Blog powered by Typepad

« The Rise of “Hobbyist” Workers | Main | Santa, Where Do Best Practices Come From? »

12/06/2016

Comments

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

Dan, I think you favor some sort of 'real' or 'simulated' ownership for the workforce? I really think the more 'skin' folks have in the 'game' the better for the ownership, the workforce, and the leaders who must communicate 'direction' to everyone. Very often I see emphasis placed on the 'complexities' of doing this but do believe that 'doing it' and 'cleaning up afterwords' is the right course to follow. We can always find reasons not to do something that makes wonderful 'piece of the action' sense and let this stop what is really good thinking from going into action.

Three cheers for 'piece of the action'. We should give our civil servants something to keep them focused on the public as a 'customer' rather than a 'funding source'. They should hire you, Dan, to figure this one out . . . .

Hi Jay,

I do believe that ownership drives better results, in most cases. I also believe that ownership starts with how a company (or country) treats and communicates with its population. The pay or equity component works best if it supports the culture and strategy. VBy itself, equity does not make "owners" out of employees.

Ironically, this approach is probably the best approach for civll servants in a democratic government. I believe that the leaders of these people forget that their staff is working directly to support and improve their own outside world.

I would love if they brought me in to discuss this! Maybe one of them will read this post and make a call...LOL

You are a good fellow, Dan. When Pat and I published one of our books, "The New Pay", we were invited to Washington to do a seminar they called, "Pay for Performance" in the prootional material. You can imagine what our presentation was about. After the session and some discussion, it was the 'sound of one-hand clapping'. We clearly 'hit' the wrong note suggesting that they have some 'skin in the game'.

Some years ago the feds, then headed by the lady who was also the President of what became "WorldatWork", sanctioned a major survey of 'competitive practices' because the believed the federal government was not paying competitively. Pat and I were somehow on the 'bidder list' and got the RFP. The survey was focused only on cash compensation and not total compensation. During the 'bidder conference' we suggested that all elements of employee compensation be included in the information gathering process. We got a nice 'buzz off' note and some large firm got the job.

The result was an increase in cash compensation making total compensation as outrageous as it is now. We also suggested in our proposal that some form of performance management beyond what they were doing be considered.

They need you, Dan. Maybe you can be "Minister of Compensation" in the new administration"?????

I'd love to have the gig! Perhaps Pay Czar would be more appropriate.

Somehow I don't think they would be anymore welcoming to me than than they were to you.

It's sad, but not surprising, to know that they have had useful input they have ignored in the past. The current system doesn't seem broken to them because they all seem to benefit from it and blame all of the downstream problem on others. Both "sides" do this so it seems unlikely that it will be addressed (but I will keep hoping).

You got that one NAILED. I don't agree with anything our new President has said except where he wants to 'clean the swamp' relative to the civil service system. I am a vet and I can tell you stories about the VA that will chill your bones.

If I was working in HR in the civil service system I would be ashamed of myself.

Off for the Holidays. Hope Santa brings everyone a nice new salary range or something . . . . .

Have a great HOLIDAY season!

The comments to this entry are closed.