As I start to write, I'm humming the Beatles tune of a similar title in my head. Their lyrics were  poetic and prophetic, even when it comes to matters of the heart at work, because money can't buy workplace love.

That's not to say that many a manager and employer haven't tried to use money to counter other deficiencies in treating/managing/leading/recognizing/rewarding their workforces, but it rarely works as intended. In today's world of commonplace mass layoffs, "doing more with less" and "working smarter, not harder" a few extra bucks isn't going to buy a Whole Lotta Love (I'm starting to hear another classic coming on..., but I digress).

Don't get me wrong; people work for money, and so market competitiveness, especially for base pay, is critical to the ubiquitous "attract, motivate and retain" objective we often hear mentioned. (Base pay is mostly for the "attract" part, and to a slightly lesser degree the "retain" element; not so much for the "motivate" part, but that's a post for another day). Because cash compensation is so important, it's critical to make sure the cash elements of your rewards programs are competitive with the relevant external labor markets in which you compete for talent.

But if you think you can buy workplace love, engagement, loyalty, or commitment, you're mostly dead wrong. Some people can be bought psychologically, but not that many (excluding politicians, of course!).

Substantial research confirms the disconnect between money and commitment or engagement at work. For instance, a recent study conducted by WorldatWork (membership may be required to view study results), in collaboration with the  Hay Group and others, confirms that indeed, non-pay elements of the total work experience are the key drivers of employee commitment and engagement.

The study, a survey of hundreds of compensation/rewards professionals, reports that organizations realized better outcomes in their efforts to "engage" employees if non-HR employees were also involved in the development of reward and engagement efforts.  Regarding key reward elements, "non-financial rewards, as opposed to financial rewards, are viewed as having more impact on employee engagement," says Tom McMullen of the Hay Group.  He goes onto say that "quality of work, career development, organizational climate, and work-life balance have a greater perceived impact on employee engagement than financial rewards." 

The perceived quality of managers and top leaders are also more important than financial rewards on impacting engagement.  "Quality of leadership has a profound impact on employee engagement and motivation" says Paul Rowson of WorldatWork, who also says that "organizations must think it terms of total rewards and not just financial rewards if they are to enhance employee involvement, commitment, job satisfaction - and performance."

Assuming your compensation levels are already competitive, the next time a weak manager seeks approval to use increased pay to enhance retention or morale, maybe we should be thinking about fixing the manager, rather than throwing money down the drain of worker discontent, especially with their management and/or leadership.

You may have heard the phrase that employees join companies, but they leave their managers - this is so true (just think about the last really bad manager you worked for).  Of course, some will leave for more money or opportunity elsewhere, for sure, but when people are poorly treated and/or managed, virtually all of them want to leave!

Once your workforce is paid fully competitively, additional reward dollars would be better spent on programs and actions that enhance culture, employee commitment and engagement, and ones that strengthen your management and leadership.

Don't try to buy employee love and loyalty; earn it instead.  It's cheaper, and more effective.

Doug Sayed is principal and founder of Applied HR Strategies, Inc., a Seattle-based compensation consultancy, and developer of the StrategicPay Series, a series of hands on, "do it yourself" guides for developing your own strategic compensation programs.

Now that the economy and labor market has started to (weakly) recover, does this mean that it's back to business as usual for rewards professionals?  The short answer, in my opinion, is no.

Not that we won't be performing many of the same activities that we have for years, but ongoing trends, along with the devastating impact of the 2008-2009 recession, have combined to create the perfect storm for potential change in the ways we look at base pay management, variable pay, and qualitative or non-financial rewards.

Just as many economists feel the recession has led to some fundamental changes in consumer behavior, I believe that some fundamental changes in in the way that various forms of rewards are utilized are already underway.  For instance, a report done by Hewitt last year, predicted that over the next decade variable pay budgets will continue to rise (to 16% of payroll, up from about 12% today and half that back in the early 90s), while base pay increase or "merit" budgets will continue downward, from close to 4% prior to the recession, to about 2.5% to 3.0% today, and to about 2% in 2020. While no one knows if these specific numbers will hold up 10 years out, I believe they have nailed the general trends with their predictions.

Over the next decade employers will continue to endure painful benefits costs increases (healthcare reform or not, medical costs are rising out of control), crowding out potential spending on other rewards programs, especially for base pay increases.

Base pay is destined to be a serious pinch point for both employers and employees, as companies strive to keep fixed cost increases moderate, while employees lament the lack of pay growth. Between the long-term shift towards more variable pay, the cost squeeze created by ever-increasing healthcare costs, and the weak labor market (and predicted to be weak for some time), base pay has no where to go except barely up. Some pundits also see a change coming in the way merit pay is doled out.  For instance, see "Paying it Forward:Ideas Beyond the Traditional Merit Matrix" by Ann Bares via the Compensation Cafe.

To augment the lack of excitement at the base pay level, many savvy employers are paying more attention to qualitative rewards, i.e., rewards that are not based on monetary payouts, but more focused on addressing other "higher order" needs (in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs), such as building a culture of appreciation and recognition, offering greater opportunities for training and skill development, offering greater work schedule flexibility and other work-life fit options, and in enhancing the overall culture of the organization in ways that are more employee friendly.

There are not going to be a lot of fixed dollars to throw around in the next few years, and so it will be incumbent on organizations and rewards professionals to make better and more creative uses of the various rewards alternatives available to them.  Motivating and retaining workers has never been "just about the money," but that concept will prove to be even more relevant in the 2010s.

Doug Sayed is principal at Applied HR Strategies, a Seattle area compensation consultancy, and lead author of the StrategicPay Series Base Pay Toolkit, a guide for helping non-compensation experts to develop their own strategic compensation programs.  Doug is a Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) with over 25 years of HR and compensation experience, and a Master's degree in HR management from The Ohio State University.

Corporate performance and CEO pay are poorly correlated, according to executive compensation expert Graef Crystal.

Crystal recently completed a study for Bloomberg News on the relationship between shareholder returns and CEO pay, and found that no matter how the data was sliced, the relationship was a poor one.  In other words, the relationship between what shareholders earn on their investments in a company and and what CEO earns is not a very good one.

By viewing the interactive graph at this link,  one can see that the link between pay and stock performance is a tenuous one. The data is based on over 2009 data from 271 large public companies that have already reported their financial results and their executive compensation.  2009 was a very good year for the most stocks, but a generally poor one for most businesses, so we should expect some divergences.

In periodic posts in the coming months we will look closer at this topic, as it's a "hot" one that won't seem to go away.

Upcoming StrategicPay Series Workshop:

Don't miss our upcoming intensive  1/2 day workshop "Utilizing Market Data and Conducting a Competitive Pay Analysis" on June 10th.  See here 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.

There have been so many fundamental shifts in the workplace and the employee-employer relationship in the past two decades that it's not only time for workers to reconsider how they manage themselves and their careers, but also time for us, as HR and rewards professionals, to relook at how we face today's workplace realities, which include:

• The death of job security as we (and especially our parents) once knew it.
• Fundamental shifts in loyalties, and in some case of trust, in the employee-employer relationship.
• The realization that all employees are responsible for their own career and are in effect, the CEOs of  "Me, Inc." (In other words, employees are responsible for managing their own career and professional development, not their employer).
• The job description for CEO of Me, Inc., includes a line that job security is primarily the CEO's responsibility, not their employer's (see Ann Bares' recent post "A Fundamental Shift in Talent Management: Will 'Active Job Security' Replace 'Passive Job Security'?").
• That employers now, more than ever, are responsible for creating an environment where their Me, Inc. employees will choose to keep their skill sets and performance focus.

Since Me, Inc. employees are primarily concerned about "Me" (that's you, not me!), most Me incumbents want to know details on the fundamental question of "What's in it for Me?" in their employment relationship. (I call it the "WIFM question").

In the "old days," employees worked for employers, and employers controlled virtually all aspects of the employment relationship.  In return, employees showed up to work nearly every day, did their jobs and generally enjoyed high levels of jobs security. That was the implicit contract: I take care of you, and you take care of me...

Today, employees must take care of themselves (and hopefully most labor force participants have figured this out by now), which means that most insightful workers are now working for Me, Inc., even if they are doing so at an employer's place of business.  Today, it's far more important than in the "old days" for employers to provide the favorable set of conditions for Me, Inc. incumbents, and to do so in a way that is productive and fruitful for both sides of the employment relationship.  With most of the implicit loyalty out the window, the dynamics of the employment relationship have changed significantly. Employers need to provide a reason (and hopefully several of them) for high-performing Me, Inc. employees to stay with them.

Translating these shifts into newer ways of doing business as HR and rewards professionals means, among other things, that your mode of communications must be enhanced to address the WIFM questions and the win-win relationship between employers and Me, Inc. workers. For instance:

• Instead of just informing employees about your compensation and rewards philosophy,  communicate it from a partnership perspective and explain why and/or how your philosophy benefits them too (back to the WIFM question).
• Rather than just expecting performance, clearly define what performance means for each individual, and how it is important and beneficial for the business and the employee to perform well.  Create a "win-win" strategy.
• Explain the performance-benefit linkage (the performance WIFM) between how high levels of performance benefit the employee as well as the organization.
• Continue to communicate the employer-employee value proposition, addressing the WIFM questions and how the employment "deal" is a beneficial one for both employers and their Me, Inc. employees.

As we're discussed recently on the StrategicPay Blog, there are not going to be a lot of extra fixed payroll dollars to throw around in the next few years, and so it will be especially important to focus more on the psychological and qualitative benefits of working for your organization.  These include developing and supporting a culture of appreciation and accountability; having a well trained, high quality, appreciation and performance-oriented management team, and providing learning and growth opportunities for your Me, Inc. employees in residence. Training and coaching managers to utilize the right skills and mind-set for this type of management style (communicative, supportive, collaborative, and yet accountability-driven) will be critical to successfully managing in the era of Me, Inc.

Another way employers can help create a positive partnership is to recognize and value the inherent stresses impacting workers these days. In today's hectic world, with working parents and crammed schedules, workplace flexibility is an especially valuable workplace benefit that costs little to offer. Those employers that can provide a trusting but accountable environment and that can manage to job expectations, rather than managing to specific times on a clock, will likely see benefits in lower turnover and greater loyalty and engagement among their professional and managerial staff.   (Yes, you'll still have to manage to the clock for your non-exempt employees).

Of course, offering a competitive compensation and benefits package is still very important in the "attract, retain and motivate" equation.  More important than the minimal extra dollars that most employers will be adding to their payroll budgets in the next few years, however, is the way your employees are treated and managed. The days of the "we own you" approach to management are numbered. The days of "we work together for mutual benefit" is where the world of work is heading for high-performing organizations.

Doug Sayed is principal for Applied HR Strategies, Inc. and developer of the StrategicPay Series, a series of "do it yourself" toolkits designed to assist HR and compensation professionals to develop strategic compensation programs on their own.

Thank you to my "guest posters" for sitting in while I was away!  I'm back, but will have a few more guest posts, because so many colleagues were nice enough to contribute.  Getting back to my own work though, temporarily at least, the following post is a from my recent post at the Compensation Cafe.

The days of near-guaranteed base pay increases and growing employer contributions to ever-increasing benefits costs are slowly (but surely) dwindling.

No, base pay isn't going away, nor are periodic pay increases, but the battle against the growth in fixed compensation costs (base pay, health care costs, etc.) is gaining strength, even as the economic recovery starts to take hold.

Most employers are willing to pay out increased compensation, but today much of those pay increase budget dollars are going into variable pay, which typically flexes with organizational performance and ability to pay. The trend toward increased variable pay has been going on for two decades, but it seems to have hit a "tipping point" in recent years, as organizations struggle to absorb a never-ending battle with health care cost increases (crowding out merit budgets in the process), while trying to get more "bang for their buck" with their compensation dollars.

While organizations try to keep a lid on fixed costs, more enlightened employers realize that there's more to the "attract, motivate and retain" equation than just base pay and benefit dollars. But before going on, let's look at some general reward trends over the last few decades, and how we ended up where we are at today.

• The 1970's and 1980's: plain-vanilla base pay and benefits; defined benefit (DB) pension plans were common in larger, manufacturing and/or unionized organizations. Variable pay is confined largely to executives and sometimes middle management.
• The 1990's: many employers add variable pay (or push variable pay into lower levels of the organization) and other reward elements into the mix, such as stock option programs. Many employers freeze or eliminate DB pension programs and retiree medical as just too costly to maintain. Health care cost sharing is increasingly pushed down to employees. The 401(K) is the new pension program.
• The 2000's: a greater movement towards "total rewards," including variable pay for the masses and a greater recognition of the need to pay more attention to qualitative vs. purely quantitative (dollar dominated) rewards. Employers continue efforts to contain fixed costs, especially in the form of sharing increased health care costs with the employee base.
• The 2010's: as we enter a new decade, we see a greater focus on comprehensive or "holistic" rewards, including a movement away from purely quantitative rewards to qualitative and work-life rewards. Qualitative rewards include career/job growth and development opportunities, increased focus on organization culture and communication, work flexibility options, work-life "fit"options, and  creating a culture of appreciation/recognition.

Decades ago, Herzberg's work on motivation and job enrichment theorized that that pay is a more of a "satisfier" (it can meet basic needs and satisfy, but cannot make employees "happy" about their employment).  Confirming this, many studies have shown that pay is generally not the reason employees leave organizations (unless pay is noticeably below what's available in the relevant labor market); it was considered more of a "hygiene" (in Herzberg's terminology) or satisfaction factor. I believe this is an accurate characterization of base pay's role in job satisfaction, even today.

In reality, it's how managers treat and manage their staff, and how leaders lead their organizations that has the greatest impact on retention, job satisfaction and the propensity to turnover.  This is where rewards are headed; not just dollars (there are so few to spread around these days), but with qualitative or psychological rewards that can help to engage and retain employees (or to dis-engage and repel workers when not provided, or provided poorly or disingenuously).

Qualitative or psychological rewards focus more on genuine management/leadership, honest communication and regard for employees; building a culture of respect and appreciation, providing honest and constructive performance feedback, offering career and professional development opportunities, offering work flexibility and work-life balance fit options.

With the limited merit budgets of today and (predicted) for the future, there is just not enough "oomph" in the dollars that employers can offer to assist too much with the critical ideal of "attract, motivate and retain." Variable pay will help, but most of the rest will have to come from other types of rewards.

It's time to start thinking beyond dollars...


Doug Sayed is principal at Applied HR Strategies, a Seattle-area compensation consultancy and author of the StrategicPay Series Base Pay Toolkit, and 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 StrategicPay Blog would like to thank fellow Compensation Cafe blogger Darcy Dees, for her contribution of this excellent posts on incentive plans.  Thank you Darcy!

Jim Collins wrote a book entitled Good to Great that discusses the importance of having the right people in the right jobs at your company in order to be successful.
From Jim Collins's website: This book addresses a single question: Can a good company become a great company, and if so, how? Based on a five year research project comparing teams that made a leap to those that did not, Good to Great shows that greatness is not primarily a function of circumstance; but largely a matter of conscious choice and discipline. This book discusses concepts like Level 5 Leadership, First Who (first get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to drive it), and the Flywheel.

I buy into that concept, but I've never really liked his analogy of having the right people in the right seats on the bus.  Unless you're a character in Speed, bus passengers are passive participants in the bus ride; only the bus driver can make the bus go in a particular direction.  So this comparison leaves a bit to be desired because it would indicate that only one person has an impact on where the company goes.  You may ask:  What difference does the analogy make if the underlying theory is sound?  I believe that inappropriate correlations can cause skewed thinking and result in skewed decision-making.  I sometimes wonder if this analogy has been used to justify some of the excessive executive compensation packages we've seen.  If you believe only the bus driver matters, you're going to pay that driver really well.

I've always preferred the analogy of a rowing crew.  You place people in the seat that utilizes their individual strengths and everyone works together to achieve a common goal.  You must row in concert and in the same direction in order to get where you need to be.  You won't do as well if you have weakness in any seat, but there are particular seats that need a stronger performer than others.  So in business parlance, you can get by with "B" players in certain seats, as long as you have "A" players in the most important seats.

From the perspective of the rowing crew analogy, I think this is why more and more businesses have extended participation in cash incentive plans deeper into the ranks.  (Well this and the fact that it decreases the pressure on the fixed cost of base pay).  An incentive plan can make sure everyone on the "boat" understands where they're trying to get to and how to get there.  Incentives are sometimes overused and misused, which is why Dan Pink is selling so many books.  It doesn't do any good to tell someone lying at the bottom of the boat without an oar to take us someplace, line-of-sight is imperative.  But an incentive can be a powerful tool for motivating your team who are holding oars and reaching an agreed upon destination.

Incentive plans, just like analogies, usually aren't perfect.  But they both continue to be used because they can help achieve goals and improve understanding.  It is important to continually review to make sure that they are working as designed and aren't doing more harm than good.

Darcy Dees, CCP works as the Compensation Manager for Rock Bottom Restaurants, Inc., headquartered in Louisville, CO.  She has worked with RBR for nearly 10 years helping to develop many of the compensation and performance management programs the company uses today.  She spends what little free time she has hiking and reading.
The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of Darcy Dees. Content published here is not monitored or approved by Rock Bottom Restaurants, Inc. before it is posted and does not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Rock Bottom Restaurants, Inc.

Image:  Creative Commons Photo "Tufts, Head of the Charles" by crschmdit

The StrategicPay Blog is very happy to have Paul Hebert of I-2-I and the Incentive Intelligence Blog as a guest blogger.  Paul is a leading expert on the application of incentive and motivational programs to various compensation and rewards programs.  To contact Paul, click here for more information.  Thank you Paul!

Even if you have Pay For Performance You Still Need Non-cash Incentive Programs

Pay for performance (P4P) is hot right now.  Companies struggling to rein in compensation expenses are looking at P4P as a solution.  Pay a base salary, and pay additional monies for performance over and above some benchmark.  That is an incentive.  It is the basic "do this- get that" structure.

But, if you have a P4P system in place do you need other "non-cash incentives?" 

My answer is yes.  Not 'cuz I sell incentive programs and associated awards (I don't – I sell advice on how to design the best influence programs.) 

You need additional non-cash incentive programs to guide the behaviors that lead to the "performance" part of P4P.

A Couple of Goals A Couple of Bucks

From my point of view, P4P typically focuses on a few goals that when achieved will increase the person's compensation.  However, most jobs encompass a huge variety of tasks.  Too much emphasis on one or two goals and the majority of other important tasks may suffer from the focus on the achievement of the cash-reinforced tasks.  Too much emphasis on a few performance goals can lead to some wide ranging effects.

The Atom Bomb

The best metaphor/analogy (I can never decide which is the right use) for this is…

P4P is like asking a pilot to bomb a weapons factory.  They load the plane, take off and go to the target.  They get over the target and at just the right moment they open the bomb doors and drop the bomb.  Hopefully it will be close enough that the power of the bomb used will take out the target.  It doesn't have to be right on target because the bomb's blast radius is big enough to hit the factory even if it lands a block away or 10 miles away –depending on the power of the bomb. 

An atom bomb has a pretty big blast radius so I don't need to be very exact if I want to take out the factory.  Think of some of the bonuses on Wall Street as atom bombs.

That's kind of how your P4P works if you allow too much to ride on one big incentive opportunity.  You can give folks a target to hit – and a big bonus (blast radius) – and they will do whatever is necessary to drop their bomb.  Unfortunately, because the blast radius is very large you risk a lot of collateral damage - unintended consequences.

A Smart Bomb

Contrast that with a laser-guided bomb.  It is physically smaller, with a much smaller blast radius.  But it is very accurate.

Even if you have Pay For Performance You Still Need Non-cash Incentive Programs

To make a smart bomb effective you need some system to adjust the flight of the bomb as it falls to ensure it hits the target.  Guided bombs have very complicated electronics and the ability to change their trajectory.  That's what makes them accurate.  But that's also what makes them expensive. 

Smart bombs trade the cost of collateral damage for the cost of accuracy.

You could try to convert your P4P atom bomb program into a P4P smart bomb program by guiding behavior toward a goal using a bunch of smaller cash awards that target specific behaviors based on individual skills.  But trying to keep up with very specific goals would mean adjusting compensation plans so frequently no one would ever understand how they were getting paid.

Remember, we're dealing with compensation – the stuff people use to pay for condos, cars and college.  Messing with compensation is serious business.  Most people need to plan and have some sort of understanding of what their next check will look like.  Not many employees can live the life of commission-only sales person who consciously takes on the risk of widely variable pay to achieve an overall higher level of compensation.

So in the P4P world you can either have a few very broad goals that can result in unintended consequences (as most plans do), or try to create many, many small goals that change frequently and create confusion and apathy.

Neither scenario is good.

Non-Cash Incentives

Non-cash incentives allow you to guide behavior without the same expense and confusion. 

Non-cash incentives guide behavior but because they are not linked to compensation, (or shouldn't be) you don't have to adjust compensation plans, worry about confusion or discrimination.  And - you get another benefit – non-cash awards typically have a higher "perceived value."  Non-cash awards tap into the part of the persons brain that imagines them using and having the item/trip – not just the dollar value of it.  It changes their relationship with the reward.  This can help decrease your overall cost.

Using non-cash awards as the guidance system on your P4P program will allow you to impact behaviors that drive results, reduce costs, reduce comp plan changes, clarify goals and allow you to adjust direction more often.

In other words, non-cash awards allow you to create a "smart bomb" and reduce the blast radius, increase the accuracy and avoid a lot of pitfalls associated with changing compensation structures.

Take a cue from our own military – what are they using more of today – atom bombs or smart bombs?

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.

Note: this is an updated version of my recent Compensation Cafe Post.

Amid all of the talk about motivation and incentives in the past few months, as HR and compensation influencers, we need pay attention to what we're paying for, why we are paying it (are we getting what we think we're paying for?), and in communicating this information throughout our organizations.

In their classic book "Pay People Right," Zingheim and Schuster argue that base pay should be pay for ongoing value, not for results. Each person brings to work their unique set of education/training, skills, experiences and talents, and base pay is to compensate for use the of skills and abilities that employees bring to work every day.

Zingheim and Schuster go on to say that variable pay (typically in the form of short-term cash incentives) should be used as pay for results. Using their model, we can use base pay to pay for what I call the employee's "toolkit" (all those skills, abilities, etc.), while reserving variable pay for the actual results achieved via a combination of the employee's abilities and efforts.

Although employee efforts are a key component of achieving desired outcomes, efforts do not always equal results, and so we should separate them from each other in terms of pay and rewards.

Efforts are critical though, especially those "discretionary efforts" that we as HR and rewards professionals seek out, and thus, while we probably shouldn't pay for them per se, we certainly can recognize, applaud and occasionally even celebrate these "above and beyond" efforts.

In the book "17 Rules for Successful Companies Use to Attract and Keep Top Talent" author David Russo states ("Rule #6") "applaud effort; reward contribution" and I couldn't agree more.  Efforts are critical, and worthy of recognition and applause, but not of pay per se.

If we pay for effort alone, in the absence of tangible results, we run the risk of creating rewards confusion (especially for those who actually achieve intended results) and possibly of mis-placed rewards expectations and/or feelings of entitlement ("I busted my butt on that project...").

Of course, we need to be clear and transparent about what we pay for and why; what base pay is for, and what variable pay/incentives reward. If we don't do that, many of our pay related programmatic efforts will be waisted, because people will not understand what they are paid for and how they can improve their own personal rewards system.

Doug Sayed is principal at Applied HR Strategies, a Seattle area compensation consultancy and 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.