I
wish the media pushed half as hard to get people to donate eyes for the
visually impaired, as they do to get eyeballs for the sake of circulation and
viewership.
A
television channel claimed to have lured viewers to their election coverage of
‘real stories of political intrigue’ and away from the ‘boring numbers, graphs,
trends and analyses’ presented by rival channels. In a bid to boost sales, an
advertisement for the channel boasted, "why go to sleep when you’ve just woken up
?", in a clear dig at other channels that were less sensationalist and more
educating. There seems to be a free-for-all to ‘dumb-down’ the consumer. Consumers
have a free choice and can choose what they want, you might say. I agree. But I
think that since consumers have a free choice they should also consider choosing what
they need. Appropriate communication and true information would certainly help.
Consider
this. A few days back, a headline in several publications screamed that Cognizant
had paid its employees a whopping 200% as annual bonus. In many instances, the
related articles did not adequately clarify that it was upto 200% of the target
bonus paid to the best performers at some or more career levels. That, if an employee
was to receive, say, 25% of fixed pay as bonus, the actual payout to that
employee was doubled. You might think that common sense would lead the
readers to the right picture anyway. I thought so too. Till I read numerous
reader comments posted on social media sites like, “awesome man, my company
sucks since it has given me only 15%”, and, “it’s a lie, no one can give 200%
bonus”. Huh ? Were these people seriously mistaking that Cognizant had paid its
employees 200% of fixed pay as bonus ? If this is how many people, who belong to
the elite 7% of our population employed in the organised sector, received this
news report, what about the scores of others outside of this group ?
It’s
not that I don’t respect what Cognizant did. They’ve a history of doing good
with employee compensation and promotions, and I’ve always respected that. What
I have respected even more is what lies behind that act. That’s what, I feel,
the people at Cognizant as well as the people elsewhere need to know. The
company’s SG&A (sales, general and administrative) expenses as a percentage
of their revenues, has consistently declined over the last five years. And that
their revenue per employee has consistently increased over the same period.
Which means, that the company’s employees and leaders have been consistently
doing many things right. Which also means that the company has consistently had
the capacity to pay.
It
would be in their interest, for the employees of Cognizant to know, that their future
compensation and benefits are dependent on a maintenance or increase of that
capacity. And that, they would have to play their part in it. Or else the sweet
run might soon end. There's another thing. Companies that have phenomenal growth have to recruit in very
large numbers. Which means that they are at risk of their own employees
grieving about ‘lots of people from outside’ coming in with better pays and bigger
jobs. That’s also probably why high-growth companies stretch a bit more and show
willingness to provide higher than the required raises and higher than the necessary
promotions. It might be worth considering that faster than optimal progress might also take at least some employees to their stagnation points faster.
For the employees of other companies it is necessary to admit, that to get the
kind of rewards that Cognizant provides, their own companies must also have
comparable or better capacities. And comparable or better growth. That only employee
desires can’t be benchmarked. So should the organisations’ capacities and
willingness to pay.
Which brings me to make a suggestion.
Why
not include these factors (of capacity and willingness) to adjust the results
of compensation benchmarking exercises and make them more real ? Let’s say,
that the usual study throws up that company A has an average salary of Rs. 80, your
company has Rs. 100, and company B has Rs. 120. If company B has better
capacity (revenue per employee, overheads as % of revenue, or any other
relevant metric) and better willingness (growth, or any other relevant metric),
than your company does, then the relative advantages of company B need to be adjusted
downward to allow for real comparison. Similarly, if company A is worse off
than your own in capacity and willingness, then your relative advantages need
downward adjustment.
In
the above example, what that means is that the salary gap between company A and
your company needs to be reduced. And so does the salary gap between your
company and company B. The adjusted scenario could, say, look like this - company A at Rs. 95 (in place of 80), your company at Rs. 100, and company B at Rs. 110 (in place of 120). Or whatever else, it does not matter, so long as the basis of adjustments are logical and reasonable. Since it would be realistic and fair. To employers and employees. After all, if company B, with higher average salary than your company, had worse than your capacity and willingness, then its relative disadvantage would need adjustment and its adjusted average salary could be Rs. 140 instead of Rs. 120 for a real comparison with your Rs. 100.
Surprisingly, I am
getting a better feeling about this than I earlier thought I would. Perhaps, such
an adjustment might just reduce the gap between what the employees want as pay versus
what they need. Perhaps, such an adjustment might just reduce the gap between
what companies want to give as pay versus what they need to.
Perhaps then, our work-lives wouldn't be as headlines driven.
Perhaps then, our work-lives wouldn't be as headlines driven.
No comments:
Post a Comment