Keep your employees "in the game"
Michael Freire
Senior Global HR Leader | Reward | Performance & Engagement | Talent Management | M&A | Leadership Advisory
Michael Pos, my colleague at BD Advisory, recently published a short opinion piece concerning what companies should do with their 2020 annual broad-based discretionary bonus programs. In the posting, Michael explained our view that organizations should demonstrate human caring, take a long-term view, and not hastily eliminate the bonus as a cost-savings measure.
One of my personal learnings from being in a senior Total Rewards leadership position during the 2008 financial crisis is the importance of having an organization keep its employees financially and emotionally “in the game”. Discretionary bonus programs have a role to play in keeping employees engaged and focused on what is important - especially during extraordinary times.
Why engagement matters
In the internet, you can find a number of definitions for employee engagement. The Society for Human Resources (SHRM) defines engagement as “the level of an employee's commitment and connection to an organization”. Gallup defines engaged employees “as those who are involved in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work and workplace”.
Why is engagement important? Studies published by organizations ranging from Gallup (2016) to Willis Towers Watson to The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania suggest that companies with high levels of employee engagement are also those which are more profitable and deliver better financial results. Bain and Gallup (2017) studies also find that engaged employees are more productive than their peers. Lastly, Gallup (2017) found that engaged employees were less likely to leave their organizations.
A number of things drive employee engagement. There are two in particular that I would highlight, which I think are particularly relevant for crisis management. The first is a sense of financial security and stability. The second is a sense of purpose and fulfillment.
A hierarchy of needs
Human Resources professionals are familiar with Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. At its base lie “basic needs”. Basic needs must first be largely satisfied, the theory holds, before individuals can strive to satisfy higher level needs.
In today’s crisis environment, your employees are most concerned about meeting their physiological and safety needs.
Very simply, the income they earn from working makes it possible to provide for food and shelter and thus satisfy core physiological needs. This income also enables economic safety to be satisfied and importantly provides for health safety, a key consideration in countries where medical benefits are not provided by the state. Even though they should not, many employees count on their annual bonus to address basic financial needs.
If employees are not having their physiological and safety needs met by their organization, then being able to derive self-esteem and self-actualize at work is unlikely. The sense of purpose employees get from their work and identifying with their employer gets eaten away at. Their engagement fades or even disappears.
This is an important because many of us derive some part of our self-esteem from being recognized for having a mastery of our profession. The workplace is also where we may look for self-fulfillment, at organizations whose purpose and values align with our own. The annual bonus payment is a tangible sign of a job well-done and recognition for accomplishment.
To keep your employees’ hearts and minds “in the game”, you need to keep them financially there too.
Completely eliminating the annual bonus not only takes away an engagement tool, but also one which tells employees where they should invest their efforts.
Don’t let your ship sail with a broken rudder
As Comp&Ben professionals can attest to, well designed incentive programs are signal posts for organizations. They are a tool that communicates to employees what the organization’s strategy and goals are, what is critical for it to achieve, and what the worth to it is of different levels of achievement.
An organization’s strategy and goals are, in turn, rooted in its purpose and vision. When incentive pay is eliminated out of hand, a part of the rudder that helps to guide the boat through shifting and choppy waters has broken off. The elimination of the incentive pay program may even signal it is time to abandon ship.
Not only is incentive pay a critical tool for communicating what is important for an organization to achieve now during the crisis, it also has a vital role to play post-crisis.
Incentive plans should be adapted as appropriate to help keep employees engaged and focused on what is the new mission critical and aligned against the organization’s purpose and vision.
Objectives should be re-evaluated, goals reset, and ‘stretch’ levels recalibrated.
All of this does not mean that the annual incentive plan bonus should be paid just to be paid. Nor does it necessarily mean that payouts should match those prior year levels where business performance was truly superior. Payout budgets should absolutely be reassessed and affordability be top of mind. Awards can even be banked for payout in a future time when liquidity returns.
Treat your employees as stakeholders who are just as invested in your firm’s current survival and future success as your management team, board and investors are. Your company’s resilience and long-term sustainability depends on it. Keep your employees financially and emotionally “in the game”. Provide them with a vision of where the organization is going and how they fit in, and make clear what they should be focused on.
Senior Global Total Rewards Leader | Driving Talent Attraction, Engagement, and Retention Through Strategic Compensation & Benefits Programs
4 年Michael Freire spot on with this article. Thanks for sharing your thoughts which helps Total Rewards professionals to remain resilient. We play an important role in tough times and we have to act with caution. I want to share some of my observations during this crisis and potential actions: - Many organizations are stuck in short-term thinking and reaction: the ones who will thrive once this crisis is over are those who are able to adjust their short term plans while sticking to their north stars. we have all tested the power of patience during lockdown and we need a little more of that to overcome. - Employees need reassurance: employee experience is a powerful tool to listen to and understand employees' needs and find ways to satisfy them. - Business world should play a bigger role: governments are not equipped to deal with this kind of crisis, they need a strategic view and business world should help governments establish this strategic mindset.
Pathfinder & Strategist | Transformation & Change Leader | Talent & Leadership Enabler | HR Executive - interim/fractional
4 年Hi Michael - thanks for sharing your thoughts and I value your proposition. What I particularly like about it that it triggers the right dialogue. It’s valuable because everyone is right, no one is wrong and there is no one solution to fit for all. Just like with many other things in business, in life indeed, it’s important to assess the risks, understand the impact of decisions and deal with the consequences. Taking a decision on cutting/eliminating a discretionary pay, the primary purpose of which is to reward performance – while it may contribute to off-set the loss, this should not be positioned as a strategic decision. It may well instigate adverse impact and it’s weak if communicated upfront. I see it as a sign of conventional and mediocre leadership – a paradigm from the past which ought to be revised. Understanding the company culture and what drives commitment and dedication, enabling participation, consistent communication and actions in alignment with the values and ethos of the organization can save money to a great deal. I resonated with the substantial elements you highlighted as the right approach: “Objectives should be re-evaluated, goals reset, and ‘stretch’ levels recalibrated.” ?Your reference to the Maslow hierarchy of needs provides an excellent analogy indeed: as much as businesses seek to secure their revenue streams and meet financial objectives to remain “economically viable”, it is as important for Employees to realize the same and so it should be a compelling interest of the company to keep them financially in the game. Incentive programs, if designed and managed well, ought to increase output. Any decisions about payouts or potential elimination should be a consequence of assessing results of mitigation strategies, rather than a mitigation strategy itself. Thanks for your positively provoking thoughts and invitation to the dialogue!
Singer Songwriter
4 年Great article Mike! - All points are spot on per a 'Hierarchy of Needs and a Signal Post to Employees of what the company's strategy is. The challenge is if the company cannot afford to pay (Economic Survival) per the raised by Howard Scott James. Here, as you well said, it is based on appropriate targets, and the transparency of the rules of the game, where people understand that if there are no business results, there is no ability to pay. Or that if cash is tight (SMBs can well face this challenge), companies can figure a way to still creatively make good on caring for their employees per the points that you well raise. Thanks. A good conversation.
Human Resources Director
4 年I really struggle reading about companies paying bonus when asking for government (tax-payers) financial help. The article is warning not to cancel bonus schemes for short term cost-savings reasons, but when benefitting for example from ECB-loans or governmental financial support, I can make an argument that this is the right thing to do and that employees should be able to understand such a measure in this context. Nevertheless, a good read Mikre and nice to connect back with you and many other colleagues.
Organisational Development Partner |Career & Work matter Coach | Facilitator | (Lead) Agile Masterin Certified Coaching Professional by SCA, ECA Executive Coaching & ICF PCC
4 年Dear Mike, great article and I see your point. Although I do agree to Michelles and Gabrielas Point: money might mean little in a toxic environment. My experience is that many employees/ colleagues are appreciating the bonus as a recognition but they are engaged and company bound for having a purpose. Or a sense of belonging, being valued and psychology security. Also I realised as well a difference regarding bonus systems depending on the industry your work in as well as the generation you work with. Just recently I have had a conversation with one of our talents from generation z and bonus/ money wasn’t a key motive to stay in a job....currently I believe that Corona reveals how good leaders look after their virtual teams and I assume they cannot “pay” for the feeling of “you matter”. But let’s see... (I think here you have the view of the “other side” of our former office :-)) maybe it is worthwhile asking Keith de la Cour, BA (Hons), MSc or Monika Siefken for their views as well ??) take care and thank you for bringing us back together!