AFS Consulting

Many organizations offer a substantial contingent compensation component (incentive bonus schemes) to many employees as part of the overall pay package – 20-50% of total compensation is ‘at risk’. This is especially the case for executive level staff and sales staff. (It is noted that most not-for-profit associations do not

Luckily, neither employees nor employers evaluate equity outcomes based merely on surveys; it is not like checking the price of a flat screen tv in an electronics store and choosing the one that best meets your requirements and budget. Other factors can go into the overall determination of fair and

These days organizations seem more interested in limiting their financial and legal liability than they are with preserving the ongoing effectiveness of the firm, even if unintended. Despite twenty years of lessons learned from William Bridges et al. – lip service? – many organizations do not seem to realize that

Employees need to believe that they are comparably and fairly paid relative to others, both internally and externally. Luckily, employees are fairly elastic when it comes to how they make this equity calculation. It’s not just a 1:1 comparison, it is a dynamic comparison of relative inputs compared to relative

I used to be a great believer in linking performance appraisals with ‘performance pay’ – annual MBO type performance reviews were supposed to drive the pay awards. Not any more. At least not for regular employees. Many working level employees cannot see how their ‘goals’ relate to the overall organization

The goal of effective pay practices in organizations should be to reinforce positive behaviours in support of the achievement of organization purpose and objectives. Current ‘compensation’ practices often do the opposite. Herzberg argued decades ago, echoed by Daniel Pink today, that people are motivated by intrinsic factors and become dissatisfied