|
T H E H I N D U O P P O R T U N I T I E S A Guide to Better Positions and Better Performance Wednesday, August 23, 2000 |
| Articles | Position wise | Category wise | Company wise | Location wise | Search Jobs | Home | | The Hindu Group |
WORKING TRENDZ Myths and illusions of performance pay
Whenever there is a change in management, professionals lose out
on performance pay, if it is not in writing and committed by the
management in clear terms. This is especially true for businesses
that are cyclical and companies that are volatile to business
cycles.
COMPENSATION IN today's context is no more rigid. With the
liberalised economy, the salary structure in private sector has
undergone a phenomenal change. With a tougher stand taken by the
IT department, gone are the days when corporates were generous in
cash reimbursements, which escaped tax. Apart from coming to
terms with loss in cash components, the employers now have to be
beware of companies, which have introduced flexible pay
structures.
Ideally the senior management salary is divided into two
components: fixed pay and flexi-pay. The rationale behind these
is:
* First, this structure motivates employees to achieve or even
outperform their targets there by the company benefits in terms
of managerial productivity.
* Second, new companies and start-ups do not risk high salary and
so introduce fixed and flexi-components. This restricts the fixed
commitment cost on the part of the company. If targets are
achieved, the additional contribution will facilitate the company
to meet the flexi-pay component.
This provides two benefits to the company:
* Employees are motivated to achieve targets and
* Break-even levels can be brought down as part of the salary is
discounted as variable cost.
* Third, established companies, which reach a plateau in growth,
have high managerial costs. They look for avenues in cutting
managerial cost. These are the companies which introduce flexi-
salary structure as part of restructuring to motivate managers
for improving the performance or look for avenues outside.
* Ideally flexi-pay is to be linked to individual performance
levels. This would work only when there is a written performance
planning and appraisal system.
This also requires proper budgeting system. Performance pay in
most of these companies is loosely woven. A few typical examples
are given here to understand further the complexities in
performance salary.
A company incurring huge losses mainly because of high leverage
was on the verge of becoming a non-performing asset(NPA). With
working capital renewal still pending and with huge amount of
payables, it recruited a Vice President - Finance whose salary
had fixed and flexi- components. The flexi-component had 1 %
share on interest reduction for the company. This employee joined
the company in June and the financial year is from April-March.
He didn't participate in budgeting exercise and so, restarted the
exercise. However, for his flexi-pay component, interest paid
last year was fixed as the reference point. In spite of his best
strategies for the company, the top management removed him in
November of the same year. The employee did not know the depth of
the company's problem and was required as a fire fighter for six
months, in the processing burning his pockets! The company, on
the other hand smartly saved on managerial costs!
Normally performance pay or incentive pay for senior management
happens in case of projects operating at two levels: The hard
core project team will have performance pay, sometimes to the
extent of 30-40 % of their pay. The flexi-pay will be linked to
project milestones. At the time of recruitment and beginning of
the project, there will be tougher targets, which the team in
their enthusiasm will agree to accomplish. As the project
progresses, the bottlenecks would emerge and the team will become
frustrated due to the delay in the project as well as the
compensation cuts. The management would have the unpleasant task
of controlling costs and at the same time they need to keep the
team together. In such circumstances, it is wiser to talk to the
team and refix the compensation realistically. Most managements
lack the will and initiative to do this. In the process they lose
some key personnel.
Whenever there is a change in management, professionals lose out
on performance pay, if it is not in writing and committed by the
management in clear terms. This is especially true for businesses
that are cyclical and companies that are volatile to business
cycles. Even big groups, which take-over businesses may default
in this, as a part of cost cutting exercise. Here again the
companies are fair to the extent that they put the new structures
on notice and meet the commitments made earlier.
Finally performance or incentive pay for mergers, acquisitions
and restructuring could be ticklish. The professionals opting for
such a structure must decide to what extent is this linked to the
overall pay packet. Most of the times, such deals are risky and
cannot be individualised. The standards of performance cannot be
objective and many a times it's the promoter or the top
management who decides on the performance rating. Such times it
would be better to treat such a pay as an ex-gratia or an
incentive and not reckoned as part of regular compensation
package.
Here, ESOPs are not covered though many start-ups use ESOPs as
part of flexi-component of the salary. In the Indian context
ESOPs are yet to mature and ideally the employees must be aware
of risks associated with this component of compensation. It helps
to understand what should be the portion of salary and period
under normal circumstances for which one has to stay to benefit
from this component.
To conclude, it may be worthwhile for employers and employees to
be fair in understanding performance parameters in the right
perspective and handle this component in earnestness. In most
cases, the employee will be the loser. But the employers may also
note that the employees who are going to lose will bad mouth the
company for the rest of their lives especially when they leave
the company. The company's chances of attracting good
professionals will go down. Nine times out of ten, the
prospective employees of the company believe the past employee's
version rather than version of the company itself.
N. CHANDRASHEKHAR
chandrashekhar.hydKcareercommunity.co.in
Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu. |