Compensation Cafe

Knowledge Is Influence, Not Power

The adage that knowledge is power does not always work in the business environment.  It’s nice to have but if you’re not already a decision-maker that knowledge of yours likely supports others, not yourself.

On the other hand, compensation practitioners can use knowledge as a component in their influence skills development, in developing their persuasiveness toward advancing their own agenda.

What You Know

During my career, the colleagues I worked with seldom if ever had a strong grasp of their employee population.  Yes, they knew how many were out there, and probably kept an alphabetized list (hopefully current) for pay plan administration, but that knowledge was always more broad than deep.  Could they answer the “How many this, how many that?” question?  Likely not.  Were they able to inject relevant data points into a discussion that might be able to sway group thinking one way or another?  Not so much.  They could go and “find out,” but by then the opportunity to impact the discussion would have passed.

The point is that we as compensation practitioners may be losing an opportunity to become more impactful in our roles when we spend more time looking at the broad horizon than looking right in front of us.  The data is there, we just must make use of it.

What You Should Know

Like a discussion about dashboard metrics, the “what” of your knowledge base can vary among organizations, based on such variables as the business model, current state of business/financial operations, management biases and how effective the current plans are doing.  This last one is opinion, of course.

Even if you work in an organization where change is a bad word, where resistance to altering course can stymie you at every turn, there are some basic data points of your population that, I believe, a compensation practitioner should be conversant with. Because it can help.

• Male vs. Female: How many of each category, their average pay and comparison, and whether they are clustered in (or restricted to) certain jobs.

• Racial demographics: Again, how many in each category, their average pay and comparison, and whether they are clustered in the bottom third of job grades.

• Workforce age: Average age can warn you about generational attitudes, pending retirements and likely impact on your benefit plan costs. It makes a difference whether you have a young or senior workforce, and where pockets of these jobs are.

• Length of service: How long are your employees staying with you, and are certain jobs more likely to leave than others? Are you training certain skills, just to see the employees depart?

• Number of jobs vs. number of employees: Do you have a title inflation problem, and with that an associated upward trend in fixed payroll costs? How many titles are out there and are they all valid – or perhaps you have the same job with several different titles, repeated over and over.

• Avoidable turnover: Avoidable mean you could have done something to retain the employees. So do not count retires, trailing spouses moving out of the area, deaths and disabilities, or even those you have terminated. What jobs did they hold?  How long where they employed?  What is their story? Can you spot any trends?

• Territory coverage by sales force: You do not see this issue covered much, but if your sales turnover is leaving territories uncovered, or other territories are having to double up, there is a problem. Sales will drop in the affected area(s), and relationship building will suffer as well.

• Compa-ratio: The relationship of an employee’s annual base pay to their pay range midpoint. In other words, never mind how competitive you say your pay ranges are, what is your practice? Are you paying competitively, and if not, who is suffering? You will need to identify who is impacted, and whether you see a treatment trend.

• Promotions: Sometimes overlooked, but how many employees get promoted, and what is their average promotional increase? And of course, what groups/jobs tend to be getting promoted – and who is in the dead-end jobs that never see promotions?

Influence Can be Power

Armed with specific information about your employee population (statistics, trends, titles, even employee names) you will be in a much better position to gauge the impact of proposals or new policies/procedures. And better positioned to argue your own point of view.  Because specifics trump generalities every time.  Actual impact data will often carry the day against assumptions, vague promises or “let’s leave things alone.”

And a wonderful thing may happen as well.  Folks, even senior folks might start listening to what you have to say.  Because numbers do not lie, and whoever can use objective specifics to support their position will likely carry the day.  Not every time, but enough times to make the effort well worth your effort.

And maybe, just maybe there is a bit of power in those numbers after all.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Cat-reading-glasses-with-paper," by Floho67

Consultants, Pick a Shoulder!

Compensation consulting is an odd profession. Companies hire consultants for all sorts of reasons. Some are looking for greater bandwidth. Others are looking for more extensive expertise. Some are checking a box on their “best practices” list. Others are truly looking for the guidance needed to solve a current problem or avoid one in the future. And there are those companies who are looking to get the answer they want, and only the answer they want. Knowing which of these companies you work for is a key to your consulting success.

Consultants, like a person’s horned and haloed conscience speaking into either ear in cartoons, usually pick a shoulder to sit on and stick to it. Some focus on doing what clients need, while others choose the shoulder of doing what clients want. Each shoulder provides different types of risks and rewards. The shoulder your consultant chooses is likely to be the reason you choose them.

Before we get into the details it is important to note that consultants cannot make the company do anything. A consultant simply provides information and the experience on how they feel that information can best be used. The final decisions and actions are up to the company or its Board of Directors. This is exactly how things should work. A company must have the autonomy to make the final choices. A good consultant contributes to whether the company understands if they are making a good choice.

Giving people what they want is the path of least resistance. Just like some parents choose to be the “party house” where high school kids can get together and drink while underage, some consultants will support almost anything. Being a cool parent usually leads to happy kids and popularity. Occasionally it leads to something more tragic. Consultants who choose this shoulder are often highly sought after. They make executives rich and allow HR professionals to defend virtually any decision. But the risks are real.

Many consultants provide a more authentic answer to any project deliverable. This can put them at odds with the people who hired them. Unlike the parent who will let their kids use the car to go to the party house, consultants can only point out the risks of partying and driving and hope that the message is heeded.

Here are some good considerations when you are hiring a consultant.

1. Are you looking for guidance or agreement?
2. Do you want a consultant to provide recommendations on what you want, or what you need?
3. Have you discussed this topic internally, to ensure that the consultant’s recommendations will be supported as recommendations move up the approval chain?
4. Have you been absolutely clear about the objective for the project? Some clients will take any work. Some will only take work that fits their own approach.

With these questions properly framed and answered you are likely to have a successful consulting relationship. Too often an HR or Compensation leader sees something wrong and brings in a consultant to “prove” this wrongness to people who do not want to hear about it. Make sure your stakeholders are on board with your plan before you bring the consultant in the door. The best consultant in the world cannot change things that leadership is unwilling to change. Getting stakeholder buy-in is the secret to less frustrating and more successful consulting engagements.

It is critically important to note that many consultants have convinced themselves that they are always sitting on the right shoulder. Defining your project and making sure you have the correct stakeholder support are the most effective method for ensuring you get the right guidance from any consultant.

Dan Walter is a CECP, CEP, and Fellow of Global Equity (FGE). He works as Managing Consultant for FutureSense. Dan is also a leading expert on incentive plans and equity compensation issues. He has written several industry resources including a resource dedicated to Performance-Based Equity Compensation. 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 @DanFutureSense.

What You Say, What They Hear

When compensation practitioners face the need to develop their first program recommendation for senior management a common mistake often made is for the practitioner to not consider what the audience expects to hear – which can be a fatal mistake.

The inexperienced often presume that they will be viewed as the acknowledged expert, and that their recommendations will carry a great deal of weight.  If they are fortunate, that will be true. However, more than likely running with an ego puffed up with notions of “expertise” will steer you straight into a brick wall.

I know.  I still have the bumps on my head.

What You Say Matters

In my experience members of senior management may not be familiar with compensation techniques, which is probably why they have a need for you.  However, they will still possess a series of personal biases of likes and dislikes, a basic knowledge of company-centric pay philosophies, and those well-developed internal cultural preferences that they feel “work” for them.

And while we’re talking communications, remember that it’s a two-way street.  Just telling someone something is not communicating if they don’t understand or have different perspectives.  So have a care of tripping up when communicating with the decision makers in your senior leadership.  Some terms to be cautious with:

• Average: Compensation practitioners may argue that, in many cases, the use of a Median figure is technically more accurate. But your audience likely may not know the compensation distinction, as in their minds they are thinking Average. Educating them on the difference, especially if slight, will distract the presentation away from its key points while still not changing anyone’s thinking.  You can avoid this potential glitch by using Average.

• Market Data: Most clients will presume that the market data you present is for their own jobs and within their own industry. Often this is not the case, what with generalist surveys, title match challenges and potential restrictions on how finely you can slice the data (industry, revenue size, geography, specific titles). Clarify your market analysis to avoid misunderstandings and later challenges.

• Incumbent Data: Your client will assume that your survey data represents a counting of actual employee incumbent pay rates across your survey sources. They will not understand the usage by some surveys of algorithm formulae to guess/presume/estimate pay levels.

• Quality of Data: Not every survey will deliver the same quality standards that you, and your client, will assume as a given. Small surveys, geographic cuts, industry-centric vs. general surveys and even self-reporting surveys (employees complete the questionnaire) should not be considered as providing data of equal value. But unless you qualify your sources your client may presume that they all offer the same credentials, or if questions arise, leaders may criticize all your sources as flawed.

• Survey Limitations: For many clients, just listing a series of survey sources can be enough to elicit nodding heads at your thoroughness. But every survey is a composite of a list of participating companies who try to match as many job titles as possible.  Therefore every survey will show a different number for the same job. Again, your client will (initially) give you the benefit of the doubt, lacking the knowledge to make critical assessments of the diversity of potential survey sources. It will become your role to educate them.

• Midpoints vs. Market Rates: Many times, a client will automatically presume that the midpoint of a pay range (within the organization’s pay structure) is the going rate (market rate) for that position/title. That they should be paying employees at that rate. Again, your role as educator is to explain the difference between a pay range midpoint and a market rate. And why every employee should not necessarily be paid at the midpoint.

• Smoking Gun vs. Pricing Guide: It will help your education process if you can get senior leadership to understand that survey data is not the holy grail of compensation analysis. That the figures representing your marketplace analysis are not a “smoking gun” but limited data that suggests that many employees (certainly not all) are paid at a particular average rate. In my view this data should be used as a “pricing guide” to aid the organization’s decision-making as to appropriate next steps. The data is NOT an “Aha! moment” that tells you what you should be paying.

As you can see, an ongoing responsibility sitting on your shoulders is to educate the decision-makers on how best to view the market data within your proposal/recommendations.  If left to their own devises your senior leadership may head off in the wrong direction, primarily because of their own biases and because they do not understand your behind-the-scenes analysis.

You need to make sure that they understand. Such educational success will make your job easier.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Mother," by Christopher Wray

Is Job Performance Still Important?

Have you ever watched and wondered how it is that some employees in your organization are recognized and moved upward, while others with more impressive credentials, experience and achievements seem to stagnate – and then eventually move out?

There’s a reason for that counter-intuitive phenomenon; you may have within your management ranks a form of “star chamber” or informal clique that anoints some employees (the chosen ones) while sidelining others.  Which explains why leadership mediocrity is sometimes overlooked, why personality can trump achievement and better-qualified employees may be passed over for promotion.  For the select few, middle-of-the-road performance does not become a barrier to success – like it is for the rest of us.

Not exactly what you hear in Management 101 training class is it?

What you are witnessing is an evolution of the informal pass-fail rating system that companies have used for generations to decide whether an employee is “one of us”.  Those deemed worthy receive a “get out of jail free card” that boosts their career.  Those lacking sponsors are categorized as having marginable value and are liable to suffer a fall at the next organizational bump in the road.

Do you remember the “in crowd” from your high school days?  You may not have escaped them after all.

All About PIE

Psychologists have identified several human factors that describe an employee’s ability to relate to their work environment.  While each may vary in importance from one organization to another, their combination has a critical impact on an employee’s likelihood of success.

• Performance: Your demonstrated ability to perform the job you were hired for. How well do you handle your role?  Do you achieve results?  The rating scale used is the traditional range of from wonderful to woeful.
• Image: Do you “fit” within the organization? Is the image you project (personality, interests, clothing, demeanor, etc.) accepted by the rest of Management?  This rating scale ranges from “one of us” to “one of them”.
• Exposure: To what extent are you known or would be recognized in the hallways by senior management? Who are you rubbing shoulders with?  Here the rating scale ranges from “You are known” to “Who?”

The Way It Was

It wasn’t that long ago that Performance was King; that no matter what eccentricities you brought to the job, as long as you performed well no one bothered you.  Idiosyncrasies and personality quirks were overlooked; “Oh, that’s just Bob”, you would be told.  “Don’t mind him.  Just deal with it.”  An employee's value was measured by getting the job done.

Management training classes would use a “scruffy-looking dude” as an example of a brilliant engineer buried beneath scraggly beard, long hair and mismatched clothes.  Such employees possessed little in the way of social skills, no interest in office politics or traditional business hours, and never wore the company logo.  Their job performance, their contribution to the business was their defining identifier.  It marked them as a valuable human resource.

Image could be important but was considered more as icing on the cake, not the critical ingredient.  Exposure was even less important, as long as you performed.  “Being seen” was more for those who lacked a strong performance record.  They were the ones who needed the help and support of others.

Btw, the classroom answer?  Treat each “dude” the same as you would anyone else.

The Way It Is

Today, good performance is not enough to ensure success.  Today you must also be a “player”.  You must be able to fit in, to blend with your other playmates, be liked as a person, adroitly play at office politics, be seen with the right people and have the same outside interests.  Your capabilities should not be a challenge to your boss.  How you dress is scrutinized for the image you present.

Of course, if you don’t perform well and you’re not in with the right group, your career with that firm will suffer.  You'll shrivel on the vine, if not ultimately find yourself chopped off.  However, if you're considered to be in with the right group, that association will step in to help should your performance leave something to be desired.  This assistance can vary from softening the blow to overlooking shortcomings (accusations never stick) to shooting the messenger on your behalf.  Club mates stick together.  They circle the wagons when attacked.  They get even.

What to Do?

Sound fair?  That’s the way it is when Performance is valued less than Image and Exposure.  But does that strategy have legs?  I don’t think so.  Leadership and a cadre of high performing people are critical requirements to drive your business forward.  You need such outwardly focused success drivers, not those more concerned about internal group dynamics.

Should you find yourself working for an organization where your personal interests and hobbies are valued more than performance and results, your options will be limited.

• You can try to re-invent yourself according to someone else’s value system, but how much success will you have?
• You can try to stay under the radar screen, lest you be judged – but that doesn’t work as a long-term career plan.
• You can try to change the culture.  Well, good luck with that!
• Or you can leave.

If you believe that your job performance is your best calling card, that employees should be measured and weighed primarily by their contributions, you may need to reconsider the long-term prospects of your current environment.  Because this PIE could leave a bad taste in your mouth.

In such a case, leave the mediocrity behind.  Change can be a good thing.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Employee," by Southern Methodist University

Management Style is Like a Box of Chocolates

With apologies to Forrest Gump but considering the variety of management styles out there can be like opening a box of assorted chocolates.  There are so many possibilities.  Some can offer a good experience for those on the receiving end, bringing a smile to one's face, while others can have you frowning with unfortunate memories and leave an unpleasant taste in your mouth.

Consider this scenario:  You as the hiring manager are in the middle of an interview with a candidate you like.  You want this person to join your organization.  The conversation is progressing well when, out of the blue you're asked, "Can you describe how your staff views your management style?"

Not how you view it, but those on the receiving end.

Tricky question, as it's possible that your staff considers your approach to leadership in a different light perhaps than how you view yourself in the mirror.  This is like the "weakness" question, a potential trap for the unwary.   What are you prepared to say about yourself?  To admit about yourself.  Provide the wrong answer here and if the candidate has other options they might look elsewhere.

The Name Game

The possibilities to describe who you are as a manager, while they have several names, can be sorted into a limited number of personalities.   Do you consider yourself . . .?

• The Team Manager: "We're all in this together, folks" is the credo of this collaborative style leader.  While we may be a homogeneous team as an aspirational goal, sometimes this manager may decide that group needs outweigh that of high performers.   Rewards may be skewed toward everybody, vs.  toward individual achievement.  Also, can tough individual employee decisions be made, ones that might impact the team?

 

• Absentee Manager:  Like an absentee landlord this boss lets you get on with it, whether you have the tools, guidance, or knowledge enough to achieve your assigned tasks or not.  They don't bother you, even when you need to be.  They're out to lunch a great deal.  You're on your own, until you mess up.

 

• Micro Manager: "Here's how I would do it" is a common phrase that gets old quickly.  This is the manager who can't let go, who stifles creativity and will always remind you how they used to do things when they had your job.  There is only one way to do things.  Did I mention stifling?

 

• Wind Under Your Wings Manager:  This is the supportive manager who focuses on developing the career of everyone on the team.  This leader will have your back and will work with you to develop yourself, but sometimes at the sacrifice of their own performance.   Senior leadership may have other expectations.

 

• Textbook Manager:  Pick a management text or self-improvement guide and you'll find this manager is there, whatever the term used.  The paragon of management styles does everything right and by the book; they are principled, delegate and communicate well, know the business, and know how to lead the team by example.   However, this person may not really exist outside of those same textbooks.  Perhaps they’re too good to be true.

 

• Political Manager:  Sometimes known as the "SOB."  This is the glad-handing boss who knows everyone higher up on the organization chart.  They may find it difficult to voice opinions or make decisions without first checking the impact on the preferences and attitudes of affected higher ups.  They can't say no to the politically connected, even when no is what should be said.  Not much of a backbone here, so core beliefs can be a bit wishy-washy.  You might be tossed under the bus for the sake of political correctness.  You cannot rely on this manager to do anything but what is in their own self interest.  Often the idea of employee turnover starts here.

The positive aspects for the personalities described above sound great and are fine to be offered up as your opinion to that questioning candidate in our scenario, but the actual question was . . . what does your staff think?

Note: I haven't lectured about which management style is "bad."   I trust that designation is self evident.  Hopefully, those who see themselves as needing to make a change - will do so.

Who Is Really Out There?

Have a care here.  It's very likely that your own management style doesn't neatly fit into one of the above labels.  Instead, most personality styles are a combination or composite of several of the attributes we've listed, and more characteristics, for good or ill, can likely be named.  Chances are, though, that each manager, each personality leans toward one label or other; this is the 70 - 30 majority rule.  And that leaning is where reputations are built.  Where labels stick.

Employees react to how they're personally affected, and by what they hear from those they trust or perceive to be "in the know."  So as well intentioned as you might be, it's always wise to check the pulse of your staff.  You might have a reputation that surprises you.  And while you might think they have it wrong, you're not the one who gets to decide.

By being truthful to yourself and to that questioning candidate you increase the likelihood of a good hire and a long serving employee.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "6273248505_43d0b56424_o"

Compensation Managers Need to Manage

Having technical smarts isn't enough to manage either the staff or the function.

I once supervised a strong performing technical compensation analyst who was eager to work his way into a management role.  This fellow was a whiz at spreadsheets, data analysis, and survey modeling.  When you needed a number, you knew whom to ask.

However, he was not so good at explaining compensation matters to internal clients and often experienced stumbling difficulties with personal interactions when required to deal with contentious issues.  Relying primarily on his technical background he was all about the black-and-white numbers with those he dealt with, even when the landscape turned grey, and the client needed new thinking - an alternative approach.

The career challenge this fellow faced was being able to morph from an objective in-the-trenches technical analyst into a broader, more visionary, and subjective role, one that required a comfortable understanding of the "big picture."

The challenge was too much for this fellow and he was not promoted.

Job Growth

A long time ago, when I was a Compensation Analyst myself, I worked on a lot of spreadsheets and job evaluations.  When I became a Compensation Manager I dealt with fewer spreadsheets and fewer job evaluations, because someone else helped.  Then, when I became a Director of Compensation one of my subordinates was assigned to the spreadsheets and job evaluations.  I remained accountable but was able to assign the responsibility elsewhere.

Thus, the higher I rose the hierarchy the broader my vision of compensation needed to become, moving from looking straight down my nose at the desk in front of me to over the employee's heads and onto the horizon and beyond.  Which meant that, as I dealt less with compensation details on a day-to-day basis, the required tools and competencies of my role changed.  My role became part of management.

The process of managing Compensation usually consists of two levels:

• Manage the staff: You have subordinate employees whom you are responsible to lead.  This means hiring, firing, assessing performance, making staff pay decisions, assigning work, training and developing and in general making sure that your employees get their work done in a proper fashion (done right and on time).  Your own manager should be measuring you at least as much as a leader of employees as for the individual contributor role you used to play.
• Manage the function: In addition to the above, here your responsibility is to lead the compensation function; to take control of the company's reward programs and either administrate them or convert them to better support business objectives.  Here lies the responsibility for vision, persuasiveness, and higher-level personal interface.

If your role is administrative in nature, to keep the ship afloat and maintain what's been done before, you can manage the staff without having to manage the function.  Vision will not be expected of you.  On the other hand, I've seen bad managers who were good at the vision part, but hopeless when it came to people skills (their staff and clients).

The harder task is to lead, to have the perspective and the confidence to drive the function forward.  It means taking reasonable risks, being able to defend and justify your recommendations and being able to influence senior leadership to move in the general direction you espouse.

And by the way, having great technical skills in no way guarantees that you'll have similar success with management skills.  Workplaces are littered with the false dreams of those unable to adapt to a new set of required competencies. 

Likely we've all seen folks who can “talk the talk” but cannot “walk the talk.”

I, Manager

The point is that, whichever role you find yourself in, being an effective manager requires that you focus on the people side - your employees and your clients.  It means that, to a large extent, you need to separate yourself from those technical tasks that you personally performed earlier in your career.  You should delegate detail work to subordinates while you deal with the broader issues and more direct interfaces with clients and management.

It will entail you learning a whole new set of skills - management skills.

But some folks don't like to leave their spreadsheets and survey analyses behind.  These are those who fail to fully embrace their management responsibilities but continue to play an individual contributor role - as if their title remained an Analyst, not a Manager or even a Director.

The Brits would ruefully shake their heads; poor form, poor form.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Friday cat photo," by jim_mcculloch

What Does "Engagement" Mean These Days? And Why Should It Matter to Comp?

Our Compensation responsibilities don't stop at numbers. They include performance management, reward strategy, career development, compensation communications, among many other key influencers of employee engagement.

The sudden reimagining of jobs from on-site to at-home has affected what jobs "mean," let alone the employee's role in the organization. Plus, remote workers are not motivated in quite the same way as they were when they sat in an office down the hall. As I quoted in a recent Compensation Cafe article, our new organizational models are rocking our work relationships because we are changing:

. . . the organizational norms that underpin culture and performance -- [not only] ways of working [but also] standards of behavior and interaction -- that help create a common culture, generate social cohesion, and build shared trust."

This should be reflected in the work we are doing. There's nothing more important in Compensation's role than building shared trust and thus engagement. It's not in our typical job description, yet it is a role that we are quite proud of.

With that in mind, I thought I'd touch on some of the programs that will probably need adjustments to reflect the new "standards of behavior and interaction" that have emerged for employees who work from home in your organization.

• Career architecture -- How employees get assignments and how they move up through their careers are both changing because of the adjustments to how we work. You may find that you need these processes to be more flexible, more manager driven, and thus more transparent. Because of this, you may have to change your approach to leveling your jobs.
  
  Not an overhaul, but an adjustment, so job dimensions can play multiple roles.  You'll want them to be used for easy employee assessments by managers to facilitate project assignments, as well as to check readiness for new responsibilities. (Some of you may already have salary survey services that provide this type of career architecture, making it easy to adapt to career development purposes.)
  
  
• Performance expectations -- Most organizations should consider reassessing performance priorities based on the new ways that remote employees work. For one thing, the competencies that are prioritized in an onsite organization are not identical to the ones that are important to an organization of remote workers, or to an organization of remote and onsite workers.
  
  Communication and teamwork, as well as organizational literacy, are competencies that may have inched their way up in importance because they impact employees' MBO performance in this new environment. Of course, if your organization has announced a strategic shift post Covid, MBOs should be refined accordingly, emphasizing the collaborative dimensions of our new work styles.
  
  
• Employee listening -- There are many reasons why Compensation professionals should feel overwhelmed these days. Count on employees feeling that way, too. Instead of using the disarray as a reason to avoid surveys and focus groups, try to look long-term. You're probably guessing that employees feel the same way you do. But now that we rely on Zoom to pull us together, there are fewer occasions to take the organization's temperature.
  
  You could use some good data if you want to make sound decisions. Remember that surveys tell you WHAT people are thinking. Focus groups tell you WHY they are thinking that way. So if you want to understand WHY stuff is going on, be sure to include focus groups in your strategy.
  
  
• Manager tools -- I have written about how you can help managers give performance feedback and pay information on video calls. That's just one example of the type of help managers need right now. After all, their own jobs have changed, they need to guide employees through jobs that are changing, and they are tired. The stress everyone is feeling can easily leak into their important employee meetings. You'll build a safety net by providing tools like the ones described in my article.
  
  
• Pay Transparency -- If you don't hear the creaks and thwaps coming from your compensation communication strategy, you're probably not paying attention. The era of remote workers will accelerate the need for open book management, if only to equip people with what they need to get their job done. If you haven't started thinking about how you might develop pay transparency in your organization, don't wait much longer.
  
  
• Change management -- If there is one thing that we've learned recently, it's how effective our company is at change management. Change is going to be the way of life for a long while. Make sure you help employees build that acceptance into their mindset, and plan some self-assessments for Compensation and Human Resources to polish your own change management effectiveness.

Margaret O'Hanlon, CCP brings deep expertise to discussions on employee pay, performance management, career development and communications at the Café. Her firm, re:Think Consulting, provides market pay information and designs base salary structures, incentive plans, career paths and their implementation plans. Earlier, she was a Principal at Willis Towers Watson. A former Board member for the Bay Area Compensation Association (BACA), Margaret coauthored the popular eBook, Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communications, a toolkit that all practitioners can find at everythingiscommunication.com.

Compensation Intersects with Management Recruiting

One of the multiple hats I wear as a Compensation Consultant is working with executives in transition, helping prepare them for the employment offer so eagerly sought.  We look at ways to improve what the employer has put on the table, to position candidates for negotiating the best package they can.

A common misconception is that during the interview process candidates are dealing with only the internal recruiter and the hiring manager.  A more accurate picture however is that, when it comes to developing an employment offer for management positions the employer's Compensation function often occupies another seat at the negotiating table, and they have a critical part to play.

The first two participants in this internal triumvirate have well-known roles to play.  However, the third?  Not so much.

• The Recruiter: The face of the company.  These folks screen the candidates, present them to the hiring manager, and as necessary represent the selected candidate in late stage negotiations.  They do not create the employment offer but deliver it.
• The Hiring Manager: He who makes the call.  Here is the person with the job opening, the decision-maker as to who is selected for the employment offer.  They hold the purse strings in the form of department budget, and they will have an offer number in mind.
• Compensation: Thumbs up or thumbs down?  This person (Analyst, Manager or even Director+) often plays the role of the gatekeeper or policeman, the one at the table with the policy manual in the left hand and a spreadsheet of employee pay practices in the right.

Like a branch of the federal government, Compensation serves as a check and balance against the other two roles; the objective advisor intent on preventing a blind focus on an individual candidate, to the possible detriment of existing employees or the business.  Here is the "bad guy" cop who reminds the others of budgets, precedence and the risks of internal equity issues.

But they're all professionals, right?  So why does Compensation need to get involved, when they pretty much stay in their offices for the lower level employment offers?

A Necessary Evil?

Once you reach the upper management/executive level it's common practice for the recruiter and the hiring manager to talk with someone in Compensation to help determine (or simply review) an appropriate base salary offer.  Why?

First, it's likely a matter of policy, a double-check requirement that for senior management roles HR must be involved with setting the compensation package. At the upper level there are more moving parts within an employment offer. And therefore the greater likelihood of negotiations.

Then there is the matter of heightened sensitivity, where a limited number of key jobs creates an environment of greater visibility and individual impact.  The company can't afford to make mistakes here, as the health of the business itself may be at stake.  Even senior hiring managers often look for support when they seek to make such critical employment decisions.

What Compensation Does

When dealing with Management offers Compensation would consider:

• Where the suggested base salary fits within the hiring range, against candidate expectations, the internal budget, the previous job holder and how large an increase it might represent for the candidate
• The salaries of similar or peer job holders (internal equity) and those at the next level (to make sure the new employee doesn't create compression issues with those in larger roles)
• As may be necessary assist with negotiations, to suggest where opportunities exist to improve the offer without harming internal equity concerns, creating damaging precedence or budgetary difficulties
• Serving as counselor to the hiring manager to address the need for balance between immediate staffing demands and likely internal outcomes.  Are we doing the right thing here?
• Is a hiring offer being considered for the candidate? There would be questions of eligibility, amount, and impact on the overall offer.

What Compensation Does Not Consider:

• Whether the candidate is qualified.  No one would conduct an interview or have any face time at all.
• Organization issues such as title, reporting relationships or job responsibilities.  Any of those issues, and some can be problematical, should be dealt with before candidate selection.
• Would not compare the candidate against other employees (performance) except for the potential of internal pay equity issues.
• Would not have the authority to prevent an offer but would have the responsibility to give a controversial offer visibility beyond the hiring manager if a concern is raised.  In other words, if consensus cannot be reached and the hiring manager is adamant, it's time to raise a red flag for a higher-level arbiter.

Compensation doesn't decide the offer amount either, though they may make suggestions if asked.  More typically they react to what the hiring managers are planning to go forward with.

Compensation's role therefore is one of protection, of making sure that everyone's eyes are open as to the ramifications of whatever is put on the table for the candidate to consider.  A winning formula is everyone’s goal, where equitable balance has been achieved and the new employee is excited and engaged.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Confidence," by petesimon

A Sad State of Affairs

Are you surprised that when dealing with someone in Human Resources you are sometimes not treated with common courtesy and respect?  Have you ever been the victim of bureaucratic confusion, inadequate or careless responses to your need for assistance, or perhaps have been the recipient of an attitude that you’re bothering busy and important people?

Me too.  Isn’t it sad though, that many of us are no longer surprised when receiving such treatment from those whose role it is to represent us, the employees?  Those who should be looking out for our interests.  The ones who should be speaking up on our behalf.  Aren't they supposed to be the "people persons"?

All too often the behavioral element that seems to be missing is a professionalism that we had expected was our due.  Aren't they there to help us?

Today it seems that being a business “partner” is aligning yourself with management and not with employees.

Expect Too Much?

What does the word “professional” mean to you?  It seems such an easy designation to claim, many times assumed through the title being used.

To me the word means someone who stands a notch above, providing a raised standard of performance, coupled with a higher level of knowledge and experience, of having a greater sense of workplace ethics.  This is the “go-to” person when you’re in trouble and need help.  The professional is someone to put your faith in, someone to help get you out of a jam.

So, how do you feel when someone you have mentally elevated to that rank, or has claimed that designation, instead misrepresents themselves by not following through in an appropriate manner?

Makes you mad, doesn’t it?  If you're in a customer situation, it may well convince you never to return.  You might never do business with “them” again, as they have broken your trust.

In Human Resources the term “Professional” is a designation that is easy to claim, yet for some a rather difficult standard to live up to.  And once lost, that aura of “better than thou” is difficult to recoup.  For example, being suddenly anointed as a “manager” conveys to the outside world that you must be a “professional” – yet the knowledge and experience that brought you this far won’t be enough to maintain that veneer, unless you start to behave like one.

So why are some HR "professionals" perceived as acting as anything but?  Some examples:

• Overusing the "it's the policy" answer when turning away employee requests, without providing an explanation
• Treating employees with either rudeness (no time for you) or condescension (they are doing you a favor)
• Providing an answer that depends on who is asking
• Treating the core value of personal ethics as a moving target, subject to periodic and varying degrees of interpretation – like a politician without a moral compass
• Failure to treat employees with the courtesy and respect due to fellow team members; forgetting that the organization is composed of “we”, not “you vs. me”
• Simple missteps, like failing to respond to colleagues who have contacted you.  No one appreciates being ignored.

Likely you have your own examples.

Don’t Be a Fraud

Often I’ve heard it said that being a professional, aside from having letters after your name, means that you profess to stand for something.   If you don’t, or only do so when it’s convenient, then all the certifications and official papers “suitable for framing” won’t truly describe who and what you are.

So why do some HR professionals treat us this way?  Likely it’s a combination of internal and external pressures:

• Reduced staff levels force them to do more with less
• Lack of management training leaves them ill-prepared to deal with the growing number and diversity of employee problems
• There are bad apples in every bushel: Those who put ambition ahead of ethics and fair treatment, and those who curry favor with their boss, at any cost
• Those who use HR only as a career steppingstone can be suspected of not being fully engaged. Their actions are often calculated.
• Let's face it; some in HR are not "people persons" at all.

The impact of this “treatment” problem can be serious and far-reaching; lower employee morale, disengaged workers (occupying the chair, but there’s no one home), increased turnover of key talent and high performers, company reputation suffering via word of mouth, etc.  Each of these symptoms, when left uncorrected can result in negative financial implications for the company.  This is serious stuff.

What can be done?  I have no call to action, no rallying cry for getting HR professionals to wake up tomorrow renewed and reinvigorated.  There's no “easy pill” that with a glass of water is guaranteed to change behavior.

But I do ask each of us to look ourselves in the mirror tomorrow morning and ask if we can identify those core behavioral traits that we do stand for, that are expected of us, and whether we've been walking the talk or skating along.

If you don’t like what you see, you can change it.  You can start by dealing with others as you would like others to deal with you.  It’s as simple as that.  The employees in your organization deserve better.  They deserve a professionalism that comes from the heart as well as the head.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Focus," by Ann Kakay

A Practitioner's Recipe for Success

Whenever I come across self-help materials intended to assist Compensation practitioners with their professional growth, I often notice an overly large emphasis on the technical side.  Also, when reading internet blogs meant for the same audience there again seems a constant litany of how-to guidance on, again, technical issues.

That's all well and good, but . . ..

It seems to me that becoming a master technician in the compensation "science" is not by itself going to be an effective strategy for success in the corporate world.  In fact, sometimes that technical prowess can prove a bit of a hindrance, as it could limit upward opportunities.

True story: The President of a nationally known retail chain once interviewed me for the top Compensation job.  He later said to his CHRO, "Hire this guy. He has a personality."

Useful Competencies

If you rely solely on your technical capabilities, while remaining in your cubicle all day, and if you're saddled with the personality of a troll, you're going to have an uphill struggle toward success.  You're going to need more to work with, so tape this checklist to your office wall - where you can see it every day.  It could save your career.  You must:

• Be flexible: Be willing to listen and keep an open mind.  Become known as a problem solver. Do not quote policy except as a last result.  Have a reason for your actions that can be easily explained.
• Understand the business and how Compensation impacts it:  You're not on an island cut off from the rest of the business.  Learn how what you do interacts with and influences the business. What you do should relate to and support organizational objectives.  If not, know why not.
• Have a personality:  Basic stuff, but have a ready smile, greet people, shake hands and in general show a warm side to those you interact with. Become an engaging person.  Oh, and try to be sincere about it.
• Don't be a Nerd: Don't spend all your time spouting technical language and showing off charts & graphs.  As if all those figures are self-explanatory and you're merely the spokesperson.  That data should be the backdrop to your explanations, not the focus.  Don't be an analyst when you need to be a leader.
• Be able to work a room: Leave the introvert at home and develop the skill of being comfortable holding multiple conversations in a room of strangers, colleagues, or even senior leadership. That will build your image in a positive way.  If you're an introvert, work on it.
• Be persuasive:  You will not get too far by dictum, so work on your reasoning and communication skills.  You need to be able to influence others, to gain agreement on the strength of your rational arguments.  "My way or the highway" does not generate a warm response.
• Become the one who gets lots of Christmas cards: That's your goal for next season, to be someone that colleagues think of when preparing their lists.  That is usually a good sign, because they like and/or respect you.  PS - I'm not counting stamped signature cards from consultants and vendors.
• Play (a bit of) politics:  I don't like this one, but it's true.  Politics exists in every organization, so you need to be able to play the game at least a little.  Don't think that you can "stay above the fray," as you're a professional or some such rot.  The powers that be will eat you alive. But as best you can try to remain neutral and project yourself as someone that all sides can trust.
• Be technically proficient:  Of course you still have to know what you're talking about (the science of Compensation), but the higher up you climb the food chain the less reliance you'll need on your personal technical capabilities.  You will become valued and judged for what else you bring to the plate.

Nowhere on this list will you find the ability to rattle off the overtime exemption criteria for the FLSA, or the salient rating descriptions in your point factor evaluation scheme.  And nobody is going to swoon when you describe linear regression, correlation coefficients or the difference between the Cost of Living and the Cost of Labor.  Your audience, your clients, your senior management will expect more.

But if they like you, if you have an engaging personality and can work well with others, well then, you're halfway there.

Do Not Limit Yourself

Unless you want to.  Unless you are someone who prefers the technical work, to the exclusion of the managerial side of the craft. 

Those employees are out there.  I have met them.  They are happy with what they do.

But if your repertoire of competencies leans too heavily toward excel spreadsheets and data analysis your ability to "pass through the curtain" from the hard side of Compensation (technical) to the soft side (managerial) will be limited.  Because Master Technicians tend to remain just that, both by competency and by interest.

Likely you have seen your own examples of individual contributors (technicians) who have been promoted beyond their capabilities - or their interests.  Those employees are rarely successful.

So pick and choose.  If you want to go through the beaded curtain be certain to bring more along with you than a calculator and a spreadsheet. 

Warm up that smile!

Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 "Friday Cat Photo," by jim_mcculloch