The salary minefield

As we near the completion of the first half of 2003, it is interesting to note the effects of the varying economic, social and political pressures that have been faced within the ICT industry.

Especially pertinent at this time is perhaps the decreased movement of people that is occurring at all levels throughout the industry. Although this immobility can positively affect attrition rates within a number of organisations, the results of this inaction can result in an inability to foster growth and change through new proactive employment initiatives. The converse of course is the potential stagnation of individuals who, unless are obviously pushed, are often unwilling to push boundaries or to take new initiatives in times of high risk and sluggishness.

Even within the necessary and essential compulsory interactions we as people often fail ourselves.

Jill Hamlyn, MD, The People Business

The question of salary reviews in these more risky times becomes a serious debate that is fraught with danger. In times of conflict, danger or uncertainty, the natural wont of our inherent humanity is to react and/or protect our "self" as opposed to mastering the situation that, after all, is just another circumstance in the general game of business. This fight or flight syndrome is natural, but most definitely pivots upon a literal "mine" field of negotiation.

Within the workplace, points most often pondered between managers and subordinates arise around the individual (managers and subordinates) and company perceptions concerning productivity, commitment, visions, risk, development teamwork, reward, etc.

Unless each exercise is thoroughly scoped, controlled and implemented in a mature manner, there are high risks of rocking what could previously have been a favourable or accepted status quo.

The strength of the process of any negotiation, whatever the subject, personalities involved or individually desired results, rests upon three essential criteria, namely individual preparation (anticipation), emotional control (contemplation) and the ability to listen (deliberation). Without the first two conditions, it is guaranteed that the third necessity will be abandoned through a lack of supportive resources. For the person who owns the resources of being able to anticipate, contemplate and deliberate, it can be guaranteed that whatever the outcome of any interaction, the results will always be favourable as the acceptance of the outcome will be a conscious decision based on ownership, self-management and self-control as opposed to acquiescing to reactive and often submissive acceptance.

But why do we have to go back to these basics? The reasoning perhaps is that even within the necessary and essential compulsory interactions we as people often fail ourselves. A point to consider in this debate is the insight that Carl Rogers provided that challenges the sanctity inherent within interactions that are based on power base or within the confines of the perceived or accepted hierarchical relationship between the individuals concerned.

His challenge was that the thoughts and feelings of both (or all) participants should be taken seriously. This is commonly adopted within leadership and management development in current development initiatives, but the context of negotiations such as performance reviews and disciplinary hearings, still often disempowers one or more of the participants.

When the results needed are perceived to be negative (eg a discipline issue, or relaying a decision that no increase will be given this year, or implementing a retrenchment decision, etc) as previously noted, more often than not we are tuned as people to take the line of least resistance and will abandon our responsibilities as managers in favour of pursuing either the least disharmonious outcome or at the very least, "letting" the emotion (to cause the movement of something in a specified direction) as opposed to working purely within the realm of fact. Examples of this may be witnessed daily in skirting around issues or circumstances, giving across-the-board increases to all as opposed to differentiating the current contributors from the non-performers or delegating responsibility for the communication of a negative message to others.

However, a common inherent problem in this logical reasoning is the legacy factor. In performance management, for example, if the legacy factor is the lack of an individually focused performance management system, ie that across-the-board increases have become "traditionalised" throughout the good times, this must also to be taken into consideration and managed when the context of the operation changes. This is an especially pertinent challenge to a number of organisations in today`s context who are seemingly managing just such an issue in these "bad" or "challenging" times.

The good news is that there is a specific antidote that can counteract the harmful conditions inherent within "mine" management syndrome. Through raising one`s ability in the much misaligned and misunderstood realm of functional communication skills, each individual can gain individual empowerment and thus move into an area that is not only self-motivating but also universally valued.