Have you ever found yourself in a situation where someone (usually your boss or a higher-up) refers to a bogus number, a draft or temporary or preliminary figure that you had given some time ago, and now know is wrong?  When you ask why that number is still being used, they point back at you?

Awkward, isn’t it?

You’re suddenly behind the eight-ball and on the defensive because of a number perhaps you didn’t want to give in the first place.

You want to shout, “don’t you recall that I told you that the figure was draft?”   That the analysis was incomplete at the time, that further checking was required, or that you gave your best estimate based on only preliminary data?

But you are the author of that number, no matter how wrong it is today.  So why is it still in use?

Selective memory

It turns out that all that was remembered by the fellow with the frown on his face was that particular damning figure, and all the buzz of qualifier terms and conditions that preceded and followed it have been forgotten.  To your chagrin you may be viewed as someone who either; 1) gave bad information, or 2) changed your mind without telling anyone.

Unfortunately, you can’t say what you’re thinking.  That wouldn’t be a good career move.  The only card you have to play reads “damage control.”  Roll out those qualifiers again.

Earlier in my career, when I was responsible for job evaluation, I would steadfastly refuse to offer a preliminary evaluation, having been burnt by the same scenario as above.  I found that, if the managers liked what they heard, that’s all that they would hear.  Because if lord forbid the final analysis differed from the preliminary estimate you’d be hauled up before the Inquisition to explain why you changed your mind.

“I already told the employee,” is a phrase I’ve heard more than once – before I learned to keep my mouth shut.

So be careful when you give a number to management before you’re confident enough to defend it.  For some reason they will grab what you give and remember it with their steel trap, but flawed memory, while at the same time forgetting any qualifier terms or cautions you might have provided.

It’s human nature to remember what you want to hear, or what you can accept.  So that preliminary figure you surrounded with qualifiers?  Chances are management was OK with the number, or at least could deal with it, and so off they ran to integrate your analysis into their plans.

“I don’t remember you saying that”

In their forgetfulness they might even grow irritated with you, for all the plans they made with “draft” or “preliminary” data (shame on them!).  These folks suddenly act like you changed your mind, or gave them bad information.  All your previous explanations and qualifier comments are lost.

Management memories can be quite selective.

What can you do about it?

This is a situation where your options are limited, because; a) you’re likely dealing with your boss or higher, and any critique of their behavior needs be carried out very carefully, and b) when you’re asked for a number you generally have to give one.  Begging off is not often a career enhancing move.

So remember a tactic once described to me by a Training colleague:  you have to tell them, then tell them again, then remind them of what you told them.  So if caught up in a “give me a number” quandry, you need to emphasize whatever qualifiers might later modify the figure being discussed.  Then you have to repeat your concerns again before closing.

Finally, put the worrisome figure in writing, nicely wrapped together with whatever concerns you have about its validity.  Cover yourself.

Will it work?  Will it save you from another awkward moment?

Life isn’t fair, is it?  So no, even this strategy will fail from time to time.  But at least you’ll have positioned yourself to present an effective response.

Just be polite about it.

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons, by Leeks

You just received an above average performance rating from your manager, which naturally put a big grin on your face.  Which was subsequently wiped away when you heard that for your annual salary adjustment you would receive what amounted to one percent (1%) more of a salary increase than “Joe Average” down the hall.  Tight budget this year, you’re told.

You know Joe, or his type, right?  He’s the disengaged clock watcher whose most notable accomplishment is keeping his chair warm.  Doesn’t do enough to either get fired or stand above the crowd.  However he’s the standard, and so receives an “average” award.

One percent more, they say?  For delivering what your boss described as 110% effort for the entire performance period.  Not worth it, you say?  Some studies have suggested that, if the differential between performance levels isn’t at least 2%, then you’d be better off with a general adjustment.

How does this happen?

When assessing the dynamics of employees and their work ethic, it is generally agreed that performance rewarded is often performance that is repeated.  Like the Pavlov experiments of so long ago, we tend to repeat that activity which previously gave us pleasure or reward.  We want more of it.  However, if the performer doesn’t feel rewarded, and is certainly not pleased by the company action, does the company gain or lose when that desirable performance is not repeated?

Perhaps your performance reward system is not as effective as you would like.

So the question becomes, how much of a performance differential between the best and just OK is enough to keep your better performers motivated and feeling appreciated?  A good guess is that it’s not 1%.

As a manager, can you balance the need to reward your better performers against the reality of tight budgets?  If you want to retain the high performers, you’d better find a way.  So then, what if you started by figuring out how much reward to provide?  Then whatever is left can be carved out among lesser performers.  That will protect your “stars.”

Ahh, but that won’t make you popular among the masses, will it?  And for many managers being liked is a key element of self-worth.  But how high up the priority list should popularity as a manager be marked?  Will you be assessed for popularity when your performance review is due?  I don’t think so.  Likely it won’t be in the top three of what senior leadership is expecting from you.

Your job description probably doesn’t even list this characteristic, and it is certainly not a factor in job evaluation.  So perhaps there are other criteria for a successful manager that should receive more attention.

If you’re concerned about differentials another consideration is the number of ratings you have in your performance appraisal system.  For example, with a seven scale system the need to provide percentages for at least five makes the division of reward opportunity a bit tight.  And if you try to maintain a two percentage point differential between performance levels, the numbers might become higher than what’s deemed affordable.

I don’t believe in reward for tenure, but I do believe in reward for outstanding job performance.  If the merit spend budget doesn’t have enough monies to recognize and reward everybody, each in turn for their contribution, then I’d suggest that you take care of your better performers first.

Managers don’t like to write job descriptions; which means they won’t do them, will procrastinate endlessly or will delegate the responsibility to almost anyone else.  If pushed into a corner many will simply throw together a half hearted effort that is quickly flagged by its poor quality.

And that’s for new descriptions.   Showing a similar distaste managers won’t be interested in recommendations to periodically update whatever they already have on file.

When faced with a compulsion from HR, a typical response of passive resistance would be to take a minimalist approach, providing only the least acceptable product, so they could check this onerous duty off their to-do list and get back to more important work.

Now why is that?  Why is the lowly job description document considered as popular as a mafia lawyer or a used car salesman?  Why do so many managers consider preparing a job description a thankless task, one they often delegate to the less informed and those even less interested?

The Manager’s favorite kicking-boy

Let’s see how many reasons you can identify with.

• HR formatting: a common criticism is that the “forms control people” have designed an either complex or lengthy (often both) document that demands answers to questions that go well beyond “what does the job do?”

• It takes too long: managers can more easily verbalize a job’s tasks or accountabilities then they can put pen to paper.  Description preparation is not considered an easy or simple process.

• Better writers get a better deal:  a belief that those who are more comfortable with writing (can turn a better phrase) will receive better / higher salary grades and pay.  The fear by is that prose will trump content.

• No time:  managers will tell you that they always have better things to do; namely activities that more directly relate to advancing the needs of the business.

For those critical of their organization’s job descriptions I’d venture to say that all four of the above reasons were checked, right?

So why do we need the darn things in the first place?  Why do we periodically turn our managers into administrators?   Because, contrary to populist sarcasm outside of HR, those descriptions do perform several important functions.

• Job description: (duh!) a description of the role and responsibilities of the job holder, to explain what activities should be taking place
• Job evaluation:  to assist in determining which job is more important.  Evaluators use the descriptions to help measure the internal value of each job, one to another.
• Market pricing:  ensures that when the Analyst is reviewing competitive pay practices, like jobs are matched.
• Performance appraisal: helps both the employee and the manager know with specificity what activities (and results) are expected from those performing a particular job
• Organization structure: the description aids a manager in establishing why a job is needed, and how it differentiates from other jobs.  It provides the justification to create a position or hire a new employee.

Thus we see that the simple fact of describing the job generates several ongoing benefits to the company.  Let the debate continue about formats, word count and other compensable factors, but most would agree – you really need to describe what performance you’re prepared to pay for.

The cost of getting it wrong

So what happens when the balance of importance vs. distaste is skewed, when descriptions are carelessly slapped together, left in a closet to go out of date or simply ignored as new / revised jobs are established?  How bad can it get?

It can get to be an expensive dilemma.

• Incorrect job evaluation: you get the grade wrong.  Typically erring on the high side when descriptions are vague, outdated or filled with puffery results in artificially higher grades.  That action pushes up fixed costs (salaries), without a corresponding increase in value received (performance).

• Mismatch in market pricing: like the above, incorrect matching could hand the job a higher price tag than warranted by actual responsibilities.  Again, costs go up.

• Title inflation:  when definitions are vague or too similar to like jobs the environment is ripe for “throwaway titles”, meaningless designations meant to placate employees.  The trouble is, this insidious practice actually worsens employee discomfort over time, while also raising compensation costs.

I don’t like job descriptions either, and hate to write them.  But I recognize that they’re good for me and for the business.  So here are a few tips ‘n tricks to help you swallow a sometimes bitter pill.

• Keep it simple, and keep it short.  Focus on major tasks or accountabilities.  More than two pages can be overkill.

• Write the “basic purpose” last.  Don’t start with it.  Trust me, the task is easier that way.

• Get yourself a resource library that carries a host of pre-written benchmark descriptions.  Either in book form or better – go online.  Now the job is editing, not creation.  Note: I am not recommending a source, as there are hundreds in a Google search, from the generic to the specific.

• Don’t have the employee write the description.  Too much chance for bias creep and unintended influences.  It’s a manager’s responsibility.

• Consider an annual review to keep content current.  Such is a small project if maintained, but a eventually a large one if ignored

The bottom line?  It’s ok to hate job descriptions (a salve to my conscience), as long as they are given the proper attention and respect.  The benefits do outweigh the hassle.

When you first look to purchase compensation surveys for your international population, it’s going to be a real wake-up call.  For those accustomed to only US surveys you will find that the available data in many countries is more limited than what you’re accustomed to seeing, as are the number of companies involved.  What won’t be reduced though is the expense.  Quite the opposite.  If you have multiple countries to deal with, your budget for credible compensation data will likely become a multiple of your US experience.

When I worked overseas my budget for compensation surveys was 3-4 times my previous US budget – and I only had to worry about Europe.  What a shock that was – spending much more while receiving less.

Each country is a separate USA, a unique national entity having country-specific labor laws, employment regulations, tax structure, competitiveness challenges and variations of economic strength.  For each you will need a country-specific survey to assess the local competitiveness of your employees.

International HR practitioners will need to adjust their thinking to react effectively in smaller countries, where the working population is limited and so is the number of survey participants.  It will be difficult to slice data by geography, industry or employee segment, as the data points grow smaller and smaller with each criteria.  For example, a well-regarded Mercer survey for the Netherlands showed 81 participating companies, while the US survey totaled 500.

Availability of locally-grown survey data is another challenge.  I have tried to locate such sources, even those provided only in the local language, in order to create a greater “buy-in” sense from management, but with limited success.   As a result even global companies with non-US headquarters tend to use the multi-national consulting firms.

Accessing International Resources

Should you require information for international compensation practices, below are a number of useful sources, each of which can be tapped via a Google search.  Note: many of the non-US sources focus on limited employee segments or functional areas, which may limit their usefulness during a general search.

Towers Perrin                                    Mercer                                 Compensation Research (UK)

Culpepper                                           Hewitt                                  CSi Remuneration (Aus)

AON Consulting Group                  Hay Mgmt Consulting     VenCon Research Intl (Ger)

Radford (high tech)                         McLagan (Finance)          Economic Research Institute (ERI)

IPAS (high tech)                                TymWork (Sw)                  Western Management Group

Taylor Root (UK)                               CFA Institute                      Euro Comp (Western Mgmt)

Federation of European Employers (FedEE)                         Executive Resources Ltd (ER Limited)

Watson Wyatt                                   Birches Group                   European Remuneration Network (Ger)

Organization Resource Counselors (ORC)                              Ernst & Young

PricewaterhouseCoopers            Croner Reward (UK)       Robert Walters (UK)

Baumgartner & Partner (Ger)     Interconsult Ltd (UK)      Australian Institute of Mgmt

Should you only have a few positions (2-3) in a given country you can reduce costs through individual job pricing, vs. the purchase of an entire survey.  Having more than a few positions though, would render this tactic economically unfeasible.  A few notable sources (though others from the above list may also be able to help):

• Birches Group
• ORC
• ER Limited

Another effective strategy for reducing costs is to age current survey data forward, coupled with the use of biennial purchasing.  However, when using this strategy have a care to limit its use to countries with stable economies.  Using such standard growth figures would miss the mark in countries showing greater volatility.

The Cost of International Operations

Too many HR practitioners and their Managers fail to take into account the expenses involved in keeping their international compensation programs competitive, especially where the organization has a small employee footprint.  For companies new to the international scene, and for those with small populations in several countries, the shock of survey costs could be daunting.  Many times the result is a reluctance to purchase the data, in some cases letting matters on the ground continue to fester – potentially overspending and / or creating debilitating equity problems for themselves.

Call it the cost of doing business, but if you’re going to maintain effective operations overseas, and you want to provide a competitive reward package (of course you do!), it would be unwise to shortchange the process by guesstimating or otherwise trying to make-do without credible information.

The cost of surveys is a fraction of the possible financial impact that could result from retaining non-competitive reward programs.

Most compensation professionals seem to agree; the concept of pay for performance is a good thing.  Providing rewards on the basis of individual employee effort and achievement makes sense.  However, critics do have a point when they describe how it is that many companies have tried – often with dubious results – to effectively link the granting of financial rewards with their performance assessment process.

That’s when the bright and shiny concept becomes a bit bruised and tarnished in practice.  It’s not easy to connect two inherently subjective processes – performance assessment and the individual reward decision – into an equitable pay for performance system.

When assessing their employees, managers hampered by limited performance appraisal training and experience will find themselves challenged to deal with conflicting dynamics:

• A recognition that they should provide high performing employees with larger than average increases

• A desire to grant “fair” increases for everyone who “did a good job” during the performance period

What’s the problem?  The rewarded employees typically comprise over 95% of the population.  If the minimum increase granted is a “fair” or “average” amount (everyone expects at least that much), then in order to effectively provide the higher achievers with a suitable reward you will have to find more money.  But all you have left are the monies held back from the scant number of non-achievers that you’ve identified.  You are giving them zero increases, right?

Do the math.  You won’t have enough money.  When given a finite amount of reward funds you won’t have the latitude of writing checks for beyond that.  And you can’t call Human Resources to say that you need more money – because extra funds won’t be available.

So you have to stand up and make a call about employee performance and reward – because there will be no reinforcements coming to the rescue with money bags to save your promises.

Whoever said that doing the right thing was going to be the easy way?

But this “everyone has to win” attitude is pervasive in some organizations.  And add to that the fact that most managers want to be liked, so they want to give their employees money – as many as they can and as much as they can.  Perhaps for reasons that upper management wouldn’t agree with.  Perhaps for reasons not directly related to performance.

Most managers will readily agree that better performing employees should receive more in the way of individual rewards.  But how should those leaders balance their conflicting needs?  Below is a short quiz, posing questions to illustrate the variety of possible decision-making scenarios – both good and . . . not so good.

• First of all, do they accurately and objectively assess performance?

• Do they recognize higher levels of achievement by providing higher reward amounts?

• Do they penalize with lower or zero increases those who haven’t performed well?

• Or does everyone not under threat of termination receive a raise?

• Do they grant average increases for average performance, in spite of budget limitations?

• Do they blame management that there isn’t enough money for what they want to do?

In effect, do managers take from Peter (lower performers) in order to pay for Paul (higher performers)?

Now some will say, what’s the risk?  What’s the big deal during times of reduced merit budgets?  I would suggest that you consider the impact that your decisions are likely to have on key employee groups.

• High performing employees have employment options outside the company, even during hard times.  Treat them poorly at your peril.  You likely won’t want these folks to quit, because of the direct financial impact that might have on the business.

• Average performers have less options for leaving, and your business can afford their departure.  Hard talk?  Yes, for sure, but when you have limited reward dollars you’d better make the best of it.   Average is more easily replaced than above average.

• Below average performers: you don’t want these folks to stay, do you?  Don’t make it easy by becoming a soft touch.

At the end of the day the question for managers is, are you going to manage the human resources of the company, or will you decide to go through the motions?  Will you make a stand or pass the buck?

Make the performance and reward decision and stand with it.  And don’t throw out a lame excuse like “I’d like to give you more money, but HR won’t let me.”

That’s not management; it’s administration.