It hasn’t been that many years ago that the term “business casual” was coined.  To many business leaders though, the phrase meant no more than wearing a red tie, and perhaps only once a week.

Well, that was then.  Today, attitudes and customs are quite different, and typically much less conservative.  For example, it is not uncommon in some circles for male employees to forgo the use of socks within an office environment.  I know, because recently I visited such an office and saw for myself.

But is this clothing revolution a global phenomenon, where everyone is doing it, or are there minefields of differing customs out there, waiting to trip up the unwary business traveler?

According to a new global survey (Ispos / Reuters), clothes still do make the man – or woman.  Depending on where an employee lives, putting a best foot forward – at least at work – is still key to upward mobility and career success.

Or sometimes not.

As you might expect though, customs of acceptance have evolved – though not in a uniform fashion.  Researchers have found that attitudes about the use of proper attire in the workplace differ from country to country, which leads to some interesting and diverse attitudes about perceived workplace “slackers” and “achievers.”

Have you ever arrived at a meeting dressed for the Boardroom, only to discover everyone else wearing collared shirts and slacks?  Awkward, isn’t it?  A scenario you would wish to avoid.

Europeans have been found to have the most casual attitude when it comes to work clothes.  Only 27 percent of Europeans reported that they wore traditional business clothes to work (jackets and ties for men, dress suits for women).  People in Hungary might be the most casually dressed workers in the world.  Only 12 percent of Hungarians reported that they wore “business clothes” to work, while 46 percent said they thought clean and pressed shorts were appropriate office attire.  On the other hand, workers in India might be the best dressed, with nearly 60 percent of survey respondents reporting that they wore business clothes to work.

Many workers worldwide no longer equate dressing well for work with what they consider success.  Approximately 40 percent reported that they wore casual business clothes to work.  However the same percentage of respondents said that people who wore such casual attire in the office would probably not be hired or promoted into senior management positions.  Additionally, 66 percent of respondents believed that senior managers should always appear better dressed than their employees.

For many then, conservative dress is never out of style.  In some circles (usually non high tech) casual dress may even give the “perception” of a lack of professionalism.

Workers in India held the harshest views for people who wear casual clothes to work.  Nearly 60 percent of Indians described casual business dressers as “slackers”, and 64 percent said that such casual dressers would never reach senior management positions.

For a contrary viewpoint, in Central Florida business casual is often the proper attire, across the organizational hierarchy.  In fact, wearing a tie would cause co-workers to stop and stare.

When it comes to bosses wearing casual clothes in the office, Swedes appear to have the most lenient attitudes.  Only 27 percent of Swedish respondents reported that they believe that wearing casual clothes on a regular basis would hinder workers from attaining high-level jobs.

Generally speaking though, the higher up you are in the company’s structure, the greater the reluctance to “dress down.”  One Business Unit Head acquaintance in Europe suffered through so many shocked looks when he once wore jeans to work, that he never repeated the experience.

So what’s the takeaway from the survey data for the business traveler?  When in doubt, ask ahead.  Don’t assume.  Getting the lay of the land in advance is always smart thinking.  As a rule of thumb though, remember that you can always dress down by taking off the tie or power jacket, but the opposite won’t work nearly as well.

It’s that time again.  The end of the business year, when managers everywhere turn their thoughts to – bonuses!  The calculators are out and every eligible soul from Marketing to Manufacturing to Sales, IT, HR and the Executive Suite tries to figure out how fat that check will be.  For many, it’s the gift receiving season.

And thus the same bad script repeats itself for the annual management bonus process, year upon year upon year:  objectives created at the last minute, embellished accomplishments dutifully recorded, problems and shortcomings diminished or forgotten and assessment forms looked at with disdain – as in, how do I fill out this thing to pump up my results?

More than the mechanics are at fault

Oh yes, the process is flawed, yet the foxes are in charge of the chicken coup – and they offer little hope for reform.  Why?  For those in charge the process works, and self-interest pays its own rewards.  Picture Santa Claus with a very large bag of goodies.

Cynical?  You bet.  For many of us in the trenches true pay for performance is an elusive concept best remembered from Compensation 101 textbooks, suitable only for life as it should be, not as it is.  Sad to say, but senior management is often the worst offender.  I’ve seen senior executives manipulate, excuse me, adjust financial results to ensure that their own bonus awards wouldn’t be reduced.  Senior staff deserves competitive bonus awards, don’t they?  How can you not reward your senior leadership for their efforts?  And so once again entitlement trumps performance.

Studies suggest that the I-deserve-it mentality has weakened through this recession.  However I’m convinced that it’s still alive and well wherever rewards are viewed as payment due for time served, not for effort and results.

But we go on hoping, one company and one client at a time, trying to persuade leadership that it’s primarily good performance that should provide rewards; that tenure isn’t a compensable factor, that incentive payments should be deserved, not simply an automatic gift of delayed compensation.  Lower level employees are expected to earn their rewards; shouldn’t the same case be made for management?

End of year expectation

Have you ever told an executive that their annual bonus might be reduced because of either corporate or – dare I suggest individual performance didn’t meet expectations?  They would look aghast at the possibility.  I’ve taken calls from spouses asking when the checks would be cut (something or other was going on sale) – and then grew upset when told of the review process and that the Board of Directors has to approve.  The common attitude was, times up! – where’s the money?

Will the situation be any different for the bonus cycle in 2011?  I hope so, but bucking the trend of human nature is far from a sure bet.

To change those dynamics, as well as the effectiveness of your incentive plans you need to stand up and speak up.  The process is starting now, so it’s not too late to have an impact, to instill a management pay-for-performance philosophy in your company – even if it’s only one step at a time.

• Performance appraisal shouldn’t be an activity list (I was very busy), but a focused statement of achievement against quantifiable and measurable objectives

• Let the assessment tell you the rating, not the other way around (how do I fill out this form to give a 4 rating?)

• Confirm that the language on the assessment form corresponds to the performance rating.  Oh yes, you have to check.

• Assessment forms should be required before an incentive payment is made – negating an old procrastination trick (oh, just process the check.  I’ll get the form to you . . . tomorrow or the next day)

• For the 2011 cycle, start by having objectives established early in the year, not in an after-the-fact rush at the end

Granted, you’ll need more than a steely look and a waving flashlight to stop a speeding freight train, so you should educate management about these ineffective and wasteful practices before the cycle starts.  Because afterward may be too late; discipline as a learning tool is best used to prevent problems, not when Santa is already reaching into his bag of checks.

It’s Christmas, the season of light, cheer and new beginnings, so let’s be optimistic.  Prove me wrong and get it right.  Or at least start.

The other day I was trimming the landscape of several plants that had outgrown their space (in Florida everything grows, all year long) when my wife asked me, why are you cutting down that plant?  It looks nice and the blossoms have a sweet scent.  Can’t we keep it?

It was a ginger plant, and true enough it was pretty and did smell nice – but it had also over grown the area where we had planted it.  Slowly spreading outward it was crowding other plants and starting to transform our neatly designed landscape into an overgrown jungle.   The plant was no longer providing the value, the benefits we had expected when first planted.  It was time to cut back or cut out.

Which got me thinking; how hard is it for managers to tell someone “it’s time to go”?  Sometimes employees stay too long at a particular job, year after year racking up higher pay levels while not really delivering more performance than they did the previous year.  They end up performing the same activities, over and over again – for more and more compensation.

Reliable workers?  Good workers?  Yes.  Expensive?  Yes to that, too.  Is their value to you increasing?  Not really.

After awhile you will start to realize, that while reliable Bob is doing a fine job, someone else can do that same job for a lot less money.  So what do you do?

Let it slide?

Think about it.  If a loaf of bread is commonly priced at $2.00, what would make you comfortable with paying $3.00?  Or even $2.50?  For the same product, the same taste, the same benefit?  Would your extra money be well spent?  Or would you start searching the store shelves for another $2.00 loaf?

Creating the problem

How did you ever get into this fix, having a few satisfactory but overpriced employees on your staff?  Why do they seem to be stuck in place?

Often times the answer is simple and straightforward; because they are comfortable, to the point where they see no reason to rock their boat.

• They like it here; they like the job, their co-workers, the work environment.  They even like the commute.

• They know everything about the job(s), as well as the company, and so the stress level is not a concern and they feel able to focus less effort to do the job

• They are comfortable doing what they do, and have little motivation to do more.  They are not driven to break out of their mold.  They don’t see themselves as being in a rut.

• The pay is good, or at least ok, so why leave and start fresh somewhere else?  Where they would have to prove themselves all over again?  Job search is a real bother, stressful too, and should be avoided until absolutely necessary.

So now we see why some employees stick around, content to remain on that treadmill.  But why do their managers allow this problem to develop in the first place?

It’s a management issue

Why don’t managers cut off these employees?  Or promote them up and out?  Because many times taking such actions is not perceived as being in the best interest of the manager.

• The cost and headache of replacement; the time, disruption, the added stress

• More work would be created for the manager, filling in for planned projects; their time lines would be negatively impacted

• The perceived damage to the manager’s reputation (employees have quit you), and leadership is watching

What’s a manager to do then?  No one would tell you that corrective action would be easy.  Moving someone along when there isn’t a performance problem is a tough decision to make and to implement.  Though sometimes it’s the right thing to do, both for the company and the employee.

• Encourage employees to learn and grow within the company – preparing themselves for better positions

• Be open to losing the employee to another department that is better able to utilize their capabilities.  Holding on too long doesn’t help either party.

• Expect and demand continued and improved contributions from all your employees

• Plan to move them up or move them out as part of managing an evolving staff

Ask yourself, where is the balance of contribution provided (performance) versus value paid out (compensation)?  When the balance tips too far in either direction, it’s time for action.  When an employee recognizes that there is more contribution on their part than value received, they look for the exit.  However, when the employer sees that there is more value provided than growth of performance contribution, it’s time to move such employees along.

I’m just saying, the day will come – for some.  When it does, will you recognize that it’s time to pull the plug?

Compensation programs, once they are developed and implemented, tend to take on a life of their own, and like a perpetual motion machine may keep on ticking, doing what they do, perhaps long past their intended design and usefulness.

Perhaps that’s where the phrase, “we’ve always done it that way” originated.

So it’s worth checking in every now and then.  When is the last time that you reviewed the effectiveness of your management incentive plan?  To see whether the intent of the plan was still being delivered?  Is it still performing to design (risk – performance – reward) specifications, part of your pay-for-performance strategy, or is it simply an administrative reward processing machine?

What does it take to change behavior?

For example, is one of the goals of your incentive program to change behavior?  To encourage and reward performance that is above and beyond normal expectations?  That’s why it’s called incentive, right?  Or else why pay for what would have happened anyway?

That would be what is called “delayed compensation”, as in “it’s been 12 months, where’s my check?”  Such a scenario is definitely not pay-for-performance – but happens all too often, just the same.  With luck your own program focuses on a win-win strategy; that of first achieving company goals, which in turn generates a reward for the employee.

Ok, so you want to change behavior.  You want to light a fire under participants and get them motivated to achieve their quantifiable, measureable objectives.  So how much target incentive would it take to have an employee focus their attention for the entire performance year on achieving their objectives?

If you said 5%, or any number lower than 10%, then I’d suggest you save your money and don’t bother.  Because not enough money is in play to gain an employee’s attention and hold it for an entire year.  Behavior modification will not take hold and root.  What you’ll get instead is the same performance you would have gained without an incentive, only your compensation costs would have risen – with little or no ROI.

Now I’ve been around the block a couple of times, and I know that for employees clamoring to be made incentive-eligible, a measely 5% target incentive is an attraction, especially for managers trying to do whatever it takes for their employees.  However it would be incumbent on the requesting manager to explain upward what the employer would receive for that increased cost of labor.  Because if you can’t show the ROI for the cost increase, your proposal would face a steep uphill battle.

Take a chance, anyone?

There is another way to make the sale, of course, but it’s a strategy rarely taken.   You could lower base salaries a bit (don’t need a 1:1) for those newly eligible for an incentive program, and counter-balance that hit with the opportunity to earn a great more through the incentive scheme.  Most of the time employees would come out ahead by the end of the year (sometimes a great deal), but there is a risk.

And therein lies the rub.  Many employees so affected would raise such a howl of outraged indignation that your ears would bleed.  When pay-at-risk is a reality, it often doesn’t go over well in certain quarters.  The demand instead would be for additive compensation, not true variable pay.

Have a care to avoid that trap.

So as FY10 nears a close and plans are being finalized for FY11, have a look-see at your management incentive plans.   Do they really incent?  Do they provide rewards for achieving company objectives?  And while you’re at it, check whether those targeted rewards are indeed a motivating tool, or are you planning to give away money for the same performance you could have gained for free?