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.

Really?  Seriously.

Sometimes a warning flag needs to be waved more than once.   Because sometimes the decision-makers out there just don’t get it.   After all, goes the wide-eyed and innocent lament, what’s the big deal if you give an employee a bogus title?  Is anyone being harmed?  It doesn’t cost anything, right?

Some Human Resource advocates even claim that offering an employee a special title is a harmless and inexpensive reward, one that doesn’t raise employer costs.  It’s nothing more than a feel-good gesture.   It also raises the morale of affected employees.

I don’t think so.  So pay attention to the red flag I’m waving.

Why does this happen?

• Managers grant esoteric titles to those for whom they have limited means of reward.  “I can’t give you the increase you deserve, so let’s change your title.”  Like greasing a squeaky wheel for a short term fix they want to do something to keep the employee quiet.

• Employees are given opportunities (titles) where none should exist.  Have you experienced the long serving Secretary / Administrative Assistant promoted to Office Manager, while performing the same job?

• As a salve to employees a “special” title is used because the position (usually clerical) is considered so different from other jobs that it needs to be specifically identified.  Special titles can also be seen as reflecting on the importance of the managers themselves.

You Can Reap A bitter harvest

Let me explain what you can expect from planting these problem “seeds.”

• Role clarity (job duties, business impact, decision-making, etc.) behind questionable titles becomes blurred.  This in turn generates more confusion as the company creates Senior Managers and Group or Area Directors and other in-between titles to differentiate the “real” jobs from inflated titles.

• When attempting to determine market competitiveness the less accurate the title is in relation to the work performed, the more likely your analysis will be skewed.  Benchmarking unique, employee-specific and inflated titles hampers an accurate assessment of your competitiveness.  This could have real cost impact.

• Those with inflated titles will expect the perks or privileges that accompany the title, and their absence could cause difficulties.  What do you think went through the Receptionist’s mind when her title was changed to “First Impressions Manager?”  It’s an awkward conversation when you tell an employee that the import of their new level in the organization is “title only.”

• Inflated titles can be a detriment to incumbents as well, such as the “Director” who now only qualifies for a “Manager” title with a prospective employer.  These employees have limited opportunities outside your company because other employers would be reluctant to hire someone where the title is lateral or even backward to what they currently hold.  The result could be that mediocre performers remain with your company.

• The natural extension of inflated titles is inflated grades / salary ranges, as the bogus “senior” position would be placed in a higher grade than the “intermediate” position.  This practice will gradually increase your fixed costs without a corresponding rise in either performance or capability.

• Employees don’t like giving up inappropriate titles.  Thus employee relations issues will likely develop if you try to correct past practices.  You may have to develop creative “buy out” scenarios or grandfather employees.

What to do

If you are in a situation with inflated, redundant and confusing job titles, what steps can improve your lot?

• Organize a cleaning exercise: start with the low hanging fruit by eliminating all questionable titles that are unoccupied.

• Accompany that initiative by implementing tighter authorization procedures before a “new” title is created.  This would cut off the flow of new problems even as you address the core issue of incumbents.

• The company would need fewer job descriptions if the wording was more generalized.  Standardized titles would clear away much of the role responsibility confusion.

Fewer titles provide greater role clarity for your organization, improved accuracy in assessing pay competitiveness, more control of labor costs and higher morale as employees know where they stand and what they must do to succeed in your organization.

A final caution: be careful of setting up titles without occupants, ”in case we want to promote someone down the road.”  Guess what?  You will.

Can you recall an instance at work where you made a mistake, an error in judgment, a bad decision?  An “oh cripes!” moment that you would have liked to have had back again?  Perhaps it was a rash decision, a lapse in sound thinking, or simply poor planning that caused you to take a wrong step.  And if you were unlucky, that error was noticed far and wide.

You remember how you felt then, don’t you?  You were likely embarrassed, surprised or even angry.  Certainly you felt awkward that you had messed up and that people had noticed.  To cap it off, in that memory of yours the wrong people had noticed, hadn’t they?

Bet you won’t do that again!

Perhaps not, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stick out your neck again.  Turtles don’t make for good leaders.

Because when we make a mistake and learn from it, when we use a negative experience to help us prepare for the next opportunity, we grow as professionals – as individuals and as leaders.  That painful lesson will be more deeply embedded in our consciousness because of the fact that we did screw up, made a bad decision or used poor judgment.  It’s human nature for us to remember our foibles, and because of that to hopefully not repeat those circumstances where we had burned our fingers.

If we were risk adverse and played it safe throughout our career, if we avoided decisions, kept our head down, didn’t stretching ourselves, we would likely never fly high.  We would also never be noticed by the higher ups and our career would never quite get us where we wanted to go.

No pain, no gain?

If you use your mistakes as a learning experience, what would you learn if you never make a mistake?  Chances are your ego would swell with self-importance and what had been healthy self-confidence would have morphed into supreme over-confidence.  You would start reading your own press releases, and on that pathway lies a steep cliff.  it’s only a matter of distance.

I remember my father telling me, “at least try.”  That’s good advice for managers too.

So take a calculated risk.  I’m not talking about a roll of the dice, but a decision or an action plan based on your knowledge and experience.  Use your professional judgment and put a stake in the ground.  Stand up for something.  Learn from the experience.  And if you stumble, pick yourself right up again and get back in the fray.  Just don’t make the same mistake twice.

While most companies talk about the advantages of risk taking, many don’t walk the talk.  Instead, some organizations simply get rid of those who had the misfortune to make a mistake.  In such an environment there is always someone out there trying to trip you up (passive resistance, nay-sayers, the overly critical, etc.), or to take advantage when you stumble (enter the political animal).  All of which sends a powerful message that risks are only entertained when in fact they aren’t risks at all.

On the other hand, creativity and innovation will be fostered in an environment that nurtures decision-making, that encourages measured risks as a method of stretching oneself.  Instead of killing the risk-taker when they stumble such organizations seek to stretch the capabilities of their employees by encouraging them to do more than they thought themselves capable.

Remember, it’s only a risk if there’s a chance of failure.  Employees who are not afraid of making decisions, of standing up for themselves, of taking a risk for the good of the organization – they should be valued, not criticized or otherwise penalized.

In an atmosphere free of threats and quicksand the leader can emerge and thrive – to the betterment of the company and the employees.

I’m often asked at speaking engagements or during webinars what key takeaways, what gems of wisdom have I learned during the course of my career.  Well, like most of you out there I’m still at it, learning something new every day, but I have gained a valuable perspective from what I’ve seen and experienced.  I’ve learned that professional wisdom comes to each of us in two ways; 1) what you learn to do (what works), and 2) what mistakes you’ve seen or made (what doesn’t work).

It would be wonderful if your career development manages to stay on the straight and narrow with positive role models and good experiences, but all too often we learn our most valuable lessons from failures, from tactics or decisions that didn’t work.  Or from failed managers whom we’ve worked for, those who made repeated mistakes a personal career choice.

In that situation you find yourself saying either, “yes, I should do that, when the decision is mine” or conversely, “no, I’ll never do that.”  Both experiences can offer valuable lessons and help shape your career.

One man’s gems . . . .

Putting together an all-inclusive list would become an endless affair, given the myriad scenarios, personalities and business circumstances that could be involved.  So instead we’ll try to highlight the big mistakes.

These are provided in no particular order of importance, and only reflect my own experiences.  No doubt I’ve missed a few; thus the never ending list.

• General Adjustment vs. Merit: granting all employees the same pay raise, instead of varying increases on the basis of performance delivered.  Easy to administer is rarely an effective strategy.

• Performance vs. Entitlement: rewarding management with a more generous hand vs. other employee segments – simply because they’re management.  Leadership is no more entitled to rewards than any other employee group.

• Overuse of Discretion vs. Objectivity: or the reliance on subjective measures in lieu of quantifiable results.  When assessing employees on a subjective vs. quantifiable basis management discretion can sometimes lead to abuses (favored sons, “halo” effect, or even discrimination).

• Abuse of FLSA Exemptions: avoiding overtime by treating non-exempt employees as if they were exempt.  Managers try this tactic all the time, for numerous reasons.  This is when you need to put on your policeman’s hat.

• Surveys says!: using a title and a generic catch-all write-up for matching jobs against “the market”.  It’s the easy way.  Anyone can do it.  There’s nothing to interpret, is there?  And then there’s the matter of quality surveys vs. . . . the others.

• The Performance Distribution Curve: using a process that assigns individual assessments of employee performance in a manner set to adhere to a bell-shaped graph.  The operative word here is “assign”.  Nobody likes this tactic, except perhaps the lawyers.

• Ignoring Internal Equity: hiring new employees without consideration of how other like-qualified employees are paid.  There are no secrets, so pleasing one while angering two is a dubious strategy.
• Title Inflation: that meaningless “bone” you toss employees whom you can’t otherwise reward.  This tactic will raise fixed compensation costs without providing a corresponding benefit to the company.  You will eventually regret the decision.

• The Absent Safety Valve: it’s often said that a good Compensation program should cover 85% to 90% of contingencies; and that for the remainder a degree of flexibility and common sense should guide the decision-maker in a different direction.  For those more rigid in their thinking, for whom the policy manual is gospel, or those who avoid stick-out-your-neck decision-making, authorizing of exceptions can be a struggle.

To be successful over time, your program should be able to bend, but not break.  This means that sometimes exceptions have to be made, for good business, compassionate or even political reasons.  Not every circumstance will fit into your mold.

Can you see possible rationalizations for each side of the above?  Of course, depending on a litany of possible circumstances, individuals and . . . whatever.  Just have a care that your rationalizations don’t become a pattern of excuses, and that you document.

Another man’s errors

Then there are those decisions that over the course of one’s career you continue to regret – wishing you had the time to reboot your thought processes.

• Hiring a friend / relative: if you would hesitate to sell them a used car, why would you ever think that hiring them would be an idyllic experience?  Correcting this mistake can be painful.

• Ignoring Office Politics: “I’m not very good at politics” is a poor response to an important reality that all managers need to deal with.  It’s all around us, so to pretend you’re above it all, or otherwise ignore it, is likely counter-productive.

• Performance will take care of everything: no, it won’t.  Not anymore.  In today’s work environment image and exposure have grown in importance, to the extent that just doing a good job is no longer enough to ensure career progression, or even longevity.

• “I was too busy for networking“: I usually hear this from people in transition, from those who failed to connect with colleagues, peers and industry insiders while they were still inside themselves.  You build a network when you don’t need it, so it’s there for you when you do.

Have I missed anything?  Are there other ill-considered practices or policies that you’ve experienced during your own career?  As I said, no doubt the list(s) could be expanded.

Let me know.

Nice guys finish last.  We’ve all heard that phrase before, right?  Which probably means that there’s something to it.

Now why is that?

Because . . . we’ve seen it happen, haven’t we? – again and again.

In the business world all too often the steady and reliable performers, those who follow the rules, who stay on the right side of ethical dilemmas and controversy, the “nice guys” that every manager would like to have on their team – they can come up short when recognition and rewards are being passed about.  They may not fall into last place as the adage goes, but they often don’t gain the credit, the respect and recognition, the rewards to the extent that the “bad boys” do.

Bad boys?  You know them.  Those who at first glance deliver results; however, there always seems to be a “but” or an asterisk accompanying their success.  Annoying little caveats that tend to be pushed aside.

You’ve seen this scene play out time and time again – where these “Golden Ones”, “Favored Sons” or “Teflon Jacks” are recognized, even admired by senior leadership, even though their pedestal may be built on a shifting pile of sand.

Life isn’t fair, the pundits say – but come on!  Are they blind out there?  How many times have you seen the following script play out?

• Personal behavior is ignored and only results are recognized.  This could be arrogance, or unprofessionalism, or even worse.  Employees in this category think of themselves first and foremost, president-for-life of their own fan club.  They are not team players.

• Management beats the drum of “results, not effort” so hard that soon few seem to care how results were achieved.  Just make the sale – or else tomorrow you’ll be history.

• Quantifiable metrics (add up the numbers) outweigh an individual’s style, leadership, ethics, and professionalism.  The focus is more on quarterly results than building for long term success.

• Those who are “connected” (who you know, not what you know) don’t receive the same scrutiny of their efforts that the rest of us do

Do employees see you turn a blind eye to how results were achieved?  They do notice, you know.

Does your management really care if an employee leaves bodies strewn across the corridor on the way to their own personal success?  What does that say about the priorities of the organization, and how they value people?  Does that culture become visible outside the company?  Does that environment become an impediment to attracting the right caliber of people?

Yes, it does – on all counts.  And over time the organization will slowly evolve in a manner that is ultimately harmful to the business.

• External recruiters may change their mind about recommending the organization to otherwise qualified candidates.  When the whispers on the street begin, recruiters take notice.

• As your bread-and-butter contributors see how the organization’s performance-blindness hampers their own career progress, engagement and productivity start to slacken.

• A natural corollary to lower engagement is higher turnover.  The first to go would be those with the most options, those whose performance record would be appreciated elsewhere.

All this is avoidable, of course.  But it takes a certain amount of courage to challenge one of the favored sons.  Especially if your plan is to instead recognize one of the less flashy, steady-eddies you may have in abundance.

So take off the blindfolds and recognize those who are day in and day out helping to move the company forward.  They are the team players.  They are the ones who say “we”.  Your employees know who these winners are.  It would help your organization if you do too.

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

Have you ever considered what sort of an impression you make on others at work?  No man is an island and all that, so consider that each of us causes ripples among the people we interface with, whether direct or indirect.  We leave a mark, for good or ill.

You will have three audiences who are interested and watching; the management above you, peers and colleagues, and those below you in the organization’s hierarchy – whether subordinates or rank and file employees.  Now picture each group pondering your actions and developing an opinion.

• Management: bosses and senior leaders who can have a direct impact on your career.  You want these folks to nod their head and smile when they think of you.  You would like to be known by name and face.

• Peers: you have to work with these people, to interface with enough human relations skills to get things done.  The goal is assist work processes and people to run as smoothly as possible.  You want respect here.

• Rank and file: either your subordinates or those affected by your decisions / recommendations.  These are those who may be dependent on you, but may also whisper about you, or spread nasty rumors – or can rally to your cause.  You ignore these people at your peril.

Each group has a separate agenda, and over time you as a professional practitioner or manager will have developed a reputation by your actions, your decisions (or lack) and through the word of mouth of those who interact with you.  The net result is a label, a persona that surrounds you, describes you and marks you as a “type.”

We all get reduced to a “type.”  Now ask yourself, would the people you work with, or work for, want to spend time with someone like you?  In other words, are you someone admired, someone viewed as a valuable source of experience, someone to learn from?  Someone worth knowing?

Or would these same folks cross the street to avoid you?

And this is important because . . . ?

Would you want to have a drink with someone like yourself?   If you would, what is it about that persona that you think would make sharing social time a worthwhile effort?  If you’d rather not waste your time, what is it about that person in the mirror that’s such a turnoff?

A number of years ago I cut back on my attendance at Compensation conferences.  It wasn’t the subject matter, or the cost, or even the locations so much.  It was that the growth and maturation of my career as a compensation professional had moved in a different direction from many of my colleagues.  I preferred to have that drink with other “types.”

Most in the profession are very intelligent; many are even brilliant technical practitioners.   But that is not what this is about.  This a matter of whether that technical savvy, that textbook learning can be converted on a daily basis into the effective application of that knowledge and skill within the work environment; how that application impacts and interacts with those around you.

Too many managers and practitioners don’t get it when it comes to dealing with employees – and as Compensation has a direct and constant impact on those employees, this ability to deal with the human element becomes of necessity a critical component of your success – or failure.

Do you see yourself as others see you?

• Do you have a reputation as a numbers person, or a people person – or perhaps you’re viewed as presenting a balance between the company and the employees?

• Is your interpersonal style one of engagement, or do you prefer to be left alone, to operate as an individual contributor best left to their own devices?

• Are you more comfortable dealing with theories and concepts, or facts & figures, vs. dealing hands on with the political and emotional realities of the workplace?  Numbers people are often uncomfortable in dealing with employees.

• Are you sensitive to the question being asked?  Do those around you sense empathy or arrogance – or simply aloofness?

Recently I refereed an argument about whether the cost of living or the cost of labor was more important in setting annual merit spend budgets.  The debaters battled with charts & graphs, regressed formulae and reams of statistics – when a bit of common sense and practical experience would have shown how senior management would react.

Both practitioners missed the point, lost within the argument over technical accuracy and blind to the dynamics of human nature; both ignored common sense and the reality of employee perceptions.  Both turned off their audience by their high-toned professorial statements.

Not the sort of reputation you’d like have at work, is it?    Not with everyone watching, keeping score.

A well-rounded compensation pro not only understands the technical side, the analytical side to providing competitive rewards in an effective and efficient manner, but is equally comfortable dealing with the softer side, the people side of the profession.

Having an understanding that real people are affected by recommendations, that morale, productivity and engagement have a price tag as real as payroll dollars flowing out of the company, is a critical awareness that every manager should have.

Once you have that combination in place, adding a bit of persuasiveness, of knowing how to change behaviors, will be like having the mortar that holds all the bricks together.

Then you’ll have a complete (mostly) compensation pro.

That’s someone I’d like to have a drink with.

Do you want to be admired and respected by your colleagues, recognized by senior leadership for who and what you are?  Do you want to be known throughout your universe as one who sets the standard?

Then solve a problem.  Stand up and show someone how to get things done.  Clear the pathway; support someone’s idea, save a step somewhere.  Do what it takes.

Just do it.

It’s not hard, really.  It’s a matter of thinking not of yourself first and foremost, but of a greater good that is broader than yourself – and of focusing your attention on getting the results that help the department, the team, the business.   It’s called a giving of yourself.

All too often what we see from many employees at all levels of the organization is an effort to be the star, the success story, but at the expense of someone else.  “Look at me,” these eager A-types seem to shout, “look at what I have achieved.”  These are folks who seem to have missed reading the memo on team effort.

We all have them in our organization.  They surround us.

Here’s a thought, though.  Isn’t it better to be lifted up (reward, recognition, etc) by someone else, then to be constantly trying to push yourself up there?  Doesn’t that ego rush get a bit tiring, what with the constant pressure of looking over your shoulder to gauge the competition?  Do you get periodic stress headaches, where the muscles at the back of your neck tighten to stone?  Are you sleeping well?

Now picture yourself receiving that award, with the accompanying recognition, spotlight, accolades etc.  Nice feeling, isn’t it?  A proud moment.

I think it does make a difference in how one gets recognized.  I suppose that there are levels of self-satisfaction, but the highest must be when you’re lifted on someone’s shoulder.   When you hear the cheer of the audience.  Self advertisement, political deal-making and a passive resistance that holds others back can’t provide the same level of genuine personal satisfaction.  Because deep down you’ll know you cheated to get there.

Think about someone whom you really admire, in whatever field of endeavor you like.   Chances are it’s someone who has accomplished something, delivered the desired results, made something of themselves.   They stood up for something, right?  Likely that person you admire so much isn’t someone who took shortcuts, pushed others aside, ignored the call for help or otherwise kept their focus solely on the mirror.

So why would you want to do that yourself?

Of course you wouldn’t.  But now reflect a bit on how you practice your relationships at work.  Do you admire yourself, or can you spruce up your act a bit and become more of a team player?

Naive?  Perhaps I am.  But I think we need more heroes out there, more decision-makers, more team players and more people willing to make a stand for what they believe in.

But that’s just me.

You’re in charge.  Or at least you have a say in developing compensation programs for your organization.  That’s a vital responsibility, especially if all is not well in your world.  Perhaps an audit of those pay programs has generated worrisome results, or the latest employee engagement survey showed a large measure of discontent.   Perhaps turnover is rampant, or you’ve just sat through an uncomfortable meeting with a boss upset over the runaway cost of labor.

Something has to be done to better utilize your payroll dollars, because too much money is dripping out of your company like a leaking faucet – and the rest isn’t giving you much bang for the buck.

The challenge, then?  You have to change your world.

How do you do that?  There are program design considerations, costing models, impact studies, external and internal analyses, even focus groups perhaps, but at the end of the day you can’t simply snap your fingers.  Your ideas, your recommendations need to be approved by the higher ups.  How do you make that sale?

Let’s start with the easy part; what not to do.

When facing senior leadership with business-impact proposals the quickest way to be shown the exit is to tell them what they don’t want to hear.  Sounds obvious, but basic judgment errors are commonplace when you’re so caught up in knowing the answers that you forget to focus on the right questions.

A few examples of how not to sell your ideas:

Leading with “it’s the right thing to do” is rarely a good idea.  Using an emotional, feel-good rationale is seldom a strong argument and is easily sidelined by the bean counters or anyone playing the “this is a business” card.

“Surveys tell us . . . “ can be another weak point, because the argument that everyone else is doing something hasn’t worked in a debate since you were a kid.

Over analysis: the more extraneous numbers you throw at senior management, the more you rely on charts, graphs and regressed formula trend lines to make your point, the more vulnerable your proposal becomes.  The risk is in having the numbers become the story.

I’ve seen senior executives feel compelled to ask multiple and often tangential questions about the support calculations, just to show they’re engaged and shouldn’t be taken for granted.   Don’t let your proposal  rise or fall on the comfort level of decision-makers struggling through the details vs. the concept.

Principles of the sell-job

What follows is a series of suggestions you should consider before walking into that critical proposal review meeting.

First and foremost make a business case where your recommendations illustrate that the company will win.  Management’s prime directive is to act for their own self-interest; altruism is over-rated in the boardroom. Once you have them nodding their heads at their own good sense, they’ll be more easily moved to support your plans.

Tell a story; start with a statement of the problem, then augment with a back story to explain how the situation has become so precarious.  Show the impact of inaction, then close out with your recommendation  - highlighting impact, savings, reduced turnover, whatever the goal  - that solves the problem.

Do you know the ROI for your proposal?  You had better have one, as that could be your strongest argument.  Pros and cons?  Are there potential glitches?  Rarely will you have simple, uncomplicated solutions that can’t fail.  So it would be better for you to address any troublesome possibilities early on, to soften the potential “gotcha’s” that could trip you at the worst possible time.

Always have a backup plan, as all-or-nothing strategies don’t work well outside of the movies.  You’ll need a plan “B” in your back pocket, just in case.  Better to get half a loaf today and be able to hope for more later, than crash and burn today because of pride and stubbornness.

Which means you shouldn’t fall on your sword over ideas, but be prepared to compromise.  Proprietary ownership of ideas (I want it my way) should be secondary to achieving the business goal.  But often times pride does get in the way, sometimes derailing sound concepts for the wrong reasons.  It’s not about you.

The numbers rarely speak for themselves; in fact you’re at risk if you use statistics as your main argument.  Instead, paint a picture with text.  Use all those figures only to support the point you’ve already made.  Strategic thinkers balance technical skills with the art of persuasion, influencing others to undertake the desired action.  They don’t throw out a bunch of numbers and say, “see?”

———————————–

Even when the task ahead is daunting, go ahead and take that first step.  It’s usually the hardest.  But if you’re prepared to achieve incremental gains vs. sweeping changes, if you keep your eye on the ultimate goal, you will find the second step is easier, then the third and so forth.

“Rome wasn’t built in a day” is a classic and over-used phrase, but for good reason.  Because it makes sense.  Because it rings true.  So think of Rome when you try to change your world.  Just don’t act like Don Quixote and run off to chase windmills.

Do you remember this line from the movie “A Few Good Men”?   Jack Nicholson was telling Tom Cruise that average folk couldn’t deal with the harsher facts of life, so as a result higher ups would tell them what they wanted to hear.  They would offer excuses, verbal hedges that sidestepped reality and offered the illusion of comfort.

Today we are in the midst of a severe economic recession, a situation that is causing job stress, concern for the future and perhaps more than a few sleepless nights.  In these circumstances company management can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal communications, as they face the question of whether employees can handle the truth.

The issues raised could be pending layoffs, reduced or frozen pay increases, hiring freezes, reorganizations or other such “bad news”.

Management messaging can either be straightforward regarding current events, why it was happening and how circumstances would affect employees, or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges (excuses).  In other words, employees could be fed corporate-speak.

By corporate-speak I mean a headquarters-generated sleight-of-hand communications effort, typically prepared by smooth-tongued professional writers vs. subject matter experts.  The prose, approved by corporate legal to insure that no liability is stated or implied, minimizes the negative and accentuates the positive.  The intent is to say little of substance, while at the same time making a self-congratulatory production of their communication efforts.

Content is usually a combination of feel-good phraseology intended to instill a sense of confidence that, whatever the problem, management a) is doing the best they can, b) is not at fault, c) has the interests of the employees firmly in mind, and d) will be providing more details soon.

When these officious corporate pronouncements inevitably provide little in the way of satisfactory answers, employees turn to their managers to get straight information.  However, when the going gets rough (challenging, complex, contentious), many managers will waffle, dribble their thoughts, obfuscate and make their own excuses.  They may even point a finger in the direction of HR.  Poorly trained managers have difficulty facing issues important to employees without trying to pass the buck.  Employees want to know why?, what next? and what about me?, but managers are rarely equipped to offer an effective response.

When the straight story is not forthcoming, employees will tend to read between the lines and form their own perceptions of the company message, and that perception is less reliable than the grapevine for spreading accurate information.  It is also more skeptical.

What employees “hear” can usually be generalized by the following attitudes:

• “Where are they going to go?”: employees are trapped in their jobs, they have no choice but to remain, because other jobs will be hard to find.  Management has implied, “We don’t need to do anything for them.”

• “Everyone else is cutting back, so we have to as well”: this trite phrase only gets dragged out when the circumstances being described save the company money.  Has the “everyone else” phrase ever been used to support giving something to employees?

• “In anticipation of difficult economic times ahead we are forced to / reluctantly / have no choice but . . . “:  this is a pre-emptive strike while the sun is still shining.  It is a particularly onerous practice if rewards for past performance are cut, and is often viewed by those on the receiving end as a breach of trust.

• “We employ average workers, so they should be satisfied . . .”: perhaps an after-the-fact rationalization, but sometimes your senior leadership feels that most employees are easily replaced, like a commodity.

Not surprising, the reaction to such doomsday communication efforts is always negative, planting seeds in your workforce for a bitter harvest of lowered morale and increasing disengagement.

• The ineffective message lacks credibility with an increasingly skeptical audience, as does the messenger and the organization behind it

• Employee listening (and attention) stops as insincerity is recognized, like shutting off the TV, so the communication effort is wasted

• Engagement and performance levels drop as trust, confidence and loyalty erode and employees start to ask themselves, “why bother?”

• The supposition gains traction that the company is lying, holding back or not telling the whole story.  It is hard to see the glass as half-full with this reaction.

On the other hand, when the message is honest, straightforward and without guile the opposite reaction occurs:

• Organizational credibility is strengthened

• Company loyalty is fostered

• Engagement levels and management support are strengthened

The implication is clear:  employees can handle the truth, rightly expect same from their employer, and will not take kindly to bland corporate-speak.   So do not get caught making excuses; it didn’t work when you tried it with your mother, and it won’t work with your employees either.