Well, not really. What employees truly want is the amount of work they have to do to match the expectations they had when they took the job. During the on-boarding process and throughout the early years, every employee continuously re-evaluates the “deal” between themselves and the company. When the “deal” is still fair, employees are satisfied (even enthusiastic), when the “deal” sours, they become highly attuned to dissatisfiers.

Part of most employees’ “deal” is to feel valued. This has a personal and performance component. They want to certainly be treated fairly and with all the common courtesies (like management not ignoring them, not being treated as a second class citizen, etc.) as well as having their current and future development needs met (so they can achieve their own personal work-related goals – whatever they may be).

Employees who are bored (reporting “too little work”) are often doing work for which they are ill-suited, or have jobs that are poorly designed. As a result, they have by far lower job satisfaction, sense of accomplishment, and pride in their employers compared to all other workers. All in all, they feel less valued.

Feeling overworked – a condition that could lead to job burnout – is far more prevalent than feeling bored and spikes during 2-5 years with the company. Employees who complain about being overworked often feel they are not receiving adequate support from co-workers. In addition, they contend that the quality of their work suffers (because of this inefficiency), resulting in greater stress and tension, and their feeling that they have sacrificed their personal lives for their jobs.

The complaints of both overworked and bored employees should be taken seriously, yet being bored has far more serious consequences for an organization than being overworked. Complaints about being overworked can be an indication of poor quality or work processes, and it can be difficult in certain circumstances to retain employees who feel they are overworked and out-of-balance with their work-life. But bored employees have an even greater negative impact on an entire organization, lowering morale and productivity, and draining resources.

One mechanism of action at play, as previously indicated, is employee perceptions of the “deal-delivered.” Work-life balance is almost an afterthought to people who feel their employers are meeting their end of the “deal” by being fair, providing interesting and meaningful work, and recognition or rewards for a job well-done. Work-life balance becomes a real issue when employees feel that their employers aren’t holding up to their part of the partnership.

However, when employee don’t feel valued (like when they feel bored) or feel overworked (because the company is being inefficient or cheap vs. dealing with an unexpected – or expected – rise in demand) issues like work-life balance, commuting, etc. become highlighted in their minds and become true dissatifiers.

————————-

The idea of seeing the future is always appealing, but as Dr. Jac suggests (and as we know from our horoscopes), not all that easy. Even so, I’d argue it’s worth the effort when it comes to people. Not attempting to understand your complete talent picture – so that you can stay ahead of the curve – is, in my opinion, downright stupid. Seeing and understanding but not acting is equally bad.

In our work, we see forward looking companies starting to take the idea of predictive HCM seriously. But most organizations are waiting. Waiting for the economy to turn, or waiting to realize they are no longer attracting and retaining critical talent. Waiting to find out they can’t protect their margins or even stay competitive because they don’t have the right people in place. They haven’t yet figured out that calamity is just around the corner and are waiting to do anything meaningful about their talent situation.

Maybe it’s that they are too comfortable, or too oblivious, but a recent McKinsey Quarterly article exposes this widespread lack of strategic planning around talent:

“Executives’ concerns about executing and aligning strategy are likely exacerbated by a perceived lack of integration between the company’s strategic-planning group and its human-resources group. When asked to consider strategic planning’s integration with several major corporate functions, respondents rank HR as second-to-last in terms of degree of integration. Respondents who are dissatisfied with their company’s strategic planning see the least integration. Of these, only 14 percent say planning is completely or mostly integrated with HR, and 59 percent say the two groups are integrated slightly or not at all.”

Simple supply and demand planning with some scenario analysis is commonly made in all other areas but HCM. To me, that’s a bit silly if only for the simple reason that people are your biggest asset (or biggest expense – depending on how your look at it). It’s truly time for that to change, and I welcome Dr. Jac’s initiative and look forward to continue working with him this year.

————————-

Erik Berggren is SuccessFactors Director of Customer Results. He has worked on strategic consulting service engagements with more than 30 different companies across Europe and the US. He has held positions with Ernst & Young in Stockholm and New York and most recently worked with Capgemini in the Nordics.

The Atlantic Monthly has been running excerpts from old issues as part of their 150th anniversary celebration. Reading over an issue this weekend, I came across an article written by a Colonel R. Williams about a decade after the civil war ended – in 1878. His issue? That the military’s practice of promoting those with the longest tenure was “fostering apathy” rather than bravery or a commitment to excellence.”

Amazing that the same battles we fight today for meritocracies were equally well articulated 150 years ago.

Here’s an excerpt:

Our army presents the only known example of a business or profession, either public or private, in which incompetency and want of zeal bring the same substantial rewards as energy, capacity, and active attention to duty. Such a system of promotion is in violation of all the rules of common sense by which men are governed, as well as of those by which they are incited to strive for superior excellence, and the condition of our army at the outbreak of the rebellion affords an excellent example of its inevitable result. At that time the superior grades of the army were filled by old men, who, having outlived all above them, had been regularly promoted, in accordance with this system, to the positions which they occupied, regardless of the well-known fact that in the majority of instances they were unfitted, both by age and infirmity, to perform any military duty whatever. The spectacle was so pitiable, and the lesson it taught so apparent, that it might be supposed the government would have profited by such crushing experience, and been led by it to the adoption of wiser measures. Such, however, was not the case. Our system of army promotion is the same to-day as before the rebellion, and we are slowly, but surely, approaching the same result, from which the same experience, disastrous as it was to the country, must necessarily follow. At the close of the rebellion, and with the sad experience it had taught still before us, some effort at a change was made. The army was reorganized, and many young officers who had acquired experience, both of the regular and volunteer force, and who had especially distinguished themselves, were deservedly placed in high positions; but this spasmodic effort at reform was deemed sufficient, and we have again fallen back into the system of promotion by seniority, which, unless some dire necessity forces a change, must render the condition of our army equally as deplorable as when the rebellion commenced, by filling its superior grades by worn-out and superannuated old men. It seems needless to describe the effect which this system must produce upon the subordinate and junior officers of the army. In most instances it is deadening to all effort at improvement or professional skill, and suggests the natural conclusion: that, as superior rank is obtained only by longevity, each should strive to avoid all exposure, hardships, or dangers by which health may be impaired or life risked.

So often, pay for performance is a concept assumed to be applicable only to the rank and file. It’s a worthy cause to elevate it to the c-level as well and it’s great that Bush is pushing the idea.

It just makes you wonder what HIS salary would be if we applied pay for performance thinking to his $400k “guideline.” Given his approval ratings, it would be an interesting exercise indeed.

DDI and Badbossology.com (that’s actually a real site) did a survey of 900+ employees to determine the worst (and best) qualities of a manager. And, the survey says:

A bad manager:

• Tries too hard to be everyone’s friend
• Micromanages
• Ignores conflict
• Arrogant
• Wishy-washy
• Impulsive
• Unable to delegate
• Impatient
• Stubborn
• Unprofessional

You’ll have to read the article as written up on CNN.com to find out the best qualities and to take the quick “how good a boss are you?” survey.

It’s easy to dismiss this stuff as just for fun – but when you consider that employees often leave jobs due in whole or in part to their relationship with their managers, this kind of thing takes on real meaning. And it’s also fun.

As you can see from the responses (nearly 200 of them) 60% of respondents said fuhggedaboudit (AKA no). Originally based on this post from the Chief Happiness Officer, the poll was an attempt to see if people agreed with Alex who argues that there are a number of very compelling reasons to do away with the secret salary system.

While I, too, balk at the idea of publishing my salary, in many ways doing so would represent the natural evolution of something we already do at SuccessFactors: make our goals public. The idea behind pay for performance is that those who perform best get paid the most – thereby incentivizing increased performance. But if people don’t know what others are getting paid, there is a disconnect. I know what Joe did or did not accomplish from his public goal plan, but I don’t know if he got paid more or less (and how much more or less) as a result. There is a perception of pay for performance, but no proof-laden pudding to support it.

I guess my question then becomes – can you realize the ultimate promise of pay for performance without open salaries?

The article tells the story of a nurse who applied for a position for which she was ultimately not selected. What left the bad taste was not that she didn’t get the job, but rather that she found out that she wasn’t selected when the new hire was announced and it wasn’t her.  That’s an understandably difficult blow. If your organization doesn’t have enough respect for you to talk to you personally in such a case, why would it be reasonable to invest your loyalty in it?

Now, such an occurrence doesn’t mean the nurse is headed out tomorrow – but “will she return calls from another organization if called? Yes. Will she look online for openings at other organizations? Most likely. Will she leave? Yes, if something doesn’t happen to retighten her loyalty.”

The negative experience plants a seed of discontent that may one day grow into full blown rejection. So how do you avoid alienating your employees like this? The article first suggests a specific communications program for employees who aren’t selected for promotions -but that seems to me to be a point solution. The second suggestion is more appropriate: talk to your employees.

The blog discussion is also pretty interesting. Some people think money rules, but others see real value in letting employees explore. I wonder if such tactics are purely in the domain of the high-tech world, or if there’s applicability beyond technology. Could you see something like this at Pfizer or Ford?

The truth is that he’s a very insightful guy with real heart (somehow in my mind, I always envision him crying after winning something), and in the article he shares some of his thoughts on managing talent. In part, he talks about how he uses one of the team’s worst moments (letting the Red Sox take the momentum, and the world series, away in 2004) to motivate his people to always be ready. But he contrasts that motivational technique with a keen understanding of the fine balance between emotionality and competitiveness. A quote:

These days it is so important for a CEO, or any manager, whoever it is, to be aware of his or her personnel. We are in an age of computers, and everything is so damn impersonal. But in the end, it still comes down to people. You have to make people feel necessary. Even if their contributions are minor, it adds to everything else. That’s what makes the machine work. I love players with heart, not necessarily emotion, but those who deep down are driven by something more than mind and body. I don’t play favorites. The 25th member of the squad is just as important as the first guy. And I can’t let my own emotions get in the way of competing. I have had to release guys I loved, and keep players I didn’t necessarily care for.

Via digg.com, I came across an article from the WSJ entitled “Employers increasingly favor bonuses to raises” – which discusses the whole concept of performance-linked bonuses. According to the article, 80% of companies will offer some from of bonus program this year up from 78% last year and 67% in 1997. The article discusses the pay-for-performance initiatives of Whirlpool, which has made more employees eligible for bonuses and increased the maximum bonus that can be achieved.

According to the article “Whirlpool also awards merit raises based on performance. But it considers bonuses a more powerful motivator. “It starts breaking away at the notion of entitlement,” says David Binkley, Whirlpool’s human-resources chief. With merit pay, “if you just spread it around, it just raises your costs.” Across corporate America, he notes, “those days are coming to an end where everyone just automatically gets this 3.6%, 3.7%” merit raise.”

In case you were wondering, the average raise for 2007 is projected to be 3.7%, up from 3.6% this year  – according to data from Hewitt.

For those who aren’t familiar with the web 2.0 darling that is Digg.com , Digg is a website where visitors submit articles from around the web which are then “dugg” by the community. The articles with the most “diggs” get pushed to the top of the list. It’s a sort of journalistic meta-data with users voting on which stories are the most interesting for the benefit of other users.

Users are also given the opportunity to comment on submitted articles, and the WSJ article really got a response. You can read all the comments here. People seem really conflicted about the shift from merit increases to bonuses. On the one hand, there is the opportunity to achieve higher overall compensation, but on the other, bonuses are taxed more and the size of the bonus is often dependent on factors outside of an individual employee’s sphere of influence.

As one commenter, mtalon, notes: “Sorry but bonus < raise in this employee’s mind. I’ve been screwed out of too many bonuses because of the underperformance of a company that had nothing to do with my personal performance. Because the sales department couldn’t get their act together, any effort I put out had no impact.”