You’ve seen your company’s want ads and heard the pitch from your recruiters; you offer competitive wages to qualified candidates.  That’s got to be a strong hook for attracting talent, right?

Big deal.

Pay structures are updated based on market trends, so the opportunities offered employees support your retention and motivation strategies, right?

Not enough.

Most employees presume their company is already meeting (or aspiring to meet) the goal of competitive pay.  Companies routinely advertise the practice (“we offer competitive wages”) and candidates in return expect this of potential employers.  But what happens when your goal of offering competitive pay is finally achieved?  Are employees grateful?  Can companies rest in their efforts to attract, motivate and retain?

I’m afraid not.

What doesn’t happen when you offer competitive pay is that your recruitment problems do not magically disappear, your employees won’t be satisfied and your compensation programs have achieved little more than being average – and isn’t that a “C” grade in school?  Is that where you want to be?  As far as aspirations go, it’s only middle-of-the-road.

If your company does pay “the going rate”, that means that approx. 50% of the companies out there are paying more than you.  That’s what average gets you, with half doing more and half doing less.  Is that what your company aspires to achieve?

No one leaves your company for less money – so all you’ll hear from your employees is about how so-and-so is making more somewhere else.  And as employees only hear what supports their own notions –they won’t pay attention to the broader rewards package, just the points that confirm their opinion that your company isn’t paying enough.

The only way to avoid this scenario is being the premier paying company in your market / industry – and can you afford that cost?

Lest we forget, it’s important to differentiate between having a salary structure (grades, salary ranges and midpoints) that provides competitive rate “opportunity” and actually paying employees at those rates.  Some describe this as whether the company is “walking the talk”.  I recall a client proud of the fact that their salary ranges were continually adjusted to mirror market rates, but was later embarrassed to discover that actual pay practices fell well below their midpoints.

For their part, employees relate to what they are being paid, not the midpoint of a salary range or other such declared “opportunity”.  To them the company’s “competitiveness” is more illusion than fact; especially if they’re experienced and have been with you for awhile.  Thus the company needs to keep its focus on actual pay vs. opportunity pay.

Why don’t employers pay the “going rate”?  Typically it is not a strategy, but a series of practices that evolved over time.

• Some candidates will accept a lower rate than should normally be paid for their knowledge and experience, and managers tend to view this as a cost savings.  Though it is more like putting a skeleton into the closet and hoping it doesn’t jump out at you down the road.  One day these employees will change their minds.

• Once you’ve started down the slippery slope of paying some employees below market rates the practice is soon compounded by internal equity.  Managers don’t want to pay similarly qualified new people more than existing employees, so the new hires are offered below market pay.

• Pay-for-performance systems have a hard time keeping up with the increased marketability of employees.  A minimally qualified employee hired at the minimum rate will gain knowledge and experience (and thus marketability) faster than a company’s annual merit system can recognize.  This is compounded when you have to hire a qualified worker and discover that the market requires you to pay more than what you’re paying your more experienced employees.

So, what’s the answer?  Management won’t agree to become the premier payer in your area, so you should consider instilling flexibility into your pay practices.  Consider targeting key jobs (highly skilled, difficult to replace, etc.) and make sure those jobholders are well paid for the market.

Other positions less skilled and more easily replaceable could continue with your “competitive opportunity” strategy.  This approach is akin to ring-fencing key talent, protecting them against poaching while recognizing / rewarding those with the most potential impact on your business.

Bottom line?  Be careful when you claim how your company provides competitive wages.  You may not be correct, but if so – big deal.

What is the competitive market price for a particular position?

It’s a simple question.  If you work in Compensation, this is what you do.  And if you’re in the US the survey sources you can call upon are numerous and well stocked with participating companies and benchmark matches – the blessings of a large country.  In fact, it is a common practice to segment the data (report separately) on the basis of industry, revenue size, or geographic region.  In some instances you can further refine your analysis by operating budget, staff size or even years of experience.

For those accustomed to such robust analysis it can be a real wake-up call when asked to conduct a similar analysis for operations in another country.  Suddenly your content-rich environment has disappeared, and in its place you find that the availability of good information can no longer be taken for granted.  Now what do you do?

Your large country database is gone.  Instead, you face a limited selection of survey sources and each offers only a fraction of your normal participant count – a far cry from business as usual.

Such is the key challenge when pricing international jobs – the limited number of companies included in surveys, even by the major vendors.  For example, Mercer Netherlands has 81 participating companies.  So it is not unusual for a market pricing analysis to include only 4 – 5 “matches” – but is that representative of common practice?

If you’re the one on the asking end of the original question, let me share the challenges that your analyst is likely to encounter.

Impact of Reduced Participation

• Limited industry segmentation: reported data will likely cover multiple industries, with limited or no segmentation.  If you’re in either a high or low paying industry, surveys will provide inflated or discounted  information

• Hard to segment by revenue size: to the extent that larger companies pay more than smaller you lose that distinction as well.  This can be especially problematic if you’re a small company.

• Global responsibilities vs. strictly national: the distinction is often blurred between national, regional and global responsibilities

• Combination jobs not well represented: you will find yourself matching against jobs “close to” your own, just to gain a “feel” for pay levels.  If your job content varies from benchmark descriptions, reported data might not capture such idiosyncrasies.

• Poor matches and / or no data when less than 5 respondents: surveys tend to provide an “n/a” when they do not have enough participants.  When you start with limited companies it’s not unusual to find unreported jobs.

• Forget Regional variations:  while it is often the case that certain geographic regions have higher pay levels, the reported data is usually national.  You may assume that participants are in the higher paid region, at your risk.

What to do?

Frustrating, isn’t it?  You can’t very well throw your hands into the air, complain about poor survey quality and move on to something else.  The limitations are there and you have to play with the cards you’ve been dealt.  Management is waiting, wondering what is taking you so long.

Working with limited resources is a test.  Your challenge is to balance an understanding of the subject position, the industry and the vagaries of limited data points in order to determine which figure best represents your position’s competitive value.

To succeed you must utilize subjectivity and your professional judgment to consider the available data and gauge which figures best reflect the job under review.  The correct answer will no longer jump off the page at you.  Compensation has become an art, not a science.

• To improve your matching, consider either the 25^th or the 75^th percentiles instead of the median or 50^th percentile to reflect your position: this can be effective with poor matches, or concerns that the reported job is either larger or smaller than your own.

• You may have to add or subtract from a benchmark job to gain a more appropriate figure for your position.  For example, if your job is a VP but the survey matches stop at the Director level (or converse), you may have to adjust up or down to create a better “guesstimate.”  Note: in such a case don’t forget that the incentive percentages will likely differ as well.

• There is no formula in making adjustments, but changes in organizational level are usually around 15% – 20%.  Within-level description changes are usually around 5% – 15%.

• If dealing with only a few positions you might have greater success by individually pricing jobs through a vendor’s database of multiple surveys, government sources and local surveys.  Vendors like ORC, Birches Group and a few others offer this select service.

• Be careful of the arithmetic exercise (averaging averages, inappropriate matches, assuming numbers, etc.) that delivers a figure you cannot validate later.  Caution: a number is remembered, while often the qualifiers that follow are forgotten.  Make sure that you document such concerns before providing specific data.

All this subjectivity means that your judgment might suffer from more skepticism, even criticism, as you cannot simply point to a survey page and say, “there it is.”

Does all this subjectivity ruin the value of your analysis?  Not at all, as long as you inform management about how limited survey resources have impacted your analysis.  They expect an answer to their question (market value?) and you need do the best that you can with the resources you have available.

Many companies with international operations are reluctant to purchase compensation surveys covering their multiple countries, on account of the cost.  To them it’s like having to survey multiple USAs, no matter the headcount involved.  As discussed in an earlier post, Shock and Awe, the cost of these international surveys can be prohibitive.

For example, if the US-based Acme Manufacturing Company has operations in Germany, India and Argentina, survey costs for these three countries would be 2-3 times the cost of comparable US surveys.  As most compensation experts recommend using multiple sources to better gauge market trends, the cost factor very quickly becomes an eye opener.  The more countries you operate in – well, you get the point.

Hence the hesitation.

However, is putting off a competitive pay analysis a good business decision?   What is gained by keeping ignorant of whether your compensation packages are competitive or not?  Of course, by happenstance you may be lucky and are already providing compliant and competitive rewards.  More likely though, the odds favor that you’re either overpaying or underpaying your employees.

Long term Impact of the Status Quo

Let’s look at the scenarios that can be playing out while you remain unaware.

Over Payments:

• Where local compensation costs are higher than the competitive market, without a corresponding ROI in productivity or performance (more pay is not a 1:1 correlation).  You are wasting money.

• Most employees will not recognize that they’re being paid above average, so any presumed positive perception is only an illusion.

If you’re overpaying, but don’t realize it because you haven’t obtained credible survey data, you will likely presume that everything is okay.  In other words, you’ll think that your pay is on par with the market, when in fact you are paying at above market rates.  How much money (the differential) will you be needlessly paying out on account of this presumption?  Chances are, the cost of finding out – of potentially identifying a key problem – would be a small fraction of the money being misspent.  Is this an efficient use of your reward dollars?  I don’t think so.

Underpayments:

• Employees feel that they are not being compensated fairly

• Your ability to attract the right caliber of employee for your operations will be weakened by low compensation rates

• Employee engagement, productivity, morale, attendance etc. will be less than what they should be, feeding off negative employee perceptions

If you’re underpaying, but don’t realize it because you failed to obtain credible survey data, you may also blindly consider that everything is okay.  After all, anyone who leaves does so for more money, right?  But doesn’t everyone?  So you may not learn much through staff defections.  Have you considered the annualized cost of losing just one experienced staff member?  And should you lose more?

Choosing instead a course of hesitation and delay will not rectify any festering issues; they don’t go away or fix themselves.  Instead, your inaction will worsen the situation and make eventual corrections more painful.

Cost of doing business

Do you remember that ad line, “you can pay me now, or pay me a lot more later”?

While squirming to avoid costs the company might try to obtain free data off the internet.  Good luck there.  Pundits will tell you that the value of free data, even if available is usually less than what you paid for it.

Instead, ask yourself if you would spend a dollar today to save three tomorrow?  That’s the question you must answer, to gauge the economic value of knowing the competitive position of your international employees.

Your financial folks might see it another way.  They might see only a finite dollar amount being spent, against a “maybe” savings estimate.  They will ask you for guarantees you cannot give.  It’s not like buying a machine that will increase productivity, lower production costs, raise profit margins and lower the cost of sales – all measurable.

Would you pay to learn how competitive are your services and product lines?

To make informed and effective business decisions, management requires knowledge of present circumstances, the challenges being faced, the import of the status quo and the implications of change.   When dealing with the single greatest cost to your organization, employee pay, it would be well worth your effort to spend what is necessary to give senior management the proper ammunition for decisions that could drive the business forward.

Yes, it would be well worth the cost.

Anybody raise their hand?  Of course not; no one wants to be paid at the minimum rate of anything.

It’s one thing to hold down a minimum wage job, paid the government mandated rate, but it’s another to be higher placed in the organization but only paid the lowest available rate for your job.

How would it make you feel?  Not a warm, fuzzy moment, is it?

Minimum Value[

When you pay employees the minimum rate for a position you’re telling them that their value to you is just that, the least payable for the position – which is not exactly a strong statement of recognition or encouragement.  Quite the opposite.

Of course, there may be several legitimate reasons to pay at the bottom:

• A candidate only meets the minimum qualifications for the position
• The employee being promoted has a salary low in their current salary range, and it would take too large an increase to raise them into the new range
• Other, more experienced employees in the same or similar job are presently paid low in the same salary range.  In other words, internal equity is an inhibitor of higher pay.

Hopefully the company will keep an eye on this employee, so that their status as “minimum paid” will be as brief as possible.

Given the above, what must it mean to an employee when you pay them less than the minimum; less than the announced lowest value for the job?  It lets everyone know that to you (the employer) their value is even less than what you’ve told other employees you would pay for minimally qualified employees.

Studies have shown that low paid employees tend to perform as you reward / treat them.   If you keep someone low paid relative to their internal / external worth, you will receive a similar value from them (performance) in return.

Paying less than the minimum

So why would they do this?  What reasons would compel companies to pay employees at a rate below the minimum of the salary range?

• The employee is newly hired, with minimal qualifications for the position, so the company uses a temporary training rate.  When performance indicates the employee can do the job at the basic level they are raised to the minimum rate – usually in 3 to six months
• For an internal promotion, where the employee is minimally qualified and the company is giving them “a chance”.  Again, a quick increase to the minimum is warranted when performance indicates.
• If a large increase is necessary to move an employee from one salary range to another, some Managers resist granting so much money at once, preferring instead to grant installments that will eventually gain the minimum rate
• Some managers want to see a “stretch” employee actually perform before the pay them the minimum rate.  In this case the manger puts the employee into the position, with full responsibilities – but without paying for it.

The question you’re all asking is, do companies actually follow through and quickly raise such affected employees to the salary range minimum?  I’m afraid the track record is spotty, at best.

A Bitter Harvest

Without off-cycle intervention an employee at the minimum almost never reaches the midpoint of the salary range.  Consider this:  an average performing employee paid at 80% of the midpoint (a standard minimum rate for a 50% salary range spread) will receive a series of 3% – 4% annual merit increases, while the salary range will likely raise @2% or more each year.  Under such circumstances how long will it take for the employee to move a net 20% to reach the midpoint?  8 Years or more.  How long will it take an average performing employee to gain enough knowledge / experience in the job to warrant being paid the market rate?  A lot less time than 8 years.

Low paid but satisfactorily performing employees will see their market value increase faster than most employers raise their pay – thus making this group more susceptible to being lured away by competitors, or any employer willing to pay them what they are worth.

When you promote an employee whose resultant pay is near the bottom of their salary range, be careful to avoid creating problems for yourself in the new salary range; it will be very difficult to move a low compa-ratio employee to a higher ratio in the new range – without providing an eyebrow-raising increase.  Who has the budget for that, even during good times?

So look to the bottom quartile of your salary ranges and find out who is there.  Marginal performers likely deserve no better, but you had better ensure that higher caliber employees are moved along and further into the salary range before soured morale and disengagement set in – or they simply quit.

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 and arguably receiving less.

Think on it, though: 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 surveys 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 Sweden showed 202 participating companies, while the Netherlands counted 81.  Meanwhile the US survey totaled 500 companies.

To compound this dilemma of accessing credible data you will typically be required to pay “list” costs for each survey, as compared to the US where I was able to gain lower 2^nd copy costs and often times managed to wheedle discounts or “anticipated” participation rates.  Such tactics are not as readily available overseas.

Availability of locally-grown survey data is another challenge.  I have tried to locate such sources, even those provided in the local language, in order to create a greater “buy-in” sense from management, but with very limited success.   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.

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.  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):

• ER Limited
• ORC
• Birches Group

Note that I have not included sources from the current vogue of online surveys, like PayScale and Salary.com.  To my mind these sources still have credibility problems to overcome before they would be accepted by senior management as a viable resource.

Another effective strategy for reducing costs is to age current data forward, coupled with the use of biennial purchasing.  However, if utilizing 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 footprint in a given country.  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.