A couple of recent posts via the excellent Compensation Force blog and the Ohio Employer's Law Blog really got my attention.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals made a decision on Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions for sales persons that could potentially affect thousands of employers, eventually.

Until now, determining exemption status for sales professionals was fairly straightforward. The short and simple version is that "outside" sales persons who work primarily in the field (outside of the office) and who engage in selling maybe classified as exempt, while "inside" sales is virtually always non-exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.  Sometimes where the distinction is not so clear, some sales persons can be classified as exempt under the administrative exemption of the FLSA, so long as the employees in question have significant discretion and independent judgement in their roles (it's more complicated than that, but this is Cliff Notes version).

First some background: Jon Hyman, in a post on his great Ohio Employer's Law Blog, calls the 33 page opinion (Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation) a must-read for any business that employs salespeople and pays them as exempt.  Here are the highlights of Jon's post:

Outside sales exemption: The (Novartis) sales reps do not qualify for the outside sales exemption because they do not actually sell any products. Instead, in their brief sales calls on physicians, they merely promote their employer's product. The physician cannot neither buy directly from the rep, not commit to making a purchase. In sum, where the employee promotes a pharmaceutical product to a physician but can transfer to the physician nothing more than free samples and cannot lawfully transfer ownership of any quantity of the drug in exchange for anything of value, cannot lawfully take an order for its purchase, and cannot  lawfully even obtain from the physician a binding commitment to prescribe it, we conclude that … the employee has not in any sense … made a sale.

Administrative employee exemption: The sales reps do not qualify for the administrative employee exemption because their jobs lack the exercise of discretion and independent judgment. Specifically, the court pointed to the reps' lack of any role in planning marketing strategies or formulating the core messages delivered to doctors, inability to deviate from the promotional core messages or to answer any questions for which they have not been scripted, and quotas for doctors' visits, sales pitches, and promotional events.

At this point you might be thinking to yourself "So what? We're not a pharmaceutical company!"  If you leave it at that, you'll be missing some potentially important distinctions here.  For instance, what about "relationship selling," where the primary role is to get other companies/customers interested in your product or service, but the sales person doesn't really sell, directly at least? What about account managers, who often have the primary role to manage relationships with existing customers, but may do little or no direct selling? What about product "evangelists," that are common in software and other technology companies?

If you have exempt sales persons who may not explicitly meet the sales exemption test of the FLSA, or if you're not sure, you should contact your labor/employment attorney for a qualified opinion in light of this game-changing court decision.

A recently released study of board of directors compensation by Hewitt details the shifting trends of board compensation over the past few years.

The study reveals that about 42% of director compensation is in the form of "retainer" fees (non-contingent compensation paid for membership on the board, typically paid in for the form of cash), about 15% is in the form of meeting attendance and/or committee fees, while the remainder (43%) is in the form of equity/stock.  See the chart below for a graphical view (thanks to Hewitt and the Compensation Force blog for the graphic).

Other Interesting Information:

The study, which focused on public companies (the only ones required to report this kind of data) also reported that:

• About two-thirds of companies in the study had stock ownership retention guidelines that require board members to retain a certain amount of stock (commonly as a multiple of their annual retainer).
• Committee heads typically receive additional cash retainer compensation (the median was $10,000 annually for audit and compensation committee chairs).  This data has remained fairly stable for the past two years.
• Most retainer fees are paid in the form of cash.  A small minority of firms pay in the form of stock or via a stock/cash mix.
• Additional retainer fees are typically paid to "lead directors" (the lead non-employee/independent director) and non-employee board chairpersons.

The report summary is nearly 70 pages in length, so if this is a topic of interest to your work, please click on the link for more information.

Is it crucial to maintain a competitive pay posture to attract and retain high quality talent?  We think so (that why we spent over a year writing a book about how to do it!), and most HR and rewards professionals believe that as well.  But does paying competitively make your people happy, engaged and/or driven to perform?  Generally not, unless you're using a well-designed incentive program to drive certain behaviors (but that only addressees the behavior component).

Competitive base pay is absolutely critical to attract talent, and to maintain a basic level of satisfaction with the compensation that employees receive for voluntarily sharing their skills with your organization.  Beyond base pay though, what really drives motivation, worker engagement and the desire to stay with an organization are how you manage and treat them.

See the table below and tell me what you think of the difference is between an employee who is willing to stay with your organization because they are basically satisfied (but not terribly engaged) vs. an employee who really wants to stay with your organization and believes in it (i.e. is engaged).

Source: Employee Hold'em, 2009

The data above is from a large study done every two years or so by by an organization that focuses on employee engagement, and the results are clear: it's not just about the money!  In fact, we would argue that how you manage and treat your employees is more important than the money, assuming the money is about where it should be (you're paying at least close to or better than competitively).

With dollars scare these days (over 50% of employers gave 0% - or less - pay increases last year, and 2010 pay increase budgets are south of 3% for now), how you treat your employees is even more critical.  Hence, there is a growing movement towards more qualitative rewards (feedback/communication, appreciation, training, etc.) , as opposed to just quantitative ones (mostly pay and benefits)

We'll continue to bring you more information and data on this large topic of worker psychology, qualitative rewards and employee engagement in the coming months.

Don't miss an opportunity to sign up and participate in these upcoming events:

Compensation, Rewards & Employee Engagement Trends - 2010 and Beyond (approved for 3.5 HRCI Credits)
Date: May 13th, 2010 8:00 AM to noon
Location: Bellevue Harbor Club
Cost: $295.00
Register for this Event

Organizations are struggling to keep up with changes in salary and compensation trends. As the economy recovers, what is the future of pay and employment? What can employers do to retain and re-engage talented employees? In this half-day session, participants will explore 1) the latest compensation trends and future rewards thinking and 2) the elements of a successful employee engagement and recognition strategy. Participants will take away low-cost tools, ideas and resources to build a culture of appreciation within their teams and organizations. Workshop instructors include StrategicPay Series creator, Doug Sayed and Chief Motivation Officer, Theresa Chambers of Recognition Works. The program will be held at the Harbor Club in Bellevue from 8am to noon. The program includes a continental breakfast, parking validation, as well as a discount coupon to purchase the Base Pay Toolkit worth one-half the tuition cost alone, if interested.

 
Utilizing Market Data & Conducting a Competitive Pay Analysis (approved for 3.5 HRCI Credits)
Date: June 10th, 2010 8:00 AM to noon
Location: Bellevue Harbor Club
Cost: $295.00
Register for this Event

This half-day program will focus on how to conduct a market-based pay analysis, including selecting and using pay data sources, grading jobs into a salary structure and evaluating how the company measures up.  This is an advanced, in-depth course.  Participants will walk away with a working knowledge of the subject matter, as well as the tools and templates to execute in their company.  The cost includes a continental breakfast and parking validation, as well as a discount coupon to purchase the Base Pay Toolkit worth one-half the tuition cost alone.

The StrategicPay Series authors and selected expert guest presenters are offering several intensive half-day workshops for HR and compensation professionals/managers. For certified professionals, HRCI credit is pending for the upcoming events.

The cost of each session is $295, but there is a $50 discount (per session!) for those signing up for two or more. In addition, participants receive a coupon code for 20% off on the purchase of the Base Pay Toolkit, worth half cost of attending alone!

Compensation, Rewards & Employee Engagement Trends - 2010 and Beyond

With Doug Sayed, and Theresa Chambers of Recognition Works

Note: approved for 3.5 hours of HRCI credits!

Date: May 13th, 2010 8:00 AM
Location: Bellevue Harbor Club
Cost: $295.00

Register for this Event

Organizations are struggling to keep up with changes in salary and compensation trends. As the economy recovers, what is the future of pay and employment? What can employers do to retain and re-engage talented employees? In this half-day session, participants will explore 1) the latest compensation trends and future rewards thinking and 2) the elements of a successful employee engagement and recognition strategy. Participants will take away low-cost tools, ideas and resources to build a culture of appreciation within their teams and organizations. Workshop instructors include StrategicPay Series creator, Doug Sayed and Chief Motivation Officer, Theresa Chambers of Recognition Works. The program will be held at the Harbor Club in Bellevue from 8am to noon. The program includes a continental breakfast, parking validation, as well as a discount coupon to purchase the Base Pay Toolkit worth one-half the tuition cost alone.


Utilizing Market Data & Conducting a Competitive Pay Analysis

Note: approved for 3.5 hours of HRCI credits!
Date: June 10th, 2010  8:00 AM
Location: Bellevue Harbor Club
Cost: $295.00

Register for this Event

This half-day program will focus on how to conduct a market-based pay analysis, including selecting and using pay data sources, grading jobs into a salary structure and evaluating how the company measures up.  This is an advanced, in-depth course.  Participants will walk away with a working knowledge of the subject matter, as well as
the tools and templates to execute in their company.  The cost includes a continental breakfast and parking validation, as well as a discount coupon to purchase the Base Pay Toolkit worth one-half the tuition cost alone.
 

Compensation Trends & Salary Planning

Note: HRCI credits anticipated. We will apply for them as the date gets closer
Date: September 23rd, 2010 08:00 AM
Location: Bellevue Harbor Club
Cost: $295.00

Register for this Event

This program will provide an update on current market trends, including merit increase budgets, salary structure movement, etc., and instruction on salary planning, budgeting and merit plan design.  Participants will walk away with a good picture of the current market conditions and several ideas for merit plan design, as well as the tools and templates to develop, model and implement in their companies.  The cost includes a continental breakfast and parking validation, as well as a discount coupon to purchase the Base Pay Toolkit worth one-half the tuition cost alone.

The StratigicPay Blog's primary writer is on vacation for the next couple of weeks, but that won't prevent us from supplying you with some of the thought leaders in the field.  Today's guest post is from fellow Compensation Cafe blogger Chuck Csizmar. Chuck is one of the several great writers at the Cafe'.

Why Managers Don't Manage Pay

When an employee is promoted to their first manager's position, they are given the proverbial Keys to the Kingdom – your company.  They now have the authority to spend your company's money.  From hiring, to promotions, to salary reviews and equity adjustments they are now able to make the decisions that directly impact (increase) your labor costs.

However, most of these managers turn out to be, at best, well intentioned amateurs at the process of making pay decisions that are appropriate for the needs of the business.   Fresh from being anointed they often lack the basic internal education necessary to make business vs. emotional decisions – and their actions commit you and the company to costs that may not be in your company's best interests.

Actions taken by these managers not only increase direct costs, but often irritate other staff members as the circumstances become known, creating morale and internal equity problems at the same time.  The net result is usually a corresponding lack of engagement and ultimately separations by disenchanted employees. 
 
Note:  Most employees leave managers, not companies.  Thus actions do have consequences.  Likely this is not what you envisioned when you made that promotional decision. Now, how did (fill in the name of your company here) get themselves into this mess? First of all, no one really trains managers on how to properly attract and reward employees via base salaries and incentive pay.  A few anecdotal examples:

• Just because some bloke is a good "XYZ Operator" does not mean they will be an equally good "XYZ Manager".  The skill sets for success are dramatically different.
• How many managers understand your company's philosophy about pay?  Do you?  How many understand the workings (the what and the why) of the company's pay practices and methodology?  These are the folks responsible for spending 40% to 60% of your revenue in the form of employee pay, and even the most well-intentioned is prone to make mistakes.
• Managers want to be liked; they do not wish to pick favorites, do not want to discriminate on the basis of performance and definitely do not want to have their decisions challenged.  They would rather point a finger at HR and assign the blame to them for having to assess performance and distinguish one employee from the other.  Left to their own devices they would give everyone as much as they can.

If you were a high performing employee, would you like to work for this sort of Manager?  If you were coasting at work, barely putting your time in, would you want to work for this sort of Manager?  Which sort of employee do you think will eventually tire of being undervalued, and quit?   Leaving the Manager with a staff of . . . .  You get the picture.

Ineffective managers are always afraid that an unhappy employee will decide to quit, but that is usually a selfish thought.   Their prime concern is more often what your departure would mean to their deliverables, to their reputation as a manager.  Your departure is typically viewed as an inconvenience to them, not an avoidable loss for the company.  A reflection of this is when managers resist a transfer that is clearly in the employee's career interests.  The manager's concern is how that transfer affects their department – and whether their personal success becomes that much more difficult to attain.
 
Ineffective Managers can be a defensive lot, challenging attempts at reform.  Why?  Because of their fear that spotlighting reform action will demonstrate their ineffectiveness (make them look bad), and that is unacceptable.  Typically their advantage within the company is that the more ineffective the manager, the stronger their political connections.   And as senior management oftentimes surround themselves with those most agreeable to their own way of thinking, it's not surprising.

Assuming the company's willingness to make key decisions and the presence of the all-important support from senior management, companies can correct the problems that they've created.  They can:

• Select candidates for management positions on the basis of their skills / potential for actual management (dealing with people, managing projects, business-oriented, professional demeanor, etc.)
• Educate Managers in the philosophy and methodology of the company's pay programs, ensuring that this information is shared with their staff
• Construct job specifications that call for a Manager to manage, as a prime accountability, limiting or even eliminating the retention of individual contributor responsibilities.
• Measure and reward the performance of the Managers  primarily on the basis of how they have actually managed their employees, or on the performance of their unit
• Encourage Managers to develop the potential of their employees, to the point that a staff member being promoted / transferred upward is a mark of success for the Manager
• Ensure that procedural checks and balances are in place to ensure that pay decisions are reviewed by at least one higher level
• Hold Managers to an annual salary budget; let them develop the budget and monitor/adhere to it during the year

Consider the above as a checklist that can be used to test your company's vulnerability to wasted money, employee morale problems / turnover and avoidable cost increases. 
Would you be comfortable with how your own company would score?

My advice to clients is to face these issues straight on, to implement policies & procedures that save money without penalizing high performers or mistreating their employee base.  But the challenge will always remain, as there is an inherent reluctance on the part of many managers to make the tough decisions, because we do want to be liked, we do like to give good news, and we do not like to play judge and jury with an employee's career. But that behavior is not managing is it?

Pay increases in 2009 were at an all-time low, at least since good records have been kept on this type of data. In 2009, over 50% of companies either froze pay or worse, by far the highest pay pull-back/retrenchment numbers I have seen in my 25+ year career in HR and compensation.

2010 portends to be a bit better for employees, but employers are still keeping a pretty tight clamp on their purse strings, and understandably so, with economic recovery still looking a bit tepid.  Predictions are for pay increase budgets of about 2.7% in 2010, a vast improvement compared to an average 1.8% increase in 2009, by far the lowest year on record. Both of these data points are from a recently released Hewitt report.

Variable pay budgets (budgets for incentive or "bonus" programs) are expected to remain stable at about 12% for 2010. While the 2010 variable pay budgets are about in line with 2008 and 2009, the long-term trend has seen a slow but steady upward march, and we at the StrategicPay Series expect that trend to continue.  In 1990, corporate variable pay budgets were about 5% of payroll, and today they are more than double that, while merit pay budgets have been at historically low levels since the 2001 recession. 

Hewitt expects variable pay budgets to slowly continue upwards.  In a study released in the spring of 2009, Hewitt predicted  an average variable pay budget of 16% of payroll and a base pay increase pay budget of 2.0% in 2020.

While, of course, no one knows what's going to happen 10 years into the future, the predicted trends are clear: continued pressure on fixed-cost compensation increases (i.e. base pay), combined with a continued willingness to pay for performance, in the form of variable pay.  We agree.

This post is from derived from my recent post at the Compensation Cafe.

After more than two decades of slow but steady erosion and a few body blows in the recent recession, the state of job satisfaction, and more importantly the state of the overall employee-employer relationship, are at new generational lows. Employee morale is in the tank, and the willingness of workers to bolt at the next opportunity is at a multi-year high. Numerous studies have shown these trends, including the recent Conference Board report, which confirmed the multi-decade low in job satisfaction.

The 2008-2009 recession was a real punch in the gut to an already injured relationship between employers and their most "valuable" asset (at least that's what a lot of annual reports say). Between the massive layoffs, skimpy or non-existent pay increases (or outright pay cuts), and with the on-going push for "doing more with less," the foundation of the employee-employer relationship has weakened considerably over the years and is in need of some serious shoring up.

Some HR and compensation professionals have told me they think "engagement" is an overused buzzword. Even you may believe this, but just think about your typical "dis-engaged" employee and ask yourself how much value they bring to your organization?  Buzzword or not, having employees who are actively engaged in their work and believers in their organization and leadership is absolutely critical to organizational performance and maintaining a psychologically-healthy workplace, where people tend to thrive and stay.

So, what's an employer to do? How can we enhance this somewhat nebulous "engagement" concept?  If you're looking for simple/easy, "plug-and-play" solutions, they don't really exist, but here are several areas that merit your consideration:

• Increased/enhanced communication: nearly every broad-based or organizational study I've seen has shown a desire on employees' part for more communication, about their organization and their goals, and especially about their job expectations and performance. Communication takes some time and effort, but it's virtually free to provide it, so why do so many organizations fail in this key element of management and leadership?
• Increased transparency: who doesn't want to know how and why they are paid what they are? The more open you can be about your compensation philosophy/strategy, and how as an organization you're meeting the goals of your compensation program, the better off you'll be in the minds of your employees. Transparency fosters trust, while a lack of it may foster distrust.  If you have a soundly-built and competitive rewards program, what's to hide? Share the truth! I am not suggesting total transparency or gritty behind-the-scenes details, but if you've got a program you can be proud of, share it, and how your organization's' approach is a win-win for the organization and its employees.
• Recognition: recognition is the missing link in many rewards programs, and a failing of most management teams.  Can you catch your employees performing highly, going above and beyond, or notice those who provide great customer service on a regular basis? Are you ready and willing to provide genuine appreciation and recognition for/to your most valuable asset?  Recognition, a corollary of communication, is inexpensive to deliver, but can provide great psychological benefits for your workforce, and eventually to those who practice it genuinely.
• Listen, trust and empower: this may not come easy for some managers, but managers who can learn to listen better, trust in their staff, and delegate more responsibility and authority (and with the resources/tools to handle it) will find that most employees respond quite favorably to this approach. While some staff want to be led by the hand, most workers want to be heard, to have input into their work, and have the trust, resources and authority to get it done.
• Develop thy managers: Have you ever heard the phrase that people don't leave their jobs, they leave their manager (or company leadership)? Well, in most cases it's true. People tend not to leave managers and companies they respect and like working for, but they do tend to leave ones they don't believe in. Thus, it's critical that companies train and develop their management teams, as well as reward their best people managers, while dealing with the ones who aren't (see next point).
• Get your management performance act together: organizations that don't address performance issues within their management/leadership teams are destined to have morale and dis-engagement issues within their non-management ranks. Working for a poor manager makes your work life suck, is the single biggest contributor to turnover and poor morale, and is a guaranteed "engagement killer."
• Cash compensation: let's not forget that most folks are to at work trying to make a living for themselves and their families. But notice, it's nowhere near the top of my list. Dollars are very important, but you can't buy workplace love. If you were one of the many employers that engaged in wage cutting and other forms of pay-related retrenchment during the recession, then the first thing you should be thinking about is getting at least back to where you were prior to those cuts.  After that, it's time to start thinking (or re-thinking) about competitiveness with the external market for your talent. Paying competitively won't guarantee you anything, but it should reduce pay-related turnover, and enhance your ability to attract and keep talent. Don't believe that just because the labor market is a mess right now that it renders this topic as unimportant. Staying competitive always important, as there is always a market for top talent.  Several studies have shown that a high percentage (over 50%) of the workforce is ready to move onto the next opportunity when it presents itself, so don't help push them out the door by ignoring this critical aspect of the "employment deal."
• Developmental opportunities for professionals: when times get tough, training and development budgets are usually one of the first things to be cut. If that's the case at your organization, you should help to make it one of the first things to be restored. Beyond being appreciated, communicated with and paid fairly, the opportunity to learn, grow and develop is high on many people's importance list. A lack of growth and learning opportunities is a significant competitive disadvantage for any employer, but especially in the so-called "knowledge" industries (technology, scientific, engineering-related, etc.) where ongoing education and learning form the collective knowledge backbone of the organization.

Well, that's my list.  I'd like to hear your thoughts too.  Go forth and actively nurture satisfied, motivated and engaged workers!

Doug Sayed is principal at Applied HR Strategies, a Seattle area compensation consultancy and lead author of the StrategicPay Series Base Pay Toolkit, a hands-on, "do-it-yourself" (DIY) guide to developing a strategic market-based compensation program, complete with dozens of pre-built tools and templates, ready for use.

The Five Domains of High-Performance Organizations
i4cp identifies the five key areas in which High-Performance Organizations excel

Seattle, WA (January 21, 2010) - After conducting thousands of studies that cover hundreds of issues related to productivity and the workforce, one thing is clear: there is no single organizational element that is correlated with high performance. Rather, there are five.

For decades, the research team at the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) has studied what separates high-performing organizations from their lower-performing counterparts. The results of that research have consistently shown that companies that excel in the following five domains are typically high performers:
•    Strategy
•    Leadership
•    Talent
•    Culture
•    Market

In December, i4cp set out to clarify the differences between high-performing and low-performing organizations across these domains, and to determine whether certain issues or traits have increased in importance in the current economic climate. The results were interesting, if not startling. The gap between higher-performing and lower-performing organizations has widened considerably from previous studies. Based on a scale from 1 to 7, high-performance organizations scored an average of 6.03 across these domains, compared with 2.88 for low performers.

"High-performance organizations all seem to recognize that, while excelling in these five areas is critical, these domains need to work together as an integrated system," said Kevin Oakes, CEO of i4cp. "The culture should be focused on the customer and reflective of the organization's talent, which in turn feeds off the leadership, who need to be aligned with the strategy, etc. If one domain is ignored or inefficient, the system breaks down. This five-domain system also contains many important sub-domains - our members would recognize them as knowledge centers -that are just as critical to explore."

Specifically the new study found the following in each domain:

1. Strategy
High-performance organizations outscored low performers by 6.14 compared with 2.58 in the critical area of Strategy. In looking at specific areas of strength vs. weakness, it's clear that an organization's strategic approach is vitally important to high performance. The common wisdom of "walk the talk" is an indispensable ingredient in high-performance organizations. If an executive says one thing and then does another, employees draw a variety of conclusions, most of them destructive to the organization.

Executives in high-performance organizations avoid these problems by ensuring that employees are clear about the strategic plan and the company's approach to business, and by ensuring that managers behave consistently. The study shows that the single most widely cited strategic practice among high-performance organizations was, "My organization's philosophy statement is consistent with its strategy." And the strategic practice in which high performers outstrip low performers the most is "Organization-wide performance measures match the organization's strategy," followed by "Organization's strategic plan is clear and well thought out."

2. Leadership
In Leadership, the gap between high-performance and low-performance organizations was 5.96 compared with 2.47. The study found that one of the most widely agreed-on leadership-related strategies is ensuring that "Everyone is clear about the organization's performance expectations." Another important factor associated with high performance is "Making sure employees believe that their behavior affects the organization." Leaders can't do their jobs alone. They must be able to convince others of just how important their own behaviors are to the success of the whole organization.

A third factor that was strongly associated with performance was the idea that "Management promotes the person who has the best skills and knowledge to do the job." Performance tends to be higher in organizations where promotions are based on talent and merit rather than on other factors, such as organizational politics.

3. Talent
With high-performance organizations scoring 5.82 in Talent, compared with 2.73 for low performers, the gap between the two is certainly wide. High-performance organizations know that effective Talent Management moves beyond a focus on HR practices, processes and systems, to a strategic approach that is linked to business outcomes. This begins with stepping outside of HR and looking at the organization from an outside-in perspective. This entails identifying the business model components and areas that drive value, and determining what the organization needs. It enables organizations to take a holistic approach to treating employees as individuals, while managing and making decisions based on data-driven information, all of which benefit the organization as a whole.

4. Culture
The difference between high and low performers in the all-important Culture category is 5.99 compared with 2.94. Being seen as a "good place to work" is a solid indicator that an organization is a high performer in this domain. Not only is this characteristic the most widely cited by high-performance organizations, it's also the biggest differentiator from low performers. High-performance organizations are also well aware of external factors - such as customers, markets and competitors - and they are ready to take on new challenges. Another element of culture that's relatively strongly correlated with high performance is a commitment to innovation and internal fostering of creativity.

5. Market
High-performance organizations scored very high in market or customer focus (6.23) vs. lower performers (3.69). The research shows that high performance is associated with a strong emphasis on customer service, including vigorous efforts to serve customers better than anyone else in the industry. High performance is linked with the use of "Customer information as the most important factor related to developing new products and services." High-performance companies are usually organized internally around what's best for the customer, and their strategy is based on customer data.

"The study reaffirms i4cp's focus on its 44 ongoing research projects, and our discoveries to date on high-performance organizations," Oakes commented. "Throughout 2010, i4cp will be launching new iterations of its most important studies - on such topics as leadership agility, customer-focused workforces and strategy execution and alignment - to see which tactics, strategies and practices high-performance organizations are using in this economic climate."

The High-Performance Organization Survey was conducted by i4cp in December 2009. The full results of the survey are available exclusively to i4cp corporate members.

About i4cp, Inc.

i4cp is the world's largest vendor-free network of corporations focused on building and sustaining a highly productive, high-performance organization. Through a combination of peer networking, human capital research, tools and technology, we enable high performance by:
•    Revealing what high-performance organizations are doing differently
•    Identifying best and next practices for all levels of management
•    Providing the resources to show how workforce improvements have bottom-line impact
With more than 40 years of experience and the industry's largest team of human capital

WorldatWork Survey, January Update: Pay Cuts Not as Prevalent as Pay Freezes in 2009
 
January 19, 2010 – Washington, D.C. – In response to the sluggish economy, many corporations either froze or cut pay in 2009. Even as the economy starts showing signs of life, a majority plan to remain conservative when it comes to pay practices in 2010. The WorldatWork 2009-10 Salary Budget Survey, January 2010 Update (fielded in October 2009), found that 52% of U.S. employers froze pay for some or all employees in the 2009 recession, while 13% cut pay.
 
Will employees see their pay restored in 2010? At least 22% of organizations that froze pay in 2009 are planning to prolong the freeze into 2010, while 54% plan to resume normal pay activities this year. More than a third said they were in a recession (in October) and were not in a position to unfreeze pay.

 Of those organizations that cut pay, 37% said they remained in a recession and were not yet considering recovery actions; 29% planned to restore pay in full, while 15% said the pay cuts were permanent.
 
"Employers are taking a 'wait and see' stance when it comes to returning to normal pay practice," said Jim Stoeckmann, CCP, compensation practice leader at WorldatWork. "There are risks both ways. Moving too fast in restoring salaries and merit budgets leaves employers vulnerable if the recovery fails to materialize. Moving too slowly creates the risk of turnover as employees look for a better opportunity with another company. Even with jobs scarce, there are always opportunities for employees with the right skill set."
 
As salary budgets remain tight and employee satisfaction low, organizations are turning to other ways to motivate and reward employees. Employers are focused on providing or enhancing career development opportunities (33%), non-cash rewards and recognition (28%), leadership training on employee motivation (21%), flexibility options (20%), monetary rewards for high performers (19%), and monetary rewards for mission-critical talent (15%).
 
"With lower than normal employee satisfaction levels, it is crucial for employers to center the employee value proposition on the entire total rewards package," said Alison Avalos, research manager for WorldatWork. "Employers can cultivate employee loyalty by highlighting non-cash rewards, particularly for key employees. These programs validate the employee's time, effort and talent, even in the absence of salary increases."
 
About the Survey:
The WorldatWork 2009-10 Salary Budget Survey, January 2010 Update was fielded in October 2009. Survey respondents are WorldatWork members employed in the HR, compensation and benefits departments of mostly large U.S. companies. N = 875.

Good riddance to 2009! It's onto 2010 and beyond...

For many of us, the second half of 2008 and most of 2009 was like a bad bad dream that was all too real: massive layoffs/job losses (over 6 million) and skimpy (or no) pay increases for those that survived the crunch; terrible business conditions and plummeting sales and profits (if you were lucky enough to have profits!); tapped out consumers and losses on real estate and retirement holdings, to name a just few fond memories of the past 18 months.

Indeed, let's move on. Here's a brief summary of the current outlook for 2010 for us HR and compensation professionals, with links to additional information.

Employment and Hiring

The most recent national employment data is encouraging, and indicates we are in a bottoming phase, if not getting ready for a slight rebound in early 2010 (don't expect a barn-burner turnaround anytime soon).  Job losses in November 2009 were only 11,000 nationally, which is by far the lowest total in well over a year. The U.S. unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10.0%, and 36 states reported slight to moderate drops in their unemployment rates for November as well.

The recently released Manpower Employment Outlook Survey also reveals some encouraging trends and data.  While 12% of employers expect a decrease in employment in the 1st quarter of 2010, an equal percentage expect an increase.  While this may seem less than inspiring news, when the data is seasonally adjusted for typical seasonal employment patterns, there is a net 6% increase in expected hiring over historical employment trends for the 1st quarter.

When compared to a year ago, employers in the Western U.S. are the most confident, but all areas show improved employment outlooks. Using the seasonally adjusted data, all regions anticipate moderate quarter-over-quarter increases in employment levels.

Bottom line, the outlook is from flat to improving in the first quarter, depending on who you ask, but compared to the past 18 months, this is a huge improvement, and should provide encouragement to job seekers and businesses alike.

For more information on the labor market, see my recent post at the Compensation Cafe.

Base Pay Compensation Trends

While merit budgets for 2010 will be near to historical lows (2.5% to 3.0% in most studies we've reviewed), at least there will be pay increase budgets for the vast majority of employers, unlike late in 2008 and in 2009. (See earlier posts from this blog for more specific information).

2009 merit budgets (most commonly implemented in late 2008 or in the first quarter of 2009) were slashed or eliminated by large numbers of employers.  Depending on the study, 25% or more of employers had 0% pay increase budgets for 2009, and many actually cut pay.  Well over three-quarters of all employers reduced their original planned merit budgets for 2009, but we do not think we will see anything close this type of wholesale budget-slashing in 2010.  Recently completed studies (Mercer, Hewitt, Culpepper, etc.) suggest only about 10% of employers are planning 0% budgets or pay reductions for 2010, and we expect these percentages to drop further, assuming the nascent recovery continues.

Incentive Compensation Trends

Incentive compensation/variable pay budgets (but not necessarily payouts) are holding strong, despite the weak economy and labor markets.  Variable pay is getting more and more ingrained into the foundation of compensation plans in the U.S. (and internationally too, just more  slowly than here). Hewitt, who does a major survey of variable pay trends each year, reports that variable pay budgets dropped a very modest 0.2% (from 12% of payroll to 11.8%) in their latest research on the topic.

Despite this minor drop, the long-term trend toward increased variable pay budgets remains intact.

Executive Compensation in 2010

Executive compensation is the fastest moving target in the world of compensation.  From rapidly evolving reporting and disclosure requirements, to increased government intervention in executive pay, to shareholder activism concerning perceived excesses in executive compensation, it's been a wild past few years for anyone who follows this topic, and the pace of change isn't likely to slow down anytime soon.

The changes are so numerous (and in some instance convoluted) that we won't even attempt to describe them here, but here are a few thoughts as to where we are likely heading:

• New and increased executive compensation disclosure requirements for public companies (see "A Holiday Present from the SEC - New Proxy Disclosure Rules!"  from our friend William Parsons at CompWiser).
• Greater intervention/intrusion by the Federal Government into the executive compensation arena in general (already a very heavily regulated area).
• A greater focus on pay/performance linkages and increased transparency for executive compensation plans.
• An expectaion from various stakeholders (shareholders, unions, shareholder advisory groups, etc.) to see reduced excesses in executive compensation (expensive perquisites, tax gross-ups, huge "parachute" payouts, etc.).  This is already starting to happen, but this one has a ways to go still.

Longer-Term Compensation and Related Trends

• Continued historically low merit budgets. Don't expect a surge back to more normalized merit budgets, even after the labor market gets back to a more healthy supply/demand balance. Some are predicting a long period of historically low merit budgets, and we largely agree, as we see a greater willingness of companies to invest in variable pay than increasing their fixed costs via base pay increases.
• An on-going upward bias towards increasing variable pay budgets, in lieu of larger merit budget pools.
• Pay for performance (real pay for performance) will continue to increase in prevalence and intensity, and will become the the new "merit pay."  Only this time, it will be delivered via various incentive vehicles, rather than via a slight up-tick the annual base pay increase. Follow our friend Paul Hebert at Incentive Intelligence for daily lessons on all things incentive and motivation related.
• Taking better care of people psychologically (not just financially) will become more in vogue, and for good reason: most people desire more feedback and appreciation, and respond positively to it. Increased communication and various forms of recognition can help to build and maintain a healthier workplace. To get you thinking more about recognition and related concepts, see "12 Gifts for Cash-Short, Recession-Weary Workplaces" and "All I Want for Christmas" plus two recent recognition postings here at the StrategicPay Blog from our friend Theresa Chambers at Recognition Works.

Well that's about it for now.  Hopefully you haven't fallen asleep while reading this. We at the StrategicPay Series will continue to keep you informed of the latest information, thoughts and research in 2010.

Until then, here is wishing everyone a happy and safe New Years, and great start to 2010!!