“How Much Do You Make?”

“How much do you make?”

The question froze me momentarily, as it would for a majority of American corporate workers.  Many companies have a policy against discussing personal salaries with other workers.  At most of the rest, it’s at the very least taboo.

Yet, despite arguments against motivation being tied to compensation, it’s on the minds of most employees.  Comparing oneself against others doing the same job (let’s ignore the quality issue for a moment) is natural.  Let’s not deny it.

From an HR perspective, salary comparison is a touchy subject.  The reality is that for organizations with strong “promote-from-within” cultures, the organization holds all the cards, and competitive salaries tend to wither with every promotion someone receives.  After all, the company knows how much you make, and so, they typically offer you only a percentage of the competitive outside rate when you get promoted.  We all know that if they were to offer the same position to an outside candidate, that individual would likely walk away with considerably more than the internal candidate.

Ultimately, that’s but one downside to a “promote-from-within” organizational culture (there are positive aspects, as well, though).  The point is, as long as you strictly adhere to this cultural policy, comparisons can be relatively controlled.  But as soon as you open the door to outside talent (which you should and MUST do in this increasingly competitive talent environment), you’ve opened a comparative Pandora’s Box.  You’ve introduced inequity and increasing distrust (and often deflection and deception on behalf of the organization) between employees and between employees and management.

Add to that the difficulty organizations have in creating and maintaining truly equitable and effective pay-for-performance systems, and you have a boiling cess pool about to erupt in your organization.

Top that off with executive salaries that are neither tied to organizational performance nor based on merit nor fairly controlled with other cost reduction measures, and you’ve just transformed yourself into an employer of last resort.

Madison, Wisconsin was just ranked by Policom Corporation the ninth strongest metropolitan economy in the country.  The corporations of this vibrant midwestern college town should be booming, and talent should be flocking to their doors.  And at many of the biotechs and innovation start-ups, this is happening.  They’re attracting top talent.  But at many of the largest companies, including Fortune 500 corporations, human capital mismanagement, flawed pay-for-performance systems, and inequitable salary comparisons have undermined these organizations abilities to get top talent.

The worst part of this conundrum is that because of the larger U.S. economy, the quantity of applicants for open positions remains high.  It’s the quality of applicants, and resulting new hires, that’s dropping off.  This handful of major companies, which tend to all be in the financial services industry, have soiled their reputations, and word on the street is to avoid this company at all costs.  Yet, either leaders are unaware of their reputation as a dirge of top talent, or they simply don’t care.  Either way, the situation is breeding mediocrity for organizations on the brink of financial disaster.

In the end, I told my colleague what I made.  She told me.  Yep, she was making significantly more, and yep, she was an external hire.  But she knew what that meant for her next promotion….and she sighed and opened the job board.  She’s looking elsewhere.  And I’ve already left.

The Complexity and Simplicity of Social Media

Life is complex.  Arguments can be (and have been) made that it’s becoming more, not less, complicated.  Technology, instead of merely simplifying the ways we do things, has actually just sped up the pace of getting things done.  From research to communication to decision making, the world is moving at unparallelled speeds.

Think now to the role middle managers have historically played in organizations.  For decades, their role has been one of message distribution, the living filters of corporate communications, the gatekeepers of valued information in the workplace.  The role hasn’t changed.  But the ways middle managers must play their roles has changed dramatically.  Adapt or die, middle management is facing a risk of extinction if it fails to let go of traditional role definitions.

Let me give you an example…

For several years, I worked closely with the sales force of a large and successful corporation.  The sales managers were the key conduit to getting messages to and from the company’s independent network of sales people.  And the company thrived.  Then came the perfect storm – increased market competition (and a slow response to the increased rivals by the company), technological innovations that produced greater consumer expectations, and the birth of social media.

Let’s just say the company was ill-prepared to deal with this conflux of situations.  And because of these game-changing conditions, the role of the sales manager was diminished.  Now, the company has tried desperately to carve out a new role for these managers, a sort of strategic partner with the sales folk.  The problem is that the sales folk: 1) know more about their products, industry, and sales practices than the managers do, and 2) allowing communication to flow through the managers causes, simply put, a bottleneck easily replaced by more relevant use of social media.  Quite honestly, the company now has the means of communicating more quickly, effectively, and directly with their sales force than ever before.  And to rid the company of the sales manager would save literally millions of dollars a year.

So, why would anyone object to such a move?  Well, that’s a more complex answer than you might expect.  Between organizational cultural hindrances, stubborn top leaders who understand no way but the “old” way of doing things, and political maneuvering by the sales managers themselves, the company is content to allow extreme inefficiencies to remain.

The irony to all of this is that sales people themselves see and understand the pointlessness of these managers.  Yet, nothing happens, and not because it’s a poorly understood situation.  Rather, until senior leaders view social media as more than just a “cute” means for employee engagement, they will fall short of understanding its true utility.

Social media is here to stay.  It’s not a flash in the pan.  Those companies who grasp the leading edge will be propelled into the future.  Those who miss the leading edge will be sliced and diced by the victors.

Which will you be?

What is it about Cryptologists?

Civilian organizations take note.  You want to know what loyalty and culture can do to people in your organization?  How often have you ever run into someone from your organization, who knows exactly what you experienced, in a completely different environment?  It’s not unheard of, but it’s certainly not common.

This evening, amidst thousands in attendance at an international convention in Denver, I stumbled upon a fellow Navy veteran.  Not just a normal former sailor, but a veteran of the Naval Security Group, a Cryptologic Technician.  As a former CTI (Cryptologic Technician (Interpretive), a.k.a, a Russian linguist), I instantly saw the eyes light up in recognition of a deep bond formed in common experiences.  It’s not the first time it’s happened to me in the past decade, and certainly it won’t be the last.  But it got me thinking….

I took a count, and since graduating from college nearly 20 years ago, I’ve held positions in four major organizations.  And in none of those has there been the type of comraderie that I experienced in the military, the excitement and shared sense of sacrifice and purpose that I’ve felt in meeting other cryptologists.  Why is that?

Is it merely the commonality of military service?  I’m sure that’s part of it, but it only accounts for a portion of the bond experienced.  After all, before donning the Dixie Cup and Cracker Jack jumper, I spent five years as an Amry infantry scout/sniper.  I deployed during the first Gulf War in 1991.  I crawled through the swamps and jungles of Central America and conducted drug raids with some of the most dedicated and skilled soldiers anywhere.  Wonderful memories of shared sacrifice and challenge.  Yet, even that pales in comparison with the bond I feel when meeting other naval cryptologists.  So, it can’t be simply military service….

Perhaps it’s the nature of the service in the cryptologic community, a shrouded existence of top secret security clearances, classified missions and information, or the glamorous role of cryptologists in the Cold War.  Possibly it is in the quiet respect for the complexity and vitality of our roles that binds us to one another.  I’ve never been able to put my finger on it entirely….yet, it emerges whenever I happen upon another I-brancher, T-Brancher, O-Brancher, A-Brancher, or M-Brancher (those in NSG understand the nomenclature).

Regardless of the bonding source, there’s just something about the experience that seems to create instant connection.  I wish I could explain it fully.  If I could, I’m sure it would be worth millions in consulting fees and services to replicate it in other organizations.  For the time being, however, I will simply continue my internal exploration of this phenomenon, relishing in the feeling that inevitably sweeps over me in that moment of recognition when meeting another cryptologist.

Someday, perhaps, I’ll figure it all out….