Some time ago, I supervised a comparative salary study in West Africa, from which I learned a lot, although it was a sector where I started my career …
My client, an international NGO, had not questioned or reviewed its compensation practices for about ten years and had a salary grid that was no longer respected. Unfortunately, very little documentation and wage studies were available in this sector.
You know the song under such circumstances:
First, in terms of external equity, the multiplication of employers in the international NGO sector in the region created a “competitive” pressure on the talent market that quickly rendered obsolete the sector information available to my client. Each employee or class of employees went from his example of such an institution that paid better than my client did.
Secondly, in terms of internal equity, the successive distortions in the application of the existing remuneration grid had finally undermined any position that management could take on these issues.
There was an urgent need to correct these distortions on an objective and timely basis before demobilization could be completed.
1 for all, and (almost) all for 1
I had used the so-called « benchmark jobs » method, which is based on the degree of similarity between the content of benchmark jobs and the content of equivalent jobs within organizations that took part in the survey.
In order to make the project credible, the methodology and the wide panel of organizations to compare were introduced to all employees who had the opportunity to ask questions before the start of the study.
Then, the most serious challenge was to convince at least 15 of the 25 comparable organizations to play the game. To this end, we guaranteed them (i) the provision to all participating organizations of an executive summary of the salary study commissioned by one of their own; and (ii) the utmost confidentiality regarding the data that would be transmitted to us, in particular by the anonymous designation of all participating organizations, including my client.
In fact, only 13 of the 25 targeted organizations agreed to participate in the study, immediately seeing the benefit they could derive for themselves from this “1 for all, all for one”.
The “usual suspects” were not where we expected them to be
First surprise: seeing how reluctant these organizations were to the idea of providing their salary data. I must say that I started from the naïve assumption that NGO = TRANSPARENCY = NO PROBLEM COMMUNICATING ON SALARIES.
Second surprise: my client and his employees expected that the study concluded that there was a need to upgrade his categories of project and program manager positions, the core business of the organization. However, the study revealed, on the contrary, that not only were these jobs in the upper average of market remuneration but that all support and administrative job categories were systematically paid below the market.
3rd surprise, finally: I was able to notice the quasi non-existence of variable remuneration components in relation to performance in this sector. To be honest, I even had the impression to rude talk when I questioned managers on this subject during individual interviews.
And here we go again!
The survey’s results had an immediate appeasement effect on employees and managers when I presented them: on the one hand because objective facts and data were finally replacing rumors and hearsays; on the other hand, because management promised an immediate salary readjustment for all categories that were below the market range.
The most surprising part for me was that executives and managers, my client’s core business (who probably expected a reassessment the most), did not dispute the survey’s results.
Equity, I am telling you! Immediate return of staff commitment and credit for managerial speech regained thanks to a minimum of transparency and a demonstration of good faith in the corrective actions taken.
Well, I tried, on this great momentum, to suggest to the head of this international NGO to take advantage of the unexpected positive effect to set up a remuneration system incorporating a part of a variable indexed to individual and collective performance indicators.
I was just given a shabby look and a ironic half-smile: “In fact, you’re a kind of arsonist, who ignores himself, you! ».I did not insist. But I really enjoyed this exercise.
