Last year well over 50% of employers cut their merit budgets or worse (eliminated them or cut base pay).  In a recent webinar I did for Salary.com, about 80% of the 200 or so attendees said they had cut or eliminated their salary increase budgets for the 2009. After the dust settled, 2009 pay increases were the lowest on record, under 2%.

While 2010 will see an increase in pay increase budgets (most studies are projecting 2.5% to 2.9% merit increases for 2010), these budgets remain at historically low levels, and the preliminary numbers for 2011 aren't much higher. Due to the extremely weak economic recovery, it's likely that even these low projected numbers will drop somewhat.

It's hard to imagine that the workforce will be too thrilled with these pay increases, especially when comparing them to what most employees typically received prior to 2009, but since nearly everyone will have modest budgets, it's not like they would do dramatically better elsewhere.  Of course, this assumes that your base pay and cash compensation programs are already competitive, that base pay growth and variable pay are tied to performance, and that you're taking care of your best employees. If not, these tasks should move to the head of your priority lists.

Countless studies in the past few years have shown that employee morale is dropping (and has been for two decades) and half or more or the workforce today is ready to seek out the proverbial "greener pastures" of a new employer.  But is pay the main issue driving  the discontent?  "No," say most of these studies. 

While competitive cash compensation is a critical element of any rewards program, once these basic needs are met, what's keeping the best performers with your company?  Assuming you've already taken care of these basic needs, it's your culture and how you manage and treat your people that can really make the difference (see my recent post on "Can't Buy Me (Workplace) Love" for more on this topic).  With employee loyalty and engagement at an all-time low, quality leadership and management are at a premium (see my colleague Laura Schroeder's excellent post on "...We Must Increase Our Trust") for additional supporting information.

But don't take our word for it. Check out the recent WorldatWork study on the linkage between various reward program elements and engagement. Bottom line: how your workforce is lead and managed is far more important than pay per se in determining workforce engagement and commitment.  The global recession has had a particularly negative impact on employee engagement according to a Hewitt study, but pay isn't the reason.

Both the WorldatWork and Hewitt studies make it clear that visible, trusted and communicative leadership are critical to maintaining high levels of engagement. While the focus of each study were somewhat different, neither study posits pay as a driving factor in employee commitment and engagement.

While pay is, and remains, a critical element in the attraction, retention and satisfaction of the workforce, it is far from the most critical factors in determining overall happiness, commitment and engagement of the workforce. If you've even worked in a "toxic" work environment for an employer that paid well, you'll easily relate.

Pay competitively and treat your workforce well. It's cheaper and more effective than trying to overcome poor people management with extra pay dollars.

Doug Sayed, SPHR, CCP, is principal with Applied HR Strategies, a Seattle-area compensation consultancy, and an instructor, periodic author and publications reviewer for WorldatWork. He is the lead author of the StrategicPay Series Base Pay Toolkit.

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.