Tag Archives: Global HR

Rethinking Incentives

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.

The Expatriate Agreement – Yes or No?

bio_400x400Author:
Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

Recently I was asked by a US client to explain why I recommended that they create an international assignment letter for their expatriate employees.  After all, they only had a few employees overseas and previously had resisted the call to what they described as “playing the lawyer card”.  They felt that management could effectively deal with the circumstances of each individual expatriate situation as matters came up, and were reluctant to lose what they considered their prerogative – to set terms and conditions as they thought appropriate for each employee.

This is not the first time I have been asked that question, as it is not unusual for small companies or non-profit organizations to send an employee overseas with little more than a verbal agreement and a series of vague assurances.  These organizations wish to avoid bureaucracy and move quickly.  However, in most cases these casual and hurried arrangements have proved painful and expensive experiences for all concerned, largely because:

  • The shock employees and their families faced when they came to grips with actually living in a foreign country, vs. simply visiting.  The local realities of daily life, combined with cultural differences compared against “back home” became quite a wake-up call when they were no longer insulated by the transitory nature of a business trip.
  • The constancy of unforeseen and confusing localized situations arising (medical claims, driving licenses, bank accounts, schooling, language, etc.) proved such a frustrating distraction for the employee that they often lost focus on the job – the reason they were there in the first place.
  • Relationships with headquarters suffered as the employee asked for more and more consideration (increased payments) to redress what they considered coverage gaps in their terms & conditions.  The trust element was weakened as employees felt they were being short-changed by management.

Coming from an environment where every expatriate was given a detailed assignment letter “before” getting on the plane, I was at first taken aback by the client’s question – because the absence of mutually agreed terms and conditions is almost certain to eventually prove very expensive to companies trying to take a “short cut.”

Here are some reasons why providing an assignment letter is a good idea:

  • Protection:  Like any contract, confirming the terms & conditions of the assignment protect both parties from misunderstandings, misinterpretations and assumptions – before expenses are incurred.
  • Clarity:  Accepting an overseas assignment is a major step for any employee, as well as for their affected family members.  The more you are able to clarify exactly what the terms and conditions of the assignment are, the more likely you are to ensure a smooth assignment for all parties involved.
  • Cost control:  Defines those expenses that the company will pay for and conversely what they will not pay.  An agreement here will mitigate issues rising once the expatriate is on the ground in the host country.  Concerns raised once the assignee is relocated usually result in increased company costs, as negotiating leverage is lost and the company feels compelled to avoid alienating a very expensive investment.
  • Standardization:  Your international policy, whether written or only a matter of case law precedent, should strive to treat all expatriates in the same fashion.  Unique circumstances do occur but the basic principles should be repeated for every assignee.

So how bad can it be, playing it by ear and leaving terms & conditions to be developed over the duration of an employee’s international assignment?  Flexibility and quick thinking are positive management traits, are they not?

Unfortunately, when you court the inherent risks that accompany an undocumented assignment, you should be prepared for:

  • Increased costs that you have not planned for
  • Constant negotiations that attempt to improve the lot of the expatriate
  • Disgruntled employees and / or affected family members
  • Greater risk of failed assignment

Taking that short cut usually limits the financial and emotional protection the employee and their family are going to rely on, at the same time that the company has committed a substantial amount of money to place them in an overseas location.  That is not a good management practice.

When preparing an international assignment letter, what elements should be included?

  • Title, compensation and assignment duration – critical elements of status and reward in the host country
  • Housing and cost of living allowance considerations – should include the amounts involved (as applicable) and the frequency of review
  • Benefit coverage (medical, dental, life, vacation, holidays etc.) – how will home country benefit protections be handled in the host country
  • Relocation considerations – the back and forth policy coverage for the employee’s residence, to include movement of household goods overseas
  • Property management (as applicable) – what will happen to the home country residence?
  • Tax preparation – employee obligations in both countries.   Usually a statement of company liability for “additional” taxes is included.
  • Home leave – how often, and in what circumstances?
  • Schooling, language, cultural orientation (as applicable)
  • Repatriation – a balance is usually struck here between the employee’s strong concern and the company’s natural vagueness for what the future might bring
  • Connection to international assignment policy – refer to the policy as the source of company rules and procedures
  • Unique and individual circumstances (as applicable) – if it’s different from the norm, write it down!

The items listed above represent only a portion of the questions that your expatriate candidate will have, and the list is not all-inclusive.  So should your company consider taking a casual approach to sending an employee overseas, unsupported by a signed assignment letter, be aware of the risks involved.

Is there a scenario of an employee being asked to live overseas where circumstances would not require an international assignment letter?

I don’t think so.

More About Chuck:

Can’t You Just Convert the Currency?

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:

What’s In A Title?

Author:
Chuck Csizmar – CMC Compensation Group

I once faced a client situation where I was asked to uncover why a Senior Accountant (non-exempt) reported to an Accountant (exempt).  This same company used the title “supervisor” to describe individual contributor positions and it was not uncommon for Managers to report to Managers and Directors to report to Directors.

Given that these situations occurred in a large and presumably sophisticated company, one might ask – is there really a problem here?  What’s the big deal, and is anyone being harmed?  Advocates would say that offering an employee a special title is a harmless and inexpensive reward, one that doesn’t raise employer costs.  It also improves the morale of affected employees.

Where do these scenarios come from?

  • Managers grant esoteric titles to those for whom they have limited means of reward.  “They won’t let me give you the salary increase I think you deserve, but let’s change your title to xxxxx”.  Like greasing a squeaky wheel for a short term fix they want to do *something* to keep the employee quiet / motivated / not thinking of leaving.
  • Employees are given job opportunities (titles) where none should exist.  Have you experienced the long serving Secretary / Administrative Assistant promoted to the newly created role of Office Manager, all while performing the same job?
  • As a salve to employees a “special” title is used because somehow the position (usually clerical) is considered so different from other jobs that it needs to be specifically identified.  Special titles can also be seen as reflecting on the importance of the managers themselves.

In my experience it is usually those in management who consider themselves “above the fray” who do not see title inflation (puffery) as a problem.  Interestingly enough, that level of management can be severely put out if the same title giveaway happens within their hierarchical level.

At the risk of being called Mr. Gloom & Doom, let me explain the type of harvest that you can expect from planting these problem “seeds”.

  • Role clarity (job duties, business impact, decision-making, etc.) behind questionable titles will become blurred.  This in turn would generate more confusion as the company creates Senior Managers and Group or Area Directors and other in-between titles in the hierarchy to differentiate the “real” jobs from the inflated titles.
  • When attempting to determine the competitiveness of your positions the less accurate the title is in relation to the work performed, the more likely your analysis will be skewed.  Benchmarking unique, employee-specific and inflated titles will make a correct assessment of your competitiveness more difficult.  This could have real cost impact.
  • Those with inflated titles will expect whatever perks or privileges that normally accompany the title and their absence could cause difficulties.  It’s an awkward conversation when you tell an employee that the import of their new level in the organization is “title only”.
  • Inflated titles can be a detriment to incumbents as well, such as the “Director” who now only qualifies for a “Manager” title with a prospective employer.  These employees have limited opportunities outside your company because other employers would be reluctant to hire someone where the title is lateral or even backward to what they currently hold.  The result could be that mediocre performers remain with your company because they have no where else to go.
  • The natural extension of inflated titles is inflated grades / salary ranges, as the bogus “senior” position would be placed in a higher grade than the “intermediate” position, right?  This practice will gradually increase your fixed costs without a corresponding rise in either performance or capability.
  • Some employees legitimately find themselves in a dead end job, and granting them a cosmetic title as a salve doesn’t help anyone.  Lead or supervisory mail clerk?  Or the “supervisor” that no one reports to?
  • Employees do not like giving up these inappropriate titles.  Thus employee relations / morale issues will likely develop if you try to correct poor past practices.  You may have to develop creative “buy out” scenarios or grandfather employees.

If you are in a situation with inflated, redundant and confusing job titles, what steps can improve your lot?

  • Organize a Spring cleaning exercise:  start with the low hanging fruit by eliminating (deleting from your systems) all titles that are unoccupied.
  • To avoid backsliding you should accompany that initiative by implementing tighter procedural requirements necessary before a “new” title can be authorized.  While perhaps only a finger in the dike or closing the barn door after the horses have left, you must cut off the flow of new problems before you can effectively address the core issue of incumbents.
  • The company would need fewer job descriptions if the wording was more generalized.  Standardized titles would clear away much of the role responsibility confusion while clarifying an employee’s duties.

Especially in clerical positions, the general nature of duties for most positions (filing, record keeping, secretarial, forms processing, correspondence, etc) lends itself to standardization – which in turn makes it easier to move employees from position to position without having to “promote” someone when their title changes.

Bear in mind though, that title standardization makes more sense in a conference room than it does during an employee discussion.  A “Senior Depository Research Clerk” will always sound more important than a “Clerk III” or even “Senior Clerk”.

Companies try to reduce the number of titles whenever a new HRIS is established (that’s usually when the huge number of active titles becomes widely known).  Anyone who has been exposed to the process of implementing an HRIS (SAP, Peoplesoft, Oracle, etc.) will tell you that job title standardization is a key component of the project.

However there is always a degree of passive resistance when individual leaders realize that *their* area is being cleansed of superfluous / redundant / misleading titles.

Fewer titles can mean more role clarity in your organization, greater accuracy in assessing pay competitiveness, more control of labor costs and indeed higher morale as employees know where they stand and what they must do to succeed in your organization.

A final caution: be careful of setting up titles without occupants “in case we want to promote someone down the road.”   Guess what?  You will.

More About Chuck: