Performance Management
The Vice-President and the F-Bomb
Mar 25th
People can say what they would like about Joe Biden’s vice-presidential slip, but I, for one, appreciate his candor.
Too often messages today are sugar coated, and no where is this more true than in business. Employers toss around certain lines as often as Vice-President Biden apparently throws around the F-bomb.
You are not the right fit. Your skill set is not what we had in mind. We are looking for someone with more industry experience.
For once it would be refreshing for a hiring manager to simplify these words, to cut through the static, and to tell it like it is. Because, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that 95% of the time any iteration of one of the statements above basically means, “In our opinion, you are not smart (or talented, or able) enough to do this job.”
Sure, hearing the truth may sting momentarily. Like the quick removal of a band-aid, though, it seems as if the truth is easier to take than the confusion as to what went wrong.
We have all experienced the “it is not you, it is me” conversation during one break-up or another. Whenever a soon-to-be-ex-significant other uses these words, you can be pretty sure of one thing – the problem definitely has something to do with you. The same is true in business.
Tell me like it is. Tell me that I am not smart enough, or tall enough, or creative enough, or outgoing enough, or fill-in-the-blank enough to be successful in your organization or at your company. But, tell me the truth. I want to know what to work on and, perhaps, what to look for in a future job and I can only do this effectively if I understand what went wrong this time around.
Sure, Biden’s f-bomb may not go down in history alongside Lincoln’s ‘Four score and seven years ago’ or Kennedy’s ‘Ask not what your country can do for you’, but I give the Vice-President credit for saying what was on his mind.
And, I am going to follow his lead. From now on, I am going to be clear from the start. You know, I will tell my next interviewer, “I am a big f—ing deal and you would be lucky to have me.”
I will let you know how it goes.
This original post, and other twenty-something ideas, can be found on my blog: http://twentysomething-tryingtofigureitout.blogspot.com/
Learn more about Lindsey by accessing her bio at: http://humanelementblog.com/about/about-lindsey-schantz/
Under-Compensation; Setting the Stage for Under-Engaged Employees
Jan 13th
According to a recent msnbc.com article (Newly Un-unemployed Face Cut in Pay), Under-Compensation is the latest talent management trend emerging from recovering organizations. Under-Compensation: the act of paying an employee less than their peers for the same position. Paying less than what you have already identified as fair compensation for a role.
During times of economic recovery this has become a common tactic, as organizations are focused on paring down overhead to balance lost revenue. It happened after the “jobless” recoveries of 1981-82 and 2001-2003, although in ‘81-‘82 the average pay cut experienced by the unemployed who were re-hired was 10.8 percent vs. an average pay cut of 13.6 percent in ’01-’03.
The dirty truth here is that this is not a practice tied to a long-term business strategy, and employers are doing it because they can get away with it. But they should be careful. There is nothing in the definition of Under-Compensation that denotes a positive vibe. That’s because it’s a malfeasance. A wrong-doing. It’s a bad practice.
Hiring below fair compensations levels is a short-term play
Economists and management consultants argue that reduced salaries is a byproduct of the natural cycle of deflation and cost-management. However, Leadership should be held accountable for balancing these concepts with proven talent management strategies. We continue to hear from the corner-office that talent management is a “strategic priority”, but allowing the Under-Compensation practice to exist flies in the face of everything we’ve learned about talent management and effective employee engagement.
With such a low number of new hires entering the workforce during the recovery, the minimal savings from the reduced compensation packages won’t be what drives or inhibits profitability.
Understanding that this data represents the entire workforce, one can only estimate that best-in-class organizations (such as the Fortune 100 Best Places to Work) are not utilizing this approach as often as their mediocre counterparts. Definitely something to watch as this year’s rankings are announced.
Creating an employment contract without integrity
Recruitment and selection is a practice designed to connect the most appropriate talent with the right role, with each party playing a role with specific responsibilities. When the right candidate is matched with the right job, the relationship is formalized with the employment contract. Creating the relationship based on an Under-Compensation strategy is creating a relationship built on a false foundation. It lacks integrity and is not built for the long term.
Compensation will always be an issue
Once the employer has established this dishonest relationship with the employee, compensation will be a perpetual issue. Everyone who has worked in the private sector knows that the compensation level through which you enter the organization dictates your future compensation. Managers rarely are empowered to re-set a compensation discrepancy and bring an employee up to a level equal to their peers. It’s a reason pay discrepancies between genders and races continue to exist once uncovered.
A Columbia University study referenced in the msnbc.com article found that employees hired at a lower wage during a recovery period could potentially lag behind their peers for decades. That means that employees with the same roles, performing at the same levels, will have different compensation packages. Setting the stage for:
- -Current and future managers to continuously be saddled with this issue, negatively impacting their ability to manage and develop the employee.
- -The employee’s engagement levels will always be affected by this issue, since their salary will never be appropriately adjusted.
- -A potential cohort of disgruntled employees who were hired during this recovery could become a cancerous drain on employee morale.
As I outlined in the post Joblessness and the Employee Tipping Point, holding employees hostage because they don’t have any other employment options is not a sustainable business strategy. Employee’s who understood the business necessity, and even supported, the job/compensation/budget slashing actions of their employers, are quickly losing patience.
There is a reasonable expectation from employees that Leadership will equally weigh the organization’s current financial realities with its long-term talent management strategy, and make decisions that balance long-term success with short-term survival.
By Clint Poole
