Nowadays companies understand that attracting and retaining high performance individuals (and keeping them engaged) requires a mix of factors including environmental, relationship, support, growth and, of course, compensation. When considering your compensation strategy it pays to realise that money alone will not retain most employees, hence organisations need to consider a mix of hard (monetary) and soft (non-monetary) employee compensation approaches:
You could also consider:
To be successful, a company’s compensation strategy should:
Keep the following in mind when developing and documenting your corporate compensation strategy:
Budget Allocation. How much of total compensation budget will be spent on salary and what percentage will be spent on benefits and other incentives?
Salary Ranges. Benchmark like jobs within the same industry and create a pay structure, establishing salary ranges that match all job descriptions. This is critical to ensuring employee pay is competitive with other organisations.
Salary Audits. Markets change therefore it is important to perform routine salary audits to ensure salary ranges reflect current compensation trends in a particular industry.
Benefits Package. Being competitive with health, retirement, tuition reimbursement and other benefits can be the determining factor for a candidate deciding whether to accept a position with an organisation or an employee deciding to stay with an organisation.
Legal Compliance. A well defined compensation strategy will incorporate legal requirements to eliminate natural biases made in hiring decisions and to ensure the organisation is in compliance.
Structured Administration. As with any other business process, structure is important. Develop an annual review process, salary audit, raise process timeline and make sure someone is responsible for ensuring all areas are completed.
A comprehensive compensation strategy can be the foundation for creating an environment that attracts, retains, recognises and rewards employee performance and helps to establish a strong culture of employee engagement.
If you have any questions or if we can help in any way, please get in touch.
When we talk about onboarding what we are really talking about is retention. The first 90 days on the job are acutely vulnerable: managers are under pressure to build productivity as fast as possible whilst boosting engagement, morale and motivation, so as to minimise turnover. According to Bersin research, 4 percent of new employees leave a job after only 1 day, and 22 percent of staff turnovers (1 in 4!) occur within the first 45 days of employment.
Extending well beyond the first day on the job, onboarding should be considered a continuous process lasting anywhere from 3 to 12 months and including employee performance acceleration, performance objective setting, instilling the company culture within the new employee and developing the behaviours that will lead to the employee’s long-term success.
A proper plan for this crucial period leads to:
Consider implementing an individualised 90 day programme to build your newly appointed employee, into an organisational asset whilst measuring their progress.
Week 1. Make sure the new hire is comfortable with their responsibilities and maintain an open door policy. Set objectives/goals, introduce them to team members, assign them a mentor and task them with a project early on to help them get their feet wet. At the end of the week assess their feelings of orientation, motivation, assimilation, adaptation, familiarity with organisational philosophy, and more.
15 Days. Check in on the employee’s progress toward the goals discussed during week one, helping the employee identify and resolve any challenges.
30 Days. During the first 30 days familiarise your new employees with company culture, make sure they have a soild understanding of their responsibilities, what they can expect in their new role and what’s expected of them. This is also the time to review procedures and train on company systems and software as well as products, services and client accounts. Assign a mix of short and long-term projects. Help them get up to speed as quickly as possible and check in regularly regarding their objectives as well as the tasks and projects they have been assigned.
45 Day Benchmark: Sit down with the new hire to assess their familiarity with the company, their role and to see how happy they are. You can assess performance on some of their shorter projects as well as where their mind is regarding their bigger picture projects.
60 Days. The second month on the job should focus on taking their newly acquired knowledge and applying it towards accomplishing tasks as well as taking on bigger responsibilities. Outline how the employee’s role is expected to contribute towards the organisation’s business goals and, where appropriate, give them the opportunity to collaborate with other teams. Continue to review progress and provide feedback.
90 Days. During this period the employee will take a more proactive role in the organisation, working with limited guidance and taking accountability. This is when you should start seeing results from your new employee: a superstar employee will begin making suggestions, implementing new strategies, and addressing strategic initiatives.
New employees want to feel part of your company, but still want to be treated as individuals with talents and objectives of their own. Demonstrate that you value both, and they’ll be far more likely to invest themselves in your company.
If we can assist in any way, please get in touch.
By now, most companies have accepted that employer branding is of strategic importance, but many are still not sure how to measure something they often consider intangible and belonging to what was historically viewed as tactical rather than strategic. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), only 25% of companies have taken steps to measure the impact of their employer brand. Clearly, measurement (and thus the ability to demonstrate value) is integral to gaining internal support from senior executives and to the ultimate success of the initiative. Figuring out what to measure, however, is often the tricky part. There’s no one-size fits all and much depends on making sure you first have a well-developed strategy.
Certain results can be measured with a high degree of accuracy and according to the statistics found in Employer Branding International’s 2011 study there are several different possible metrics to use when considering the ROI of your employer branding:
The study found that retention rate is the most common metric used to measure ROI of employer branding, followed by employee engagement, quality of hire, cost per hire and number of applicants.
Other less traditional measures include promotion readiness rating, external/internal hire ratio, performance ratings of newly promoted managers and manager/executive failure rate.
So which metric(s) should you use? This will depend on your business and recruiting objectives as well as where you are in the evolution of your employer branding strategy. Make sure you have understood your audience/s and that your chosen metrics are reliable and predictive. Your objectives will change as your company grows and changes, and will be impacted by many factors such as market conditions, product innovation or employee engagement. Brett Minchington says “The link between creating employer brand value and financial (e.g. cost per hire, profit per employee, staff turnover cost) and non-financial measures (e.g. employee engagement, employee loyalty, employer brand awareness) is variable and must be evaluated on a case by case basis and re-evaluated over time as the strategy evolves.”
He goes on to offer an action plan you can share and discuss amongst those responsible for your employer brand strategy to improve your measurement and ROI:
As always, if we can assist in any way, please get in touch.
Company’s monetary investment on leadership programmes and leadership development is listed by the vast majority of organisations as a top priority. However, the act of training even a high potential does not guarantee they emerge as a leader capable of courageous and visionary leadership. So what makes development programmes fail?
Beyond the pragmatic, there’s perhaps something fundamental at the root of the problem. Mike Myatt, leadership myth-buster and contributor on Forbes, says it is primarily because we mistakenly believe the term training and the term development to be interchangeable. This small but critical distinction is lost on most companies, he claims. He lists 20 essential differences between the two:
Peter Bregman, writing for Harvard Business Review says there is a massive difference between what we know about leadership and what we do as leaders. Every person deemed a leader has read innumerable books on leadership, taken leadership skills assessments, and attended multiple training programmes; including executive leadership programmes at top business schools. But somehow they fail to lead. He believes what makes leadership hard isn’t the theoretical, it’s the practical. It’s not about knowing what to say or do. It’s about whether you’re willing to experience the discomfort, risk, and uncertainty of actually saying or doing it.
It’s about emotional courage: which means being prepared to stand apart from others without separating yourself from them. It means speaking up when others are silent. And remaining steadfast, grounded, and measured in the face of uncertainty. It means responding productively to political opposition without getting sidetracked, distracted, or losing your focus. It is staying in the discomfort of a colleague’s anger without shutting off or becoming defensive.
Perhaps not something that can be easily taught? His recommendation is two-fold.
Integrate leadership development into the work itself. You can’t just learn about courage and communication, you have to be put into situations that demand that you do it, in the heat of the moment, when the pressure is on, and your emotions are high; and
Teach leadership in a way that requires emotional courage. Most leadership programmes strive to create a safe environment for people to learn. At best, they teach about courage. They articulate why it’s important, what it looks like, how it plays out in a case study. Maybe they do a simulation. But that’s a mistake.
The only way to teach courage is to require it of people. To offer them opportunities to draw from the courage they already have. To give them opportunities to step into real situations they find uncomfortable and truly take the time to connect with the sensations that come with that.
McKinsey tells us there are 4 common mistakes made in the implementation of leadership development:
Overlooking context. A brilliant leader in one situation does not necessarily perform well in another. Too many training initiatives rest on the assumption that one size fits all and that the same group of skills or style of leadership is appropriate regardless of strategy, organisational culture, or CEO mandate. Focusing on context means equipping leaders with a small number of competencies (two to three) that will make a significant difference to performance instead of a long list of leadership standards, a complex web of dozens of competencies, and corporate-values statements.
Decoupling reflection from real work. Companies should strive to make every major business project a leadership-development opportunity as well, and to integrate leadership-development components into the projects themselves.
Underestimating mind-set. Becoming a more effective leader often requires changing behaviour. Identifying some of the deepest, “below the surface” thoughts, feelings, assumptions, and beliefs is usually a pre-condition of behavioural change; one too often shirked in development programmes.
Failing to measure results. When businesses fail to track and measure changes in leadership performance over time, they increase the odds that improvement initiatives won’t be taken seriously. One approach is to assess the extent of behavioural change, perhaps through a 360-degree feedback exercise at the beginning of a programme and followed by another one after 6 to 12 months. Another approach is to monitor participants’ career development after the training. Finally, try to monitor the business impact, especially when training is tied to breakthrough projects.
If you have any questions or if we can help in any way, please get in touch.