Once an organization reaches a certain size in employee population it’s been typical practice for the Human Resources department to replace an ad hoc compensation / reward process with a more structured program.  And part of that program development, a key element in fact, is the establishment of a base salary (pay) structure.  Here you will have an ascending hierarchy of grade designations (your position is a grade “x,” mine is a grade “y”, etc), coupled with ranges that indicate a minimum to maximum value (salary) for each grade.

While distinctions in design can vary amongst organizations the central point of having a uniform structure is very much commonplace in both for-profit and non-profit organizations.

You probably see the “but” coming, don’t you?

Startups and Small Businesses

Just the other day one of my clients, a young and fast growing high tech company, explained to me that they didn’t use grades or salary ranges.  They didn’t have a pay structure.  They felt that they didn’t have the time to develop a standardized reward program. “We’re moving too fast,” the CHRO told me, and “We don’t have the time, people or money to focus on an HR project.”

That’s a common response for start-ups and small businesses.  The feeling is that there aren’t yet enough employees to start building an HR infrastructure.  Everyone knows everyone else’s first name and the company Christmas Party could be held at a restaurant.  Also, business leaders are too engaged in more important endeavors: getting the business off the ground, developing products and services and setting up mechanisms to sell their offerings.

Therefore these first generation employees are usually paid on the basis of:

• Whatever the individual employee could negotiate
• Whatever the company felt it would take to get chosen candidates to join, or
• Setting of fixed rates for everyone in a particular job

Little thought is given to pay relationships (equity) or even the short term (?) impact on payroll expense.  The focus is lock set on creating a business, of getting the ball rolling.  Even job titles become an afterthought, with resultant title inflation slowly infecting the organization, and no one has a job description.

I get that.  That’s the reality of getting a business off the ground.  HR takes a back seat.

But it can’t last.

Paying The Piper

Eventually these poor compensation practices will start to cause real pain within the organization, similar to how too much sugar inevitably causes tooth cavities in children.  Payroll gets out of hand (too high), inequity amidst the staff starts to cause employee relations issues and managers begin to see valued employees becoming disgruntled and heading for the exit.

By the time management starts to realize they have a problem, not only have the problems grown serious and disruptive, but those pay practices that no one cared about earlier have now become ingrained into the small company’s culture. Now it’s not going to be so easy to change course.  Now management risks angering some employees even as they try to steer the ship away from the reefs.  Some of those employees could be valued contributors.

Time and again I’ve been asked by clients to help them develop their first compensation structures, to assist them as they struggle to work through numerous employee-related challenges and deal with a bloated payroll.  Aside from the mechanics involved in setting up a new pay structure (market pricing, job evaluation, salary range width, midpoint differentials and assigning jobs to grades) overcoming past practices and precedents, dealing with the employees themselves, becomes a real challenge.  A painful challenge.

For example:

• Disconnecting inappropriate job titles is sometimes easier said than done.  Employee egos and self-identification have been blown out of proportion, but to make someone take a step back is difficult.
• Dealing with outliers who either pop out the top of a salary range, or fail to meet the minimum level.  When faced with a competitive pay structure to replace the ad hoc and laissez faire suddenly some employees are found to be overpaid, while others are underpaid.
• Facing the cost implications of the above.  Raising someone to the minimum value of a pay range is an easy decision, but what if there are many employees so affected?  And if an employee has been with you for awhile, raising them to the minimum can still be perceived as a slap in the face.
• Setting grade assignments that reconcile a job evaluation system, competitive market pricing results and internal equity.  Think of a juggling act where everyone is a potential critic.

So do yourself a favor.  Pay attention to germinating pay issues even as the business passes through its stage 1 and stage 2 development.  Then, when it’s time to standardize and structure your reward programs you will find the road ahead all the smoother for your efforts.

When you think of the cumulative payroll expense being distributed to your employees, do you consider that amount of money a cost to the business, or as an investment in business success?  I’ve heard both terms used, usually along the lines of a glass being either half full or half empty.  It’s all about how you look at the same figure.  Do you value the employee contribution, to the tune of “X” number of dollars, or do you consider that amount too much of a necessary evil that constantly needs to be monitored, minimized and even cut?

This isn’t a trick question.  Because it’s a legitimate response to say you value your employees, while at the same time you want to minimize their cost to the company.  It’s all about being effective and efficient.  You want to spend what you need to spend for the right caliber of employees.  Not more and not less.  So you’ll need a balanced program of employee rewards that provides the right motivation for your employees (attract, motivate, retain), while not wasting money by overspending for the same level of performance.

The Right Reward

What programs or policies do you count as being a reward for your employees?  Payment for performance, yes, but also aspects of your work environment (what one experiences when they work for you) that makes employment more enjoyable for your employees.  Cash of course, but how about a subsidized cafeteria?  What about tuition reimbursement, an on-site clinic, a credit union, or perhaps product / service discounts?  Ask yourself, what other programs, policies or initiatives are either provided or available to employees in your organization that help make the working environment a more pleasant place to be for all those hours every week?  Or, what can you do?

Because the almighty dollar will only get you so far.  The pool is limited, of course, and to managers it’s a basic, though simplistic and automatic response to employee needs.  Many managers will stop right here though, because after giving out cash the rest of the value proposition (what employees value)  can be hard work to identify, implement and administer.

Think about it.  How many other somethings offered by your organization bring a smile to your employees?   To have them talking positive about your organizations to family and friends?  Find out what those goodies are, because those are valued and become considered as a reward for working there.

They don’t have to be large programs, or expensive offerings; just what is meaningful to the employees.  But it takes putting your thinking cap on.

Cash Is King, But . . . .

Every organization is different, with myriad characteristics, infrastructures, cultures and degrees of financial strength, so it’s hard to point at something and say, “do this.”  But if you presume that cash is not always going to be available, try something else as well.  Try lots of somethings.

• Benefits: Not just the core programs that almost every organization provides, but perhaps there are other initiatives whose availability would be appreciated, whether funded by the company, by the employee or via a proportional split.  My wife still remembers the job where I was able to buy her roses at work, or take care of the dry cleaning from my office.  Both were fully employee-paid, but were convenient and appreciated.

• Work-Life: Do you expect your employees to maintain a “live to work” or a “work to live” mindset about their job? It matters.  Look at your PTO policies, remote access for employees, job sharing, or simply the ability to periodically work from home.  Do you have the latest hardware and software technology?  How about health and wellness programs, or initiatives that get you involved in your community?

• Performance & Recognition: You hire an employee to do their job, but do you also provide performance feedback along the way? Encouragement?  Improvement assistance?  Counseling?  Do you show appreciation and behavioral reinforcement to foster more desirable efforts?  Do you highlights achievers for the contributions they make?  Celebrate employees doing their jobs.

• Development & Career Progression: Do you treat employees like an electrical appliance – plug them in work them until they fail? Or do you provide challenges as well as opportunities, learning experiences that enhance capabilities, perhaps coaching / mentoring / training experiences? Are you really investing in your employees?

The value of rewards is in the eye of the beholder.  If I have an opportunity to gain something that I value, then attaining that “something” because of where I work is a reward.  Whatever it is, it may not work for other employees, but if I value it, then it works like the proverbial carrot on a stick to provide me with motivation, with appreciation of my employer and ultimately more and better effort on my part.

You may have your own somethings where you work, and they could coincide or differ with my own.  Such is the strength behind the Value Proposition – which has morphed into a cafeteria-style menu of rewards and opportunities, cash and non-cash.

Have a care though, because going down the value proposition road requires more work on your part than simply doling out more cash.  But the rewards to you and your organization will be worth it.

Guaranteed.

If you have an employee working for you, why would you give them an increase to their base pay?  I’m presuming though, that there’s a review program (annual?) in effect so that employees don’t have to come to you, hat in hand to ask for a raise.

When reflecting on their merit review / pay increase programs, here are the reasons I typically hear for granting individual rewards.

• Good job performance: In recognition of delivering good or better job performance during the review period.

• Tenure: Employees who have been around for a long time deserve “something” to recognize and reward their continuing loyalty.

• Peanut Butter Spread: Popular in low merit spend years (lot of those lately), the thinking is that making distinctions is not “worth the effort,” so “Let’s give everyone the same raise.”

• Everybody wins: Part of the popularity effort by many managers is the belief that all employees should get something.   They try to avoid being judge and jury about the linkage between performance and rewards.

• They need the money:  The soft-hearted approach, when managers make emotional vs. business decisions.  An employee’s personal circumstances become a pay decision consideration.  And if one doesn’t need the money?  Chances are some of their portion might be shifted elsewhere.

• I don’t want them to quit:  Another aspect of the manager popularity effort and a cousin of the “Everybody wins” tactic, is where a manager ignores or downplays job performance and reward distinctions to ensure an employee doesn’t get angry and then decide to leave the organization.  Because a decision to look elsewhere might negatively impact the manager.  Self interest conquers all.

You’ll notice that I put “good job performance” at the top of my list.  Is it at the top of yours?  Sad to say I often see that requirement placed further down the list in many organizations.  While everyone would agree that performance is important, we’re talking about money here, about discriminating among employees.  So the counterargument from pay-for-performance critics is that there are other things to consider.

Basic Rule of Thumb

But what if those reward dollars were coming out of your own pocket?  What if you acted as it you owned the business, and that the merit spend monies came from you, not from off a money tree or from some other constantly renewable source?  Then the decision becomes, either give monies to “deserving” employees, or keep it for yourself.

If that was the case, might the decision making process become more objective, might focus more attention on the ROI gained for the reward monies being spent, and might you expect managers to do a better job at actually managing their employees?

A basic rule of thumb in human factors management is that job performance that has been recognized and rewarded is going to be repeated.  Conversely, employees will find little encouragement to continue unsatisfactory behaviors and performance if they realize that pay increases are not automatic, and that an accounting of some sort will actually take place.

Sit on your butt and get nothing.

Critics and Naysayers

With that vein of thinking I would suggest that pay increases granted in advance of performance is also a bad idea.  I’ve heard some pundits, in their criticism the performance appraisal process say, “Let’s ignore the past (performance) and instead reward employees for future effort.”  Doesn’t that sound like a bribe?  And if the employee doesn’t perform well enough to warrant the monies already given, would there be a pay claw back later on?  I don’t think so.

Some other pundits (p4p criticism #2) suggest that dangling pay increases in front of an employee – as a form of motivation – is a wasted effort.  Their belief is that employees will perform well anyway, as some form of internal self-worth will propel them to work hard.

• When high achievers and Joe Average receive the same / similar increase, whose performance do you think is encouraged and will be repeated?

• How many of your employees “perform well?  100%?  Probably not.  So already this theory ignores a segment of your population.

• Well-intentioned and self-motivated employees will eventually run out of steam (think of a battery) unless recharged by recognition and reward.

• Your organizations risks encouraging a “Why bother?” mentality, which when coupled with a higher percentage of Joe Average in your workforce, is a recipe for serious difficulties.

So have a care that your reward monies go to the right employees, and for the right reasons.  Less than that is wasted money.

This question may sound like a no-brainer, but when you think of your organization’s pay-for performance compensation program, do you feel that you are recognizing and rewarding the right employees?

And who exactly is that, you may ask?

• It is not everyone

• It is not those employees who managers feel need the increased pay

• It is not the employee who has been busy all year

• It is not the employees with the greatest length of service

• It is not the employee that everyone likes

What your definition should be, is that the right employee is whomever has performed well above the crowd of other employees during your rating period.  Those who you can rightly call high achievers.  Those whose resignation would cause you to lose sleep at night.  Everyone else can be an afterthought.

Now that was easy, wasn’t it?  Like I said, a no-brainer.

It Doesn’t Work That Way

But what’s that, you say?  That’s not exactly how things work in your organization?  There are other considerations besides performance?  So that perhaps the right employee doesn’t always get rewarded?  Or whatever they receive isn’t much more than that given to Joe Average?

Why do you do that?  Let’s consider the likely culprits:

• Not much money to go around:  This is a common argument when merit budgets are tight; that when you can’t make much of a distinction when granting reward percentages, you don’t make much of a distinction with your rewards.  Proponents would say, “Let’s just push the EASY button and give everyone the same raise.”

• Everyone deserves something:  The “It’s not my money” tactic, where emotion overrules business sense.  If an employee hasn’t seen fired then they should get something for sitting around for twelve months.  Hasn’t inflation increased for everyone?

• Performance ratings are overblown:  Here is the current new age thinking, where performance shortcomings are the fault of the system.  That somehow monetary rewards have little to do with future performance, so why should we discriminate amongst employees?  The system is rigged.

• Somebody might quit:  This is every manager’s fear, of course,  but in our case this trepidation can lead to greater interest in providing pay increases that would retain the staff.  If an employee quits it’s likely going to mean more work for the manager, and potential criticism from their bosses.

• I want to be liked:  An attitude especially prevalent among new managers, who want to build a collaborative team environment (“We’re all in this together”).  They can be reluctant to play the judge and jury about performance assessments and pay increases for their “team.”  Many would rather blame Human Resources.  They don’t want to be disliked by anyone.

Making The Hard Decisions

Rewarding the right employee becomes essentially about the manager being willing and able to make discriminatory decisions about an employee’s job performance and effectiveness as an employee with the organization.  That is, if you presume that pay increases are not “owed” on the basis of tenure (“It’s been twelve months.  Where’s my pay increase?”).

Because the budget for pay increases is always going to be tight  There will never be enough money for everyone, so an effective manager has to choose how best to spend their available reward dollars in a way that generates the best return for the organization.  Yes, that’s right – for the organization.

In some cases this means that Joe Average may not receive an annual merit increase this year, even if their performance has been ok / satisfactory / meets expectation, etc.

Making these decisions is not easy.  But it’s not supposed to be.  That’s why (tongue in cheek) the managers make the big bucks.  Then again, perhaps if it was the manager’s own money being spent the answers might not be so hard to find.

You know who the right employees are.  Put your money there.

. . . is not the same as “everything will stay the same.”

Most folks will tell you that change is good; that new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking and new ways of viewing the business environment are all for the good.  And then they pat themselves on the back as forward-thinking examples of the modern age.

But how about when those very same changes affect them?  When their pattern of activity is disrupted?  When what they were comfortable with now becomes alien to them?  When the advantage of the knowledge they once had is gone, and they have to learn again?  When their advantage over other employees disappears as everyone is changing at the same time?

What about when their feelings of self-confidence, of superiority in some cases, are dashed?

Then perhaps they might not feel so warm and fuzzy about change.

That’s just how it is with the human condition.

When Change Occurs

Imagine if you will the manager / leader / boss who sits comfortably within their world-at-work, their office (or wherever) environment.  They’ve been around the block several times so they know how things work.  They know the policies, the procedures and even all the right players that they have to deal with.  They can answer most any question that comes their way, or can at least bluff their way through.  When problems arise they can choose to either deal with it or kick the can down the road.

Self confidence is the hallmark of their work persona, in that they feel that they’re sitting on top of their work world – and they like the view.

Then suddenly the planet shifts on its axis.  Word comes down from above that a major new program is going to be implemented, utilizing new technologies, new forms and procedures and a whole new way of thinking.  Policies will be changing and leadership expectations are suddenly going in a whole new direction.

Oops.  Now your world has been rocked, because now you face a learning curve similar to that faced by many of your peers and colleagues.  Now you no longer have the answers, but are left with a series of questions – like everyone else.

Now your self confidence has been shaken, your warm bubble of comfort shattered.

Perhaps you go through a step process of bafflement, anger, denial, resentment, and then what?  Baying at the moon isn’t going to help, so you’d better get your new act together.

Dealing With the Dark Days

First off, I never recommend keeping your head in the sand and hoping that the bad dream goes away.  Or to play the passive resistance card (lukewarm interest and support, all while keeping your fingers crossed).  Good leaders don’t go there.

What I suggest is that you embrace the change, as best you can.

• First onto the boat gets to pick the seat, so an early and visible advocate gets to be seen as such and able to position themselves well going into the future.  You also get to present yourself as still in leadership mode, this time leading the charge into the unknown.  “Come on, follow me!”  Good management technique.

• Let’s face it though, learning new techniques, new technologies, the cutting edge of anything can serve you well in your career.  So you have to deal with a short (?) period of uncertainty, but likely you’ll come out ahead when the changes are implemented.  Otherwise, being seen as a legacy player has limited appeal to your senior management – who are watching.

• A corollary to the above is that, by throwing your weight behind the change you position yourself well politically (like that’s not important?).  Early supporters of new initiatives get noticed and remembered by executives pushing those changes.  Not a bad thing for you.

• Even if the change doesn’t work out as planned (when does it ever?), there’s likely little downside for you to have played along as a team player.  When the dust settles and the score is counted it’s usually the passive resisters and active critics who are remembered in a negative sense.  Senior managers have memories too.

Someone once said, “The only thing that’s constant is change,” or words to that affect.  Which means that sitting on your bum for too long can be harmful to your professional career.

I do agree that change can be a pain in that bum, and usually inconvenient to many of the affected.  But we need positive and constructive change to progress as a business, as a society, and as an individual.

It’s going to happen with or without you.  Let’s make it happen with you.

Spoiler alert!  This article doesn’t have a happy ending.

—————————-

What if you worked in an organization where the Head of Human Resources didn’t view the Compensation function as vitally important to the organization?

I once worked in such a place.  Though I wasn’t in a leadership role at that point the lesson learned was telling.  We weren’t invited to critical HR planning sessions, my boss was never a member of the inner HR circle, and the department’s list of annual objectives never included a compensation project.

It’s bad enough when the senior leadership doesn’t give you the time of day, but when your own Chief Human Resources Officer seems to agree that your role is a secondary appendage to the organization chart, whew!  That’s not a place to build a career on.

So What’s Wrong With Compensation?

Where does this attitude come from?  The possibilities are legend, but the culprit is usually the personal perspective of the people in charge.  For some reason these HR leaders consider the Compensation function at best a necessary distraction from the business of Human Resources.  Of course I have my opinions, but it’s just that.  You likely have your own.  Some examples of those HR Leaders who do not value the Compensation function:

• The HR Generalist:  Here is the all-purpose Human Resource leader, who (typically) has gained their top position through experience in staffing, employee relations or organizational development.  It is unusual for this office holder to have cut their teeth in either Benefits or Compensation.  Specialty areas may be a mystery to them, a bit too cut and dried for their “It depends,” or “How can I help you?” style.  They don’t wish to be viewed as the “gatekeeper.”

• Working the Chairs: This senior leader didn’t rise through the ranks in HR, but only stopped there along the way.  So their strengths may be in Finance, Marketing, or another functional area.  They need to gain HR experience before they move on.  These folks don’t usually understand or appreciate the role of Compensation, and sometimes confuse it with payroll.

• The Political Animal:  The genesis of this leader may be either of the above roles, but while leading HR they’re focused on what will please top management.  Thus potential controversies that are often generated by new program ideas are frowned upon.  They may want to be considered a “business partner,” but to get there are often accused of being “yes men.”  Unfortunately that negative label doesn’t go away once they reach the Executive Team.

• Retiree-in-waiting:  Bob is going to retire in a couple of years, and senior management has decided to “park” him in HR until the going away party.  Bob will not rock the boat, will seldom initiate new programs and has written the book on how-to administration and program maintenance.

Sound harsh?  These are real people that I have seen and experienced during the course of my career.  Others may consider them exceptions, which I hope is the case with your career.  Because with these leaders rarely does the nice guy with their nose to the grindstone actually win the day.  For them it would appear that image and exposure are more important than performance.

What Can You Do?

The answer rests with you, and what your career aspirations might be.  For some it’s ok to sit back as the on-site compensation administrator and simply keep things afloat.  Maintain the status quo, keep the bosses happy and if problems crop up, kick the can down the road in the hope that the challenges will go away by themselves.

Not your cup of tea?  Well, you can rattle the bars of the professional cage that’s restricting you – with questions, recommendations, warnings and red flags to gain attention, but that might prove more of a distraction and irritation to the powers that be and ultimately prove career ending for you – at least with that employer.

You can leave.  Start searching for a better role model in a Leader, and an HR Department that upholds the integrity of its role in the organization.

What I don’t think you can do is somehow magically change the attitude of the HR Leader styles mentioned above.  Those are ingrained attitudes firmly held and you’d be swimming upstream trying to make a difference.

So the trick is to avoid getting into a career hole in the first place.  Easier said than done, I’m afraid.

The other day I received a letter from my Financial Advisor – or actually from the Corporate Head Office with my Advisor’s name attached.  The letter had to do with a new Department of Labor (DOL) requirement.  So I was asked to sign a note of authorization regarding my accounts.

I read the note and the attached form.  Then sipped my morning coffee and stared at the letter.  Then I read it again.  After the second reading I realized that what sounded like an important message about my retirement funds had failed a basic communication test.  I couldn’t explain the message to my wife.

Which is because I didn’t understand it.  I would have to call and talk with someone “live” to find out in simple words what the letter meant.

Communication experts use a similar comprehension test by trying to explain message content to a 15 year old, or being able to write down the basic theme.  The point is, if you can’t explain a message to someone else, to the point where that person understands the message and can repeat it back to you, then your communication effort has failed.

Likely my Advisor’s Corporate Head Office have checked me off a list as “Yes, we communicated with that client,” whether the message was understood or not.  The need for clarity and understanding was apparently not important enough for the sender to have made their message clear.

So now, in a big waste of time for everyone concerned I have to pick up the phone and call my Financial Advisor – simply to ask, “What did that message mean?”

Corporate Speak

This is an example of “corporate speak,” a written communication usually penned by a professional writer who is not a subject matter expert.  Their goal is compliance, plain and simple.  Somebody is making them reach out to a particular audience (client, customer, employee) to tell them something.  However, the transparency of that chosen communication method is not a factor, as being in compliance only means that you sent a message.  The fact that I don’t understand what you’re talking about does not take away from the fact that the sender did indeed comply with a communications requirement.

Sad, isn’t it?  It’s like, “I told you, and don’t care whether you understood me or not.  That’s your problem.”

Getting It Right

Whenever you send  a message for a particular audience, let me suggest a few do’s and don’ts. That is, if you really intend for your message to get through.  If your goal is more than bureaucratic compliance.

• Specific vs. vague language: Be clear, be crisp in your choice of words and avoid the need for interpretation.  How is your message affecting me, personally?  Why?  What is going to happen?

• Talk to me, not at me:  No condescension, no big words, and please write in a conversational tone.  Show me that you understand the issue from my perspective.  Have someone who knows the subject review the text.

• Speak from the trenches, not from 30,000 feet:  Present a grasp for what is really going on with members of your audience.  Talk as if you’re living this issue yourself, not sitting unaffected in a remote Corporate office.  Broad, inspirational phrases bring you no credibility.

• Look in the mirror:  Picture yourself as a recipient of the intended message.  Then ask yourself, “Does this communication answer the questions that I would have asked?”  In my case it’s a big fat no!

• Test your message before sending: Most important, show the message to a sampling of your intended audience, then listen and react to the response.

Sadly the above cautions are all too often minimized or even ignored in the rush for simple compliance.  Corporate lawyers usually have a greater say in the final communication (play safe, avoid controversy, point the finger elsewhere, minimize any blame, paint a positive picture, etc.) than practitioners and those living in the trenches.

Which is why I’m off now to call my Financial Advisor, to ask him what the Corporate letter meant.

It’s often viewed in the workplace that training employees is a critical requirement for upgrading skills, developing future leaders, and in general improving competencies and abilities.  The common format is usually classroom sessions, but the effort could also include seminars, workshops and professional conferences.

Developing employees is a concept hard to argue with.  I fear though, that in its application the goal is often missed, failing to provide behavior-based training programs that deliver as advertised.

My concern is not with technical knowledge, learning about Windows 10, HRIS Modules, or the latest social media applications for business, but the subjective side of employee development; i.e., leadership, motivational principles, improving competencies, etc.

Ask yourself, can I measure the effectiveness of our training programs?  Or do you simply equate effectiveness with the number of employees trained?  And do you count “trained” as having attended a training / education session?

Therein Lies The Rub

Recently I attended a self-improvement workshop and during the course of that experience found that my attention continually wandered off topic.  Does this sound familiar?

The presenter used several phrases that I didn’t understand (i.e., “resonant relationships”).  Such language bombs (“What did they just say?”) disrupted my link with the presenter as I struggled to figure out what the term(s) meant.  Meanwhile the flow of the presentation moved on without me.

Another complaint is where the participant can’t connect the presenter’s message to direct assistance on a practical level.  The dialogue sounds good, but doesn’t move the practical knowledge meter very far.

Passing The Effectiveness Test

If your intent is to avoid a misleading measure of training success (we trained “x” employees this year), ask a few questions before setting up that next “opportunity.”

• Can you measure the impact?  Will you know upfront what employees will gain from the experience, and what practical applications will reward attendance?

• Are they speaking common sense? Understanding broad based concepts has its place in the employee education process, but unless the discussion of those concepts is connected to real world challenges, you should question the practical value of the session.

• Can you spread the learning?  Would a participant be able to explain to other employees what they learned and how practical applications might be forthcoming?

• New vs. rehash: How much of the presentation would be new information, vs. a rehash of what has been covered before?

• Boring presentation: Being a subject matter expert is not the same as being able to engage an audience about that expertise.  A read-from-the-podium lecture style, when combined with a dry topic and a monotone voice can kill audience engagement within minutes.

How do you know whether an audience is paying attention?  All it takes is watching how participants act during the session.

• Watching the clock:  When is this session going to end?  When’s lunch?  Are we having a break?

• Checking email: Everyone’s smart phone has an email feature.  Some employees try to be subtle when checking in, while others are more blatant.  None are paying attention.

• Day dreaming: Fixing the eyes on a distant spot and letting the mind wander from the topic at hand.  The eyes glaze over, the head starts to nod and the ears close up shop.

• Planning this article:  Or conducting other mental activities, where the mind is engaged elsewhere.

The speaker should be aware of these tendencies and try to modify their presentation to keep engagement as high as possible.  Too often though, their prime goal is dispensing the material at hand.  The room could be empty.

When Is Training a Bad Idea?

So be careful.  No one would disagree that training employees is a worthwhile investment of company time and effort.  Likewise for attendance at workshops, seminars and conferences.  Affording employees the opportunity for personal and professional growth is a valuable part of your Total Rewards program.

However, not every offering sold under the guise of training or self-development is a worthwhile effort; worth the time and money.  Often times these external events are more boondoggle than learning exercise, offered more as rewards and networking exercises than actual learning experiences.  If that’s your intent, well and good.  Just don’t kid yourself that your employees are being “trained.”

As to internal training sessions, avoid the knee-jerk headcount metric of assessing the value of your training efforts by the number of employees exposed to the material.  That sort of assembly-line “training” is more about process than results.  Find a way to measure whether your training is effective, or isn’t.

Bottom line?  Fluff training is a bad idea when your time and money is wasted in the process.  Know the difference.

With apologies to Forrest Gump, but considering the variety of management styles out there can be like opening a box of assorted chocolates.  There are so many possibilities.  Some can offer a good experience for those on the receiving end, bringing a smile to one’s face, while others can have you frowning with unfortunate memories and leave an unpleasant taste in your mouth.

Consider this scenario:  You as the hiring manager are in the middle of an interview with a candidate you like.  You want this person to join your organization.  The conversation is progressing well when, out of the blue you’re asked, “Can you describe how your staff views your management style?”

Not how you view it, but those on the receiving end.

Tricky question, as it’s possible that your staff considers your approach to leadership in a different light perhaps than how you view yourself in the mirror.  This is like the “weakness” question, a potential trap for the unwary.   What are you prepared to say about yourself?  To admit about yourself?  Provide the wrong answer here and if the candidate has other options they might look elsewhere.

The Name Game

The possibilities to describe who you are as a manager, while they have several names, can be sorted into a limited number of personalities.   Do you consider yourself . . . ?

• The Team Manager: “We’re all in this together, folks” is the credo of this collaborative style leader.  While we may be a homogeneous team as an aspirational goal, sometimes this manager may decide that group needs outweigh that of high performers.   Rewards may be skewed toward everybody, vs.  toward individual achievement.  Also, can tough employee decisions be made, that might impact the team?

• Absentee Manager:  Like an absentee landlord this boss lets you get on with it, whether you have the tools, guidance or knowledge enough to achieve your assigned tasks.  They don’t bother you, even when you need to be.  They’re out to lunch a great deal.  You’re on your own, until you mess up.

• Micro Manager: “Here’s how I would do it” is a common phrase that gets old quickly.  This is the manager who can’t let go, who stifles creativity and will always remind you how they used to do things when they had your job.  There’s really only one way to do things.  Did I mention stifling?

• Wind Under Your Wings Manager:  This is the supportive manager who focuses on developing the career of each individual on the team.  This leader will have your back and will work with you to develop yourself, but sometimes at the sacrifice of their own performance.   Senior leadership may have other expectations.

• Textbook Manager:  Pick a management text or self-improvement guide and you’ll find this manager is there, whatever the term used.  The paragon of management styles, this boss does everything right and by the book; they are principled, delegate and communicate well,  know the business, and know how to lead the team by example.   However, this person may not really exist outside of those same textbooks.  Perhaps too good to be true.

• Political Manager:  Sometimes known as the “SOB.”  This is the glad-handing boss who knows everyone higher up on the organization chart.  They may find it difficult to voice opinions or make decisions without first checking the impact on the preferences and attitudes of affected higher ups.  They can’t say no to the politically connected, even when no is what should be said.  Not much of a backbone here, so core beliefs can be a bit wishy-washy.  You might be tossed under the bus for the sake of political correctness.  You cannot rely on this manager to do anything but what is in their own self interest.  Often times employee turnover starts here.

The positive aspects for the personalities described above sound great and are fine to be offered up as your opinion to that questioning candidate in our scenario, but the actual question was . . . what does your staff think?

Note: I haven’t lectured about which management style is “bad.”   I trust that designation is self evident.  Hopefully those who see themselves as needing to make a change – will do so.

Who Is Really Out There

Have a care here.  It’s very likely that your own management style doesn’t neatly fit into one of the above labels.  Instead, most personality styles are a combination or composite of several of the attributes we’ve listed, and more characteristics, for good or ill can likely be named.  Chances are though, that each manager, each personality leans toward one label or other; this is the 70 – 30 majority rule.  And that leaning is where reputations are built.  Where labels stick.

Employees react to how they’re personally affected, and by what they hear from those they trust or perceive to be “in the know.”  So as well intentioned as you might be, it’s always wise to check the pulse of your staff.  You might have a reputation that surprises you.  And while you might think they have it wrong, you’re not the one who gets to decide.

By being truthful to yourself and to that questioning candidate you increase the likelihood of a good hire and a long serving employee.

An organization I’ve worked with in the past had developed an interesting hierarchy of management titles.  It went something like this:

•      Manager
•      Senior Manager
•      Director
•      Senior Director
•      Vice President
•      Senior Vice President
•      Executive Vice President

Quite a robust hierarchy for a small organization of only a few hundred employees.  And to cap it off, the base salaries paid out were inconsistent with that same hierarchy.  So a Senior Director was paid less than several Directors, and their EVP was paid less than a couple of the VPs.

And of course we all know that a common leadership designation (benchmark) in most commercial compensation surveys is the “senior’ tag, right?  Wrong.

When I asked my client to explain how an employee gets to be designated at a “senior” level I received one of those “deer in the headlights” reactions, followed by a mumbled, “Always been that way.  That’s why we called you.”

They had finally realized that they had gone off the tracks with their titling, and now wanted to get out from under.  But they didn’t know how.  And they didn’t seem to know how to stop from making the problem worse.

How Does This Happen?

Perhaps your new hire is already a Director at their current employer and wants a bump up on the resume before they’ll accept your offer.  Or perhaps you aren’t able to pay some leaders enough of a differential with their peers, so you create a new level in the hierarchy.  Or to placate a valued member of management whose ego is bruised by perceived internal inequities you say “what the heck” and give them the better sounding title they desired.  You want the problem to go away, and so you rationalize that – it’s only a title.

Hey, it happens.

I’ve written before about the infection of title inflation, where what some might consider a no cost reward when times are tough (“here’s a nicer sounding title”) is actually a slow drip poison for your payroll, ROI and internal equity.  It’s just a matter of time before those with better titles demand to be recognized (grade) and paid more (base and incentive pay) than those holding lesser titles.  Common sense.

Getting Out From Under

So how does one go about fixing this?  First of all, you should acknowledge that the hole you’ve dug for yourself (the problem) is deep enough and costly enough in terms of increased payroll, internal equity complaints and damaged morale over favored treatment.  So throw away the shovel and step out of the hole.  Stop assigning “Senior” designations to your leadership.

To do this effectively though, and for any solution to last, you need a plan.  You need a rationalization to explain why Bob is called a Director and Sally a Vice President.  And why you won’t / can’t call Roger a Senior Director.  To create that plan you have a few options to consider.  You could use:

• Job Evaluation System: Any whole job or point factor system will be able to distinguish via job content assessment which jobs are bigger / larger / more impactful than others.  And if you use a grading structure your JE systems will tell you how far apart various jobs are.

• Market Pricing: JE systems are notoriously subjective, and if that is a problem for you, or you just don’t have the time to invest in developing and administering a JE program, use a competitive marketplace analysis to tell you what others are paying for your jobs. Then slot your jobs into a salary structure (with grades) based on the market.

• Combination: It’s a bit more dicey when you want to use both a JE system and market pricing analysis to determine grade, but I’ve seen clients do it.  Can be a bit cumbersome though, when your JE systems calls a job a grade 10, but your competitive analysis tells you it’s an 11, or a 9.

But grading by itself, no matter the impetus, doesn’t automatically change the titling structure.  So consider using a Titling Matrix to assist you.

Examples vary by organization, industry and even management temperament, but essentially a titling matrix uses a number of profile criteria assessments (i.e., Reporting Relationship, Management Breadth, Organization Impact, Level of Autonomy, Judgment, Nature of Supervision, etc.) to distinguish between levels / titles within an organization.

Can there be exceptions?  Of course.  But having a plan avoids chaos and establishes structure and standards for your hierarchy.  And that’s a good thing.