Tag Archives: Compensation

Creating A Global Benefits Strategy

Posted on November 25, 2009 by | 3 comments

Author:
David Bryan – Norfolk Mobility Benefits

Editor’s Note: We are pleased to welcome David Bryan as a Guest Author.  David has extensive experience in international employee benefits, and is currently a Marketing Consultant for Norfolk Mobility Benefits in Naperville, IL.

Change is constant, particularly in the realm of international employee benefits. There is a social time bomb ticking — the number of employees paying into various social security systems around the world is diminishing while the number of recipients is increasing. To defuse this situation, many governments are reducing benefits while raising taxes, thereby shifting the burden to the employer.

Today’s multinational employer is evolving into the transnational of tomorrow as corporations do away with defined headquarters and instead move to regional centers of operations. To meet these and other changes, benefits professionals are implementing global benefits strategies (GBS).  Yet, in recent surveys in which I have participated, nearly 78% of multinational firms have no formal international employee benefits strategy!

Designing Your Strategy
There appears to be more centralization of core corporate functions in light of the global economy.  While authority for certain functions may be retained on a local or regional level, strategy setting is still at HQ.  In the end, as long as the global corporate benefit strategy is being deployed, certain aspects, for example the selection of vendors/contracts, can be left to the local operations.

A Global Benefits Strategy will provide for some of the following benefits:

  • A blueprint of your company’s decisions describing what employee benefit strategies should be deployed for the enterprise.  It is a living, breathing document that needs to be adaptable to change.
  • Agreed-upon policies to create universal understanding and, hopefully, support from the local subsidiaries.
  • A framework for future benefits changes and enhancements.
  • A written strategy which allows employees to see how certain benefits decisions were made, and is very helpful when new stakeholders are brought into the process.
  • Strategies to manage costs; global benefit costs are substantial.
  • An organization-wide reference when trying to understand or drive employee benefits decisions and planning.

Key Elements of a Global Benefits Strategy
Global benefits strategies can take many forms, and range in length and depth, but most successful strategies will include many of the following elements:

  • Global Benefits Committee – This team should consist of representatives from HR, legal, treasury/finance, risk management and, when possible, various global business units. Initially, the committee should meet frequently and agree upon a system of review and evaluation for the work as it progresses. Remember: the more senior the committee representation, the stronger the strategy’s influence on upper management.
  • Statement of Objectives – The team should develop a written, agreed-upon statement or set of statements that defines the overall objectives of the GBS. Some statements try to benchmark by using outside data from consultants (e.g., having benefits at or above the 50th percentile). While data may be readily available in some countries, it may not be in others. Benchmarking can be a useful measurement tool, but benefits professionals need to be aware of the need to obtain consistent criteria across countries.
  • Policy Guidelines – Policy guidelines provide specifics about the various benefits and levels of benefits that support and are tied to the GBS statements. For example, life, accident, disability, medical, retirement and savings plans are outlined with target levels of coverage; and integration with social plans is detailed. Keep in mind, though, that too much detail can lead to guidelines that cannot be applied globally. With medical plans, for example, specific co-insurance percentages may not apply when a supplemental medical plan in a particular country is based on a schedule of fees.
  • Implementation and Review – After agreeing on its strategies and supporting guidelines, the GBS committee must put certain processes in place to activate the plan. Typically, an announcement from a senior-level executive to key, local employees helps gain attention and buy-in. Local buy-in should be targeted to management, HR and, in many countries, should include the Works Councils or unions. This step is critical to successful implementation of any global benefits strategy.

Reaping the Rewards
After the announcement of the new global benefits strategy, a benefits audit is often conducted to educate the central benefits staff about what plans are in place.  For a new company, implementing a GBS is easier than for a well-established firm that must harmonize many plans to create a unified and consistent global benefits strategy. The benefits professional’s role is essential at this stage. Many consultants and insurers offer software packages to assist in this process, although many corporations devise their own audit form to meet their specific needs.

Set procedures need to be in place to implement, review and enhance local plans. Usually, one individual has a certain dollar amount of approval authority to exercise any latitude permitted by HQ (for new and/or enhanced benefits). The more senior the individual, the more authority. Local benefit needs — and wants — must be measured against predetermined criteria. This authority can be with corporate, local or both, as set forth in the GBS.

Along with these approval procedures, established communication chains must be followed. In cases of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, reliable benefits data (pension reserve, for example) must be readily available. Pre-established lines of communication will help in this type of scenario.

In most instances, resources are scarce, resulting in a decentralized approach.  In spite of this, there have been more than a few “ideal” GBS roll-outs.  An announcement, then an audit, followed by site visits from benefits staff to bring the local plans into compliance with the new philosophy is a typical, effective approach.

Taking the First Step
While global benefits strategies can be similar, each company must tailor one to fit within its industry and corporate HR philosophy. The first step in this process is creating a shared vision for a GBS that is flexible, simple, legal and tax compliant. Further, it should integrate governmental social plans with new or existing supplemental plans provided by the company.

A multinational enterprise must look after its global employee benefit plans.  We all are under the budget microscope.  However, a well-articulated global benefits strategy will enable HR to manage benefits resources globally and ensure a compliant and competitive benefits approach in every country.

More About David:

3 Comments

Posted in Benefits, Global HR Expertise, Insurance, International Benefits

Tagged , , , ,

Red Flag for Global Recognition Programs

Posted on November 15, 2009 by | 9 comments

bio_400x400 Author:
Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

When designing programs to recognize and reward an employee’s extraordinary achievements it’s important to understand the cultural implications of these programs.   Companies with a truly global operating mindset, vs. domestic-oriented organizations with international operations, will take into account national and cultural differences that distinguish its widespread employee populations.

One size rarely fits all.

You might think that the positive aspects of employee recognition programs are a universally accepted principle, but that’s only partially correct.  Important differences exist.  In some cultures / national identities the role of the team is such a core element of employee identification that seeking out an individual contributor for recognition would not be a welcome practice.  Some employees might be reluctant to step forward, or to be pushed into the spotlight.

In other countries you will find that the perceived value of cash as a recognition award varies a great deal.

Case study

A former employer of mine once implemented a global Spot Award program for its worldwide employees – without including their international HR community in the planning discussions.  Finalized program elements and procedures covered employees in over 20 countries in exactly the same fashion.  The premise was to provide immediate (read that, fast) recognition and financial rewards (Spot Awards) for those employees who demonstrated performance above and beyond their normal job roles.  Nominations for awards would come from an employee’s manager, though employees could recommend co-workers as well.

While the program was deemed a success in the US (though defined by only the dollars spent), it was much less successful elsewhere among the company’s far-flung international operations.

Lessons Learned

The first problem was that Managers outside the US placed a much more conservative financial value on so-called “extraordinary” employee contributions.  Or put another way, the US Managers were more generous in their payment awards than elsewhere.  The result was that the cash payments on a per-employee basis were widely skewed to the US employee.  Notwithstanding the vagaries of the various currency exchanges, the international offices did not spend their allotted recognition reward monies as frequently or as generously as their US counterparts.

I recall one scenario where a US employee received thousands of dollars for a particular project effort, while their European counterpart was given a non-cash award (recognition dinner).  This created more than a few awkward moments when the two employees shared experiences.

The second challenge was that many international employees did not want to be individually spotlighted by the recognition program.  They were willing to receive the award, but would rather the recognition be confidential.  Given that Corporate had planned an internal communications campaign to highlight individual award winners, that reluctance proved quite a hindrance.

Compounding the preference for anonymity was the desire for team over personal awards, as individual employees proved resistant to receiving the planned fanfare or preferential treatment – especially in front of their co-workers (team members).

The bottom line was that the recognition and reward program recognized a smaller than anticipated number of non-US employees, less reward money was spent per international employee, and Corporate Communications was hard pressed to find international employees amenable to being highlighted for the program.  Not exactly what the program designers had intended.

Corrective action

The answer seems straightforward, does it not?  If a global program is to affect all employees, then possible national or cultural distinctions among groups should be addressed, well in advance.  However, that would mean including representatives from those groups in the design and communication phases of the project.  Such a simple step seems a difficult one to take for many corporate plan designers.  Why?

When they have the bit between their teeth developing a program that affects the majority of employees, management is often reluctant to change course to include the differing sensitivities of small populations, especially if those populations do not speak with one voice.  What they prefer to do is have local representatives “tweak” the round peg into the square hole.

How does that work for you?

 

More About Chuck:

9 Comments

Posted in Compensation, Cross Cultural Insights, Global HR Expertise, International Expertise, Leadership Development, Professional Development

Tagged , , , , , ,

10 Rules of the Road for Your Expatriate Program – Part II

Posted on October 19, 2009 by | 7 comments

bio_400x400 Author:
Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

Last week I posted the first five of ten “Rules of the Road” for managing your expatriate program.  I hope you enjoyed reading them.  In this post, I’ve included the five remaining rules.  Enjoy!

Rule #6: Always have a Backup Candidate
It is very important to avoid a scenario where management believes that only one person is capable of handling the assignment.  If all your plans are dependent upon one candidate, and your choice discovers this (they usually do), the assignment from that point will likely become more contentious, problematic, internally disruptive and ultimately more expensive.  You will have lost leverage when trying to apply Company policies, demands for exceptional treatment will increase, costs will rise as a result and the likelihood of equity issues with other employees will increase.

Having a second choice will enable you to more easily finalize an equitable package of terms and conditions, test the candidates’ genuine interest in the overseas assignment and lower inflated egos down to earth.

Rule #7: Do Not Play “Let’s Make a Deal”
Everyone tends to lose on this slippery slope.  The expatriate community is a small group that will eventually learn of any special deals someone received that others did not.  While the expatriate policy document should provide a “safety valve” for approved discretionary exceptions covering extraordinary circumstances, be mindful of creating precedents where the sole reason is to placate an employee (or their spouse).  This problem can be a major dissatisfier for the rest of your community.  Explore cost sharing and trade-offs with the expatriate to mitigate the perception of inequitable treatment.

Certain employees, especially those with a sales background or like temperament, may view many aspects of the assignment terms and conditions as negotiable, simply because it is in their nature to question or challenge what they consider is the Company’s “initial offer”.

A word of caution:  if the employee considers the international assignment less as a wonderful career opportunity and more as a “favor” to the Company, the warning signs should be posted that this might not be a good match.

Rule #8: Have a “Hand-Holder” in Place
Another key to a successful assignment is to provide a ‘go-to” person in the host country for the myriad questions that will crop up as soon as the assignee arrives.  Set up a local contact point for host country issues, expatriate experiences and administrative fulfillment of the assignment terms.  Insist that the assignee utilize this person, not their manager, co-workers or even well-intentioned HR people unfamiliar with the expatriate program.  This go-to person should have the authority to make decisions, to “handle” whatever the question might be.

While this sounds like an easy step do not assume that anyone would automatically take this task to heart.  Left to their own devices, host country employees often find it difficult to invest the time to help assignees understand local business conditions and culture.  Thus you need to make it someone’s responsibility.

Likewise there should be a contact person in the home country as well, a designated individual prepared to handle policy interpretations, provide advice on navigating procedures and assuming responsibility for the home administration of the assignment terms.

Rule #9: Do Not Forget That They’re out There
A successful assignment requires constant attention from both the home and host country contacts.  Communication should be frequent, as should the “check-up” calls to gauge the assignee’s temperament.  For example, does the assignee understand the COLA calculations, have any payroll or currency exchange issues arisen, is the family acclimating well, are there issues the assignee would like to discuss?  A key source of dissatisfaction for assignees and their families is a feeling of being “out in the provinces” and therefore out of touch with what is happening back at the office they have left.  Make every effort to ensure that they do not feel marginalized, taken for granted or forgotten.

Make sure the assignee has a Mentor (as compared to a hand holder) back in the home country as well, a Senior Management-level individual charged with representing the assignee’s career interests during the assignment.  This person should schedule periodic career discussions with the assignee.

Rule #10: Have an Exit Strategy
All too frequently companies are at a loss as to what to do with expatriates who have successfully completed their assignments.  It is not uncommon for assignees to leave the Company upon their return from overseas or within the following year, because either no suitable position was available in the home country or what was available was a diminished or less visible role.

After incurring the huge expense for an employee to develop deeper and broader competencies on the international stage, it is a wise business practice to pay close attention as to how best to utilize that increasingly marketable (and therefore valuable) talent when the assignment ends.  Without due care and planning the career cycle of an assignee is left as an afterthought, one that usually crops up late in the assignment;  meanwhile the assignee has been worried (and thus distracted) for a much longer period of time.

While there are no guarantees that future positions will be available back home for employees presently working overseas, the international assignment letter should at least state that the Company will attempt to secure a “mutually agreeable position of similar stature” upon completion of the assignment.  It is in the best interest of the Company and the assignee to carefully plan for a successful repatriation.

Follow though
Well, that’s my list of ten rules.  The road ahead has curves, dips and more than its share of bumps and potholes.  However, if you manage to keep these sign posts in mind (commit them to memory, post them on the wall, send and resend them to managers), the experience does not have to be an endurance course for all concerned.

You will need to keep at it though (persistence is its own reward), because there is no pill or “Easy Button” that will magically ease the journey.  There is no cure for the realities that expatriate assignments will always be costly, procedurally complex and a personal as well as professional risk for those involved.  But by adhering to your own “rules of the road” your expatriate program can reap significant benefits: lower assignment costs, business objectives achieved, satisfied employees and host management, retained and developed talent and ultimately greater overall business success.  It can be done.

More rules?
Do you have rule that I did not include in my top ten?  Please, leave a comment and share your insights with the community.

More About Chuck:

7 Comments

Posted in Compensation, Expatriates, Global HR Expertise, Global Mobility Services, International Expertise, Professional Development, Repatriation

Tagged , , , , , ,

How Effective Are Your International Pay Programs?

Posted on September 22, 2009 by | 1 comment

bio_400x400Author:
Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

Has anyone ever asked you this question?   Did you have an answer?

To clarify, the question is whether your company’s international pay plans and practices are operating the way they were intended, and whether you are satisfied with what they have delivered.

When I ask a client this question, the typical reaction is a deer-in-the-headlights return stare, followed by a puzzled frown, perhaps a cough, then – maybe – some mumbled explanation of their employee turnover  situation.

In other words, they don’t have a clue.

A Huge Missed Opportunity

Why is this question important?  The client’s reaction would be humorous if there wasn’t a cash register ringing in the background.   If the method by which you reward your employees for their performance is not working, in any country, your company is wasting money like a silently dripping faucet – or worse.   This money is draining directly from your bottom line and your program flaws are likely also causing resentment among your employees.   Such a waste is also an avoidable expense, one that you can control.  Squandering payroll dollars and upsetting your employees is a dangerous and expensive combination for any organization.

If you consider that upward of 40% to 60% of your revenue goes right back out the door in some form of employee pay (excluding benefits), then the magnitude of your vulnerability should hit home.

Management time, though is too often misdirected by worrying about whether next year’s average pay increase will be 2.5%, 3.0% or 3.5% of payroll – or whether distinctions should be made on a country-specific basis.   However, the 800 lb. gorilla in the room is not the increase percentage, but the payroll itself – that huge amount of fixed and variable pay expense already budgeted.  That is the figure that should receive the lion’s share of attention.

What do you mean by an “Effective Program”?
Each Compensation program that you have in place (or set of practices) was likely designed or intended to perform a certain function.  For example:

  • Salary Structure or pay hierarchy – to offer the opportunity to earn competitive base pay
  • Incentive Plan – to reward employees for achieving job-related objectives above and beyond their normal duties
  • New Hire / Promotional Guidelines – to staff the company with the right caliber of employees
  • Pay-For-Performance – to recognize and reward higher achieving performers for their contribution to the company

How do you know if you need to be concerned about these programs / practices?  There are signs for those prepared to look.   Some examples:

  • Poor documentation of job responsibilities:  No one likes to write job descriptions, including me, but their absence, antiquity or inaccuracy can create an environment of blurred responsibilities, grade and title inflation and over staffing.  The direct result is an increase in fixed costs.
  • Absence of a Procedures Manual:  You can not expect managers to follow a consistent company process when they have little or no guidance.   They will fill the vacuum with chaos and damaging precedents, each of which is an expensive end product.
  • Dashboard metrics not in place:  To understand success you need to measure it.  If you haven’t established criteria to track the who, how and why of your compensation programs, then you won’t be able to understand whether your programs deliver desired results or not.
  • One size fits all:  Where the company has decided that each national program should look like the one at headquarters (different country), for ease of administration and communications
  • Poor visibility of pay decisions:  Proper rewarding of good performance should be a celebration in the open sunshine, not hidden in a closet hoping the boss won’t notice.  If a manager can grant pay increases without at least one additional level of signature, then the opportunity for improper (wrong amount, wrong employees, wrong reason) pay increases will flourish.
  • Toothless Performance Appraisal Process:  If your process of rewarding employees focuses more on activity than results, if it does not measure performance, if objectives / work routines are not tied to business needs, or if the appraisal document is viewed as an administrative headache, chances are the monies coming out of that process are a) providing little motivation for future performance, and b) are viewed more as delayed compensation than true pay-for-performance.
  • Limited Reward Differentials:  If the reward difference between a high performing employee and “Joe Average” is less than 2% you’re better off to consider across-the-board increases rather than go through the painful process of actually assessing individual performance.   If your plan essentially rewards everyone (is that really pay-for-performance?), then you’re not going to have enough money to properly reward those most critical to business success.  And who do you think will leave in a huff?  Not Joe Average, that’s for sure.
  • Weak Budgetary Controls:  Is there anyone assigned to watch the compensation purse strings in your organization?   Someone to say “that’s too much” or “you can’t give that large an increase”?  Someone perhaps to limit the growth of fixed costs?  Absent the presence of limiting factors (“controls” is such a harsh word) your costs will rise, as undisciplined managers in an unstructured environment will increase pay decisions in order to be liked by their employees.

Steps to take now
So what can you do?   You can find out.   You can ask questions.   You know the warning signs now, so avoid complacency and do not simply wait for the fire alarms to ring.  Become an advocate for systemic change, for policies and processes that improve the way your company rewards its employees.

By the way, have your internal audit folks ever scheduled your compensation programs for a checkup?  If so, it’s usually the HR documentation of processes that get a look, not whether those processes are effective or are even damaging the business.  They tend to look in the wrong direction.

Will a comprehensive review of your pay programs ensure that you will save money?  Improve your pay programs?  Improve retention and morale?  Unfortunately, there is an “it depends” answer to those questions.  The review will highlight your weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and show you the pathway to efficiency, cost savings and the effective use of your payroll dollars.  But by itself a comprehensive review can do little more than show you the way.   To reap success from your study, Management must be willing to make critical decisions that differentiate pay on the basis of employee value and performance.

More About Chuck:

1 Comment

Posted in Compensation, Global HR Expertise, International Expertise

Tagged , , , ,

Rethinking Incentives

Posted on September 15, 2009 by | 2 comments

heaps_warren1Author:
Warren Heaps – Birches Group LLC

This post is a bit different from the others that have been written for the Forum.  It’s designed to get you thinking, to entertain you, and to generate discussion.  While not strictly an international human resources topic, incentive pay is a global phenomenon of interest to our readers throughout the world.

There is much written about incentives and motivation.  Organizations spend countless hours fine-tuning their reward programs to optimize business results. Many theories exist to describe these optimal solutions.

But does incentive pay really work?

Recently, a client forwarded a link to a video on this subject, featuring Dan Pink, courtesy of TED: Ideas Worth Spreading . If you are curious  about the answer to this question, or in general, believe that incentive programs sometimes miss the bar, I highly recommend you listen to Dan’s speech.  It’s about 20 minutes long, and it will get you thinking, for sure.

After you watch the video, please add your comments to share with others.

2 Comments

Posted in Compensation, General, Global HR Expertise

Tagged , , ,

Global Salary Budgeting – Smart Approach or Misguided Shortcut?

Posted on August 23, 2009 by | 4 comments

heaps_warren1Author:
Warren Heaps – Birches Group LLC

It’s getting near to the time of year when companies start to draw up budgets for next year.  One of the most important numbers in the exercise is how much to budget for growth on the salary line.  Some organizations assume that making an assumption for salary growth globally based on the figures used in the headquarters country is a good solution.  After all, it’s easy to just take one number and apply it around the world.  Such an approach, however, is flawed.

Just as Chuck Csizmar explained in his recent post about comparing salaries across different countries by converting currencies, global salary budgeting needs to be done country-by-country, and taking a shortcut like the one described above is a recipe for disaster.   Here’s why.

Market Movement Varies by Country
The primary information used by HR and finance to determine salary budgets is market movement (this is a measure of how much salaries increase from one year to the next, usually from surveys) and internal economic assumptions (basically, how much can the company afford?).

Suppose your US-headquartered company decided to apply the US salary increase percentage to all of your markets overseas for a five-year period.  The graph below compares the average increases over the five-year period ending in 2008 for selected markets.

Average Pay Increases

As you can see, the average increase amounts vary a lot by market.  The difference compared to the US ranges from 7.1% (India) to almost 20% (Nigeria).  At the same time, the average in Europe is below that of the US. And that’s just comparing the averages for one year.  If you looked at the cumulative effects with compounding over the five-year period, the differences grow dramatically.

OK, I get it.  I need data for each market.   I’ll just use inflation.
Inflation data is fairly easy to get on a global basis.   You can usually find it for free on various websites, and your local finance folks will certainly have some figures for you to use as well.   They use inflation to budget price increases for your products and to anticipate the impact of price increases in raw materials and other costs of doing business for the upcoming year.   And of course, official inflation figures are produced by the government of each country in an unbiased and apolitical fashion, right?   But what does inflation, or cost-of-living, have to do with salaries?

Cost of Labor is What Matters!
Setting salaries is affected by many factors.  The absolute level of pay is certainly influenced by cost of living – countries with higher costs tend to have correspondingly higher salary levels.  But the main factor affecting salary increases – the one that drives the market movement each year – is an old rule from Economics 101. Three words.  Supply and Demand.   If you are recruiting for positions with hot skills, for example, and there is a shortage of these skills in the market, don’t you end up paying more for these recruits?  If there is high unemployment or an excess of qualified candidates, and positions are easy to fill, isn’t there considerably less pressure to raise salary levels?

Can I just use devaluation instead?
Short answer?  Nope.  Local employees are paid salaries set in local currency, and obtain their everyday good and services in the local market, in local currency.   Devaluation (or revaluation) defines the relationships between the currencies of different countries, usually with a reference to a “strong” currency such as US Dollars, Euros, Pounds Sterling or Yen.   Exchange rate changes do affect the price of goods, for example, especially imports or imported raw materials.   But these fluctuations do not fundamentally affect the cost of labor in a country.  Remember, also, exchange rates are sometimes controlled by governments to achieve other objectives.   Hardly a reliable measure of anything, really.

The Best Approach
To estimate your salary budget properly, you need to obtain data for market movement in each country, and analyze it in the context of your own organization’s situation (market position, health of the business, funds available for increases, etc.).   There are many sources for market data – everyone has their favorites (hopefully some of you are using Birches Group data).  And then you have to apply something no statistic or consultant can provide – your own judgment – to determine the right figure to use in your company.  Interpretation and analysis of the data and applying it to your company’s situation is the art of compensation rather than the science.


More About Warren

Warren Heaps

Warren on LinkedIn

Developing Markets Compensation and Benefits Group in LinkedIn

Email Warren

Birches Group

4 Comments

Posted in Compensation, Global HR Expertise, International Expertise

Tagged , , ,

Can’t You Just Convert the Currency?

Posted on August 10, 2009 by | 9 comments

Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

It is human nature to look for simple solutions to perplexing problems.  Simple avoids confusion, keeps you “on message” and helps create greater employee awareness and appreciation of programs and policies. However, when you are dealing with the diversity and complexity of international compensation it is just not that easy – nor should it be.   For those seeking the simple life it can be difficult to understand and accept that each country operates in a different environment from the next.

Perhaps because of its long history of isolationist tendencies, or perhaps due to a bit of Yankee arrogance, but US managers tend to struggle with the challenge of this concept more than other players on the global scene.

For the most part US Managers do not want to hear that pay levels in Finland, or Argentina or Tunisia are different from the US.  They would rather treat everyone the same, call it globalization and consider themselves a one-world player.  Many push an agenda of simplicity that is in fact a misleading distortion, will be a costly strategy to implement and its results will more than likely irritate key talent within their workforce.

Consider the senior manager who simply wants to convert a foreign national’s salary into US dollars – based on a concern with what they call “internal equity”?  The assumption is that everyone pays approximately the same for an “XYZ Manager”.

Other considerations:

  • If simple conversion was a viable approach, why do we not see such formulae prominently displayed by salary survey providers?
  • Employees will be skeptical of the simplistic approach, as in their mind too many local realities would be ignored in favor of what is perceived as the Company somehow saving money
  • Lacking a strong correlation you will either needlessly increase your compensation costs, or under-value your employee talent and risk disengagement – or worse

I once developed a formulaic approach that explained to a COO why he could not (should not) establish internal equity between the US and the UK by simply converting GBP into USD.   I factored in a host of elements, including local taxation, competitive pay levels, incentive practices, cost of living, required social charges, benefit costs, etc. to make my case.   My point was that a simple conversion would be a distortion of the economic realities that drive pay levels in both countries.

Sad to say, but the explanation was ignored and the COO, though he acknowledged the logic of my argument, continued to prefer a simple conversion to establish relative values in his own mind.

To operate successfully on a global basis management needs to understand, to truly believe that each country operates like a separate and sovereign national entity, with distinct economies, taxes, competitiveness, employment laws, culture, statutory benefit requirements, etc. that make a 1:1 comparison with any other country a distortion that will cause you to either over spend or under spend your reward dollars.  Either result should be avoided.

More About Chuck:

9 Comments

Posted in Compensation, Global HR Expertise, International Expertise, Leadership Development

Tagged , , , , ,

But . . . We Already Pay Competitive Wages!

Posted on July 16, 2009 by | 1 comment

Author:
Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

What doesn’t happen when your company pays competitive wages?

You’ve read your company’s want ads and heard the pitch from your recruiters; you offer competitive wages to qualified candidates.  That’s got to be a strong hook for attracting talent, right?

Big deal.

You regularly update your country-specific pay structures based on market trends, so the opportunities you offer your employees should support your retention and motivation strategies, right?

Not enough.

Most employees presume that your company is already doing or aspiring to meet the goal of competitive pay.  After all, companies routinely advertise the practice (“we offer competitive wages”) and candidates in return expect this of potential employers.  But what happens when your goal of offering competitive pay is finally achieved?  Are employees pleased and content?  Can companies rest in their efforts to attract, motivate and retain?

I’m afraid not.

When in a situation where they’re not paying the “going rate”, management fervently hopes that employee challenges and criticisms will disappear once they reach that difficult-to-achieve target.  I say difficult because it’s not only an illusion but an expensive problem if you have a large body of underpaid employees.  And once you climb that mountain, well . . . so what?

What doesn’t happen when you offer competitive pay is that your recruitment problems have not magically disappeared, your employees won’t be satisfied and your compensation program has achieved nothing more than being average – and isn’t that a “C” grade in school?  Is that where you want to be?  Is that a practice that ensures your employees will be content to stay with you?  As far as aspirations go, it’s only middle-of-the-road.  You will find that it is not an advantage to pay the going rate, but it is definitely a disadvantage if you don’t.

Even if your company does pay “the going rate” or the norm or the competitive average (what the survey data shows), that means that approx. 50% of the companies out there are paying *more* than you.  That’s what average gets you, with half doing more and half doing less.  Is that what your company aspires to achieve?

Remember, no one leaves your company for less money – so all you’ll hear from your employees is about how so-and-so is making more money somewhere else.  And of course, employees only hear what supports their own notions – so they wouldn’t pay attention to the whole rewards package, just the specific components that confirm their opinion that your company isn’t paying enough.

The only way to avoid this scenario is if you become the premier paying company in your market / industry – and can you afford that cost?

Lest we forget, it is important to differentiate between having a salary structure (grades, salary ranges and midpoint) that provides competitive rate “opportunity” and actually paying employees at those rates.  Some may describe this as whether the company is “walking the talk”.  I recall a client who boasted that their salary range midpoints were continually adjusted to mirror market rates, but later was embarrassed to discover that their actual pay practices delivered pay levels well below their own published midpoints.  However, it did help explain the high turnover and low morale.

For their part, employees will relate to what they are being paid, not the midpoint of a salary range or other such declared “opportunity”.  To them the company’s supposed “competitiveness” is more illusion than fact; especially if they’re experienced and have been with you for awhile.  Thus the company needs to keep its focus on actual pay vs. opportunity pay.

Why do employers fail to pay the “going rate”?  Typically it is not a strategy, but a series of practices that have evolved over time.

  • For various reasons some candidates will accept a lower rate than should normally be paid for their knowledge and experience, and managers tend to view this as good news and a cost savings.  In fact it is more like putting a skeleton in the closet and hoping it doesn’t haunt you later on.  One day these same employees will change their minds.
  • Once you’ve started down the slippery slope of paying some employees below market rates the practice is soon compounded by the well-intentioned practice of internal equity.  Managers don’t want to pay similarly qualified new people more than existing employees, so the new hires are offered either below market pay or placed inappropriately in higher value jobs to get them more money (a different problem for another article).
  • Pay-for-performance systems have a hard time keeping up with the increased marketability of employees.  A minimally qualified employee hired at the minimum rate will gain knowledge and experience (and thus marketability) faster than a company’s annual merit system can recognize.  This is compounded when you have to hire a qualified worker and discover that the market requires you to pay more than what you’re paying your more experienced employees.

So, what’s the answer?  You likely won’t find management agreement to become the premier payer in your area, so you should consider instilling some flexibility into your pay practices.  You should consider targeting certain key jobs in your organization (highly skilled, difficult to replace, etc.) and make sure those jobholders are well paid for the market.

Other positions that are not as skilled and more easily replaceable you could continue with your “competitive opportunity” strategy.  Any losses would be more easily absorbed.  This approach is somewhat akin to ring-fencing your key talent, protecting them against poaching while recognizing / rewarding those with the most potential impact on your business.

So be careful when you proudly claim how your company provides competitive wages.  You may not be correct, and if so – big deal.

More About Chuck:

1 Comment

Posted in Compensation, General, Global HR Expertise

Tagged , , , , ,

Can We Employ Them HERE When They’ll be Working THERE?

Posted on June 15, 2009 by | 2 comments

Author:
Alan Freeman – LOF International HR Solutions

We recently addressed a colleague’s question that echoed one we hear fairly often.  “We have an operation in Country A and want to hire our first employee in Country B.  He is a national of Country  B, will  continue to live there while working for our company, essentially all his work activities will be conducted in Country B and he will not be an expat.  Can’t we simply put him on a Country A  contract, enroll  him in Country A social insurance and our company benefits schemes, pay him through the Country A payroll and all will be well?”

Indeed, it is a true story (I am NOT making this  up!) that a senior executive once told me that he intended to hire seven employees in France under UK contracts and payroll from the UK.  His rationale?,  “We don’t want to have the extra burden of  setting up new administrative capacity in France and, besides, I don’t want to get tangled up in those restrictive French employment laws.”

While the desire to avoid the costs and efforts of establishing operations and additional administrative burden in “new” countries is understandable, it is not wise.  Here’s why.

What are the key issues?

In most countries, a person resident in the country and performing services in the country is considered an employee in that country.  It doesn’t matter where the payroll is paid, where the contract is issued, or what country the employing entity is located in.

In our example above, the likely circumstances would be:

  • The government of Country B would assert that the employment relationship must be governed by Country B’s employment laws.  This means that a local contract, and any additional “work rules” and requirements, must be executed in accordance with Country B’s rules.  This also means that, on an ongoing basis, the employer is required to manage the employment relationship under the terms of Country B regulations.
  • The employer and employee would be subject to Country B social insurance and, potentially, other mandatory program requirements, such as funded termination plans, 13th and 14th month payments and mandatory benefits.  Social insurance and other contributions usually must be withheld from payroll and remitted in accordance with Country B regulations.
  • The employee will be subject to income tax in Country B, not only on income generated related to his work in Country B but, potentially, on his worldwide income.  Many countries require regular ongoing income tax remittances as income is being earned (so-called Pay-As-You-Earn or PAYE arrangements).  In such cases, payroll once again is required to properly withhold, remit and report on income taxes in a manner akin to what must be done for social insurance.
  • If based upon Country A parameters, the employee’s compensation and benefits package probably will not conform to Country B legal requirements and market practices.  The employer could easily be paying too much or too little and if currencies are different, and there are exchange risks to consider.  Each country has unique practices for mandatory and supplemental benefits, and the latter are usually integrated with local social plans in some manner.  In the end, the inappropriately designed plans could be quite problematic and the employee would have the burden of dealing with them.
  • Finally, although it is not a purely an “HR” issue, there is a significant corporate risk that HR professionals must be aware of when setting up employment in additional countries.  Simply put, if an employee engages in business activities in a given country, especially if these activities produce revenue, the local authorities could rule that those activities create a “Permanent Establishment”, or PE.  A PE is an ongoing business that is subject to local country corporate income taxes.  If the company has not carefully established a local business entity that serves both as the employee’s “employer of record” and as a means for putting limitations around in-country business activities, then the authorities may assess corporate income taxes against the employer’s revenues both in-country and elsewhere.  To illustrate a worst case scenario, if our example employee is on contract with the Country A entity and triggers a Permanent Establishment ruling in Country B, not only could the company’s Country B revenue be subject to Country B corporate income taxes, but Country B might also demand taxes on all of Country A’s company global revenues.

Is there a simple solution?

Yes. Local employees must be employed on local terms and conditions, in accordance with local market practice, by a local employer-entity, and paid via local payroll services that ensure compliance with employment, social insurance and income tax regulations.  Oh, and by the way, if per chance the target employee doesn’t already have the appropriate immigration status, Work Permit and Residency Visa requirements come into play as well.

Exactly how the above can be accomplished is dependent upon what’s possible and appropriate in each country.  It isn’t overly difficult or expensive to “do it right the first time” and it is much less expensive and disruptive to the business than not doing it correctly.

More about Alan:

LOF International Human Resources Solutions, Inc.

On LinkedIn

International HR Forum

email Alan

2 Comments

Posted in Benefits, Compensation, General, International Benefits, International Employment Law

Tagged , , ,

Report from Mombasa – Africa Forum 2009

Posted on June 1, 2009 by | 8 comments

Warren Heaps photo

Author:
Warren Heaps – Birches Group LLC

Many of you will already know that last week, the second Africa Forum conference, sponsored by the African Development Bank, Birches Group LLC and ORC Worldwide, was held at the lovely Sarova Whitesands Resort and Spa in Mombasa, Kenya.  The conference was attended by representatives from leading employers in Africa, with delegates from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and South Africa.  I was lucky to be one of the organizers and presenters at the conference, so I thought I would share some of the proceedings with you.

Keynote Address
The conference opened with a wonderful conversation with Dr. Sipho Moyo, Residential Representative for the AfDB in Tanzania.  Dr. Moyo spoke about what managers look for from HR in terms of support, ideas and insight.

Overview of African Markets
The keynote address was followed by an overview of African markets.  The presentation included statistics capturing the impact of the global economic crisis on Africa, through reduced GDP growth rates across the region, higher inflation (double digit levels in over 25 countries), and reduced trade.  There was also a discussion about the nature of the labour markets in Africa, and the key role leading employers across all sectors, including international public sector organizations, play in the market.  Finally, some summary market data was shared for all countries in Africa, with a special look at Kenya, Mozambique, Malawi and Nigeria.

African Cafe I
The next session was a series of small group discussions.  Three topics were selected by the group – Market Intelligence, Impact of the Global Economic Downturn, and Incentive Pay.  Each topic was featured as a discussion group, and  participants rotated through all three topics, thus having a chance to participate in all of them.  These were lively, interactive discussions, where participants were able to raise issues, share their experiences and learn from the experience of others.

Focus on East Africa
Since the event was held in Kenya, we turned next to an in-depth look at the East African market, focused on Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi.  There was comparative data to highlight the similarities and also the unique features of each labour market in the region.

Building a Pan-African Workforce
A lively discussion followed led by Awinja Wameyo of AfDB, about the challenges the bank faces in building a workforce for their operations across 25 countries in Africa.  Topics of particular interest to the group included recruitment of professionals from the African diaspora, and the desire for diversity, and how best to achieve it.

Market Intelligence
Day Two began with an in-depth look at market intelligence, and how the Birches Group surveys are tailored to address many of the challenges faced in small, volatile markets, with such a wide range of practices.  Birches Group staff demonstrated the Indigo survey portal for the group as well.

We also spoke about the comparative framework — how to best determine the right approach to matching positions in the African market to survey benchmarks consistently.

African Cafe II
Next we had another series of discussions on topics chosen by those in attendance at the Forum:  Intra-Regional Assignments, Performance Management and Talent Sourcing.  It was a wonderful chance to share insights and learn from each other.

Untying Knots
Following lunch, we kicked off the final afternoon of the Forum with a stimulating presentation about Performance Management and Pay Design.  Gary McGillicuddy spoke about the Birches Group Community approach to performance management, which uses multi-rater feedback and the answers to three simple questions to manage evaluations effectively and efficiently.  Gary also spoke about the “Wedding Cake” of pay design, demonstrating that in an organization, time-based, competency-based and performance-based compensation systems can coexist to drive overall organizational effectiveness.

Employer Branding
The closing presentation was an overview of employer branding.  Curtis Grund of ORC Worldwide shared his personal experiences as well as a summary of the leading practices in employer branding.  Curtis also looked at some employer website to highlight best practices.

In Summary
The Africa Forum 2009 was a great opportunity for human resources professionals in Africa to discuss critical issues, learn about trends, and most importantly, share information with each other and form what we hope will be an ongoing network for sharing and collaboration.

We expect that Africa Forum will be repeated, next time in Southern Africa.  Stay tuned for more information about next year’s Forum.  We are grateful, also, to the African Development Bank, for lending it’s name and providing resources to make the Forum a reality.

Conference Presentations
If you were unable to attend the Africa Forum, but would like to receive copies of the presentation materials, please let me know by using the Contact Us link.  Just indicate your interest in receiving the Africa Forum materials.

More About Warren

Warren Heaps

Warren on LinkedIn

Email Warren

Birches Group

8 Comments

Posted in Benefits, Compensation, Cross Cultural Insights, Expatriates, General, International Benefits

Tagged , , , , , , ,