First Comment

Being played out in the New York media is a very public contract dispute between an employee and an employer. This isn't strange--especially not for sports--where the New York Jets' Darrelle Revis (who already had a contract, mind you) had a long contract dispute before it was finally settled in equally public fashion. But there have been few contract negotiations quite like this one--a legend who embodies an organization fighting on the back pages with a legendary organization that demands professionalism and results from its employees. In the end, the Yankees need Jeter and Jeter needs the Yankees...but in the meantime, they're left to squabble it out to sports writers.

HardballTalk

But that doesn't mean that similar things don't go on in your own company. How many employees do you currently manage who are unhappy with their salaries but their loss would sting your company more than the financial outlay? How many employers have employees that they can probably do without but have meant so much to an organization that added financial incentive to stay around (and maybe as a reward for past results) may be appropriate? How many times does this situation become contentious and lead to a standstill between the perceived value of the employee and the offering value of the company?

The problem is that it doesn't look good from either side, but the employer has to figure a way to solve it before the problem spreads to other employees. Can you imagine if all the Yankees free agents were involved in this much of a public spectacle over the contract negotiations? If the Yankees were actually playing right now (and corporate America rarely has an off-season like baseball does) imagine the distraction this would cause--is the proposed cost savings worth it? The lesson here is not to pay employees just because they become disgruntled or to reward bad behavior, but sometimes a little extra pay (or other types of incentives) goes a long way to making sure a dispute does not get out of hand. As many people would find it weird to see Derek Jeter in anything other than Pinstripes, so you should find it weird to imagine your best employees working for one of your competitors.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, it's that time of year again. It's time to give and receive performance reviews. But while most people dread that time--and since it's usually tied to bonuses and raises, that's totally understandable--it should be a time where an employee can reflect on their progress from the previous year and managers and Human Resources can access an employee's year-to-year performance AND development.

The development aspect of it can be the most important part of the process. It is important to look at what happened in the past year but other than compensation or layoff purposes, it's all information of what's already happened. What can be just as important--or more important in many cases--are the development growth planned to build on the the current year's performances for next year and beyond. Since the goal is to retain most of your employees and make sure they perform to the highest capabilities, the development plan for the future--and employees goals being aligned with that plan--is vital to make sure that you meeting your overall corporate goals.

And that's why goal planning should always be tied into the performance review. That isn't to say that there needs to be punishment for not meeting goals or great rewards for exceeding them, but it is important to make sure everyone is rowing in the same direction. That way, when the actual performance review takes place, the employees next-year development plan can be ironed out more easily. Employees would go from fearing reprimand to wondering what they needed to incorporate into their own planning for the next year. In the end, if their goals are tied to the company's goals, then they can actually feel like they're making a difference--which makes performance reviews just a little more palatable.

A few links for your humpday:

The New York Times provides a toolkit for women seeking a raise and an opportunity to move up within their company.

The New York Times also provides a toolkit for making yourself indispensable regardless of your gender in this Career Couch Q&A

The Associated Press via Yahoo! News says that more employees are jumping ship as a sign the economy is improving (H/T Wendy)

And, lastly, from EW, who says you can't be promoted in The Office?

Great post from The New York Times Freakonomics Blog (and a true, but funny ending as well):
One of the jobs on the list as Steven Levitt points out? Human resources recruiter! So there may be money in your job, yet.

Other great Freakonomics posts for HR to read:

• Italian workers who were able to trade overtime
• A look at what has happened to wages in the past 3,000 years.
• Levitt tries to determine the economic value of popularity
• If you give your employees a raise, will they start watching TV in the bathroom?
• Levitt reviews Michael Lewis' NFL book Blind Side and salaries in the NFL
  

Enjoy!

Many lament that financial industry salaries continue to grow at abnormal rates through bad economic cycles, but loyal reader Wendy sends in this article from Institutional Investor Magazine which says that fixed-income buy-side analysts are beginning to see the effects of this downturn...at least a little bit: click here

Update 11:50 AM: Missed it, but thanks for pointing out...sell-side also has information: click here

We start off on this Tuesday (an Astronology Tuesday) with a blog entry from the Boston Globe Monster.com HR Center HR Blog about Millenials: click here

Next, from the Wall Street Journal's Career Journal, advice on how to get better pay after years of a lower salary: click here

Also from the Journal, word that the same old technologies that worked in the past are proving successful today for productivity (see chart on right): click here

Lastly, as a special to the Journal a Q&A that addresses the ways to get out of negative thinking at work: click here

This info from WorldAtWork, when taken in tandem, doesn't look all that great...

Average annual medical premium costs increased 6% this past year: click here

Pay increases on a national level are going to be 3.9% for this year: click here

(Doesn't seem to be a very good combination...)

Here are the results of the survey on a state/province level...

TABLE 1. Average Salary Budget Increases by Major Metropolitan Area (U.S.)

	Actual 2008	Projected 2009
NATIONAL	3.9%	3.9%
Atlanta	3.8%	3.8%
Baltimore	3.8%	3.8%
Boston	3.9%	3.9%
Chicago	3.8%	3.8%
Cincinnati	3.7%	3.8%
Cleveland	3.8%	3.8%
Dallas	3.8%	3.8%
Denver	3.9%	3.9%
Detroit	3.7%	3.8%
Houston	3.9%	3.9%
Los Angeles	3.8%	3.9%
Miami	3.8%	3.8%
Minneapolis	3.7%	3.7%
New York	3.8%	3.8%
Philadelphia	3.8%	3.9%
Phoenix	3.8%	3.8%
Pittsburgh	3.7%	3.8%
Portland	3.8%	3.8%
San Diego	3.8%	3.9%
San Francisco	3.9%	3.9%
San Jose	3.8%	3.8%
Seattle	3.8%	3.8%
St. Louis	3.7%	3.8%
Tampa	3.8%	3.8%
Washington, D.C.	4.0%	3.9%

TABLE 2. Average Salary Budget Increases by State (U.S.)

	Actual 2008	Projected 2009
NATIONAL	3.9%	3.9%
Alabama	3.8%	3.8%
Alaska	3.7%	3.8%
Arizona	3.8%	3.9%
Arkansas	3.7%	3.7%
California	3.9%	3.9%
Colorado	3.9%	3.9%
Connecticut	3.9%	3.9%
Delaware	3.7%	3.8%
Florida	3.8%	3.8%
Georgia	3.8%	3.8%
Hawaii	3.8%	3.8%
Idaho	3.7%	3.8%
Illinois	3.8%	3.8%
Indiana	3.6%	3.7%
Iowa	3.8%	3.9%
Kansas	3.8%	3.8%
Kentucky	3.7%	3.8%
Louisiana	3.9%	3.9%
Maine	3.8%	3.9%
Maryland	3.8%	3.8%
Massachusetts	3.8%	3.9%
Michigan	3.7%	3.8%
Minnesota	3.7%	3.8%
Mississippi	3.8%	3.8%
Missouri	3.8%	3.8%
Montana	3.7%	3.8%
Nebraska	3.8%	3.8%
Nevada	3.8%	3.8%
New Hampshire	3.7%	3.8%
New Jersey	3.8%	3.8%
New Mexico	3.9%	3.9%
New York	3.9%	3.8%
North Carolina	3.7%	3.7%
North Dakota	3.9%	4.0%
Ohio	3.8%	3.8%
Oklahoma	3.8%	3.8%
Oregon	3.8%	3.8%
Pennsylvania	3.8%	3.9%
Rhode Island	3.7%	3.8%
South Carolina	3.7%	3.7%
South Dakota	3.8%	3.9%
Tennessee	3.7%	3.7%
Texas	3.9%	4.0%
Utah	3.8%	3.8%
Vermont	3.8%	3.8%
Virginia	3.8%	3.9%
Washington	3.8%	3.9%
Washington, D.C.	4.0%	3.9%
West Virginia	3.7%	3.8%
Wisconsin	3.8%	3.8%
Wyoming	3.9%	3.9%

TABLE 3. Average Salary Budget Increases by Major Metropolitan Area (Canada)

	Actual 2008	Projected 2009
Calgary	4.0%	3.9%
Edmonton	4.0%	3.9%
Hamilton	3.8%	3.9%
Montreal	3.6%	3.6%
Ottawa	3.8%	3.8%
Quebec	3.6%	3.5%
Toronto	3.7%	3.7%
Vancouver	3.8%	3.8%
Winnipeg	3.9%	3.8%