Confusing the causes is one of the most common mistakes in business management. The parable of the poor gardener who could not make his work bear fruit, no matter how hard he tried to sow, water and harvest, explains it very well. Analyzing the situation, he considered that the problem was some birds that prowled that area every morning, and probably ate its seeds. So the man decided to look for a large stick to scare away the birds that weighed down his production. Until one fine day, another farmer from the town who was passing by, seeing the ridiculous scene of the gardener with the cane, approached him to reveal essential information: “This land is not fertile.”
The Direcció per Compromís association has just presented a study on the management paradigms of people who hold positions of responsibility, comparing them with those of other professionals who do not exercise the managerial function. In the conclusions, it is interesting to note the high degree of correspondence that exists between both groups in terms of values ??associated with leadership. However, when the research goes into specific issues that need to be improved in companies, a great divergence of perceptions emerges; and it is that the managers focus on more aspirational issues (purpose), while the workers point directly to the basic conditions (salary and hours).
Thus, when analyzing the situation of a team and prioritizing the decisions to be made, there is also the risk of misidentifying the causes. And it is that it happens to some managers as to the gardener, who lose themselves looking at the sky, when the problem is right under their shoes.
In fact, the ability to design a good remuneration policy has become a first-order differentiating element, since it lays the foundations for building a solid business project, with a true vocation for high performance. And it is that, at the base of all professional relationships, there is always a fundamental principle of the law of reciprocity: “To demand excellence, you have to give excellence”.
It is true that the remuneration policy encompasses all compensation received for work, whether financial or non-financial, but it is also true that issues that affect the pocket continue to be of paramount importance. So it is essential to establish salary criteria that set the collective rules of the game, avoiding a perverse and ungovernable amalgam of individual negotiations.
Specifying a little more, a good remuneration policy complies with at least four basic rules. The first is equity, since each link of responsibility must have a specific salary bracket, avoiding situations of injustice or discrimination. The second is transparency, because the fact of knowing all the salary brackets not only generates trust, but also acts indirectly as a career plan (not to mention that salaries end up being known). The third rule is the stimulus, understood as the variable remuneration linked to the objectives, which allows linking individual interests with corporate ones. And finally there are the fidelity criteria, which are established to reward seniority, but without interfering with equity or unintentionally promoting comfort.