Coronavirus Crisis as Catalyst: Change the Way You Look at Your Rewards Structure

I saw these words this morning: "Your brain isn't resistant to change; it is lazy." Can we extend that? Is your corporate rewards program -- the way that you reward your employees for working for you -- resistant to change? Or is that change somehow always on the back burner?

You've looked at the survey data. You've heard the cries for help from employees. But, your rewards program remains right down the middle.

Perhaps you've tried some innovative ways to become an employer of choice. You put the ping pong table and beer keg in the break room. Alas, it didn't reduce turnover. It didn't make your employees happier (except when they hit the beer keg too often). It didn't reduce their real stresses even if it did mask them for a few minutes.

But, the crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic has forced you to change the entire compact between you and your employees. They've forgotten their office space. The fancy espresso maker you provided them sits idly as they become reaccustomed to the coffee they make quickly in their own home. At the same time, they've likely created their own custom background for their Zoom calls. All of this, they have managed. In fact, if you've kept them employed and had to cut their pay a little bit, most of them have probably managed how to live on a little less.

What they haven't learned though is how to feel secure. They haven't figured out how they are going to deal with a health catastrophe or disability, but maybe the federal government will come to the rescue. Where the federal government has not promised to come to the resuce, even in the most grandiose of campaign speeches is in helping your employees to retire.

You remember retirement. It's what your parents did. Either or both of them worked for a company for a long time. They retired with a pension. Supplemented by Social Security and perhaps some savings, somewhere in their early to mid-60s, they stopped the daily grind and pursued all the hobbies that had been given short shrift while they were working. It was part of the "American Dream."

Not for you? You can't even dream of it?

Look back at what I said a few paragraphs ago. Most of them have probably managed to live on a little less.

Let's do some oversimplified math to figure out how we are going to use this to become an employer of choice again. Consider Taylor, a good employee.

Pre-coronavirus, your basic costs for Taylor included:

• Base pay: 100,000
• Health benefits: 25,000
• Other non-retirement benefits: 5,000
• Retirement benefits: 4,000
• Total: 134,000

With coronavirus, you've had to cut Taylor's pay by $10,000. So, the equation now looks like this:

• Base pay: 90,000
• Health benefits: 25,000
• Other non-retirement benefits: 4,800 (a couple of benefits had a pay-related component)
• Retirement benefits: 3,600
• Total: 123,400

At some point, this crisis will end. And, during the crisis, Taylor may have learned to live on $90,000 instead of $100,000. She would love to get that full $10,000 back, but since she has learned to live on it, that's not what's keeping her up at night. 

During her new social distancing life, Taylor has taken to ever family search website she can find: 23 and Me, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and more. She's learned that going back four generations, the women in her family are long-lived. That's great news for Taylor, right?

Not really. As the she saw the stock market fall and her bank decrease the interest rate on her savings account to 0.01%, Taylor wondered how she can ever afford to retire. After all, she guesses, based on her genealogical research that she will probably live to be about 95. And, after she retires at age 62 (she learned she can start collecting Social Security then), that leaves her with a 33-year retirement. She's going to have to pay for it somehow.

As her employer, you can be the solution to her problem and be an employer of choice. After all, you don't want to lose a great employee like Taylor. And, you've committed that you are willing to spend $134,000 on her total rewards.

Before we do that, let's think about what Taylor is not good at. Like many in her age group and yours and mine and everybody else's, she's not good at financial planning. What you can do to help is to create a nest egg for her. And, don't do it so that some day, she gets a pot of cash from the company, give her lifetime income.

So, let's reconfigure the $134,000.

• Base pay: 95,000 (she learned to live on 90,000)
• Health benfits: 25,000
• Other non-retirement benefits: 4,900
• 401(k): 3,800
• Subtotal: 128,700

You have $5,300 left to spend. That's 5.5% of pay. 

I don't care what you call it, but now is the time to call it something. Take that 5.5% of pay and allocate it to Taylor's lifetime income. Sell it to your employees until you can't sell it anymore. Tell them you are giving them this plan because you want them for their careers. And, tell them you are giving it to them because some day, you want them to be able to gracefully exit their careers and to do so without fear of outliving that little 401(k) nest egg that isn't worth what it was before coronavirus hit.

Once they get that benefit, your best employees won't leave.

Make the best of the coronavirus crisis. Let it be a catalyst for a great change.

Executives Need Retirement Education, Too

It's been a long time since I blogged. I needed a break. I needed some fresh ideas. I didn't feel like writing on anything technical. I didn't feel like offering my opinions. I just needed to stop writing for a little while.

This morning, however, I saw an article in the News Dash put out by Plan Sponsor. It stressed that plan sponsors feel that perhaps the biggest issue in nonqualified plans is participant education. Citing from the article, one in five said that education was a top challenge while 18% cited participation and appreciation. I think that they are essentially the same thing, so that makes 40% (rounded) and that's enough for me to conclude that this is a major issue.

Why is this? Executives generally make a lot of money (whatever a lot is). They are generally used to dealing with financial matters. They already have their qualified plans. What makes these plans so different?

There's a lot. Taxation is different. They usually don't have a real pool of assets that they can play with. They don't get the same level of disclosures. They don't understand Code Section 409A. And, they generally don't know if what they are getting is good compared to what their peers at other companies are getting or not.

What's the answer?

I suggest rewards education for executives. In my experience, it is rare that this can be done internally. Internal people are often considered to have a bias or an agenda. It comes better from the outside.

Who or what should that outsider be? It should be an independent person, one who has no horse in the race, so to speak. It should be a person who can speak to all facets of executive rewards -- cash compensation, deferred compensation, equity compensation, retirement compensation, change-in-control agreements, and the like. Unfortunately, there are not too many of them around.

Oh, wait, I can do all that!

Rewardsball -- Where HR Meets Moneyball

I'm sure that many of you read Michael Lewis' excellent book Moneyball. Whether you have or not, it's the true story of the Oakland Athletics baseball team with a focus on their General Manager, Billy Beane and his focus on the value that players actually deliver. It's the story of how a smaller-market baseball team without a lot of money uses its money wisely to be competitive without a lineup full of superstars. It's a story that instructs that certain statistics are undervalued and that certain other statistics are overvalued. It's a story that tells us how to efficiently use our payroll budget to achieve the best results.

That seems like a really cool idea. It seems so simple, doesn't it? All we have to do is to develop a simple set of metrics and apply them to our company and we will use our payroll more efficiently than our competitors, generate more profits for our shareholders and pay all of our employees commensurate with their contributions to our profitability.

Wow, John, that is a fantastic idea. You should start a business, preach this to the masses, make millions of dollars implementing it, go on the banquet circuit and eat lots of really bad chicken.

Not so fast.

Baseball is a relatively ideal forum for the concept of Moneyball. There are 30 teams. Each team has the same rules. Each team's goal is to win as many games as possible of 162. Each team wins games by scoring more runs than its opponent. Each team scores a run when a player safely crosses home plate. So, a player who generates a lot of runs for one team is highly likely to generate a similarly large number of runs for another team (if he is traded).

Tell me two companies that play by the same set of rules. That's tougher, isn't it? In order to have the same set of rules, they need to have similar goals. Perhaps they need to offer similar products and services. We could argue that they need to have similar financial situations, but we know that the Oakland Athletics and New York Yankees do not have similar financial situations. Yet, the Athletics with a payroll often dwarfed by what the Yankees pay their starting infield currently sit five games ahead of the Yankees.

Even McDonald's and Burger King, though, have different jobs. They have different products. They have different locations. Presumably, they have different goals.

But, let's take a different approach that can be applied to any company. Suppose a company currently spends $1 million per year on its health care benefits for employees (and their families). Perhaps $800,000 is the minimum that they could spend. What is the value of that additional $200,000? Does the company get a good return on its investment for the additional $200,000? If not, should they cut benefits or enhance them.

This is actually what I am referring to as Rewardsball although I think I can come up with a better name. It's an interesting concept, isn't it?

Call me. Write me. +1 this post. Re-post it. Re-tweet it. Help me out please.

What do Employees Really Want?

In a newly published research report by WorldAtWork, Dow Scott (Loyola University Chicago) and Tom McMullen and Mark Royal (both Hay Group), the authors pointed out that the five top concerns in reward fairness are these:

• Career development opportunities
• Merit increases
• Base pay amounts
• Non-financial recognition
• Employee development/training

I don't mean to denigrate the authors, because frankly, this report is well thought out and well done, but duh! 

People don't want to be rewarded for what their managers think is their potential. And, they certainly don't want to be locked into, say, a Tier 5 job (assume larger number is better) because they are too valuable in that role when they are capable of handling a Tier 8 role.

My anecdotal evidence suggests that far too many managers don't get this. Further, my anecdotal evidence suggests that most of those managers do not care if they get it or not. People don't become managers, for the most part, in today's world because they have any managerial aptitude. They become managers because les levres se recontrent le derriere. If you can't work that out, levres are lips and recontrez is a verb meaning to meet. I'll leave the rest to you.

Let's consider those items one at a time and see where they have gone recently.

• Career development opportunities. Many companies have hit promotional gridlock. As the massive generation of baby boomers has reached levels that are all too cluttered, there is currently frighteningly little room for anyone to move up. So, the way to promotion is through finding a new employer.
• Merit increases. Is this an obsolete term? So many companies have had near zero merit budgets for so long that I fear that this term may disappear from the lexicon.
• Base pay amounts. They are not what they used to be. Again, companies have learned that if they put a bigger percentage of compensation into incentive pay and less into base pay that employees do not get the positive effects of compounding for having multiple good years in a row. In many cases (some that I have observed first-hand), it means that new hires (whether entry-level or mid-career) are paid for more in base pay than their peer group who has been around for a while.
• Non-financial recognition. Say what? Today's managers don't seem to understand the value of an attaboy or even a thank you. Saying that a job was well done takes far too much time, apparently. 
• Employee development/training. Twenty-five years ago, companies spent large amounts of money developing their employees. They had budgets that included travel. They believed in the value of face-to-face interaction. I understand that e-learning and interactive learning save immediate dollars, but how do you replace the increase in value that comes from the best training and development opportunities? Answer: you don't!

You know what, I stand corrected. I shouldn't have even suggested denigration of the authors. They make some great points. And, it seems that what to me was 'duh' would actually be an awakening for a whole bunch of employers.