Chapter 2serdtfyguhip

MilkovichNewman:
Compensation, Eighth
Edition
Front Matter
2. Strategic Perspectives
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
Chapter Two
Strategic Perspectives
Chapter Outline
Strategic Perspective
Support Business Strategy
Which Pay Decisions Are Strategic?
Stated versus Unstated Strategies
Developing a Total Compensation
Strategy
Step 1: Assess Total Compensation
Implications
Step 2: Map a Total Compensation
Strategy
Steps 3 and 4: Implement and Reassess
Source of Competitive Advantage:

Three Tests
Align
Differentiate
Add Value
Best Fit versus Best Practices
So What Matters MostBest Practices
or Best Fit?
Virtuous and Vicious Circles
Your Turn: Mapping Compensation
Strategies
Still Your Turn: Difficult to Copy?
You probably think you can skip this chapter. After all, what can be so challenging about
a compensation strategy? How about this for a strategy: Well let the market decide what
we need to pay people!
Unfortunately, a dose of reality quickly reveals that employers cannot behave so simply. Companies compete very differently for very similar talent. We have already compared compensation objectives in Chapter 1. In Exhibit 2.1, we compare compensation
strategies at Firepond, Microsoft, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). The three companies
approach the five dimensions of compensation strategy in very different ways. However,
each companys compensation strategy supports its business strategy. Firepond is a small
start-up that offers software solutions to traditional firms trying to grow the e-sales part
of their business. All three of the companies in the exhibit emphasize employee performance and commitment, but each company does it very differently. In spite of the dramatic decline of the stock market in the early 2000s, Firepond continues to offer its employees the chance to hit it big by emphasizing stock options and deemphasizing cash
(base and bonus) compared to its competitors.1 This strategy remains common among
1John L. Nesheim, High Tech Start Up (Saratoga, CA: John L. Nesheim, 1997); Michael Wanderer, Dot-Comp:
A Traditional Pay Plan with a Cutting Edge, WorldatWork Journal, Fourth Quarter 2000, pp. 1524.
27
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
28 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives
EXHIBIT 2.1 Strategic Perspectives toward Total Compensation
Internal
Alignment
Objectives
Microsoft
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Firepond
Support the business

objectives
Support recruiting,
motivation, and
retention of MS-caliber
talent
Preserve MS core
values
Support business
mission and goals
Develop global leaders
at every level
Reinforce team-based
culture
Reduce costs, increase
productivity
Demonstrate respect for

individual talent and
the limitless potential
of a highly motivated
team
Encourage high
standards of excellence,
original thinking, a
passion for the process
of discovery, and a
willingness to take risks
Reward fresh ideas,
hard work, and a
commitment
to excellence
Value diverse
perspectives as a key to
discovery
Integral part of MS
culture
Support MS
performance-driven
culture
Business/technologybased organization
design structure
Reflect responsibilities,
required competencies,
and business impact
Flexibility for
development and
growth
Pay differences that

foster a collegial
atmosphere
Reinforce high
expectations
start-up companies because it conserves cash for operating expenses (e.g., Friday beer
and pizza, and paying the rent on the garage) and funding growth.
In its earlier years, Microsoft followed this same strategy explicitly. It asked its employees to put some skin in the game, or accept less base pay to join a company whose
stock options were increasing in worth exponentially.2 But things changed. Confronted
with pressure from current employees dissatisfied with their pay and nonperforming
2
R. Herbolt, Inside Microsoft, Harvard Business Review, January 2002; Richard Waters and Scott
Morrison, Microsoft Ends Employee Stock Options, Financial Times July 9, 2003; Holman W. Jenkins
Jr., Stock Options are Dead, Long Live Stock Options, Wall Street Journal July 16, 2003, p. A15; Sarah
Kershaw, For Newer Microsoft Employees, A Sense of Redress, New York Times July 10, 2003. An
option is the opportunity to buy stock at a set price. If the value of shares increases, then the option has
value (market price minus the set option price). Awards grant employees stock whose value is its market
price. Later chapters discuss stock options and awards in detail.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 29
EXHIBIT 2.1 continued
Management
Employee
Contributions
Externally
Competitive
Microsoft
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Firepond
Lead in total
compensation
Meet base pay and
bonuses
Lead with stock awards
Compare favorably to
higher-performing
competitors
Cash between the 50th
and 75th percentile
"Pay what others are

paying"
Bonuses and stock

awards based on
individual
performance
Support high
performance, leadership
culture
Team-based increases
Options align employee
and shareholder interest
Tailor to business and
team results
Bonus pool based on

Firepond financial
performance; individual
share of pool based on
individual performance
Push stock ownership
deep into company
Open, transparent
communications
Centralized
administration
Software supported
Performance and
leadership feedback
everyone is a leader
Administrative ease
Goal-focused, teamoriented, and selfmanaged
stock, Microsoft first shifted its strategy to increase its base and bonus to the 65th percentile from the 45th percentile, of competitors pay, while retaining its strong emphasis
on options. More recently, Microsoft replaced eye-popping stock options with stock
awards based on individual performance. Beyond this, it added a level to its internal
structure, a new title of Distinguished Engineer for jobs critical to Microsofts success.
A former Microsoft executive calls the company the new Boeinga solid place to work
in Seattle for a good salary. Microsoft has shifted from a workaholic, high riskmaybe
get rich quick to a work hardget a great return philosophy. It has not only changed
how much (total compensation) but also what mix of pay forms it offers (relative importance of base, bonus, stock, and benefits).
The approach at BMS, a global pharmaceutical, differs. BMSs mission is to extend and
enhance human life. While it, too, uses options and bonuses tied to performance, the
amounts are much smaller than those at Firepond and Microsoft. BMSs strategy emphasizes
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
greater balance among cash compensation (base and bonus), options, and a generous package of work/life balance programs. BMS uses its compensation to reinforce teamwork; it
does not offer individual incentives except for a few extraordinary contributors. It also focuses on developing skills and leadership at all levels in the organization.
SAS Institute, the worlds largest privately owned software company, provides yet another compensation strategy. It emphasizes its work/life programs over cash compensation and gives only limited bonuses and no options. SAS headquarters in Cary, North
Carolina, includes free onsite child care centers, subsidized private schools for children of
employees, two doctors on site for free medical care, plus recreation facilities.3 Working
more than 35 hours per week is discouraged. By removing as many of the frustrations and
distractions of day-to-day life as possible, SAS believes people will focus on work when
they are at work. In contrast, Microsoft built part of its mystique on stories of engineers
sleeping under their desks and competing to be first in, last out of the company parking
lot. These companies have very different strategic perspectives on total compensation.
The importance of a strategic perspective is backed up by research, too. Recent studies
make it clear that a simple, let the market decide our compensation strategy does not
work when the focus is on improving performance. How much and what mix of forms
you pay (base and incentives) combined with other HR practices (e.g., selective hiring,
training, and performance management) enable employees to improve performance. Practices that link employees behaviors to each companys specificsknowledge of the specific work required, of specific products offered, and of specific customers servedare
required for success.4
A simple, let the market decide our compensation strategy doesnt work internationally either. In many nations, markets do not operate as in the United States or may not even
exist. People either do not, or in some cases, cannot easily change employers. In China,
central Asia, and some eastern European countries, markets for labor are just emerging.
Even in some countries with more developed economies, such as Germany and Sweden, the
labor market is highly regulated. Consequently, there is less movement of people among
companies than is common in the United States, Canada, or even Korea and Singapore.5
3SAS Institute, Stanford Business School case; Also, SAS: The Royal Treatment, 60 Minutes,
October 13, 2002.
4Rosemary Batt, Managing Customer Services: Human Resource Practices, Quit Rates, and Sales Growth,
Academy of Management Journal 45(3) (2002), pp. 587597; Casey Ichniowski, Thomas A. Kochan, David
Levine, Craig Olson, and George Strauss, What Works at Work: Overview and Assessment, Industrial
Relations 35(3) (July 1996), pp. 299333; A.Colvin, R. Batt, and H. Katz, How High Performance HR Practices
and Workforce Unionization Affect Managerial Pay, Personnel Psychology 54 (2001), pp. 903934; Watson
Wyatt Worldwide, Human Capital Index: Human Capital as a Lead Indicator of Shareholder Value, research
report, www.watsonwyatt.com, 2001; Jason D. Shaw, Nina Gupta, and John Delery, Congruence between
Technology and Compensation Systems: Implications for Strategy Implementation, Strategic Management
Journal 22 (2001), pp. 379386; Jason D. Shaw, Nina Gupta, and John Delery, Pay Dispersion and Workforce
Performance: Moderating Effects of Incentives and Interdependence, Strategic Management Journal 23
(2002), pp. 491512.
5D. Vaughan Whitehead, Wage Reform in Central and Eastern Europe, in Paying the Price, ed.
Vaughn-Whitehead (New York: St. Martins Press, 2000); Marshall Meyer, Yuan Lu, Hailin Lan, and
Xiaohui Lu, Decentralized Enterprise Reform: Notes on the Transformation of State-Owned Enterprises,
in The Management of Enterprises in the Peoples Republic of China, eds. Anne S. Tsui and Chung-Ming
Lau (Boston: Kluwer Academic, 2002) pp. 241274.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
Understanding the differences in compensation strategies becomes important during acquisitions and mergers as well. Autoworkers at the Volvo plant (now owned by Ford) in
Gothenburg, Sweden, can enjoy a gym, Olympic-size swimming pool, tennis, track and
tanning beds, along with a hot-water pool and physical therapy sessions after a hard day
(30 hours per week) on the assembly line. Autoworkers at Fords pickup truck assembly
plant in St. Paul, Minnesota, enjoy no such comparable facilities. Will Ford be able to continue such divergent compensation strategies at its Volvo plants in Sweden and Ford plants
in the United States? It is possible for different business units within the same company to
adopt different compensation strategies. But if Volvo and Ford begin to share common
parts and distribution channels and form global teams to design new cars, then these differences may become obstacles to achieving the needed cooperation and integration.
The point is that a strategic perspective on compensation is more complex than it first
appears. So we suggest that you continue to read this chapter.
STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE
Because pay matters so much to most of us, it is sometimes too easy to become fixated on
techniques: Debating so-called best practices becomes the end in itself. Questions such as
What does this technique do for (to) us? or How does it help achieve our objectives?
are not asked. So before proceeding to the particulars, we need to think about how pay
might help achieve organization success. After completing this chapter, you should know
how to develop a compensation strategy. More importantly, you should also know why you
would bother doing so. If you train yourself to ask the so-what question as you read this
book you will be prepared when your employer asks if your proposal makes sense.
SUPPORT BUSINESS STRATEGY

A currently popular theory found in almost every book and consultants report tells managers to tailor their pay systems to align with the organizations business strategy. The rationale is based on contingency notions. That is, differences in a firms strategy should be
supported by corresponding differences in its human resource strategy, including compensation. The underlying premise is that the greater the alignment, or fit, between the organization and the compensation system, the more effective the organization.6
Strategy refers to the fundamental directions that an organization has chosen. An organization defines its strategy through the tradeoffs it makes in choosing what (and what not)
to do. Exhibit 2.2 relates these strategic choices to the quest for competitive advantage. At
the corporate level, the fundamental strategic choice is, What business should we be in? At
6Henry
Mintzberg, Five Tips for Strategy, in The Strategy Process: Concepts and Contexts, eds. Henry
Mintzberg and James Brian Quinn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992); J. E. Delery and D. H. Doty,
Models of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management, Academy of Management Journal
39(4), pp. 802835; L. R. Gomez-Mejia and D. B. Balkin, Compensation, Organization Strategy, and Firm
Performance (Cincinnati: Southwestern, 1992); P. K. Zingheim and R. Schuster, Pay People Right! (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000); Edilberto F. Montemayor, Congruence between Pay Policy and
Competitive Strategy in High-Performing Firms, Journal of Management 22(6) (1996), pp. 889908
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.2 Strategic Choices

Corporate objectives,
strategic plans,
vision, and values
What business
should we be in?
How do we win (gain

competitive advantage)
in those businesses?
Business unit
strategies
How should HR help us win?
How should total

compensation
help us win?
Social, competitive,
and regulatory
environment
HR strategies
Strategic
compensation
decisions
Compensation
systems
Employee
attitudes and
behaviors
Competitive
advantage
the business unit level, the choice shifts to, How do we gain and sustain competitive advantage? How do we win in those businesses? At the function level the strategic choice is,
How should total compensation help gain and sustain competitive advantage? The ultimate purposethe so what?is to gain and sustain competitive advantage.7
It then follows from the exhibit that when business strategies change, pay systems
should change, too. A classic example is IBMs strategic and cultural transformation in
7B. Gerhart, Pay Strategy and Firm Performance, in Compensation in Organizations: Current Research
and Practice, eds. S. L. Rynes and B. Gerhart (San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, 2000); Barry Gerhart and Sara
Rynes, Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003).
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.3
IBMs
Strategic
Principles
and Priorities
Source: Adapted
from IBM.
2002 IBM
Corporation.
Principles
Priorities
1. The marketplace is the driving force

behind everything
2. At our core, we are a technology
company with an overriding commitment
to quality.
3. Our primary measures of success are
customer satisfaction and shareholder value.
4. We operate as an entrepreneurial
organization with a minimum of
bureaucracy and a never-ending focus on
productivity.
5. We never lose sight of our strategic vision.
6. We think and act with a sense of urgency.
7. Outstanding, dedicated people make it
happen, particularly when they work
together as a team.
8. We are sensitive to the needs of all
employees and to the communities in
which we operate.
1. Delivering business value

2. Offering world-class open infrastructure
3. Developing innovative leadership
technology
4. Exploiting new profitable growth
opportunities
5. Creating brand leadership and a
superior customer experience
6. Attracting, motivating and retaining the
best talent in our industry
the 1990s. IBMs emphasis on internal alignment (well-developed job evaluation plan,
clear hierarchy for decision making, work/life balance benefits, policy of no layoffs) had
served well during the last century when the company dominated the market for highprofit mainframe computers. But it did not provide flexibility to adapt to competitive
changes in the new century. A redesigned IBM is a solutions-led business offering diversified information technology capabilities. Exhibit 2.3 depicts the new blues
strategic business principles and priorities. A new business strategy requires a new compensation strategy. At IBM, this meant creating a high-performance work culture (incentive pay), increasing employee and organization flexibility (work design), winning in the
marketplace (attract/retain talent), and constantly containing costs. IBM changed its pay
strategy and system to support its changed business strategy. And it changed from a
doomed dinosaur to the t-Rex of the technology industry. 8
If the basic premise of a strategic perspective is to align the compensation system to
the business strategy, then different business strategies will translate into different compensation approaches. Exhibit 2.4 gives an example of how compensation systems might
be tailored to three different business strategies.9 The innovator stresses new products
and short response time to market trends. A supporting compensation approach places
8A.
Richter, Paying the People in Black at Big Blue, Compensation and Benefits Review, May/June
1998, pp. 5159; Thomas Fleming, Compensating a Global Workforce, presentation at Cornell University,
February 21, 2003.
9M. Porter, What Is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, NovemberDecember 1996, pp. 6178;
J. Jackson, Why Being Different Pays, Financial Times, June 23, 1997, p. B1; M. Treacy and F. Wiersma,
The Discipline of Market Leaders (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997).
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.4 Tailor the Compensation System to the Strategy

Business
Response
Strategy
Innovator:
Increase Product
Complexity and
Shorten Product
Life Cycle
Cost
Cutter:
Focus on
Efficiency
Product Leadership
Shift to Mass
Customization
Cycle Time
Operational
Excellence
Pursue Cost-Effective
Solutions
Customer
Focused:
Increase
Customer
Expectations
Deliver Solutions to
Customers
Speed to Market
HR
Program
Alignment
Committed
to Agile,
Risk-Taking,
Innovative
People
Do More
with Less
Delight
Customer,
Exceed
Expectations
Compensation
Systems
Reward Innovation
in Products and
Processes
Market-Based Pay
FlexibleGeneric
Job Descriptions
Focus on
Competitors
Labor Costs
Increase Variable Pay
Emphasize
Productivity
Focus on System
Control and Work
Specifications
Customer Satisfaction
Incentives
Value of Job and
Skills Based on
Customer Contact
less emphasis on evaluating skills and jobs and more emphasis on incentives designed to
encourage innovations. The cost cutters efficiency-focused strategy stresses doing more
with less by minimizing costs, encouraging productivity increases, and specifying in
greater detail exactly how jobs should be performed. The customer-focused business
strategy stresses delighting customers and bases employee pay on how well they do this.
Different business strategies require different compensation approaches. One size does
not fit all.10
10L.
R. Gomez-Mejia, Structure and Process of Diversification, Compensation Strategy, and Firm

Performance, Strategic Management Journal, October 1992, pp. 4456; Edilberto F. Montemayor.
Congruence between Pay Policy and Competitive Strategy in High-Performing Firms, Journal of
Management 22 (1996), pp. 889908; Jason D. Shaw, Nina Gupta, and John Delery, Congruence
between Technology and Compensation Systems: Implications for Strategy Implementation, Strategic
Management Journal 22 (2001), pp. 379386.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
WHICH PAY DECISIONS ARE STRATEGIC?

It is possible that different units within the same corporation face very different competitive conditions, adopt different business strategies, and thus fit different compensation
strategies. Large conglomerates such as United Technologies, whose business units include Otis Elevator, Sikorski Aircraft, and Carrier (air conditioning), and the Korean
company SK Group, whose business units include a gasoline retailer, a cellular phone
manufacturer, and SK Construction, will have different compensation strategies aligned
to each of their very different businesses.
A strategic perspective focuses on those compensation choices that help the organization
gain and sustain competitive advantage.
The competitive advantage of Starbucks is apparent with the first sip of its specialty
drink, mocha valencia. What started out as a Seattle seller of coffee beans has, through
strategic decisions, grown to a familiar chain of coffeehouses stretching around the
globe.11 Along the way, Starbucks managers have designed a total compensation system
to support this change in fundamental direction (from coffee bean importer to trendy coffeehouses) and growth (phenomenal, global).
Using our pay model, the strategic compensation decisions facing Starbucks managers
can be considered in terms of the objectives and the four basic policies:
1. Objectives: How should compensation support the business strategy and be adaptive to
the cultural and regulatory pressures in a global environment? (Starbucks objectives:
Grow by making employees feel valued. Recognize that every dollar earned passes
through employees hands. Use pay, benefits, and opportunities for personal development to help gain employee loyalty and become difficult to imitate.)
2. Alignment: How differently should the different types and levels of skills and work
be paid within the organization? (Starbucks: Deemphasize differences. Use egalitarian structures, cross-train employees to handle many jobs, and call employees
partners.)
3. Competitiveness: How should total compensation be positioned against competitors?
(Starbucks: Pay just slightly above other fast-food businesses [a low-wage industry].)
What forms of compensation should be used? (Starbucks: Provide health insurance
and stock options [called bean stocks] for all employees including part-timers [even
though most are relatively young and healthy and few stay long enough to earn stock
options], and give everyone a free pound of coffee every week.)
4. Contributions: Should pay increases be based on individual and/or team performance,
on experience and/or continuous learning, on improved skills, on changes in cost of
living, on personal needs (housing, transportation, health services), and/or on each
11Howard
Schultz and Dori Jones Yang, How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time (New York:
Hyperion, 1997); J. Lee-Young, Starbucks Expansion in China, Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2000,
p. B6; Stanley Holmes, Irene M. Kunii, and Jack Ewing, For Starbucks, Theres No Place Like Home,
Business Week, June 9, 2003.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
business units performance? (Starbucks: Emphasize team performance and shareholder returns [options]. For new managers in Beijing and Prague, provide training opportunities in the United States.)
5. Management: How open and transparent should the pay decisions be to all employees? Who should be involved in designing and managing the system? (Starbucks: As
members of the Starbucks family, our employees realize what is best for them. Partners can and do get involved.)
The decisions underlying these five issues, taken together, form a pattern that becomes
an organizations compensation strategy.
Stated versus Unstated Strategies

All organizations that pay people have a compensation strategy. Some may have written,
or stated, compensation strategies for all to see and understand. Others may not even realize they have a compensation strategy. Ask a manager at one of these organizations about
its compensation strategy and you may get a pragmatic response: We do whatever it
takes. Its compensation strategy emerges from the pay decisions it has made. Unstated
compensation strategy is inferred from compensation practices.12 Managers in all organizations make the five strategic decisions discussed earlier. Some do it in a rational, deliberate way, while others do it more chaoticallyas ad hoc responses to pressures from the
economic, sociopolitical, and regulatory context in which the organization operates. But
in any organization that pays people, there is a compensation strategy at work.
DEVELOPING A TOTAL COMPENSATION STRATEGY

Developing a compensation strategy involves four simple steps, shown in Exhibit 2.5.
While the steps are simple, executing them is complex. Trial and error, experience, and
insight play major roles.
Step 1: Assess Total Compensation Implications

Think about any organizations past, present, and, most vitally, future. What factors in its
business environment have contributed to the companys success? Which of these factors
are likely to become more (or less) important as the company looks ahead? Exhibit 2.5
classifies the factors as competitive dynamics, culture/values, social and political context,
employee/union needs, and other HR systems.
Competitive Dynamics
This first step includes an understanding of the industry in which the organization operates and how it plans to compete. To cope with the turbulent competitive dynamics, focus
on what factors in the business environment (i.e., changing customer needs, competitors
actions, changing labor market conditions, changing regulations, globalization) are im-
12H.
Mintzberg, Crafting Strategy, Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust 1970, pp. 6675.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.5 Key Steps in Formulating a Total Compensation Strategy

1. Assess Total Compensation
Implications
Competitive Dynamics
Culture/Values
Social and Political Context
Employee/Union Needs
Other HR Systems
4. Reassess the Fit

Realign as Conditions Change
Realign as Strategy Changes
2. Fit Policy Decisions to

Strategy
Objectives
Alignment
Competitiveness
Contributions
Management
3. Implement Strategy
Design System to Translate Strategy
into Action
Choose Techniques to Fit Strategy
portant today. What will be important in the future? Start with the basics. What is your
business strategy? How do you compete to win? How should the compensation system
change to support that strategy? Learn to gauge the underlying dynamics in your business
(or build relationships with those who can). We have already discussed fitting different
compensation strategies with different business strategies using the examples of cost cutter, customer centered, and innovator (Exhibit 2.4). But be cautious: Reality is more complex and chaotic. Organizations are not necessarily innovators or cost cutters or
customer-centered. Instead, they are some of each, and more. So the rational and orderly
image conveyed in Exhibit 2.5 does not adequately capture the turbulent competitive dynamics underlying this process.13
13Peter
F. Drucker, Theyre Not Employees, Theyre People, Harvard Business Review, February 2002,
pp. 7077; Jessica Collison and Cassandra Frangos, Aligning HR with Organization Strategy Survey,
SHRM/Balanced Scorecard Collaborative, Alexandria, VA, November 2002.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.6
Toshibas
Managerial
Compensation
Plan, Annual
Amount (in
Yen)
Total Salary = 10,700,000

($1 = 106.8)
37%
Bonus*
3,980,000
Core Salary
4,440,000
Based on:
- Performance
- Ability
- Length of service
42%
Position and Rank

21%
2,280,000
*Paid twice a year

Based on:
- Performance
6,720,000 or 63% of total salary
Competitive dynamics can be assessed globally.14 However, comparing pay among

countries is complex. In Chapter 1, we noted differences in hourly labor costs and productivity (output per dollar of wages) among countries. But as we shall see in Chapter 16,
countries also differ on the average length of the workweek, the average number of paid
holidays, the kinds of national health care and retirement programs, and even how pay is
determined.15 Nevertheless, managers must become knowledgeable about the pay systems of their global competitors. Exhibit 2.6 describes Toshibas total cash compensation
for its managers. Bonuses constitute 37 percent of a Toshiba managers pay, compared to
about 10 percent for a typical U.S. manager. Because these bonuses are paid twice a year
rather than in a biweekly paycheck, they give Toshiba a cash flow advantage. While
bonuses are not added into the employees base pay, they are guaranteed, or expected.
Japan levies payroll taxes on base wages only (in the exhibit, core salary), not on
bonuses or allowances. Hence, the mix of forms at Toshiba (and most Japanese employers) emphasizes bonuses and allowances. A common misperception is that Japanese pay
systems are based solely on seniority, but Toshibas managers pay depends on educa14Watson
Wyatt Worldwide, Strategic Rewards: Managing through Uncertain Times, survey report,
2001/2002; G. T. Milkovich and M. Bloom, Rethinking International Compensation: From National Cultures
to Markets and Strategic Flexibility, Compensation and Benefits Review, January 1998, pp. 110; Atul Mitra,
Matt Bloom, and George Milkovich, Crossing a Raging River: Seeking Far-Reaching Solutions to Global Pay
Challenges, WorldatWork Journal 22(2) (Second Quarter 2002); M. Bloom and G. Milkovich, Strategic
Perspectives on International Compensation and Reward Systems, in Research and Theory in Strategic HRM:
An Agenda for the Twenty-First Century, eds. Pat Wright et al. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1999); M. Bloom,
G. Milkovich, & A. Mitra, International Compensation: Learning from How Managers Respond to Variations
in Local Host Contexts. International Journal of Human Resource Management special issue, 2003; Allen D.
Engle, Sr., and Mark Mendenhall, Transnational Roles and Transnational Rewards: Global Integration in
Executive Compensation, presentation at International HR conference, Limerick, Ireland, June 2003; Paul
Evans, Vlado Pucik, and Jean-Louis Barsoux, The Global Challenge (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002).
15See the Bureau of Labor Statistics website for the most current figures on international wage
comparisons: www.bls.gov.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.7 Strategic Differences in Pay Forms at Daimler and Chrysler

Managerial Total Pay at Chrysler
"As Little as 25% in Base Pay"
Base
Bonus + Options
Managerial Total Pay at Daimler

"Up to 60% in Base Pay"
Base
Bonus
tional level (ability), experience (i.e., seniority), and performance. Toshibas use of
performance-based pay is not unique in Japan. Toyota, Mitsubishi, and other traditional
Japanese firms are also increasing their performance-based plans.16
The importance of competitive dynamics globally is highlighted in Daimler-Benzs acquisition of Chrysler. At the time, the pay of the top 10 Daimler executives amounted to
$10.7 million, compared to over $11 million paid to Chryslers CEO alone. Such differences were not confined to the top executives. They rippled throughout the newly merged
company. Exhibit 2.7 shows that at Chrysler, as little as 25 percent of managers pay is
base salary. Performance-based bonuses and stock options made up the rest. At Daimler,
up to 60 percent of managers pay was in the form of base salary. Because of German tax
codes at the time of the merger (since changed), stock options were used sparingly. So
what difference does this make? If DaimlerChrysler is to win in the worldwide automobile
market with a new global business strategy, it must consider the implications of how it
compensates its company leadership worldwide rather than just nationwide.
Culture/Values
A pay system reflects the values that guide an employers behaviors and underlie its treatment of its employees. The pay system mirrors the companys image and reputation. Exhibit 2.8 shows the value statements for Medtronic and Microsoft, companies also mentioned in Chapter 1. Medtronics value 5 recognizes employees worth by fostering
personal satisfaction in work accomplished, security, advancement opportunity, and
means to share in the companys success. Its compensation strategy reflects this value
by including work/life balance programs for security, incentives, and stock options to
share the companys success. Microsoft gives its mission and values statementto enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potentiala prominent place on the companys website. Preserving its core values is one of the objectives
of its compensation system (Exhibit 2.1).
But there are some skeptics out there. Dilberts Mission Statement Generator (www.
unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/games) reflects a cynical view of value statements. One study
described them as an assemblage of trite phrases which impressed no one. In contrast, Johnson and Johnson considers its statement the glue that holds our corporation together.17
16A.
Harney, Toyota Plans Pay Based on Merit, Financial Times, July 8, 1999, p. 20; Yoshio Yanadori
and George Milkovich, Minimizing Wage Competition? Entry-level Compensation in Japanese Firms,
working paper, Center for Advanced HR Studies, Ithaca, NY, 2003.
17S. Greenhouse, Mission Statements: Words That Cant Be Set to Music, New York Times, June 21,
2000, p. C1.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.8 Comparison of Medtronic and Microsoft Mission and Values

Medtronic Values
Medtronics mission imparts stability and provides a firm foundation for the companys growth. Written
more than 30 years ago, our mission statement gives purpose to our work, describes the values we live by,
and is the motivation behind every action we take.
1. To contribute to human welfare by application of biomedical engineering in the research, design,
manufacture,and sale of instruments or appliances that alleviate pain, restore health, and extend life.
2. To direct our growth in the areas of biomedical engineering where we display maximum strength and
ability; to gather people and facilities that tend to augment these areas; to continuously build on these
areas through education and knowledge assimilation; to avoid participation in areas where we cannot
make unique and worthy contributions.
3. To strive without reserve for the greatest possible reliability and quality in our products; to be the
unsurpassed standard of comparison and to be recognized as a company of dedication, honesty,
integrity, and service.
4. To make a fair profit on current operations to meet our obligations, sustain our growth, and reach our goals.
5. To recognize the personal worth of employees by providing an employment framework that allows
personal satisfaction in work accomplished, security, advancement opportunity, and means to share in
the companys success.
6. To maintain good citizenship as a company.
Microsoft Values
There are two key aspects to Microsofts past and future success: our vision of technology and the values
that we live by every day as a company. To reflect our role as an industry leader and to focus our efforts on
the opportunities ahead, we have embraced a new corporate mission:
To enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential
Delivering on this mission requires a clearly defined set of values and tenets. Our company values are not
new, but have recently been articulated to reinforce our new mission.
Achieving our mission requires great people who are bright, creative, and energetic, and who share the
following values:
Integrity and honesty.
Passion for customers, partners, and technology.
Open and respectful with others and dedicated to making them better.
Willingness to take on big challenges and see them through.
Self-critical, questioning, and committed to personal excellence and self-improvement
Accountable for commitments, results, and quality to customers, shareholders, partners, and employees.
Source: Both companies publish their values statement on their company websites: www.microsoft.com and
www.medtronic.com. Medtronic publishes theirs in six languages.
Social and Political Context

Context refers to a wide range of factors, including legal and regulatory requirements, cultural differences, changing workforce demographics, expectations, and the like. These also
affect compensation choices. In the case of Starbucks, business is very people-intensive.
Consequently, Starbucks managers expect that an increasingly diverse workforce and increasingly diverse forms of pay (child care, chemical dependency counseling, educational
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
reimbursements, employee assistance programs) may add value and be difficult for competitors (fast-food outlets and other coffee shops) to imitate.
As Starbucks continues to open more shops in Beijing, Tokyo, Paris, and Prague, it is
finding that workforce diversity takes on a whole new meaning.18 Cultural norms about
minorities and womens work roles and pay may be at odds with Starbucks values and
compensation strategy. Operating in different regions of the world requires more flexible
approaches to pay.
Because governments are major stakeholders in determining compensation, lobbying to
influence laws and regulations may also be part of compensation strategies. In the United
States, employers will not sit by while Congress considers taxing employee benefits. Similarly, the European Unions social contract is a matter of interest for the Starbucks leadership. And in China, Starbucks has undoubtedly discovered that building relationships
with government officials is essential. So, from a strategic perspective, managers of compensation may try to shape the sociopolitical environment as well as be shaped by it.
Employee Needs
The simple fact that employees differ is too easily overlooked in formulating a compensation
strategy. Individual employees join the organization, make investment decisions, interact with
customers, design new products, assemble components, and so on. Individual employees receive the pay. A major limitation of contemporary pay systems is the degree to which individual needs and preferences are ignored. Older, highly paid workers may wish to defer taxes by
putting their pay into retirement funds, while younger employees may have high cash needs to
buy a house, support a family, or finance an education. Dual-career couples who are overinsured medically may prefer to use more of their combined pay for child care, automobile insurance, financial counseling, or other benefits such as flexible schedules. Employees who
have young children or dependent parents may desire dependent care coverage.19
Watson Wyatt, a major compensation consulting firm, asked different groups of employees about their pay preferences. Exhibit 2.9 shows the results.20 Low-income employees rank flexible work schedules, paid time off, and benefits as their top three preferences;
for those over 50, above-average total cash (base plus bonus) ranks highest. The under-30
crowd rank opportunities for advancement, skill development, and flexible schedules the
highest. These differences are consistent with the idea of customizing pay to meet individual needs and preferences. However, preferences are notoriously unstable and change with
economic and personal conditions that people face. (People under 30 inevitably turn 30.)
18Competing
in a Global Economy (Bethesda, MD: Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 1998); Dan Cable and Tim Judge,
Pay Preferences and Job Search Decisions: A Person-Organization Fit Perspective, Personnel Psychology,
Summer 1994, pp. 317348; Timothy A. Judge, Carl J. Thoresen, Joyce E. Bono, and Gregory K. Patton, The
Job SatisfactionJob Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review, Psychological Bulletin
127(3) (2001), pp. 376407; Rosemary Batt, Alexander J. S. Colvin, and Jeffrey Keefe, Employee Voice, Human
Resource Practices, and Quit Rates: Evidence from the Telecommunications Industry, Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 55(4) (July 2002), pp. 573594; Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Strategic Rewards: Charting the
Course Forward: Maximizing the Value of Reward Programs, survey report, 2002/2003; J. Stewart Black, Time
to Get Back to the Basics, in Mastering People Management Financial Times, November 19, 2001, pp. 23.
19R. Winslow and C. Gentry, Give Workers Money and Let Them Buy a Plan, Wall Street Journal,
February 8, 2000, p. A1.
20Watson
Wyatt Worldwide, Strategic Rewards: Managing through Uncertain Times, survey report,
2001/2002.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.9 Watson Wyatt Survey of Pay Preferences

Male
Female
Above-average
total cash
Above-average
base pay
Skill development
Flexible work
schedules
Skill development
Advancement
opportunities
Group benefits
Above-average
base pay
Above-average
total cash
Advancement
opportunities
Professional/
Technical
Secretarial/
Production
Above-average
total cash
Flexible work
schedules
Skill development
Paid time off
Above-average
base pay
Cash-based longterm incentives
$95K+
Age 50+
Under Age 30
Above-average
total cash
Above-average
base pay
Skill development
Above-average
total cash
Above-average
base pay
Stock grants
Advancement
opportunities
Skill development
Advancement
opportunities
Group incentives
Group benefits
Retention/stay
bonus
Flexible work
schedules
Above-average
total cash
Career
development
Group benefits
Under $35K
Flexible work
schedules
Paid time off
Above-average
base pay
Flexible work
schedules
Skill development
Group benefits
1-Year Tenure
or Less
10-Year Tenure
or More
Above-average
total cash
Above-average
base pay
Advancement
opportunities
Skill development
Above-average
base pay
Above-average
total cash
Stock grants
Skill development
Skill development
Retirement plan
Source: Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Strategic Rewards: Managing through Uncertain Times, 2001/2002.
Customization and Flexibility

Perhaps it is time to consider letting employees choose their pay forms. Putting people in
the drivers seat is not going to happen overnight. Unlimited choice would meet with disapproval from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and would be a challenge to design and
manage. (Health benefits are not viewed by the IRS as income.) Offering greater choice
to employees in different nations would open a bewildering maze of codes and regulations. Nevertheless, pay systems in the United States are increasingly being designed to
encourage some employee choices. Flexible benefits and customized health care and retirement plans are examples.21 General Mills even allows many employees to swap several weeks salary for stock options. The company believes that allowing employees their
21Melissa
Barringer and George Milkovich, Employee Health Insurance Decisions in a Flexible Benefit
Environment, Human Resource Management 35 (1996), pp. 293315; M. P. Patterson, Health Benefit
Evolutions for the 21st Century: Vouchers and Other Innovations? Compensation and Benefits Review
32(4) (July/August 2000), pp. 614.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
choice adds value and is difficult for other companies to imitateit is a source of competitive advantage for General Mills. Whether or not this belief is correct remains to be
studied.
Unions
Pay strategies also need to be adapted to the nature of the union-management relationship.22
Strategies for dealing with unions vary widely. The Denver School Board and the teachers
union (American Federation of Teachers) agreed to experiment with performance-based
pay for teachers. Conversely, the teachers union in a Philadelphia suburb walked off the job
when the local school board attempted to install performance-based pay.
Even though union membership among private-sector workers in the United States is
now just under 10 percent of the workforce, union influence on pay decisions remains
significant. Union preferences for different forms of pay (e.g., retirement, improved
health care plans) and their concern with job security affect pay strategy. A recent study
found that when union workers were included in a performance-based pay plan, managers also received greater pay and the differences in pay between managers and union
workers were reduced.23
Internationally, the role of unions in pay determination varies greatly. In some European
nations (Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Spain), unions are major players in all strategic pay
decisions. Union interests are part of pressures that help shape compensation strategies.
Prominence of Pay in Overall HR Strategy: Supporting Player or Catalyst

for Change?
The pay strategy is also influenced by how it fits with other HR systems in the organization. If an organization is decentralized and emphasizes flexibility, then a centralized and
confidential pay system controlled by a few people in a corporate unit will not work.
The importance of fit between pay and other HR systems is illustrated in the highperformance approaches created at IBM, Eaton, and Motorola.24 High-performance systems generally include three features: (1) high skill/knowledge requirements (selective hiring), (2) work designed so that employees have discretion and opportunities to collaborate
with others (teams) and continue to learn (training and development), and (3) performance-based pay systems. Whatever the overall HR strategy, a decision about the prominence of pay in that HR strategy is required. Pay can be a supporting player, as in the highperformance approach, or it can take the lead and be a catalyst for change. Whatever the
role, compensation is embedded in the total HR approach.
22Morris
M. Kleiner, Jonathan S. Leonard, and Adam M. Pilarski, How Industrial Relations Affects Plant
Performance: The Case of Commercial Aircraft Manufacturing, Industrial and Labor Relations Review
55(2) (January 2002), pp. 195218.
23Rosemary Batt, Alexander J. S. Colvin, and Jeffrey Keefe, Employee Voice, Human Resource Practices,
and Quit Rates: Evidence from the Telecommunications Industry, Industrial and Labor Relations Review
55(4) (July 2002), pp. 573594; ; A. Colvin, R. Batt, and H. Katz, How High Performance HR Practices
and Workforce Unionization Affect Managerial Pay, Personnel Psychology 54 (2001) pp. 903934.
24Eileen Butensky, Eaton Corporation Compensation Summary, presentation at Cornell University,
March 7, 2003.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
In sum, assessing the compensation implications of all the above factors, including the
organizations business strategy, the global competitive dynamics, the organizations culture and values, the sociopolitical context, employee needs, unions, and how pay fits with
other HR systems, is necessary to formulate a compensation strategy.
Step 2: Map a Total Compensation Strategy

The compensation strategy is made up of the five choices outlined in the pay model: objectives, alignment, competitiveness, contributions, and management. Mapping these decisions is step 2 in developing a compensation strategy. The aim is to make the right
compensation choices based on how the organization competes.
Strategic maps offer a picture of a companys compensation strategy. Mapping is often
used in marketing to clarify and communicate a products identity. It can also clarify the
message that the company is trying to deliver with its compensation system.
Exhibit 2.10 maps the compensation strategies of Microsoft and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
The five strategy dimensions are subdivided into a number of descriptors rated on imporHigh
DIMENSIONS
Low
OBJECTIVES
EXHIBIT 2.10
Strategic
Mapping:
Map of BMS
Compensation
Strategy
Prominence
ALIGNMENT
Flexible, agile design
Hierarchy
Career growth (promotions)
COMPETITIVENESS
"How much" relative to competitors
"What forms"incentives/base mix
Work/life balance
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS
Incentives/base pay
Individual (merit, bonus, stock)
B B
Share group success

MANAGEMENT
Transparency
Line ownership
Technology support
Choice/customize
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
tance. These ratings are from your fearless (read tenured) authors. They are not ratings
assigned by managers in the companies. The descriptors used under each of the strategy
dimensions can be modified as a company sees fit. In the illustration:
Objectives: Prominencehow important is total compensation in the overall HR
strategy? Is it a catalyst, playing a lead role? Or is it less important, playing a more
supporting character to other HR programs? At Microsoft, compensation is rated
highly prominent, whereas at BMS it is more supportive.
Alignment: This is described in terms of flexibility, the degree of internal hierarchy,
and how well compensation supports career growth. Both BMS and Microsoft use pay
to support flexible work design and promotions, but Microsoft is more individualoriented compared to BMS, whose focus is on teams and philosophy is everyone is a
leader.
Competitiveness: This is described as the total pay relative to what competitors offer
(how much?) and the importance of incentives relative to base pay (what forms?). The
High
DIMENSIONS
Low
OBJECTIVES
EXHIBIT 2.10
continued
Map of
Microsoft
Compensation
Strategy
Prominence
ALIGNMENT
M M
Flexible, agile design

Hierarchy
Career growth (promotions)

COMPETITIVENESS
"How much" relative to competitors
"What forms"incentives/base mix
Work/life balance
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS
Incentives/base pay
Individual (merit, bonus, stock)
Share group success

MANAGEMENT
Line ownership
Transparency
Technology support
Choice/customize
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
importance of work/life balance achieved via benefits and services is also included.
According to the strategy map, Microsofts competitive position is critical to its pay
strategy, whereas BMS competes on factors other than total pay.
Contributions: These two companies take a very different approach to performancebased pay. BMS emphasizes team- and group-based success sharing (no individualbased performance pay). This is consistent with its overall approach. Microsoft is a
heavy user of pay based on individual performance.
Management: This is described in terms of ownership (non-HR managers role in
managing pay), transparency (openness and communication about pay), technology
(software support to administer pay), and the degree of employee choices and
customization. As one might expect, Microsoft is rated high on the use of technology
to manage the pay system but rates lower than BMS on the importance placed on
communications and employee choice.
The profile on the strategy map reflects the main message or pay brand for each
company:
Microsoft: Total compensation is prominent, with a strong emphasis on market
competitiveness and performance-based strategy.
BMS: Total compensation plays a vital support role in the success-sharing strategy.
Competitive market position, flexibility, work/life balance, and open communications
are the hallmarks.
In contrast to the verbal description in Exhibit 2.1, strategic maps provide a visual reference. They are useful in creating a compensation strategy that is focused and clearly understood by employees and managers.25 Maps do not tell what strategy is best. Rather,
they provide a framework and guidance. They can be used to achieve consensus on what
the strategy should be. Just like a road map, they can show where you are going.26
The rest of the book discusses these compensation decisions in detail. It is important to
realize, however, that the decisions on the five dimensions work in concert. It is the totality of the decisions that forms the compensation strategy.
Steps 3 and 4: Implement and Reassess

Step 3 is to implement the strategy through the design and execution of the compensation system. The compensation system translates strategy into practiceand into peoples bank accounts. Step 4, reassess and realign, closes the loop. This step recognizes that the compensation strategy must change to fit changing conditions. Thus, periodic reassessment is needed.
Managing the links between the compensation strategy (those grand policy decisions)
and the pay system (those techniques used to pay people) and peoples perceptions and
behaviors (those behaviors that either make money for the company or dont) is vital to
implementing a pay strategy.
25W.
Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, Pursuing the Holy Grail of Clear Vision, Financial Times,
August 6, 2002, p. 8; Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, Having Trouble with Your Strategy? Then
Map It, Harvard Business Review, SeptemberOctober 2000, pp. 167176.
26George Milkovich and Carolyn Milkovich, Cases in Compensation, 9th ed. (Santa Monica, CA:
Milkovich, 2004), p. 8.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
SOURCE OF COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: THREE TESTS

Designing and implementing a pay strategy that is a source of sustained competitive advantage is easier said than done. Not all compensation decisions are strategic or a source
of competitive advantage. Three tests determine whether a pay strategy is a source of advantage: (1) Is it aligned? (2) Does it differentiate? (3) Does it add value?27
Align
Alignment of the pay strategy includes three aspects, as we have already discussed:
(1) align with the business strategy, (2) align externally with the economic and sociopolitical conditions, and (3) align internally within the overall HR system. Alignment is probably the easiest test to pass.
Differentiate
Some believe that the only thing that really matters about a strategy is how it is different from everyone elses.28 If the pay system is relatively simple for any competitor to
copy, then how can it possibly be a source of competitive advantage? The answer, according to the advocates of the strategic approach, is that sustained advantage comes
from how the pay system is managed. This rhetoric is appealing, but the evidence to
support it is slim.
The map profiles in Exhibit 2.10 show how the two companies strategies differ. One
uses pay as a strong signal; the other uses pay to support its everyone is a leader HR
strategy. Both organizations claim to have performance cultures; their strategies differ.
Are they difficult to imitate? Probably, since each strategy is woven into the fabric of the
companys overall HR strategy. Copying one or another strategy means ripping apart the
overall approach and patching in a new one. So, in a sense, the alignment test (weaving
the fabric) helps ensure passing the differentiation test. Microsofts use of stock awards
for all employees, often worth considerably more than peoples base pay, is difficult for
its competitors to copy. The Medtronic and SAS work-family-balance and total-presenceat-the-workplace strategies are difficult to copy. It may be relatively easy to copy any individual thing a competitor does (i.e., grant stock options to more employees or offer
more choice in their medical insurance). But the strategic perspective implies that it is the
way programs fit together and fit the organization that is hard to copy. Simply copying
others, blindly benchmarking and following so-called best practices, amounts to trying to
stay in the racenot win it.
27J.
Barney, Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management 17 (1997),
pp. 99120; P. M. Wright, B. Dunford, and S. Snell, HR and the Resource-Based View of the Firm,
Journal of Management 27 (2001), pp. 701721.
28Simon London, The Growing Pains of Business, Financial Times, May 8, 2003, p. B1; Preston
McAffee, Competitive Solutions: The Strategists Toolkit (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
Cybercomp: Compensation Consultants

Compensation consultants are major players, and practically every organization uses at
least one for data and advice. So learning more about the services these consultants offer
is useful. Go to the website of at least two of them. You can choose from the consulting
firms listed below or find others.
Fred Cook
Wyatt Watson Worldwide
Hay
Mercer
Link Group
Towers Perrin
Clark Consulting
www.fredericwcook.com
www.watsonwyatt.com
haygroup.com
www.mercer.com
www.linkg.co.uk
www.towersperrin.com
www.clarkconsulting.com
1. Compare consultants. From their websites, construct a chart comparing their stated
values and culture and their business strategies, and highlight the services offered.
2. Critically assess whether their strategies and services are unique and/or difficult to
imitate. Which one would you select (based on the web information) to help you
formulate a companys total compensation strategy?
3. Based on the web information, which one would you prefer to work for? Why?
4. Be prepared to share this information with others in class.
Result: If everyone does a great job on this Cybercomp, you will all have useful
information on consultants.
For more background, see Lewis Pinault, Consulting Demons: Inside the Unscrupulous
World of Global Corporate Consulting (New York: Harpers Business, 2000), and Fred
Cook, A Personal Perspective of the Consulting Profession, ACA News, October 1999,
pp. 3543.
Add Value
Organizations today continue to look for the return they are getting from their incentives, benefits, and even base pay. Compensation is often a companys largest controllable expense. Since consultants and a few researchers treat different forms of pay
as investments, the task is to come up with ways to calculate the return on those investments (ROI). But this is a difficult proposition. As one writer put it, It is easier
to count the bottles than describe the wine.29 Costs are easy to fit into a spreadsheet,
but any value created as a result of those costs is difficult to specify, much less measure.30
Trying to measure an ROI for any compensation strategy implies that people are
human capital, similar to other factors of production. Many people find this view dehu29Thomas
Stewart, Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations (New York: Currency, 1997).
Boudreau and Peter M. Ramstad, Measuring Intellectual Capital: Learning from Financial History,
Human Resource Management 36(3) (Fall 1997), pp. 343356; Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Human
Capital Index: Human Capital as a Lead Indicator of Shareholder Value, www.watsonwyatt.com, 2001;
Brian Becker, Mark Huselid, and Dave Ulrich, The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance
(Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001).
30John
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
manizing. They argue that viewing pay as an investment with measurable returns diminishes the importance of treating employees fairly.31 No doubt about it, of the three tests of
strategyalign, differentiate, add valuethe last is the most difficult.
It is possible to align and differentiate and still fail to add value. The incentive plan at
consumer electronics retailer Circuit City paid off big for experienced, high-performing
salespeople: At its retail stores, salespeople who moved more than $1 million a year
could earn over $50,000 in salary and sales bonuses. One successful salesperson knew
the products and kept up to date so well that customers would seek him out for advice before they made a purchase. Circuit Citys compensation strategy aligned with its business
by rewarding such experienced top performers.
The strategy also differentiated Circuit City from archrival Best Buy. Best Buy featured self-service stores with huge inventories. It hired young, less-experienced people
and offered lower wages and smaller bonuses. But, in todays economy, Best Buys sales
and total shareholder returns soared past those of Circuit City. The compensation strategy
at both companies aligned with their business strategies; they also differentiated. But Circuit Citys compensation strategy no longer added value when compared to Best Buys.
Recently Circuit City laid off 3,900 top-earning salespeople and replaced them with
2,100 less-experienced people who receive lower wages and smaller bonuses. Circuit
City says it can no longer afford to pay big commissions to its sales staff while its rivals
pay less.32
Are there advantages to an innovative compensation strategy? We do know that in
products and services, first movers (innovators) have well-recognized advantages that can
offset the risks involvedhigh margins, market share, and mindshare (brand
recognition).33 But we do not know whether such advantages accrue to innovators in total
compensation. A recent Ford innovation was giving computers to its 360,000 employees
around the world. Toyota and Honda responded by saying they did not see the value added
by such a move, and General Motors and DaimlerChrysler claimed to be studying it.
31Jeffrey
Pfeffer, Pitfalls on the Road to Measurement: The Dangerous Liaison of Human Resources with the
Ideas of Accounting and Finance, Human Resource Management 36(3) (Fall 1997), pp. 357365; J. Pfeffer,
When It Comes to Best Practices, Why Do Smart Organizations Occasionally Do Dumb Things?
Organizational Dynamics 25 (1997), pp. 3344; J. Pfeffer, The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting
People First (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998); P. Wright, L. Dyer, and M. Takla, Execution: The
Critical Whats Next in Strategic HRM, CAHRS Working Paper 9911, Ithaca, NY, 1999; D. Koys,
Describing the Elements of Business and HR Strategy Statements, Journal of Business and Psychology 15
(Winter 2000); Richard Donkin, Challenge to Human Capital Assumption, Financial Times, October 4, 2002,
p. VI; Richard Donkin, Measuring the Worth of Human Capital, Financial Times, November 7, 2002;
Peter F. Drucker, Theyre Not Employees, Theyre People, Harvard Business Review, February 2002,
pp. 7077; Stephen Gates, Value at Work: The Risks and Opportunities of Human Capital Measurement and
Reporting (New York: Conference Board, 2002); Jakub Sovina and Christopher Collins, The Effects of
Organizational Brand Equity on Employment Brand Equity and Recruitment Outcomes, presentation at
Academy of Management annual meetings, Seattle, 2003.
32Carlos Tejada and Gary McWilliams, New Recipe for Cost Savings: Replace Expensive Workers, Wall
Street Journal, June 11, 2002, pp. 1, A12.
33Connie Willis, Bellwether (London: Bantam Books, 1996); M. Gladwell, The Tipping Point: The Next Big
Thing (Boston: Little, Brown, 2000); Patrick M. Wright, Benjamin B. Dunford, and Scott A. Snell, Human
Resources and the Resource Based View of the Firm, Journal of Management 27 (2001), pp. 701721.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
What, if any, benefits accrued to Microsoft, one of the first to offer very large stock options to all employees, once many competitors did the same thing? What about TRW or
American Can Company (since acquired by another company), among the first to offer
flexible benefit programs? Does a compensation innovator attract more and better people?
Induce people to stay and contribute? Are there cost advantages? Studies are needed to
find the answers.
BEST FIT VERSUS BEST PRACTICES

The premise of any strategic perspective is that if managers align pay decisions with the
organizations strategy and values, are responsive to employees and union relations, and
are globally competitive, then the organization is more likely to achieve competitive advantage.34 The challenge is to design the fit with the environment, business strategy,
and pay plan. The better the fit, the greater the competitive advantage.
But not everyone agrees. In contrast to the notion of strategic fit, some believe that
(1) a set of best-pay practices exists and (2) these practices can be applied universally
across situations.35 Rather than having a better fit between business strategy and compensation plans that yields better performance, they say that using best practices results in
better performance with almost any business strategy.
The premise in this perspective is that adopting best-pay practices will allow the employer to gain preferential access to superior employees. These superior people will in
turn influence the strategy the organization adopts and be the source of its competitive
advantage.
If best practices do exist, what are they? It depends on whom you ask. Exhibit 2.11
summarizes two different views. One view is called the new pay. Employee pay is
based primarily on market rates; pay increases depend on performance (not cost of living
or seniority increases); and the employment relationship is a partnership in which success
(and risk) is shared.
A competing set of best practices, high commitment, prescribes having high
base pay, sharing performance success only (not risk), guaranteeing employment security, promoting from within, and the like. These practices are believed to attract
and retain a highly committed workforce, which will become the source of competitive advantage.
34J. Purcell, Best Practices and Best Fit: Chimera or Cul-de-Sac? Human Resources Management Journal
9(3), pp. 2641; Andrew S. Grove, Only the Paranoid Survive (New York: Doubleday, 1996).
35J. R. Schuster, and Patricia Zingheim The New Pay (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996); E. Lawler,
Rewarding Excellence (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000); T. Kochan and P. Osterman, The Mutual Gains
Enterprise (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1994); P. K. Zingheim and J. R. Schuster, Pay People
Right! (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000);. J. Pfeffer, Seven Practices of Successful Organizations,
California Management Review 49(2) (1998), pp. 96124.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
EXHIBIT 2.11
BestPractices
Options
The New Pay

External market-sensitive-based pay,
not internal alignment
Variable performance-based pay,
not annual increases
Risk-sharing partnership,
not entitlement
Flexible opportunities to contribute,
not jobs
Lateral promotions,
not career path
Employability,
not job security
Teams,
not individual contributors
High Commitment
High wages: You get what you
pay for
Guarantee employment security
Apply incentives; share gains,
not risks
Employee ownership
Participation and empowerment
Teams, not individuals, are base units
Smaller pay differences
Promotion from within
Selective recruiting
Enterprisewide information sharing
Training, cross-training, and skill
development are crucial
Symbolic egalitarianism adds value
Long-term perspective matters
Measurement matters
Source: for the left column: J. R. Schuster, The New Pay; E. Lawler, Rewarding Excellence; for the right
column: J. Pfeffer, Seven Advantages of Successful Organizations. (See footnote 35.)
SO WHAT MATTERS MOSTBEST PRACTICES OR BEST FIT?

It would be nice to be able to say which compensation strategy best fits each situation or
which list of best practices truly represents the best. Unfortunately, little research has directly examined the competing views. However, there is an increasing amount of research
that gets us beyond the rhetoric.36
One study examined eight years of data from 180 U.S. companies.37 The authors reported
that while pay levels differed among these companies, these differences were not related to
36B.
Gerhart, Pay Strategy and Firm Performance, in Compensation in Organizations: Current Research
and Practice, eds. S. Rynes and B. Gerhart (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000); B. Gerhart and
G. Milkovich, Employee Compensation in Handbook of Industrial and Organization Psychology 3, eds.
M. Dunnette and L. Hough (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1992); B. Gerhart, C. Trevor,
and M. E. Graham, New Directions in Compensation Research, in Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, ed. G. R. Ferris (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996); M. Bloom, The Performance
Effects of Pay Dispersion on Individuals and Organizations, Academy of Management Journal 42(1)
(1999), pp. 724; H. Tosi, S. Werner, J. Katz, and L. Gomez-Mejia, How Much Does Performance
Matter? A Meta-Analysis of CEO Pay Studies, Journal of Management 26(2) (2000), pp. 301339;
E. Montemayer, Congruence, Behavior, Pay Policy, and Competitive Strategy in High Performance
Firms, Journal of Management 22 (1996), pp. 884908.
37B. Gerhart and G. Milkovich, Organization Differences in Managerial Compensation and Financial
Performance, Academy of Management Journal 33 (1990), pp. 663691; K. Murphy and M. Jensen,
Its Not How Much, but How You Pay, Harvard Business Review JanuaryFebruary 1993, pp. 3245.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
their subsequent financial performance. However, differences in the size of bonuses and the
number of people eligible for stock options were related to future financial success of the organizations. This study concluded that it is not how much you pay but how you pay that matters; thus, bonuses and broadly based stock options are examples of best practices.
Another study not only found similar results but also reported that the effect of the
compensation strategy equaled the impact of all other aspects of the HR system (high involvement, teams, training programs, etc.) combined.38 These findings are near and dear
to the hearts of many of our compensation cronies. Again, performance-based bonuses
and broadly based options appear to be best practices. Money matters.
Virtuous and Vicious Circles

A group of studies suggests that emphasizing performance-based pay affects firm performance only when the organization is already doing well.39 This phenomenon is like a
circle: When there is success to share, success-sharing plans work best. As depicted in
Exhibit 2.12a, an organization whose profits or market share are increasing pays out
larger bonuses and stock options based on that improving oganization performance. And
EXHIBIT 2.12 Virtuous and Vicious Circles
(a) Virtuous Circle
(b) Vicious Circle
Organization
Performance
Increasing
Pay for
Performance
Organization
Performance
Decreasing
Pay for
Performance
Ownership
Culture
Ownership
Culture
Risk-Return
Balance
Upward Momentum, Continuous Improvement
38Brian
Risk-Return
Imbalance
Downward Momentum, Continuous Difficulties
Becker and Mark Huselid, High Performance Work Systems and Firm Performance: A Synthesis
of Research and Managerial Implications, in Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,
ed. G. R. Ferris (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1997).
39B. Gerhart, Pay Strategy and Firm Performance, in Compensation and Organizations: Progress and
Prospects, eds. S. Rynes and B. Gerhart (San Francisco: New Lexington Press, 2000); J. Abowd, Does
Performance Based Managerial Compensation Affect Corporate Performance? Industrial and Labor Relations
Review 435 (1990), pp. 52S73S; B. Gerhart and G. Milkovich, Organization Differences in Managerial
Compensation and Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal 90(33), pp. 663691; B. Becker
and M. Huselid, High Performance Work Systems and Firm Performance: A Synthesis of Research and
Managerial Implications, Research in Personnel and Human Resources, ed. G. Ferris (Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press, 1997); S. Werner and H. Tosi, Other Peoples Money: The Effects of Ownership on Compensation
Strategy, Academy of Management Journal 38(6), pp. 16721691; B. Hall and J. Liebman, Are CEOs Really
Paid Like Bureaucrats? Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1998, pp. 653691.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
offering these incentives boosts employee performance. Improved employee performance results in improved organization performance, and so on. The circle gains upward momentum.40
It cannot have escaped your attention that circles can also gain momentum going
downward. As shown in Exhibit 2.12b, when organization performance declines, performance-based pay plans do not pay off; there are no bonuses, and the value of stock options declineswith potentially negative effects on organization performance.41
Declining organization performance increases the risks facing employeesrisks of
still smaller bonuses, demotions, wage cuts, and even layoffs. The increased risks, unless
they are offset by larger returns, create a risk-return imbalance that reinforces the downward spiral. Unfortunately, we do not yet know what compensation strategy can be used
to shift an organization caught in a downward spiral into an upward one.
Caution and more evidence are required to interpret and apply many of these studies.
Nevertheless, they do seem to indicate that performance-based pay may be a best practice, under the right circumstances. Could performance-based pay sometimes be a worst
practice?
What about evidence supporting the notion of best fit? An increasing number of studies
tend to confirm that compensation strategies affect employee behaviors (e.g., turnover)
and organization performance.42 These studies focus on specific U.S. industriesauto,
steel, and telecommunicationsand report that high-performance work systems (which, as
noted earlier, include incentives and competitive pay levels plus selective hiring, training,
and work design that offers employees discretion) all acting together are more effective
than any single pay program.43
Further supporting the perspective that HR systems are interconnected, two researchers found relationships between compensation system design and employment security.44 They report fewer layoffs and less downsizing in companies that have more
40M.
Bloom and G. Milkovich, Relationships among Risk, Incentive Pay, and Organization Performance,
Academy of Management Journal 41(3) (1998), pp. 283297.
41Ibid.; J. Abowd, Does Performance Based Managerial Compensation Affect Corporate Performance?
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 435 (1990), pp. 52S73S.
42S. A. Snell and J. W. Dean, Jr., Strategic Compensation for Integrated Manufacturing: The Moderating
Effects of Job and Organizational Inertia, Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994), pp. 11091114.
43J. P. MacDuffie, Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and
Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48 (1995),
pp. 197221; J. B. Arthur, Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and
Turnover, Academy of Management Journal 37 (1994), pp. 670687; C. Ichniowski, K. Shaw, and
G. Prennush, The Effects of HRM Practices on Productivity: A Study of Steel Finishing Lines,American
Economic Review 87(3) (1998), pp. 291313; Rosemary Batt, Alexander J. S. Colvin, and Jeffrey Keefe,
Employee Voice, Human Resource Practices, and Quit Rates: Evidence from the Telecommunications
Industry, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 55(4) (July 2002), pp. 573594; Casey Ichniowski,
Thomas A. Kochan, David Levine, Craig Olson, and George Strauss, What Works at Work: Overview and
Assessment, Industrial Relations 35(3) (July 1996), pp. 299333.
44B. Gerhart and C. O. Trevor, Employment Variability under Different Managerial Compensation
Systems, Academy of Management Journal 39(6) (1996), pp. 16921712. Also see R. Gibbons and
M. Waldman, Careers in Organizations: Theory and Evidence, in Handbook of Labor Economics 3, eds.
O. Ashenfelder and D. Card (Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science & Technology, 1999).
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
performance-based pay strategies. Managers in these companies are less likely to lay employees off in bad times because labor costs are controlled through lower pay (fewer performance incentives) rather than lower head count.
So the research to date supports the use of bonuses and stock tied to performance.
What remains an open question is whether best fit matters. Do compensation systems that
are aligned with the business, strategic, and environmental context and other HR systems
have greater effects? Much of the research suggests that best-practice compensation
strategies do have an impact; a few seem to support a best-fit model.45
Additionally, we do not have much information about how people perceive various pay strategies. Do all managers see the total compensation strategy at Firepond
or BMS the same way? Some evidence suggests that if you ask 10 managers about
their companys HR strategy, you get 10 different answers. If the link between the
strategy and peoples perceptions is not clear, then maybe we are building on unstable ground.
Your Turn
Mapping Compensation Strategies
Take any organization that you knowyour current employer, your business school, the place
you interned one summer, maybe even a friends or parents employer. Look again at Exhibit 2.10,
Strategic Mapping. Try mapping your organizations compensation strategy. Then compare it
to that of Microsoft and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
1. Summarize the key points of your companys strategy.
2. What are the key differences compared to the strategies of Microsoft and Bristol-Myers
Squibb?
Alternatively, ask several managers in the same organization to map that organizations compensation strategy. You will probably need to assist them in completing the map. Then compare
the managers maps.
1. Summarize the key similarities and differences.
2. Why do these similarities and differences occur?
3. How can maps be used to clarify and communicate compensation strategies to leaders? To
employees?
45Edilberto
F. Montemayor, Congruence between Pay Policy and Competitive Strategy in HighPerforming Firms, Journal of Management 22(6) (1996), pp. 889908; L. R. Gomez-Mejia and D. B.
Balkin, Compensation, Organization Strategy, and Firm Performance (Cincinnati: Southwestern, 1992).
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
Still Your Turn
Difficult to Copy?
Consider the Microsoft, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Firepond compensation strategies depicted in
Exhibit 2.1. Do they meet the tests of align, differentiate, and add value? On the face of it, these
strategies seem easy to copy (or at least to articulate). But determining which one best fits an organizations business strategy and culture and the external pressures it faces may make the strategy more difficult to truly imitate. It is alignment, the fit, or the way a pay system works with
other aspects of the organization that makes it difficult to imitate and adds value. It is not the
techniques themselves but their interconnections that make a strategic perspective successful.
Spend some time looking at the websites of each of these three companies.46 Look at their
annual reports. What can you infer about each companys business strategy and its organization
culture? Consider the industry in which each company operates. What are the external pressures
each company is facing?
After you have a sense of what each company is like, decide whether you think each companys compensation strategy aligns with its business strategy, organization culture, and external
pressures. How would you change it?
Summary
A strategic perspective on compensation takes the position that how employees are compensated can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Two alternative approaches are highlighted: a best-fit/contingent business strategy/environmental context
approach and a best-practices approach. The best-fit approach presumes that one size
does not fit all. Managing compensation strategically means fitting the compensation system to the business and environmental conditions. In contrast, the best-practices approach
assumes that there exists a universal best way. So the focus is a question not so much of
what the best strategy is but of how best to implement the system. And agreement on
what are the best practices does not exist, either.
Because the best-fit approach is the most commonly used, we spent more time discussing it. The four-step process includes (1) assessing conditions, (2) deciding on the
best strategic choices following the pay model (objectives, alignment, competitiveness,
contributions, and management), (3) implementing the strategy through the design of the
pay system, and (4) reassessing the fit.
Recent studies have begun to research what aspect of the compensation relationship
really does matter, but the answer is still fuzzy. While more research is required before an
answer emerges, the notion of virtuous and vicious circles has some appeal.
46Jaguar
Technology has offered to purchase Firepond. Jaguars website is www.jaguartech.com.
MilkovichNewman:
Edition
Front Matter
The McGrawHill
Companies, 2004
Review Questions
1. Select a company with which you are familiar. Or analyze the approach your college
uses to pay teaching assistants and/or faculty. Infer its compensation strategy using the
five issues (objectives, alignment, competitiveness, employee considerations, and
management). How does your company compare to Microsoft? To Starbucks? What
business strategy does it seem to fit (i.e., cost cutter, customer centered, innovator,
or something else)?
2. Contrast the essential differences between the best-fit (strategic business-based) and
best-practices perspectives.
3. Reread the culture/values statements in Exhibit 2.8. Discuss how, if at all, those values
might be reflected in a compensation system. Are these values consistent with let the
market decide?
4. Three tests for any source of competitive advantage are align, differentiate, and add
value. Discuss whether these tests are difficult to pass. Can compensation really be a
source of competitive advantage?
5. Set up a debate over the following proposition: The best-practices approach is superior
to the best-fit approach when designing a compensation system.

Chapter 2serdtfyguhip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2serdtfyguhip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2serdtfyguhip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MilkovichNewman:

Source of Competitive Advantage:

28 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

EXHIBIT 2.1 Strategic Perspectives toward Total Compensation

Support the business

Demonstrate respect for

Pay differences that

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 29

EXHIBIT 2.1 continued

"Pay what others are

Bonuses and stock

Bonus pool based on

Goal-focused, teamoriented, and selfmanaged

30 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 31

SUPPORT BUSINESS STRATEGY

32 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

EXHIBIT 2.2 Strategic Choices

How do we win (gain

How should HR help us win?

How should total

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 33

1. The marketplace is the driving force

1. Delivering business value

34 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

EXHIBIT 2.4 Tailor the Compensation System to the Strategy

R. Gomez-Mejia, Structure and Process of Diversification, Compensation Strategy, and Firm

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 35

WHICH PAY DECISIONS ARE STRATEGIC?

36 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

Stated versus Unstated Strategies

DEVELOPING A TOTAL COMPENSATION STRATEGY

Step 1: Assess Total Compensation Implications

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 37

EXHIBIT 2.5 Key Steps in Formulating a Total Compensation Strategy

4. Reassess the Fit

2. Fit Policy Decisions to

38 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

Total Salary = 10,700,000

Position and Rank

*Paid twice a year

6,720,000 or 63% of total salary

Competitive dynamics can be assessed globally.14 However, comparing pay among

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 39

EXHIBIT 2.7 Strategic Differences in Pay Forms at Daimler and Chrysler

Managerial Total Pay at Daimler

40 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

EXHIBIT 2.8 Comparison of Medtronic and Microsoft Mission and Values

Social and Political Context

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 41

42 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

EXHIBIT 2.9 Watson Wyatt Survey of Pay Preferences

Paid time off

Customization and Flexibility

Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives 43

Prominence of Pay in Overall HR Strategy: Supporting Player or Catalyst

44 Chapter 2 Strategic Perspectives

Step 2: Map a Total Compensation Strategy

Flexible, agile design

"How much" relative to competitors