I know what they say about consistency.
Ralph Waldo Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
Oscar Wilde: "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative."
I agree with Emerson and Wilde that consistency for its own sake is not always the best strategy. But in the realm of base salary administration, it is often worth a nod. This is particularly true - I believe - when it comes to midpoint differentials.
Midpoint differentials are those jumps from salary range midpoint to midpoint as you work your way up a traditional salary range structure. For example, if you have a salary range (let's call it Grade 5) that looks like this ...
Minimum: $40,000
Midpoint: $50,000
Maximum: $60,000
... and the next salary range moving up the structure (let's call it Grade 6) looks like this ...
Minimum: $44,000
Midpoint: $55,000
Maximum: $66,000
... you have a midpoint differential (or a jump from the midpoint to midpoint) between the two grades of 10%.
In my work with a wide range of organizations over time, I often run into salary structures where the midpoint differentials look as though they came from a random number generator, so that differentials from grade to grade moving up a structure might be 6%, 15%, 11%, 3%, 8%, 22%, 5%, etc. In some cases, the salary range structures are purposefully created this way, following some (goofy) sense of the organic nature of job value growth; in other cases, the chaos happens over time as a result of somewhat haphazard management of the structure.
Does it really matter? I find that it does. Wildly inconsistent midpoint differentials play havoc with an organization's attempt to manage promotions and job re-evaluations or upgrades in an equitable and - yes - consistent manner. If a one-grade promotion means a 3% increase in job value in some cases, and a 22% increase in job value in other cases, it is difficult to conceive and manage salary treatment guidelines that address each case in a fair manner. The same holds true for job re-evaluations or upgrades. It might be easier to defend a job upgrade in a situation where we are only talking about a 3% difference than in a situation where a grade change entails a 22% leap, making it difficult to handle these decisions in an equitable way.
If things are relatively static in your organization, that is to say that there is not a lot of job change or a lot of promotional movement, then inconsistent midpoint differentials may not present you with too many headaches. If, however, your organization is a more dynamic one, where this sort of movement is a given, a structure with inconsistent midpoint differentials will make the job of equitable salary management more difficult than it needs to be.
Comments