In compensation terms, the year 2007 ended with “money” talk. As we recalled, there were debates of how we should throw more cash at people to attract, and retain them. There were also discussions on “are we paid our worth?” and perceived pay equity.
For the public servants, their salaries were revised significantly higher to reflect the amount of compensation they expect to receive if they hypothetically resign from public duty to take on their dream jobs in private enterprises.
The thinking behind compensating talented public servants with top private enterprise salaries is to induce and retain them in the civil service. Is such thinking flawed, and taken in the interest of the public, especially when the motivation of work of the private enterprises is significantly different from that of the civil service?
According to March & Simon (1958), pay, within the context of the employment exchange, is an inducement to work. Money is provided in return for work and is based upon some specified contingency relationship between work and pay. To the extent that pay is desired as a medium of exchange with instrumental value, money provides people, either as means or an end, with a purpose to work.
In addition, pay can be conceived in terms of symbolism. The concept of symbol, in this context, is defined as a sign which signifies something other than itself. Do you remember the first dollar you earned when you started work? The symbolic meaning of the first dollar you earned signifies more than the instrumental value of a dollar. Clearly monetary pay symbolizes instrumentality as a medium of exchange, but it may also be associated with outcomes such as status, security, and achievement and thus acquire symbolic value as well.
Pay and reward systems in general is symbolic of organization culture. Will there be a clash of cultures between hierarchical bureaucracies and the horizontal organizations of the private sector? Are we motivating our public servants to behave like mercenaries?
In presenting the rationale and justification for paying public servants market benchmarks, our leaders appear to discount the symbolic value of pay. In all respect, the symbolic value of the high office of the land is worth a lot more than several millions of
But then again, if we ask ourselves whether we are pay competitively, our answers invariably would be negative, because money is never enough. Perhaps, we should start the year of the golden rat by questioning why we are paid so much for doing what we enjoy. Should we also be asking why we are paid so much for doing so little?
In the brave new world of 2008, we hope to have less “money talk” and more on the intangible value of reward management. The GROW 2.0 initiative announced by the Ministry of Education, Singapore may be a start.
In its 2007-08 Global Strategic Rewards study, the global consultancy firm Watson Wyatt concluded that employers and employees rank attraction and retention factors differently. They commented that the first thing employers need to do is to recognise the factors that attract and retain talent, and to realise that their expectations, as employers, are sometimes different from those of their employees.
For example, the Watson Wyatt study on accounting and finance industry in the Asia-Pacific region revealed that employers ranked base pay, employer reputation and career development opportunities as the top three attraction factors. On the other hand, employees ranked the nature of work, then base pay and employer reputation as the top factors that attracted them to a job.
In addition, the recent Watson Wyatt WorkAsia study found that drivers for employee engagement are customer focus, compensation and benefits, and communication. Employees said they wanted to feel good about the products and services their employer offers. Employees also said pay, stress levels and promotion opportunities were the main factors affecting their decision to stay with a firm. The amount of respect employees received in the workplace was another important factor in their decision to join or stay with a company.
Can we ask the real public servants the factors that will drive them to commit and engage themselves with the Public Service Division of Singapore? Do they intend to leave for greener pastures now that they are paid according to the private sector? Are our talented people currently working in global corporations applying in doves to serve the Public?
If we are to stop throwing more cash to attract and retain employees, we may need to understand their expectations more fully. We certainly need to keep the people who keep us in business. What do our public servants feel most passionate about as they serve? Will the real public servants and our private sector employees please speak out?
No comments:
Post a Comment