If a company is going to achieve this kind of alignment in the organization, it must generate and monitor two critical passion measures within the organization - functionality and vitality.
Functionality has to do with the philosophy and structure a company engineers to create the right focus and ensure execution. In a rewards context, it is the process of envisioning, creating and then sustaining appropriate rewards strategies.
Vitality has to do with the commitment, engagement and accountability level of employees - particularly key talent that posses unique abilities. Are employees committed to the company's future and its strategy? Is that commitment exhibited in the way employees and performing? Are there accountability mechanisms in place to ensure performance and make course corrections?
Companies that get functionality and vitality issues right typically experience line of sight. Consequently, it is important that business owners be in tune with the passion measures associated with their workforce.
When these passion measures are fulfilled, a company has a workforce that is "in sync" and there is a synergy experienced in the results that are obtained. That synergy comes from the combined focus of key people on the execution of key performance initiatives. When this is aligned properly with compensation, the results that are achieved by the company also generate a positive financial outcome for those that produced those results. Everyone wins, therefore everyone is committed and engaged.
To achieve this, a company must know and measure what is in the minds and hearts of its key talent. Doing so will typically reveal what barriers need to be overcome for greater line of sight to be achieved.
Obstacles to Achieving Line of Sight
Barriers to achieving the culture just described do not come in the same shapes and sizes in every organization. That said, they do generally fall into certain categories that are helpful to isolate so they can be addressed and a course correction initiated.
Obstacle Group 1 - FutureIn this category, the company is experiencing a deficit of perspective about and/or planning for the organization's future.
- The future company has not been clearly defined by ownership
- The future company has not been clearly communicated to employees
- Employees don't see a role for themselves in the future company
It is important for a company to determine whether or not its employees understand the future of the company - and whether their understanding matches that of ownership. Often, leadership in a company feels as though it has been very clear about where the company is headed and what that means to employees, but a survey of the workforce indicates otherwise. Don't be too assumptive about what employees understand in this regard and don't expect employees to be compelled by a vision you have not yet clearly articulated.
Obstacle Group 2 - FoundationThis barrier primarily exists in companies that have taken a reactive approach to the development of their rewards strategies. They do not yet see compensation as a strategic tool that can create alignment and line of sight within the organization. There are no philosophical underpinnings for the decisions the company makes about rewards programs. As a result, such an organization is often led to make ad hoc decisions regarding compensation and benefits that are not linked to the growth plans of the enterprise.
- The company has not established a consensus about how to use rewards programs to accelerate company growth (lack of a rewards philosophy)
- A philosophy has been developed butit has not been properly communicated to the employees
- A philosophy has been adopted but it's incomplete or simply inadequate
Building a rewards foundation starts with the company's belief system. A rewards philosophy should grow out of and be an extension of the company's vision, mission, values and strategy. Companies that understand this have different compensation struggles than those that don't. For example, their struggle might be with striking the right balance between a short-term and long-term incentive plan - as opposed to whether or not to have an incentive plan at all.
Obstacle Group 3 - FrameworkFramework has to do with building compensation programs within an investment rather than an expense context. Too many organizations still view rewards as a cost issue that has to be "reigned in" as opposed to an investment fromwhich a return is anticipated and targeted.
- The company does not view compensation as an investment and therefore has no way to track or measure the return it is getting on that outlay
- The company has a history/tradition of building rewards programs as independent units and not as an integrated whole
- The company does not have clear standards (best practices) or methods to set and reset values that are consistent with employee performance expectations and company targets
The result of this barrier is the companies reap a harvest of mediocre execution and probably very little passion on the part of their employees. This is because the company is communicating one thing verbally about its vision and strategy, but something entirely different with its rewards programs. In essence, they are saying, "I want to grow this company from a $50 million to $75 million business over the next three years - and I am counting on your help (Mr. Key Employee) to get there." At the same time, they are also saying, "at our company, you will be paid a competitive salary, be given health insurance and can participate in our 401K plan."
Just what about that rewards framework communicates to an employee - especially one that is confident in his unique abilities - that he is essential to the growth plan of the organization, or how he will personally benefit from helping the organization realize its future company vision?
Obstacle Group 4 - FocusA focus obstacle occurs in a business when there are good programs in place to incent people to perform, but they are not understood, appreciated or impacting behavior. Leadership in companies that are experiencing this phenomenon is often found scratching its head while saying, "we pay our people in the 90th percentile of what the market indicates for total compensation in our industry - yet our people are not engaged and don't think like owners. There is no consistent focus on executing key performance indicators."
- The full potential value of the total rewards plan is not regularly and powerfully communicated
- Only some of the plans (but not all) are built to generate "line-of-sight"
- Company systems and personnel are not equipped to handle the annual management of effective rewards strategies (they are reactive rather than proactive)
Often, companies that lack focus find themselves missing the mark in trying to solve the problems they are facing. While they may need to re-engineer one of their plans (or introduce a new one), they may just as well need to better support the plans they currently have in place. Are performance management systems operating effectively? Are incentive awards understood, promoted, celebrated and consistently communicated? Are expectations and rewards clearly linked in the minds of employees? Can employees see a path of confidence in their lifestyle through the company pay programs and understood how they will participate in value creation?
If a company is going to overcome any or all of these obstacles, it must be able to assess its current position and chart a corrective course for the future. One of the key resources to tap in when making such an evaluation is the group of key people that drive the success of the organization. For the most part, these are individuals that want to see the company succeed. In that context, they hope to grow and develop personally, professionally and financially.
Therefore, tapping into this resource to determine how best to move forward is critical. However, it must be done in a constructive way that allows company owners to maintain control and infuse thought leadership into the process.
The bottom line is that if the obstacles just described are not dealt with in your company, then...
- You won't have the capacity to recruit and retain the kind of employees who generate meaningful change and growth
- You have not fully captured the potential contribution of the people you do (and will) have
First Two Things to Measure
To come to a clear and productive understanding of where you stand with your employees, it is our recommendation that you start with two primary assessments.
"4 F" AssessmentThe first is an assessment of what we call your "4 F" condition. This measurement is an evaluation of where you stand with each of the four obstacles summarized above: Future, Foundation, Framework and Focus.
A "4 F Assessment" usually involves a survey of both ownership and key employees soliciting a rating of certain crucial issues. Such a survey possesses essentially the same rating statements for ownership and employees but frames them in the context of their roles and associated perspectives. For example, some of the measures solicited in such an assessment might include the following:
Employer/Owner
(Rate each statement on a scale of one to ten as it applies to your organization)
- Our people understand and believe in the organization's future. They find it compelling.
- We have established clear compensation standards relative to market pay and best practices; and we follow them
- The value and clarity of our wealth creation opportunities engender a passionate ownership mentality
Employee
- I understand and believe in the organization's future. I find it compelling.
- The company has established clear compensation standards relative to market pay and best practices; and follows them
- The value and clarity of the company's wealth accumulation opportunities have engendered in me a passionate ownership perspective
It is probably obvious that as company ownership compares its own responses with those of its key people in this kind of process, some discrepancies will begin to emerge. In addition, its own answers will quickly reveal areas of vulnerability that need to be addressed if it wants to create a compensation program that is a competitive advantage.
Understanding where your employees stand on the "4 F" issues is essential to building a compensation philosophy and structure that will fuel growth. Fortune 500 companies spend thousands and sometimes millions of dollars analyzing their value propositions in this way. You don't need to go that far to determine how your company is doing and what changes need to be made to create greater buy in and commitment from your workforce.
Net Motivation Score The second type of assessment we recommend be done as a starting point in any organization is designed to "take the temperature" of employees on certain key passion measures. We do this by computing something called a Net Motivation Score (NMS).
The score is designed to help ownership examine three responses from employees:
- Clarity of the plan
- Believability of the plan
- Value of the plan
As with the Diagnostic, the NMS asks employees to rate their perceptions of their compensation plan on a scale of one to ten. The score is then netted out to determine a total measure for the employee group as a whole. The three assessment statements employees are given are as follows:
- I clearly understand what personal and organizational results need to be achieved in order to receive my targeted incentive award.
- I believe the company can, and likely will, achieve the results that will enable me to earn my targeted incentive award.
- It is important that we achieve our results because my targeted incentive award is very meaningful to me.
You will note that these questions strive to assess three motivational issues with regard to your employees and their compensation plan. One is the level of understanding they have of results for which they are responsible. The second has to do with whether or not they buy into the idea that the results can be achieved. The third measures how meaningful the payoff is to the employee if the results are achieved.
Such "passion measures" often reveal hidden messages employees would communicate if they felt they could. When not addressed, these issues can often result at best in diluted recruiting, retention, and performance results.
Together, the "4 F" Assessment and the NMS help a company get a snapshot of both functionality and vitality issues within the organization. Addressing these issues properly can literally unshackle a company from the chains that keep it from achieving its full potential. It is not an easy road to go down, but no one should expect superior results without paying the price associated with their achievement.
In Conclusion
Within every organization there lies the potential to achieve all of the goals it wishes to fulfill. That potential is unleashed only when a clear vision has been defined, a mission and values are in place, a strategy has been mapped, roles and expectations have been aligned and a reward structure has been erected to tie it all together. Execution and the culture of confidence that it engenders, are the source of the potential each company has. Tapping into the source requires listening, assessing, then engineering and executing. Those that pay the price to accomplish this will shatter the ceiling of complexity that often holds them hostage and lay claim on the fruits of success and competitive advantage that all high performance companies seek.