« Reader Alert: Comment Publication Problems | Main | Reader Update: Comment Publication »



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

Actually, Jacque, you build an excellent case for paying the person and not the job. In fact we now 'force' people to 'fit' a number of standard jobs because the standard jobs are easy to price. So what we are saying is that a job-based pay system is obsolete and we should spend the time we dedicate to writing job descriptions that nobody really fits and pricing jobs that only exist in our salary manuals and focus on paying the person. Great idea!! Someone should study that topic and write about it here.

Ha-ha Jay --- you caught me! We've sort of had conversations on this. See. . I can understand the concept of paying for the person when we talk about how screwy hybrids are these days. But for traditional jobs ---- I still can't see it.
But hey --- wouldn't you admit I've made progress? LOL!

Can you suggest a way to figure out what to pay people in the absence of depending on surveys? That's the real hurdle for me anyway.

Ha-ha back at you. The problem with us all fitting into little job descriptions copied from some other organization's soggy 'job description book' is that we who do deeds and fight organizational dragons are hybreds if we are worth our salt at all. We are entering into an age of agile, learning, workforces and approaching free agency rather than lifelong employment. (except for the government but that is a topic for another day).

We need to pay people for the skill and competency they apply to accomplish work. The entire hum-drum existance of pricing jobs is sustained by those who sell surveys of job worth.

I absolutely love your piece and will use it every chance I get to show that even someone 'steeped' in a job system invented by Ned Hay even before my time provided me with the ammo to argue more strongly for paying for what people do and how they add value rather than where they fit in some silly sally structure. You are a winner!!

Have a nice weekend thinking about skill and competency-based pay.

Jay ---- Sorry but I'm not a fan of (3 letters begins with H). Glad I provided you some ammo.

But . . . you haven't told me how you would decide how to pay people. Don't give me a "professor" answer --- talk in the language of the "little" people.

If you base it on value to the company --- which makes sense --- then with companies valuing jobs differently, how do you keep people from leaving when they find out they can make a ton more at another company.

OH and BTW I don't like "competencies" at all. I think it is a matter of semantics, but when I think of competencies I think of how silly it looked to see the C-suite sitting around a table looking at about 100 Lominger cards spread out and arguing about which 10 to pick. WOW! Did that exercise add value or what!!

You know I'm going to do a piece about free agency. There are pitfalls --- big ones.

Gosh, Jacque . . . I did not mean to offend you. I promise not to comment on anything you put up in the future.

I did not know it was the role of people who join in here to always agree with the 'Cafe Contributors'. I guess the 'professor' learns stuff too!!

How short do you need to be to be included in your definition of 'little people'???

Jay --- will continue this off-line. "See" you!

The comments to this entry are closed.