By now, it’s a foregone conclusion: Top performers should not be taken for granted or lumped into the mix, and then rewarded like the many “average” performers each organization has on the payroll roster. This truism applies even for continuing or enhancing cash compensation components, when many businesses have limited financial resources.

Therefore, savvy leaders are focusing on new and creative means of tweaking their total rewards to keep the super stars motivated to take their personal performance to new heights. In the last few posts, we’ve been offering up some ideas to jump-start your movement in this direction. Ideally, you’ll consider new and different low or no cost rewards, as well as modifications to your salary and incentive programs. But here’s a thought, as you’re trying to make sense of the total plan and its inherent out-of-pocket cost:

• Don’t worry about the fact that you may be paying above market for your super stars. If they are truly delivering more for less, your payroll efficiency will be high. In other words if you have 4 or 5 higher-compensated stars doing the work of 7 or 8 average performers, it is still a win for the individual and the organization.

Under more normal business conditions, we tend to place great emphasis on market competitiveness and benchmarking jobs in the external world. In today’s environment, it may well make sense to worry less about that data, and think more about your total outlay for getting the job done. In other words, your increased dollars might be allocated to fewer people, but that’s okay as long as the results are there. In our brave new world, getting more with less is not just “allowable”, it makes good business sense.

What do you think? Is payroll efficiency a good way to measure your compensation effectiveness in a recession?

{ 0 comments }