Colin Walsh· People Analytics Lead, Kestrel Aerospace
Asked in Compensation ·
Budget for next year has come in at 2%. We are a UK university with about 2,600 professional services staff on a market-based structure, separate from the academic pay spine.
Our usual matrix has three performance levels and four range quartiles, twelve cells. At 2%, the difference between the best and the middle cell would be about 1.2 points. Managers are already saying the conversations will cost more goodwill than the money is worth.
Is it better to give everyone a flat amount this year, or to keep the matrix and accept small differences? I would like to hear from people who have done either.
6 helpful · 1 insightful · 1 agree · 5 replies · 44 views · 2 following
Accepted answer· by Victor Ueda
We kept the matrix in a 2% year and collapsed it instead. Two performance groups, not three, and two range positions, below and above midpoint. Four cells: 3.5%, 2.5%, 1.5%, 0%. Top performers low in range still got something visible, and the zero cell was small because few people were both above midpoint and not meeting expectations. The flat option sounds kind, but it quietly tells your strongest people in the lower half of the range that position does not matter.
Read in the conversation ↓