« Do You Make Your Employees Too Valuable Too Fast? | Main | A Little Bit More Makes A Difference »

02/24/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Very good read Margaret. That list is spot on for identifying those who are disengaged. Reviewing that list though, it seems like this employee would normally be a high performer. With compensation being the focus, wouldn't it be essential to be proactive and ensure high performers are initially properly compensated instead of being reactive and avoiding counteroffers? Turnover always hurts in some fashion and retention should remain the goal.

@MiddleGroundHR

Thanks for helping me clarify, Charles. If the employee has been underpaid, that may be an entirely different situation. (But, as you know, since that person knows that s/he should have been paid more equitably, the money may not repair the bad feelings.)

My point is also that the way of thinking described in the blog can help you calibrate how much effort to put into a situation. I'm a believer in the situation defining the approach, rather than always having rules. Guess that makes me a good candidate for Compensation Café blogger!

Suspect that disengagement behaviors tend to be the same regardless of the income equity perceptions of the worker. Happiness with their career HERE won't necessarily be rekindled by a big raise, nor will a change in pay make up for a bad boss. Devoted dedication can't be purchased with cash alone. People seek all kinds of rewards and are "compensated" by many elements that don't jingle or involve a bank deposit.

Changes in the behavior categories Margaret mentioned may be more dramatically apparent when the employee was previously a high performer, but relative changes in worker attitude and output can still be identified even if the baseline norm is lower. Another reason for closer supervision and better performance appraisal... just what we need, eh?

The comments to this entry are closed.