« The Survey Says . . . . | Main | Language Inflation »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I personally think that 'Total Rewards' statements are disingenuous. since the real reason they get distributed is to show how generous the company is, cloaked in a stated desire to be 'more open' or 'more transparent' or any other nice coating somebody comes up with. And, most employees intuitively see right through it.

Benefits are exactly that: features available to all employees as a function of their employment with the company. Recasting a benefit program as rewards once a year only serves to promote distrust among the employees, and makes the company appear hypocritical by trying to leverage something most are eligible for.

How about an annual statement showing the average salary by function, and comparing that with similar data from competing companies/industry? Or the median performance bonus paid by function, including top management, and comparing that with competing companies/industry? How about salary increase data, or promotion data, or skills training data; if you're gonna produce a rewards statement, make it meaningful and relevant to your employees. Do that, and you don't have to worry about trust.

Hi John. I agree that the use of statements has real pros and cons. However, most employee research indicates that employees are highly favorable towards them.

Many multinational companies are doing just as you suggested -- creating total rewards statements that use the numbers not as the end all and be all, but as content in a more full blown explanation of everything involved with recognition.

In my experience, most statements include compensation, but as you suggest do not put the numbers in any context, which is a shame. I don't believe statements are a good place to put competitive pay data, but others may have a different opinion.

Let's see if anyone weighs in.

The comments to this entry are closed.