Should employees be rewarded for influence? Should there be a pay premium provided to people with large and well-oiled LinkedIn networks, with many hundreds of Twitter followers and Facebook friends?
This question was the topic of the focusonethics feature of WorldatWork's March workspan magazine (access may be limited to Premium members), which presents a real-life (but anonymous) reward dilemma each month and then invites readers to respond with their own advice. The dilemma-raiser in this issue asked whether a premium should be paid to "influencers", those with "huge work-related social networks and followers" who are perceived as being in a position of expanding power.
The responders ranged in their specific advice, but converged around some common themes.
...plans should be designed in a way to reward the higher level of production. The higher level of production can be a result of work-related social networks and followers, or simply because the employee is a great salesperson. In the end, it all depends on the results and the return on investment for the company. Anthony
I do not believe employees should be paid a premium for being "influencers"... On the other hand, if this big-time "influencing" has led to something positive for your organization (by positive, I mean a financially favorable and measureable result), it may be worth incorporating into a spot recognition plan or something similar... Michelle
Simply stating that influencers, in general, are becoming more powerful is meaningless without applying organizational context and philosophy. Each organization must independently determine whether or not to pay premiums and if a particular skill set is highly valued, critical to the success of the organization, and/or can be quantified in terms of gains or value added such that it warrants a premium in terms of compensation. Debbie
Drawing from the themes expressed in these responses along with my own experience, I'd suggest a few pointers to consider when the question of paying for social influence comes knocking at our doors. Which it will, particularly as an improving labor market emboldens the uber-networkers among us.
Consider business context. The answer to whether to pay for influence, like the answer to whether to pay for anything else, should be rooted in an organization's particular business strategy, competitive opportunities and challenges, culture and values. While it's worth observing what others are doing, what matters most is what makes sense for your company.
Be biased toward results. Particularly where financial compensation is concerned, I would suggest a default position which is biased toward results, not efforts. While the specific tools and methods used may change with the times (and even be subject to the talents and preferences of the individuals), the focus of financial rewards should probably be the delivery of desired work results and the creation of measurable value for the organization.
Revisit your total reward philosophy. Our reward philosophy is where we identify the specific purpose of all the different elements in our reward portfolio - the role that each element plays in accomplishing the goals we set out for our total reward expenditures. This, in particular, may be a case where it's important to look beyond financial compensation and consider the other alternatives available to us. While we may wish to focus financial rewards on the delivery of tangible outcomes, there may also be value in acknowledging and celebrating the efforts of those who are investing in social media to grow their professional network and expand their influence ... perhaps with recognition and other forms of appreciation.
What about you ... do you think we should be paying for social influence? What's your take?
Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of the Compensation Café, Author of Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations. She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and is a bookhound and aspiring cook in her spare time. Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.
Image courtesy of wynnsolutions.com
We've been hiring and paying people based on their "Rolodex" (Gen Y might need to google that)for years. It used to be the sales person's largest asset when looking to join a new firm... more so than skill or ethics. Many, many companies have "bought" influence by buying (ie: hiring) a sales person with a Rolodex.
Social Networks are simply the digital equivalent of the Rolodex.
So there is precedent around "paying for influence." The interesting thing is it is now outside the realm of "sales" and available for to the rank and file.
The key here (IMHO) is business impact. Does it impact the business - brand, sales, profit, advertising, etc.? If so - there is value and that value should be shared between the company and the one with influence.
But remember - influence typically sprouts from authenticity. If that person's influence is around your product and service - and they leave for a competitor - their trust/influence will drop - unless they can concretely point to real difference between the two companies that would prompt them to switch. Getting a loyal and influential following on SM won't translate well if I use it to leverage my own financial gain by job-hopping. So the company still has some leverage to keep the playing field level.
Posted by: Paul Hebert | 03/31/2011 at 06:54 AM
Great thoughts, Paul! But even in the days of Rolodex ... were we really paying a premium for their Rolodex, or for their proven track record in turning that Rolodex into business results? As you say - and I agree - it comes down to business impact.
Especially agree, that influence - especially these days - is irrevocably linked with authenticity and trust.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Posted by: Ann Bares | 03/31/2011 at 08:27 AM
We were paying for the results - no doubt. But the rolex was the raw material they worked from. Same today. Just 'cuz I can do math don't mean I can do analysis. Just 'cuz I've got a lot of twitter followers don't mean I can convert to sales.
So I agree - but... having the raw material is worth something over someone without it no?
Posted by: Paul Hebert | 04/01/2011 at 08:32 AM
Paul:
Maybe. I think what you're suggesting is to value and compensate for the baseline raw materials of having a net of influence, regardless of whether it's been proven to deliver any value or not .... much in the same way we value and compensate for an engineering degree, even though the individual has not yet proven their ability to deliver job results as an engineer.
It's a sound point, but still... We haven't traditionally paid outright for influence, the kind obtained through face to face networking, lunches, coffee meetings, staying in touch via regular phone calls (and yes, scrupulously maintaining that rolodex!). Do we think that an electronic network, which often reaches much further and represents bigger scope, but can also be impersonal, inauthentic and tricky to convert into business results, ought to be treated differently?
Maybe. But I'm also reminded of the conversations I had with many secretaries and executive assistants - quite a number of years ago - who wanted premium pay because they now had to use a personal computer to type memos and correspondence.
Is online influence now a "raw material" we must pay a premium for ... or is it the simply the new ticket that must be punched in order to keep our skills and credentials current?
Posted by: Ann Bares | 04/04/2011 at 07:52 AM