Have you ever worked at an organization where annual (or semi-annual) promotion cycles are the norm? Digitas currently has semi-annual promotion cycles. Depending on your point of view and expectations, the time leading up to promotion periods could be exciting or frustrating. For resource managers I think it's safe to say it's the toughest time of year. Attrition tends to spike around these dates, and often times you know the root cause - dissatisfaction with promotion results.
As resource managers, we partner with department leads and HR to strike a balance in promotion discussions each cycle. The focus of the discussion is always centered on employee "demands" (salary, title, prestige, etc.) and what the business is able/willing to "supply" (new revenue, next level openings, rotations, etc.) in the current cycle. Inevitably like any supply and demand curve we come to a middle point.
The "art" is in the give and take (budget, risk factor, opportunity, recognition, etc.) that leads the discussion to that middle point. As hard as it is to work out under normal circumstances, it becomes near impossible if you are dealing with staff that have no qualms about discussing and comparing compensation with one other.
These decisions often fail to satisfy everyone, and as currently designed I don't think they're meant to. Realistically, you know the compromise is excluding someone who merits a promotion, or watering down the promotion dollars so those that are promoted receive less. This is the paradox of promotion cycles: Promotions are a good thing, and a key retention tool for any organization. Yet often the decisions made on who to promote (and when) are like live grenades, and your job is to minimize the collateral damage. Throw in the idea that your staff knows what one another make and it has to make you wonder if we do more harm than good promoting anyone.
Assuming the above scenario, how do we prepare our department leads for the inevitable conversations that follow behind the "good news?"
As resource managers, we partner with department leads and HR to strike a balance in promotion discussions each cycle. The focus of the discussion is always centered on employee "demands" (salary, title, prestige, etc.) and what the business is able/willing to "supply" (new revenue, next level openings, rotations, etc.) in the current cycle. Inevitably like any supply and demand curve we come to a middle point.
The "art" is in the give and take (budget, risk factor, opportunity, recognition, etc.) that leads the discussion to that middle point. As hard as it is to work out under normal circumstances, it becomes near impossible if you are dealing with staff that have no qualms about discussing and comparing compensation with one other.
These decisions often fail to satisfy everyone, and as currently designed I don't think they're meant to. Realistically, you know the compromise is excluding someone who merits a promotion, or watering down the promotion dollars so those that are promoted receive less. This is the paradox of promotion cycles: Promotions are a good thing, and a key retention tool for any organization. Yet often the decisions made on who to promote (and when) are like live grenades, and your job is to minimize the collateral damage. Throw in the idea that your staff knows what one another make and it has to make you wonder if we do more harm than good promoting anyone.
Assuming the above scenario, how do we prepare our department leads for the inevitable conversations that follow behind the "good news?"
Comments
Post a Comment