My post last week at the Compensation Cafe, Pay for Influence? Rewards for Retweets? explored the question of whether a premium should be paid to "influencers", employees who bring enormous work-related social networks to the table.
My friend Paul Hebert of Incentive Intelligence raised some great points and questions in the comments section of that post, and we began an interesting discussion around the notion of whether and how we pay for influence. In an effort to entice others to join in and share their perspectives, I thought I'd lift some of that conversation out and bring it over here.
Points and questions include the following:
This is no longer a "sales" question. The ubiquity of social media have put influence - real influence - within reach of any and all employees, the rank and file versus simply the sales staff or the rainmaking elite. We'd better be prepared to answer the question for all nature of roles and positions.
As always, it boils down to sharing value created. Like any other talent, skill or effort that impacts the business and produces value, we need to consider and put in place the means by which we can share that value between the organization and those whose influence drove the value creation. What is the best means of doing this?
Measurement is a challenge (to say the least). The real value of influence, particularly in the age of electronic media and networking, is a fickle and difficult-to-measure thing. Sheer numbers cannot be taken at face value. Influence, as Paul notes, sprouts from authenticity. To what extent is the individual's authenticity connected to - or independent from - the employer's brand and product/service offerings?
Raw materials versus results. And finally, what do we reward here - the raw materials of influence (today's social media being the "digital equivalent" of yesterday's well-oiled Rolodex) or the business impact of using that social influence? Or both? Do we pay to "purchase" the raw materials of influence, the enormous work-related network, in the same way that we "purchase" a newly minted software engineering degree ... even though the degree holder has not yet proven his/her ability to create job results? Or do we approach it in the manner that many of us did, decades ago, when secretaries and executive assistants in many organizations demanded premium pay because they now had to use a PC, rather than a typewriter, to produce memos and correspondence? Is it truly a new kind of raw material that we must now distinguish and pay a premium for - or is it simply the newest ticket that must be punched in order to keep our credentials and market value current in today's world of work?
What do you say?
Image courtesy of timberry.bplans.com
Comments