Compensation Cafe

What Might Your Performance Management Process Tell You?

Are you sitting on a potential gold mine of insights that might point the way to better organizational performance?

A colleage of mine and I had an interesting conversation about how mining (pun intended), aggregating and analyzing the different employee inputs gathered through the performance management process might yield some helpful information about strategy and operations. 

Think about some of the different responses and comments you gather from employees, either through self-appraisals or their inputs to the performance form itself.

You might, for example, provide an opportunity for employees to mention any constraints or obstacles they encountered in trying to achieve their performance objectives.  This could happen either by directly posing the question on a form or simply by providing a comment space where employees may choose to share these thoughts.  Aggregating and attempting to categorize or interpret this data might open a window into understanding the organization's performance challenges.  Sorting the data by employee performance level might shed additional light on how the company may be frustrating its top performers.

Similarly, many organizations regularly ask an upfront question, as part of the individual goal setting process, about the types of development, resources or support an employee feels will be important to their achievement of personal performance objectives.  Aggregating and assessing this information (whether overall or by performance level) could point to proactive steps the organization should be taking during the year to better position employees for success.

Employees are often given the opportunity to share their career goals and interests as part of a development conversation connected to performance management.  Are you taking advantage of this data and considering what employees are seeking relative to what leaders see as the organization's top skill needs going forward?  Are there promising points of intersection?  Surprising disconnects that demand attention?

What insights have you drawn from employee inputs to your performance management process?  What other possibilities do you see for this information?

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 to a range of client   organizations.  Ann was recently named President Elect of the Twin Cities Compensation Network (the most awesome local reward network on the planet) and joined the Advisory Board of the Compensation & Benefits Review, the leading journal for those who design, implement, evaluate and   communicate total rewards.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern   University’s Kellogg School, is a bookhound and foodie in her spare  time.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

Creative Commons image "Gold Bars at the Museum of Natural History " by Bradley Brown 1

162(m) - Created to Slow Public Companies, but a Real Accelerator for Start-ups

Twenty years ago, 162(m) was enacted by Congress. The purpose of this rule was to slow executive pay growth by capping the tax deductions on executive compensation at $1,000,000. There was an exemption for performance-based pay. The rule made it clear that typical stock options were among the compensation tools considered to be exempt from the cap. While 162(m) has been cited as a contributor to the growth we have seen in Fortune 500 executive pay, little is said about its impact on start-ups.

When viewing the world from the position of a cash-strapped start-up, high cash compensation creates an incredibly unfair playing field. Before 162(m), profitable companies could offer the most experienced and qualified candidates large amounts of low-risk cash compensation, while starts-ups could only offer high-risk equity compensation. It was difficult to convince a mid or high-level executive from a successful company to join a scrappy little private company with lots of ideas and potential, and far lower cash compensation.

In 1993, with the new tax deduction rules in place, many established companies moved to protect their tax deductions by moving more pay from guaranteed cash to at risk cash and equity. While this makes complete sense, it also provided a unique poaching opportunity for smaller firms with more leveraged upside. At the same time the stock market was 5 years into the most meteoric climb in its history.

The combination of moving cash to equity compensation and the incredible equity performance of start-ups (at the time mostly technology/semiconductor firms) provided a new form of pay comparison. Looking at base pay plus the gain from equity became a convincing story when recruiting. In many cases it provided the motivation for executives with established careers to take the plunge with small firms and amazing upside.

The law of unintended consequences was once again at work. 162(m) was designed to slow pay volatility by removing the tax incentive from high pay. It inadvertently helped fuel the growth in pay by making it easier for young companies to hire experienced leaders. These savvy professionals saw more potential in growing these companies into publicly traded players rather than aiming to be acquired and the relative pay safety that could once be found at larger firms.

Of course, 162(m) has not been fundamentally changed, nor the cap raised, in twenty years. This lack of keeping up with changes in pay level and compensation philosophy has blurred lines and continues to provide upside opportunities for those experienced professionals looking for a payoff rather than a multi-decade career. I would bet that changing the cap to $5 Million (along with a corresponding change in how stock options are treated) would likely slow executive pay increases while making it harder for start-ups to hire the talent they want and need as they grow. I would love to hear your thoughts on this perspective.

I want to make it clear that I am not personally advocating such a change. I think the boom in innovative start-ups is one the best things to happen in the U.S. over the past 50-60 years.

(Compensation data courtesy of Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/30/ceo-pay-historic-lead-bestbosses08-cx_sd_0430flash.html)

Dan Walter is the President and CEO of Performensation an independent compensation consultant focused on the needs of small and mid-sized public and private companies. Dan’s unique perspective and expertise includes equity compensation, executive compensation, performance-based pay and talent management issues. Dan is a co-author of “The Decision Makers Guide to Equity Compensation”, “If I’d Only Know That”, “GEOnomics 2011” and “Equity Alternatives.” Dan is on the board of the National Center for Employee Ownership, a partner in the ShareComp virtual conferences and the founder of Equity Compensation Experts, a free networking group. Dan is frequently requested as a dynamic and humorous speaker covering compensation and motivation topics. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @Performensation and @SayOnPay.

When They Want A Bit More

We’ve all seen the cartoon where an employee gets themselves pumped up to ask the boss for a raise.  It’s often good humor, and always at the expense of the bumbling employee.  They always seem to get it wrong, and we have a good chuckle as a result.

But how often do we look at that same scenario from the manager’s perspective?  Not much humor there, I’m afraid.  An awkward conversation with an employee rarely is.

Most companies of any size have a regularly scheduled performance review for their employees, where past performance would be assessed and a pay increase considered.  Usually the two are connected.

When an employee request for a pay raise comes between the review cycles, a common response is to tell the employee to wait until the scheduled review. That’s why a review is scheduled in the first place, to make sure an assessment of performance and pay does take place.  Everyone gets treated the same.  If that wasn't happening, everyone would be asking for the same special consideration and the company’s annual review cycle would be thrown out the window.

So much for the easy part.  The greater challenge is when such an off-cycle request comes in the form of a disgruntled employee who feels that they're being short-changed in some way, taken for granted or otherwise being (in their minds) underpaid.

Handling the angry employee

In this case telling them to wait won’t do; you have to deal with the anger, as well as the cynicism that the company has been talking advantage of them.

You can be certain other employees will have their eyes and ears out for what's happening - and the respect you show for the employee.

While each employee conversation can be a unique experience for both parties, consider several pointers that might help you and the unhappy worker.

• Remind the employee that there's a process.  Start with the reminder that the company does review performance and pay levels, that there is a process.  No one is being forgotten.

• Get them to talk about their qualifications.  You still need to let the employee have their say, but steer the conversation toward the employee's own capabilities, background and experience. 

• Don't address emotional issues like need.  That’s a slippery slope that pulls the conversation away from business and into the grey area of personalities, home life and pressures from outside the work environment.

• Keep the conversation about only the employee.  While you're willing to discuss how the employee facing you is being treated, you shouldn't open the conversation as to how other employees are treated.  There are too many variables at play here, but perhaps most important is that it isn't any of the employee's business.

• Show an open mind.  Never give the impression that you're only going through the motions, offering only a "courtesy" meeting.  You need to genuinely listen, ask questions and show the employee that you're prepared to listen and consider.

• Don’t get defensive.  Avoid being trapped into defending the company’s pay programs against the employee’s “research” into market pay.   Company pay programs are typically developed by professionals and it's likely that the employee is using biased and simplistic figures.

• Don't get into an argument.  No one wins here, but you'll likely lose more because the court of employee opinion likely gave you one or two strikes before you came to bat.

• Don't make promises, especially if you're not authorized.  Avoid using throw away phrases like "I'll look into it" or "let me talk to HR," unless you mean it.  Unless you're actually going to take up the employee's issue and run with it. 

Your prime goal should be to come away from the discussion where the employee has had an opportunity to have their say, you've had an opportunity to listen without pre-judgment and the points raised by both parties can be further considered.  It doesn't mean that you have to agree, but that effective communications has taken place.  Meanwhile the employee should come away with a better understanding of the company's pay programs, where they stand and how they can improve themselves.

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 DianeWorth

Tired of Pretending? It's Time to Make Pay for Performance Better

The 10-minute conversation, squeezed uncomfortably out of a schedule that already has everyone grabbing for Tylenol and massaging their necks.

I'm talking about the end-of-year performance and pay discussion of course. Those drive-through meetings always seem like the only realistic way to go, given everything else that's going on at that time of year. 

But really, isn't this just one more way that pay-for-performance underdelivers? And aren't we all in it together -- pretending that there's more to this than just money but setting things up so it can't go any other way.

If you're tired of pretending, how can you make things better? One simple way is to give yourself more time. Start now instead of late September to plan this year's rollout.

Three more tips?

1. Don't even look at what you used for communications last year. So what if the tools you are using are the same -- your performance management program, merit raises and bonuses? Your business is in a different place, your marketplace has changed and your managers are focused on different issues. You can't possibly use last year's approach to talk about what's important this year.
2. Shift your attention from paperwork to building talent. Instead of putting your emphasis on planning a schedule for getting the review process finished, brainstorm the important discussions that people should have before they get their raise or bonus. What will help them find the time? How can the manager be prepared? Don't think you're going to enforce anything -- instead think about what your "customers" would "pay" to hear about. Or better yet, what they'd want to talk about that would get them texting or tweeting to their colleagues.
3. Find out the truth. Interview everyone you can think of about what they would expect from pay for performance this year, and how they wish it could really go. Hearing from just a few managers and employees will give you ideas that you can use. Talking with Division heads will give your work credibility.

If you start now, you'll have the time to really discuss, listen and think about alternatives. Don't even imagine you can make things perfect. But more meaningful to everyone? There's something that would be worth the extra time.

Margaret O'Hanlon is founder and Principal of re:Think Consulting. She'll join Ann Bares and Dan Walter of the Compensation Cafe to speak the unspoken -- Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communication -- in an upcoming book. Margaret brings deep expertise in compensation, career development and communications to the dialog at the Café. Before founding re:Think Consulting, she was a Principal with Towers Watson. Margaret earned her M.S. and Ed.S. in Instructional Technology at Indiana University, Bloomington. Creative writing is one of her outside passions, along with Masters Swimming.

Living Wage Versus Minimum Wage

Should every worker receive a living wage? 

There are movements in many states to raise legislated minimum wages up to levels that will support American families.   Examples abound in Washington, Massachusettes and Kansas. DC has signaled that a living wage is necessary for Wal-Mart, even as unions maneuver to avoid the issue.  

Some businesses also claim to support “a Fair Minimum Wage."  That phrase bothers me, because it seems that fair always means, “more.”  I’ve only known one person who has ever argued that, “in order to be paid fairly, I should be paid less."  And he was supremely talented, if modest.

A “living wage” would greatly exceed $7.25 an hour.  Pundits who have never met a payroll see no particular implications from massive increases to the US federal minimum wage.  Moving the minimum floor rate from $7.25 to $10 an hour would mean a 40% increase; going to $12 an hour is a 65% increase; and hitting $12.50/hr would be more than a 72% jump. 

No big deal, proponents casually proclaim, citing a labor center study saying that if all minimum wage Wal-Mart employees were raised to $12/hr, it would not translate to much of a price increase for the average shopper.  But what if EVERY Wal-Mart employee were granted the same proportional increase?  There is a ripple effect to minimum wage increases.  Please note, those already paid above the old minimum wage would immediately argue that they each should be granted either the same absolute increase (dollars and cents more) or the same relative percentage (relative percentage increase from minimum rate to the new rate).  Those veteran workers hired years ago at $8/hr who now make $10/hr would bristle at being paid less than the most recently hired lowest-seniority worker, so EVERY Wal-Mart worker making less than upper management salaries would expect and demand an equity increase.  That would cost a whole lot more than 46 cents a shopping trip.  

Forbes had a temperate and thoughtful article about how the DC “living wage” conflict shows the relative weakness of retailers, but the media coverage tends to overlook the different purposes of a Minimum Wage versus a Living Wage. 

Every single worker does not support a family all by themselves.  Why should high school kids still living at home be paid as if they were their parents?  It makes sense to have a minimum entry rate  for unskilled workers without any particular talents or experience to offer. 

Hiring at a discounted hourly rate showing their relative lack of productive value, employers can afford to train the unskilled, build their abilities and develop their experiences so the trainees can command sufficient income to support a family.  Artificially inflating the minwage beyond its economic equalibrium point will remove the incentive for companies to hire novices when they must pay them the same as experienced candidates.  People have to start somewhere.  Continuums exist for a reason, to show scale and to permit relative differentiation.

Those who have worked at minimum wage levels for years have experienced the painful process of creating personal employment value.  Companies are willing to pay for better KSAs, but should every employer be required by law to pay more than they feel is proper?  Does our economy need better jobs or better candidates?  Better pay  tends to flow to better prepared workers.  Should that change?  If more money flows to the least valuable people, what happens to the better qualified talent?

These are important questions that should be addressed by the total rewards community rather than by politicians.  Otherwise, the answers will be dictated by legislators.

E. James (Jim) Brennan is Senior Associate of ERI Economic Research Institute, the premier publisher of interactive pay and living-cost surveys. After over 40 years in HR corporate and consulting roles throughout the U.S. and Canada, he’s pretty much been there done that (articles, books, speeches, seminars, radio/TV, advisory posts, in-trial expert witness stuff, etc.), serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review and will express his opinion on almost anything.

Creative Commons image "Ripple Effect" by maiq gomez

New Life for the Lowly Lump Sum?

The lump sum award, so long the underappreciated stepchild of salary administration, seems to be gaining new prominence.

When lump sums first hit the scene, they were positioned and used primarily as an alternative to salary increases for employees who were at or above the maximums of their assigned salary range, as a means of rewarding good performers with a one-time award rather than increasing a base pay amount that already reflected a substantial premium above their job's market value.  But the times are bringing new opportunies and new status for the lowly lump sum.

Check out the table below to observe the gradual but unmistakeable increase in the prevalence of lump sum awards for salaried exempt and nonexempt employees (data drawn from WorldatWork's annual Salary Budget Surveys).

We've gone from roughly one-third to over half of surveyed employers reporting use of these awards in under 10 years.  The reason for this growth in popularity is that we've discovered the many and varied applications of this tool as part of a strong pay for performance arsenal.

In today's era of flattened salary increase budgets, we are finding that we can more bang for our limited bucks by carving out a portion of the merit pool and delivering some or all of this set-aside in one-time awards.  (Note that a 1% reduction in your salary increase budget can create the funds necessary for a 2.5% lump sum, considering the present value of the future cash flow.)  Lump sums can help drive differentiation when we - as an example - rely more on these awards to recognize the "meets" and "nearly meets" performers, freeing up the funds to offer more significant salary bumps to top talent.  Alternatively, a lump sum carve out can be used to encourage and reward growth in the capability of your workforce when awards are offered to those who have developed mission-critical skills or added key technical certifications over the past year.

What other lump sum applications have you used in your organizations?

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 to a range of client   organizations.  Ann was recently named President Elect of the Twin Cities Compensation Network (the most awesome local reward network on the planet) and joined the Advisory Board of the Compensation & Benefits Review, the leading journal for those who design, implement, evaluate and   communicate total rewards.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern   University’s Kellogg School, is a bookhound and foodie in her spare  time.  Follow her on Twitter at @annbares.

Creative Commons image "1-money-pile-Ign" by jay.kusmawan

What about the 399,500 other CEOs?

Many times, people who find out that part of my business is focused on executive compensation consulting ask how I can support “CEOs who are already making so much money.” I usually answer with a variation of “but, hardly anyone makes as much as you think.” When I inform people that most (>75%) CEOs make salaries of less than $500,000 a year, I am often met with exclamations about “multi-millionaires”, “people who control everything”, “greedy executives”, "horrible pay ratios” and whatever other compensation outrage has made the news in the past year. I know it’s hard to believe, but most CEOs are paid in the middle of their range. So what is the middle?

Not surprisingly, when I talk to CEOs about their pay, the reaction is often similarly misinformed. You should see the reactions when I tell CEOs that about 50% of small companies pay their Chief Executive Officer $250,000, or less, in salary. They have seen the articles. They watch the news. They know in their bones that “hardly anyone makes that little.” There are about 400,000 CEOs in the United States. That means hundreds of thousands of them do not make a million dollars a year.

In fact, less than 10% of CEOs have annual salaries north of $1 million dollars. To be fair, CEOs at Fortune 500 companies do get paid an average of $10.8 million in total compensation (depending on how it was measured this number is quoted as high as $12.9 million). This amount is broken down approximately into thirds. With one-third being salary and bonus, one-third “other compensation” and one-third income from stock option exercises and vesting of other equity awards. I should note that few in this group are paid salaries above $1,000,000 due to 162(m) restrictions.

If you take these 500 people out of the mix, you have about 399,500 CEOs left. The vast majority of these have little in the way of equity with real intrinsic value. Virtually none have anything in the way of high-end perquisites. And, a huge percentage of these CEOs founded the companies they oversee. Most have never heard of, nor care about, ISS and Glass Lewis. Most don't care about Say on Pay, because they are large shareholders (or sole owners) of the companies they oversee.

These executives and the compensation professionals (internal or external) who support them are constantly striving to align compensation with success. The goal is seldom to pay at all costs. Pay for performance and well-designed compensation programs are not just for the front-page executives who make millions. Let’s be honest. Hardly anyone makes that much!

How do you define “enough” for your CEO? Are they overpaid, or is that just one more myth that compensation professionals need to dispel?

Interesting fact: Imagine the blue background of the image accompanying this post represents the 400,000 CEOs in the US. The five yellow dots would represent all of the CEOs at Fortune 500 Companies. Sometimes it seems like we may focus too much on too little.

Dan Walter is the President and CEO of Performensation an independent compensation consultant focused on the needs of small and mid-sized public and private companies. Dan’s unique perspective and expertise includes equity compensation, executive compensation, performance-based pay and talent management issues. Dan is a co-author of “The Decision Makers Guide to Equity Compensation”, “If I’d Only Know That”, “GEOnomics 2011” and “Equity Alternatives.” Dan is on the board of the National Center for Employee Ownership, a partner in the ShareComp virtual conferences and the founder of Equity Compensation Experts, a free networking group. Dan is frequently requested as a dynamic and humorous speaker covering compensation and motivation topics. Connect with him on LinkedIn or follow him on Twitter at @Performensation and @SayOnPay.

An Overlooked Communication Tool

As a Benefits professional you may feel you have all the bases covered --- that you're doing a good job of communicating benefits information to all your employees --- including those overseas.  But here is a tool you might have overlooked --- your company's intranet.

In many companies, the intranet is open to all employees --- not just in the U.S.  But it’s unlikely that it’s being used to the fullest extent.

Pretend you’re an employee in Japan.   Next, go to your company’s intranet and see it through his eyes.  Click on a few tabs and look what pops up.  Screens that give news about the company ----  almost all of it (in my experience) about the U.S.
 
Information might include:

•    Upcoming events such as parties, sports activities, etc.
•    Discounts for local restaurants or health clubs
•    Recent promotions of employees
•    Upcoming public holidays
•    Upcoming “all employee” meetings
•    Employee promotions and/or awards

If that’s not bad enough, here’s a big one.  Click on the tab labeled “Benefits”.  You don’t see Japanese benefits do you?  Confused aren't you?  The benefits screen isn’t even labeled “U.S. Benefits”.  It’s as if everyone world-wide is supposed to know who they’re for!
 
In all of my international travels, surprisingly, this has been one of the biggest issues employees have talked to me about --- not having country relevant information on the intranet.   It really irritates them, and reinforces their belief that they’re “second class citizens”.   To overseas employees the intranet is not for them --- it’s just for us.  

OK what can you do about it?  Regardless of what changes you make, it will obviously require IT’s involvement.  They can make the technology work --- but you have to decide on the content.

Do you want benefits information for all countries to be open to everyone?  Or do you want employees in each country to see only their own benefits?  Some companies don’t have a problem with sharing information.  Other companies don’t feel comfortable with this arrangement. 

A lot of the benefits communication tools used today are of the “now you see it, now you don’t” category.   Emails, employee meetings, payroll stuffers, benefits fairs, “brown bag” lunches, etc. are all one-time events.  Emails end up being deleted and payroll stuffers tossed in the trash. 

That’s one of the reasons why using the intranet is such a great idea.  Information is there to see anytime, all the time --- whether it’s for the first time as a new hire or as a “re-fresher”.   I’m no expert and I haven’t conducted any studies on this --- but my educated guess is that most of your employees look at the intranet at least a few times a week. 

Putting country-relevant benefit information on your intranet is only one tiny part of what might need to happen as a total intranet overhaul.   That’s beyond your control.  But HR as a group could make it a goal to make revisions so that all HR information would be country relevant for the right employees to see.
 
Think I’m exaggerating the importance of this?  Does it seem like something too small to worry about?   All I can say is that this was one of the biggest issues overseas employees talked to me about.  

There may be a lot of things in your company you can’t change --- but this is not one of them.  Think about it . . . . . . . .  you’re missing out on a great communication tool.

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.

Are You Worth Your Weight in Gold?

I’ve seen some rather interesting employee incentive and reward programs in my many years as a recognition consultant and strategist. Some stories in the news make for great fodder for blog posts. Case-in-point, this story out of Dubai:

“Losing weight is as good as gold under a unique slim-down initiative in Dubai over growing concerns about rising obesity levels in the wealthy Gulf city-state. Municipal officials are offering a gram of gold -- worth about $45 at current prices -- for each kilogram of weight lost in a 30-day challenge. The minimum drop is two kilograms, or 4.4 pounds, to cash in.

“Local media Wednesday quotes Dubai official Hussain Lootah as saying there is no limit on the payout for the golden losers. The plan is the latest attempt to encourage healthier lifestyles in the United Arab Emirates. Across the Gulf Arab states, authorities have raised alarms about rising obesity from increasing fast-food diets and lack of exercise.”

While companies may not be able to fund their Health & Wellness programs to the level of a rich country such as Dubai, the hallmarks of this weight-loss initiative are not that different from how I’ve seen many organizations institute wellness programs. This offers several lessons on considerations for wellness initiatives:

1) What is being rewarded?

Any well-structured incentive or recognition program must carefully define what actions, behaviors or achievements are deserving of recognition and reward. The same is true in wellness programs. When launching such a program to employees, strong communications around the parameters of the program is critical for success, including what is worthy of reward. If weight-loss, is it the number of pounds lost, the percentage of body weight, BMI, or loss maintained over time? Or does it include “healthy lifestyle” choices such as food choices, smoking cessation, an exercise plan, etc? How are these achievements tracked and reported in a consistently fair way?

2) What are the rewards?

By definition of an incentive, the rewards to be earned are defined at the start of the program. Again, strong communications of what must be achieved to receive a specific reward is critical (e.g., 1 gram of gold earned for each kilogram of weight lost). So how are you defining the rewards? Do they increase with subsequent achievement or do they remain steady throughout the life of the program? What predictive models have you established to determine appropriate budget to set aside for rewards? Are you prepared for a significantly larger participant group than anticipated?

3) How are rewards and achievements publicized?

Usually public rewards and praise are the norm for achievement of major goals. But in the case of wellness programs in particular, greater sensitivity may be needed for how individual achievements are acknowledged and publicized. Even those who enjoy public praise for recognition of success in their work achievements may not like to be called out publicly for significant weight loss or smoking cessation achievements. What methods will be used to announce achievements? How are personal preferences identified and honored? Can others chime in with their congratulations for achievements on a social newsfeed?

4) How long are the rewards given?

The vast majority of employee incentive programs have a designated beginning and end point. But with wellness initiatives, we never want our employees to stop pursuing a healthy lifestyle. So how are wellness incentives structured? Are there short-term push campaigns within a bigger program? Are periodic achievements continuously rewarded? Are these publicized contests with leaderboards with a set end-time? Program or short-term initiative parameters must also be clearly defined and communicated at the outset.

What other critical aspects must be considered for successful wellness incentive programs in the workplace?

As Globoforce’s Head of Strategic Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. His articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.

Are You the Stuff of Heroes?

Do you want to be admired and respected by your colleagues, recognized by senior leadership for who and what you are?  Do you want to be known throughout your universe as one who sets the standard?

Then solve a problem.  Stand up and show someone how to get things done.  Clear the pathway; support someone’s idea, save a step somewhere.  Do what it takes.

Just do it.

It's not hard, really.  It's a matter of thinking not of yourself first and foremost, but of a greater good that is broader than yourself - and of focusing your attention on getting the results that help the department, the team, the business.   It's called a giving of yourself.

All too often what we see from many employees and managers, indeed at all levels of the organization, is an effort to be the star, the success story, the stuff of legend, but often at the expense of someone else.  "Look at me," these eager A-types seem to shout, "look at what I have achieved."  These are folks who seem to have missed reading the memo on team effort.

We all have them in our organization.  They surround us.

Here's a thought, though.  Isn't it better to be lifted up (reward, recognition, a simple thanks, etc.) by someone else, then to be constantly trying to push yourself up there?  Doesn’t that ego rush get a bit tiring, what with the constant pressure of looking over your shoulder to gauge the competition?  To paln your next moves?  Do you have periodic stress headaches, where the muscles at the back of your neck tighten to stone?  Are you sleeping well?

Now picture yourself receiving that award, with the accompanying recognition, spotlight, accolades etc.  Nice feeling, isn’t it?  A proud moment.

I think it does make a difference in how one gets recognized.  I suppose that there are levels of self-satisfaction, but the highest must be when you're lifted on someone's shoulder.   When you hear the cheer of the audience.  Self advertisement, political deal-making and a passive resistance that holds others back can't provide the same level of genuine personal satisfaction.  Because deep down you'll know you cheated to get there.

Think about someone whom you really admire, in whatever field of endeavor you like.   Chances are it’s a person  who has accomplished something, delivered the desired results, made something of themselves.   They stood up for something.  Likely that person you admire so much isn't someone who took shortcuts, pushed others aside, ignored the call for help or otherwise kept their focus solely on the mirror.

So why would you want to do that yourself?

Of course you wouldn't.  But now reflect a bit on how you practice at your relationships at work.  Do you admire yourself to the exclusion of others, or can you spruce up your act a bit and become more of a team player?

Naive?  Politically incompetent?  Perhaps I am.  But I think we need more heroes out there, more decision-makers, more team players and more people willing to make a stand for what they believe in.

More folks who aren't in it just for themselves.

But that’s just me.  What about you?

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 dbking