You’ve seen the company’s search 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.

Your pay structures are regularly updated based on competitive market trends, so the opportunities you offer employees are aligned with your retention and motivation strategies, right?

Not enough.

Most employees presume that 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

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 how you want to position your compensation strategy?

As far as aspirations go, it’s only middle-of-the-road.

If your company does pay “the going rate,” that still means that approximately 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?  You won’t see that fact pointed out in recruiting campaigns.

No one quits for less money – so all you’ll hear through the grapevine is about how so-and-so left and is now making more somewhere else.  And as it’s human nature to hear only what supports your own notion  –  your employees 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 becoming the premier paying company in your market or industry – and can you afford that cost?

Lest we forget though, 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 who was boastful of the fact that their salary ranges were continually adjusted to mirror market rates, but was later embarrassed to discover that their actual pay practices fell well below midpoints.  The company said one thing by their pay structure, but did another by the way they implemented that structure.

For their own part, employees relate to the pay they receive, not the midpoint of a salary range or other such declared “opportunity.”  For them the company’s “competitiveness” can be 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 vs. opportunity pay.

Why Don’t Employers Pay The “Going Rate?”

Typically it is not an organization’s strategy to avoid paying out competitive rewards, but more likely a series of practices that have evolved over time.

• Some candidates will accept a lower employment 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 can be 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 the 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 more flexibility into your pay practices.  Consider targeting key jobs (highly skilled, difficult to replace, mission critical, etc.) and make sure those jobholders are well paid for the market.

And don’t forget to pay attention to your customer-facing employees.  To many a customer, those folks are your company.

Other positions you have deemed 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 and 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.

Do you remember this line from the movie “A Few Good Men?”   Jack Nicholson’s character was telling Tom Cruise’s character that average folk couldn’t deal with the harsher facts of life.  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 remain stuck in the mire of a severe economic malaise, a situation that is causing enormous employment anxiety, deep concern for the future and perhaps more than a few sleepless nights.  As organizations ponder the question of whether employees can handle the true state of affairs (health and future prospects) they can choose to deal from either the top or the bottom of the deck with their internal communications.

The troubling 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 – addressing the cause of problems and how economic circumstances would likely affect employees – or they could toss out a series of artful communication hedges (i.e. excuses).  In other words, employees could be fed “corporate-speak.”

Corporate Speak

By this I mean a headquarters-generated sleight-of-hand communications effort, typically prepared by smooth-tongued professional writers instead of 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 in these communications is usually a combination of feel-good phraseology intended to instill a sense of confidence.   The target of the communications is expected to walk away feeling that, whatever the problem, management is a) doing the best they can, b) not at fault, c) continues to have 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, most employees turn to their direct managers in an effort to obtain straight information.  However, when the going gets rough (challenging, complex, contentious), many managers will waffle, dribble their thoughts, obfuscate and start to make their own excuses.  They may even point a finger in the direction of Human Resources.  Poorly prepared managers have difficulty facing issues important to employees without trying to pass the buck.  Employees want to know the why, the what next and what about me?, but managers are rarely equipped to offer an effective response.

So 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 and have little 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’s 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 can easily be 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

• As insincerity is recognized employee listening (and attention) stops – 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 when attitudes have soured.

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

• Organizational credibility is strengthened

• Company loyalty is fostered

• Engagement levels and management support are strengthened

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

Picture the scene;  you’ve just completed a presentation to senior management, complete with analysis and recommendations for next year’s compensation program.  Now you stand ready for the question and answer session.  Now is the time to defend your proposals.

With a carefully blank expression on his face your COO poses a single question . . . why so much?

Justification Or Excuse?

But you’re prepared.   You’ve anticipated the question.   You know that properly answering the “why” question is your once-a-year opportunity to make your mark, show off your CCP designation and help direct the reward programs for your organization.

So chances are you won’t respond with, “because that’s what everyone else is doing.”  Uttering that lame comment would suck the air right out of the room – and likely your career with it.   So you won’t say that.  However,  just between us, would that actually be the truth of it?  Are your recommendations based on the unique status of your own organization’s external competitiveness, internal equity, overriding Compensation strategy and financial affordability, or have you simply parroted what the Compensation surveys report that everyone else is supposedly doing?   Have you pushed the EASY button and followed the all-powerful “common practice?”

Beneath the simple question above your senior leadership is really asking whether your proposals set a course to  simply follow the pack, or do they lead toward solutions crafted for your organization’s own needs?  Follow the crowd or strike out your own path?

Are your recommendations for the company’s compensation programs a compilation of “everyone else is doing it” rationale, or are those proposals based on what you feel is necessary for your own organization – regardless of the “average?”

Are Decisions Being Made For You?

Is your view of presenting competitive programs a reaction to the behavior of others, or because certain tactics also make sense for you as well?

• Raising Salary Ranges: surveys will report the projected average increase in salary range midpoints for next year.  But how does that figure relate to the competitiveness of your own situation?  Do your ranges need a similar adjustment?  What would you recommend if you didn’t have a survey whispering in your ear?

• The Average Spend: if survey sources report a projected average spend of 3.0% for next year, is that your recommendation as well?  And when responding to the why question, what else do you have to offer as justification?  Does the 3% make sense for you?  Can you afford it?

• Pay Decisions: is the survey source a reliable indicator you can point to as the prime reason for making individual or group pay decisions, or are external sources only one aspect of your analysis, one element of your reward program strategy?  If the market says $47,512 does that figure become your new competitive target?

So before you make that next reward presentation ask yourself whether your decisions and your recommendations are adding value to the organization.   Or was your analysis complete once the survey data suggested a common trend?  Once you saw the answer.

The easy way is to point at others, to argue the common sense of common action.  However that strategy bespeaks more of a Compensation Administrator than one who is charged with overseeing the proper design, competitiveness and effectiveness of the company’s reward programs.

To be fair, sometimes what everyone else is doing is the right action for you.   I suppose that’s why so many companies are doing it.  Then again, the reported “average” may be no more than an arithmetic exercise that is less a strong trend than rather a convenient manipulation of data points.  Who’s to say?

So be careful before you sign on to tactics decided upon by other companies.  That nameless average of common practice is not responsible for your organization’s compensation programs.  You are.  And you’d better have a better reason for your proposals than that’s what the survey said.

Photo courtesy of pmarella

The phrase, “must be able to work with an Executive Assistant’s PMS” was left in a finalized job description and eventually found itself placed in the permanent files.  No one read the text, just processed the description as submitted.

The text from an incentive performance appraisal form read like an Average contribution, with no particular effort especially noteworthy or highlighted for special attention.  One would naturally presume that the accompanied rating was “Average.”  Yet the employee was actually rated “Superior” and granted a large discretionary bonus award.

Is anyone reading this stuff?

Have you seen your own examples of this behavior?  Paperwork processing viewed and handled as more important than what’s actually written on the paper?  As if the submittal of the form(s) is project completion itself; the rest is incidental, sort of a by-product.

This by-product (otherwise known as the text) could be replete with erroneous statements, inappropriate language, assumptions not approved by management, etc.  Or you could have missing elements that are critical to the credibility of the form – and the process.

Sure, sure, I know the rationale (“excuse” sounds so lame).  Sometimes you find so much effort invested in simply getting papers back from management (job descriptions, performance reviews, incentive assessments, etc.) that quality control goes out the window.  It’s like you’d be asking for more from them if you also expect the forms to make sense.

When processing large amounts of paper (focal date reviews, annual bonus awards, etc.) the first papers submitted likely do receive an appropriate scrutiny, simply because they’re the first ones received and you have more time.  But then it gets harder to keep pace as more papers keep coming in.  And right before the due date there’s likely to be a flood of last-minute entries.  So eventually you find yourself merely processing the incoming mail, checking off the manager’s name with a, “Yep, we got it.”

Sound familiar?

The same problem arises when you expect the performance rating text (supportive material) to match the submitted score.  That’s reasonable though, isn’t it?  However, if you read the review without looking at the score, how many times would you be able to predict the answer?  How often does the “Superior” rating read like “Average?”

Yet these gaffes do get processed, are read into the official record and personnel files, and are possibly the same documents that could see the light of day in a courtroom.  Because no one bothered to read what was written?

What did you do?

If you did notice such inconsistencies (for lack of a less polite term), what did you do about it?  Did you send the form(s) back with a polite, “try again,” or perhaps you refused to process the reward payment until the offending manager got it right?  Be honest now, often do you put on the policeman’s hat and risk angering your management team?

And therein lies the problem.  If you don’t read the stuff, how do you know you’re holding gold or lead?  Quality or garbage?  And you can’t correct he unfairness of the system if you don’t know which submitted form is wrong, and who committed that wrong.  You’re relegated to an administrator, a paper-pushing drone.

Out in the real world there are many managers who, in effect are saying, “how do I fill out this form to give Bob a superior rating?”  That’s what they care about, and even start the process with “Superior” already checked off.

But let’s be fair.  Often times corrective action is not that easy.  Every HR pro worth their salt will tell you, it’s all about picking your battles.  It sounds easy to reject a manager’s form submittal, but we all know the corrective response is often a matter of who is the offending party.

Sometimes, like with job descriptions and the PMS comment, you may have to make the corrections yourself.

But even a spotty record of enforcement would be an improvement over what happens all too often.  And if they know you are reading what they write, perhaps that fact alone will serve to reduce the infractions.

I’ve never been particularly good at mathematics, and yet have made for myself a successful career in Compensation.  Now, why is that?  One would think that all us comp folks are strictly numbers people, focused on statistics, surveys and regression formulae.  On the other hand, math experts often fail to rise to the top of my profession.  Counterintuitive?  Another quandary to ponder over.

Why is it that some compensation people manage to succeed (climb the specialist ladder into management ranks) while others don’t?  There may be several reasons for this, but I think a person’s persona has a lot to do with it.

Changing View of Compensation

Effectiveness as a professional in Compensation isn’t (or shouldn’t be) all about the numbers, but equally as much about the people affected by those numbers.  A successful practitioner should be able to understand their organization’s business as well as minding the pulse of employees; those who should be treated better than figures on a spreadsheet.   When you consider the human factor as little more than tiny boxes on an organization chart, then your ability to relate to and solve human factor problems will be limited by your ignorance of the employee relations impact that naturally follows your recommendations.  Effective compensation is more than simply adding up the numbers.

Do you remember seeing the HR analyst with the pocket protector and a bunch of pens in the shirt pocket?  That would be the one walking the hallway laden down with surveys and statistical analyses.  That vision personifies the traditional view of “the comp guy.”  This was the master technician who lived with the charts, graphs and regression formulae, but who failed to understand the people impact of their work.

Today, those who lead the application of best reward practices are cut from a different cloth, at least in most companies.  Compensation people are no longer confined to a cubicle or an out-of-the-way office, but increasingly are stepping out among the employees, developing an understanding of how the business operates, as well as their ability to effectively partner with internal business clients.

Sensitized practitioners know that the process of compensating employees should be about the opportunity for rewards, and about how those rewards can influence employee behavior, for good or ill.  Therefore the success of the solutions provider lies in being able to creatively assist managers in achieving their objectives, while at the same time adhering to equitable and consistent policies and procedures.  It’s not about quoting policy with a shrug of the shoulders.

What’s the Color of Your Hat?

Something else to think about; what role does the Compensation function play in your organization?  How is the Compensation practitioner viewed both by employees and by management?

• Policeman vs. Gatekeeper: the proper application of responsibilities is not to simply say yes or no, but to encourage an open process of ideas and practices that operate within established policies and procedures.  Nobody likes the fellow who can offer little more in the way of help than quoting from the company policy manual.  That’s not making a contribution.

• Numbers vs. People: are your thought processes employee-oriented, or is the understanding that real people are affected by these policies and procedures lost on you?  A business-only focus that ignores the human factor in driving success is inevitably tripped up by predictably lower morale and the employee disengagement that follow such insensitivity.

• Policy vs. Flexibility: are you one who quotes policy as the supposed answer to every manager’s question, or are you instead open to creative and constructive possibilities?

When you tell a manager that the decision remains with them, that you’re only offering advice, their reaction is often startling.  You’ll be able to actually see their body relax.   No longer feeling challenged, you’ll be able to reach them with helpful suggestions, because their instinctive defensive wall will be down and their minds open to possibilities.

• Analysis Paralysis vs. Solutions-provider: being able to make timely decisions vs. being caught up with a constancy of analysis that never seems to move toward a decision point.  Some call that phenomenon “analysis-paralysis,” while others pin on the label “treadmill management.”  Do you have a reputation as a decision-maker or as an analyzer?

When you consider the compensation people you deal with in your organization, are they the good guys or the bad guys – the white hats or the black?

Which are you?

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.

Everyone out there, no matter what they are responsible for, has certain tasks or responsibilities as part of their job that they enjoy doing.  Likewise, there are certain other aspects to the job that they . . . would prefer not to have to do.

Often the emotional reaction is even stronger.

I work in Human Resources, and personally have never liked being responsible for job evaluation.   A thankless task if ever there was one, and one certain to impact the number of Christmas cards I received each year.   But that’s another story.

Line and staff managers have their own likes and dislikes as well, but it’s a hard-and-fast certainty that they don’t like to write job descriptions.  Why?  Because they hate them, and will look sideward at HR when they see us coming.   We’re the folks who insist on bothering them with this administrative hassle.

Yep, that’s what most of them think.  But why?  What are the friction points that cause so many Managers to start grinding their teeth when the subject even comes up?

• Many don’t see the point:  most view the writing (preparation) of a job description as a make-work effort, when “everyone knows” the job already.  So why do we need to do it, they grumble.  Why do we have to write it down?

Or, why don’t you do it?

They consider this onerous task as filling an HR need, not one of their own.  So it’s not a necessity, not a priority and certainly doesn’t help them.  To be fair though, not everyone feels as strongly, but you’ll see this reaction often enough to sense a common behavior.

• The formatting is not manager-friendly: so-called HR “specialists” are always tinkering with the form template, seeking a better way to describe a job.  But that better way usually results in a description preparation process that is overly long, tedious and a drudgery to follow.

After all, how many ways can there be to describe the tasks and responsibilities of a job?  Here is where HR consistently shoots itself in the foot, by making the simple more complex, the straightforward more convoluted and an easy job becomes a trying ordeal.  At least that’s the way it looks from the manager’s perspective.

• They take too long to complete: over time the forms get lengthier, the instructions more complex and the questions that need to be answered more numerous.  And the result?  When something you don’t like to do takes a long time, what naturally follows is a combination of delay and reduced quality.

Some Managers will also rush the process, will have the employees themselves do the work (a separate challenge), will ignore information sections, will fail to properly complete others, etc.  A real mess can be sent to HR.

• Rumor: better writers get better deals: managers don’t look at themselves as writers, and they can’t seem to shake the bias that better written job descriptions get higher job evaluation scores.  “If only I could word this right,” is a common self-criticism, as if the reader takes every turn of phrase as gospel.

So another reason for delay is because they know they’re not very good at writing descriptions, so they put off starting.  Just like a homework assignment.

• They have better things to do: this is the bottom-line criticism, the core reason from many a complaining manager; “I’m a manager; I have a department / business / empire to run.  I don’t have the time to waste writing job descriptions.” In other words, you do it – and they don’t much care who the you is.

Not a pretty picture, is it?  But it doesn’t have to remain that way.

In my next article we’ll flip the coin and look at what you can do about this hatred-thing.  There are ways to create a win-win scenario, and perhaps even get a smile (albeit a small one) from your management contacts.

Stay tuned.

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