Have you ever been faced with a situation where you would be cautioning a manager about how a compensation issue presented potential problems that you thought needed to be addressed?  But the response you received from the manager was, “I’m ok with it?”  In other words, when you would raise a red flag over an issue that you’re concerned about, one that in your view could cause immediate and/or lingering difficulties, and what you’re left with is a manager who says, “Meh?”

What does that mean?  That perhaps the manager doesn’t care, or that they don’t understand the issue?  You’re left with the impression that what you consider an important point hasn’t risen to that level with them.

Variations of Importance

As compensation practitioners, it is our responsibility to alert management about issues that concern us, whether it be policies or procedures, regarding strategies, tactics or even the treatment of a single employee.  We know the importance of precedence, both good and bad.  We know the fragility of employee morale, and how the quality of trust, once lost is very difficult to regain.

So, when a manager doesn’t react to a sensitive issue or problem and instead passes it off with a dismissive “I’m ok with it,” it tends to stop you in your tracks.  First comes the self-doubt.  Are you over-reacting?  Have you misread the situation?  Why do they fail to see that which is so obvious to you?  Why don’t they care?

For some reason, your management doesn’t see the importance of the issue you’re raising.  In the scheme of things, the situation doesn’t rate the attention that you think it does. No fire alarms are going off.

Second, comes the disbelief.  What?  What did they say?  How can they not see the problem staring us in the face?

And finally, you ask yourself, “Now what do I do?”

Left Holding the Bag

Because you could well be left in the proverbial lurch.  Who is left responsible to talk to the employee when the managers don’t seem to care?  Who is left to answer to senior management when a small compensation issue has suddenly erupted into employee disengagement or even litigation?

Look into the mirror for your answer.

Of course, it’s also possible that when the situation ultimately blows up at the wrong time and in the face of the wrong people, that manager will have an immediate change of heart and will be asking you, “How did this occur?  Why wasn’t this brought to my attention?”

Sometimes you just can’t win.  Take two aspirin and have a seat.

What Are You Going to Do?

This sort of circumstance happens all the time.  If for some reason it hasn’t happened to you yet, wait a while longer.  It will.

What you’re dealing with is either; 1) the manager doesn’t understand or care, or 2) they have a different agenda, as there’s more to this issue than you’re aware of.  I would worry about the ramifications of #1, so you need to make sure that you’ve properly explained the seriousness (likely impact) of your concerns.

Always look and see the issue from their perspective.  Perhaps there are other factors at play (another agenda) that will trump your concerns.  You’re looking at things from a compensation perspective, while other factors could be in play.

So the next time a manager shrugs their shoulders at your warning alerts, take a deep breath and look above and beyond your narrow focus.  There could be broader issues at stake.

Or, the manager is an idiot.  It’s usually either/or.

My business career has spanned a long period of time and working from both sides of the desk.  First as a compensation practitioner filling out survey questionnaires and working my way up the ladder, and then (much) later as a global compensation consultant.  In my experience, I have NEVER come across an employer or a client who didn’t loudly proclaim that “Yes, we have a pay-for-performance” program.

So, I would ask them, “What percentage of your employees have received a merit increase in the past year?”

The answer I’d receive, and always given with a straight face, was every time in the high 90’s.  In other words, everyone but those about to be fired would receive a pay increase.  Is that your definition of an employer paying its employees based on their job performance?

It isn’t mine.

Try this definition instead.  When you have a limited amount of merit increase monies available you make sure that your higher performers are properly rewarded for their contributions.  Those reward funds that remain are then distributed to those delivering lesser performance, in descending amounts based on degrees of individual contribution.

Now, here’s the hard part.  Some employees who are performing “ok,” or whatever your terminology of Joe Average is in your organization, should not receive a merit/pay increase.  That’s right, some average employees shouldn’t receive an increase because you don’t have enough money to spread around like peanut butter.  There isn’t enough for everybody.

But maybe some of those Joe Averages will get mad?  Maybe some will quit.  And maybe that’s ok if that’s what it takes to enable you to reward and motivate those who’re making the greatest individual contribution to your organization.

Nay Sayers Revolt

“Off with their heads!” will scream advocates of the status quo.  “You can’t do that!” will shout those who believe that everyone deserves to get an annual raise.  “How unfair!” will complain those who champion rewarding the average among your employees.

But look past the emotional rhetoric to consider what you should be paying for.

Job performance is not a commodity with a fixed value, like groceries, movie tickets or a pair of shoes. Its value can be shown as a sliding scale, with those providing higher levels of performance deserving more, and those providing lower levels of performance deserving less, or even none.  The kicker is that you don’t have an endless amount of money to pass around. So, you had better first take care of those who are taking care of you.

Reality vs. Concept

I’ll be the first to admit that my idea won’t be acceptable to most organizations.  Many leaders and even some compensation practitioners believe in the equivalent of a silent social contract, where if an employee performs well enough to keep their job they should get something for their efforts at the end of a performance measurement period.

Is that what you believe?  Do you also subscribe to the excuses that usually follow, when there’s not enough reward money to retain Bob the Superstar? When the difference in reward between levels of performance is so narrow that the higher performers start to think, “Why bother?”

Is that how your reward program is designed?

Higher performing employees will always have an option, in that eventually the phone will ring, and a recruiter will say, “Come to work for us.  You’re a high performer and we’ll take care of you.”

Have a care that your pay-for-performance program doesn’t focus too much on rewarding Joe Average.  Because that usually means that you’re pushing Bob the Superstar away.  Take care of Bob first, not as an afterthought with whatever monies you have left.

The competitive market pricing of jobs for an organization is relatively straightforward when looking at common benchmark roles – the ones that you can find in almost any organization. Administrative Assistants, Financial Analysts, Receptionists, Help Desk Technicians, Coordinators, etc. are easy to locate within commercial surveys, so their comparative market value can be collected without much fuss or muss.

But what if the job you’re reviewing isn’t so cut and dried?  What if the organization has combined two benchmarks jobs into the one that you have to price?  What if the job has Finance and Human Resources responsibilities, or Marketing and Sales, or Manufacturing and Quality Control?

What if your survey sources don’t report the job at all?

Dual Hat Jobs

In smaller organizations, it’s not uncommon for some employees to “wear more than one hat,” to blend responsibilities between more than one traditional role.  The staff is small so incumbent responsibilities are stretched, some roles may be minor add-ons to the prime role, or outlier tasks don’t warrant a full-time employee so someone gets “tagged,” as in “You handle that whenever an issue arises.”

Unfortunately, your commercial compensation surveys will not be reporting these types of jobs.  You’ll not find dual responsibility roles on the job list.  The vendor’s view is that the job is “neither fish nor fowl,” but something in between, and they typically don’t report in between jobs.  They will say to you, in effect, pick one.

The trouble is, of course, is that certain dual roles and responsibilities will still “fit” within your organization, whether surveys acknowledge an external market value or not.  If dual, or even triple hat responsibilities make sense within your organization, you’ll still need to gauge the market value.  Somehow.

What Are You Gonna Do?

For some managers, the market value of a dual hat job is considered greater than the value of a single benchmark job because of those dual responsibilities, as if the employee is performing two jobs.  Their thinking often runs along the lines of, “Let’s find the two (or more) distinct roles in the survey and average the data points.”  That, of course, presumes that one role is not valued significantly larger or smaller than the other.

However, what these advocates may fail to consider is that each supposed “job” is only a part-time effort for the employee.  That each of the multiple hat roles is not significant enough by itself to be full time, while surveys report on those who have this element as their sole responsibility – not a partial effort.  Which would tend to inflate the internal impact of each disparate role.

Personally, I like to use the 70-30 rule, in that I would match the predominant role performed within a dual hat job.  It’s not perfect, and of course won’t be a 100% match to the incumbent’s role, but we’re not going to find incumbents out there that do match our mixed-use, dual hat jobs.

And I have always been uncomfortable with formulaic approaches to defining the “market,” so applying such a formula to a 70-30, 60-40 or other combination would merely give us an arithmetic answer.  Which is more “made up” than I’d advise using.

Final thought: Always remain sensitive to the fact that external market rates can be different from perceived internal values within your organization, so there is nothing inherently wrong with providing compensation levels to employees that are higher or even lower than what the “market” shows.  Survey sources should be used as information to aid in your decision-making, not as a rule or a pointed finger that you must obey.

A Day at the Bristol Renaissance Faire 2011

One of the reasons that I never liked my (much) earlier role as a Job Evaluator was that the litany of requests by managers to change the grade of jobs never ended.  I rarely had a moment of peace after completing one request before the phone would ring again.  “Can you look at the assigned grade of my XYZ Administrator? The grade is wrong.”

This opening line is then rapidly followed by, “I have a new job description.  It’s a different job now.”

Here we go again.  You’ll note that, like when calling Payroll, the requester rarely has a question.  It’s all about correcting a perceived error.

A Different Job

Jobs do change.  Of course, they do.  However, I’m not talking about how a job’s role may have evolved over time, been impacted by technologies or had tasks/accountabilities shifted due to reorganization.  I’m not talking about the need for re-evaluation when a job has undergone such a substantial transformation that the revised roles have obviously impacted the importance of that job.

What I’m talking about is when a manager is upset at a job’s grade assignment and then by way of appeal plays with the job description in an effort to somehow cause a positive re-evaluation – to get a higher grade.

In these cases, all too often that “different” job is nothing more than the same job, with a bit of lipstick added on to make it look better.

It happens all the time.

Putting On A Show

Look at it from the manager’s perspective.  They don’t like the grade that one of their jobs has been assigned, and when HR tells them an appeal of the grade assignment would require that they describe a substantive change they immediately look to the job description.  They feel the need to tell a different story.

Note: Some of the following could be short-circuited if HR would plainly describe to managers, with specifics, what information would be needed to justify a higher grade (no one is ever looking for a lower grade!).

This is where the lipstick comes into play, because it’s a common tactic for requesting managers to make cosmetic changes to the job description (add busy work, build up the experience required, use more vague words like “assist,” or “work with” or even “handle,” or to simply add more bullets to the description.  These additive bullets usually provide more of the same, listing more tasks that are similar to what has already been presented.  The goal is to beef up the description, and this is accomplished by adding more bread (filler) than meat.

The manager’s desire is to show the evaluator that, yes indeed, we have a different job here, a “bigger” job.  Because more “stuff” has been added.

Evaluator’s Perspective

Human Resources will see through this tactic easily enough, but the process is time-consuming (need to avoid the criticism of not taking the request seriously) and usually results in an unhappy conversation with the manager. Given the common occurrence that managers have an incomplete knowledge of how to define “substantive difference,” they often come away unhappy with HR.  “They don’t understand my job(s).”

You can see why I never liked my role as Job Evaluator.  No Christmas cards for me!

Btw, it’s an interesting side note that the employees themselves will usually see through all the “improved” description verbiage and realize what is going on. While they might agree that their grade should be higher (who wouldn’t?), they too will realize that a wording game is going on.  Because who doesn’t always put their best foot forward (detailing important job tasks) when writing a job description?  Who forgets to mention important work?

Managers don’t like to write job descriptions; which means they won’t do them, will procrastinate endlessly or will delegate the responsibility to almost anyone else.  If pushed into a corner many will simply throw together a half-hearted effort that is quickly flagged by its poor quality.

And that’s for new descriptions.   Showing similar distaste managers won’t be interested in recommendations to periodically update whatever they already have on file.

When faced with a compulsion from HR, a typical response of passive resistance would be to take a minimalist approach, providing only the least acceptable product, so they could check this onerous duty off their to-do list and get back to more important work.

Why is the lowly job description document considered as popular as a mafia lawyer or a used car salesman?  Why do so many managers consider preparing a job description a thankless task, one they often delegate to the less informed and those even less interested?

Manager’s Favorite Kicking-Boy

Reasons or excuses?

• HR formatting: A common criticism is that the “forms control staff” has designed an either complex or lengthy (often both) document that demands answers to questions that go well beyond “what does the job do?”
• It takes too long: Managers can more easily verbalize a job’s tasks or accountabilities than they can put pen to paper.  Description preparation is considered a laborious process.
• Better writers get a better deal:  A belief that those more comfortable with writing (can turn a better phrase) will receive better/higher salary grades and pay.  The fear is that prose will trump content.
• No time:  Managers will tell you that they always have better things to do; namely activities that more directly relate to advancing the needs of the business.

So why do we need the darn things in the first place?  Why do we periodically turn our managers into administrators?   Because, contrary to populist sarcasm outside of HR, those descriptions do perform several important functions.

• Job description: (duh!)  A description of the role and responsibilities of the job holder, to explain what activities should be taking place.
• Job evaluation:  To assist in determining which job is more important.  Evaluators use the descriptions to help measure the internal value of each job, one to another.
• Market pricing:  Ensures that when the Analyst is reviewing competitive pay practices, like jobs are matched.
• Performance appraisal:  Helps both the employee and the manager know with specificity what activities (and results) are expected from those performing a particular job.
• Organization structure:  The description aids a manager in establishing why a job is needed and how it differentiates from other jobs.  It provides the justification to create a position or hire a new employee.

Thus we see that the simple fact of describing the job generates several ongoing benefits to the company.  Let the debate continue about formats, word count and other compensable factors, but most would agree – you really need to describe what performance you’re prepared to pay for.

Getting It Wrong

So what happens when the balance of importance vs. distaste is skewed when descriptions are carelessly slapped together, left in a closet to go out of date or simply ignored as new/revised jobs are established?  How bad can it get?

It can get to be an expensive dilemma.

• Incorrect job evaluation:  You get the grade wrong.  Erring on the high side when descriptions are vague, outdated or filled with puffery results in artificially higher grades.  That action pushes up fixed costs (pay), without a corresponding increase in value received (performance).
• Mismatch in market pricing:  Like the above, incorrect matching could hand the job a higher price tag than warranted by actual responsibilities.  Again, costs go up.
• Title inflation:   When definitions are vague or too similar to other jobs the environment becomes ripe for “throwaway titles”, meaningless designations meant to placate employees.  The trouble is, this insidious practice actually worsens employee discomfort over time, while also raising compensation costs.

Personally, I also dislike writing job descriptions.  But I recognize that they’re good for me and for the business.  So here are a few tips ‘n tricks to help you swallow a sometimes bitter pill.

• Keep it simple, and keep it short.  Focus on major tasks or accountabilities.  More than two pages can be overkill.
• Write the “Basic Purpose” last.  Don’t start with it.  Trust me, the task is easier that way.
• Get yourself a resource library that carries a host of pre-written benchmark descriptions.  Either in book form or online.  Then the task becomes editing, not creation.  Note: I am not recommending a source, as there are plenty found in a Google search, from the generic to the specific.
• Don’t have the employee write the description.  Too much chance of bias creep and unintended influences.  It’s a manager’s responsibility.
• Consider an annual review to keep content current.  This is a small project if maintained, but eventually a large one if ignored.

The bottom line?  It’s ok to hate job descriptions (a salve to my conscience), as long as they’re given the proper attention and respect.  The benefits do outweigh the hassle.

Most compensation practitioners have earned their stripes through the use of technical analysis, be it statistical applications, regressed formulae, market pricing or converting survey data into recommended pay structures.  A fair portion of that capability doesn’t require much in the way of decision-making outside the technical realm.

However, when moving up the organization’s hierarchy and away from the predominantly technical, newly designated managers can be viewed as coming in two styles, the Administrator and the Leader.  The former is supposed to “keep doing what’s been doing,” to maintain the ship of state, to not rock the boat and certainly to refrain from striking out on their own and creating policy or precedent.

Instead, you may not want someone who understands and prefers only administering present policy/practice.  Therein lies the need for the role of the Leader, the one who is expected to combine foundation technical knowledge and administrative savvy with a degree of persuasiveness and influencing skills that can move the compensation program(s) in the right direction.  The Leader is expected to lead, not sit at the back of the room.

Most organizations tend to prefer one style or the other.  So be careful in your employment selection process (or in your recruitment) that you don’t find yourself in a “round hole, square peg” situation.  You won’t be happy.

Lying Down

One of the most negative management stereotypes you’ll come across in your career is the image of the “yes-man” (or is that yes-person in the new lexicon?), that weak-kneed subordinate who is always quick to agree with the boss.   This is the empty suit having no other opinion than what’s expected.  Can you picture the nodding head and vacant smile?

Do you also recall the old saying, “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”?  The modern version of this adage describes one who willfully turns a blind eye, refuses to acknowledge and even feigns ignorance when confronted with activities they should otherwise say or do something about.

Do the compensation professionals you deal with, including the one looking at you from the mirror, provide objective and unbiased counsel to management, or do they simply offer support and justification for what management already has stated that they want to do?

These treading water types are easy to find if that’s the style your organization prefers.

And yes, there are always opportunities for compensation practitioners to turn a blind eye/closed mouth to improper practices taking place in their organization:

• Finance has lobbied Senior Management that the average merit increase next year should be x%, and you’ve been asked for your recommendation.
• The performance appraisal process is poorly handled and rewards are often granted without legitimate justification. And you say . . . ?
• A Vice President wants to create a dubious Office Manager title for a long-serving Secretary. This would also entail a higher grade and promotional increase.

Standing Up

On the other hand, the Leader is one who will face and even embrace the challenge of change, of being in a position to make decisions, to make a difference.  No shy, shrinking violet here.

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

• Do you provide Senior Management with an unbiased recommendation, based on competitive research and an understanding of compensation strategy?
• Do you question those managers who wish to grant increases/bonuses for the wrong reasons?
• Do you strive to hold the line on meaningless titles that increase costs, create employee equity issues and provide the company with little or no ROI?
• Do you stand ready to make the decisions that need to be made, to be the voice that represents equity, fair treatment, transparency, and the application of your professional judgment?

True leaders, not just those holding a leadership title, are much harder to find out there.  Because the job is more challenging, more stressful, and usually reliable in handing out headaches like jelly beans at Easter.  However,  if you consider yourself in that category, the rewards when placed in the right organization can be very self-fulfilling.

So if you see yourself as one to stand up, then get out there and march to the beat of a different drummer.  It will be energizing, refreshing, a little risky, but so worth it.

How many of you reading this article have a piece of paper that you can lay your hands on, one with the title, “Compensation Strategy”?  Do you know if such a document exists in your organization?

The common response at this point is usually a blank look.  But why is that?  If paying employees is the single largest expense item for most organizations, why don’t they have a plan to manage it?

That’s what a strategy is – a plan of action, a guideline or directional map that outlines down a series of principles to be acted upon.  It’s a plan helps you avoid the “let’s try this and see what happens” tactic.

Look around you; if Marketing has a plan, as well as Manufacturing and Finance, then why not a plan that encompasses how to spend a lion’s share of the organization’s money?

When prodded a bit, most managers do seem to come up with an answer to my question – though they often sound reactionary, if not defensive.

• “We already have a Mission Statement.”  But broad, aspirational phrases like “market leader,” “shareholder value,” “supplier of choice,” etc. are little more than a series of vague terms and buzz phrases meant to capture media attention.  There is no meat here.
• “We know what we want to do.”  As if the plan for effectively and efficiently spending the organization’s money is somehow intuitive – that everybody knows it.  Sort of like a secret plan.
• “We use our annual objectives.”  A claim that annual organization or department objectives are in fact the strategy – offers little more than short-sighted thinking often vulnerable to swings in corporate focus.

So what we’re often left with are excuses, not effective responses.

The Importance of Strategy

Then what should be the focus of a compensation strategy?  And why is it helpful for an organization to lay down a tactical, well-considered outline for present and future action?

• It provides specific, motivating direction.  Having a plan establishes a pathway for action – for what you intend to do – and it helps point everyone in the same direction
• It helps guide and engages the workforce.  Telling employees what you believe in, and how you intend to convert those beliefs into concrete action always pays dividends in the court of employee opinion.
• It identifies the focal points.  It focuses attention on key program design elements (i.e.,  competitiveness, specific marketplace, pay-for-performance, cost sharing, etc.)
• It helps leverage the company investment in people.  It makes a commitment to employees regarding how they will be treated, thus elevating their worth as a true asset important to organization success.
• It brands the company in a positive light and helps recruit talent. A compensation plan provides an opportunity for the organization to identify itself in a way that attracts potential employees.

If one accepts the importance of a plan for controlling costs and managing the effective and efficient use of payroll dollars, what are the barriers that stand in the way?

• Senior leadership disagreement.  Lack of consensus over what to say (broad vs. focused, basic Compensation vs. Total Rewards, commitments vs. aspiration, etc.) stymies progress as the debate could take on a life of its own.
• Vaguely worded messages.  Using generic phrases that are vague and meaningless, which don’t differentiate you from any other organization, or puffery and “mom and apple pie” phrases that sound great but mean little.
• Ineffective communications.  Fears of raising employee expectations, high brow corporate-speak messages that employees ignore and cultural insensitivities on a global playing field all serve as minefields for the unwary.  These are usually compounded when the message is prepared by professional writers little versed in the subject matter.

What If You Do Without?

Sounds like a lot of trouble, doesn’t it?  So why not do without?  Others have; so could you.

Which would then leave your single largest expense – employee pay – without a guiding principle, without a plan to ensure that such a large amount of money is spent in an effective and efficient manner.  Money would be wasted, like a steadily dripping faucet  – day in and day out.

Without a standard universal message the risk of multiple messages increases.  The information being communicated gets confused, blurred and often at odds between the messengers themselves.  Plenty of room then for inconsistent and inequitable treatment.

You would see your employee costs rise as a direct result of a no-plan environment.  Because the vacuum left by not having a plan will be filled by multiple pay practices that lack consistency, standards and internal equity.  Squeaky wheels and political insiders will be favored.

Not For the Faint of Heart

Developing a compensation strategy isn’t an easy process, and even the strongest advocate would acknowledge the challenges.

First, building a consensus philosophy among senior management is a difficult, often time-consuming endeavor.

You should expect a degree of passive resistance from naysayers and supporters of the status quo.  Or from anyone else who would benefit from your failure.

In order to push the project across the finish line, you’ll need the active support of senior management.  This doesn’t mean the lip service memo authored by professional writers, or even a brief appearance at a kick-off project meeting.  Organization leadership needs to be seen as effectively leading, pushing this initiative, walking the talk, so to speak.  The strategy needs to have a highly placed sponsor, one whose support is visible and easily heard.

And you will have to keep at it, too.  Monitoring adherence, updating as necessary and constantly reviewing that policies, procedures, and practices remain in sync, mutually supportive and offering employees a consistent message is no small task.

It’s a lot of work, but worth it for the organization and the employees.

One of the more amusing experiences I’ve had in my career, first as a corporate practitioner and then as a global consultant, was to hear from some HR Generalists and Line Managers that my job was easy.  “Just flip the pages of any survey until you find the job you’re interested in, and there you go.  Bob’s your uncle.”

In other words, anyone could do this.  Why should we pay you (consultant), or internally, just how high should your grade (job value) be, anyway?  This isn’t rocket science.

I suppose though, that it can be easy enough to find the desired figure.  Whether it’s the right figure is what’s at stake.  And do you know what that figure means in the context of your organization, and therefore what you should do next?  Flipping more pages won’t help.

The Value of Everyman

What can make matters worse is the presumption from some in the newbie and wannabe crowd that, with just a seminar or classroom exercise behind them they’re ready to advise senior management on competitive compensation realities and coming trends.  All because “The survey says,” and because after flipping a few pages they picked out a figure.  Yes, a figure.

A piece of cake.  Having any figure at all is a compelling attraction over having only a blank sheet of paper. Somehow even a questionable figure gains credibility when it’s written down.

Let’s take this anyone-can-do-it scenario out and look at it for a minute.  Kick the tires a bit.  How would you feel about handling your own plumbing, or perhaps home electrical work?  There are how-to textbooks out there.  Or try to sell your home on your own, or to install a new roof.  At some point, you’re likely to say that there are too many risks, too many possible negative consequences associated with certain DIY projects, that you can see the value of bringing in the experts.

Especially when your work might be challenged, when you might be called upon to defend what you’ve done.  Maybe not everyone agrees that your analysis was a piece of cake.

I mean, what can go wrong for Everyman?

• How many surveys did you use?  Multiple surveys give different answers.  Why?  Why did you pick certain figures and not others?
• What about regional, industry or sizing differentials?  Did you/should you age the data?
• How reputable are those surveys anyway? How many companies participated?
• Are the job matches 100%, or more commonly not?  How did you handle the dual hat jobs?
• Did you have to build a salary structure to reflect the market data?  Can you defend that structure?  Have jobs and employees been successfully integrated?
• How do you evaluate jobs fairly, competitively and without bias?  What if you’re challenged?
• What do the competitive figures tell you, and what should be your next steps?

This list of questions/challenges can go on and on, as I’ve only touched the surface of what you might face from a dubious senior leadership.  Do you remember the Inquisition?  Nasty stuff.

So perhaps not everyone can properly do justice to meeting your compensation needs.  Perhaps there is value in utilizing experienced help.

The Value of Experience

When I first put out my own shingle as a global consultant a friend made a joking comment about how my grey hair made me suitable.  “You’ve been around the block a few times and you look like you know what you’re talking about.”

Humor aside, my friend was correct about a critical element; experience is a valued commodity that cannot be gained in the classroom, or through any number of textbooks or by quoting some professor. Experience comes from facing the hard knocks of actually doing the work, time and time again.  Of having dirt under your fingernails from living in the trenches.  Because while repetitive effort creates the efficiencies of sameness, it’s the professional seasoning that opens your eyes to the multiplicity of possible solutions that are out there.  Because every organization and every client is different from the last, or from the next.

Experienced practitioners can offer ideas, trends, anecdotes and numerous real-life experiences of how others have dealt with the same problem your organization is currently facing.

The newbie and wannabe will offer a single pathway forward because that’s all their scant experience is capable of.  They possess little depth, breath or developed competencies that can offer up alternative options for you to consider.

There will always be others pathways to take.

So go ahead and flip those survey pages if you like.  The figures are all there.  Just understand the risk you’re taking.

Personally, I like a bit of grey hair on my tradesmen, airline pilots, and doctors.

Have you ever felt like asking your boss, “Just tell me what you want to hear?”  Of course, you have.  We all have.  But I’ll wager that you never actually voiced that question, did you?

Sticking your neck up above the crowd to voice a different, contentious or even challenging viewpoint that goes against the popular choice, or the boss’ choice, is rarely an action that you look forward to taking.  Sometimes though, just to avoid the headaches, the personal challenges and even cause of friction in the workplace you’ll want for nothing more than for someone else to make the call.  For someone else to tell you what to do or say.

So you can escape the heat/blame/pointed finger/bad reputation, etc.

Let Me Pass This Cup

Excuse the biblical reference, but the time comes for all of us when we would like nothing better than for someone else to wave their arms in front of that proverbial freight train.  For someone else to face down the storm that might be brewing just outside the door.  For someone else to make the unpopular choice – and then to deal with the repercussions.

It’s human nature.  Perhaps a bit of self-preservation to avoid what you fear might become a career-damaging moment.  We’ve all seen examples: pushing the call up the chain of command, having a subordinate “do it,” delaying a decision for as long as possible, or even simply pretending that a decision doesn’t have to be made at all.

Because we don’t want to be punished.  We don’t want to regret our actions.

The Manager’s Role

But hopefully, most of the time you’ll likely take a deep breath, suck in your gut, push back your nervous fears and make the call you feel you need to make.   Because you’re a professional.  Because that’s what you’re being paid to do as a Compensation Director/Manager/Leader at your organization.

We live in a time where we’re literally inundated with self-help posters, guides, seminars, workshops and a daily exposure to social media formats like LinkedIn, Facebook, et al.  Outsiders constantly painting a picture of a simple and uncomplicated life, using cute photos, catchy phrases, and other guilt-ridden inducements, admonishing you to “do the right thing.”

And they’re right.  You should.  But sometimes it can be damn hard to take that step, to raise your hand or simply say NO!  I’ve been there, and I’d bet you have as well.

Don’t Fall On Your Sword

In my experience, though, I’ve found a pathway forward that can take into account your professional needs without sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.  You CAN stick to your guns (opinions, recommendations, viewpoint), just modify your personal approach a bit.  Don’t be the bull in the china shop.

• Don’t fall on your sword by making declarative statements that leave you little negotiating room.   “My way or the highway” is a foolish stratagem, no matter who is talking.
• Allow for the fact that there may be information out there not yet available to the decision-makers.  “Based on the current information available . . . .” is a reasonable preface.
• You will rarely see all the angles to an issue that senior management would be privy to.  So your compensation viewpoint, while objectively strong, might be trumped by other aspects of the business that you’re not aware of. Be aware of that possibility.
• Surveys are not always right, so never start an argument with “Surveys say . . .”  In fact, numbers are neutral.  What you want to do about those numbers usually forms the core of your proposals.
• Know your audience, and where their thinking is going.  Then modify your approach to at least take their viewpoints into account.
• You are not the “answer man,” so be willing to compromise where half a loaf moves you in the right direction.  Playing the “resist” card in the workplace is a poor tactic.

So yes, you should be willing to stand up for what you believe and to say as much.  But be smart about it.

When you pass the cup to someone else too often, the question can become, what do we need you for?

Do you think your pay is a fair reflection of your experience and job performance?  What about the person in the office/cubicle/workstation next to you?  Do you think their pay is fair?  If you asked 100 of your fellow employees that question, what percentage would say yes?

Would you be surprised to find out that, at any given moment most employees feel they’re deserving of more than what they’re receiving?

So if that’s a common employee perception, are the majority of companies intentionally underpaying their employees?  Or are these employees filling their heads with overly ambitious fantasies of their own self-worth and entitlement?

Perhaps we should first understand, what exactly is a fair wage?  Most would agree that it’s being properly rewarded for an individual’s experience and effort.  Not in relation to the employee next to you, but as a reflection of one’s own value to the organization.

You may be nodding your head now, but what confuses the issue every time is – what do they mean by “properly”?

Many employees have a tendency to consider themselves underpaid.

• They hear stories about what their friends and relatives are being paid – and the stories are always about higher pay

• They learn of colleagues whom they consider as less valuable to the company being paid more than they consider “fair”

• They’re exposed to a steady drumbeat of outside influences (recruiters, the media, those same friends and relatives) suggesting they could do better elsewhere

• In today’s business environment an employee’s natural skepticism allows that the company is offering only what it has to

Given the subjective and emotional nature of the above, even where the pay levels are high in relation to the competitive environment employees may well remain convinced that their lot is average at best.  Unless the company makes a serious effort to communicate the relative market value of their pay program(s), left to their own devices employees may not appreciate what they have.

So what’s an HR Manager to say when confronted by this most common employee gripe?

Focus on how the individual is being treated, because if you get caught up defending anyone else’s pay you’ll have lost the point from your opening breath.  Your questioner has only one employee in mind, and they won’t be all that interested in listening to generalities of how the company has everyone’s interest at heart, how they strive to provide opportunities for competitive pay, blah, blah.

Also, most pay-for-performance systems have a critical flaw, in that company reward practices don’t keep pace with the increased value of employees – thus creating a risk of disengagement and eventual separation.

• Salary ranges are increased in relation to marketplace movement (usually), but individual pay is increased for different reasons.  Thus employee growth within the salary range can be painfully slow

• Over time it’s likely that an average employee could stand still within their salary range, even as their experience and marketability improve

• Company budgetary policies often limit merit and promotional increases, restricting the pay growth of high performing employees

• Squeaky wheels do get greased, and more often than we’d like.  But those situations are exceptions and shouldn’t be pointed to as benchmark practices.

Companies don’t react directly to the Cost of Living, either in midpoint or salary movement, but employees, on the other hand, react to the COL as a barometer of whether their pay is fair.

Also, as companies continue to “carry” some employees they leave limited resources for the reward of high performers – and who is it that tends to leave the company?  It’s the good workers, while the mediocre ones remain.  When a reward system is flawed the average level of performance tends to gradually decrease as good workers leave and other qualified staff realize they won’t be rewarded for their efforts.  Over time a broad leveling effect takes place, to the detriment of your business.

How can an employee test whether or not their pay is fair?

• If the salary range is known, learn how present pay compares to what the company considers the “going rate” (midpoint). Significant job experience and consistently good performance ratings would suggest an above average pay level.

• They should talk to HR or their first line management, in order to gain the company’s perspective on their individual value and what opportunities may be available

• Caution: several internet sites offer a distorted view and aren’t reliable. If quoted by the employee, your best tactic is deferring market pay questions to internal professionals

• For most employees it’s an act of faith that the company is playing fair – and if they come to believe otherwise it’ll be difficult to regain their trust

Do you consider yourself to be fairly paid?  Be honest now.  There’s a line of thought that suggests there is little to gain in saying yes.  Then the company will do nothing.  But if you said h*** no! then perhaps the company will do something.  Cynical?  Skeptical?  Yes on both counts, and that is exactly what your employees are thinking right now.