Equating Rewards To Efforts - Part 2

Following my earlier rant, I've decided to give further thought to the concept of fair rewards. So what's fair? This is a question that never has the right answer. You can say that fair is what everyone else is getting. But then you have some getting way above what they deserve and those at the pole opposites. 

Just take the few folks in the current team at the workplace (this excludes the ones on contract). They are paid 40-50% more than what they are worth in terms of skills and scope of work. A senior accountant being paid 6K+ but has never prepared a tax comp nor audit papers. An accountant in late 20s drawing 5.5K but doesn't have an accountancy or finance sense, no idea about tax, just does the transactional postings, clueless and careless in his work. My guess is most of the other older folks in the company are just as overpaid. With this sort of pay, they think they are the shits and big guns. The company is literally telling them that they are doing the right thing. But wait a second, these are the same people who saw through the two failed audits! If they are that good you shouldn't have failed in the first place isn't it?! But if you ask if they think they are being fairly paid, don't be surprised that they may gripe they are being short-changed!

Then there is me, the manager, being paid a few hundred above the senior. Well I don't profess to have special skills nor expertise that attracts a premium. But surely I'm due for much more in comparison of contributions to improvements. As my follow manager puts it philosophically “It’s not about the amount they pay you, it’s about showing how much they value you.” “By overpaying the team and paying only a few hundred more for a manager, you feel the company does not value the manager’s contribution, which in most cases are a whole lot more than your average staff.”

So coming back to the idea of fair rewards. Conceptually you expect that for a quantum of effort you receive an 'equal' returns. What is equal is naturally different for every single individual. Graphically you would find the chart as follows.

Ok so fair returns is relative, a straight constant upward line as efforts increase.  In reality, you would never receive this proportionate return. You are more likely to receive something in the lines of the Norm line. This is what most people have come to expect from work efforts. At the low levels of effort, the corresponding return is low as there is nothing material to offer for exchange. As you progress near 100% you start to see rewards. It is still off the relative line, due to others enjoying the fruits of your labour. Like how your boss receives recognition and rewards for your work. Well, part and parcel of workplace. I've benefit in previous employments as well from managing staff who produced good work. I do make a point of singling them out for commendation to the senior leaders so that their reward returns are improved. They have all received promotions in my time as their boss :-)

The distance between the relative and norm is the motivation quadrant, the hope that drives you to push yourself. It's also self-fulfilling on motivation. Rewarding at this level is likely to draw the notion that extra efforts are being appreciated, thereby motivating the person further. A good place to target in rewards for your team.

Moving below the line sits the quadrant of disappointment. It's not pure disappointment if you are just slightly below the norm. There are still remnants of motivation factor, to go that extra bit in hopes of achieving par. Also other factors contribute to the perception of unjust. I wouldn't mind if my boss is getting more glory for my work if I see him or her as a good boss. Yes my returns are lower than par but I'm willingly to take that sacrifice in the short term since I'm confident my boss would reward me fairly eventually. Or I think my boss deserves the rewards of my work as he/she takes care of me in other ways, such as giving me exposure and pieces of work which are challenging yet at the same time huge learning opportunities. In the absence of such mitigating factors, rewarding at this level de-motivates the person. The increments of returns are not worth pursuing, hence restricted efforts hovering below 100%.

Naturally the zero reward for efforts is the line of decency. You put in efforts but no rewards are forthcoming. A prime example in the area of finance is where the business asks for financial data. You spend hours preparing the data. They take it and use them for their presentations, analysis and whatever not. Do they ever credit you for it? Nope, it's part and parcel of the animal called business partnering. Oh well that's ok I supposed, so long I am not blamed when something goes wrong on the use of that data. The data is only as good as its source and the experience and know-how of the person interpreting it.

Any returns below this line goes into the realm of blasphemy. Sadly this is where I am at the moment, see Current. You can argue that the line should be above decency since I'm getting paid a monthly salary. But wait, I would get a salary likewise at another company. And the persons enjoying my efforts are drawing a salary as well. Hence it's a wash, a non consideration in terms of reward perceptions. A sad status to be, one which goes against every sense of logic and fairness.

On a brighter note, there are companies or periods in time where rewards goes above relative perception. I've had the good fortune of experiencing this once before. I was literally working 12-14 hours every other day and more frequently during project peak periods. I had blind commitment to the cause, not fazed by the hours required to get to the objective. Motivational commitment.

At the current company I suppose the commitment quadrant can be applied to the overpaid folks. As we are working towards outsourcing, the management must be worried that people would leave before we complete the migration. Hence they overpay to attract them to stay, or to prevent them from finding a corresponding job as their skills and scope cannot draw the same level of remuneration anywhere else. I call this coercive commitment.

So putting it all together forms the Pokpok Effort Reward Matrix. I should remove the green line since this is a very very rare occurrence. With any sense you would never give negative rewards since it may attract indiscriminate forms of retaliation from the disregard of decency. But I've left it there to illustrate the nonsense I'm getting and show that it does happen. They are lucky I'm not really the guerrilla suicide bomber that would take them down blindly. It's tiring to fight these corporate folks, you'll never win alone. And its a given loss in Singapore since we lack employment protection of any sorts. Tough luck Pokpok *shrugs*

If you plot the lines on a BCG product matrix, the current line takes the quarter of the Dog. Relative is your cash cow, the sweet spot you want. Exceptions are definitely your stars, they don't last forever but are special when they arise. Your norm is your typical question mark. It fluctuates depending on your circumstance. Drawing from this, my current job went from a question mark at the start to its current status as a Dog on its deathbed *growls. Hence the logical reaction is to minimise investment and source for exit strategy for Dog and redirect focus on the Cash Cow - Studies.  In the meantime I look for my next Star job. Logical deduction translating to logical action of leaving on the dot everyday. See, that wasn't so difficult to figure out huh.