Conference 7.286::digital

    Sorry I don't have any answers for you, only my 2 cents.
    
    It amazes me at the number of people within this company that have the
    same comments and frustrations regarding their salary increases and/or
    the lack increases.
    
    In one of my former jobs, you were given a cost of living increase each
    year.  Your raises went 1 each year for the first three years in a
    position, then an increase each third year.  (ie:  years 1-3 you
    received a raise plus your cost of living each year.  Your next raise
    wasn't due until your 6th anniversary with the company)  This really
    inspired people to better themselves and promote within the company.
    (It kept the increases coming).  At the same time, you received your
    cost of living each year so you salary wasn't "decreasing" each year.  
    
    Maybe this sounds like a lot of money for the company to put out each
    year, but personally speaking, my moral would be much better.  I also
    think this help motivate employees to give a little more attention to
    our jobs rather than wonder if we don't get a raise, why the heck are
    we doubling, tripling, etc. our job responsibilities??
    
    Now, take a deep breath, sit back, relax and wait for your answers.
    
    Remember, you now have to pay $8 for the valium !!
    
    

    One message that is being sent to the worker-bee appears to be one
    that people are having a hard time understanding, IMHO.  That message
    is one of reducing the company from many different avenues and not
    just through the TFSO package.  Isn't it cheaper if someone looks for
    another job and gives their notice without having Digital pay the 
    "package" to them?  

    To answer the trank cost question....if one pays mucho bucks for John
    Hancock, one can send away for a 90 day supply for $2.00 straight to
    one's doorstep.

    Bottom line in Digital is streamlining where it can and getting the
    stock back in line for the shareholder while producing a product.

    justme....jacqui

    I can sense quite a bit of emotion in your note. You were probably wise
    to not take any definitive action right away. Give yourself some "chill 
    time" to clear your head. Take a couple of days off to think about it 
    if you have to. My nickel's worth is below.

    I have worked at other places where:

        Metrics and motivational programs were high on the priorty list of
        the most senior managers in the company. They cared as much or more
        about the reward system as they did the products the company was
        making. 

        The desired behavior was well understood and the reward system
        supported it (unquestionably). If you did 'x' during the course of
        the year, there was a certain reward that you could expect.
        Meet the goal, you get it. Don't meet the goal,	you don't get it.
        You would work hard to achieve 'x' because the associated reward
        was never in question as to whether it would/would not be granted.

        The measurement/reward system was NEVER messed with during
        the course of a fiscal year. (However, you could count on some
        changes at the beginning of every new year ... some good, some not
        so good, but all well communicated well inadvance of the start of
        the new year. You still knew what you had to do.)

    In working at Digital, I have concluded that Digital has never mastered
    the techniques necessary to use metrics to drive behavior. Having not
    excelled at this, it becomes very difficult to design and implement a
    rewards system which the employee base will perceive is equitable to
    them. As a  result, rewards (pay raises, Excellence Awards or Circle of
    Excellence, etc.) become tagged with such unflattering terms as
    "popularity contest." And, people like you feel like they've been
    slighted. It hurts. 

    To the question "what should I do?"

    You seem very unhappy about this situation. You need to stop yourself
    from being unhappy and angry because this will reflect in your work
    sooner or later. You'll get a "bad attitude". You may not treat a
    customer the way you normally would, and will be less inclined to go
    the extra mile like you may have in the past. "Why should I? Look what
    happened to me last time!" (You may also go home and yell at your
    wife and kids and kick the dog because you are mad at Digital. This is
    not good!)

    You can stop yourself from being unhappy in one of the following ways:
            
	1)  Decide that Digital is what it is, and is not about to
            change soon just for you. Talking to "the system" (meeting with
            your boss and Personnel) isn't going to change anything. They
            will listen to you and nod with great understanding of your
            plight, but in the end, there will be "nothing we can do." The
            problem is bigger than both of them. Learn to live with it.
            
	2)  Decide that you can not learn to live with it. 
            Recognize that you need clearly defined metrics and associated
            rewards in order to be happy. Decide that you are meant to work
            in a company that does a much better job of this than Digital
            does and go find one. They do exist.


    Regardless of which course of action you take, you probably owe it to
    yourself and to the company to have a frank (but not emotional)
    discussion about how you feel about metrics and rewards with whomever
    you deem to be "the appropriate people". The company will never change
    if people like you don't voice an opinion when there is a problem. Just
    don't expect these discussions to result in any change to your next
    scheduled pay increase. Do it because you want the company to get
    better, not because you want it fixed for you right now.

    If they DO change their minds, consider yourself lucky. Don't think you
    fixed the problem, however. It still exists. You just escaped it this
    time. Next year the metrics and rewards will probably still confuse a
    large number of people and you may find yourself in the same boat
    again.

    I do have hope that Digital WILL improve in this regard, but it will
    take time. A lot of things need fixing. This is one of them. I also
    hope that if you are a top performer, that you will consider staying
    with the company. We need good people. But only you can decide whether
    Digital is the right place for you to work. Only you can decide what
    makes you happy and what you are willing to put up with to work here.

    Good luck.
    
    /se

    
    
    I do sympathize with your situation, times are tough though.
    Gone are the days when raises are guarenteed. If you do
    a good job... you MAY just be able to KEEP you job these
    days.  The "raise" pot is small this year; the 80% rule caused 
    us to be "heavy" in JAN/FEB/MAR and now we must flatten out the peak;
    good performers who are low in their range get special attention;
    and some good people do get pushed out of this years plan. 
    
    And a whole lot of good people don't have jobs this year either.
    Hang in there, things could be worse.
    
    gb
    
    
    but these are the rules
    we must follow...   

  One problem is that people lose sight of what is a "right" and what is just a
business arrangement. Working for a large company that does a lot of work with
the Federal Government puts you somewhere in between. 

  As far as I know, companies are under no obligation to give people raises nor
are they under any obligation to base raises on performance. Large companies do
have an obligation under the 1964 Civil Rights act not to discriminate and as I
understand, companies that have a certain number of employees over 40 years old
are required to give 9 weeks of severance pay to anyone laid off. 

  As for things not specifically covered by law, the thing to remember is that
this is just a company, not a family, state, religion, etc. Like any other
company, Digital is in business to make a profit and in doing so they are
limited by certain laws but are free to do what ever is necessary where laws do
not apply. 

  Bottom line is, if it is not an area covered by law, you are in a business
arrangement with the company where by you work and they pay for your services.
If you are not satisfied with the arrangement and they are not willing to pay
you more, you are free to terminate the arrangement and go work elsewhere. Or,
this being a free enterprise system, you are free to start your own company and
show'em how it should be done. 

  I realize that's probably not the answer that you'd like to hear, but I'd
rather be blunt than to paint an unrealistically rosy picture. 

  George

    Re .0
    
    First of all let me state that I do salary planning so I know how the
    system works.
    
    To start with it is totally up to management discretion this year how
    the salary raise pot is distributed. There was no 80/20 rule this year.
    The only real metric was that at the higher organizational levels they
    wanted to see the salary raise pot distributed evenly between March,
    June, September and December. This by the way is pretty easy over a
    group of 30+ people.
    
    The result of all this is that you can expect raise frequencies to be
    anything from 12 months (9 in really exceptional cases) to 3 years+.
    The metric is to aim people at a place in the salary range that you
    feel matches that their performance. If they are already at that point
    or above it then no raise this year.
    
    Your manager obviously believes you are already adequately paid for
    your performance level. If you disagree my advice is to carefully
    document why you think you're underpaid and present the information to
    your manager and personnel. If with that information they think they
    screwed up a good manager will try and fix the situation (it can be
    done). If they disagree with you my advice is to agree to disagree.
    Arguing will get you precisely nowhere and stands the risk of getting
    you labelled as a whiner. If it then matters to you that you feel you
    are underpaid you should resign and get a job elsewhere. Since you're
    underpaid you should have no difficulty in getting a job at a higher
    salary elsewhere.
    
    The system sorts itself out in the end. Managers who do poor jobs of
    salary planning end up with demotivated employees who either don't
    perform or leave. That's not the way for a manager to be successful.
    Good managers try to pay for performance. In these days where the
    salary raise pot is small it means that those employees who were lucky
    enough to sail up the salary range in the freer spending times now end
    up waiting a LONG time between raises.
    
    Another problem with salary planning is that as groups change each year
    you find inequities of one sort or another. With a small pot of money
    a lot of that money gets burnt up fixing these inequities, next you
    reward the people who are fast moving and underpaid. This leaves very
    little for those people who are more or less at the correct level but
    never the less doing a good job. They tend to end up with around an
    18 or 21 month frequency.
    
    So in summary present information. If it is accepted and acted upon
    then good. A hint, how long since you had a previous raise is
    irrelevent. The important thing is how much you feel you should get
    paid today ie what is your market worth.
    If the data isn't accepted and you feel you've been unfairly treated resign
    and take a job elsewhere. Fighting the system is a waste of time and
    like tilting at a windmill, I tried 8 years ago on another issue. You
    get lots of head nodding etc and no action and if you push it you just
    piss people off.
    
    Dave

    One more thing.
    
    In the past during any particular year you could:
    
    	a) Get a raise
    	b) Not get a raise
    
    In today's times there is now a
    
    	c) You lose your job
    
    Many good people have fallen into category c) lately. Those in category
    b) are in better shape than those in b). It's worth remembering.
    
    Dave

re: .0

I'm confused. At one point you say -

> I'll get right to it.  The other day, I was in my regular one-on-one 
> meeting with my boss . . . 
> . . . Reluctantly she told me that I would not be receiving *any* 
> raise this time around.

And then later you say -

> - I was assured by my immediate boss that I would be getting an 
>   increase.

Same person? Different person? Same job? Different job?

I presume the second part was an earlier assurance, but by whom and
under what circumstances? The nature of the situation makes a difference.

-Jack

    
    It's too late to do anything about it this year, execpt to learn this
    lesson:
    
      Salary planning takes place from December through February. You
      absolutely must start talking about this next November to have any
      effect on the outcome of the next planning session. In fact, you
      should be revisiting the issue every month to keep it fresh in your
      bosses mind. Assume that you ar your best and only advocate for
      raises and promotions, and act accordingly.
    
    In the mean time, though it won't change you paycheck now, ask the
    following questions to show your boss you know a little about the
    system.
    
    	1) The corporate spend plan was 4.4% this year. Did your cost
           center use that 4.4%, or put aside some of it for
           "contingencies"? What was the actual spend figure used in your
           cost center?
    
    	2) Your boss cannot make promises for the next salary period (next
           year), but she might be willing to discuss "intentions". If
           you were expecting a raise in June, there's no reason for you to
    	   have to wait until next June; she could intend to bump you early
    	   next year. It's not much, but it's something to hope for (and
    	   perhaps push for).
    
    	3) No one can judge the appropriateness of their
           raise (or lack of same) without supporting contextual
           information. Since there was no participation metric this year
           (ie, everyone could be considered for a raise), you're not
           getting one because your boss consciously decided that the money
           was needed elsewhere. There may be really good reasons for that
           reasons that indeed have nothing to do with your performance,
           but you should understand those reasons at least at some level.
           Your boss won't show you what your peers are making, but you can
           ask her to distill some information to help you understand the
           situation. For example, if you're one of 6 senior engineers, she
           should be able to supply you with an average salary and salary
           spread for that position in your group, showing you that you are
           far enough above your peers to warrant a skip. She may have to go
           outside your immediate group to provide this information without
           compromising confidentiality, but it is doable and I know that
           it is done.
    
    Do NOT go to personnel. You'll earn nothing but frustration for your
    troubles. If you really feel the need to get Personnel involved, you
    should probably be looking for another boss.
    

    From a management perspective .6 has it.
    
    My views, pragmatically:
    
    I was in the salary planning cycle until last year. the technique for
    defining salary raises between our groups was to define a matrix - the
    salary range was devided into 4 "quartiles" and at each quartile would
    be a different percentage for each type of performance. Obviously the
    two lower quartile good performers were getting the bulk of the "pot"
    so that they salaries come rapidly in line with the mid-point.
    
    You must remember that the mid-point of the salary range is considered
    the market value. If you are above this point, the company asks itself
    if you are "worth" paying more than somebody else for the same job.
    
    It also depends on the type of job you are doing - do you actually
    bring in money for the company ?
    
    A way around your problem (long term) would be to figure out if a
    promotion could be justified and planned for you in the next round of
    salary planning - this would move your market value positively.
    
    Try to prove to your boss what your unique skills are - and build those
    to be very visible to him as clear "added value" that justify paying
    you more than the market value.
    
    Wishing you well,
    
    Paul
    
    
    

    
.11>    It also depends on the type of job you are doing - do you actually
.11>    bring in money for the company ?
    
    What does it mean to "actually bring in money for the company"?
    

I also do salary planning and agree with .6.  As a manager, you have a lot 
of flexibility, even within the tight guidelines.  My team does a group
plan which I work off of and change based on the "rules" of the current
year.  I, also, firmly believe that everyone should get a raise of some sort.

We were able to give everyone a raise, go to the quarterly system, and keep
within guidelines this year.  I am very uncomfortable with "giving the money
to the folks below midpoint" and leaving out those who are 1 & 2 performers
at the higher end.

My advice to you is much like the previous advice.  Don't forget that you have
some power on your side as well.  You do a job that needs to be done in a
time when replacing you would be very difficult.  Work with your manager NOW
to be ready for a promotion next time around.  Find out what you need to do
and do it!  That will automatically do two things for you - lower you in the
new salary range and show to your manager that you have the right attitude.

Go for it!!  

    >The system sorts itself out in the end. Managers who do poor jobs of
    >salary planning end up with demotivated employees who either don't
    >perform or leave. That's not the way for a manager to be successful.
    
    Nor is it a way for a company to be successful.  Talented, previously
    motivated employees are taking their talents and their motivation
    elsewhere.  Like so many other decisions we've seen recently (car
    plans, vacation accrual, etc.) morale is either being ignored, or
    actively trampled.  Consequently, we are losing our most valuable 
    resource: a motivated, caring work force.
    
    					andrew

    Here's my 2 cents:
    
    I see that you have been with Digital for about the same time as I
    have, and apparently working in the same job for at least 4 years. 
    Please consider the possibility that it's time for a change.
    
    You have acquired knowledge and experience that probably qualify you
    for positions that exceed your current job in both responsibility and
    impact.  Go look for opportunities to better yourself and your employer
    (be it DEC or someplace else).
    
    Good luck, and GO FOR IT!
    
    Mark

    My response to the base noter is that although I understand your
    situation, you are not the only one that hasn't received a salary
    increase in a long time.  The alternative is not having a job at all
    and being TFSO'd.  Would you rather have that happen?
    
    Reality is that times have changed at Digital.  People are expected to
    work harder, do more, and receive the same or less.  Sad but true.
    
    Another alternative is to leave Digital.  Sometimes I feel that the
    company is trying to make it difficult so employees will leave. 

    In the 14 years with Digital I have been on both ends of the 
    discussion.  My problem with the "salary Planning policy" is this;
    
    1. It provides for a person to get a large bump to mid-point 
       "to be fair" but yet no objective performance to base that 
        bump on.  In the case of a transfer in.
    2. By using the "salary pot" to handle both the "fairness"
       bump and the performance increase, we are "unfairly"
       penalizing the "performer" with less increase or no 
       increase.  This "to be fair".
    3. You very rarely (in the last 5 years) earn your increase.
       It is simply doled out.  When we are done taking care 
       of those who we need to be "fair" with, the workers
       in that org. that have been there for over a year, are 
       left to split up the rest.  Usually, 12-24 mo. and 4%.
    
    THis is NOT an incentive based system.  It is a "fairness"
    based system.  And it all depends on who and how you are 
    defining fair.  MHO.
    
    mp

    Lots of replies in here talk about how to work within the system
    and how to "work" management into giving you a slice of the pie (pot).
    Other replies point out that no raise is still a better choice than
    no job.  And a couple have tried to put the "pay for performance"
    issue in perspective.
    
    The part that worries me is that there are a lot of people walking
    around in Digital right now that *know* they aren't going to get
    a raise next year (or just a token amount).  These people are left
    with the choice of protecting their jobs, and a lot of them are
    doing just that; job protection.  The incentive to excel, improve,
    or even be noticed is gone.  How does this benefit the company?
    
    Geoff

    Not exactly related to the salary topic, but to those who've 
    made the point about being de-motivated and sometimes feeling 
    that the company is trying to force people out without the
    benefit of a package, read this week's article on DUMBSIZING
    in Time magazine.  In summary, it says that often organizations
    that have downsized are left with employees who are:
    
    * stressed from overwork
    * have low morale
    * are less creative and innovative
    
    Sound like any companies you know?
    
    They also point out that PROFITS at these companies are not 
    increasing. 

    
    I have never in my 12 years with Digital complained about, inquired
    about, or been dissatisfied with my compensation, but...
    
    Get with it, folks.  This anger is not about not getting the increase,
    it's about management saying one thing, doing another, *AND* then rubbing
    it in.   If you believe the base noter's version of the story, management
    put its foot in mouth here and has some damage control to do.  If I was
    the base noter I would be unbelievably POd.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

       Re .19
    
      Did the TIME reporter write that article from walking around
    Digital?? It sure seems so...
    
      Re Basenote... "Welcome to the club!!" I was informed after waiting
    for my last review for over 15 months (WAS on a 12 month cycle...the
    manager changed the cycle, but didn't bother to tell me...) that I had
    not been included in the "plan" last year. Me and the other individual
    who was 'excluded' in the group are the most experienced, carry the
    heaviest, most sensitive and most complex workload in the group, have
    consistently been reviewed as "above average" (1's are unheard of in
    this area...unless it's the Manager's brother..). The manager who did
    this also didn't bother to tell us that we'd been taken out of the
    plan!! Then the guy SERP'd....which didn't really upset anyone too
    much. 
    
      Then we were all taken into a conference hall and given the lowdown
    on the "new" plan....part of which was the little tidbit that the
    salary "range" for specific job codes is bogus too....you can't get ANY
    increase if you are at 80% or higher in your range....the only way you
    can get another raise when you hit that point is to be PROMOTED into
    the next higher level...however...in the particular job that me and
    this other non-included person are working in, there is no possibility
    that we can ever get a promotion....even though the WORK we are doing
    is exponentially more complex and sensitive than anything THREE levels
    above us!! But NO WAY can we get into one of THOSE positions, because
    they are CROWDED with political players who have hunkered down and
    circled the wagons to protect those "positions" for themselves and
    their buddies. When an "opening" ever does occur in those environments,
    they are already 'filled' beflre they are even posted, and invariably
    it's not someone with any experience in the job, but usually a total
    outsider that KNOWS someone who can maneuver a deal so the politico can
    get into the position...
    
      Lets face it!! MOST of us work for MONEY! Oh, sure, it's really neat
    to be working in a job that we LIKE, but it sure won't do if the money
    isn't there.. Digital IS and HAS lost numerous high performers because
    of the uncertainty and poor treatment of employees recently. Those
    people hurt the company when they leave, because they ARE performers.
    Not that many high performers aren't still here, but as the TIME
    article points out, those of us that are left are being forced to
    shoulder tremendous burdens without any sense that Digital really gives
    a good damn about us or what we're doing every day. I am now carrying
    what formerly a department of 14 fulltime and 5 temp employees were
    doing, and I've been removed from the 'plan?????? I'm supposed to be
    enthusiastic, love to come to work, do that 'extra' bit, and get beaten
    every day for it, and see the politicos who are sitting around on their
    DUFFS all day get big raises????? GET REAL!!
    
      JM

    
    Question:
    
    Are salary ranges for various job codes published?  If so, where do I
    get them?
    
    -Ed
    

    You ask your boss who can show you your range and the next range up. 
    
    	dave

    
    Re: .22
    
    As pointed out by .23, your boss should have that information *and*
    you have a right according to company policy to know what it is.
    
    Steve
    
    

      We were also told that if your boss won't of can't give you the
    range for your job and the next level up, Personnel will give you that.
    As far as having access to ALL ranges, unless you have a 'contact'
    who has access to them, you won't be able to get them. In the
    good-old-days I used to have a close friend in personnel who I was 
    able to get them from, but she's long gone.... Actually, it's probably
    better that you can't get the entire list....just gonna make you feel
    bad seeing what some of the ranges in comparison to your
    anyway...unless you are on the Exec. Committee, that is...and then you
    would have access to them anyway...
    
    
      JM

    I know it's late, but
    
    
    I was involved in the salary planning effort for our group this year,
    and I must say that it was painful with the 4.0% (our organization did
    have a holdback for special cases)  
    
    What makes it even more painful is that given the numbers, people had
    to be pushed into the next salary planning year.  It was a fact, and 
    couldn't be debated.  To top it off, with the last downsizing, not only
    did the "lower performance" people get cut, but also some people who
    are good performers.  That left us with a very difficult situation with
    good and great performers and not enough money.
    
    
    Face it, salary planning and compensation at Digital (and most other
    big companies) often doesn't reflect what you'd be worth outside, and
    you often find that:
    
    	o	Of the people who do jobs very similar to yours, at similar
    		levels of responsibility, you are the lowest or one of the
    		lowest compensated.  Sometimes  with up to 30% differences
    
    	o	people who came from "outisde" closer to today are 
    		compensated more.  The longer you're here, the farther you
    		are from what I'd consider market value
    
    	o	Digital doesn't have true managers who only manage, they
    		are also contributors, andoften the ones with the most
    		experience in the organization.  There are many
    		cases that I've seen where the manager is compensated
    		significantly less than the employees who work for him/her.
    	
    
    Although Digital likes to say that they pay for performance, it's not
    quite true.  Yes, increases are given out based on performance, and
    those who are higher performers and low in the salary ranges (which by 
    the way you can generally drive a truck through) get  (and in my
    opinion deserve) higher raise than those who are low performers and
    high in the range.
    
    This is true of many large companies, and the bottom line is that if
    you start low in the range, you continue to stay low in the range given
    that if you're at the bottom and the best performer in the company, the 
    mathematics still won't get you where you want to be.
    
    
    -bill

              <<< Note 2407.26 by HARBOR::JACKSON "King Cynic" >>>

>    I know it's late, but
   
    
>    I was involved in the salary planning effort for our group this year,
>    and I must say that it was painful with the 4.0% (our organization did
>    have a holdback for special cases)  
>   
>    What makes it even more painful is that given the numbers, people had
>    to be pushed into the next salary planning year.  It was a fact, and 


What numbers are you talking about?  There were no metrics this year except 
that 1/4 of your dollars had to be spent each quarter.

    RE: .27
    
    
    There are lots of "special cases" that cause problems with the plan. 
    ( for instance a salary range changes and someone who was near the
    bottom is no longer in range)  Once these are worked into the plan,
    something has to give on the other end. (remember, this is really a
    zero-sum proposition)
    
    
    -bill

re .28

I understand, but your statement sounds like a generalization.  You may a 
have specific case that has caused you grief but, in general, salary planning 
was a lot easier ths year with no participation rates etc.

I just am trying to educate folks that there really are very few rules around
salary planning and that you shouldn't be snowed by your management.  They
can do almost anything they decide to do.  Even in tough times, you can
get plans chaged, get a dispensation for special cases, etc - but you have
to want to!  I've done salary plannig for many years here and have never
had a plan disapproved whether it was inside or outside the guidelines.
You just have to fight soemetimes . . .

    RE .27
    
    There most certainly was a spend number metric this year. For all the
    parts of the corporation I know about it was 4.4% with the odd .x%
    holdbacks at various levels.
    
    You are quite correct their were no participation metrics only the
    smooth the total raise $s across the 4 quarters metric. That was mainly
    to stop people from loading all the raises in CY93 Q1 and CY93 Q2.
    
    Dave

<<< Note 2407.30 by SMAUG::GARROD "From VMS -> NT; Unix a mere page from history" >>>
                       -< There certainly were metrics >-

>    RE .27
    
>    There most certainly was a spend number metric this year. For all the
>    parts of the corporation I know about it was 4.4% with the odd .x%
>    holdbacks at various levels.
    
Of course you are right, I was talking about participation stuff.  But a 
"spend" number has no effect on whether people get raises, only how much
they get. 

    RE:
    
>Of course you are right, I was talking about participation stuff.  But a 
>"spend" number has no effect on whether people get raises, only how much
>they get. 
    
    I disagree. With a low spend number you (or at least I do) tend to push
    more people out of the plan than if the spend number is higher. This
    comes from the recommendation that an employee should get a raise of x%
    or greater or 0%. So therefore the spend number does heavily impact
    whether people get a raise or not. Yes I know some people take the easy
    way out and just give everybody the same percentage raise at the same
    frequency. I've never done that and are not about to start now. I
    believe in pay for performance and within the confines of the salary
    planning guidelines try to do my best to do just that.
    
    Dave
    

<<< Note 2407.32 by SMAUG::GARROD "From VMS -> NT; Unix a mere page from history" >>>
             -< Spend number does indirectly affect participation >-

>    I disagree. With a low spend number you (or at least I do) tend to push
>    more people out of the plan than if the spend number is higher. This
>    comes from the recommendation that an employee should get a raise of x%
>    or greater or 0%. So therefore the spend number does heavily impact
>    whether people get a raise or not. Yes I know some people take the easy
>    way out and just give everybody the same percentage raise at the same
>    frequency. I've never done that and are not about to start now. I
>    believe in pay for performance and within the confines of the salary
>    planning guidelines try to do my best to do just that.
    
    Dave
    
Dave, I don't disagree with what you are saying.  i am only trying to point 
out that you have a lot of choices you can make.  Personally i take all 
recommendations with a very large grain of salt and tend to err on the side
of fairness to everyone whether I am inside or outside the guidelines.

We tend to do group salary planning in my group and that is taken into 
consideration as well.  Everyone in the group got a raise, none were below
the average and several folks got well above the average.  Everyone is planned
in the year and if it weren't for the quarterly payment, everyone would have
gotten a yearly review.

Again, I don't want people to get sucked in by their managers telling them
there are all kinds of restrictions, when in fact, there are few.

    
> I am only trying to point 
> out that you have a lot of choices you can make.  Personally i take all 
> recommendations with a very large grain of salt and tend to err on the side
> of fairness to everyone whether I am inside or outside the guidelines.

> We tend to do group salary planning in my group and that is taken into 
> consideration as well.  Everyone in the group got a raise, none were below
> the average and several folks got well above the average.  Everyone is planned
> in the year and if it weren't for the quarterly payment, everyone would have
> gotten a yearly review.

> Again, I don't want people to get sucked in by their managers telling them
> there are all kinds of restrictions, when in fact, there are few.

There are many managers in this company that honestly try to do their
best at salary planning, and ALSO abide by restrictions that are imposed
on them from their management and/or corporate guidelines.

I'd like to know how you explain "Everyone in the group got a raise, 
none were below the average and several folks got well above the average."
This implies to me that your group got above average raises at the expense
of folks in your organization in other groups.  I do not believe that you
can simply ignore the guidelines and give out whatever you feel is fair.

Regards,
Jean

       <<< Note 2407.34 by DCEIDL::J_FULLERTON "Jean Fullerton (ZKO)" >>>
                             -< Is this new math? >-

>There are many managers in this company that honestly try to do their
>best at salary planning, and ALSO abide by restrictions that are imposed
>on them from their management and/or corporate guidelines.

>I'd like to know how you explain "Everyone in the group got a raise, 
>none were below the average and several folks got well above the average."
>This implies to me that your group got above average raises at the expense
>of folks in your organization in other groups.  I do not believe that you
>can simply ignore the guidelines and give out whatever you feel is fair.

>Regards,
>Jean

The 4.4 percent translates to a dollar figure, we have several folks in 
the group who have fairly large salaries and 1 person who is above the
maximum for the job classification.  If I take all the dollars and apportion
them out, the low salary folks can get higher than 4.4% without using up
many dollars, the high salary folks can get the average.  One error i 
made was the the one person above the max did not receive a review.

So I didn't screw any other group and I actually abided by all the rules 
and came in right on the average with everyone getting a raise.

I'm going to say this one more time - I want folks to know that a lot of things
that managers say about salary planning aren't true.  You have a pot of
money and have to give it out at the same rate each quarter. Who you give
it to and why are all negotiable issues.

    
    Re .32:
    
    "This comes from the recommendation that an employee should get a raise of
    x% or greater or 0%."
    
    Could you provide a little more detail on this?
    

I would re-enforce the message that it is obvious that each organization/
group applied the rules/recommendations differently.

In our organization, we also did not have a participation metric. However,
we did have metrics on percentage 1 ratings, percentage 2 ratings, and
so forth. We then had rules which used the ratings to determine whether
a raise was given and how much. Adding the rules for promotion percentages,
quarterly distribution, etc., the plan was primarily driven by the
metrics and rules.

Our participation average was below 55%! I am not talking about a small 
organization (several thousand). From what I know, this is more likely
the norm than the exception. Any organization that ended up with full
participation and average (or above) raises this year is the exception.

One more point... you need to be careful when looking at the metrics. It
is difficult to apply them to small groups. One change can make a 
drastic difference in how they roll up.

							Mark

    
    During salary planning this year, our management took us through a
    contrived exercise in salary planning. The exercise caused me to
    suspect that there is a fairly widespread theory that it is somehow
    "better" to push a person out of the plan (and assumedly into the next
    year) than to give that person a low percentage raise this year.
    It was not clear to me why (or, for that matter, for whom) this was
    deemed "better".
    
    Would those of you who have participated in salary planning please
    comment on this?
    

    Re .-1
    
    The answer is. If you give someone a tiny raise the following happens:
    
    	a) They make sarcastic remarks about it being enough to go out for
    	   a beer etc.
    
    	b) No raise is less of a demotivator than a puny raise
    
    	c) If you give ANY raise at all you reset the clock for the time
    	   period to the next raise. The person could well end up better
    	   off with no raise (see d)
    
    	d) With no raise there is another opportunity to perform above the
    	   level matching the current pay. Let's say the raise could have
    	   been given in September 1993. If a person gets a raise then, it
    	   is highly unlikely that they participate in the CY94 plan
           whatever their performance level.
    	   Without a raise then they could well get a raise in Jan or Mar
    	   94 if performance takes a positive leap.
    
    Dave

    Indeed, Dave.  My wife worked at a pharmaceutical startup company once
    that scraped along with about 50 employees.  One year they gave out
    tiny raises.  Her coworker got a raise of two cents per hour.  She
    joked bitterly to her boss that it wasn't worth her while to take it.
    
    They took it back.

    
    $0.02 per hour?  That sure sounds like a sick joke, Steve.  Not very
    funny at that.
    
    
    Mike

    	You might not be laughing after you see YOUR raise this year!

    
    
    	RE -.2  I can attest to this that it wasn't a joke.  I worked
    	for a large drug store chain in Maine for 5 years and know of
    	people who were given a .05/hour raise!  And they weren't in 
    	tough times either!!!! Must be the nature of the business or
    	something.  I know I was real happy to leave there...