Hybrid, Shmybrid (Jobs) -- The Morning After

Hybrid jobs are taking up a lot more space these days. Check out my last two posts for the evidence. "Let's Mix It Up!" followed by "Another Dose of Reality" are the first two of this Hybrid, Shmybrid series. And the next installment will appear on Friday, October 1.

Since they got me thinking about this, I thought I'd let Margaret Dyekman of Corporate Compensation Services and Judy Canavan of HR + Survey Solutions speak for themselves.

Why are you raising a hubbub about hybrid jobs?

Margaret D.: Our clients have been bringing us some really challenging questions in the last few months. We have small and mid-sized clients who can't add an employee these days, even if someone resigns. As a result, we find there are more and more blended roles out there that need to be priced.

Judy: And often, the employees that our clients are asking us about are seen as critical to their department or to the overall company. They have stepped up in tough situations. They are strong performers or they wouldn't have become candidates for blended responsibilities. And over time, their developing expertise can become harder and harder to replace because they have learned and applied a broad and unique combination of skill sets. There is a lot of "making do" in their worlds, with information stored in memories not computers.

What is so challenging? If an employee suddenly inherits a second title and wakes up the next morning with more work, should she or he be paid more?

Judy: Often, but not always. It takes careful job analysis to work out the value of the job and determine if re-pricing is the best approach.

Margaret D.: For example, let's say a company moves IT under the CFO. Shouldn't that automatically mean more pay? After all, the CFO immediately has more employees to supervise and broader strategic decision making.

Companies don't always articulate their plans in these situations, even to the incumbent. Will there be a new head of IT in the next fiscal year? Is IT in maintenance mode or is there a system update planned? Are there outsourcing discussions going on? The context needs to be considered carefully.

Judy: For executive positions like this, we often need to interview the executive team and any other managers who are involved in the work to understand the real depth and breadth of the CFO's leadership role for IT. What if there is an IT Department Head who is a good leader and can be given broad independence, would you need to give the CFO a lot more money for overseeing IT? You'll probably be promoting the Department Head soon, and then the CFO will be earning a premium for something he or she is no longer doing but is being compensated for.

What about "staff function" jobs? Are you seeing any trends with these types of positions?

Judy: Yes, we are seeing them blended more often than in the past and typically at the mid-management level and above. We have been asked to assist with the market pricing of hybrid jobs like Director of Purchasing and Security, and Director of Compensation and Training.

Margaret D.: With a job like the Director of Purchasing and Security, we typically will price both benchmark jobs (e.g. Purchasing, Security), take the higher rate of the two and add a premium. During the job analysis and review of the scope of responsibilities, we would have gathered enough information to determine if a modest increase was appropriate or a more significant adjustment was called for. The adjustments we make are usually in the 10% to 15% range. And, there have also been exceptional cases as low as 5% and as high as 20%.

Judy: Looking at a different type of example, what if the top HR position takes on facilities maintenance oversight in a white-collar, office environment?  It is not that unusual to have facilities responsibilities assigned to HR, so we may have already matched that job profile when we created the salary range. If this was the case, a 5% to 10% market adjustment would be the most we would recommend, and then only if needed for competitive purposes.

Margaret D:  There is always judgment involved. But you have to have a systematic decision making process to get to a balanced decision.

BTW, if you are frazzled by any similar pricing challenges at the moment, why don't you share some details in the comments section and we'll talk it over in the next installment of this series on October 1?

Margaret O'Hanlon is founder and principal of re:Think Consulting.  She has decades of experience teaming up with clients to ensure great Human Resource ideas deliver valuable business results.  Margaret brings deep expertise in total rewards communication to the dialog at the Café; before founding re:Think Consulting, she was a Principal in Total Rewards Communications with Towers Perrin.  Margaret earned her M.S. and Ed.S. in Instructional Technology at Indiana University.  Creative writing is one of her outside passions, along with Masters Swimming.

Comments

[Laura Schroeder]

I almost always have a hybrid job. Sometimes I have received a higher raise for 'doing' more in a given cycle but my salary has never been re-assessed to accommodate multiple hats. From one standpoint, being allowed to do several jobs could be viewed as a priviledge, because it's fun sticking your finger in lots pies. Plus assuming performing multiple roles represents a growth opportunity, it's arguably a form of compensation in its own right. But if it's mandated by the company to deal with self-imposed resource shortages fairness is an issue that should be closely examined. It's a good topic to analyze impartially, thanks for bringing it up.

[Margaret O'Hanlon]

Hi Laura. Your mixed feelings are shared by every employee in this situation, I bet. Margaret and Judy tell me that most of their clients initiate the work because they have misgivings about the way they are treating the employee, so that's a good sign. The employees who have the hybrid responsibilities tend to be the most talented, or they wouldn't have been asked to handle such a complex job assignment, so you must be a valued (but busy) employee!

[RS with Georgia Business insurance]

What a great post! Jobs, job titles, responsibilites are ever changing. Something to think about is how your protect them. Being in the insurance industry, our coverage is changing to ensure these different needs. Being int he marketing role, I feel every bit of the hybrid responsibilites. Great article for the business owners of today to read and understand thier own needs- and capabilites with their employees!

[Margaret Dyekman]

Hi, RS: You are right, business owners should step back and assess the market value of the person with the blended role. Any market assessment should ideally result in a "win-win" for both the employer and the employee to "protect" both of their investments in the job.

[Mitch Kent]

Hi. I would love to read your other two posts, "Let's Mix It Up!" and "Another Dose of Reality", but can't find the links. Can you repost them. Thanks! Mitch

[Margaret O'Hanlon]

Hi Mitch. Thanks for checking in. Here’s the address for Mix It UP -- http://www.compensationcafe.com/2010/08/hybrid-shmybrid-lets-mix-it-up.html -- and here’s the address for Another Dose of Reality --http://www.compensationcafe.com/2010/09/hybrid-shymbrid.html

And make sure you read the next installment which is tomorrow (Friday’s) posting!