The "Comp Guy" Personna

I’ve never been particularly good at math, and yet have made for myself a successful career in Compensation.  Now, why is that?  One would think that we’re all numbers people, focused on statistics, surveys and regression formulae.  On the other hand, math experts often fail to rise to the top of my profession.   Another quandary to ponder over.

Why do some compensation people succeed (climb the specialist ladder) and others don’t?  Likely there are several reasons, but I think persona has a lot to do with it.

Changing View of Compensation

Effectiveness in Compensation isn’t (or shouldn’t) be all about the numbers, but about the people affected by the numbers.  A successful practitioner should understand their company’s business and the pulse of the employees, who are not just the figures on a spreadsheet.   If you consider the human factor as little more than boxes on an organization chart, then your ability to solve problems will be limited by your ignorance of the employee relations impact that naturally follows your recommendations.

Remember the HR fellow with the pocket protector and all those pens in his shirt pocket, walking the hallway laden down with survey reports?  That was the traditional view of “the comp guy”.  This was the master technician who lived with the charts, graphs and regression formulae, but who failed to understand the people impact of their work.

Best practices are different these days, in most companies.  Compensation people are no longer confined to a cubicle or an out-of-the-way office, but increasingly are stepping out among the employees, increasing their knowledge of how the business operates, and their ability to partner with internal business clients.

Sensitized practitioners know that compensating employees should be about the rewards and the process, about how rewards can influence employee behavior, for good or ill.  Therefore the success of the solutions provider is being able to creatively assist managers to achieve their objectives, while at the same time adhering to consistent policies / procedures.  It is not about quoting policy with a shrug of the shoulders.

What’s the Color of your Hat?

Something else to think about; what role does the Compensation function play in your organization?

• Policeman vs. Gatekeeper: the role is not to say yes or no, but to encourage an open process of ideas and practices that operate within established policies and procedures.  Nobody likes the fellow who can offer little more in the way of help than quoting from the company policy manual.


• Numbers vs. People: are your thought processes people-oriented, or is the understanding that employees are affected by these policies and procedures lost on you?  A business-only focus that ignores the human factor in driving success is inevitably tripped up by lower morale and disengaged employees.


• Policy vs. Flexibility: are you one to quote policy as a supposed answer to every manager’s question, or are you open to creative possibilities?  When you tell a manager that the decision remains with them, that you’re only offering advice, you will be able to actually see their body relax.   At that point you can reach them, because their defensive barriers will be down and their minds open.


• Analysis paralysis vs. solutions-provider: being able to make timely decisions vs. being caught up with a constancy of analysis that never seems to move to a decision point.  Do you have a reputation as a decision-maker or an analyzer?

When you consider the compensation people you deal with in your organization, are they the good guys or the bad guys - the white hats or the black?  Which are you?

Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations.  He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant.  With over 30 years Rewards experience Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation.  He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a brood of cats. 

Image: Creative Commons photo by SuperFantastic

Comments

[Laura Schroeder]

I agree, it's at least as much behavioral science as math.

[Kim Walter]

Wow Chuck! It's my day for checking in on my favorite HR blogs and I see two posts from you that I want to comment on. (the other was the international HR blog)

This is my favorite Dilbert cartoon that I have hanging in my office:

http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2002-04-20/

Very early on in my comp career, I was at a job-matching meeting to determine specific jobs that would be added to a comp survey. During the break, one of the other comp people came up to me and said, "You seem to know so much about the jobs! I wish I had that much experience."

My response was a little puzzled (cause I didn't have much experience), "It's easy, I just ask the managers to explain the job to me so I can make sure I'm matching it correctly."

Her eyes widened and she said, "Oh that is such a great idea! Go talk to the managers ... I've never done that."

It was then I realized that all comp people did not have the same philosophies I did. Kudos on an excellent post articulating some of the things we can do to change the view of the stereotypical "comp person".

[Chuck Csizmar]

Oh Kim, the stories I could tell . . . g. It was nice, and surprising to see comments on both my blogs from you today. Pretty cool! Thanks for the positive feedback.

Likely readers would have their own stories of clueless professionals who are doomed to be no more than technocrats and analysis junkies.

Best regards,

Chuck

Chuck Csizmar CCP
CMC Compensation Group

407.462.1645
[email protected]
www.cmccompensationgroup.com

Compensation expertise, as you need it