Will the public servants speak out?

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 Singapore dollars. If we cost the symbolic value of pay, our public servants’ pay may be placed beyond the red circle; a term used to denote salaries that exceeds the top pay range in their grades.

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?

Is Grow 2.0 the Growth Bonus?

Based on the response from the Singapore Teachers Union on the Ministry of Education's (MOE) announcement of its new renumeration scheme, Grow 2.0 may have the effect of attracting talented people to the education profession and positioning teachers and educators more than "a step child" to the other professions.


http://www.todayonline.com, 29 December 2007, More Apples For Teachers

From a reward management perspective, money is never enough. Simply throwing more cash at a problem may motivate teachers to behave like mercenaries. It may also have the undesired outcome of attracting more people into the profession for the wrong reasons, as semi-retired military officers and the unemployed may have once dream of becoming teachers in our schools.

The internet poll conducted by Channel News Asia (accessed on 31 December 2007, 0535 hr Singapore time) re-enforces the notion of "money for nothing" syndrome.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/polls/index.php?action=vote&id=74&ranid=7757&voteNr=1

Perhaps, Grow 2.0 may address the "money not enough" mentality fueled by debates on ministerial salaries and pay hikes of public servants. The most significant change in Grow 2.0, in my opinion, is that public servants at the Singapore Ministry of Education may no longer be perceived as "money-grabbers" conducting the business of education.

Competitive salaries, as the Singapore Minister of Education commented, are "a necessary condition, even if they are not sufficient to ensuring a top-class teaching service.” He adds that “there is no trade-off between ensuring that we pay teachers competitively and sustaining the commitment and passion for teaching”.

More importantly, the Growth, Career Development, and Well-Being components of the MOE's reward program may be relevant in attracting and retaining people who have the passion to teach, to share knowledge, and to do something useful with their lives. After all, it has always been the non-tangible rewards that attracted the "people sculptors' into the teaching profession and education in the first place.

In addition, Growth 2.0 may be a breath of fresh air in an otherwise "Gordon Gekko" playground. Resource allocation, continuous learning, career mobility, balance in work life for teachers and their spouses regardless of gender, work performance differentiation, spot bonuses, and the refinements contained in the connect (gratuity?) program could spark an "education revolution" within the teaching profession. Whether it stays a revolution in the classroom remains to be seen as the devil is always in the details.

On a positive note, Grow 2.0 may not be contingent on the exceptionable growth (?) of the Singapore economy. Inspiring young people to be entrepreneurs through education is very different from motivating "bottom-line" results-oriented behaviours regardless of ethics, morality, and its undesired consequences.

An English teacher from a secondary school sums up the MOE reward initiative aptly, “Performance-based pay is a double edged sword because it benefits those who shine the most.” The teacher who declined to be named adds “But there are teachers who are more low-profile, yet doing very good work that might go unnoticed.” But then, if you are starving, it is better to be in the kitchen.

Regardless, the anonymous English teacher has a point. We want our teachers to mould our kids and young adults into thinkers, and reflective practitioners. In the realm of "Gordon Gekko", people may have substantial form and dubious substance. These are the extrovert "money-grabbers", and the highly successful players in the game. As we frame our performance indicators for teachers and educators, we should avoid the folly of "rewarding A while hoping for B".

Incidentally, GROW is an acronym for the MOE pay package for "the professional and personal Growth of education officers, through better Recognition, Opportunities, and seeing to their Well-being". What a mouthful !!! and how creative can our public servants at MOE get?

Version 1.0 was announced on 4 September 2006, and version 2.0 on Friday. Perhaps, our technocrats are migrating from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 metaphorically. Can we stop dehumanizing people by digitalizing them with alphanumeric labels? Otherwise, we may get to GROW version 3.0, release 8A in quick time.

Tomorrow will be a brand new year. If there is a new year message, it would be a "keep it simple, stupid" (KISS) message. The success of a reward program lies in its simplicity, and the ability to communicate its value. Not many of us will comprehend the details of our hospitalization benefits or our insurance policy until we are warded, strapped to our hospital beds, and search frantically for that additional insurance cover presented in small prints.

Happy New Year and Good Health !!!

Money not enough?

This year has been rather eventful for reward management practitioners. Firstly, an upward pressure on salaries, amidst a tight labour market, caused numerous companies to match counteroffers of competitor firms to retain key employees. Secondly, the Singapore government revamped the salary management system of its civil service to keep pace with benchmark salaries of the private sector. To link rewards more closely to performance, the government increased the proportion of annual salary that is variable. At the senior levels, as much as 50 per cent of the annual salary is performance-based. According to a compensation consultant, “the civil service increasingly finds itself competing for talent against the private sector and as such, needs to ensure that its pay packages are competitive and aligned with its objective of attracting top talent’

Although the justification for paying public servants top salaries is to attract and retain key civil servants, it may have created a bridge that connects the stigmatised lowly paid public servants and the highly paid private enterprise executives. The dichotomy between public and private sector salaries will be blurred, and the traditional mindset of lowly salaried public servants may over time be eradicated. With the revised salary management system for public servants, the Singapore Government is setting the salary benchmarks that private enterprises will inevitably follow to stay competitive.

In the public sector, pay is symbolic. The perception of pay equity is an emotional topic. It is more so if the rewards of the political leaders of the country are intimately pegged to market pricing, benchmarked against the most successful chief executives of global corporations, and built on the public servant salary structures. It must be the dream of public servants to be rewarded as corporate entrepreneurs without the risks, responsibilities, accountability and/or competence to manage a business. As expected, ministerial salaries and bonuses created much attention and debate these past months.

In recent years, compensation of chief executives and senior management of private enterprises have been under scrutiny by stakeholders. At shareholders meetings, stakeholders are disgusted at the manner senior managers reward themselves regardless of company performance and returns on investments. In many instances, non-performing executives are offered golden parachutes amounting to millions of dollars as they are shown the back door. One need to go no further than to examine the classic case of Enron to understand why pay for performance and incentive schemes of the Anglo-Saxons led to the collapse of the organisation.

For more than twenty years, the Anglo-Saxons embrace pay for performance system as the panacea for driving employees’ behaviours towards the goals and objectives of organizations, often ignoring “the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B”. In his research on the mythology of management compensation, Edward Lawler III argued against the effectiveness of pay for performance in “why is pay no longer an incentive to better job performance". More recently, Michael de Beer conducted a survey on a sample of global senior executives examining “if incentives work?” Their results suggested that careful efforts to design an incentive system to make pay contingent on unit performance may be misguided, and raised questions about the worldwide trend towards the use of more executive incentives. Unfortunately, many organisational practitioners are still paying extraordinary attention to pay for performance. Are practitioners familiar with the notion of pay without performance?

The Singapore government may have embedded the cultural aspects of reward management by imposing Anglo-Saxon practices on its servants in predominant Singaporean Chinese work communities. As an example, the dimension of power distance as espoused by Hofstede, within the context of reward management, refers to the degree of inequality that is tolerable between salaries. Countries with a high power distance can have extremely wide salary gaps (income disparities) that would not be tolerated in countries with a low power distance. Within countries (as well as companies) with a high power distance, it is accepted both implicitly and explicitly that people at lower levels of the organization should be paid little, and people at the top should be paid a great deal. Under these circumstances, is there a sense of guilt at the boardroom where people at the top are compensating themselves with obscene salaries and bonuses and the lower levels of an organization are drawing minimal wages barely adequate to meet hygiene levels? In the context of a high power distance work environment of "Yes Minister", the ethics of performance reward should be taken seriously. Otherwise, pay and performance may arbitrarily be determined by a "few good men", regardless of corporate governance.

Although the government has announced the revised salary management system, many questions remained unanswered:

• Is the Anglo-Saxon’s pay for performance scheme designed on the premise of private sector enterprises, relevant and aligned to the Singapore civil service in terms of its purpose, its objectives, and the culture of public servants?
• Should the rejuvenated public service rewards scheme be a pay for (past?) performance, pay for competence, pay for (future?) contributions, or simply pay for service excellence?
• Are we encouraging public servants to be mercenaries as we throw more monies at them?

Soon, public servants, accustomed to higher salaries, will seek more salaries and bonuses so that they will not be dissatisfied with work. Seriously, is there a causal link between civil servants offering public service and an economy doing exceptionally well? Perhaps, we will experience Steven Kerr’s “folly of rewarding A while hoping for B?” in due course.

It is always convenient to justify salary increases with market pricing of benchmark companies. Inevitably, adopting salary surveys for competitive benchmarking purposes will result in upward spiraling salary costs, and intense pressure on companies to pay more. In addition, salary surveys are dated, and is an indication of pay for past performance. Do we really need to look back in order to move forward?

Reward management practitioners should go beyond the cash components of compensation and examine total rewards in the context of the industry the reward plan operates. Just as it is a folly to pay public servants private sector salaries, it will be a folly to pay volunteers and full time employees of charitable and/or non profit organizations private sector salaries, as a senior public servant suggested in his keynote speech at a recent charity dinner.

Regardless, money is never enough.