Home > Networking Hub >

talented employee salary management (13)

07-04-2015 04:48 AM #1 acepowermarketing (AMC Alumnus)
talented employee salary management

how would you pay your top employees? that can replace almost 90% of what you do?

they might not be able to find a better job, so does that mean you pay them the minimum?

or would you prefer to treat them as talents and fair them their fair pay?

or is paying them too much defeating the purpose of profit since they would stay anyway?

or do you think paying them well and close to their fair employee encourage them to take better care of your company?

or would the higher pay encourage them to be lazy? and give them capital to steal your campaigns later? since they can already run most of your company?

07-04-2015 05:56 AM #2 Smaxor (Veteran Member)

The main problem I see is "replace 90% of what you do"

You really should be building turn key systems. Then scilo'ing those people. They never should have more the a 30% deep understanding of what you do.

This is obviously for lower level people. If you hire someone in in a high level you should pay them what they're worth and give them some interest in the company. Via a cliff and vesting over time.

07-04-2015 06:57 AM #3 manu_adefy (Veteran Member)

That sounds like such an 'it depends' question.

Not all people are the same, some value money the most, some want more challenges, some want a certain lifestyle, etc.

You should try to get to know them on that level too, what is important for them long term in life, not just the company. That is, if you really want to hold them for the long run. There's also the question of how much will they know about the company? If you are very transparent, you cannot underpay them. At the same time, if you are transparent with someone, they should understand that it's a business and they will be paid less than they provide for the company. If you are not transparent and their talent is strictly following what you tell them to do, then you can probably underpay but it also means their careers are capped since it's a very narrow talent that they have.

Their culture is another thing. Knowing your exact situation, it takes something different to keep Filipinos happy than it would take, say Austrians

If it wasn't obvious, the less you have to manage them, the more they should get paid too. You want employees that take your workload, not that make you work more.

Learn about their goals, needs, wants and adjust to it, not necessarily only in monetary value.

07-04-2015 05:50 PM #4 mindfume (AMC Alumnus)

^^ some great advices.

Employee management is somewhat similar to campaigns: you will try things, and you will fail, and you will learn from those mistakes.
But you can never get it 100% right.

Even the very best CEO's have all made stupid hiring mistakes.
So there's no silver bullet system, because humans are not robots and therefore they are unpredictable.

07-06-2015 07:49 AM #5 John Jonas (Senior Member)

You also have to remember that worker motivation and engagement isn't just about money, it's how you well you treat your people. If you want them to stay, paying them well is just one part of the equation. You have to make your workers feel valued. The best workers don't just work for the money, they work because they feel like they're doing something important, that they're making a difference. And if you can tap into that, you'll win your employees loyalty.

07-07-2015 04:21 AM #6 acepowermarketing (AMC Alumnus)

Quote Originally Posted by John Jonas View Post
You also have to remember that worker motivation and engagement isn't just about money, it's how you well you treat your people. If you want them to stay, paying them well is just one part of the equation. You have to make your workers feel valued. The best workers don't just work for the money, they work because they feel like they're doing something important, that they're making a difference. And if you can tap into that, you'll win your employees loyalty.
thank you for sharing.

could you provide examples of how a employee rejected a higher pay because of loyalty and feeling they make a difference? at the same time maybe you could explain how an employee moved to another job of lower pay because of lack of loyalty and value?

as much as i see all the studies conducted on employees, i dont see solid data backing this claim.

07-07-2015 06:42 AM #7 acepowermarketing (AMC Alumnus)

Quote Originally Posted by Smaxor View Post
The main problem I see is "replace 90% of what you do"

You really should be building turn key systems. Then scilo'ing those people. They never should have more the a 30% deep understanding of what you do.

This is obviously for lower level people. If you hire someone in in a high level you should pay them what they're worth and give them some interest in the company. Via a cliff and vesting over time.
i see a interesting "split" of employees. you have the "never should have more the a 30% deep understanding of what you do. " and also the other group which "you should pay them what they're worth and give them some interest in the company"

could u explain more about how u define these 2 groups? and perhaps more details into the compensation involved?

it does not always have to be money, it could be time off, staff benefits, insurance.

and do u have a guideline for how much to pay them? after looking at generic financial statements we are able to see that usually employees get paid 30% of the entire profits. how do we adjust that for our industry? pay more because its more skilled? pay less because it depends on systems?

at the same time we have interests to take care of, we have the investors, we have the owners, we have the managers, and of course the low level "Factory" employees

07-07-2015 06:45 AM #8 acepowermarketing (AMC Alumnus)

Quote Originally Posted by manusit View Post
That sounds like such an 'it depends' question.

Not all people are the same, some value money the most, some want more challenges, some want a certain lifestyle, etc.

You should try to get to know them on that level too, what is important for them long term in life, not just the company. That is, if you really want to hold them for the long run. There's also the question of how much will they know about the company? If you are very transparent, you cannot underpay them. At the same time, if you are transparent with someone, they should understand that it's a business and they will be paid less than they provide for the company. If you are not transparent and their talent is strictly following what you tell them to do, then you can probably underpay but it also means their careers are capped since it's a very narrow talent that they have.

Their culture is another thing. Knowing your exact situation, it takes something different to keep Filipinos happy than it would take, say Austrians

If it wasn't obvious, the less you have to manage them, the more they should get paid too. You want employees that take your workload, not that make you work more.

Learn about their goals, needs, wants and adjust to it, not necessarily only in monetary value.
we are usually very transparent about what we do. its not so much of a choice. more like we tested the other method and it didnt quite work out.

we are interested to help them achieve their own personal goals, whatever that may be.

we spend time on a regular basis to understand our employees and their personal challenges in depth, which like what you mentioned, are usually entirely different from everyone else.

and yes, we only want to keep employees that reduce workload, we release those who causes the work load to increase. in fact they not only cause the work load to increase, they cause losses, unhappiness among our current employees, and increased mistake rates all throughout the company. we fire them very very quickly before they cause the entire company to rot.

can you share more about how you learn more about your employees? what are the questions we need to ask? what in general are their needs?

07-07-2015 06:46 AM #9 acepowermarketing (AMC Alumnus)

Quote Originally Posted by mindfume View Post
^^ some great advices.

Employee management is somewhat similar to campaigns: you will try things, and you will fail, and you will learn from those mistakes.
But you can never get it 100% right.

Even the very best CEO's have all made stupid hiring mistakes.
So there's no silver bullet system, because humans are not robots and therefore they are unpredictable.
great point there. most of our system was not exactly planned in advance. it was alot of trail and error and we simply shifted to the system that seems to work better for us, and we are trying to understand what this system actually is? and trying to isolate the top 3 important variables so we can focus on them even more.

07-07-2015 10:10 AM #10 manu_adefy (Veteran Member)

Quote Originally Posted by xavierfok View Post
we are usually very transparent about what we do. its not so much of a choice. more like we tested the other method and it didnt quite work out.

we are interested to help them achieve their own personal goals, whatever that may be.

we spend time on a regular basis to understand our employees and their personal challenges in depth, which like what you mentioned, are usually entirely different from everyone else.

and yes, we only want to keep employees that reduce workload, we release those who causes the work load to increase. in fact they not only cause the work load to increase, they cause losses, unhappiness among our current employees, and increased mistake rates all throughout the company. we fire them very very quickly before they cause the entire company to rot.

can you share more about how you learn more about your employees? what are the questions we need to ask? what in general are their needs?
Yeah, in AM they see the numbers pretty often but they might not know all the margins and other expenses. I would usually explain that if it's not obvious to them. Helping them in all their goals is the right way to go about it imo.

I worked with young employees most of the time and my business connections the same. Young employees that are motivated by being early in a company and seeing themselves grow with it, instead of doing the corporate rate race and start from low in a huge organization. They are also very open to low pay while the company grows and getting higher pay based on results. I know of more than one situation in which employees gave up part of their salaries when the companies where running out of money (which is pretty common in startups). That is because they saw the potential and a short term sacrifice for the company and the team was worth it. I am not sure how often you can do that in this case though. It also doesn't happen almost ever with remote work, which is why for long term collaboration, I favour common office instead of remote work.

I learn about people, not only employees, by having deeper talks with them, not just casual ones. I talk about what they like to read, what non-leisure activties they do, and most importantly WHY they do all of those. I am very interested in their motivation to develop as a person. If someone really wants to become a better person overall, I know I can work with them. If they are dismissive and think they are 'perfect' or it's not worth improving, then I probably cannot work with them. Such people will probably be better in positions where they have less responsibility, less pay and generally just be humanoid robots. I never had a business at a stage to need that, so I always looked for talented, motivated people.

07-07-2015 10:20 AM #11 cbrughmans (Member)

33% to 50% of the salary should be performance-based, meaning a bonus on the revenues/margin they bring in. This brings the employee on the same page than you (the owner) and gives them the same objective. IMO you have to give people a good basic salary (fixed) to be able to live on in a nice way, but with the bonus their earnings can go from "OK" to "Very Good".

If you set this up in a very structured way, with clear, measurable $$ objectives, you can 100% trust they'll do a good job as its in their own best interest to do so.

07-07-2015 01:09 PM #12 milobanski (AMC Alumnus)

A lot of people here over-value commission based models. Commission based models are great IF your company is doing great. Realize that not many companies are constantly doing great (hi @ reality check).

Now what happens to your top employees when business turns sour and you have to reinvent the wheel? That takes time, and during that time your employees effectively sit there with a xx% pay cut looking a new position to fill at a different company. Shares are more attractive for anyone looking to build a long term business with you. That doesn't completely rule out commissions or bonuses, but sets different expectations.

07-07-2015 04:26 PM #13 acepowermarketing (AMC Alumnus)

Quote Originally Posted by milobanski View Post
A lot of people here over-value commission based models. Commission based models are great IF your company is doing great. Realize that not many companies are constantly doing great (hi @ reality check).

Now what happens to your top employees when business turns sour and you have to reinvent the wheel? That takes time, and during that time your employees effectively sit there with a xx% pay cut looking a new position to fill at a different company. Shares are more attractive for anyone looking to build a long term business with you. That doesn't completely rule out commissions or bonuses, but sets different expectations.
this is an interesting post. lets say we dont give them shares, and then we just give a good pay. when the business flops and they leave... then why pay them well in the first place? since they would have taken the job at a much lower pay and we know they are stuck and almost impossible for them to find another job given their circumstances for a very long time?

Home > Networking Hub >