Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
The raw emotions of a polarized electorate are taking a toll on employee relations. How can HR promote peace?
Is your employee handbook ready for the New Year? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Get the HR education you need without travel expenses or time out of the office.
We don't just visit a city, we take it over. Join us in NOLA -- June 18 - 21, 2017.
Despite tight budgets, it’s important to carve out rewards for top performers.
In this era of modest salary increases, employers are looking to
differentiate rewards for their best-performing employees. Even bonus
pools are not always funded at a level high enough to make up the
difference in salary growth.
“You don’t want rewards to be spread like peanut butter with both
average and high performers getting the same amounts,” says Linas
Orentas, SPHR, senior director of compensation for Rosemont, Ill.-based
US Foods Inc.
Compensation decisions are a zero-sum game: There is only so much money
to go around. “A manager trying to get even 5 percent for the very best
performer requires some tough decisions for the rest of the population,”
says Laura Sejen, global rewards practice leader for Towers Watson in
New York City. In many cases, even average performers might not get that
average 3 percent increase.
Incentives are not as robust as they used to be either. “Since the
recession, incentive pools on average have been underfunded at less than
target levels,” Sejen says. That can make it harder for managers to
achieve variation among different levels of performance.
Even so, organizations are trying to link rewards and performance as much as possible. According to Towers Watson’s 2014 Global Talent Management and Rewards Study,
which surveyed 337 U.S. companies, the highest performers receive merit
increases that are differentiated at 170 percent, while annual
incentives are differentiated at 125 percent.
Identifying top performers is the most important step in this process,
and employers may struggle to determine who is most deserving.
In some companies, top performers make up as little as 5 percent of the
employee population while in others they constitute up to 30 percent.
Once top performers have been identified, employers must make sure to
provide adequate rewards. US Foods has a goal of giving top performers
rewards that are at least 2.5 times those offered to lower performers.
The company develops guidelines for its salary review process, then
measures how closely each business unit adheres to those guidelines. The
review comprises three key measures:
• Actual awards compared to established guidelines.
• Actual high-performance premium compared to expected premium.
• Actual plan compared to budgeted plan.
When it comes to bonuses, US Foods allows its business units to
differentiate awards under the annual incentive plan by “using
individual performance factor multipliers that increase or decrease the
size of the formula-driven bonus award for individuals based on their
performance rating,” Orentas says. “Top performers earn bonuses that are
up to 140 percent of the formula-driven bonus award.”
Inevitably, managers will often try to get a higher level of reward for
certain high-performing employees. “Most companies are overwhelmed with
requests for exceptions, and every exception on its own looks OK,” says
Jim Kochanski, SPHR, a principal with Sibson Consulting in Raleigh, N.C. The danger is that too many exceptions will undermine the link between rewards and performance.
This is a delicate balance. “Management needs to have the ability to
recognize and reward extraordinary effort and performance,” says Fran
Wahr-man, SPHR, vice president of incentive compensation and governance
manager with The Huntington National Bank in Columbus, Ohio. “But
there’s still a compensation budget that must be maintained, and, more
likely than not, that budget is tight.”
US Foods allows managers to advocate for awards that are outside the
company’s compensation guidelines as long as the manager provides
justification for the award. In most cases, managers can either leverage
the company’s limited equity adjustment budget for these situations or
work with HR to bring the final salary increase back within guidelines.
“Managers need to have the flexibility to manage and plan rewards as they deem necessary,” Orentas says.
incentive payout as % of target
All figures are the median.
*Based on an overall median merit increase budget of 3 percent.
Source: Towers Watson’s 2014 Global Talent Management and Rewards Study.
Considering Other Options
Some companies extend eligibility for long-term incentives to
high-performing employees even if they are at an organizational level
that otherwise would not allow their participation in the plan, Sejen
Another way employers funnel limited funds toward top performers is by
“carving out” part of the salary increase budget for that purpose. For
example, if the overall salary increase budget is 3 percent for the
year, employers can allocate 2.5 percent for all employees and funnel
the remaining 0.5 percent into a pool to fund greater salary increases
for top performers.
Providing smaller but more-frequent salary increases can also motivate
top performers. For example, a top performer might get a salary increase
during the overall salary review process, then another smaller increase
later in the year. This can be a good approach for rewarding top
performers who are at the lower end of their pay band or salary range.
“Instead of waiting 12 months, employers can schedule additional salary
reviews for these high performers within the next six or nine months,”
says Tom McMullen, rewards practice leader with Hay Group in Chicago. “To balance it out, employers might make certain lower performers wait 18 months to two years for a salary review.”
A Small-Company Perspective
Rewarding top performers can be particularly challenging for smaller
companies that need to keep fixed costs under control. After
experimenting with nonmonetary rewards such as cruises and other trips,
the leaders at Easy Rest Adjustable Sleep Systems—a company in Baltimore
with 100 employees—realized that cash is king.
“We have tried offering rewards other than cash, and it simply doesn’t
work,” Chief Operating Officer Jeffrey Mowrey says. The only noncash
reward Mowrey has found to be welcome is extra paid vacation time.
The company’s main compensation system focuses on rewards based on
weekly performance metrics for the roughly 75 percent of employees
involved in sales and service. For special projects in other
departments, top performers are awarded with a one-time cash bonus.
Year-end bonuses, which fluctuate based on overall company performance,
are given based on performance (80 percent) and tenure (20 percent).
To maximize the impact of rewards, find ways to make them stand out. For
example, cut a separate check for a bonus rather than making it another
line item on a paycheck, and be sure to communicate your gratitude when
you present it.
The Huntington National Bank, which has about 12,400 employees,
occasionally takes this approach. For example, a top performer might get
a 3 percent raise during the annual review then another 2 percent or
more six months later. “This sends a message of going above and beyond
to recognize and reward consistent high performance,” Wahrman says.
For employees with salaries that are at or near the top of their salary
range, employers can offer a one-time lump-sum bonus that is equal to
the amount a normal salary increase would have provided. If the employee
continues to perform well in that position, it may be time to talk
about how to move him or her to a different job with a higher salary
Communicating About Pay
Working through compensation issues is much less effective without
proper communication about how and why decisions are made. “Without
communication, this can be a recipe for disaster,” McMullen says.
He suggests that managers engage in preparatory communications well
before compensation discussions and performance reviews begin. Managers
should be prepared to address employees’ questions during this process.
“The focus [of HR] should be on ‘How can we help managers provide a good
robust discussion?’ ” McMullen says. “Pay should never be a surprise at
the performance discussion.”
Joanne Sammer is a New Jersey-based business and financial writer.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies