Justin has been a compensation Practitioner since 2008, developing and administering Compensation and Classification plans for the past ten years for both public and private sector organizations, ranging from towns of 10,000 to fortune 500 companies. Read Full Bio
The Art and Science of Compensation
The art is what we feel (the challenge and recruiting of retaining talent, the reasons people are REALLY leaving, market pressures, etc...), and the science is what we can measure (market data, internal equity, attrition rates, time to fill, etc...). Presenting the art and science as how we feel and what we observe/measure creates a different way to look at this phrase, and discusses the challenge that we have when the feelings and observations don't align.
A Discussion Around the Compensation Philosophy
Saying that our organization targets the market median is a terrible philosophy, as it completely overlooks the Compensation Practitioners underlying responsibility - which is to ensure that the organization is competitive and able to recruit, retain and engage talent through cash or equity rewards. Targeting the market median is a way to be competitive, but shouldn't be the actual philosophy.
Why the Market Data Shouldn't be Trusted
This slide really discusses the challenges with relying too heavily on market data to establish market rates for a job. I use the graphic below, which compares 2017 and 2018 data for a Company reported Technology survey. 30% of the jobs either remained flat or decreased in market value. We spend a bit of time on this slide with conversation about jobs that are increasingly hard to fill based on market data.
Crowd Sourced vs Company Reported Surveys
A quick overview on some of the good and bad between both survey types, and why neither are perfect.
Keeping Compensation Simple
1. Why market pricing can't just be about the science, and has to include the art.
2. Incentive Plan designing - why the metrics might be more useful for messaging than incentivizing
3. Communication key points