"Line of sight" is a much used phrase among compensation professionals, particularly with regard to incentives. In the context of its military origins, line of sight means "distance to target". In reward plan design, it is used to describe an employee's perceived ability to impact performance.
A number of noted variable pay experts are calling for more focus on individual performance measures in these plans, in order to strengthen employee "line of sight". Research suggests that many companies are following this advice.
I say that this advice may not only be counterproductive - signaling employees to hunker down and keep their focus within the boundaries of their immediate responsibilities - it may also represent a dereliction of duty on the part of their leaders.
Because isn't line of sight ultimately a leadership thing? Isn't it something that a great leader attends to as a matter of course, helping employees understand the larger purpose that their work serves as well as the role they play in making the organization successful and profitable? Is this too much to ask of today's leaders?
Is this increased focus on individual performance and rewards truly the right road, the best way to engage and draw the most from today's workers in today's world ... or are we just defaulting to the path of least resistance?
Image courtesy of epmedge.com
Naw, I'll be disagreeable (a frequent if not usual status for me) and take the negative position.
Sure, leaders should help people understand their roles, but it remains up to the employees to fulfil those role expectations. Does no good for anyone if everyone understands what they should do and how it all fits together if all are observers and no one acts to make it happen. "Line of sight" merely supplies the vision for the goal, whether it be corporate or personal. Attaining that objective is a lot easier if progress towards the objective is clear.
Posted by: E James (Jim) Brennan | November 01, 2011 at 12:36 PM
Aha - a debate!
So, if I follow your comments and their logic correctly, you would advise most companies to spend most/all of their variable pay dollars reinforcing individual performance achievement? So that base pay, base pay increases and variable pay earnings would be primarily aligned with individual qualifications and results? And advise against using a sizeable portion of variable pay dollars to call attention to group/organization imperatives, recognize moving the needle on collective goals or encourage collaboration on cross-divn/dept/function needs and objectives?
Or am I misunderstanding your disagreement?
Posted by: Ann Bares | November 01, 2011 at 01:23 PM