriate assignment, here are a few “takeaways” from that experience.

• My first W-2:  The amount was a shock, insofar as the tax preparers lumped together as taxable income everything that the company had provided for me.  That was my first realization of exactly how expensive an expat assignment was to the company.  This is where the 2x and 3x annual salary cost guesstimates were born.

• Local confusion:  My UK Controller was unable to determine the expat costs for his business unit.  Lines of communication between the host country and the corporate-sponsored tax preparers broke down often.  That’s when the finger pointing starts.

• Lost information:  After extensive investigation it seemed that data regarding assignment costs and local liabilities were buried among several budget line items.   Highlighted cost metrics were absent, and no one was watching the store.

• Taxation:  There are many confusing aspects of foreign service credits and reciprocity tax treaties.  Not my area of expertise, but even several years after returning from overseas my tax advisor was still dealing with foreign tax credits.  The back and forth of determining corporate tax liabilities, or avoiding them, is a science unto itself.

So yes, international assignments for your employees can be a very expensive proposition.  But those expenses can be monitored; they can be controlled.

Remember this formula for getting into financial trouble: if you take unknown assignment costs and add the lack of stated assignment ROIs, plus throw in a bit of insensitivity for the realities that expats (and their families) face, that recipe will blow up in your face every time.

That you can take to the bank – for withdrawal, not deposit.

Once your company decides to send an employee overseas on expatriate assignment the danger of imminent waste looms large.  The problem usually begins with management not understanding or even choosing to ignore the real costs of the international assignment.  The looming money pit is then deepened by having only a weak business reason to support the assignment.   If you lack a compelling business justification for why an employee is needed overseas, it’s likely that you won’t be able to measure whether their assignment will be a success or not.

Below are some of the major reasons for the cost spiral of money slipping out of your hands; however, this is by no mean an all-inclusive list.  I have no doubt that you can provide your own reasons as well.

• Don’t worry about the ROI

For some companies it’s easier for a manager to have an international assignment given a green light than it is to have a piece of hardware or software approved for purchase.   Where is the business case?   Where is the justification via projected financial return that management should be held accountable for?  Is anyone being held accountable that an ROI is achieved?

You should think twice before agreeing to pay out 2-3 times annual salary (per year) to provide for an expatriate assignment.  “It’s in the budget” is never a good business reason.

• Tell the employee that they are the only one who can do the job

Once an employee realizes that they are the only, or preferred choice for the assignment, you lose all negotiating leverage.   I recall one fellow who insisted that he and his family live in Inner London (meaning: uber expensive) – though the office was 35 mi. north – or else he wouldn’t take the assignment.   Don’t expect someone holding leverage to be reasonable and accommodating when discussing the terms & conditions of what you are willing pay for.

Strive to develop a stable of qualified candidates.   It would also help if you remember that the ability to perform the job should not be the only criteria for selection.  A bad cultural “fit” would be a painful and expensive experience for everyone.

Note: an employee who displays an attitude of doing you a favor, versus appreciating the career opportunity being offered, is a bad bet.  Count on it.

• Don’t bother to create an international assignment policy

Unless you enjoy living in a “let’s make a deal” world, you would be advised to lay down an international assignment policy, and then adhere to it.  You will still be challenged by the employee / spouse to make improvements in their terms & conditions, but without the support of a policy you will be hard pressed to stand your ground.

Note: make sure all terms & conditions have been confirmed before the plane departs.  Once you have an expat on the ground in the host country you have lost whatever leverage you might have had.  From there you will agree to term revisions, because senior management will conclude that having already made the investment you have to keep the expat happy or risk the assignment.

• Focus on the employee; don’t worry about the family

Even an otherwise contented expatriate will be rattled if every night they come home to complaints about life in the host country.  Such a situation will distract the employee from concentrating on their assignment, and eventually you will face the need to further revise terms (increase costs) and / or the employee will throw in the towel and the assignment will be deemed a failure.

Thus you should be sensitive to potential family issues and include everyone in cultural orientations.  The family is the expat’s support group, and if they are unhappy . . . well, you know the rest.

• Confuse assignment costs by using multiple budget categories and line items

This tactic makes it very difficult for someone to follow, or understand the full extent of the costs involved.  During my own five years spent overseas on assignment, neither Corporate nor local Finance was able to explain the full costs involved.   They had assigned expenses into so many diverse costs centers and budget line items that the confusion never cleared.  Imagine the drip – drip – drip of your money if no one is even asking – or looking.

If no one is watching the costs of the assignment, those costs cannot be controlled.  It would be like handing over a blank check – with no guarantees of gaining anything in return.

Finally, watch out for the manager who tries to “save money” by circumventing HR assignment policies.  These creative thinkers consider that short cuts save money, but typically such “cuts” do little more than alienate the expatriate (and / or family) by treating them as second class citizens.  Bad idea.

The phrase, “must be able to work with an Executive Assistant’s PMS” was left in a finalized job description and eventually found itself placed in the permanent files.  No one read the text, just processed the description as submitted.

The text from an incentive performance appraisal form read like an Average contribution, with no particular effort especially noteworthy or highlighted for special attention.  One would naturally presume that the accompanied rating was “Average.”  Yet the employee was actually rated “Superior” and granted a large discretionary bonus award.

Is anyone reading this stuff?

Have you seen your own examples of this behavior?  Paperwork processing viewed and handled as more important than what’s actually written on the paper?  As if the submittal of the form(s) is project completion itself; the rest is incidental, sort of a by-product.

This by-product (otherwise known as the text) could be replete with erroneous statements, inappropriate language, assumptions not approved by management, etc.  Or you could have missing elements that are critical to the credibility of the form – and the process.

Sure, sure, I know the rationale (“excuse” sounds so lame).  Sometimes you find so much effort invested in simply getting papers back from management (job descriptions, performance reviews, incentive assessments, etc.) that quality control goes out the window.  It’s like you’d be asking for more from them if you also expect the forms to make sense.

When processing large amounts of paper (focal date reviews, annual bonus awards, etc.) the first papers submitted likely do receive an appropriate scrutiny, simply because they’re the first ones received and you have more time.  But then it gets harder to keep pace as more papers keep coming in.  And right before the due date there’s likely to be a flood of last-minute entries.  So eventually you find yourself merely processing the incoming mail, checking off the manager’s name with a, “Yep, we got it.”

Sound familiar?

The same problem arises when you expect the performance rating text (supportive material) to match the submitted score.  That’s reasonable though, isn’t it?  However, if you read the review without looking at the score, how many times would you be able to predict the answer?  How often does the “Superior” rating read like “Average?”

Yet these gaffes do get processed, are read into the official record and personnel files, and are possibly the same documents that could see the light of day in a courtroom.  Because no one bothered to read what was written?

What did you do?

If you did notice such inconsistencies (for lack of a less polite term), what did you do about it?  Did you send the form(s) back with a polite, “try again,” or perhaps you refused to process the reward payment until the offending manager got it right?  Be honest now, often do you put on the policeman’s hat and risk angering your management team?

And therein lies the problem.  If you don’t read the stuff, how do you know you’re holding gold or lead?  Quality or garbage?  And you can’t correct he unfairness of the system if you don’t know which submitted form is wrong, and who committed that wrong.  You’re relegated to an administrator, a paper-pushing drone.

Out in the real world there are many managers who, in effect are saying, “how do I fill out this form to give Bob a superior rating?”  That’s what they care about, and even start the process with “Superior” already checked off.

But let’s be fair.  Often times corrective action is not that easy.  Every HR pro worth their salt will tell you, it’s all about picking your battles.  It sounds easy to reject a manager’s form submittal, but we all know the corrective response is often a matter of who is the offending party.

Sometimes, like with job descriptions and the PMS comment, you may have to make the corrections yourself.

But even a spotty record of enforcement would be an improvement over what happens all too often.  And if they know you are reading what they write, perhaps that fact alone will serve to reduce the infractions.

One of the most debated issues among Human Resource professionals for the past several years has been the back and forth arguments regarding effective performance appraisal processes.  Everyone seems to have their oar in the water, anxious to join the debate about what works and what doesn’t.

What companies should do, and what they shouldn’t.

In one corner you have the performance management crowd who want to divorce pay increases from the performance appraisal process.  Two separate discussions.  They prefer to focus attention on performance improvements and career counseling – issues that tend to have a longer term focus. Looking forward, not backward.  The subject of pay determination (the increase) would come later, during some vaguely defined subsequent conversation.

In another corner you have the so-called traditional practitioners, those who tie rewards directly to the work effort and in doing so tend to combine performance, reward determination and career counseling steps into a single conversation.  Performance improvements and the where-are-we-going? discussion are the epilogue here, not the main topic.

And finally you have the employee perspective, those who have delivered the performance and await management’s assessment and reward determination.  They want to see, and expect to see a direct connection between their efforts (performance) and a subsequent connecting reward (pay increase).

What’s wrong with performance appraisal?

Part of the reason for such active and long lasting debate between often opposing viewpoints is that performance appraisal systems are flawed; we all recognize that they are the object of numerous well-deserved criticisms.

• Managers do a poor job of it.  Whether it’s lack of training, lack of interest or simply an attitude of “I’ve got more important issues to deal with,” the result is often rushed, inadequately thought out and . . . short.

• Should pay increases be tied / linked with performance?  Appraisal conversations run the gamut from emphasizing the past review cycle’s performance to “looking forward for a more productive tomorrow.”  The cause-and-effect pay increase may or may not even be discussed.

• Favored son (or daughter) treatment.  The “I like you” or opposite syndrome, regardless of performance.  Fair treatment can be a casualty if appraisals are too subjective.  Refer again to the training issue.

• Job responsibilities not clarified. When the manager expects performance “A” and the employee thinks “B” is called for, and the outdated description shows a muddled “C” – what follows is going to be an awkward conversation.

• Forms gone wild.  Human Resources and systems people always tinkering with forms, creating ever longer, more complicated processes.  The usual result is a manager’s passive resistance and poorly handled assessments.

• Process evolution.  A good idea evolved into something bad, something feared, something to be avoided.  Other than the potential for a pay increase, almost nobody looks forward to these discussions.

• The focal date review.  “Let’s do these things all at once.”  Procedures that mass produce performance appraisal forms and meetings usually result in a loss of quality – and credibility for the process.  Pity the manager who has ten of these to work on at the same time.

What’s good about performance appraisal?

The process of performance appraisal has been around since the first manager – subordinate conversation, and that learning curve of experience has brought about a number of solid advantages:

• How else are you going to tell an employee how they’re doing?

• If your compensation strategy is to have a pay-for-performance program, you’ll need performance appraisal to assess the employee’s contribution, and to somehow assign a corresponding reward – to pay . . for. . performance.

• Employees expect a connection between performance and pay.  That’s what they’re listening for during the performance discussion.

• It makes sense to periodically review performance, to eliminate the need for employees to stress over when to ask for a raise.

During any performance appraisal discussion the employee’s first question (asked or simply thought) is always going to be, “how much is my raise?”  If you’re not prepared to discuss that, even mentioning your “recommendation,” you’re in trouble.  Because employees tend to pay closer attention to career counseling and next performance steps after the raise for past performance has been resolved.

When an employee expects a performance appraisal discussion to include a reference (at least) to a likely pay raise, and you don’t cover that topic, the meeting will go rapidly downhill from there.

• They won’t be hearing your thoughts for the future, as they’ve stopped listening.  You’re not talking about what they want to hear.

• Frustration and lost engagement are going to seep into body language, tone and perhaps even conversation, with the recognition that pay-for-performance is somehow not viewed as a primary concern by management (by you).

• To make the assessment process work employees need to be engaged in the  conversation.  Otherwise what you’re left with is delivering a lecture, a boring monologue to a half-interested party who only hears bla-bla-bla.

What do I think?

I like to connect rewards with performance, because performance rewarded is performance repeated.

I like to acknowledge the elephant in the room, that employees want and expect that their performance appraisal meeting would cover reward determination as a key component, even if senior management approval remains pending.

I don’t like to artificially separate performance from reward, as if somehow the two aren’t connected.  The employee considers it a solid, direct line connection.

Go ahead and disagree, if you like.  There are many valid points of view on the subject, and no single answer works every time, for every organization.

But now you have my two cents.

I’ve never been particularly good at mathematics, and yet have made for myself a successful career in Compensation.  Now, why is that?  One would think that all us comp folks are strictly numbers people, focused on statistics, surveys and regression formulae.  On the other hand, math experts often fail to rise to the top of my profession.  Counterintuitive?  Another quandary to ponder over.

Why is it that some compensation people manage to succeed (climb the specialist ladder into management ranks) while others don’t?  There may be several reasons for this, but I think a person’s persona has a lot to do with it.

Changing View of Compensation

Effectiveness as a professional in Compensation isn’t (or shouldn’t be) all about the numbers, but equally as much about the people affected by those numbers.  A successful practitioner should be able to understand their organization’s business as well as minding the pulse of employees; those who should be treated better than figures on a spreadsheet.   When you consider the human factor as little more than tiny boxes on an organization chart, then your ability to relate to and solve human factor problems will be limited by your ignorance of the employee relations impact that naturally follows your recommendations.  Effective compensation is more than simply adding up the numbers.

Do you remember seeing the HR analyst with the pocket protector and a bunch of pens in the shirt pocket?  That would be the one walking the hallway laden down with surveys and statistical analyses.  That vision personifies the traditional view of “the comp guy.”  This was the master technician who lived with the charts, graphs and regression formulae, but who failed to understand the people impact of their work.

Today, those who lead the application of best reward practices are cut from a different cloth, at least in most companies.  Compensation people are no longer confined to a cubicle or an out-of-the-way office, but increasingly are stepping out among the employees, developing an understanding of how the business operates, as well as their ability to effectively partner with internal business clients.

Sensitized practitioners know that the process of compensating employees should be about the opportunity for rewards, and about how those rewards can influence employee behavior, for good or ill.  Therefore the success of the solutions provider lies in being able to creatively assist managers in achieving their objectives, while at the same time adhering to equitable and consistent policies and procedures.  It’s not about quoting policy with a shrug of the shoulders.

What’s the Color of Your Hat?

Something else to think about; what role does the Compensation function play in your organization?  How is the Compensation practitioner viewed both by employees and by management?

• Policeman vs. Gatekeeper: the proper application of responsibilities is not to simply say yes or no, but to encourage an open process of ideas and practices that operate within established policies and procedures.  Nobody likes the fellow who can offer little more in the way of help than quoting from the company policy manual.  That’s not making a contribution.

• Numbers vs. People: are your thought processes employee-oriented, or is the understanding that real people are affected by these policies and procedures lost on you?  A business-only focus that ignores the human factor in driving success is inevitably tripped up by predictably lower morale and the employee disengagement that follow such insensitivity.

• Policy vs. Flexibility: are you one who quotes policy as the supposed answer to every manager’s question, or are you instead open to creative and constructive possibilities?

When you tell a manager that the decision remains with them, that you’re only offering advice, their reaction is often startling.  You’ll be able to actually see their body relax.   No longer feeling challenged, you’ll be able to reach them with helpful suggestions, because their instinctive defensive wall will be down and their minds open to possibilities.

• Analysis Paralysis vs. Solutions-provider: being able to make timely decisions vs. being caught up with a constancy of analysis that never seems to move toward a decision point.  Some call that phenomenon “analysis-paralysis,” while others pin on the label “treadmill management.”  Do you have a reputation as a decision-maker or as an analyzer?

When you consider the compensation people you deal with in your organization, are they the good guys or the bad guys – the white hats or the black?

Which are you?

Really?  Seriously.

Sometimes a warning flag needs to be waved more than once.   Because sometimes the decision-makers out there just don’t get it.   After all, goes the wide-eyed and innocent lament, what’s the big deal if you give an employee a bogus title?  Is anyone being harmed?  It doesn’t cost anything, right?

Some Human Resource advocates even claim that offering an employee a special title is a harmless and inexpensive reward, one that doesn’t raise employer costs.  It’s nothing more than a feel-good gesture.   It also raises the morale of affected employees.

I don’t think so.  So pay attention to the red flag I’m waving.

Why does this happen?

• Managers grant esoteric titles to those for whom they have limited means of reward.  “I can’t give you the increase you deserve, so let’s change your title.”  Like greasing a squeaky wheel for a short term fix they want to do something to keep the employee quiet.

• Employees are given opportunities (titles) where none should exist.  Have you experienced the long serving Secretary / Administrative Assistant promoted to Office Manager, while performing the same job?

• As a salve to employees a “special” title is used because the position (usually clerical) is considered so different from other jobs that it needs to be specifically identified.  Special titles can also be seen as reflecting on the importance of the managers themselves.

You Can Reap A bitter harvest

Let me explain what you can expect from planting these problem “seeds.”

• Role clarity (job duties, business impact, decision-making, etc.) behind questionable titles becomes blurred.  This in turn generates more confusion as the company creates Senior Managers and Group or Area Directors and other in-between titles to differentiate the “real” jobs from inflated titles.

• When attempting to determine market competitiveness the less accurate the title is in relation to the work performed, the more likely your analysis will be skewed.  Benchmarking unique, employee-specific and inflated titles hampers an accurate assessment of your competitiveness.  This could have real cost impact.

• Those with inflated titles will expect the perks or privileges that accompany the title, and their absence could cause difficulties.  What do you think went through the Receptionist’s mind when her title was changed to “First Impressions Manager?”  It’s an awkward conversation when you tell an employee that the import of their new level in the organization is “title only.”

• Inflated titles can be a detriment to incumbents as well, such as the “Director” who now only qualifies for a “Manager” title with a prospective employer.  These employees have limited opportunities outside your company because other employers would be reluctant to hire someone where the title is lateral or even backward to what they currently hold.  The result could be that mediocre performers remain with your company.

• The natural extension of inflated titles is inflated grades / salary ranges, as the bogus “senior” position would be placed in a higher grade than the “intermediate” position.  This practice will gradually increase your fixed costs without a corresponding rise in either performance or capability.

• Employees don’t like giving up inappropriate titles.  Thus employee relations issues will likely develop if you try to correct past practices.  You may have to develop creative “buy out” scenarios or grandfather employees.

What to do

If you are in a situation with inflated, redundant and confusing job titles, what steps can improve your lot?

• Organize a cleaning exercise: start with the low hanging fruit by eliminating all questionable titles that are unoccupied.

• Accompany that initiative by implementing tighter authorization procedures before a “new” title is created.  This would cut off the flow of new problems even as you address the core issue of incumbents.

• The company would need fewer job descriptions if the wording was more generalized.  Standardized titles would clear away much of the role responsibility confusion.

Fewer titles provide greater role clarity for your organization, improved accuracy in assessing pay competitiveness, more control of labor costs and higher morale as employees know where they stand and what they must do to succeed in your organization.

A final caution: be careful of setting up titles without occupants, “in case we want to promote someone down the road.”  Guess what?  You will.

Over the past three years a litany of bad economic news has been the daily fodder of economists, corporate managers, the politicians and of course the media pundits.  Collectively we have slogged our painful way through reductions-in-force (RIFs), wage freezes, hiring freezes, benefit cutbacks and in general having to do more with less while we looked over our shoulder for the next axe to fall.

And of course we’ve all experienced the painful shrink of our 401k down to a 201k.

So there hasn’t been a lot to smile about.  But perhaps this is finally the year when the freeze starts to thaw, just a bit.  Salary increases are slowly trending upward toward pre-recession levels, according to first results coming out of the latest WorldatWork Salary Budget survey.

• Salary budgets increased by 2.8% in 2011 and are projected to rise by 2.9% in 2012.  Not much, but in the right direction.

• Base salary increases were awarded to 88% of employees in 2011, vs. 86% in 2010 and only 80% in 2009.

• Only 3% of employers are planning across-the-board salary freezes in 2011, vs. 10% in 2010 and 43% in 2009.

So much for the good news

Given all that employees have suffered through is it any wonder that those still employed (and especially those under-employed) are cynical, agitated and teeming with unresolved anger over their treatment?  How many have heard the attitude voiced by “where are you going to go?” or “you’re lucky to have a job.”  Attitudes like that stay with a person, and they burn deep; those phrases are remembered, to be acted upon when the time is right.  Because the worm will eventually turn.

The clock is ticking for organizations who have mistreated or taken advantage of employees on the back of the bad economy.

What are we seeing now?  While the economy continues to sputter along this year amid mixed labor reports and market volatility, US employee confidence related to pay raises, job security and the labor market fell to levels last seen during the height of the 2008-09 recession, according to the Glassdoor Employment Confidence Survey.

According to their report, 48% of employees reported that they did not expect to receive a pay raise in the next 12 months – the highest level of negativism seen in almost two years.  On the other hand 36% do expect a raise in the next year, but that figure is down 4% since the same time last year.

They don’t like their jobs either

Mercer reports (What’s Working Survey) that 32% of US employees are seriously considering leaving their organizations, up sharply since the 23% from the good times of 2005.  Meanwhile, a further 21% were not looking to leave but viewed their employers unfavorably and had rock-bottom scores on key measures of engagement, reflecting diminished loyalty, commitment and motivation.  So you have 44% of employees actively dissatisfied with their job and their employer.

How many of those do you think are silent about their discontent?  How many are your better performers?  How many can you afford to lose?

Overall scores were consistently down across critical engagement measures, while intention to leave was up across all employee segments.  The youngest workers were most likely to be considering the exit: 40% of employees aged 25 to 34 and 44% of employees 24 and younger were thinking about leaving.

A lone light in the window?

One hopeful light in the gloomy picture I’ve just painted is an uptick of activity in market pricing studies commissioned by management.  Even with an uncertain future ahead more and more organizations are coming to the realization that you can’t hold down employee pay forever.  At some point you have to move forward, or risk seriously damaging morale and forcing a mass exodus of talent toward the first competitor who says “Come work for us.  We value you, and we’ll treat you right.”

Of course, studying the marketplace, understanding how competitive pay levels have changed over the last few years is not a solution in itself.  Companies can still decide not to take action.  They may still not be able to afford to take corrective action.  But at least more of them are asking the questions, which means more are growing worried that this leaner workforce of theirs needs to be valued and rewarded competitively for their efforts.  Just like companies did before the great recession.

But the clock is ticking; employees are growing less patient.  Those who have options to leave are already starting to do so.  Be careful that those left behind are not merely a combination of “average” performers and the unmotivated who only occupy a chair.