‘Performance Pay’ Articles

For Women Only: When is talking about yourself helpful to your career?

evil queenWhile reading an article from the Huffington Post by Marcia Reynolds titled, When Women Talk about Themselves, They Earn More, it reminded me of something my actress daughter said jokingly that characterized many people she met in the acting business in Hollywood, “I’ve talked so much about me, why don’t we talk about me?”

I have two reactions to the Reynolds article.  First, I don’t believe that women who talk about themselves earn more than those who don’t.  She presents no data, only her impressions from interviews.  Second, I think it is bad advice for a man or woman.

Although she says that most women don’t like to self-promote and she states flatly that self-promotion is not bragging, I would suggest that there is a very fine line between self-promotion and bragging and that it is difficult for most people to differentiate between the two.  I don’t like people who brag and don’t think others do either.

To make my point the author says, “In my own career, I survived many layoffs and zigzagged up the corporate ladder through a number of high-tech companies, taking on greater and more interesting challenges each time I moved.  I learned early on that self-promotion is not bragging (the author’s opinion).  Flaunting (emphasis is mine) my unique core talents helped management determine how best to use me.”  I don’t like her already!  Do you?

Wouldn’t you hate to be stuck talking to this woman at a cocktail party or even during a break at a management meeting?  Listening to fingernails scrape a blackboard would be more tolerable.

Reynolds states that, “They (female executives) possess special and critical traits that qualified them for their roles.  Yet they become totally helpless when I ask them to tell me what makes them special.”  I would not know what to say if someone asked me what made me special because I don’t think of myself that way.   I don’t think many others do either.  I would think that anyone who would have a ready answer to the “special question” would not be as special as she thought she was.

The best advice I can give to women, or men, who want to advance and enjoy doing it is to focus on making other employees successful.  As Lao-tse wisely said many years ago, “When the best leader’s work is done the people say, ‘We did it ourselves.’”  By focusing on contributing to the success of others, you will gain their trust, respect and support all the way to the top.

Save talking about yourself to someone who cares. Maybe the person staring back at you in the mirror?

Google Follow Up

googleThe following is a comment on my post “What was Google thinking?!“.  My response required more than few words so you’ll find it below.

Question: What would be an appropriate model for fiduciary reinforcement in an organization like Google, where creativity is highly encouraged and employees are about as fully empowered as anywhere on earth? 

Smaller reinforcements are generally the norm and asking employees to give more and more discretionary effort when they are often already working 70 to 80 hours a week is a difficult proposition. 

I realize that an examination of the system would probably lead to a means of ensuring appropriate reinforcements are capitalized upon but I was wondering, given the information that is available, what would be your inclination?

My Response: Thank you for your questions.  

While it may be presumptuous of me to question anything about Google in view of their huge success, I know the laws of behavior will catch up with them if they keep doing what they are doing now and that is non-contingent pay and benefits. There is an old Greek saying, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first send forty years of success.”  That was said two thousand years ago when things moved much slower.  I am sure that the time has shrunk to 20 years and quite possibly less.

From what I have read, and I need to point out that is not always the best source for knowing factually about day to day practices,  current management seems to think that money will solve their problems.  That is why they gave the salary increases and bonuses.  I don’t think money is the problem. I think management is the problem.  There seems to be too little understanding of the basics of human motivation.  This is demonstrated in part by the fact that the work environment has too many positive reinforcers that compete with the doing work of Google.  Haircuts, billiards, ping pong or foosball and others too numerous to mention in this response are all done on company time.  In the early days when discoveries were being made by the minute this probably worked well as people would work all night and weekends fueled only by their creations.  Today employees complain that if they eat dinner in the company dining room, they are expected to work late and that in many cases working late is unproductive and may be better described as hanging around long enough to avoid the frowns. 

You state that ” asking employees to give more and more discretionary effort when they are often already working 70 to 80 hours a week is a difficult proposition.”  The fact is that if you have to ask for discretionary effort, it is an indicator that it is not being done because of positive reinforcement.  Discretionary effort is that which is given freely — not that which is expected, required or demanded.

There are several sources of reinforcement at work: 1) that which comes from the work, 2) that which comes from managers, 3) that which comes from peers, and 4) that which comes from policies, procedures and the physical environment.

I am quite sure that reinforcement that comes naturally from the work has diminished in the recent past. To quote a former Googler, “While outside, I had all these big ideas I could do if I worked there.  Once inside I discovered there were 18,000 googlers who thought the same.”  If you read the blog post in Tech Crunch by Michael Arrington, “Why Google Employees Quit,” you get the idea that reinforcement has been reduced from the other three as well. 

I would suggest that one of the things that is supporting Google these days is that their competitors are no better at management than they are.  My solution is that Google managers should learn something about the laws of human behavior.  Until they do things will not get better even if pay gets much better.  Thanks, Aubrey

End-of-year bonuses; some parting words

bonusAs the end-of-year bonus season approaches, remember the words of Thomas Gilbert, who said,

Money is a beautifully honed instrument for recognizing and creating worthy performance. It is the principal tool for supplying incentives for competence and therefore deserves great respect. Any frivolous use of money weakens its power to promote human capital – the true wealth of nations.

 I have written in-depth recently on the subject in this blog so for more go to What was Google thinking?! (post about the surprise $1,000 cash bonus and 10% raise) and in an article for the Harvard Business Review Blog, How to Navigate Bonus Season.


 

Look for Thomas Gilbert’s autobiography to be released by Performance Management Publications in spring of 2011.
See also:
Podcast OOPS! #6, Salary & Hourly Pay; Blogs Performance Pay

What was Google thinking!

google-thinkingThe headline read “Google Gives All Employees Surprise $1,000 Cash Bonus, 10% Raise.” While I believe that companies should work to pay employees as much as possible, there is a right and wrong way to do it.  From what I have read, Google is doing it wrong.  To paraphrase Thomas Gilbert, author of Human Competence, money is a finely honed instrument of motivation and deserves great respect.  What Google has done not only disrespects the instrument but also, in my opinion puts Google’s future in peril.

CEO Eric Schmidt said that an internal email survey revealed that employees value the salary part of their compensation far more highly than bonuses.  Duh!  If you were to offer employees a choice between $1000 now and the possibility of $1000 a year from now what do you think they would choose?  Behavioral research consistently shows that people prefer smaller, guaranteed rewards as opposed to larger, future and uncertain ones. 

From a behavioral perspective, I see several problems with Google’s actions:

  1. Google is reinforcing “show-up” pay – It will not improve production, quality, customer service or creativity.  All one has to do to get this is enough to stay on the payroll.
  2. Google is encumbering the company – The way the raise was given creates an ongoing obligation that will increase the cost of all their goods and services making them less competitive in the future.  The cost of the raise is somewhere between 1 and 2 billion dollars.  While Google is said to have $33 billion in savings, $2 billion may seem like chump change.  The problem is this is an ongoing obligation.  For someone making $100,000 per year (there are apparently many) they will get a $11,000 raise this year.  What is the future value of this raise?  Let’s assume the employee is 35 years old.  This means that over the next 20 years, this person is actually getting $200,000, not counting the compounding of the present raise by future increases, and surely there will be some.  Multiply this by 20,000 and you’ve got quite a future liability for the company.  What does the employee have to do to get this largess?  Be on the payroll!  He does not have to be grateful, productive or loyal.
  3. It will not improve retention of employees.  Look at it this way. When seeking another job, say with Facebook where a number of key employees have gone, the current raise just increases the pay package that Facebook will have to offer, match or exceed to get a Google employee.
  4. It feeds an entitlement mentality.  People respect most what they earn, not what they are given.  The impact of this raise will be measured in weeks, after which it is more likely to be, “What have you done for me lately?”
  5. It increases extraneous reinforcement.  Think of the conversations in the break room, on cell phones and in the workplace focused on the raise, the company and management – all positive but at the expense of what they are actually paid to do.
  6. It worries Wall Street.  Revenues at Google through the second quarter are up approximately 24% but operating expense is up over 34% from last year. Financial writers are already sounding the alarm on Wall Street.  Although the stock has risen over 35% so far this year, it is only back to where it was at the beginning of 2010.  As Dan Gallagher, of MarketWatch says, “The news may be a cause for concern among investors.”
  7. It worries the industry.  While some of Google’s competitors may be smiling because they see the negative implications of the way Google is using money, they all will be plagued by employees who want to know why their company can’t do the same .

Are there any positives?

  1. Google will attract more applicants – not that they need them but they certainly will get them.
  2. They can put a bumper sticker on their cars that says, “My Company Gives Better Raises Than Yours.”
  3. Free media attention. To get media coverage and raise the visibility of your company it could cost millions in advertising and media.  Google has gotten a lot for free! I wouldn’t categorize it as good press necessarily but it’s press nonetheless.
  4. They are increasing merit pay.  I must add that performance-based pay outperforms salary every time, however even though “merit pay” sounds performance-based, it is usually screwed up as well.  Given how Google is misusing money, I don’t have much confidence they will do a better job with merit pay.

In the face of an increasingly competitive environment in the not too distant future, Google would do better in my opinion to put all this money into performance bonuses.  The same things that made Google what it is today are not the things that will keep it there.  In the early days at Google generous benefits, high salaries and a lavish work environment were small positives compared with the reinforcement associated with being part of groundbreaking and popular technology.  In the beginning, being an employee of Google brought admiration and awe.  Now this is available at other companies as well.  If Google continues to disrespect money in this way, there may be more “Facebooking” than Googleing in the future.

Oops #6: Salary and Hourly Pay

In his latest podcast, Aubrey Daniels discusses the reality that salary and hourly pay produces the lowest performance, and instead companies, at the very least, need to build in contingencies of reinforcement.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Raises Are Forever

The modern organization wastes more time and money in the way people are compensated than it wastes in any other area of the business. Salary and hourly pay is pay for showing up, not for performing. Raises are forever. Bonuses are only loosely contingent on performance. Even profit sharing and pay-for-performance plans are poorly designed to create the best performance.

New YouTube video where Richard Warner and I discuss.  www.youtube.com/aubreydaniels