When Is A Job Like A Prius? When It's A Hybrid

A hybrid job is one with multiple skillsets.  We've all had to deal with them at some point in time.

Let's look at them ---- ones that are commonly known ----and a new type that is increasingly found in companies today.

Traditional hybrid jobs

Traditional jobs with one or two responsibilities added to them.  An employee might spend 75% of the time on the traditional job and 25% on the extra duties.  Usually the additional duties come from the same job family.

Trying to determine what to pay is an issue. There are several solutions, but the most common one is to tack a premium on top of pay for the traditional job. Sometimes surveys allow three different degrees of match:  solid match, match plus and match minus.

This type of hybrid job continues to exist today. 

New hybrid jobs

Newly created hybrid jobs have increased dramatically in the last few years. There are two main reasons why.

1) Many companies had layoffs during the recession. The survivors had to pick up the slack by taking over the responsibilities of those who were laid off.  In some cases the combined skillsets came from different job familes.  In many cases these were non-exempt jobs.

Companies have squeezed more productivity out of surviving employees.  As they begin hiring again, they believe there is no need to backfill positions left vacant after the lay-offs.  Why backfill if the same work is being done with fewer employees? 

2)Companies are testing new business models they must use in the “new normal” of globalization.  They’re re-engineering, streamlining and reconfiguring themselves --- including jobs.  Most cases involve exempt/professional jobs. These reconfigured hybrids are the ones that are making the most waves today. 

Skillsets are being combined in various ways in an effort to add greater value to the business.  This melding of disparate jobs involves more than just adding a couple of responsibilities.

Here are examples of “hybrid” jobs at IBM:
•Combining a nursing or pharmacy degree with IT consulting experience to work on “operating room information system" projects.
•Combining IT expertise with knowledge of petroleum exploration and production
•“Healthcare Informatics Architect" position requiring a background in epidemiology and public health plus IT knowledge

Hybrids like these combine completely different skillsets that are found in more than one job family. They’re much more complex.

Impact on compensation

How do Compensation Professionals benchmark these jobs?  Where are the survey providers in all this?   Are they developing any tools to address the growing presence of these new hybrids? 

A few surveys allow participants to input multiple component positions to form a unique hybrid job tailored to consolidated duties.  One survey allows up to nine jobs to be combined. 

But ---- these hybrid jobs are truly “one of a kind” with skillsets pulled from different job families.   No other company is likely to match them even 70%.   Therefore, the market data provided is weak.  At some point surveys may become a much less relevant tool in Compensation’s toolbox.

Changing strategy, relentless technology and external competition will cause continued proliferation of hybrids.  They’re so prevalent now that the major job boards have special categories in their job listings called “hybrid jobs”.

As market surveys end up toward the bottom of Compensation’s toolbox, we’ll be forced to develop more evidence-based and company customized techniques for building/managing pay plans.

Tricky hmm?   What is your company doing about it?

One last thought.   Could the volume of hybrids be one reason why companies keep complaining:  “We can’t find qualified people!”   Are they looking for “purple squirrels”?  The perfect fit?  I wonder . . . . .

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel, National Semiconductor and Seagate Technology. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expat twice during her career.   Her true love is working with local national issues.  Jacque has the following certifications:  CCP, GPHR, HCS and SWP as well as a B.S. and M.S in Psychology and an MBA.    She belongs to SHRM, Human Capital Institute and World at Work.   Jacque been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications.   

Comments

[Jay Schuster]

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.

[Jacque Vilet]

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.

[Jay Schuster]

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.

[Jacque Vilet]

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!!

[Jacque Vilet]

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

[Jay Schuster]

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'???

[Jacque Vilet]

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