Compensation Cafe

The Next Age of Total Rewards Theory

Editor's Note:  Today's post comes to us courtesy of guest contributor Joe Thompson.

A few weeks back, Compensation Cafe guest contributor, Chris Dobyns, asked my thoughts about whether there were distinct ages – or “revolutions” in total rewards theory (akin to the industrial revolution, the digital revolution, etc.).  Chris opined – I think rightly – that the nexus of artificial intelligence and compensation marks a new age in total rewards theory. 

So, in the hopes of generating discussion, here is a lightly-modified version of the response that I provided Chris:

If we ignore the infamous instances of indentureship, impressment, and some of the other ignominious forms of total rewards, I think we can see three distinct periods in total rewards in our rear-view mirror:

 The First Age

Direct wage (or barter) for direct labor marked the first period. This was the simple exchange of labor for wage.  Think of the Biblical parable of the workers in the vineyard, where the vineyard owner paid the wages he thought fair to those who had worked his field.  It is easy to visualize other examples, like a blacksmith, a portrait artist, a composer, etc., all of whom worked under the actual or implied two-party specific performance contract of “do this in order to get that.” 

This period arguably lasted all the way through the beginnings of the industrial age - that is, up until the New Deal.  While toward the end of this period, there had been erosions made in the absolute power of the employer in the form of minimum age requirements and working conditions, little had changed in compensation theory.

The Second Age

The Fair Labor Standards Act, and several laws that followed closely, marked a seismic shift in compensation theory when Congress and the Courts began to impose compensation obligations on the employer that exceeded the exchange of direct wages for direct labor, such as minimum wage, overtime, portal-to-portal compensation, and other variations. 

Coupled with the related growth of labor unions (and what they represented), the role of the employer was shifted.  The owner of the vineyard was no longer free to pay the laborers as he wished.  The two-party contract had ended as the Government itself formed a third-party, as a semi-silent partner, in compensation contracts.  We might think of this as the Wages-Plus Period – in exchange for their labor, the employee was entitled to fair wages plus other compensation.

The Third Age

The next age was triggered by major disruptions in the employer-employee power-balance that began in the 1970's.  Like the prior total rewards revolution, this was also the result of Congressional action.  A new series of legislation (e.g., the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) began to move us away from the "gold-watch" age of employer-unique benefits and pensions to the "free agency" age of portable benefits and retirement accounts. 

Heretofore, the employer had held all the cards.  If you wanted wages or benefits (e.g., pension), you had to put yourself in the service of the employer, often for decades.  But, HMO/ERISA/etc. marked a fundamental change that has accelerated since: the idea that the employee, as an agency unto themselves, is entitled to a range of compensable benefits – not for being in the employment of a given employer, but just for the fact of being AN employee.  More legislation, like the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, continued to fuel this viewpoint.  

And the "free agency" aspect of work that this Age created began to drive the idea of "competitive" benefits to new heights as employees could now "shop" for jobs.  The pinnacle of this Age of total rewards theory may very well be the idea of the "living wage" – wages untethered from the services actually provided to the employer.  Now, just for being an employee, one is entitled to “extra-fair” wages (at times determined by someone other than the employer) and other benefits little connected to the underlying labor.

So, to my eye, I think if we want to label the revolution precipitated by artificial intelligence, we can argue we are entering a Fourth Age of Total Rewards Theory. 

But, this is just my opinion.  What do you think?

Joe Thompson, CCP, CCMP, is currently employed as a Human Capital Strategic Consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton where he assists clients with a wide range of human capital challenges.  He has delivered human capital solutions across the talent management lifecycle including recruitment, job analysis, hiring, compensation and incentives, workforce planning, HR policy, attrition, performance management, change management, cyber human capital, and human capital program design, implementation, and evaluation.  Joe has worked in the area of compensation for 10 years and, prior to Booz Allen, he has worked in the U.S. Intelligence Community and in the U.S. Navy.

“Vineyard With Ripe Grapes In Countryside at Sunset” image used under license from Fotolia.

Legislating Humanity – The Need for a National Policy on Paid Time Off

I am the father of small children. As any parent of small children knows, the incidence of illness in the household goes up as soon as your small children mingle regularly with other small children, sharing toys and germs alike. This was brought to mind when reading an article on a bill before the U.S. Congress to create a national paid-time off policy.

“The measure would create a national paid-time off policy for sick days and other personal needs, and businesses that comply would be exempt from tougher state and municipal rules. There are at least 40 different local laws designed to protect workers from being fired or disciplined for trying to follow doctor’s orders. About one-third of U.S. workers get paid sick days, either because local law requires it or their company offers it voluntarily.” (emphasis mine)

To clarify points above, this is a lump PTO policy proposal, inclusive of vacation, holidays, and sick time, “encouraging” 14-20 days of PTO. One challenge within the bill is the ability for managers to reject a worker’s request for time off (something not allowed in current state-based legislation). SHRM believes instances of rejected time off will be limited because non-compliance overall will cause reversion to the more generous state-based laws. But it is very concerning that a manager could deny a PTO request due to inconvenience of timing.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the glaring statistic that only one-third of U.S. workers get paid sick days. Stepping outside of the legislation, let’s focus on the humans affected by this policy or lack thereof. Illness – whether it be a nasty cold or a horrifying cancer – is part of the human condition. Setting aside the need to care for ill kids or take aging parents to doctor appointments, the lack of paid sick leave for workers is at least short-sighted and potentially dangerous. When workers have no facility to miss work when sick without risking their job or their paycheque, they have little choice but to come to work ill. That opens the company to risk. A sick worker simply cannot work to capacity, increasing presenteeism, which the CIPD reports costs businesses twice that of absenteeism. Layer on top of that the risk associated with inattention due to illness at work, and the costs to the business become exponential – simply from not allowing people to take the time needed to care for their own well-being.

Part of the compensation package for most employees are the additional benefits they receive – total rewards including health and wellness benefits and time off. I would argue the ability to take time off when sick without fear of reprisal is a human right. It’s also just smart business. (Indeed, Arianna Huffington’s Thrive Global recently raised $30M.

Remember Thrive Global’s mission, as quoted on their website: “To end the stress and burnout epidemic by offering companies and individuals sustainable, science-based solutions to enhance well-being, performance, and purpose, and create a healthier relationship with technology. Recent science has shown that the pervasive belief that burnout is the price we must pay for success is a delusion. We know, instead, that when we prioritize our well-being, our decision-making, creativity, and productivity improve dramatically.”)

Part of what it means to WorkHuman is to create the space, time, and ability for our workers to care for all aspects of their personhood – from personal illness and rejuvenation to caring for family. What could this legislation mean for your business? Will a national law calling for paid time off help or hurt organizational efforts to care for the well-being of their workers?

As Globoforce’s Vice President of Client Strategy and 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. He is the co-author of "The Power of Thanks" and 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.

Compensation Work and Skin in the Game

Some fascinating work is being done around navigating human capital risk and uncertainty.  I think it could raise some interesting questions about how compensation jobs and functions are defined and organized. 

Success for businesses increasingly hangs on their people and the structures they create to guide and support their work.  The problem, of course, is that industries and markets can shift quickly and unexpectedly.  Your company might respond with changes in pricing, product offerings, branding or its "go to market" approach -- but how quickly can it transform its workforce to deliver on these changes?

How quickly could you (compensation professional) get your head around the differences in skills, practices and behaviors needed?  How well could you pinpoint the gaps between what you've got going on today and what is needed tomorrow (or this afternoon)?  And how efficiently can you identify the obstacles that your current reward programs -- base pay delivery, incentives, benefit plans and programs -- will toss into the path of the workforce transformation that must now happen?

It's classic Innovator's Dilemma stuff.  And I'm thinking about it today relative to the way we structure compensation roles and work.  

There's a lot to be said for growing and refining your HR analytics capabilities so that they can tip you off to the make-up of and trends in your workforce, and help you identify and respond to the risks that might exist in the people part of your value proposition.  Hopefully we in the compensation profession, as the original data nerds in HR, are taking the necessary steps here.

But I think there's also the reality of how well our compensation jobs allow us to see and understand the day-to-day reality of the work people are doing.  The eyeball-to-eyeball, ear-to-ground reality.  Skin in the game.

To have skin in the game essentially means that you have some share in the costs and benefits your decisions and actions create for others.  Do we?  Should we?  Should our functions and roles be defined to create some sense of it?

How is the compensation function in your organization structured?  Do you -- like some -- have a centralized compensation function that is tucked away in "corporate" where you must rely on HR generalists and advisors to be your eyes and ears on the ground?  Or do you -- like others -- have compensation professionals embedded in the different business units where they have more direct contact and a front row seat to the action.  

Will this become a bigger deal as the pace of change continues to accelerate and navigating human capital uncertainty becomes both more challenging and more important?

Nassim Taleb -- the guru of risk and uncertainty whose books on the topic include The Black Swan and Anti-Fragile and of whom I am a big fan -- feels so strongly about the notion of skin in the game that it is the topic and title of his next, soon-to-be-published book.  I don't have the answer to the question I raise above, but as food for thought I'll leave you with this principle of skin-in-the-gameship courtesy of Mr. Taleb, who holds that skin in the game only happens in decentralized systems.

Principle:  It it always vastly easier to macro BS than to micro BS.

Ann Bares is the Editor of Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Forceand Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and enjoys reading in her spare time. Follow her on Twitter at @annbares. 

Creative Commons image "hands group" by Safe.Homes.Rape.Crisis.Coalition

Trouble Getting Support for New Pay Plans?

Maybe you’re asking the wrong questions.

I often hear statements like, “Our employees don’t value that. We asked them.” Overall, we have improved our efforts to engage our employees in the participation in new of pay programs, but perhaps we should be asking different questions.

Asking your employees if they want equity compensation or a new type of STI is kind of like asking a two-year old if they want a new kind of food.

The answer will almost always be no.

New food, like a new pay plan, is an unknown and therefore a risk. In a world with so many “knowns,” why risk it by trying something new? This is particularly the case when the new thing is different or hard to understand.

You need to explain the new thing before convincing them to try it.  Then you need to confirm that they like it.

Instead of asking people if they want to participate in a stock option plan, or telling them that they should want to be in the new annual incentive plan, think about starting the discussion with the conclusion or results.

Instead of, “Would you like to get stock options?”

Try, “Wouldn’t be great if you could be paid in a way that gives you more money as your hard work contributes to the company’s success?"

Or, “We’d like to find a way to have your pay more closely aligned with the growth of the CEO’s pay over the next few years. Let’s talk about some ways to do that.”

You just can’t expect people to inherently accept something new. You need to guide them into seeing potential solutions from new perspectives. You can start by demonstrating how the new solution is right before you ask them if they would like to try it. Every food my son has eaten (and he eats almost everything) was first consumed by an adult in front of him.

The same is true when discussing new pay with your executives or Board of Directors. You can’t just expect them to support a move from a legacy program to your new cool idea. Unlike you, they haven’t read the articles, taken the classes, and met with colleagues. They haven't been thinking about the solution and working out details in their heads for months. They may not have yet concluded that the current program isn't perfect, or that a new solution may be better.

Blindly asking if they will approve a switch from the current LTI metrics to something else won't work. Telling them that you "need" to change to RSUs from your current Stock Options is unlikely to get enthusiastic support. Try instead to show the goals or objectives the new plan is designed to achieve (go beyond the numbers and dig into the human capital goals). Then show where your legacy programs have strengths and weaknesses and how a new approach will provide better success.

Only then ask the question you need to have answered. "Can I get your support in completing a full recommendation for a new approach that may like this…?" That is when your real work begins, but that's fodder for another article. 

Of course, this doesn't work for every tool and every person (some kids are super picky), but you will find it will work for most. And, when it doesn’t, it provides new data on what you may want to consider before the next “ask.”

Dan Walter, CECP, CEP is the President and CEO of Performensation. He is passionately committed to aligning pay with company strategy and culture and considered a leading expert on equity compensation issues. Dan has written several industry resources including a recent Performance-Based Equity Compensation issue brief. He has co-authored ”Everything You Do In Compensation is Communication”, “The Decision Makers Guide to Equity Compensation”, “Equity Alternatives” and other books. Connect with Dan on LinkedIn. Or, follow him on Twitter at @Performensation.

Cafe Classic: The Compensation Cookbook

Editor's Note:  Here, for a little midweek fun, we bring you Jim Brennan and his long-awaited, utterly authoritative and instantly gratifying dictionary of compensation decisions.

Imagine having the solution to every pay issue in one volume!  The Compensation Cookbook will solve all your problems.  It promises to provide the perfect recipe for virtually every Total Rewards challenge.  Instant answers to any remuneration issue are made available at your fingertips!  No compensation chef should be without this essential guide to serve up the ideal menu in your café, restaurant, or eatery ... and even in your private dining room.  Spice up your initial cafeteria offerings with the perfect blend of base, incentive, extrinsic, variable, flex, step, intrinsic, static and untrinsic elements.

The long-awaited authoritative dictionary of decisions contains every remuneration formula and reward metric required for instant success in the compensation trade, says its editor, the noted Total Rewards guru H.R. Screwtape.  This massive manual of metrics should be available on February 29, 2013, according to the distinguished publishing house of Ratchet, Gimme, Compound & Sons and Daughters and One Odd Nephew.  Plans are being considered for conversion of the initial cuneiform script version into PDFs, then to electronic text and eventually even an interactive Cloud format.  Libraries have already announced plans to place the weighty tome next to thePhlogiston topic section of their Research Reference stacks.

Sample:  The Timely Turnaround Technique  

1. Take 3,985 employees and trim the outliers (see Chapter 19)
2. Freeze the pay of the remaining lowest 5% of performers and place it in a Frozen Fund
3. Toss the candidates into a cauldron and bring them to a boil 
4. Whip them into a froth with a basic mix of bland intrinsic motivators (see the Appendix for a list of Pink-approved incentives) leavened with a pinch of sweet gold dust
5. Garnish the survivors with distributions from the Step 2 Frozen Fundaccording to The One and Only Magic Matrix (see Chapter 8)
6. Serves exactly the right number (as specified in the Chapter 33Master Count Table)

David J. Thomsen, PhD, founder of the rival pay survey publishing house ERI Economic Research Institute, expressed admiration at the ambition of the researchers but scoffed at the prospect that any one book could encompass the entire realm of tradecraft knowledge, saying: “Really?  No way.”  The even more distinguished Keystone Award Winner PhD Jay Schuster retorted with an argumentative but articulate lengthy book review response: “Yes, way.”  Readers are invited to decide for themselves.

Elements of The Compensation Cookbook include:
• The most popular sales incentive programs found at TARP firms in 2007
• Bilingual pay premium rates for left-handed English-speakers at Venezuelan oil export companies 
• The one average pay increase rate uniformly suited for every job at every employer
• Staffing formulae that will assure the appropriate growth of the HR department 
• Calculators to compute the perfect benefit package for each new hire
• A universal holiday schedule appropriate for application in any nation on Earth
• The correct pay compression emergency relief valve setting
• A Taxonomy of Pay Premiums, detailing all the ways to justify demanding extra money
• Advanced methods for forced performance distributions to guarantee strict limits on the proportion of workers permitted to excel
• Special applications for outside consultants hired to cook the books

FLASH Update:  Unfortunately, it appears that publication may be delayed due to a special request by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. OPM asked that the release of the trade secrets be deferred until the revolutionary consensus Best Practice concepts of The Compensation Cookbook are ridiculedtested by the National Academy of Sciences and broken ruined applied in the Federal sector first.

E. James (Jim) Brennan, former Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI, recently returned to consulting. Author of the Performance Management Workbook and veteran expert witness in executive compensation trials, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

No Statue of Entitlement

There is no statue of entitlement, nor is there any law guaranteeing a right to anything you want.  Yet.  Maybe there should be a statute of entitlement, too, because that concept seems to reflect many popular expectations.  We compensation professionals have been slow to face the implications of how entitlement attitudes affect reward management practices.

Commercial advertisers are much quicker to apply practical knowledge about behavioral economic psychology than bureaucratic stuck-in-the-mud compensation managers. Note that the entitlement mindset underlies most advertising pitches. Ubiquitous TV ads promise this law firm will get you what you deserve. Your natural right of freedom to do whatever you want is broadcast every time you look around. The United Nations has declared access to internet service is a basic human right. Your entitlement to (fill in the blanks) is loudly proclaimed by every vendor of that product or service.

My least favored commercials are the ones with the background of that large green lady on the island in the harbor behind the sardonic pitch-person(s). The presenter gives a short tale of heart-breaking loss and then expresses indignation, sneering sarcastic aspersions against any insurance company too heartless to automatically provide 100% replacement cost coverage. They literally condemn any insurer who fails to issue a policy where the buyer assumes no risk. By the time the mockumercial ends, one would think that supplying exactly what was promised somehow cheats the consumer who deliberately chose it.

Forget that insurance actuaries would place an extremely high price on original-value reimbursement policy premiums, making them so expensive that no sensible comparison-shopping customer would ever pay it. No, the decision to take out a reasonably priced insurance policy with coverage for less than full original market value is considered the fault of the company that permitted it as one of its options. Every capitalistic enterprise is happy to charge you more for its most profitable product. But the priciest option doesn't get selected that often, except by the filthy rich for whom cost is irrelevant: to them, the greater the expense, the more bragging power it provides.

Normal people don't brag about paying high insurance premiums; neither do they consider actuarial statistics nor dwell on product pricing practices.  They certainly do not live flagrantly like the excessively wealthy who spend without regard for costs. Regular folks are conservative about incurring regularly continuing expenses to pay for something they never expect to need. Rather than commit to the most expensive insurance protection plan, middle-class buyers will routinely select a more reasonable policy with an acceptable deductible and coverage only for the depreciated value of their product. Yet, after the fact, everyone wishes they could recover the original full cost of their purchase. Everyone includes employees, too.  We are all influenced by those media-presented depictions of how we are supposed to react.  Blaming the supplier for giving you a choice you later regret is a hypocritical manipulation of the ever-popular entitlement syndrome.

Perhaps a new wind is blowing. A story about a mother instructing her child how to assert his own right to stand up to peer pressure and decline to share his toys has gone viral. The implication is that entitlement has limits.

Or I could be wrong. Maybe this is just a different version of the same old same old "I have a right," drumbeat, but merely inverted into an opposition to infringement of your right to be selfish and to refuse the demands of others. Put into a compensation framework, is everyone entitled to a raise? Does the employer even have a right to deny productive workers pay increases?

One way or another, workers absorb the attitudes of their society, so employers must be prepared to deal with those cultural expectations.   Professional progress is a lot easier when moving with the current rather than fighting against it. 

How have you most successfully coped with the entitlement expectation?

E. James (Jim) Brennan, former Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI, recently returned to consulting. Author of the Performance Management Workbook and veteran expert witness in executive compensation trials, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

"Statue of Liberty" image by Demitrios Lazos, courtesy of Creative Commons

Manager Title or Director Title Distinctions

Manager or director? That is the question.

Titles communicate level of responsibility over a work function, so the process by which such labels are determined is important to compensation professionals. Since title has an immense effect on pay, status rank, power, authority, prestige and other elements of the total remuneration package, title assignments can be one of the most contentious elements in the human resources profession.

Manager versus director is a frequently encountered challenge. Whether a particular job is labeled one or the other depends on certain specific features. The category distinctions that permit differences to be clearly and consistently defined between manager and director as a title are many and varied. This list of conventional "cutters" may not be totally comprehensive or universally applicable, but it probably captures the most commonly used variables and allows some general observations.

• industry
• positional sequence of the modifier
• employer tradition
• sensitivity to unit size

Industry: Specific industries treat General Manager and Project/Program Manager titles as exceptions, giving them unique ranks and meanings. Public utility GMs can hold top executive powers over subordinate department directors and functional managers. The actual work of PMs ranges widely in job content and authority in different industry applications like technology, MIS, construction, R&D even HR. In most enterprise types, manager roles carry fairly consistent job values regardless of unit size. Industry also determines the size metrics that most accurately predict executive compensation.

Modifier positional sequence: Exactly where the word "manager" appears in the benchmark occupational label makes quite a difference. Many managers are "a manager in the field of" (one of many peers at the same organizational level) rather than the only manager over that entire organizational function. A Manager of Accounting might be one of many at a peer level, each specializing in a discrete slice of the general accounting occupational pie. The Accounting Manager, on the other hand, controls the whole thing. Some titles supervise numerous people while deferring to higher authorities for direction over the section. Others are individual contributors handling a responsibility area with few if any directly-reporting subordinates.

Tradition: Internal equity is always unique in every enterprise. Relative rank and organizational status doesn't always track with an outside economic reality where pay is set by external open market transactions. Surveys use benchmark titles because they can't capture individual variable practices for summary analysis any other way. Variable historical customs can create confusing title matches, depending on the balance of internally determined value between the roles assigned by top management. Two job titles may look quite similar but can be dramatically different in pay classifications and organizational status level. Accept that your tradition may not translate well for solid comparisons with other peer employers.

Size: Double the organization size and how are the incumbents in each title handled? Managers are typically spawned clones where fission takes place after great growth. For directors, growth brings an expansion of the same person's leverage platform.  When an organization gets a lot bigger, more managers slots are created. Growth has different effects on size-sensitive senior management ranks like directors or vice-presidents. Those true executive incumbents see their power and pay expand. The sole individual department head or functional officer remains the same person while the value of their expanded directorship or VP role increases according to an industry-unique equation driven by size. Those senior executives often end up supervising many more subordinate managers, too. 

As the organization gets bigger, you typically add more managers who are each employed at about the same price to do about the same thing with a slightly different twist. With growth, most directors and VPs remain the same person with much higher pay directly related to the size they impact.  Instead of adding more executives, you instead usually give the same individual incumbent director or VP greater bottom line leverage. 

OK, now where am I totally wrong? What important broadly conventionally accepted practice have I missed?

E. James (Jim) Brennan, former Compensation Editor of the Personnel Journal and Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI, recently returned to consulting. Author of the Performance Management Workbook and frequent expert witness in executive compensation trials, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

"Stony Brook University" image by Sam Levitan, courtesy of Creative Commons

Female Overcommitment Is Not Rewarded

Women work differently than men.  One major difference leads to much mutual frustration because neither gender fully understands the viewpoint of the other. I have always called it female overcommitment.  It is rarely observed in men but frequently occurs among the hardest working and most unappreciated women.  The closest similar male behavior comes from the founding fathers of organizations; but their dedication to the well-being of their enterprises is generally recognized, prized and rewarded.  Not so for the female victims of this widely misunderstood syndrome.

Background:  Although controversy is no stranger to me, I have always carefully refrained from openly discussing this topic and thus exposing one of my longest held theories about women and work.  While unafraid of appearing sexist to those who know my distinguished history of comparable worth pay equity activism, strangers to my lifetime body of work could easily dismiss my admittedly purely subjective comments here as the erratic musings of a misogynist.  Again, not so, although I will admit to moments of erratic behavior. 

My professional friend Suzette Haden Elgin confirmed in a personal meeting what I had long observed.  Women are socialized in a unique manner even in traditional enlightened Western cultures.  Little boys and little girls are usually raised with distinctly different behavioral expectations.  Look at what is generally taught as the standard societal roles of each sex.

Men:

• defend and protect
• obey instructions
• handle designated responsibilities
• complete assignments and achieve specific objectives
• receive praise for exercising initiative and doing more than required

Women:

• nurture and cherish
• respond to needs
• are responsible for everything
• must make everyone happy
• are criticized for acting outside the limits of their jobs

A guy completes his list of tasks, then retires to the man cave for a beer and a game on TV; but the woman is expected to continue to toil indefinitely, sacrificing her time for family welfare until absolutely nothing remains undone.  The female role -- to please everyone -- is an impossible task.  Granted, these are broad generalizations with limited examples, but hey ... this is a blog article!

Human resources professionals who deal with distributing compensation rewards come into constant contact with the many victims of self-imposed female overcommitment.  I have found them in every type of organization:  government agencies, military units, major universities, multinational conglomerates, regular corporations, private companies, neighborhood businesses, charities and foundations ... literally anywhere women work. They are typically upset with their employer, frustrated by the organization's lack of appropriate appreciation for their dedication.  Even when paid on the high side of their job's earning range, they still rage at what they see as unreasonable limits on their continual attempts to go the extra mile ... to fix those nagging low-priority problems ... to spread their arms to encompass uncompleted (or badly done) tasks dropped dismissively by others (typically men).  "He doesn't LET me do what is needed!" is the war cry of the excessively over-committed woman. It is usually a guy who blocks their constant attempts to do too much. 

Their male bosses just don't get it.  They only see workers straying beyond their boundaries of authority.  Following the male method learned from the crib and reinforced in every social situation throughout their lives, they attempt to constrain the female determined to do what is "not her job."  The bewildered women guilty of this offense have similarly absorbed the very different lesson that they are supposed to fix whatever is wrong.  THAT is their self-perceived real job description. 

Overcommited women find it virtually impossible to accept my usual advice:  Just do your job.  You care more than they do, so take pride and comfort in your superior occupational dedication that goes far beyond the required or even appreciated work output standards.  He doesn't WANT you to do so much, work so hard or care so deeply.  The intensity of your concern about the welfare of your employer is unhealthy for you exactly because it is unappreciated.  Don't expect to be rewarded for doing what they don't want done.  In fact, anticipate correction, criticism or punishment for exceeding your boss's expectations.

Female managers who respond in the "male" manner are exceptions.  They will prosper in the workplace.  Am I right or not?

E. James (Jim) Brennan is a total rewards advisor with extensive multi-industry corporate HR and consulting experience.  Past Compensation Editor of the Personnel Journal and last Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI, he is consulting again. Author of the Performance Management Workbook, and frequent expert witness in executive compensation trials, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

"Frustrated Woman at Computer With Stack of Paper" image by Goldi Bajpai, courtesy of Creative Commons

Ban the Box for Crime but Discriminate Over Past Pay

Stop asking job applicants about criminal records but continue to discriminate against those with an unacceptable past pay history. Does that make sense to you?

One state proposes to "Ban the Box" on employment forms that must be checked to disclose any criminal background. At the same time, they have no problem with permitting instant discrimination against applicants with unacceptable prior income levels.

Killed someone before? No problem, if the justice system says you have paid your debt to society and are safe to walk free to lead a productive life henceforth. A few (or even many) mistakes should not automatically make you ineligible for a job. After all, how are ex-cons expected to rehabilitate themselves if they are arbitrarily denied employment over some bad decision that has now been rectified, repaid or properly punished? The proposed protective anti-bias legislation is sensible, with obvious exceptions.  It also permits exploration of criminal history after initial screening suggests the candidate appears to have the qualifications for the opening.

If malefactors have paid their debt to society, their candidacy for a paying job would be judged on the basis of their positive qualifications rather than their worst negative acts. Applicant knowledge, skills, abilities, experience and potential should be the primary employment criteria. Job seekers should not be disqualified by an aspect of their past life that has no bearing on their ability to perform the specified duties. Simple justice argues that employment applicants should not be immediately excluded from consideration by the exposure of mistakes for which the price has already been paid.

Sadly, the same logic applied to criminal mistakes is not carried over to "the mistake" of earning a prior amount that upsets the hiring manager. No crime was committed. No earlier economic decision by a different employer in different circumstances has any bearing on the applicant's qualifications for this particular open position, either. Disclosed prior pay amounts will still be used against the interests of the candidate, even when the prospective employer refuses to mention its anticipated offer figure or share its existing pay range.

Doesn't the free open market for labor demand parity between the parties conducting economic transactions? Employers who refuse to reveal hiring rates have no right to demand that applicants disclose their prior income levels. If someone wants a job at the pay rate offered by the employer, they should have the opportunity to get it instead of being disqualified before they ever get a chance.

Why are hiring managers so unwilling to disclose the amounts they plan to offer for the opening? Let the candidate reject the amount if it is unacceptable or negotiate a total reward package that is mutually agreeable. Applicants who earned far less in other enterprises will be enthusiastic about a new job with a far higher value. Any hiring manager who low-balls an excellent candidate so as to land them at a discounted rate is being stupidly shortsighted.  That will only disrupt internal equity and threaten market competitiveness. The inevitable eventual embarrassing rotten equity adjustment can be avoided by paying right at the start. Those who earned a lot more elsewhere might be happy to be paid correctly rather than remain uncomfortably employed waiting for the axe to fall. Outfits with really bad work conditions often "compensate" with extraordinary guaranteed cash amounts which make escape very difficult.

Irrelevant questions about past pay history introduce bias, making it impossible for those who are paid "wrong" to ever get a chance for a serious interview. When someone reveals prior pay that is too high or too low, their resume goes into the round file. Ex-cons who escaped the electric chair might advance towards final consideration while those whose prior income fell outside some magic range are toast. Without ever knowing the reason, perfectly competent applicants are regularly and routinely excluded for reasons that have nothing to do with their competence, qualifications or willingness to work. A career death sentence can be rendered without any fair trial.

This is wrong. Why do human resource professionals allow this?

E. James (Jim) Brennan, former Compensation Editor of the Personnel Journal and Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI, recently returned to consulting. Author of the Performance Management Workbook and frequent expert witness in executive compensation trials, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review. 

"Application" image by Elissa Pulliam, courtesy of Creative Commons

A Paid Day Off

Hope you have seen this before.

So you want a day off, huh? Well, let’s just take a look at what you’re asking for, OK?

There are 365 days per year, making that 52 weeks in the year. You already have 2 days off per week, leaving just 261 days available for work. Since you already spend 16 hours each day away from work you’ve used up 170 days, leaving only 91 days left to work. You spend 30 minutes each day on coffee breaks which accounts for 23 days each year, now leaving only 68 days available. With a 1 hour lunch break each day, you used up another 46 days, leaving only 22 days available for work. You normally spend 2 days per year on sick leave, leaving you only 20 days per year available for work. We are off 5 holidays per year, so your available working time is down to 15 days.

Look, we generously give 14 days vacation per year, which leaves only 1 day available for work ... and I’ll be darned if you’re going to get that day off!

Fellow Compensation Cafe contributor Dan Walter inspired my search for this old amusing joke ("5 holidays a year" dates it) when he wisely observed in an inter-contributor email recently: "February is a dumb short month. All months should be 30 days. And the last five days of the years should simply be Year End (and should be treated as holidays).  And ... each month should have 5 work weeks.  Each work week should be should be 4 days on and 2 days off.  Each work day should be 9 hours.  Total work hours if full time = 2,160 hours  (9*4 = 36hr/week, 36*5 = 180hr/month, 180*12 = 2,160hr/year.  If pay remains relatively steady ... we win!"

Might be another clever way to squeeze even more work for less pay out of people while bragging that we are only modernizing the antique Gregorian calendar, replacing it with the new nifty simpler Walterian calendar system.  More seriously, it is hardly more nonsensical than some rationalizations human resources and compensation people are required to create to defend many an impractical formal policy slam-dunked into immediate effect by overenthusiastic senior executives.  Right?

Bet others have seen worse.  If so, please share short summaries.  Also would like to see some savvy coherent "rebuttals" analyzing the flawed logic presented above in such statistically precise format.  Then we can vote on the best shortest clearest critique of the confusing but semi-impressive babble that seems so very representative of our typical HR jargon. 

Even if we can't get a paid day off, at least we can enjoy each day we pretend to work.

E. James (Jim) Brennan is a total rewards advisor with extensive multi-industry corporate HR and consulting experience.  Past Compensation Editor of the Personnel Journal and last Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI, he recently returned to consulting. Author of the Performance Management Workbook, popular speaker and frequent expert witness in executive compensation trials, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review. 

"School Calendar 2017-2018" courtesy Creative Commons