You are about to launch a compensation review cycle, but somehow, you wonder if you have put the right structure to guide your managers in their increase decisions?
The right balance between no structure and complex one is hard to find when it comes to increase recommandations, but it is essential to avoid inequities as well as staying flexible. Thus, having a framework is a great way to scale your compensation practices without the need for a manager to be a comp guru.
By the end of this article, you will be able to understand several types of recommendation logics and situations where we tend to see them applied.
When it comes to increase recommendations and matrix, a few trends are commonly encountered:
In this scenario, every employee gets the same increase recommendation % and it serves as well as a budget reference for managers. Managers are given discretionary decisions as long as the total budget is respected. For instance, the general recommendation is 5% for everyone.
This methodology is chosen when companies are looking to empower managers while seeking an easy way to administer compensation decisions.
In this case, managers have most of the information about an employee’s performance and is given flexibility to spread increases or only give better increases to top talents.
In this scenario, employee’s performance is linked to compensation increases and the HR team provides a set of recommendations to guide managers.
The performance increase matrix is a good base to kick-off a compensation structure and provides good balance between first recommendations and manager’s flexibility.
Performance-based recommendations: You can define performance metrics and simply link it to recommendation increases.
In this scenario, compensation increases are linked to performance score and compensation ratio (i.e. position within the company’s compensation range).
For each sets of locations, each combinaison of performance score and position within the ranges triggers a different increase recommendation:
Some recommendations increase can also suggest to adjust people not in percentage of increase, but based on their compensation range:
This philosophy is great when teams want to reduce the risk of employees with similar roles having large pay gaps, while taking into account both performance and compensation ranges.
Make sure to understand the time to onboard your organisation and trade-offs with this data-driven approach!
Other variables may also be taken into account for increase recommendations:
Based on the recommendation philosophy you select, these recommendation may include performance and/or compensation ranges factors.
In any case, be sure to communicate the rationale and ensure it is explainable.
Though it is standardized, compensation philosophy and recommendation rationale vary from one company to another as it could make compensation a great competitive advantage.
But most important, your compensation recommendations should reflect your organisation and your culture:
Your company context matters, independently of what other companies are doing. The right question to ask is more what people you would like to attract/retain and how involved you want your managers to be in compensation cycles.
Compensation processes shouldn’t take up all of your time and effort. This is why our mission is to provide flexibility as your organisation needs to and accommodate these philosophies in our compensation tool.
Avoid spreadsheets and centralise everything in one place. Contact us to see how our platform can work for you.