Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
The Reward Barometer
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The Reward Barometer

1,279

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,279
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Eenkleineprijsuitgereiktvoor de eerste die de vragenlijstheeftingevuld en aanwezig is.De snelsteantwoorder was Werner Verlinden. Eenuurnaverzending de vragenlijst al had vervolledigdDaarna was het eennekaannek race met enkele
  • 1 respondent meerdanvorigjaar  oproepnaarnogeengrotereopnamevolgendjaarAverage 15 min
  • Meerderheid =groterdan 2000
  • Wat is ervandaag – watzalermorgenzijn – watbrengen de komendejaren (of watzoudenzemoetenbrengen?)
  • Als we kijkennaarons reward framework.Zien we datbijgebrekaaneenformele reward strategieereenbelangrijkebouwsteenwegvalt..En het huisjeinstort??
  • Goedenieuws = bijna 80% ja! In vgl met enkelejarengeledenIn 2009 op residentieelseminarienavraaggedaan ‘hoeveelbedrijven op dat moment eenformele reward strategiehadden’ Veel minder
  • Interessantevraagomdantebekijken is welkevariabelen de stijgingbepalen.Individual performance (80%)  meerdan ¾ van individueleprestatiesMarket positioning (50%)Individual competencies (40)Company performance (+ 20%)Zeerbeperkteinvloed van resultaten van bedrijf. Other = compa-ratio/retentionQ on rewarding PfP: nuance:Daarwerdeenonderscheidgemaakttussenrecurrente en niet-recurrentesalarisstijgingen. Ditonderscheidleidde tot opmerkelijkverschiltussen de factoren die de progessiebepaaldenRecurrentestijging: zowelindividueleprestaties en compentiesspeleneen even groterolNiet-recurrentestijgingen: vooralindividueleprestatiebelangrijk en competenties minder relevant
  • Individual performance (86%  meerdanbij base pay increase)Company performance (76%  duidelijkbelangrijkerdanbij base pay!)
  • Eentweedeblokwaar we reward managers over bevraagdhebben.
  • STRAT IMPORT:4 = neutral/ 5= somewhat important/ 6=very important/7= extremely important5,5 = importantSATISFACTION:4,25 = neutraal/5,5=satisfied tussen 5=somewhat satisfied ( algemeenvrijontevreden)Highest priority: Internal & External equity/Performance management/ Cost management/Areas of concern: Retention/ Compentencemngt/Workforce PlanningKeep: Diversity/ Recruitment/GradingNikswaar we tevreden over zijn en belangrijk is
  • 4Grootsteprioriteiten op 2014 (ditdusbovenaan de agenda zoudenmoetenstaan):Internal & external equityPerformance managementCost management
  • Nuhebben we al gekekennaar de beloningspraktijkenvandaag en het strategischebelang en de tevredenheidvandaag. Maar laten we onsgrenzenbeetjeverleggen.Met welkeprojectenzullenjulliezichbezighoudentijdens de komende (nu nog) 11maanden?
  • Heteerstewatjulliegaandoen.. Is praten.  Reward communicatie is jullie nr 1 voor 2014(waarvorigjaar op nr 1 plaats was voor het werkenaan de car policies)Naastcommunicerenstaanooknog 3 andereprojecten op de agenda (allenongeveer even belangrijk)Short-term incentives, performance management en projectenrond base pay zijnookvoor 2014 top of mind. (Ookomdatookvorigjaarwerdrond de eerste 2 hard gewerkt. Base is daarentegen is eennieuwecategorie, daarwaarvorigjaarrondgroeps-en hospitalisatieverzekeringenwerdgewerkt)Algemeenkunnen we uit die projectenafleidendat 2014 het jaar van PAY (ST,Base pay, perf) wordtdaarwaar we vorigjaarvooralfocusten op BENEFITS (car, verzek)
  • Gerapporteerdvorigjaartijdens survey: reward communication, pfp, car policies, pension&group insurance
  • Uitdaging 3-voudigIndiv & differentiation were perspectives were reward managers weren’t really happy about1 en 3 zijneigenlijkgelinktAlser minder budget is, wel de goedebelonen!Als we kijkennaar de stijgingen, rond de 1,5%, nietvoldoendeomtemotiveren
  • 1= strongly disagree/2= disagree/ 3=undecided/4=agree/5=strongly agreeStarting from index limitation tendency that they agreeMobility budget = top suggestion? (Literally ‘sustainability’?)Seniority)based increase till Y6 =majority disagrees…seniority-based increase indeed not the ultimate solution to build the future reward building unless combined? (pay for performance and maybe limited till Y6)Pwc study, 2013: Aged 34 or younger: 40% are considering leaving
  • NG & Feldman, 2010in the case of in-role performance,organizational tenure contributed the most to performance when the range oftenure was between 3 and 6 years. In the case of OCB, the effect of tenure was strongest inthe first 3 years of employmentIn bothcases, organizational tenure has positive effects on performance, but at diminishing rates(cf. Table 4). Consistent with Sturman (2003), we found that the effects of tenure on performancestart to decrease somewhere between Year 3 and Year 6 and drop to virtually zeroaround 14 years of employment. In essence, as employees continue to learn and grow ontheir jobs, added years of service do contribute to increased job performance. However, onceemployees have learned their jobs, the incremental improvement in performance per year ofadditional service is smaller.
  • 1= strongly disagree/2= disagree/ 3=undecided/4=agree/5=strongly agreeStarting from index limitation tendency that they agreeMobility budget = top suggestion? (Literally ‘sustainability’?)Seniority)based increase till Y6 =majority disagrees…seniority-based increase indeed not the ultimate solution to build the future reward building unless combined? (pay for performance and maybe limited till Y6)Pwc study, 2013: Aged 34 or younger: 40% are considering leaving
  • 1= strongly disagree/2= disagree/ 3=undecided/4=agree/5=strongly agreeStarting from index limitation tendency that they agreeMobility budget = top suggestion? (Literally ‘sustainability’?)Seniority)based increase till Y6 =majority disagrees…seniority-based increase indeed not the ultimate solution to build the future reward building unless combined? (pay for performance and maybe limited till Y6)Pwc study, 2013: Aged 34 or younger: 40% are considering leaving
  • ParticipantsGDF Suez, Compensation & benefits manager (Fr)Barco, Global Comp & ben specialist (Bel)NordeaBank, Compensation specialist (Zweed)Tetra Pak, VP HR (China & Zwitserland)Nog iemand van NederlandBekaert, Global comp&ben manager (Bel)
  • Transcript

    • 1. THE REWARD BAROMETER: TRENDS & PROJECTS SHAPING TODAY’S REWARD MANAGER’S AGENDA IN 2014 AND BEYOND FEMKE DHONT, CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN STRATEGIC REWARDS
    • 2. 1 METHODOLOGY
    • 3. SURVEY Questionnaire 17 December 2013– 25 January 2014 43 companies All sectors 4 © Vlerick Business School
    • 4. COMPANY SIZE Number 3% 7% 7% 14% 69% 0-200 201-500 501-1000 1001-2000 More than 2000 5 © Vlerick Business School
    • 5. BUILDING BLOCKS Current reward practices 6 © Vlerick Business School Strategic importance & satisfaction Reward Trends in 2014 Reward building of the future
    • 6. 2 CURRENT REWARD PRACTICES
    • 7. REWARD FRAMEWORK 8 © Vlerick Business School
    • 8. DO YOU HAVE A FORMAL REWARD STRATEGY? ‘Reward strategy is ultimately a way of thinking’ 100% 80% (Brown) 60% 40% 2013 2009 20% 0% Yes © Vlerick Business School No, but planning No, not planning
    • 9. WHICH FACTORS DETERMINE BASE PAY PROGRESSION? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % of respondents 10 © Vlerick Business School
    • 10. WHICH FACTORS DETERMINE THE PAY-OUT OF INCENTIVES? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % of respondents 11 © Vlerick Business School
    • 11. 3 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES & SATISFACTION
    • 12. STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE VERSUS SATISFACTION Satisfaction 5.50 Keep 1 – Diversity 2 – Recruitment 3 – Retention 4 – Grading 5 – External Equity Good Job 5.25 2 1 5.00 4 3 5 4.75 9 Areas of concern 8 4.50 6 4.25 4.25 4.75 © Vlerick Business School 10 7 5.25 Highest priority 5.75 Strategic Importance 6.25 6 – Competence management 7 – Workforce Planning 8 – Internal Equity 9 – Performance Management 10 – Cost Management 6.75
    • 13. HIGHEST PRIORITIES 14 © Vlerick Business School
    • 14. 4 REWARD PROJECTS FOR 2014
    • 15. TOP OF MIND IN 2014 16 © Vlerick Business School
    • 16. WHAT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA THE COMING YEARS? TOP Reward Projects 2014 Reward Communication Short-term Incentives Performance Management Base Pay Flexible Benefits Car Policy Pension & Group Insurance Long-term Incentives Work-Life Benefits 17 © Vlerick Business School
    • 17. CONCLUSION – CHALLENGE FOR 2014 Make rewards… 18 © Vlerick Business School
    • 18. 5 THE REWARD BUILDING OF THE FUTURE
    • 19. Indicate to what extent you agree that the following suggestions are sustainable elements for the reward building of the future © Vlerick Business School
    • 20. BASE PAY – EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS.. Increase based on individual performance Seniority-based increase Increase till mid-Point Competence-based increase Seniority-based increase till Y6 Index limited to the first 3500 euro gross Only indexation as increase © Vlerick Business School
    • 21. WHATS DOES THE LITERATURE SAY ABOUT SENIORITY-BASED PAY? Tenure and performance are positively linked, but At a diminishing rate Y0 – Y3: positive effect Y3 – Y6: decreasing positive effect Y14 - …: zero effect  Rationale for ‘light’ seniority-based pay till certain seniority level 22 © Vlerick Business School (NG &Feldman)
    • 22. VARIABLE PAY – WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING SUGGESTIONS? Profit Sharing Systems Target bonus as fixed amount Participation in Shares © Vlerick Business School
    • 23. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS – YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE IDEAS? DC plan based on reference salary Mobility Budget © Vlerick Business School
    • 24. MORE INFORMATION? Femke Dhont – Programme manager Femke.dhont@vlerick.com + 32 (9) 210 97 64 FemkeDhont www.vlerick.com/strategicrewards © Vlerick Business School 25

    ×