When you’re on the international stage and designing programs to recognize and reward an employee’s extraordinary achievements, it’s important to understand the cultural implications of these programs.  Because not everyone thinks the same way.  Companies with a truly global operating mindset will take into account national and cultural differences that distinguish its widespread employee populations.  On the other hand, domestic-oriented organizations with international operations often struggle with their viewpoint, preferring a standardized strategy.

One size rarely fits all.  One size rarely pleases everyone.

You might think that the positive aspects of employee recognition programs are a universally accepted principle, but that’s only partially correct.  Critical distinctions do exist.  In some cultures / national identities the role of the team is such a core element of employee identification that seeking out an individual contributor for recognition would not be a welcome practice.  Some employees might be reluctant to step forward, not wanting to be pushed into the spotlight.

In other countries you will find that the perceived value of cash as a recognition award varies a great deal.

Case study

A former employer of mine once implemented a global Spot Award program for its worldwide employees – without including their international HR community in the planning discussions.  Finalized program elements and procedures covered employees in over 20 countries in exactly the same fashion.  The premise was to provide immediate (read that, fast) recognition and financial rewards (Spot Awards) for those non-incentive-eligible employees who demonstrated performance above and beyond their normal job roles.  Nominations for awards would come from the employee’s direct manager, though employees could recommend co-workers as well.

While the program was deemed a success in the US (defined by the dollars spent), it proved much less successful elsewhere among the company’s far-flung international operations.

Lessons Learned

The first problem was that Managers outside the US placed a much more conservative financial value on so-called “extraordinary” employee contributions.  Or put another way, the U.S. Managers were more generous in their payment awards than elsewhere.  The result was that the cash payments on a per-employee basis were widely skewed to the U.S. employee.  Notwithstanding the vagaries of the various currency exchanges, the international offices did not spend their allotted recognition reward monies as frequently or as generously as their U.S. counterparts.

I recall one scenario where a US employee received thousands of dollars for a particular project effort, while their European counterpart was given a non-cash award (recognition dinner).  This created more than a few awkward moments when the two employees shared experiences.

The second challenge was that many international employees did not want to be individually spotlighted by the recognition program.  They were willing to receive the award, but would prefer that the recognition remain confidential.  Given that Corporate had planned an internal communications campaign to highlight individual award winners, that reluctance proved quite a hindrance.

Compounding the preference for anonymity was the desire for team over personal awards, as individual employees proved resistant to receiving the planned fanfare or preferential treatment – especially in front of their co-workers (team members).

The bottom line was that the recognition and reward program recognized a smaller than anticipated number of non-US employees, less reward money was spent per international employee, and Corporate Communications was hard pressed to find international employees amenable to being highlighted for the program.  Not exactly what the program designers had intended.

Corrective action

The solution seems straightforward.  If a global program is to affect all employees, then potential national or cultural distinctions among groups should be addressed well in advance.  Taking that step would mean including representatives from those groups in the design and communication phases of the project.  However, such a simple step seems a difficult one to take for many corporate global plan designers.  Why?

When they have the bit between their teeth developing a program that affects the majority of employees, management is often reluctant to change course to include the differing sensitivities of small populations, especially if those populations do not speak with one voice.  What they prefer to do is have local representatives accept the global directives, or at best “tweak” the round peg into the square hole.

How does that approach work for you?  I can tell you that such a tactic doesn’t work for your international employees.

A lot of talented folks are unemployed or “in transition” these days, working full time in their efforts to land a new job.

When that goal is finally reached, when someone says, “we love you, please come to work for us,” the tendency will be to respond with “thank you, YES.”  However, that immediate, knee-jerk reaction could be a mistake, as at that point you’re a desired candidate with options, while tomorrow you’ll be one of the staff – with little leverage at all.

When the moment of decision occurs, most Human Resource professionals would advise you to give the person who extended the offer a warm thank you, but then to take a little time for reflection on the particulars – the details.  The higher up the food chain you are, the more moving parts will comprise your employment offer.   No one is going to force you to decide right away, so don’t.

Presuming that the career implications are positive, that you don’t have to move to Northern Alaska, and that you want to accept the offer, let me suggest a few tactical strategies to help you make the most of what was offered.  Because with a bit of luck you can do better.

The Recruiter

Internal recruiters can be difficult to work with at times, but you need them.  So keep a smile on your face and play nice throughout the interview process.  At some point your recruiter may be called on to negotiate with management on your behalf, so the relationship you have with this individual is critical.  Why?  As your offer was likely developed from the combined thought of the hiring Manager and Human Resources, the recruiter would play the part of the messenger.  So if you wish to negotiate revised terms it’s the recruiter who needs to “sell” your point of view for a better deal.

The Package

I always advise clients to look past the base salary to the rest of the package, considering the offer in its entirety.  And make sure you have the offer in writing.   All the necessary elements should be included (i.e., title, salary, incentive, vacation, relocation, stock options, retirement, etc.), as there may be a cornucopia of opportunity to negotiate improvements by expanding your line of sight.

Cash Is Still King

It’s a safe bet that the company has left itself some wiggle room with its base salary offer, but the trick is to gauge how much room is left.  So be cautious.  Don’t be greedy by asking for a major increase, as that will alienate the hiring manager and your new friend, the recruiter.  Also, avoid giving the impression that you think they’ve low-balled you.  You can lose a lot of goodwill with that tact.

Perhaps an early performance review (six months?) will give you the time to prove your worth; or a sign-on bonus to improve your first year earnings.  Both are less visible within the organization than base salary, and management is often amenable to such “compromises.”

What’s Negotiable?

Once you’re past the cash part of the offer the company may prove more flexible, as the transparency of cash can be a limiting factor due to possible internal equity concerns.

Unless the company is restricted by plan documents, policy or statutory obligations they may be accommodating to certain requests, especially as they are eager for your acceptance.   As verbal promises carry little weight even a signed note in the margin of the offer letter would be sufficient authorization, so consider vacation days, early eligibility for incentives and options, perquisites as well as flexibility on relocation as possible improvements.

But have a care before asking for changes to tax-advantaged programs or those where equity issues might be a concern.  You will have little success here.

The Push Back

To open the negotiations first profess your genuine appreciation for the offer, then express an excitement at becoming part of the company team.  Only then should you mention your “disappointment” with whatever aspect of the offer package has created concern.

Note: make sure your list of disappointments is small.

When you ask for consideration of an improved offer remind the recruiter of your extensive background and experience, and the type and degree of contribution you will soon be making – but be specific.   Give the recruiter enough ammunition to help represent you.  Don’t leave the impression that you simply want more, but that you deserve more.

Final Thought

Your hard work at job search will pay off, that offer of employment will come your way.   When it does make sure you finish the job by not leaving opportunities on the table.  You can’t go back later to pick them up.

Job Evaluation:  an assessment of job tasks and responsibilities in order to create a top-to-bottom hierarchy reflective of the relative value that the company places upon its jobs.

Throughout my Compensation career I have never enjoyed having to evaluate jobs.  Quite the opposite.  As soon as I progressed high enough in my organization I delegated responsibility to a subordinate and washed my hands of it.  Job evaluation is a thankless task, with the evaluator subject to criticism from all sides.

• If you agree with an evaluation request, you are only admitting to the obvious.

• If you disagree and value the job different (lower), you clearly do not understand the key duties and responsibilities.

• The subjective nature of the process is viewed with suspicion by everyone.

• Job evaluators do not receive Christmas cards.

In spite of my disdain for the process the act of evaluating jobs has been found useful by companies since the 1930′s.

• They need a method to establish a hierarchy of job importance (A is bigger than B, B is bigger than C, etc.).

• They need to explain the relationship of jobs, one to another (A is how much bigger than B?).

• They want to set employee expectations and manage the Reward process (price the jobs).

Job Evaluation does have other purposes as well.  The internal assessment sets career progression steps and assists with organizational development (which jobs are necessary).  It also allows the company to avoid criticism that the competitive labor market (external forces) has dictated which jobs should be paid more or less than others.

Despite these worthy contributions the criticism of the process continues to come from many directions:

• Job descriptions are often poorly written, with content manipulated by managers to gain advantage.

• Pressure is often brought to bear on the Evaluator to increase (almost never the opposite) a rating.

• Evaluation language, forms  and procedures are often complicated and confusing to employees and managers alike.

• Senior management support for the integrity of the process is often limited.

• Employees are skeptical of an inherently subjective process where decisions are made by someone from outside their functional area.

For those who use a job evaluation process (whole job or quantitative), a further step of valuation is to place a price tag on each position – and to do that you need to conduct a study of the competitive marketplace.

Market Pricing

Here is the one process that gets you straight to the core of the matter – placing a monetary value on your jobs.  Some of its advantages as an evaluation process are:

• It is more objective, especially if using multiple survey sources.

• It is easier for management to accept, vs. the judgment of “some analyst in HR.”

• It is easier to defend results to otherwise biased managers.

• The evaluator is subject to less criticism (a personal favorite).

Most companies follow both processes, job evaluation and then market pricing.  Does that two-phased effort add value?  I have my doubts, especially if the prime goal is to establish a salary structure.

Sometimes the competitive market conflicts with your hierarchy.

What if the marketplace indicates a job is worth @$50,000, but as a result of your evaluation process the current midpoint is either much higher or much lower?  Ignoring the market could prove costly, in terms of either dollars or employee disengagement.  But if you follow competitive practice – then what is the point of your internal, job content-based evaluation process?

When faced with a choice most companies would make the change.   Dealing with reality, they would say.  So at the end of the day the true indicator of the value placed on your hierarchy is through market pricing.

Another concern is that, while Job Evaluation can be a long and tedious process it isn’t a sufficient end in itself.  You still have to price the jobs to create an effective salary structure.  The external survey data needs to be “interpreted” by a skilled analyst in order to ensure position matches are appropriate and the subsequent data properly integrated.  We call this “massaging the data.”

Some examples of how market data can be massaged between the survey source(s) and the salary structure:

• When you cluster diverse market data points into a graded salary structure.

• When you are not able to afford competitive rates you may lower the value of each position and create a below market salary structure.

• When you move jobs into certain grades to reflect the organizational realities of your company (the senior analyst must be either one or two grades higher than the core analyst).

• There will also be “favored sons,” positions that must be slotted a certain way in your hierarchy, regardless of market data.

If your goal is to price the internal and external value of your positions you do not need an involved job evaluation process, but you do need market pricing.   I would suggest a market pricing effort first, to establish competitive pay levels, and then if desired for other purposes follow up with some form of whole job evaluation process (keep it simple).  Finally, the evaluator(s) should recommend a degree of massaging to ensure that the final results “make sense,” both from an internal as well as external viewpoint.

Have you heard this complaint before? “The Company would rather pay more to a green outsider than give one of us insiders a decent promotion”?

How have you responded?

The reason for the gripe is that, when considering two individuals for the same job the employee on the inside oftentimes will be offered a lower salary than if the company went outside to hire a stranger.  To compound the insult, it is not unusual for managers to ask insiders to train and orient the new ‘wunderkinde” to learn how the company operates.

Aggrieved employees feel that an insider already knows the company, the people, the products / services as well as the relevant policies and procedures.  That knowledge and experience is an advantage, they say, shortening any learning curve and cultural orientation.  And the “fit” has already been established. Taking on the role and responsibilities of the new position and not being paid the “going rate” seems unfair – actually a penalty for being an insider.  It’s as if the company realizes they don’t have to pay as much for an existing employee, that the time spent in the company somehow reduces their market value and limits a willingness to pay a competitive wage.

Some insiders may feel that the technical experience they have gained in their current job could be used in the new position, so that in effect they have already prepared for the new role.

However, the prevailing practice seems to be that, when a company looks to the outside recruiters will be instructed to search for someone who already meets all the qualifications of the job; an experienced candidate who has already performed the job, whose only learning curve would be a short term acclimation to the new company’s policies and procedures.  They can hit the road running.

Outsiders are considered to be free of “baggage”: no biases, preconceived notions or internal social network, and are thus considered more able to become immediate agents for change / improvements within the company.

You should also note: if someone already has performed the subject role the chances are good they are already being paid at or about the competitive or going rate.  If that is the case then the company would be compelled to pay a premium in order to attract such a qualified person.  The offer of employment would likely have to be above the going rate (or above the midpoint in some companies).

Here’s another common office complaint: “I’d be paid more money if I quit and the Company rehired me”

Unfortunately there is some truth to this gripe.  Over time the external marketability of good performers is rarely matched by annual performance awards within the organization.

Merit increases averaging 3.0% (less for satisfactory performance) may not keep pace with competitive wage growth, especially for in-demand skills.  Thus over time a company would find the prevailing external wage greater than what they are already paying experienced people.  And if you have to hire an experienced person you would likely have to pay more than the going rate, thus potentially creating internal equity issues.

You can do the math; if market pay increases at a faster rate than annual performance rewards, employee pay will fall behind.  At some point this will become a serious problem.

The cumulative impact of annual merit increases is a difficult issue to resolve, in that all employees are likely being reviewed at the same time (focal date).  Special treatment requests might create equity or precedent challenges for managers – both of which Human Resources would have warned against.

Managers should therefore take periodic stock of their staff; assess their backgrounds, experiences and performances, with a weather eye toward whether current compensation is both competitive and internally equitable.  To do less would run the very real risk of disengagement and separation – of likely your better performers.

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.

Have you ever walked out of a store because of poor customer service?  Or felt frustrated because the company representative at the other end of the phone did not seem to care?  Or after enduring a bad experience with an employee at a particular establishment you said “never again”?

Customers react first and foremost to the employee they are dealing with, the one they are facing, whether the transaction is financially significant or not.  To the customer, that employee “is” your company, and these buy / not buy decision-makers will consider the treatment they receive a reflection of your company, for good or ill.

It is worth noting that the person who just caused you to take your business elsewhere is likely one of the lowest paid employees in that organization.   Does that reward / impact relationship make sense to you?  It would seem that the organization does not recognize / reward (value) the impact that their employees can have on customer relations.

Does your company acknowledge and measure the value and impact that these employees can have?  Or is this skill set a compensable factor at all?  Have you ever checked?

Many companies have long ignored the importance of the customer-facing job (non-direct sales) in determining a position’s value to their organization.  They consider education (what you know), experience (how long you have been doing something) and competitive survey data (what others are paid for a certain set of skills) in setting their pay scales.  The fact that the position also has the power of gaining or losing customers is often lost on them as “just part of the job description.”

Some job evaluation systems may give a nod for those facing customers on a regular basis, but such recognition is not often viewed as a critical factor – nor does it help determine where in the salary range the incumbent is paid.

Oftentimes it is the lower paid employee or the position with the least amount of “cachet” that presents the jobholder with the opportunity to influence customer action and reaction.  As an example, the employees most commonly approached by guests at Walt Disney World are the Custodial workers.

Is it not surprising then that these employees can have as great an impact on customer good will and retention as your executives?  Studies have also shown that having a pleasant experience when dealing with a company often outweighs price considerations and marketing glitz.

However that does not mean that you have to pay more to these employees than the marketplace suggests, but it is in your best interest to ensure that they are fairly treated:

• Ensure that actual pay centers on the middle of the range or higher.  Do not risk minimum pay scale workers interacting with your customers.
• Hire well into the salary range.  This is not a time to be cheap.  That dollar you saved today could cause you to lose a great deal more later on.   It pays to remember that it costs a great deal more to gain a new customer than to retain an existing one.
• Modify your performance appraisal process to recognize the customer facing role; attitude is just as critical here as know-how and experience.  Your customers place great value on the smile and pleasant demeanor they receive from your employees.
• Develop a point of pride for these workers, coupled with fair and competitive pay, to encourage that the right caliber of employee applies for these positions.
• Avoid structuring these as “dead end” jobs.   Offer upward opportunities for higher performing employees.
• Listen to them; they are talking to your customers and their suggestions for process improvements – even new products and services – should be considered.

How do you know whether your company is vulnerable?  1) Ensure that these positions are regularly surveyed for competitive pay practices, and then 2) Create a report segmenting the actual pay of your customer-facing employees to determine the average compa-ratio and spotlight the presence of low paid workers.   Then you will know how well you are paying those closest to your customers.

Now we should have a final word about direct sales, which is perhaps the ultimate customer-facing job.   Be careful that your training and recognition programs remember to acknowledge the importance of the customer-facing relationship – beyond an immediate financial impact.  Rewards should not be all about short term results.  A customer made unhappy by your sales rep can decide to; 1) not place an order, 2) limit their order and split their requirements with another vendor, and / or 3) spread a negative comment to their professional associates that reflects poorly on your company.

Each unfortunate scenario reinforces the financial and long term impact of the individual employee.

Such would be a hard lesson indeed.