Ducks in a Row: Value-Based Compensation
by Miki Saxon
Yesterday we considered the error companies make by basing offers on salary history, instead of future performance.
That may be about to end, at least in the outliers of Philadelphia and New York City.
In short, the law prevents employers from asking candidates about their current/previous compensation.
Candidates can volunteer the information, but can’t be asked for it by the company or any recruiting process, including third parties.
Doing so opens them up for lawsuits.
Ignoring implementation and legal hurdles, what does it really mean and why do I see it as such a positive?
Primarily because I don’t believe that either performance history or salary history has a damn thing to do with the value candidates bring to their next job.
Companies need to have a hiring range for each opportunity based on the impact that specific position should have on the company’s success.
The low end is based on average performance, while the high end is the result of an over achiever in the position.
The offer should be the highest number within the range based on the hiring manager’s evaluation of the candidate in light of two strong constants.
- 98% of star performers become stars as a function of their management and the ecosystem in which they perform.
- People who join for money will leave for more money.
Merit raises are then given based on that individual’s actual contribution to the company’s success, as opposed to some number from HR.
This puts most of the responsibility on the hiring manager — exactly where it belongs.
Image credit: gardener41
