Salary History? Don’t Ask and Don’t Tell
Last July, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law a bill that prohibits employers from asking a candidate for their previous job salary history. Illinois is not alone. In the U.S., there are currently 17 statewide bans and 19 local ordinances that have acted against discussing salary history. With more states adopting these practices in the next 6-12 months, the question of “why?” comes to mind. Some municipalities, like Philadelphia, are choosing not to follow this mandate, arguing that taking away this question was inhibiting an employer’s First Amendment right to free speech. The fact remains that asking a candidate for their salary history allows for discrimination and does not always provide the top-quality candidate that companies spend thousands of dollars trying to find. As business leaders, hiring managers, and recruiters, we have to ask ourselves— is knowing a candidate’s salary history all that important? After all, we have a set compensation range (low-mid-high) that we have budgeted for an open position. If a candidate meets and exceeds the requirements, qualifications, and behaviors for the role and fits within the compensation range, does it matter? After all, both the employer and candidate win. Maybe the employer doesn’t get the “deal” they wanted or lower their expenses by getting the candidate for less than the compensation range. The candidate may also get a lot more in compensation than they received in their last position. Is that an adverse outcome? Or could it have the effect of engaging and motivating the new employee to increase his or her performance? Think back to your last interview. You were probably a little nervous being the center of attention, knowing that one key answer could land you a job or send you back to the drawing board. You did your research on the role and knew the range a prototypical person in this position would make, but the company has not divulged their compensation range for the job. Then they ask the dreaded question, “How much are you currently making, or what did you previously make?” Most employers assume these guided questions are to measure compatibility between past and future positions. However, for many candidates, this question feels like a trap. If the current salary is too high, the candidate could be pushed aside for being overpriced or overqualified. Indicate a range that is too low, and the candidate might receive less than the value of the job. There are also ethical questions at work. Shift the Conversation When examining questions regarding salary history, there is an opportunity for labor compliance violations. This question allows for disparate impact, which unknowingly discriminates against a group of people, especially women when compared to men for the same position. According to Business Insider, a Hispanic woman makes 53% of what a white male makes in a given year. These statistics vary by state, as some have enacted policies to close the wage gap, but the average data shows that this gap is still very much alive. Assigning a salary based on past employment earnings continues errors of the past rather than righting a wrong and determining the adequate compensation based on the position and responsibilities it brings. By creating laws prohibiting employers from inquiring about salary history, many states feel they are taking a step toward complying with the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 and attempting to close the wage gap. How do we move forward and continue to find ways to make sure the candidate matches the role if salary history is now out of the equation? Carolyn Cowper, V.P. of Performance and Rewards with The Segal Group in New York City, advises, “Shift the conversation to the candidate’s salary expectations rather than salary history, then move on to focus on the candidate’s skill set and qualifications for the role.” Recruiters now feel it necessary to ask the candidate what they think they are worth — taking a net worth of all their talents, experience, and assets that they will bring to a new position. For example, one person could make twice the salary of another but only have half of the work ethic and drive. When you take a deep dive into the backend of the hiring process, we see that salary history tells us very little. In a study done by Workplace Culture, they reported that 86% of millennials would take a pay cut if it meant working at a company with a better company culture. Work-life balance, a culture of advancement, and education reimbursements are often more important than compensation to today’s candidates. As a business, it is in your best interest to find people that share similar values and goals to help grow the company into the future. The Market is Speaking Many states agree that it does not matter how much you made in your past job. You should, instead, be getting paid the market price of the current position. Candidates should take it upon themselves to research the standard salary rate before going to the interview, and employers should also monitor this as well to see if they’re competitive. There are many online sources for these statistics (Salary.com, Glassdoor, and PayScale). Company leaders, hiring managers, and recruiters should ask the question by taking a “Total Rewards” approach: What is your desired base salary? Bonus? Benefits? Vacation? Other rewards (for example, educational reimbursement) and then let the discussion progress from there. As record low unemployment continues, and there are less skilled workers available for more increasingly skilled open positions, there are already hiring and employment trends happening that would have been unthinkable just 5-years ago — retention bonuses, extraordinary counteroffers, and even limiting background checks. Even Non-Compete Agreements are on the block. They are already not enforceable in 4 states (including California), and resistance is growing with a Senate bill introduced last year looking for a nationwide ban. In such an environment, it stands to reason that asking for a candidate’s salary history and other employer-favored actions will become history. Be prepared.
Be an Investor When Recruiting and Hiring
Who you hire is one of the most important decisions and investments you can make in your business. However, recruiting and hiring today is more important than finding a person with the right skills and qualifications. Do the candidates fit our culture and strategic vision? Do they share our values and have the right behaviors to make them successful and provide your company a long-term return? Will they still be around in 5 years? Warren Buffett is considered to be one of the most successful investors of all time and is currently the third wealthiest person in the world. Regardless of one’s opinion of the “Oracle of Omaha,” it is hard to argue with his amazing track record of success. As the Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has inspired millions, while making billions through a philosophy of investing that can also be applied to successful hiring practices in your business. Aside from utilizing financial ratios and other analytical tools to find undervalued companies he can invest in, there are other key considerations that Buffett and many other successful investors look for before making a decision. Never compromising on business quality, taking the long view, and listening to those you know and trust, to name a few hallmarks of Buffett’s investment strategy. Could thinking as an investor also be applied to hiring? After all, when recruiting and hiring a person to join your company, you are making a major investment. That same hire can often be critical for the future success of the company. Time, training, compensation, benefits and other “rewards” for the people you employ are your investments in growing your business and making a return. In today’s low-unemployment, low-retention “candidate’s market,” approaching recruiting and hiring as an investor may make the difference and lead to better decision-making in this critical area. Never Compromise on Quality “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.” – Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway was originally a textile manufacturer when Buffett first took control in 1962. He later stated that entering the textile business was one of his worst trades ever but kept the name. That experience taught Buffett that “you get what you pay for.” He was no longer interested in buying something at a bargain in the hope of getting a nice short-term return, especially when the long-term prospects for the business look terrible. He chose a path of “value investing,” in which he looks for prices that are low compared to their actual or future worth and often overlooked by other investors. Never compromising on quality can also be applied to hiring. For example, Candidate A is a high-quality candidate that matches all of the skills, qualifications, experience, behaviors and cultural alignment needed for great success in the position. “A” checks off all of the boxes, has been thoroughly screened and you can see a bright long-term future. Candidate B also has many of the same skills and qualifications. “B’s” behaviors and culture fit were not as strong and the references not as glowing, nor was there a projected long-term future with the company. Here’s the kicker— “B” wants 20% less in salary than “A.” How many would automatically gravitate to Candidate B because they felt they were saving the company money or had to stick to a budget? Quality investments yield high returns and increase in value over time, similar to Candidate A in our example. How does this apply to value investing? Candidate B will inevitably cost the company more over time and return less due to low engagement, poor cultural fit and eventual turnover – in other words a lot more than the 20% saved in Candidate A’s compensation. As Buffett has stated, “Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.” Taking the Long View Once asked how long he would hold a high-quality investment he made at what was considered a reasonable price, Buffett answered, “Our favorite holding period is forever.” Embracing a “buy and hold” investment philosophy, many of his investments have been held for decades. Buffett and investors care more about the future price than the value it was on the day it was purchased. As a business leader, you should care more about what a new hire can bring you a few years into the future instead of having them be able to “hit the ground running” and automatically start making returns on day one. Look for those candidates who are quick learners and can innovatively solve problems. They are the ones that have the experience and behaviors that will help them integrate quickly into your company and excel in the future. Smart investors also continue to invest – just as companies need to keep investing in their people. While you may not have the budget to increase their compensation, look for other ways to invest in your new hires and current top talent and leadership. In a recent Udemy “Workplace Boredom Report,” 46% of employees are looking to leave their companies because of a lack of opportunity to learn new skills, and 80% agree that being given more opportunities to learn new skills would make them more interested and engaged in their work. Do you offer continuing education, seminars, training programs and other developmental programs that will keep your employees learning new skills? There is a measurable ROI to upskilling your employees, and often it is in the form of productivity gains, increased engagement, more profitability and reduced turnover. Listen to Those You Know and Trust “Management changes, like marital changes, are painful, time-consuming, and chancy.” – Warren Buffett Warren Buffett has always noted the importance of only investing in competent and trustworthy management teams. He knows that when he selects partners or managers, their actions and decisions will be felt for many years. As a business leader, you too must be cognizant of selecting competent and trustworthy people to join your organization. They could have a
Employer Strategies to Succeed in a Candidate’s Market: Lead, Match or Lag
Part 2 of a 2-Part Series on the Important and Timely Issue of Hiring in a Candidate’s Market When I turned 21 years old, I was in my Junior year at Bowling Green State University and had just changed majors from Music Education to Business. It was then that my dad gave me my first $500 to invest in the stock market. With it came a book by Louis Rukeyser titled, “How to Make Money in Wall Street.” In that book, Mr. Rukeyser introduced me to an axiom of investing that no doubt predates him, but I found the application well beyond investing: “A bull makes money, a bear makes money, but a pig goes broke.” The axiom was referencing a rising economy (as in the horns of a bull pointing up) and a declining economy (as in a bear swiping down for its prey). But the reference to the pig is about those who invest with greed, trying to time the markets and get rich quick rather than selecting the appropriate investment strategy for the current market flow. Now, I’m not a market prognosticator here to tell you how to make a quick buck on Wall Street, but the axiom has some interesting applications that can make or break your company if you know how to apply it with three critical human capital investment strategies. The last article, “Employer Strategies to Succeed in a Candidate’s Market,” addressed various direct and indirect compensation elements that can be flexed in order to build customized and compelling offers to attract top talent in the current competitive candidate’s market. In addition, the need for a compensation philosophy and strategy was outlined. What are these strategies? Simply put they are: Lead, Match or Lag. Piece of cake, right? Well, as with all things in business, it’s not that easy. Let’s understand what they mean first. LEAD: This is the most straightforward. In short, you pay more for the talent than the going market rate. After all, who wouldn’t want to take a job that pays more than anyone else in the same role in another company? MATCH: On second thought, perhaps THIS is the most straightforward. All you have to do is match the current market. Surely candidates will buy into the fact that, “this is the rate… take it or leave it?” Right? LAG: Then there is the biggest money saver of them all and an employer’s dream. Pay less than everyone else for the same talent to do the same job. You’ll rake in the money and not have to share! Well, maybe not. Unfortunately, they just are not as easy as they sound, but they are the strategies that need to be employed and each really does have its own place. The compensation philosophy of the organization should include an understanding of the underlying strategy you choose from the above. Understanding where the market is will help you better set the appropriate compensation for each position and situation. The hard part is when the market is changing right before your very eyes— as in today’s market! As SHRM points out in their article on planning and design, “There is not one strategy that will work for every employer and organizations will need to ensure the approach they choose matches their mission, vision, and culture and supports the overall business strategy.” Rather than adhere to a singular strategy across the organization, especially in the current candidate’s market, consider implementing a combination of each. As an example, you might choose to: LEAD: A great option for those mission critical and hard-to-fill roles where attracting top talent in a timely manner will make or break organizational success. MATCH: A recommended option for mission important and challenging roles that could just be a pain to have to fill and where there is a high potential of attrition due to market perception. LAG: Many businesses have roles of lower importance where labor may still be plentiful or where vacancies are less damaging to the organization. For those roles where the time sensitivity or mission impact is low, this is an excellent option. Spreading out the strategy in this fashion across roles by importance and impact can soften the blow to your P&L and provide the cash flow necessary to apply the “Lead” strategy used in other roles. However, let’s not fixate on cost too much. Remember the tools in the toolbox from the previous article? Not all of your tools revolve around base compensation, direct compensation, or even compensation at all! That’s right, the strategies COULD conceivably look like this: LEAD: Mission critical, hard-to-fill roles include a robust relocation plan, signing bonus, and/or a diverse set of PERKS not offered to any other role in the organization (but offered to all roles in this category). MATCH: Mission important, high attrition and painful-to-fill roles include lump sum relocation of a defined range based on need, flexibility for remote work, a retention bonus for 2-3 years of service and/or an attractive but narrow array of PERKS. LAG: Low time sensitivity or mission impact roles include a retention bonus for 3-5 years of service and/or a narrow array of PERKS. Still, many hiring managers, particularly those with no budgetary control or line-of-site often jump right to, “I want XYZ person so just pay them more!” If you cannot reasonably do that because you will blow your budget and risk pushing the organization into the red, then you cannot always lead the market. Leading the market may not always be the right answer for your company and may not even align with your organization’s mission, vision and culture. Here is where Mr. Rukeyser’s investment axiom comes into play. As human resource personnel, compensation managers, or even accounting/finance professionals, basically the function that often holds this responsibility in small and some mid-sized companies, we need to be prepared to educate our hiring managers around the axiom of bulls, bears, and pigs. Where necessary we should instill proper controls to reel
Employer Strategies to Succeed in a Candidate’s Market
Part 1 of a 2-Part Series on the Important and Timely Issue of Hiring in a Candidate’s Market It’s a Candidate’s Market! We’ve all heard this statement, and many business leaders and hiring managers are sick of hearing it yet remain confused about how to properly address the current employment market. Business leaders want to know, “What does this mean and how does it impact my business?” Many current leaders and hiring managers grew into their roles as the Great Recession began its correction and hiring began to ramp up. Throughout the recession and its recovery, businesses became lulled into a false sense of security that labor was plentiful and inexpensive. Now many are earning a new kind of MBA as they scramble to figure out how to navigate this employment market, meet the demands of customers, and still make a profit. After all, supply and demand impacts labor too. No matter what the market is: when supply is low, and demand is high, prices rise. Right? Well, sort of. When it comes to a candidate-driven market, compensation is always the big elephant in the room. We can look away all we want, but until we address it, that huge, gray, mammoth beast will just remain waiting to squash the deal you are hoping to close whether it is a hire, promotion, or even a retention bonus. From the standpoint of crafting offers in recruitment, where do you start? What do you do first? If you try to address every compensation concern on a case-by-case basis, it is doomed to fail. We recommend you be proactive and develop a compensation philosophy. Compensation Philosophy and Total Rewards What is a compensation philosophy? According to the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), “compensation philosophy provides guidance to compensation professionals in the initial setup and ongoing maintenance of the compensation infrastructure.” SHRM does provide concrete examples of philosophy structure elements that are typical of organizations and include setting target pay rates at some percentile of the market, providing incentives to meeting goals that deliver total direct compensation at a higher percentile, and long-term incentives such as stock options for senior professionals and managers when their performance aligns with shareholder objectives. Understanding the elements of a philosophy for your organization is critical to avoid the wild-wild-west behaviors around compensation that can bankrupt a company. There are 2 core types of compensation: direct and indirect. According to SHRM, “direct compensation refers to wages paid to employees in exchange for work and includes wage and salary, variable pay and stock awards.” According to HRZone, indirect compensation is “non-monetary remuneration provided to employees including annual leave, overtime allowance, health insurance, life insurance, company car, and mobile and pension funds.” The combined compensation and benefits, along with personal growth initiatives, is commonly referred to as Total Rewards.1 Certain elements of a Total Rewards Program cannot be adjusted to meet changing market demands on a candidate-by-candidate basis as those elements are built and negotiated a year or more in advance and/or there are legal constraints preventing flexibility. Elements dealing with direct compensation and other incentives and initiatives can be customized to meet the changing market demands and tailor a unique offer for each candidate. How can direct compensation be flexed to meet the needs of a candidate? We do not want to equate discussions of compensation with that of base pay. There are many ways to construct an offer that will be attractive and win the right candidate over the fierce competition. Instead of being fixated on base pay, flexibility can come in the form of: Bonus Incentives: If there are concerns about hiring too far outside the budgeted base, are there opportunities to adjust bonuses or commissions? Can you develop variable compensation appropriately tied to Key Performance Indicator metrics that provide revenue breathing room for you to compensate based on performance? When hires occur mid or end-of-year, can a guarantee of a minimal amount of bonus be made with flexibility tied to performance? Signing Bonus: When using a signing bonus, it is common to have an agreement with a claw-back option to help encourage the new hire to remain in their role. 1 year is standard, but there is flexibility depending on the size of the bonus and the level of the position. Retention Bonus: Developing a culture people want to work within is critical but more companies are layering in a retention bonus in support of a strong culture. The business rewarding an employee after 1, 3 or 5 years with a bonus goes much further than a plaque or “gold watch.” Relocation Assistance: The right talent may not always be within a reasonable daily commute of the work location and not every role is best performed remotely even if you are willing to let some roles perform at remote locations. Are you willing and financially able to provide a proper level of relocation assistance? This does not always have to be a full-pack move with a home purchase. A far less expensive option is a lump-sum relocation payment net of taxes for the candidate. If you offer relocation, terms should be defined in a relocation agreement including a claw-back option to help encourage retention. Being competitive in a candidate’s market includes the benefits and growth initiatives you offer, especially the indirect compensation elements of a Total Rewards plan, which can often make all the difference. Considerations When Developing a Total Rewards Plan The size of your company has certain implications around what benefits you must offer or limitations on how much you can offer (e.g. PPACA, HIPAA, ADAAA, ERISA, et al. requirements relating to who must offer medical coverage, limitations on costs for wellness programs, and pension/401k maximums to name a few). Not every company is required to offer benefits, and your company can be competitive in the market with or without them. What you offer and the degree to which you offer them can be a differentiating factor and cost less than direct compensation. PERKS,