The above may seem like an odd question, but in my experience, there are some organizations who seem comfortable in “passing the buck” to consultants and commercial compensation surveys to make their reward decisions for them.
As a consultant myself I’ve worked with organizations who routinely referred to their HAY grades or MERCER salary ranges when communicating with employees. And when a compensation program question was posed to HR many times a call would go out to the respective consultant responsible for that area – to get a decision made. In some circles the decision-making process could literally mirror the three blind mice, with HR seeing, hearing and saying nothing without a consultant’s input.
“I Didn’t Do It”
Compensation practitioners know that they are always subject to possible criticism over their decisions; job evaluations, market-pricing, setting salary ranges, performance management issues or even recommendations for or against management requests. So, wouldn’t it be nice for them if they could say, “It wasn’t me. They (consultants or survey sources) made the call.” Someone else that they could point the finger at. Let someone else take the heat. And it does seem more difficult for managers to change a consultant’s mind than for them to put pressure on the home-grown resource.
Good Idea?
These scenarios serve as an excellent example of the “Easy Button,” where an answer is provided without a lot of time or effort on your part. You don’t even have to think about it! And if the answer is challenged the consultants usually have plenty of resources to deal with justifications and counter-arguments – at a further price of course.
Having an answer-man on call relieves the political pressure that might otherwise be brought to bear. Because contentious issues can quickly become political issues, and you don’t want to get on the bad side of certain people. Having an answer provided in the format of a prestigious letterhead can be very comforting.
And if you don’t take responsibility for program design, implementation and sustainment issues you don’t need a costly staff of employees to do that work. I once worked with a major client who kept only two compensation people on staff – Managers - because the outside consultants did the rest of the work.
Bad Idea?
Is this concept giving you a bad taste in your mouth? Before you dismiss this approach out of hand, as in “We’d never do that!” let’s look at some pros and cons.
Pros
- Easy button – let someone else make decisions. You’re very busy and have a lot on your plate right now. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to be able to pass off some decisions to objective professionals? Someone who wouldn’t be influenced by emotions, personalities or internal politics?
- Less pressure – “What can I do? This is what the consultant said.” Your critics are kept at bay because you didn’t make the decision. And as long as their invoices keep being paid your consultants won’t be influenced by criticism of their answers. In fact, they’re usually expert at dealing with critics.
- Don’t need a staff - alleviating pressure on your FTE count. Consultants are used as needed, so full-time staff may be an avoidable luxury. As long as you can afford the charge, of course.
Cons
The above arguments are powerful stuff for the administratively minded, and if your goal is to keep floating along with minimal impact and have time to join the company bowling team, having an “Answer Man” available as needed can be an attractive strategy.
But there are some downsides you’d have to face.
- Loss of personal respect - by managers first but will soon include the employees themselves as they come to realize your risk-averse tactic. What’s that phrase about being an “empty suit?” Why should anyone talk to you?
- Management loses control - of compensation programs and the message. Outsiders will become perceived as the real authority behind your programs, further weakening your position.
- Objectivity becomes rule-setting – because outsiders can never be knowledgeable enough about your employees, your culture and the human element behind many good decisions. Who knows your jobs better? Who knows where exceptions need to be made? Compensation programs need to make sense for the organization, and sometimes that isn’t black or white – but a steady stream of grey.
The takeaway here is that, in order to maintain an effective compensation program, you need to take control. You need to be sitting at the desk where the buck stops. Consultants should be used to feed information into your decision-making process, and to make suggestions based on their knowledge and experience. But it is not in your best professional interest to abandon your responsibilities and let someone else make the actual decisions for you.
That would not be a career-enhancing move.
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 clowder of cats.
Creative Commons image, "Boba Fett Reward," by Pasukaru76
Comments