Cookie Cutter Thinking Versus Geographic Thought Diversity?

While I currently live in Central Florida, I've had what might be described as an east coast business environment for my petri dish or cauldron of learning experiences.  But after several years of dealing with multiple locations, industries, personalities and viewpoints in my compensation consultancy, I'm wondering whether I've been brainwashed for all these years. 

Would someone from the middle of Oklahoma, or Kansas or North Dakota think and feel the same way about compensation issues as I do?  And what if you ask compensation specialists from retail to hospitals to manufacturing to financial institutions?

In other words, do all U.S. compensation practitioners view the issues that surround employee rewards in the same fashion, regardless of geography?  Regardless of industry?

Of course, or of course not?

So I'm wondering, does the where or what of your organization affect your operational thinking, as in how best to manage your organization's reward programs?  Or do we experience a universal sameness of thought?

It's already well known that on the international stage various geographic regions, and even specific countries think differently than we do when it comes to rewards.  Have you dealt with India?  With Japan?

Close to home we often hear of east coast / west coast attitudes and perspectives regarding numerous aspects of daily life, as contrasted to the more conservative “middle America,” where supposedly traditional thinking and values of the "heartland" still predominate.  I don’t know if that commentary is spot-on, or completely off the mark, but it does beg the question that if true, what other aspects of personal and / or organization thinking might be different from what the two coasts consider the norm?

We accept differences in philosophy according to industry-type, and we know different countries offer a different perspective.  So too perhaps you have the small company vs. large company outlook - as well as that of the multi-national conglomerate.  Some employees are like us, practicing a "live to work" philosophy, while others out there simply "work to live" - and consider us somehow twisted in our logic.

Although we all face the same challenges with employee pay, how we consider the possible causes and solutions  - well, that might differ. And perhaps it differs by geography.

This may be why some newly hired employees fail to accept, or be accepted into, their new employer's culture.  While they may have the necessary technical background and experience, they still may not be comfortable with “that’s the way we do things here.”

Organizations tend to have a certain way of thinking, and while it’s nice to consider new hires (new blood) as adding creativity and fresh thinking into the mix, what frequently happens is that the new thinking hits a wall of ingrained habit.  With a thud.  Professional journals are full of success stories, but as they say about Las Vegas, for every winner there are hundreds of losers.  For every change agent there are hundreds who get forced out of companies because they think “different;” too different to be accepted.

What do you think?  Is there something to this geographic diversity of thought, or are we all examples of cookie cutter thinking?

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.  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.

Creative Commons image courtesy of NASA Goddard

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Geographic cultural patterns are real, Chuck, just as you suspect. The laid-back status-conscious LA HQ rolls its eyes at the staid nose to the grindstone focused workaholic indifference to Coastal doings exhibited by the Midwestern Group while the fast-talking hard-driving NYC units frustrate over the dilatory pace of everyone West of the Poconos who fail to recognize the obvious supremacy of Manhattan practices and approaches. Everything is seen through the lens of your experience. Since organizations are comprised of people, that applies to them, too.

All such broad generalities are essentially flawed, of course, when you drill down to the specifics.

[Lisa J. Williams, SPHR]

Jim's last comment says it all. Employees, as individuals have different motivators, learning styles, perferred means of communication, etc. You can lump individuals into groups together, but the challenge is reaching them at their level.

Training does a good job and recognizes the different learning styles and incorporates that into the program. Benefits tried it in larger organizations where employees could pick and choose their benefits. Are we at a point in compensation that reward/incentives should be flexible on an individual level?

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Lisa is on target. Some nations like Italy & India literally require individualized pay through a check-sheet of statuatory entitlements.

Different KSAs warrant different pay. Look around: any really highly-valued extremely-skilled individual already has a personalized total reward and remuneration package. Ranging from NEOs and sci/tech boffins to entertainment stars and super-specialists of any type, they all get the bundle of goodies they personally value most rather than the plain vanilla pre-packaged stock offer.

Now is not the time yet, but that day is fast approaching when the vast majority of vital workers will have individualized compensation programs. Then, maybe even comp pros will be highly paid!