Have you ever found yourself in a situation where someone (usually your boss or a higher-up) refers to a bogus number, a draft or temporary or preliminary figure that you had given some time ago, and now know is wrong?  When you ask why that number is still being used, they point back at you?

Awkward, isn’t it?

You’re suddenly behind the eight-ball and on the defensive because of a number perhaps you didn’t want to give in the first place.

You want to shout, “don’t you recall that I told you that the figure was draft?”   That the analysis was incomplete at the time, that further checking was required, or that you gave your best estimate based on only preliminary data?

But you are the author of that number, no matter how wrong it is today.  So why is it still in use?

Selective memory

It turns out that all that was remembered by the fellow with the frown on his face was that particular damning figure, and all the buzz of qualifier terms and conditions that preceded and followed it have been forgotten.  To your chagrin you may be viewed as someone who either; 1) gave bad information, or 2) changed your mind without telling anyone.

Unfortunately, you can’t say what you’re thinking.  That wouldn’t be a good career move.  The only card you have to play reads “damage control.”  Roll out those qualifiers again.

Earlier in my career, when I was responsible for job evaluation, I would steadfastly refuse to offer a preliminary evaluation, having been burnt by the same scenario as above.  I found that, if the managers liked what they heard, that’s all that they would hear.  Because if lord forbid the final analysis differed from the preliminary estimate you’d be hauled up before the Inquisition to explain why you changed your mind.

“I already told the employee,” is a phrase I’ve heard more than once – before I learned to keep my mouth shut.

So be careful when you give a number to management before you’re confident enough to defend it.  For some reason they will grab what you give and remember it with their steel trap, but flawed memory, while at the same time forgetting any qualifier terms or cautions you might have provided.

It’s human nature to remember what you want to hear, or what you can accept.  So that preliminary figure you surrounded with qualifiers?  Chances are management was OK with the number, or at least could deal with it, and so off they ran to integrate your analysis into their plans.

“I don’t remember you saying that”

In their forgetfulness they might even grow irritated with you, for all the plans they made with “draft” or “preliminary” data (shame on them!).  These folks suddenly act like you changed your mind, or gave them bad information.  All your previous explanations and qualifier comments are lost.

Management memories can be quite selective.

What can you do about it?

This is a situation where your options are limited, because; a) you’re likely dealing with your boss or higher, and any critique of their behavior needs be carried out very carefully, and b) when you’re asked for a number you generally have to give one.  Begging off is not often a career enhancing move.

So remember a tactic once described to me by a Training colleague:  you have to tell them, then tell them again, then remind them of what you told them.  So if caught up in a “give me a number” quandry, you need to emphasize whatever qualifiers might later modify the figure being discussed.  Then you have to repeat your concerns again before closing.

Finally, put the worrisome figure in writing, nicely wrapped together with whatever concerns you have about its validity.  Cover yourself.

Will it work?  Will it save you from another awkward moment?

Life isn’t fair, is it?  So no, even this strategy will fail from time to time.  But at least you’ll have positioned yourself to present an effective response.

Just be polite about it.

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Leeks

You just received an above average performance rating from your manager, which naturally put a big grin on your face.  Which was subsequently wiped away when you heard that for your annual salary adjustment you would receive what amounted to one percent (1%) more of a salary increase than “Joe Average” down the hall.  Tight budget this year, you’re told.

You know Joe, or his type, right?  He’s the disengaged clock watcher whose most notable accomplishment is keeping his chair warm.  Doesn’t do enough to either get fired or stand above the crowd.  However he’s the standard, and so receives an “average” award.

One percent more, they say?  For delivering what your boss described as 110% effort for the entire performance period.  Not worth it, you say?  Some studies have suggested that, if the differential between performance levels isn’t at least 2%, then you’d be better off with a general adjustment.

How does this happen?

When assessing the dynamics of employees and their work ethic, it is generally agreed that performance rewarded is often performance that is repeated.  Like the Pavlov experiments of so long ago, we tend to repeat that activity which previously gave us pleasure or reward.  We want more of it.  However, if the performer doesn’t feel rewarded, and is certainly not pleased by the company action, does the company gain or lose when that desirable performance is not repeated?

Perhaps your performance reward system is not as effective as you would like.

So the question becomes, how much of a performance differential between the best and just OK is enough to keep your better performers motivated and feeling appreciated?  A good guess is that it’s not 1%.

As a manager, can you balance the need to reward your better performers against the reality of tight budgets?  If you want to retain the high performers, you’d better find a way.  So then, what if you started by figuring out how much reward to provide?  Then whatever is left can be carved out among lesser performers.  That will protect your “stars.”

Ahh, but that won’t make you popular among the masses, will it?  And for many managers being liked is a key element of self-worth.  But how high up the priority list should popularity as a manager be marked?  Will you be assessed for popularity when your performance review is due?  I don’t think so.  Likely it won’t be in the top three of what senior leadership is expecting from you.

Your job description probably doesn’t even list this characteristic, and it is certainly not a factor in job evaluation.  So perhaps there are other criteria for a successful manager that should receive more attention.

If you’re concerned about differentials another consideration is the number of ratings you have in your performance appraisal system.  For example, with a seven scale system the need to provide percentages for at least five makes the division of reward opportunity a bit tight.  And if you try to maintain a two percentage point differential between performance levels, the numbers might become higher than what’s deemed affordable.

I don’t believe in reward for tenure, but I do believe in reward for outstanding job performance.  If the merit spend budget doesn’t have enough monies to recognize and reward everybody, each in turn for their contribution, then I’d suggest that you take care of your better performers first.

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 a 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.

Now why is that?  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?

The Manager’s favorite kicking-boy

Let’s see how many reasons you can identify with.

• HR formatting: a common criticism is that the “forms control people” have 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 then they can put pen to paper.  Description preparation is not considered an easy or simple process.

• Better writers get a better deal:  a belief that those who are more comfortable with writing (can turn a better phrase) will receive better / higher salary grades and pay.  The fear by 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.

For those critical of their organization’s job descriptions I’d venture to say that all four of the above reasons were checked, right?

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.

The cost of 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.  Typically 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 (salaries), 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 like jobs the environment is 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.

I don’t like job descriptions either, and hate to write them.  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 better – go online.  Now the job is editing, not creation.  Note: I am not recommending a source, as there are hundreds in a Google search, from the generic to the specific.

• Don’t have the employee write the description.  Too much chance for bias creep and unintended influences.  It’s a manager’s responsibility.

• Consider an annual review to keep content current.  Such is a small project if maintained, but a 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 are given the proper attention and respect.  The benefits do outweigh the hassle.

When you first look to purchase compensation surveys for your international population, it’s going to be a real wake-up call.  For those accustomed to only US surveys you will find that the available data in many countries is more limited than what you’re accustomed to seeing, as are the number of companies involved.  What won’t be reduced though is the expense.  Quite the opposite.  If you have multiple countries to deal with, your budget for credible compensation data will likely become a multiple of your US experience.

When I worked overseas my budget for compensation surveys was 3-4 times my previous US budget – and I only had to worry about Europe.  What a shock that was – spending much more while receiving less.

Each country is a separate USA, a unique national entity having country-specific labor laws, employment regulations, tax structure, competitiveness challenges and variations of economic strength.  For each you will need a country-specific survey to assess the local competitiveness of your employees.

International HR practitioners will need to adjust their thinking to react effectively in smaller countries, where the working population is limited and so is the number of survey participants.  It will be difficult to slice data by geography, industry or employee segment, as the data points grow smaller and smaller with each criteria.  For example, a well-regarded Mercer survey for the Netherlands showed 81 participating companies, while the US survey totaled 500.

Availability of locally-grown survey data is another challenge.  I have tried to locate such sources, even those provided only in the local language, in order to create a greater “buy-in” sense from management, but with limited success.   As a result even global companies with non-US headquarters tend to use the multi-national consulting firms.

Accessing International Resources

Should you require information for international compensation practices, below are a number of useful sources, each of which can be tapped via a Google search.  Note: many of the non-US sources focus on limited employee segments or functional areas, which may limit their usefulness during a general search.

Towers Perrin                                    Mercer                                 Compensation Research (UK)

Culpepper                                           Hewitt                                  CSi Remuneration (Aus)

AON Consulting Group                  Hay Mgmt Consulting     VenCon Research Intl (Ger)

Radford (high tech)                         McLagan (Finance)          Economic Research Institute (ERI)

IPAS (high tech)                                TymWork (Sw)                  Western Management Group

Taylor Root (UK)                               CFA Institute                      Euro Comp (Western Mgmt)

Federation of European Employers (FedEE)                         Executive Resources Ltd (ER Limited)

Watson Wyatt                                   Birches Group                   European Remuneration Network (Ger)

Organization Resource Counselors (ORC)                              Ernst & Young

PricewaterhouseCoopers            Croner Reward (UK)       Robert Walters (UK)

Baumgartner & Partner (Ger)     Interconsult Ltd (UK)      Australian Institute of Mgmt

Should you only have a few positions (2-3) in a given country you can reduce costs through individual job pricing, vs. the purchase of an entire survey.  Having more than a few positions though, would render this tactic economically unfeasible.  A few notable sources (though others from the above list may also be able to help):

• Birches Group
• ORC
• ER Limited

Another effective strategy for reducing costs is to age current survey data forward, coupled with the use of biennial purchasing.  However, when using this strategy have a care to limit its use to countries with stable economies.  Using such standard growth figures would miss the mark in countries showing greater volatility.

The Cost of International Operations

Too many HR practitioners and their Managers fail to take into account the expenses involved in keeping their international compensation programs competitive, especially where the organization has a small employee footprint.  For companies new to the international scene, and for those with small populations in several countries, the shock of survey costs could be daunting.  Many times the result is a reluctance to purchase the data, in some cases letting matters on the ground continue to fester – potentially overspending and / or creating debilitating equity problems for themselves.

Call it the cost of doing business, but if you’re going to maintain effective operations overseas, and you want to provide a competitive reward package (of course you do!), it would be unwise to shortchange the process by guesstimating or otherwise trying to make-do without credible information.

The cost of surveys is a fraction of the possible financial impact that could result from retaining non-competitive reward programs.

Most compensation professionals seem to agree; the concept of pay for performance is a good thing.  Providing rewards on the basis of individual employee effort and achievement makes sense.  However, critics do have a point when they describe how it is that many companies have tried – often with dubious results – to effectively link the granting of financial rewards with their performance assessment process.

That’s when the bright and shiny concept becomes a bit bruised and tarnished in practice.  It’s not easy to connect two inherently subjective processes – performance assessment and the individual reward decision – into an equitable pay for performance system.

When assessing their employees, managers hampered by limited performance appraisal training and experience will find themselves challenged to deal with conflicting dynamics:

• A recognition that they should provide high performing employees with larger than average increases

• A desire to grant “fair” increases for everyone who “did a good job” during the performance period

What’s the problem?  The rewarded employees typically comprise over 95% of the population.  If the minimum increase granted is a “fair” or “average” amount (everyone expects at least that much), then in order to effectively provide the higher achievers with a suitable reward you will have to find more money.  But all you have left are the monies held back from the scant number of non-achievers that you’ve identified.  You are giving them zero increases, right?

Do the math.  You won’t have enough money.  When given a finite amount of reward funds you won’t have the latitude of writing checks for beyond that.  And you can’t call Human Resources to say that you need more money – because extra funds won’t be available.

So you have to stand up and make a call about employee performance and reward – because there will be no reinforcements coming to the rescue with money bags to save your promises.

Whoever said that doing the right thing was going to be the easy way?

But this “everyone has to win” attitude is pervasive in some organizations.  And add to that the fact that most managers want to be liked, so they want to give their employees money – as many as they can and as much as they can.  Perhaps for reasons that upper management wouldn’t agree with.  Perhaps for reasons not directly related to performance.

Most managers will readily agree that better performing employees should receive more in the way of individual rewards.  But how should those leaders balance their conflicting needs?  Below is a short quiz, posing questions to illustrate the variety of possible decision-making scenarios – both good and . . . not so good.

• First of all, do they accurately and objectively assess performance?

• Do they recognize higher levels of achievement by providing higher reward amounts?

• Do they penalize with lower or zero increases those who haven’t performed well?

• Or does everyone not under threat of termination receive a raise?

• Do they grant average increases for average performance, in spite of budget limitations?

• Do they blame management that there isn’t enough money for what they want to do?

In effect, do managers take from Peter (lower performers) in order to pay for Paul (higher performers)?

Now some will say, what’s the risk?  What’s the big deal during times of reduced merit budgets?  I would suggest that you consider the impact that your decisions are likely to have on key employee groups.

• High performing employees have employment options outside the company, even during hard times.  Treat them poorly at your peril.  You likely won’t want these folks to quit, because of the direct financial impact that might have on the business.

• Average performers have less options for leaving, and your business can afford their departure.  Hard talk?  Yes, for sure, but when you have limited reward dollars you’d better make the best of it.   Average is more easily replaced than above average.

• Below average performers: you don’t want these folks to stay, do you?  Don’t make it easy by becoming a soft touch.

At the end of the day the question for managers is, are you going to manage the human resources of the company, or will you decide to go through the motions?  Will you make a stand or pass the buck?

Make the performance and reward decision and stand with it.  And don’t throw out a lame excuse like “I’d like to give you more money, but HR won’t let me.”

That’s not management; it’s administration.

When dealing with commission-style sales incentive plan designs the question of whether to include a maximum reward, or cap, usually raises its controversial head.  In a pay-for-performance environment you might not think that limiting reward opportunities would be a debatable issue – but the battle lines are drawn.

Sales management is aghast at the thought of limiting or reining in the success of a hard charging sales employee.  Don’t fire them up, only to cool them down, is the thought.  The idea of telling an employee that they won’t be rewarded for closing further deals is their nightmare scenario.

On the other hand the Finance folks, affectionately known as “bean counters” out in the field, tend to look at the same question from an opposing perspective.  They fear that a combination of windfall sales (sudden and arbitrary success achieved with minimal employee effort), possible inappropriate or unethical sales practices and / or poor quota setting processes could provide not only an undue amount of reward but going forward may encourage the wrong sort of behavior.

Behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, they say.

For Finance a cap in rewards will avoid what they consider excessive earnings for large, unexpected orders that have fallen into an employee’s lap.  As the argument goes, if we’re rewarding employees for their selling effort, and there is little effort, why provide a reward?  Or shouldn’t that reward be limited?

As you can see, both functions are approaching this performance issue from differing viewpoints.  Sales management understands and is concerned over the demotivational impact of reducing or eliminating rewards when the sales employee is doing exactly what they’re supposed to do.  Selling.  If you reward an employee for achieving 110% of plan targets, why not reward them for achieving 150%?  Or 200%?  To sales management capping goes against common sense.  To them holding back the sales force is holding back business success.  Because no one expects a sales employee to continue trying to make sales when the reward for such efforts has been taken off the table.

However, the Finance argument does have merit, and their concerns need to be addressed by the company’s sales incentive design and operating processes.

Considerations:

• Windfalls: the company should have in place a policy to address rewards for such unexpected sales.   Employees should be made aware that limitations can be put in place (case-by-case review) when achieved sales are due less to effort on the part of the employee than to factors beyond the employee’s control.

• Inappropriate sales practices: while everyone can agree that using unscrupulous or unethical behavior to achieve sales results is a serious breach of company conduct, it seems a bit of overkill to legislate behavior (introducing a cap) in a way that restricts the success of all sales employees.

• Quota setting: the concerns raised due to an ineffectual quota setting system should be addressed through an audit and revamping of those associated processes, not through what would be considered a penalty for those positively affected by that quota.  While the focus here is on rewards for potentially easy-to-achieve target quotas, we often fail to find a corresponding concern to help employees overcome (be rewarded for) those quota targets that are unduly difficult.

• Taper vs. Cap: using a bell-shaped curve to model reward opportunities, it is common practice for commission plans to reduce the incremental percentage of reward (commission rate, % of target bonus, etc.) as ever higher performance far exceeds target

Sales incentive plan designs should focus on the greater concern, that of possibly discouraging sales employees.  When fixed costs have been met, and each additional revenue dollar above target is a win for the company, let the employee win at the same time.  It just might spur on others to match that success.

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

You will have three audiences who are interested and watching; the management above you, peers and colleagues, and those below you in the organization’s hierarchy – whether subordinates or rank and file employees.  Now picture each group pondering your actions and developing an opinion.

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

• Peers: you have to work with these people, to interface with enough human relations skills to get things done.  The goal is assist work processes and people to run as smoothly as possible.  You want respect here.

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

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

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

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

And this is important because . . . ?

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

A number of years ago I cut back on my attendance at Compensation conferences.  It wasn’t the subject matter, or the cost, or even the locations so much.  It was that the growth and maturation of my career as a compensation professional had moved in a different direction from many of my colleagues.  I preferred to have that drink with other “types.”

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

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

Do you see yourself as others see you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today we have an economic recession that is causing employee job stress, concern for the future and more than a few sleepless nights.  In these circumstances company management can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal communications, as they face the question of whether employees can handle the truth.

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

Management messaging can either be straightforward regarding current events, why it was happening and how circumstances would affect emnployees, or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges (excuses).  In other words, employees could be fed “corporate-speak.”

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

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

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

When the straight story is not forthcoming, employees will tend to read between the lines and form their own perceptions of the company message, and that view is less reliable than the grapevine for spreading accurate information.  It is also more skeptical.

• “Where are they going to go?”: employees are trapped in their jobs, with little choice but to remain, because other opportunities will be hard to find.  Management has implied, “we don’t need to do anything for them.”

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

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

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

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

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

• Employee listening (and attention) ceases as insincerity is recognized, so the communication effort is wasted

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

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

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

• Organizational credibility is strengthened

• Company loyalty is fostered

• Engagement levels and management support are improved

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

Do you want to be admired and respected by your colleagues, recognized by senior leadership for who and what you are?  Do you want to be known throughout your universe as one who sets the standard?

Then solve a problem.  Stand up and show someone how to get things done.  Clear the pathway; support someone’s idea, save a step somewhere.  Do what it takes.

Just do it.

It’s not hard, really.  It’s a matter of thinking not of yourself first and foremost, but of a greater good that is broader than yourself – and of focusing your attention on getting the results that help the department, the team, the business.   It’s called a giving of yourself.

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

We all have them in our organization.  They surround us.

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

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

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

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

So why would you want to do that yourself?

Of course you wouldn’t.  But now reflect a bit on how you practice your relationships at work.  Do you admire yourself, or can you spruce up your act a bit and become more of a team player?

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

But that’s just me.

You’re in charge.  Or at least you have a say in developing compensation programs for your organization.  That’s a vital responsibility, especially if all is not well in your world.  Perhaps an audit of those pay programs has generated worrisome results, or the latest employee engagement survey showed a large measure of discontent.   Perhaps turnover is rampant, or you’ve just sat through an uncomfortable meeting with a boss upset over the runaway cost of labor.

Something has to be done to better utilize your payroll dollars, because too much money is dripping out of your company like a leaking faucet – and the rest isn’t giving you much bang for the buck.

The challenge, then?  You have to change your world.

How do you do that?  There are program design considerations, costing models, impact studies, external and internal analyses, even focus groups perhaps, but at the end of the day you can’t simply snap your fingers.  Your ideas, your recommendations need to be approved by the higher ups.  How do you make that sale?

Let’s start with the easy part; what not to do.

When facing senior leadership with business-impact proposals the quickest way to be shown the exit is to tell them what they don’t want to hear.  Sounds obvious, but basic judgment errors are commonplace when you’re so caught up in knowing the answers that you forget to focus on the right questions.

A few examples of how not to sell your ideas:

Leading with “it’s the right thing to do” is rarely a good idea.  Using an emotional, feel-good rationale is seldom a strong argument and is easily sidelined by the bean counters or anyone playing the “this is a business” card.

“Surveys tell us . . . “ can be another weak point, because the argument that everyone else is doing something hasn’t worked in a debate since you were a kid.

Over analysis: the more extraneous numbers you throw at senior management, the more you rely on charts, graphs and regressed formula trend lines to make your point, the more vulnerable your proposal becomes.  The risk is in having the numbers become the story.

I’ve seen senior executives feel compelled to ask multiple and often tangential questions about the support calculations, just to show they’re engaged and shouldn’t be taken for granted.   Don’t let your proposal  rise or fall on the comfort level of decision-makers struggling through the details vs. the concept.

Principles of the sell-job

What follows is a series of suggestions you should consider before walking into that critical proposal review meeting.

First and foremost make a business case where your recommendations illustrate that the company will win.  Management’s prime directive is to act for their own self-interest; altruism is over-rated in the boardroom. Once you have them nodding their heads at their own good sense, they’ll be more easily moved to support your plans.

Tell a story; start with a statement of the problem, then augment with a back story to explain how the situation has become so precarious.  Show the impact of inaction, then close out with your recommendation  – highlighting impact, savings, reduced turnover, whatever the goal  – that solves the problem.

Do you know the ROI for your proposal?  You had better have one, as that could be your strongest argument.  Pros and cons?  Are there potential glitches?  Rarely will you have simple, uncomplicated solutions that can’t fail.  So it would be better for you to address any troublesome possibilities early on, to soften the potential “gotcha’s” that could trip you at the worst possible time.

Always have a backup plan, as all-or-nothing strategies don’t work well outside of the movies.  You’ll need a plan “B” in your back pocket, just in case.  Better to get half a loaf today and be able to hope for more later, than crash and burn today because of pride and stubbornness.

Which means you shouldn’t fall on your sword over ideas, but be prepared to compromise.  Proprietary ownership of ideas (I want it my way) should be secondary to achieving the business goal.  But often times pride does get in the way, sometimes derailing sound concepts for the wrong reasons.  It’s not about you.

The numbers rarely speak for themselves; in fact you’re at risk if you use statistics as your main argument.  Instead, paint a picture with text.  Use all those figures only to support the point you’ve already made.  Strategic thinkers balance technical skills with the art of persuasion, influencing others to undertake the desired action.  They don’t throw out a bunch of numbers and say, “see?”

———————————–

Even when the task ahead is daunting, go ahead and take that first step.  It’s usually the hardest.  But if you’re prepared to achieve incremental gains vs. sweeping changes, if you keep your eye on the ultimate goal, you will find the second step is easier, then the third and so forth.

“Rome wasn’t built in a day” is a classic and over-used phrase, but for good reason.  Because it makes sense.  Because it rings true.  So think of Rome when you try to change your world.  Just don’t act like Don Quixote and run off to chase windmills.