Compensation Cafe

Cafe Classic: Either Put Me in Charge or Let Me Be a Lackey. I'm Fine with Either, But I Can't Do Both.

Editor's Note:  Truly Classic (and invaluable) advice from Dan Walter.  Pay attention!

A friend recently updated their status with the title to this article. Ironically, I saw it just as I got off a call with a client who  was explaining that somehow she was expected to serve as both the strategic visionary and tactical processor for her company’s multi-national LTIP programs. The simple request in my friends status update seemed reasonable, well thought-out and familiar. As we traverse the crags of an uneven recovery, companies have found it difficult to create compensation plans that perform as expected. As budgets continue to be bound by uncertainty, companies have been unwilling, or unable, to hire tactical help. This leaves compensation departments in a quandary. When should we strategize and when should we make things happen?

For those of you who are feeling like your personality and activities are being split down the middle, I'd like to suggest a small exercise. Take 4 hours and block it off your calendar. (I know you don’t have 4 free hours, but trust me this may really help.) Let’s just pretend you blocked off 10:00am-2:00pm tomorrow.

• 10:00-10:30: Spend the first 30 minutes making a list of every strategic idea you would address if you were in charge of everything, but not responsible for doing any of the tasks. Rank based on compliance, urgency, cost and benefit.  Call this your “Strategy List”.
• 10:30-11:00: Focus the next 30 minutes making a list of every process you would improve if you didn’t have to worry about planning, administration or reporting tasks. Rank based on compliance, urgency, cost and benefit. Call this your “Tactics List”.
• 11:00-11:30: The next 30 minutes make list of all the tasks you would do if you were never interrupted by other things. Think about the minutiae and get granular. Rank based on compliance, urgency, cost and benefit. Call this your “Tasks List”.
• 11:30-12:00: Go through the Strategy, Tactics and Tasks lists and mark each item that ONLY someone with your skill set or better (not you) can get done. Then mark those that can be done by someone with a lesser skill set.
• 12:00-12:30:  Look at the remaining items. These are the things that you believe ONLY YOU can accomplish. Is this list realistic? Can anything be moved to one of the other lists? When this list is down to two or three items, you are set for a promotion.
• 12:30-2:00: Go have a nice lunch with a friend.  Celebrate that you just figured out how to put yourself in charge or be a lackey.

A very smart manager once told me “irreplaceable is unpromotable.” She made it clear that as long as I was the only one who could do certain things, I would remain the only one doing those things. Turns out, it’s basic logic. If you want to stop doing things on your list, you must first figure out a way for others to do them (or to make the items go away altogether.)

Look at your lists again. Which things do you really want to be doing? Of everything that’s left, can you train, hire, outsource, bring in consulting or temporary staff to get them done? If yes, put together a business case for exactly that. If no, keep working on your lists until the answer is yes. I have seen people change things in a week or two and I have seen cases where the changes were so large or numerous that it would take 6-12 months to get them done. I have never seen company where the changes were impossible.

The key is this: If you want to be in charge, the first step is figuring out how to be in charge. Regardless of whether you want to be a lackey or in charge, the first step is to define what those terms mean. The next step is to clearly communicate to those who can help make the change. This may be your boss, colleagues, or the staff working for you. The key is to show what’s in it for them (WIIFM). If they see the personal benefit, they may be inclined to help.  If you communicate things as a plea for help, you may get short-term traction, but nothing will really change.

So, put yourself in charge or make yourself the lackey, but only you can ensure that you’re not both.

Dan Walter is a CECP, CEP, and Fellow of Global Equity (FGE). He works as Managing Consultant for FutureSense. Dan is 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.

Cafe Classic: Truth, Clarity & Alignment = A Successful Annual Bonus

Editor's Note:  With today's Classic serves up a call to walk the talk - or at least honestly talk the walk - when it comes to annual bonus awards.

It's a common lament this time of year.  In organizations with annual bonus "plans", whether paid out at year-end or early in the new year, leaders are beginning their conversations about whether and how much should be paid out.  Invariably, one of them will ask: "But what are we getting for this money?"

Many business owners and top executives have a strong preference for discretionary rewards - which often amounts to simply doling out cash in a manner that "feels right", based on available information about profits, growth, performance, etc.  It's not hard to understand why.  This gets them out of the admittedly difficult (particularly these days) task of pre-defining goals and bonus parameters.  It may help them avoid the need to share and explain complex, sensitive company information.  It leaves them in a position of complete control, relative to bonus expenditures.  What's not to love?

Unfortunately, it also doesn't drive performance.  It doesn't focus people's discretionary efforts or make priorities clear.  It doesn't communicate a path to success for motivated employees to follow.  It can create the impression, especially with any employees who receive less than others and aren't clear on the reasons why, that the program is more a popularity contest than anything else.  It produces a sense of entitlement among the recipients.  And it is nearly impossible to assess the return on the dollars spent - what the organization is indeed getting for its money.

I'm not sure there's a right way or a wrong way to do bonuses, really.  But it is important, ultimately, to be truthful about what you intend to accomplish with a bonus program.  If your objective is to express gratitude to employees - in an economic way - for their work during the course of the year, that is an admirable goal and a discretionary program could be just the ticket.  Just make sure, however, that you allocate and communicate awards accordingly.  Don't call it what it isn't and temper your ROI expectations accordingly.

As with any other reward, the recipe for bonus plan success relies heavily on truth, clarity and alignment!

Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Partner at Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting and survey administration services to a wide range of client organizations.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and enjoys hiking, reading and hanging out with family in any spare time.

Creative Commons image "Truth" by Tim Abbott

Cafe Classic: Checks on the Chalkboard

Editor's Note:  Compensation and HR staff are spread mighty thin these days.  In today's Classic post, Dan Walter asks: Is everything you do necessary?  Is everything you do making it easier to get important work done?  

Is everything you do necessary? Perhaps, I should ask the question differently. Is everything you do making it easier to get everything done? Today’s post is about the practical. It’s so practical that it applies to just about everything, including compensation.

I was working with a client recently, and a lesson from a long-ago teacher came to mind. She called it “Check on the Chalkboard.” She had each student do a series of basic math problems. She then created a team of the fastest students and a team of the slowest.

The teams raced each other in a relay-style format. You got up from your chair, did a math problem and went back to your chair. In the first race the “fast team” won easily. It seemed patently unfair. The rules changed for the second race.

In the second race, the “fast team” was asked to put a check mark on the chalkboard after they correctly answered each question. The checkmark had to be placed in a numbered box (I believe there were ten boxes, representing the members of the team).

The fast team answered questions like lightning. They sprinted to the green chalkboard (it was a LONG time ago) and made a messy check in their assigned box. It seemed to take very little time even as it added an element of excitement and chaos to the race.

When the dust settled, the “slow team” was the clear winner. Burdening the “fast team” with a simple additional task slowed them enough to lose the race. The checkmarks had no purpose other than to change the outcome of the race. Each checkmark was insignificant. When they were combined, they changed the game.

After I remembered this lesson from my youth, I started seeing checkmarks in the processes followed by nearly every company. Most of the checkmarks are tiny things. Many are performed because the supporting systems have not been set up to their full capabilities. Some are a result of out-of-the-box features. Most are unique to a specific company and have no known origin. They are done, simply because “things have always been done that way.” They offer no upside. They support no known purpose. They seem to exist simply to slow things down.

In our haste, we often forget to ask why we do things. We are so consumed with getting things done; we do more than we need to. All of this can keep us from doing more important tasks, like evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of our programs and making improvements where needed.

Compensation departments are increasingly asked to do more with less. Our jobs can be complicated and our customers are every person in the company, and often many people outside it. All of those people are going to add checkmarks to our processes. It is essential that we do our best to avoid any of our making.

The best way to police your processes is to ask yourself why twice. The first thing you need to ask is: “Why am I doing this?”. If you have an answer, the next question you should ask is: “Why is it important?” If both answers make you feel warm and fuzzy, then carry on. If not, you may have just identified a “checkmark” on your chalkboard.

Dan Walter is a CECP, CEP, and Fellow of Global Equity (FGE). He works as Managing Consultant for FutureSense. Dan is 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.

Cafe Classic: Are You Adding Value?

Editor's Note:  Chuck Csizmar raises this Classic question and urges us to take an honest look in the mirror to discover the real answer.

Have you ever been asked this question at work? Or perhaps looked at yourself in the mirror one morning and asked yourself? My belief is that we don't consider this question enough, for ourselves and for the employees who work for us. We dance all around it.

In either case above the usual knee-jerk response most of us come up with tends to focus on job performance, on personal competencies and even on having shown a demonstrated loyalty to the organization by sticking around for years. But is that missing the critical point of the question, your value to others, and by missing that point you can mislead yourself - like a slick politician who talks a good game but fails to address core issues.

The Real Question

Shouldn't a more considered response relate closely to what the organization itself considers as to what your value should be, and less about how busy you've been, how knowledgeable you are in your field or even your impressive length of service? You could be a paper pushing administrator occupying the same chair for years and still give yourself a high personal score. "I'm doing a great job."

Chances are that many of us may not be honest with ourselves, and validating that sidestep are many performance appraisal processes that seem to gloss over the value question without zeroing in. Their "What have you done?" query often doesn't relate close enough to those actions, behaviors and achievements that should have been done to advance business interests.

Yes, you have a job to do, and perhaps even a job description that lays out your duties and responsibilities. If you perform as to what the description lays out, is that enough? Is that adding value or is that treading water? Just doing enough. It can go either way, but even the rare job descriptions that are accurate and up-to-date can be very inward focused - not considering the bigger picture of how a job performance relates to and can advance the department, never mind the business.

Or hold things back.

And what about those employees who report to you? Would you be satisfied if one of them told you, "I'm doing what the job description says. Isn't that enough?" Here the unstated follow-up thought is likely, "I'm getting by."

What Defines "Value"?

Your organization, whether you consider the entire business or even the smallest department, has likely laid out a series of objectives for the year. There are goals, there are definitions of success and very likely defined pathways toward the end zone. With that thought in mind it's easy to see that an employee adds value when, in the course of performing their job they assist the organization / department in achieving those goals - helping in even a small way to score the financial touchdown.

In that light, consider that your activity list - you know, the one that ticks off all the accomplishments you've achieved over the course of the year - may actually be aimed in the wrong direction. Being busy can be viewed as the same as walking on a treadmill. You can build up a sweat but you won't be getting anywhere.

So how much value are you adding?

Do You Have What It Takes?

Let's go back to the mirror with a revised question. What are you doing to help your organization / department achieve its goals? Are you playing a leadership role, a supportive role, an individual contributor role or has your train gone off the tracks and down some rabbit hole into clock watching and "just doing the job?"

Leadership would view adding value as being personified by the employee who not only does their job but does it in way that keeps organization objectives in mind. That employee doesn't waste time or resources, understands how their role impacts the business and is engaged in helping the business succeed. Examples are many when one seeks to do their job in a way that helps the greater good.

Is that you? Do you have what it takes to truly add value to your employer? Is that what your mirror says?

Because the "I'm following my job description" attitude is a short sighted response that helps neither your career or your organization.

Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations.  He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant.  Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation.  He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a clowder of cats.

Creative Commons image "Value" by Mike Cohen

 

Cafe Classic: Reviving Your Compensation Plan

Editor's Note:  Jacque Vilet shares a Classic story and example for bringing new life to your compensation plan.

I’ve been reading a lot lately about what Compensation will look like in the future and I remembered a project that I had once worked on. It was in Hong Kong --- the Asia Pacific headquarters of a global company. 

Word was the employees were not happy with their pay package.  Some wanted more salary, some more medical, some more vacation, etc.

For example, one single man told me it wasn’t fair that the company decided everything about his package and didn’t ask him what he wanted/didn’t want. He wanted more vacation and would take less salary in order to get it.

I couldn’t see anything unreasonable about his request.  Yes, some companies offered flex benefits --- but this situation included cash compensation as well.

Most companies continue to design traditional programs based on a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead of this, what if companies changed their approach?  What if they handed over control to employees to configure the amount of their own benefits, perks, and cash compensation --- creating a package unique to their own personal situations.

I talked with a random sample of employees --- young, old, single, married with/without children.  This was a diverse group and I could see why their needs/wants might be different.  The recurring theme was that they would like to have some say in how their pay package was structured.

Long story short --- the regional Controller and I calculated the total cost of each employee’s current package.  Then to keep things simple, we gave each one a pie chart with sections apportioned for each pay component and its percentage of the whole pie as well as the cost of each one.

Employees then drew their own pie charts reconfigured to show components they wanted in the future as well as the percentages of each to the total package.   Since they had the total cost of their current package, the total of their new package had to match it. The company wanted employees to have at least some medical and life insurance coverage so there was a minimum level for these benefits that had to be included.  Everything else, the employee decided.

As we went through this process we saw several positives that we hadn’t anticipated.  Getting employees involved accomplished several things:

1)    Employees became aware of the total cost of their package --- not just the cash portion.  Traditional “benefits statements” are fine, but this was different.  Just seeing their package was not as good as knowing they could change it.

2)    They talked at length among themselves about the ramifications of choosing greater/lesser amounts of each available component they could “flex.”

3)    Compensation and benefits became transparent and employees gained a better understanding of how Compensation worked.

The result?  The best communication of compensation and benefits the company could ever have hoped for.

Unsophisticated?  No doubt --- but it was a start. Administrative burden?  The Controller was willing to take on the extra work.  It helped that the number of employees was only ~40.   Best practice?  This became the best practice for THEIR company.

I’m not aware of any formal research that's been done on this approach but is that really important?  If it works, isn’t that the real test?  Besides research studies can’t keep up with the pace of business today.  Companies have to be nimble and quick to change course.  Compensation needs to be too.  Waiting for research to tell you if a practice is OK will leave you behind in the dust.

We have an increasingly diverse and young workforce that has different values and work-life issues.  Getting free Friday lunches is great, but some employees would rather work through lunch in order to leave the office early to spend more time with family.

With that said who can argue with giving employees more control and at the same time making Compensation more transparent and better understood?

What do you think?

Jacque Vilet, President of Vilet International, has over 20 years’ experience in Global Human Resources with major multinationals such as Intel, Texas Instruments and Seagate Technology. She has managed both local/ in-country national and expatriate programs and has been an expatriate twice during her career. Jacque has the following certifications: CCP, GPHR, HCS and SWP as well as a B.S. and M.S in Psychology plus an MBA. She belongs to SHRM, Human Capital Institute and World at Work. Jacque has been a speaker in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and is a regular contributor to various HR and talent management publications.

Creative Commons image "Revived" by Scott Price

Cafe Classic: Hey Startups! Tomorrow IS too late!

Editor's Note: Dan Walter shares his Classic advice about the perils of waiting too long (startups, we are looking at you) to get your compensation act together.

We’ve all heard the phrase “It’s never too late.” I am sorry to tell you that everyone has been wrong. As it turns out when it comes to compensation issues, today may not be too late, but tomorrow almost always is.

One of the most consistent and pervasive issues that I deal with is helping companies fix what they didn't do (or what they didn't do correctly.) This is especially true with small companies who often don't have a dedicated compensation professional. The problem may come to light when a key employee is lost, but it is often identified far earlier then lost in the shuffle of focusing on day-to-day business.

If you haven't gotten started on your compensation philosophy, structure and long-term incentives, please get started when you finish this article.

The repercussions of waiting can be expensive, time-consuming and distracting at the exact time your company is hitting its stride. First, every company should understand its approach to compensation, often referred to as a “compensation philosophy.” Your philosophy should define why and how you plan to pay people.

If your goal is to align your employees to investors through equity compensation, you need to act immediately. If you make promises or even suggestions regarding equity that are not formalized concurrently, you are likely to find yourself delivering compensation that meets no ones expectations. Even worse you may find expectations so high, that satisfaction borders on impossible.

It no longer surprises me to have a group of 8 or 10 key employees earnestly explain how each should receive 15% of their employer’s stock. It no longer surprises me when an owner or founder believes that they are doing something great by rolling out a new program only to find out their staff was imagining something far greater. I have seen companies lose great employees. I have seen companies pay huge mediated settlements to staff members whose understanding differed from their employer’s. I have seen companies deliver compensation programs so late that any chance of gains were lost before they got started.

Are you still reading? Have you made a note to get started on fixing your compensation today?

I know you have incredible employees that are passionate about the success of your company. I know they have bought into your vision of a successful future. What I also know is that they expect things to be formalized, finalized and actualized. Every day you wait, your employees’ passion and hard work will build value in their minds faster than your company can keep up. While it may “never” be too late to get started, I promise you that “never” refers only to today. Tomorrow IS too late.

Dan Walter is a CECP, CEP, and Fellow of Global Equity (FGE). He works as Managing Consultant for FutureSense. Dan is 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.

 

Cafe Classic: The Innovator's Dilemma, Reward Plan Edition

Editor's Note:  A salute to the late, great Clayton Christensen, the academic and management consultant who developed the theory of "disruptive innovation." 

Think that premium employment brand and strong reward package are going to help you succeed in the age of disruption?

Think again.

In his revolutionary bestseller The Innovator's Dilemma, the late Harvard Business School professor and innovation expert Clayton Christensen explored the dilemma behind innovative, well-managed companies who seem to do everything right and yet encounter a dive in their market share or even disappear entirely.  In fact and most disturbing of all, Christensen's research showed that the things that bring and secure an organization's initial success can often become the most powerful reason behind its failure.

In their chapter within the Oxford University Handbook on Organizational Climate and Culture, Mercer consultants Richard Guzzo, Haig Nalbantian and Luis Parra tell the story of a company that experienced the reward plan version of the innovator's dilemma.  Organizations -- the authors note (and many of us know from our experience) -- often become what they reward, and pay is considered a critical expression of an organization's culture.  When a company's culture, which has been a key reason for its business success, becomes an impediment to necessary change, the reward system may be a primary culprit.

The authors share the example of Digitt, a global technology and information services company.  Digitt was renowned for a strong culture that emphasized innovation, teamwork, employee participation in decisions and performance-based pay.  In studying Digitt, the authors took a "big data" dive, conducting an internal labor market (ILM) analysis that drew on up to 10 years of employee data in order to statistically measure, model and ultimately understand the most important drivers of workforce outcomes.  In addition to other findings, the analysis revealed the following two characteristics of the company's reward program:

• Digitt had a strong internal labor market that was insulated from outside labor market dynamics.  Talent was built from within, with the most successfu employees entering the organization right from school and advancing internally.  Mid and late career professional hires were infrequent.  Most open positions were filled internally through promotion or transfer.
• Because Digitt's performance rewards were predominantly group-based, pay variations reflected business unit performance much more than individual performance.  As a consequence, an employee's tenure and business unit location were the biggest drivers of pay.  There was little variation in the level of rewards flowing to the lowest performers versus the highest performers.  (In fact, the authors concluded that close to $100 million a year in rewards flowed to lowest quartile performers when all elements of "performance-based" pay were added up.)

Digitt, in the face of rising competition and technological change, found itself in a place where it had to transform both its business model and its product/service offerings -- a transition that had enormous implications for the skills and capabilities of its workforce.  It needed, in essence, to renovate its talent base. Unfortunately, the company's cultural reality, driven substantially by its reward practices, threw some substantial roadblocks into its path:

• Being handsomely paid based on their tenure and their position in declining yet still profitable business units, there was little incentive for those with outdated skills and capabilities to leave.
• In contrast, newer employees with more relevant skills and experience were disadvantaged pay-wise by a system that rewarded tenure and reflected their placement in newer business units that were still ramping up and not yet profitable enough to reap the rewards of existing incentive and profit-sharing plans.
• The problems above were exacerbated by the insulation of Digitt's internal labor market and the lack of market-sensitivity in its reward programs.  As the authors noted:

Internal labor market signals about relative value were telling lower-performing analog engineers to stay at Digitt, even as external labor market signals would have communicated depreciation of their value...

The lesson is this:  When business conditions change, as they now do at an ever quickening pace, the very culture and reward programs that created success could now be an obstacle to sustaining that success ... or even surviving.  That speaks to a level of vigilance that I suspect few of us are keeping.

I'll bet some of you are living your own version of this innovator's dilemma. 

Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of Compensation Café,  Author of Compensation Force and Partner at Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she provides compensation consulting and survey administration services to a wide range of client organizations.  She earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School and enjoys hiking, reading and hanging out with family in any spare time.

 Creative Commons image "Oops - Part II" by Kyle May

Cafe Classic: A Basic Truth of Compensation Communications

Editor's Note: Margaret O'Hanlon urges us to face up to the truth of pay communication with this Classic post and helpful advice.

Managers are the compensation communicators in your company. Not HR, not Legal, not even the CEO whose job is to explain why your compensation program makes good business sense -- but doesn't have to explain another 3%ish increase to a new parent.

Do your managers have everything they need to make your work successful? After all, you are asking them to finish your compensation communications project for you, and you need them to do it well.

How do managers feel about being the messenger THIS year? Make sure you know or there is no way you can predict how things will turn out.

Have you invested enough time and dollars making the whole compensation communications process easier for them? They are the ones who will go eyeball to eyeball with their employees which means that, in one sense, they are going to the line for HR. Give managers discussion outlines, FAQs that will help them prepare to talk with employees comfortably, in some cases even give them scripts. If your managers get together for calibration meetings, include communications on the agenda and make it easy for the individuals to speak frankly.

How do managers feel about your company's leadership? If there are issues of trust or questions about resources, don't expect managers to hide their feelings. HR can't fix these problems over night, but you should acknowledge that they play into end-of-year discussions. Go out to talk with managers individually. Show that you can be open-minded but still hold them to a standard. This isn't an area where email communications will have any effect.

How do managers feel about your company's pay practices? Do they believe you are paying competitively? Do they know how you go about it? Even if you do pay competitively, once rumors start you can bet that it's going to be difficult to change peoples' minds. Educated managers are unlikely to give rumors any credence, plus they will be able to spot the real problems for you.

Margaret O'Hanlon brings deep expertise to discussions on employee pay, performance management, career development and communications at the Café. Her firm is re:Think Consulting. 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. She is a member of U.S. Masters Swimming.

Cafe Classic: Let Your People Go... Gracefully

Editor's Note: In this Classic post, Jim Brennan encourages us to see the benefits of "maximizing your good quits" and the downside of taking your retention policy to a damaging extreme.

It is smart to maximize your good quits.

There are good quits and bad quits.  Good quits include those whose departure brings an enthusiastic celebration of ebullient joy that lasts for months.  Then, there are the other kind.  Good quits also include people you hate to lose, even though it really is time for them to move on.  You can’t hold everyone indefinitely.  Virtually every employer suffers from usually inevitable career-enhancing moves by valued contributors who find themselves at the cusp where they must leave your employment to most effectively serve their long-term personal goals and ambitions.  As both Compensation Café founder Ann Bares and contributer Laura Schroeder have observed, laudable retention efforts can all too easily slide into an atmosphere of suffocation and detention.  Let’s take their thoughts a step farther.  If you are going to lose someone, lose them well.

You can’t keep superstars forever.  Very few employers have the resources to productively retain the very best workers in their field for as long as they wish.  Only extremely unique environments will entice truly talented people to stick around for their entire careers.  Superstars, in particular, will draw the attention of recruiters and you will not always be able to insulate them from legitimately better offers.  You win some and you lose some; but the parting need not be destructive.

If those who depart your enterprise look back with gratitude and speak well of you thereafter, you should be happy.

Rather than obsess about retaining every good performer, think about options you can implement to make separation as mutually beneficial as possible.  A good quit from a competent worker may be more valuable than an excellent new hire.  Not talking about discarding toxic personnel, of course, but about ways to make the evolutionary process of transition for both sides as painless and positive as you can. 

There is a lot to be said about gaining a reputation as a wonderful graduate school.  When those who move on do so with positive attitutes, the place they describe in thankful and appreciatiative terms will reap benefits for many years.  Happy “graduates” build your reputation as a wonderful place to work, easing recruiting and reducing pressure on direct pay.

Letting people leave gracefully can be a talent-building strategy.  The tactic of retention can backfire.  Locking people up in golden handcuffs is both expensive and ultimately fruitless; it only buys time, at best.  Honestly admitting that, “yes, it is time for you to spread your wings, leave the nest and fly, so go with our blessings…,“ can resonate longer and stronger than the best LTIR plan with platinum chains.  Folks who speak of their positive seminal developmental experience with you can be the most effective recruiters (and retainers) in the world.

Have you tried it?  Experiment, and see what the results are.  How people are treated when they leave an employer might be an excellent indicator of the state of the morale of those who remain.  What do you think? 

E. James (Jim) Brennan is an independent compensation advisor with extensive total rewards experience in most industries.  After corporate HR posts and consulting CEO roles, he was Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI before returning to consulting in 2015. A prolific writer (author of the Performance Management Workbook), speaker and frequent expert witness in reasonable executive compensation court cases, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

Cafe Classic: Don't Use Pay as a Babysitter

Editor's Note:  In this post, Chuck Csizmar addresses this Classic problem practice, a favorite of ineffective managers.  I'd wager that many of you have your own pay baby-sitting stories to share...

Have you ever used a babysitter?  This is when you have someone else assume your responsibilities while you take a break and focus on something else.  The babysitter stands in for you, is you during the period of your absence. 

Typically we think of babysitting when there’s a dependent child involved, but in the workplace it’s not uncommon for ineffective managers to use the same concept when dealing with their employees.  These managers seek to use the pay that their employees receive as a surrogate for leadership – for keeping those workers complacent, retained and generally “in line.”

The practice of manipulating rewards presumes that the employee will chase the money, and will be happy with their lot, while at the same time will not require much in the way of supervision, periodic direction or even meaningful conversation.  The thinking here is that, if I provide you with enough reward you will act as desired in order to not jeopardize those payments.  The goal is to place the employee’s attitude and performance on automatic pilot while the manager is engaged elsewhere.

So far, so good.  Not necessarily a problem.  The red flag goes up the pole when you consider whether these monies are warranted by either performance or business need, or are they simply bribes?

What are we talking about?

Scenarios where pay is used in lieu of actual management are easy to spot.

• The Grand Giveaway:  Where managers try to give away as much money as they can to as many as possible, not worrying overmuch with distinctions between individual performances.  The key is to build an employee's appreciation of their manager’s largesse.

• Title inflation: The promise of bloated and meaningless titles that distort organizational structures, for the prime purpose of rewarding employees in lieu of cash.

• Over rated performance:  Playing the good guy by over-rating performance during salary reviews.  Culprits are often seen rewarding activity over results.  So look busy!

• Assured compensation: Take the risk out of rewards and encourage an attitude of entitlement.  Everybody receives an annual merit raise, everyone earns a bonus. 

• Counter-offers: “Let’s make a deal” attitude to keep resigning employees from actually leaving; a dangerous practice that increases costs and lowers morale.

What’s the cause of this behavior?   Managers typically receive inadequate training (if any) on how to use their company’s pay programs, so many use pay as a crutch.  Spending the company’s money effectively and efficiently isn’t on the radar screen.  They use pay like a club to get an employee’s attention.  And once they have it the manager is off doing something else – with the presumption that pay will substitute as supervision and motivation while the manager is absent – kind of like a babysitter.

Weak and ineffectual managers don’t actually manage their employees, in the sense of performance direction, leadership, setting good examples and decision-making.  Instead, they want to be liked.  They want to avoid conflict and they don’t want anyone to quit.  They want employees to get along, and to help foster a friendly team atmosphere they try to manipulate pay in support of their efforts.

It’s really kind of a bribe.

So what is “managing” to these people?  It’s not about making hard decisions.  Too often it’s trying to get the most for their employees, deserved or otherwise, whether the organization gains in the process or not.  The manager is focused on their own interests, and is using someone else’s money to fund their behavior.

Why it doesn’t work

Relying on pay as a replacement for management has a short effective life cycle.

• Employees see arbitrary same-same pay treatment as de-motivating to high performers.  Why bother extending yourself if you’re going to receive the same reward as the guy doing crossword puzzles?

• Employees resent favored-son treatment and those who benefit for non-performance reasons will always become known.  There goes your morale.

• No amount of money replaces the value of honest performance direction and feedback.  Those with an interest in learning and growing appreciate the help.

• Absentee managers lose the respect of their employees, who know what’s going on.  Remember that employees leave managers, not companies.

For managers who need a crutch to help motivate and retain their employees, to help them do their jobs, the above cautions likely won’t make a difference.  Their goal is not to manage, but to get-by, to be liked by their employees and to avoid disruptions to their routine.  This is not leadership, but administration.

But for those managers who wish to make a difference, who understand that managing employees is a challenging and rewarding role, abrogating responsibility through babysitting is not an option.  They recognize it as the opposite of management, a damaging practice that will not enhance anyone’s long term career prospects.

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.