Employers are constantly tinkering with their compensation programs. Are our salaries at market? Couldn’t our bonus plan be better? Are we spending too much on benefits? Notice how each of these questions (and there are lots more like them) focuses on cost and or effectiveness. And effectiveness usually means “does it work for the company?”
After all that effort it’s easy to see why employers are often surprised when an employee quits and takes a job for “more pay” somewhere else.
Employers would be wise to spend a little more time looking at their comp plans through the eyes of their employees. Ultimately, all elements of the total rewards package are evaluated by employees through three lenses: (1) are my cash needs being met? (2) are my security needs being met? (3) do I have a meaningful wealth accumulation opportunity? (I realize there are other real elements of the total pay program such as PTO, sick pay, etc. But I’m putting those in the “lifestyle support” category. Today I’m talking about the core or largest elements of direct pay–salaries/wages, bonuses, long-term awards, retirement and health and welfare.)
We conduct employee surveys about the perception of the value of pay commitment. I just completed our main survey–the Alignment Appraisal–for three different companies. Here are some of the average employee scores (think 1-10, 10 being the highest).
The company’s cash compensation program effectively meets mypersonal lifestyle needs. (Scores: 4.0, 5.5, 6.2)
The company’s benefit programs (health and welfare plans) offer adequate flexibility and coverage to address the potential financial risks I face. (Scores: 4.0, 8.0, 8.2)
I perceive a meaningful wealth accumulation opportunity through our compensation and rewards programs? (Scores: 3.5, 4.0, 4.9)
Two of these companies obviously do a pretty good job of providing strong health plans. Other than that these scores indicate to me that employees see their rewards programs as average or below when they come to actually meeting their personal needs, goals and expectations. (There are plenty of other responses in the survey that support these conclusions.) By the way, these scores are very typical. We don’t usually see them much higher.
I consider this a serious problem! The investment in compensation for employees is huge–almost always the biggest expense on the income statement. Why isn’t their greater concern about matching this up with what employees really want and need?
This problem is very often one of perception. But it’s a common one. Right or wrong, employees don’t think employers are really that concerned about their personal financial needs. Think about the implications of this to morale, productivity, retention, recruiting–as well as growth and profits!
One of Stephen Covey’s “7 Habits” was to “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Employers who learn to look at their total rewards investment (TRI) through the lenses of their employees’ three needs will find that they strengthen the partnership relationship with their employees. In the long run everyone wins–employees utiilize their rewards dollars more productively and shareholders reap the benefit of long-lasting improvements in culture along with greater profits and real equity value.




