Everyone loves a Top Ten List
Everyone loves a Top Ten List. So imagine my delight when I came across "10 (or More) Things I Hate About Compensation Departments." Having been in the compensation field for the better part of the last ten years, I swallowed hard, took a larger than normal swill of my Starbuck's and prepared for the onslaught.
I won't rehash the list here, but I will repeat reason number 1: the allegation that compensation managers are unwilling to be accountable for anything, even though the combined employee compensation budget is generally the largest single variable corporate expense.
Okay, fair enough. Because when you read the remaining nine or so things that the good Dr. Sullivan hates (Dr. Sullivan is the author of the list), what I believe that he is really saying is what we all know to be true enough: that the compensation function alone can't, in a typical corporate structure, answer to all of challenges inherent in attraction, retention, development, and performance. I'm by no means condoning or condemning compensation departments across our fair country. But what I am saying is the same thing that I've been saying for the last ten years: that compensation isn't just a "science" and that it certainly can't be relegated to a silo.
When we work with our clients to help them understand if their employee pay is competitive, we look to build some business intelligence that reaches well beyond the raw numbers of a salary structure. In truth, the pay rates are the starting point. They represent the proverbial "stake in the ground." We can look at similar organizations in similar industries across the country and pretty quickly tell you if your pay is running with the pack. But really, does anybody want to finish the marathon in the middle of the pack?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all suggesting that outpacing your competitor's base pay is the way to win the gold medal. What I am saying is that we need to start looking at compensation as a total approach. How do you develop your people? How do you reward them? What's your compensation strategy? Is it what I like to call "the butts in seats" strategy? In other words, do you provide them with an increase simply for being employed? Are they rewarded more for innovation and risk than for mediocrity? Can your employees even articulate how pay decisions are made? Do they understand the value of their pay? Their benefits? Their career development opportunities? Do they believe they can really influence their opportunity to earn variable pay?
You may not have initially thought that all of these questions were related to compensation. But they are. And if you start asking them, and listening to the answers, I'm betting that you'll see what I believe is painfully apparent to many compensation professionals: that compensation isn't simply one core area of human resources. It is core to the culture of your organization.
Authored by Sandy Turba
I won't rehash the list here, but I will repeat reason number 1: the allegation that compensation managers are unwilling to be accountable for anything, even though the combined employee compensation budget is generally the largest single variable corporate expense.
Okay, fair enough. Because when you read the remaining nine or so things that the good Dr. Sullivan hates (Dr. Sullivan is the author of the list), what I believe that he is really saying is what we all know to be true enough: that the compensation function alone can't, in a typical corporate structure, answer to all of challenges inherent in attraction, retention, development, and performance. I'm by no means condoning or condemning compensation departments across our fair country. But what I am saying is the same thing that I've been saying for the last ten years: that compensation isn't just a "science" and that it certainly can't be relegated to a silo.
When we work with our clients to help them understand if their employee pay is competitive, we look to build some business intelligence that reaches well beyond the raw numbers of a salary structure. In truth, the pay rates are the starting point. They represent the proverbial "stake in the ground." We can look at similar organizations in similar industries across the country and pretty quickly tell you if your pay is running with the pack. But really, does anybody want to finish the marathon in the middle of the pack?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all suggesting that outpacing your competitor's base pay is the way to win the gold medal. What I am saying is that we need to start looking at compensation as a total approach. How do you develop your people? How do you reward them? What's your compensation strategy? Is it what I like to call "the butts in seats" strategy? In other words, do you provide them with an increase simply for being employed? Are they rewarded more for innovation and risk than for mediocrity? Can your employees even articulate how pay decisions are made? Do they understand the value of their pay? Their benefits? Their career development opportunities? Do they believe they can really influence their opportunity to earn variable pay?
You may not have initially thought that all of these questions were related to compensation. But they are. And if you start asking them, and listening to the answers, I'm betting that you'll see what I believe is painfully apparent to many compensation professionals: that compensation isn't simply one core area of human resources. It is core to the culture of your organization.
Authored by Sandy Turba
Labels: Accountablilty, Compensation, Human Resources
posted by Dynamics Online Inc. at
11:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home