Your company is seeking to employ a Financial Accounting Manager, and the leading candidate is currently “in transition”.  Human Resources has pegged the market value of the job at $ 75,000 (midpoint), but it’s known that the preferred candidate (Bob) will accept $ 65,000. A seasoned and experienced professional, Bob was previously paid $76,000 by his last employer, but was caught up in a restructuring staff reduction.  He’s been out of work for almost a year and is getting desperate.  Relocation is not an option, and he’s worried about feeding his family and paying the mortgage.

When the decision point arrives, other less qualified candidates are already making $ 70,000 and asking for $75,000.  Some hiring managers would look at this situation as a no-brainer.  “Let’s hire our “A” candidate and save $10,000 to $15,000” would be the smug decision.

That wasn’t hard, was it?   An exceptional candidate has been gained at a low ball price.  The manager deserves a pat on the back for saving the company money, right?  But, wait a minute.   Perhaps it should be a boot in the butt instead.  You make the call.

A savvy professional like Bob will have a sense of the competitive market, so he’ll be aware of having taken a significant pay cut to land this job.  So how excited will he be with the offer?  Today, he’ll be delighted and will celebrate getting a job and finally having money coming in again.  Tomorrow, not so much.

How long before resentment grows that he was taken advantage of – gotten on the cheap?  What will happen to his enthusiasm, engagement, morale?  What will he come to think of the company, never mind the hiring manager?

What is the likely future for Bob?

It is always safe to presume that how an employee is treated will become known; otherwise you’ll be stuffing skeletons into a closet – and you know how that trick never ends well.  So when Bob confirms the low ball treatment, what reaction can you expect?

• Angered by a sense of being taken advantage of he could continue with his job search – looking for a better opportunity – while still working for you

• His job performance will suffer, dropping from 110% to automatic pilot somewhere south of Satisfactory.  He’ll be going through the motions – not exactly the dynamo you thought you had hired.

• Bob’s attitude will turn negative and he’ll become another disengaged employee – critical of the company and management, doing no more than he must in order to get by

• And yes, he’ll ultimately quit, but on his terms and timing.  His anger will have kept simmering and he’ll likely feel little concern as to how his departure affects the organization.

What you have now is a bad hire, in retrospect; that situation is unnecessary and easily avoidable if you treat candidates fairly.  Look at it from the candidate’s perspective; when your back is to the wall and you feel your “rescuer” is taking advantage, that feeling causes a pit-of-the-stomach resentment that lingers and festers.  And it costs.

Let’s tally up the cost

The manager claimed a cost savings by the hiring decision.  But when you factor in the longer term ramifications of that decision, how do the initial savings hold up?

• The hiring decision saved $10,000 to $15,000 per annum by consciously underpaying the candidate

• What is the discounted value of a disengaged employee who doesn’t perform as expected or desired?

• What is the value of time lost when Bob quits and the job is vacant while a replacement is sought?

• What is the value of hiring a potentially more expensive replacement (plus agency costs) and perhaps relocation?

• What is the value of productive time lost while a new employee gets up to speed?

• Finally, what is the subjective value of a discontented employee in your midst, possibly poisoning other employee attitudes?

So the next time a hiring manager proudly announces how to save a bunch of money on a candidate who’s in transition, take a moment to think it through.  You may want to consider a boot in the butt instead.

It seems that everywhere you turn these days you face a bombardment of professional advice from self-proclaimed “experts”, especially in Human Resources.  These people assure you that they understand your problems and have the right solutions for you and your business.  All you need do is read a book, attend a webinar or better yet contract for their consulting services.

Sounds like a diet pill, doesn’t it?  Simple and quick.

Promises like this cover every aspect of our business and personal lives.  Pick an issue and the answer is out there.  Somebody can help us, and that somebody is our “answer man.”  We only have to listen, watch or read whatever it is they’re offering.

You can’t escape the TV infomercials, the newspaper advertisements, magazine articles or even blog and social media sites without an endless flow of experts telling you that they have the answer you need.

• “Guaranteed to quadruple sales within twelve months”

• “Maximizes HR Effectiveness and value through the use of . . .”

• “Keeping Leadership Talent Engaged”

• “Designing Employee Policies for an International Workforce”

• “The Five Causes of Low Morale – and how to avoid them”

• Etc, etc, etc

You get the point.

Now, here’s the but . . . .

If that’s the case, that the answer is out there – and for a price waiting for you – why do we continue to face the same problems over and over again?  Why are managers still making poor decisions, wasting money and creating employee morale screw-ups from dawn to dusk?  Why do the business headlines constantly bemoan reports describing litigation over wrongful or illegal management behavior, or the dubious business decisions that send companies spiraling into financial trouble?

Isn’t anyone paying attention to the answer man?  Or is the advice simply a load of crap?  Are these experts really just spouting head-game theories and viewing business problems from an academic vs. practical viewpoint?

Whichever it is, these “I have the solution” messages never stop.   Like a constant propaganda stream radio-beamed across the border – the broadcast light is always on.  The buzz phrases may change from time to time, but our desire for quick fixes doesn’t diminish.

My theory or yours?

If the “experts” do have the answers – color me skeptical – we need to ask why their message is so often ignored.  Several scenarios are possible:

• Subject matter authorities often speak over our heads, using buzz phrases and $100 words

• Reading or listening to this stuff is hard work; the text is dry, boring and not often engaging

• Too much of the advice is contradictory to what you read / heard already – so who is right?

• Academics often lack credibility in the real world; they “just don’t get it”

Whatever the reason, the drumbeat of advice is not being absorbed and acted upon – because the problems remain.

Therefore . . . .

I’m struck by the merry-go-round aspect of constant advice without real solutions.  We see a continuous need to enlighten people and businesses on how to be effective, but it’s a need that never seems to end.

Maybe the analogy to a diet holds some truth; consider how many books are out there on that subject – yet up to 30% of the population remains obese.

There’s an old saying, that if you build a better mousetrap, the world will make a path to your door.   If common sense and up-to-date technical knowledge point the way to a better tomorrow, why do so many companies and their leaders stay in the dumb zone?

If the cure is out there, why is the patient still sick?

I’m thinking that the message is wrong, the audience isn’t listening, or perhaps we’re all being scammed by re-packaged “new” thinking.

Which is it?

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.  Someone else does your job.

Typically we think of babysitting when there’s actually a dependent child involved, but it’s not uncommon for ineffective managers in the workplace 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 rewards you will act as desired in order to not jeopardize those rewards.  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, right?  The red flag goes up the pole when you ask 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:  Play 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.  Everybody receives an annual merit raise, everyone earns a bonus.  This fosters an attitude of entitlement.

• 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 instead.  Spending the company’s money effectively and efficiently isn’t on the radar screen.  They use employee pay like a club to get an employee’s attention.  And once they have that attention 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 in the doing.

Why it doesn’t work

Relying on pay as a replacement for management has a short term effective life cycle, at best.

• Employees see arbitrary equal 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; the names of 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.

• While employees will take any money carelessly handed out, the organization will not gain because of it.  So these “rewards” are ultimately wasted.

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.