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.

I’d like to say a kind word about the job evaluators out there.  You know who I mean; those unappreciated, oft-criticized and generally disrespected Human Resource analysts who have been given (because no one volunteers) the thankless task of deciding which jobs in your organization are more or less important than others.

These practitioners are often viewed by those on the receiving end as displaying the behavior of a smug know-it-all, a blind follower of the rules, and having a general attitude of superiority, all wrapped up in a God complex.  Unless they agree with you.

They don’t receive Christmas cards.

Somebody Has To Do It

But job evaluation is a task that needs to be done.  It’s critically important to the organization.  Somebody has to establish order amidst the organizational chaos, to sort out a viable stepping stone hierarchy of jobs, from minor to major – and by how much.  For most of us it’s Human Resources who establishes and maintains this internal objectivity; the alternative (having managers decide on their own jobs) would be like having the fox in the chicken coop.

Practically all companies of any size and complexity have some sort of a rating system to establish relationships between jobs and to maintain the credibility of that valuation process.  Employees are trained in the application of that rating system / process, and as such are charged with its administration.

For their part Managers don’t like evaluators; the independent valuation process keeps them from doing whatever they feel like.  The system keeps order, while maintaining equity and fairness through objective application.  Many Managers though, have a “what have you done for me lately?” mentality.  When they approve of an evaluation result, there’s silence – because the result was obvious.  When they don’t agree with the result the evaluator is a blind idiot.  So all the evaluators hear from their audience, their clients, is criticism, anger and disrespect.

True enough, mistakes can happen, especially in an inherently subjective process, but in a worst case scenario how far off can an evaluator be?  One grade?  Usually there’s an appeal process.  As it is, evaluators can only work on the basis of the information provided (what they’re told) before the evaluation.  With no skin in the game, without even knowing the names of the affected employees, they try to do what’s fair, and that’s to report (to make the decision) as objectively as possible on the internal value of a job. To remain as unbiased as possible.

But the art of evaluation remains the butt of jokes, the kicking boy of every complainant out there who doesn’t like the score.

• You don’t know the job as well as I (manager, employee, department head, etc.)

The criticism is that the evaluator can’t possibly understand, and therefore accurately rate a job they’re only told about, or after reading a job description.  So the (biased) view of the job holder(s) should sway the evaluation.

• Evaluation is subjective; so is the result.  Why should I trust you?

Every job evaluation system is subjective.  Even the point factor formulae are simply a compilation of a series of scored subjective decisions.  The key here is the standard and consistent application of criteria, no matter which job is being evaluated.

• Job descriptions are the problem

The forms used for evaluation purposes are criticized as old, outdated, inaccurate, incomplete and generally not reflective of what is truly going on.  However, this complaint is usually heard after the result is reported.

• Squeaky wheels get greased; outside pressures negate objectivity and credibility

Because of the subjectivity element evaluators are perceived of as easily manipulated by pressure points; politics, favored sons, avoiding controversy, want to be liked, etc.

Who would want such a job?  I didn’t.  As my own HR career progressed I passed off this no-win responsibility as soon as I could.  It was like being the medieval tax collector, reviled by all – just for doing your job.  So I’ve been there, know what it’s like to be responsible for making those decisions and facing the wrath (never the thanks) of angry managers and employees.

So give the job evaluators a break and cut them some slack.  They’re doing the job that you wouldn’t want.  They mean well, and they’re doing the best they can under trying conditions.  Instead of criticizing them, help them to better understand the job being evaluated.

And next time around, send them a Christmas card.

When working with a client new to the international stage, or an organization with only a small employee footprint overseas, one of the pressing challenges that compensation practitioners face is educating leadership as to what to expect when dealing with international rewards.  Of special note is the quandary of obtaining reliable sources of foreign compensation data.

For most U.S.-based companies determining the market price of their employees is a consistent need; to determine the competitive, comparative value of local jobs.  To do this you need to know what similar jobs are paying within each country.

Many corporate practitioners begin their global study not anticipating a problem, as they’re accustomed to working with U.S. compensation surveys.  How much different can it be? they ask.  We’ll have a look at competitive pay in, say . . . Austria, or Argentina or Thailand, get ourselves a couple of survey sources, flip a few pages and – there we are.

And while we’re at it, the fantasy continues, let’s make sure we focus on data relevant to our industry.  Segmenting jobs by revenue size would also help.  Then, while we’re at it, let’s consider the geographic location of our operations to make sure we can nail down local information for the lower ranked jobs.

It should be a straightforward process.

But it’s not.

Reality Bites

Instead of a smooth pathway for the compensation answer man, a role you’ve grown accustomed to playing with U.S. surveys, the road ahead is not only bumpy and pitted, but in some sections the upheaval has taken out the entire road.  Let’s look at the why.

• Country size: Compared to the U.S. there are simply less companies in the survey database from each reporting country – sometimes not many at all.  Most countries are either much smaller or have less developed economies, and the fewer companies who participate in a survey the fewer data points that will be available for analysis.

• National data only: You may want industry data, or a specific size of organization (revenue), but most times what you’ll find available is only national data.  Again, this is because there are too few participants to support data segmentation.

• Basic job matches: Another reflection of limited data is that there are fewer benchmark positions available for matching.  Specialty jobs may not be included, and even those simply labeled “senior,” “assistant” or other steps within a job family might not be listed.

• Secrecy:  Confidentiality can be an issue, especially among emerging market countries.  In some regions a cultural reluctance to share information further restricts survey participation, and a tight labor market for skilled positions can create a fear of employee poaching – so they’re not talking.

You can elect to conduct a custom survey of selected companies, but custom surveys may not be an effective strategy either, as the process is both time consuming and expensive, especially if outsourced.  And this strategy would still have the issues of confidentiality and reluctance to participate, as well as a need to provide those participating with at least summary results.

So what you’re left to deal with is an environment of less certainty, less assurance of what the “market” is paying and more reliance on a “feel” for reasonable compensation.  That subjective “sense of the marketplace” can be a tough sell to a skeptical management, especially if they don’t understand or even accept the limitations you’re struggling with.

How many compensation practitioners are comfortable with sticking their neck out with recommendations when they don’t have the smoking gun of multiple survey sources handing them the common practice answer?  Would you?

The Struggle To Adapt

Those who experience such scarcity of data struggle to adapt their mindset in order to present a reasonable assessment of diverse country-specific competitiveness.

• Limited data weakens reliability: Practitioners cannot rely on survey data with the degree of confidence they’re accustomed to with U.S. surveys.  The phrase, “survey says” carries less certitude.

• Damaged credibility: Concern over selling so-called “results” to senior management when the data is scarce, job matching is more tentative and the “marketplace” is not well represented.

• Job family gaps: Certain levels (senior, lead, “x” yrs of experience, etc.) may not be reported, leaving one with a choice of making arbitrary adjustments to benchmark jobs or bypassing (ignoring) the job with a “n/a” code.

So, what are you going to do?

Accepting the limitations of what data is available for analysis is not an easy pill to swallow for those accustomed to robust U.S. information sources.

• Adjustments: When your job is not identified in the survey you may need to select a similar role (larger or smaller) and adjust the figures up or down – or you could “pass” on trying to match the job, though non-answers rarely help.

• Get off the median: When revenue brackets are not available (common) and you’re dealing with a small to mid-size company you should consider using the 25th percentile of available data as a representative market, instead of the higher median or weighted average.

• Educate management: It’s essential that management is led to understand the limitations of international compensation data in determining “the answer.”  Your recommendations, while based on sketchy information, are coupled with your professional experience and judgment.  You have to sell this.

Determining marketplace values for overseas jobs is not an exact science.  While you’re often left to “feel the pulse” of the country-specific environment you’re not telling management how much to pay someone, only what the generalized “market” seems to be paying for similar jobs.  They have to take it from there.

I share my house with a brood of cats and it’s been that way for as long as I can remember.  I love them, but recognize that they are stubborn, stubborn, stubborn creatures, and at times it seems like they’re the ones who run the place.

Have you ever tried to change a cat’s food, or their litter box, or their water dish?  They don’t react well to the new and different, and when they don’t react well their loud and disdainful behavior can really disrupt your day.

These felines are also creatures of habit, preferring a daily pattern of repeated behavior that in their view creates a safe and reassuring environment – where they feel the most comfortable.  Break that pattern and you get the look, or worse.  I can attest to the fact that dealing with the stubborn and habitual can be a real trial.

In the business world there are many companies run by a leadership who possess similar inflexible behavior, an aversion to breaks in pattern.  Those who like things just the way they are.  Whoever coined the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” was probably a charter member in that “blinders on, head in the sand” leadership cadre who likes things just the way they are.

While it’s a truism that yesterday’s strategy and operating principles are rarely a recipe for future success, how often do you see managers hang on to what used to work – until the signs of failure become so visible and so painful that it can no longer be accepted?

Comfort

These folks with their heads in the sand are not necessarily bad managers, or even poor business leaders.  What they are is comfortable, and when we’re comfortable we feel safe, relaxed in our surroundings, familiar with what needs to get done and a bit over confident about our control of our business environment.

When we feel comfortable and confident we prefer to repeat those same actions that brought us to our present state of mental ease.  In other words, we don’t like to rock the boat, we don’t like “change for the sake of change,” and we’re skeptical of new and unproven techniques.  We get stubborn and dig in our heels.

It’s worked before, it brought us success.  Let’s leave it alone.

However, when someone or some event breaks that comfort level (new competition, weakened economy, technological advances, etc.), the first thing we experience is anger that our warm cocoon could be shattered by new business realities.  Soon enough though, that anger will convert to a sense of fear, whether we admit it or not.  More likely we’ll act out in an aggressive fashion that disguises the panic we feel.

Fear

People can be fearful of change, especially leaders.  Because they don’t know the new rules, because there are risks when implementing new strategies, and those who stick their head above the crowd can get it chopped off.  We’ve all seen that happen.

When you must get yourself up and out of your comfort zone it’s a natural reaction to feel defensive and unsure about what you should do next.  Leadership may not have the competencies or the experience to adapt to new business challenges.  It’s not difficult to lead when things are going well.  But when the going gets rough, when the pressure is on to change course, to implement new strategies, not so much.

I’m not sure about what to do; everything has changed.

Pushed out from their safe environment management can find itself unsure, defensive and unsettled about the correct way forward.  And until matters settle down again they can be difficult for practitioners to work with.

You can help them

You may consider managers stuck in the past as living dinosaurs, but have a care because these beasts have teeth.  They don’t like this uncomfortable new world, and they tend to shoot the messengers.  To offer assistance to a leadership challenged by the unfamiliar practitioners need to step up and provide steady, confident and reliable advice.

• Acknowledge the past: Yes, previous strategies have worked well and brought the company success and financial strength, reputation and a strong foundation for the future.  A pat on the shoulders for management.

• Focus on the why: Whenever advocating change, focus your message, your research, your examples and your entire business case on why your recommendations lead to solutions.  Keep your eye on the goal, not that you’re changing patterns of behavior.

• Dangle the carrot: Always point toward the business and personal success that would be the result of your recommendations.  Besides showing the achievement of business success, emphasize that the deciding leadership will gain credit for managing the organization through these difficult times.  Stroking the ego doesn’t hurt here.

The next time someone comes to you with an idea to build a better mousetrap, listen to them.  Keep your eyes, your mind and your options open.  Instead of being afraid of change, embrace the opportunities presented.  It can make for a better tomorrow, and you’ll shake the tag of “stubborn.”