Compensation Cafe

Pay for Supervisors

The well-established principle that supervisors should praise in public but criticize in private can derail a compensation system.  An article caught my eye recently on how slackers pull down the group because the crew rarely sees the corrective discipline privately applied.  It illustrates that what keeps people productive is effective communication of the appropriate feedback that drives behavior.  That made sense, but the recommended solution sucked.

Two thoughts came to mind:  (1) just as compensation is communication, isn’t communication also compensation? and (2) why are supervisors paid if not to keep the entire staff productive?  This article will focus on the second question, because the first deserves a complete post of its own.

If a boss follows the accepted rules and keeps corrective interventions private and confidential, that apparent silence bespeaks indifference to the workgroup who do not see any improvement steps, remedial actions, reprimands, punishments or open displays of negative consequences to the slacker.  One consultant prescribes intervention by the peer workers with the offender.  Rather than getting pissed off and demotivated yourself, he suggests, you should take ownership of the issue (because you are most affected by it and therefore more responsible than the boss!) and handle it yourself.  If the boss doesn’t act, some claim the peer co-workers should step up and chivvy the culprit.

Whose responsibility is it, to maintain a productive workforce?  Nowadays, it is true, bosses may supervise remotely, having little proximate physical contact with the team and therefore frequently unaware of slackers who goof off.  Even if out of sight, however, bosses are paid and supposedly trained to handle exactly these issues.  It is their monkey. 

Should co-workers be expected to cover for the supervisor, taking up the slack created by ineffective management to “supervise from below”?  I think not.  While social pressure from peers can be wonderfully effective, most workgroups are not elite teams of highly self-actualized experts who require little guidance.  An immediate supervisor is usually PAID to manage the performance of subordinates.  The boss may be called lead person, crew chief, foreman or forewoman, supervisor, manager, director, VP… or any title under the sun, but this role of people-monitor is the sole reason they receive a supervisory title and get higher income.  Leaders don’t neglect the well-being of their followers, because that is a repudiation of their pay grade. 

Remember that supervisors frequently have a more difficult task than mere managers.  Many people get the fancy title of manager (higher rank, pay, status, etc.) while remaining a sole individual performer, handling a project personally or administering a functional area.  Supervisors oversee people.  Managers may have no subordinates reporting directly to them, but all supervisors are responsible for the output of workers who report directly to them.  Handling people is actually a far more complex challenge than dealing with materials, administering plans, generating ideas and doing things that do not require exercising authority over people.  Instead of doing things yourself, the supervisor is supposed to delegate tasks and leverage the application of talent through others.  That is often much harder than handling issues personally as an individual contributor.

Since supervisors are already rewarded for filling that role of monitor and guide, they should be charged with the duty of fulfilling that responsibility.  It seems wrong, improper and unfair to expect underlings to enforce discipline and to maintain the productive work environment when a supervisor is neglecting their duty.  Any boss incapable or unwilling to perform that authoritative human interaction role should be demoted to a coordinator position where they can deal with data and things and not face supervisory challenges. 

Or am I wrong, again?

E. James (Jim) Brennan is Senior Associate of ERI Economic Research Institute, the premier publisher of interactive pay and living-cost surveys. Semi-retired after over 40 years in HR corporate and consulting roles throughout the U.S. and Canada, he’s pretty much been there done that (articles, books, speeches, seminars, radio/TV, advisory posts, in-trial expert witness stuff, etc.), and will express his opinion on almost anything.

Image courtesy of cafepress.com

Stop Spreading the Peanut Butter and Start Feeding the Eagles

"The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as escaping from the old ones." ------ John Maynard Keynes

I wrote an article here six months ago on the need to differentiate among employee groups --- how companies should manage their workforce like a portfolio of investments.  And how some employees, like investments, pay a much higher return than others.

This subject still bugs me.  I don’t think I hit it hard enough.  So I will try again using some head-whacking 2x4’s. Here’s a quote from Laurie Ruettimann --- the high priestess of “whacking”:

“Here’s what I’d love to know: At what point in time did it become common place for every freaking single person in business to believe that they had to treat all employees in their organization equally in every situation? Here’s the truth. That’s what was made up by lawyers and adopted by HR people as an easy rule of thumb to play it safe against the itty bitty possibility that you’d get your butt sued. Over the years it’s gone from a concept used to protect against gross discrimination of gender and race to a concept used to create policies for everything from bereavement leave to bathroom usage. It’s out of control.”

Laurie makes Richard Beatty --- HR thought leader ---look positively “genteel”. Here’s what he says:

"HR wants to treat most employees the same way, and they spend considerable time trying to defend or fix poor performers, taking on the St. Bernard role.  Low turnover isn't necessarily a good thing.  Think about where you might want to disinvest.”

HR is also behind what Beatty calls the "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice."

“If you are the employer of choice, who's going to be applying for your jobs? Everybody and their dog's brother. You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out."

WOW!  Is your head ringing from the 2x4s yet?

Much of the above boils down to HR’s penchant for risk avoidance and the need/ease of treating everyone equally.  HR needs to move away from risk avoidance to risk leverage. Just as top management finds it critical to balance the risk and reward of their strategic decisions, HR also needs to incorporate risk into their thinking. This new mindset will help them not only understand the full range of HR risks, but determine which risks are worth taking.

Mr. Jesuthasan of Towers Watson, in the Oxford Economics Global Talent 2021 survey, says:

“Being risk-averse is no longer a viable approach.  Risk awareness is not just about identifying the risks you don’t want to take, but also the risks you do want to take.”

It’s all about risk management.  Will doing X increase the likelihood of getting Y?   Is doing A too big a risk to take in order to get B?  Every day it’s about weighing relative risks against relative opportunities.  

Do we spread the peanut butter --- risk averse?  Or do we feed the eagles --- risk leverage?  There must be some HR programs that are "adequate" and that's OK.  There must be some HR programs which are "good enough" and that's really good enough. (I may hear about this one.)

HR needs to focus on equity instead of equality; on engaging the right employees, not necessarily all employees; on hiring choice employees, not becoming an employer of choice; and finally, on special rewards for certain groups of employees, not all employees. There’s not enough time, energy or money to do everything for everybody.

If top management sees HR as part of the team, someone who is working to grow the business and help them take smart risks, they’re going to be far likelier to run things by HR – and far likelier to listen when HR tells them “no”.  

Do you have an "equality" mentality — spreading the peanut butter?  Or do you have an “equity” mentality--- feeding the eagles?   

Head whacking is over.  I feel better now.

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel, National Semiconductor and Seagate Technology. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expat twice during her career.   Her true love is working with local national issues.  Jacque has the following certifications:  CCP, GPHR, HCS and SWP as well as a B.S. and M.S in Psychology and an MBA.    She belongs to SHRM, Human Capital Institute and World at Work.   Jacque been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications. 

Ideal Organizations Diversify The Definition of Diversity

What does the ideal organization look like?

Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones have been looking at this question for more than three years. Their research found six common principles that cut across circumstance, industry, and individual ambitions. In their article Creating the Best Workplace on Earth, they reveal these six principles:

1. individual differences are nurtured;
2. information is not suppressed or spun;
3. the company adds value to employees, rather than merely extracting it from them;
4. the organization stands for something meaningful;
5. the work itself is intrinsically rewarding;
6. there are no stupid rules.

On the surface, these are common-sense principles that seem intuitive. But if we stop and really think about what these things mean, there are surprising revelations. Take the first principle, for example.

When we think about individual differences, most of us jump immediately to the standard definitions of gender, race and ethnicity, age, etc. But Goffee and Jones found that it's really about more than traditional diversity categories. It's about cognitive diversity: differences in core assumptions, perspectives, and habits of mind. The ideal organization "is aware of dominant currents in its culture, work habits, dress code, traditions, and governing assumptions but... makes explicit efforts to transcend them."

We're all familiar with the classic examples of the "eccentric scientist" who keeps odd work hours and the "creatives" that can't seem to work in suits and ties. But yet again, it goes deeper than we initially think. It's about tapping into less-obvious talents in unexpected places. It's about blending cognitive differences and combining skill sets in new and unconventional ways. It's about creating a truly interdisciplinary environment. 

Combining data analysts, professional dancers and product designers into a cohesive work team is no easy feat. Measuring performance is even more difficult. Traditionally defined career paths and competence models don't work. Quantitative measurement systems can't adequately capture the value of that one breakthrough idea, but they do penalize the likely (and necessary) dead ends leading up to that breakthrough.

Such an environment also creates a unique challenge with respect to compensation. A one-size-fits-all rewards package will be sub-optimal. The challenge is to develop a system that encompasses enough variety to be effective in rewarding the data analysts, dancers and designers, but still retains cohesiveness and maintains pay equity. It has to account for differences in individual preferences in risk tolerance (base versus incentive), cash/benefits tradeoffs, and tangibles versus intangibles.

Diversifying the definition of diversity is messy business. Creating the ideal organization is likely an impossibility. So is building the perfect performance measurement system and total rewards package for this ideal organization. But even if we never get there, measurable gains can be made while striving for the ideal. Are you brave enough to dip a toe into diversifying the definition of diversity and see what great things might happen? 

Stephanie R. Thomas is an economic and statistical consultant specializing in EEO issues and employment litigation risk management. Since 1999, she's been working with businesses and government agencies providing expert quantitative analysis. Stephanie's articles on examining compensation systems for internal equity have appeared in professional journals and she has appeared on NPR to discuss the gender wage gap. Stephanie is the founder of Thomas Econometrics Inc., the host of The Proactive Employer radio show, and author of the upcoming book Compensating Your Employees Fairly: A Guide to Internal Pay Equity. Follow her on Twitter at @proactivemployr. 

The One Equity Compensation Trend to Rule Them All

Performance equity has taken a long journey. Initially, its use was inhibited by accounting rules that made it far more advantageous to grant equity with time-based vesting. Those rules went away at the start of an incredibly volatile decade for the stock market. The path to this trend has been an adventure requiring a fellowship of disparate groups and events. Stock options lost their luster after the end of Equity Compensation’s Golden Decade™. Dodd-Frank joined the fray after the financial mess of 2008-2009. Even time-based restricted units slowed in growth as companies worked to rebound. Finally, the incredible recovery of the stock market over the past several years has all led to a major shift in how companies, investors, the media and politicians view equity compensation.

As I went through 2013 Equity Trends Report from Equilar, I found several interesting morsels of information. The report discusses some of the trends in stock options, restricted stock and performance-based equity. At more than 30 pages, I would be able to little more than summarize it here. But, there was one section where I called and requested more data.

The report shows most data in time-ranges from 2007 through 2012, the one exception was the chart on performance shares granted to the S&P 1500. This chart shows only 2010 through 2012. As you may know, Say on Pay became a reality in the US in 2010. Assuming that Say on Pay had a direct impact on plan design, I asked for the data empirically showing the change in performance equity use from 2008 through 2012.

While the data speaks for itself regarding the impact of Dodd-Frank and Say on Pay, I believe the story is far from over. Performance-based equity is entering the troublesome “tween” stage. Most of the companies with these plans believe they are almost ready to be left alone for a while, but many investors are just starting to see newly developing issues. At the recent WorldatWork conference, there were sessions trumpeting the success of Total Shareholder Return (TSR) as a metric for equity compensation. At the same time, there were sessions that explained that TSR was clearly flawed and did not reward performance consistently. I predict we will continue to see rapid evolution in the use of internal financial and operational metrics. We will even see growth in metrics more qualitatively measured, like customer service scores.

Like so many in the throws of adolescences, the full potential and fate of long-term performance awards is not yet known. What data does show is that this is the one equity compensation trend that currently rules them all.

Dan Walter is the President and CEO of Performensation an independent compensation consultant focused on the needs of small and mid-sized public and private companies. Dan’s unique perspective and expertise includes equity compensation, executive compensation, performance-based pay and talent management issues. Dan is a co-author of “The Decision Makers Guide to Equity Compensation”, “If I’d Only Know That”, “GEOnomics 2011” and “Equity Alternatives.” Dan is on the board of the National Center for Employee Ownership, a partner in the ShareComp virtual conferences and the founder of Equity Compensation Experts, a free networking group. Dan is frequently requested as a dynamic and humorous speaker covering compensation and motivation topics. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @Performensation and @SayOnPay.

Numbers That Lie

Hard numbers can turn out to be really soft and squishy upon closer examination.  Perhaps that is why predictive foresight is rarely fully accurate, even when based on the Best Available Data.  (Note the nifty acronym, proving that even an optimal decision is still doomed to be a BAD decision.)

Reliance on data¹ does increase the certainty people feel when making their mistakes.  Numbers are therefore fondly embraced by most compensation people, because numeric data seem to confirm the accuracy of measurements.  But those very numbers can cause us to stumble because they promise a degree of precision that can be quite misleading, if not downright false. 

Last year, the initial Apple effect greatly skewed exec comp survey results (see The Apple Effect note at the bottom here).  Some frowned at the $376,000,000 in stock options granted to the new Apple CEO Tim Cook (which temporarily ballooned in value to over $600 million shortly thereafter) but little attention was given to his subsequent 99% pay cut this year… perhaps because it’s all RELATIVE.  Funny, how a relative increase gets headline attention but a relative decrease is ignored.  Surveys that did not make allowances for massive swings in isolated observations like that would leave their followers spinning in confusion.

Maybe it all depends on whether you want to find what is normal (the median), discover the most popular (the mode) or simply compute the average.  Those arcane terms are really important in compensation work, because each has a different precise meaning. 

When Bill Gates enters a Starbucks, the average customer in the shop becomes a millionaire.   Averages are directly impacted by outliers, while medians are the middle figure no matter how high the high or how low the low observation.  Conventional society tends to favor AVERAGES even though they are more problematic in statistical terms.  There are all sorts of fancy tricks statisticians use to manipulate the figures they process into “hard numbers.”  They include winsorizing, trimming, hot decking (where a missing value is replaced by a similar but different observation) and others .  Excuse me, but some of those gimmicks strike me as flat-out falsehoods; yet they are enshrined in statistical lore and thus may be applied without your knowing.

Likewise, anyone who finesses you with a claim that pay falls in a bell-shaped curve is yanking your chain (or pulling your thumb) in a big way. Wages are never symmetrical nor do salaries have a normal distribution.  That means some of the standard statistical techniques just don’t fit the world of total rewards where the observations are living, breathing human beings.  Whenever the science of number-crunching is invoked, the art of judgment must be added to assure its proper application.

These are just a few of the common compensation conundrums of lying numbers.  What are your favorites?

¹Mark Twain - There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. 

E. James (Jim) Brennan is Senior Associate of ERI Economic Research Institute, the premier publisher of interactive pay and living-cost surveys. Semi-retired after over 40 years in HR corporate and consulting roles throughout the U.S. and Canada, he’s pretty much been there done that (articles, books, speeches, seminars, radio/TV, advisory posts, in-trial expert witness stuff, etc.), and will express his opinion on almost anything.

Creative Commons image "Bell Curve" by hardeep singh

One Size Does Not Fit All

"If you find a good solution and you become attached to it, the solution may become your next problem." ----- Robert Anthony

I had an "aha" moment recently and then very quickly became embarrassed for what should  have been obvious in the first place.

“One size does not fit all”.  My “aha” was realizing that this doesn’t apply just to HR/compensation --- but everyone in business --- even (drumroll) CEOs!  

JC Penney, the department store chain, recently fired Ron Johnson their CEO of 18 months.   He came from Apple where he created the retail operation that was a smashing success. 

Many people believe his firing was due to poor execution of a strategy that hadn’t been fully thought out.  Some of his innovations were radical, like ending discount sales in a department store known for its markdowns. Perhaps the biggest reason outsiders give for his failure is that he did not listen to customers.

Let’s look a little deeper.  How could such a wildly successful executive from Apple fail so abysmally at JCP?  He obviously had exhibited both great strategy AND great execution at Apple.  Why would his ability to think strategically and execute flawlessly fail him at JCP?

The simple answer:  “One size does not fit all”.

He took a page from Steve Job's playbook:  “Customers don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”  That sounds arrogant but for Apple it made sense.  Let's look deeper still: “If you ask customers what they want, they will tell you, ‘Better, faster, and cheaper’—that is, better sameness, not revolutionary change. They can describe their desires only in terms of what they are already using."   But big wins happen when you go beyond better sameness.

Ron’s mantra at JCP was --- guess what:  “Customers don’t know what they want”.  Like Jobs he wanted to go with revolutionary change --- not sameness.   But JCP’s products are commodities ---- not revolutionary tech products.  Apple’s business model doesn’t work at JCP.

Here’s an example of someone who wasn’t effective at Apple.   John Sculley took his commodity business model at PepsiCo with him to Apple.  As the new CEO he tried to change Apple from a “techie” company to one similar to PepsiCo ---- buttoned-down, slick and marketing oriented. 

In the end he failed because he began producing mass market machines to compete with IBM and was opposed to licensing Macintosh software. Apple is not in the commodity business like PepsiCo. Its products are about revolutionary change. 

The point to all of this is that CEOs/top management take what has worked for them at Company A and then go to another company, another industry, another culture and try to replicate what was a smashing success at Company A.  And they fail.

Of course we already know this applies to HR and compensation.  Like we haven’t heard it enough?!

I tried to take a team bonus plan for manufacturing assembly lines (line A, B, C, etc.) to another company and it failed.  In the first company it created a healthy competition where assembly lines competed with each other, had fun and celebrated winning.   In the second company it led to divisive competition where teams laughed at each other's failures, took shortcuts in their work leading to defective parts and scrapped material.   Not so successful.  Different culture.

Morale of the story:  Think about what you need to create.  Is it a revolutionary design for a compensation plan that will satisfy a need the company doesn’t even know it has?   Or is an upgraded  “sameness” plan what is really needed?

Put this someplace where you will see it daily. "If you find a good solution and become attached to it, the solution may become your next problem."

P.S.  Aren’t you glad that compensation people like us aren’t the only ones that forget “one size does not fit all”?

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel, National Semiconductor and SeagateTechnology. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expat twice during her career.   Her true love is working with local national issues.  Jacque has the following certifications:  CCP, GPHR, HCS and SWP as well as a B.S. and M.S in
Psychology and an MBA.    She belongs to SHRM, Human Capital Institute and World at Work.   Jacque been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications. 

Image courtesy:  http://money.cnn.com

Is Co-Creative Analytics the Answer?

There's been a lot of talk about skill shortages at the Cafe lately. Jim Brennan points out that the educational system may be incapable of closing the talent deficit, resulting in a broken link between compensation and education. Ann Bares also discusses the skill shortage, and thinks the answer may lie in cooperation between the recruiting and compensation functions.

Addressing the challenge of the skill shortage in today's economic environment requires a new approach, and I think Ann may be on to something. I'm a big fan of interdisciplinary solutions. The interdisciplinary approach has led to advancements in disease prevention, economic development and global climate change. It has even led to the development of new fields of study like nanotechnology, genomics and bioinformatics. It brings fresh perspectives to old problems, and can lead to astonishing breakthroughs. 

It may be difficult to find a starting point for this inter-departmental cooperation, given that recruiting and compensation are each unfamiliar with the other's vernacular. Data may be the universal translator, and co-creative analytics may be the ideal starting point.

What is co-creative analytics? Here's how the process was described in a recent HBR blog post:

You put together ad-hoc teams that involve not only analysts with relevant domain expertise but also represent skills from other domains, which brings new ways of thinking to old analytical problems. Over a short two or three day period the team will brainstorm around the problem involved and bring together as much data and as many analytical frameworks as they can to both frame up the problem and outline potential solutions or at least pathways to solutions.

As Ann points out, the solution to the skill shortage may lie in a collaborative effort to better understand alternate candidate pools and identify the rewards strategies likely to attract and retain these candidates. It's easy to see how co-creative analytics could facilitate this collaboration.

This same interdisciplinary approach has applications in other areas of the organization. Performance management immediately comes to mind. A co-creative analytics approach could provide better alignment of individual performance goals with the goals of the organization. It's likely that based on different past successes and failures, different departments will approach a given organizational goal in different ways. Sharing those approaches across departmental lines can spark new ways of looking at old problems, pushing the organization forward.

What other kinds of organizational challenges could co-creative analytics address? 

 

Stephanie R. Thomas is an economic and statistical consultant specializing in EEO issues and employment litigation risk management. Since 1999, she's been working with businesses and government agencies providing expert quantitative analysis. Stephanie's articles on examining compensation systems for internal equity have appeared in professional journals and she has appeared on NPR to discuss the gender wage gap. Stephanie is the founder of Thomas Econometrics Inc., the host of The Proactive Employer radio show, and author of the upcoming book Compensating Your Employees Fairly: A Guide to Internal Pay Equity. Follow her on Twitter at @proactivemployr. 

Switzerland Pay - Great for Employees, Less So for Execs

In the past several months, Switzerland has made some interesting compensation headlines. Swiss voters recently passed a referendum on executive compensation that is more far-reaching and restrictive than anything we currently have in the U.S. This new set of rules was supported by a convincing 68% of voters. At nearly the same time, a UBS report from September 2012 shows that Swiss employees in Geneva and Zurich receive the highest net wages in the world. Does this tell us anything?

The highest paid employees in the world just voted for some of the most restrictive executive compensation reform we have seen to date. To be fair, Geneva and Zurich are among the most expensive cities in the world, but UBS reports they also have some of the lowest tax rates. I think it is telling when people who are doing relatively well compared to the rest of the world still have an issue with how much executives are making. I am just not sure what it is really telling us.

Are executives paid too much? Is there a misunderstanding of how and why executive pay came to be at its current levels? Has the media, or have politicians, flamed the fires of executive compensation unrest? Or are executives in some sort of compensation cold war, outspending each other to show their relevance and power? Let’s be honest, all of the above are far too simplistic, but each is believed by groups of employees, shareholders or others.

The new Swiss limitations on executives apply to publicly traded companies. Among the new rules is a requirement that pension funds vote in the interest of their members. They must also report how they voted. There are also annual say on pay votes, annual elections for directors and a ban on severance and golden parachute payments. Companies’ Articles of Association (similar to U.S. Articles of Incorporation) must add new details on compensation structure and rules for how compensation may be used for several groups and purposes. The final kicker is the potential for criminal penalties and fines if these rules are broken.

These new rules may simply be a shot across the bow in the new battle to bring executive compensation levels into publicly acceptable ranges. Several other countries, including the U.S. and a few Western European countries, have incomplete rules on the books or in the works. Executives may find themselves boxed in by the many stakeholder and influencers with different perspectives on this issue.

A decade ago when the UK rolled out its Say on Pay rules, few consultants or companies believed that similar restrictions were likely to occur in the US. They were right for almost ten years. While we will not see aggressive new restrictions on executive pay in the immediate future, the approval and gradual acceptance of these rules across the Atlantic may be writing our future. In the past, rules like this have taken 5-10 year to reach our shores, but we all know that cycles are speeding up. We may well see restrictions like this sooner than expected. Are you ready, and will you support or oppose these efforts? 

Dan Walter is the President and CEO of Performensation an independent compensation consultant focused on the needs of small and mid-sized public and private companies. Dan’s unique perspective and expertise includes equity compensation, executive compensation, performance-based pay and talent management issues. Dan is a co-author of “The Decision Makers Guide to Equity Compensation”, “If I’d Only Know That”, “GEOnomics 2011” and “Equity Alternatives.” Dan is on the board of the National Center for Employee Ownership, a partner in the ShareComp virtual conferences and the founder of Equity Compensation Experts, a free networking group. Dan is frequently requested as a dynamic and humorous speaker covering compensation and motivation topics. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @Performensation and @SayOnPay.

Compensation and Education: A Broken Link?

Has the tie between education and compensation been broken?  Or is a new conflict emerging due to the inability of our educational system to close the talent deficit?  Any break in the chain linking teaching institutions and the KSAs that earn pay is troubling.

While we face a shortage of viable candidates for the critical STEM jobs vital for economic recovery, we have an excess supply of people burdened with immense debt incurred pursuing educations which do not produce suitable employment.  Obviously, college curriculum developers and placement officers are not doing a very good job.  Universities produce graduates in disciplines with no job openings.  Part of the blame rests on the flat economy, because no one can help even the most qualified candidate find employment that doesn’t exist.  The jobs available today are increasingly less middle-class and more of the low-wage type, too, and that further reduces the pool of opportunities for those with university degrees.  Arguments that more education MIGHT change that dilemma rest on the doubtful presumption that students will choose the tougher academic fields where strong skills are badly needed but qualified applicants are in short supply.  Don’t bet on it.

Workforce participation by college grads has been steadily declining, despite the fact they seem to have lower unemployment rates even if they can’t find work in their career field .  Part of that paradox exists because they are frequently willing to take any job despite being “overqualified,” probably because of the immense pressure of student loans that cannot be discharged under new bankruptcy rules.

Student debt is the next U.S. financial crisis, because it already exceeds credit card debt.   An advertorial for an auto equity loan scheme offering temporary cash flow to the typical under/unemployed grad illustrates how bad the situation has become.  Determined people who invest in higher education still have a hard time finding steady income from a suitable job in their field.

In a planned society, this misallocation might not happen because it would not be permitted.  In an openly competitive economic system, you would think that “free market forces” would operate to efficiently match supply with demand.  But this has not happened.  Or maybe it is happening, because pressure is increasing to lower barriers against importing foreigners with the skills our home-grown educational system seems incompetent to produce.  Even professional societies (IEEE) propose immigration reform for STEM talent.

Meanwhile, industry seems to be turning away from an academia seemingly unable to close the skill gaps (talent deficit) in the real world. Everyone agrees that higher education does pay off, over time, despite initial employment issues and similar problems when unemployed; but mismatches between abilities and jobs persist.

The alternatives for solutions are shrinking due to a confluence of forces.  There are fewer people sufficiently educated for the diminishing supply of skilled jobs required for modern employment.  “American workers are overeducated and underskilled,” according to one report.  Large numbers of degreed workers remain underemployed.  At the same time, there are more people literally being encouraged to disappear from the job market and become dependent on new forms of “the dole”  funded by taxes on increasingly stressed and underemployed workers.

How can this mess be fixed?  As the unprecedented number of embedded research links demonstrate, these are deep and serious problems.  What are the most promising possible options to solve them?

E. James (Jim) Brennan is Senior Associate of ERI Economic Research Institute, the premier publisher of interactive pay and living-cost surveys. Semi-retired after over 40 years in HR corporate and consulting roles throughout the U.S. and Canada, he’s pretty much been there done that (articles, books, speeches, seminars, radio/TV, advisory posts, in-trial expert witness stuff, etc.), and will express his opinion on almost anything.

Creative Commons Photo "060713 Tangle" by Dan4th

Real-Life Experiment in Pay Transparency

Would you trust your co-workers with setting your job responsibilities? Would you let them decide whether to promote or demote you? How about determining your compensation? 

That's exactly what's going to happen on Fox's newest reality TV series, Toxic Office: Does Someone Have To Go?

According to a press release from Fox, the premise is simple: 

Frustrated bosses will hand over the reins of their companies to the employees, offering their respective staffs a chance to make changes in the workplace - even if it means letting co-workers go. 

In one of the previews, employees are gathered in a conference room watching a PowerPoint presentation detailing each employee, right down to salary:

The network says that the show empowers employees to solve their own problems. Reality TV issues aside, could such a setup in real life solve problems? Or would it create more problems? 

We talk a lot about creating transparent pay, but can it ever be a good idea to have complete disclosure, publishing every employee's salary company-wide?  

My concern is that emotion would come into play. Cliques, jealousy, and conflict are a fact of life in the workplace. Decisions might be made in response to a "can you believe he makes that much?" reaction, rather than considering the full picture.

There are numerous factors affecting compensation other than job title and seniority. Differing salary histories in previous employment, negotiations, and salary expectations play a role, as do market conditions, the importance of the position to the company, and individual performance. Could the typical employee get past the initial emotional response and make an objective decision based on a rational assessment of the full picture?

There may be a role for employee input for some types of compensation. For example, IGN Entertainment created a profit-sharing system where employees awarded each other "tokens". The more tokens an employee receives from his co-workers, the larger percentage of the profit she receives (Ann Bares provides the details at Compensation Force). But could this system work for base pay as well as it does for incentive pay?  

We'll have to tune in and see how all of this plays out, but my guess is that going beyond transparency and disclosing salaries to co-workers is likely to create more problems - the kind of table-flipping, name-calling drama that we've come to expect from reality tv - than it solves. 

Stephanie R. Thomas is an economic and statistical consultant specializing in EEO issues and employment litigation risk management. Since 1999, she's been working with businesses and government agencies providing expert quantitative analysis. Stephanie's articles on examining compensation systems for internal equity have appeared in professional journals and she has appeared on NPR to discuss the gender wage gap. Stephanie is the founder of Thomas Econometrics Inc., the host of The Proactive Employer radio show, and author of the upcoming book Compensating Your Employees Fairly: A Guide to Internal Pay Equity. Follow her on Twitter at @proactivemployr.