Loren Rosario - Maldonado, PCC

Train HRBPs to Handle Pay Decisions I don’t know a compensation department that is fully staffed to meet the demand for their support and advice. And with compliance becoming more complicated the demand will only grow for comp team members and their time. One way to extend your team is to train the HR Business Partners (HRBPs) and Talent Acquisition (TA) team to do some of the compensation work that you are doing today. Step 1 – Define the work that the comp team does today that the HRBPs and TA can do. Examples include: · Develop offers for newly hired employees. · Develop offers for employee job changes like promotions, lateral moves, and demotions. · Provide pay-related advice to business leaders. · Review job descriptions for completeness and clarity. Click on the link to watch the full video. https://lnkd.in/g5XB3p-c

154

11 Comments

The longer I work in executive assistance, the more I realize... - Technical skills don't matter - Calendar management doesn't matter - Even project management doesn't matter Anyone can learn these skills from free courses and YouTube. The only thing that truly matters is giving your principal back time. Then protecting it in whatever way they need it most. To do that requires: - Good work without mistakes - Keeping your own score - Grace under pressure - Strong work ethic Those can't be taught from a tutorial. But they're what the EA role is all about. And if you throw in a hospitality mindset by leveraging your EQ and soft skills, magic can happen.

97

6 Comments

Josh Bersin just published "The Talent Acquisition Revolution". 100% aligned with what we’re building at MakiPeople. A few takeaways I found powerful: -the old ways don’t work anymore, not for recruiters, not for candidates, not for businesses. -AI frees recruiters from repetitive tasks so they can focus on solving complex problems and creating meaningful human connections. -AI is turning recruiting from an art into a science, connecting time-to-fill, efficiency, and quality of hire directly to business outcomes like growth, agility, and innovation. -AI-first platforms mean recruiters can now scale their influence and impact like never before. -this is not about optimizing steps in the process, it’s about reshaping the whole architecture of how companies engage with talent. exciting to see the industry embracing a vision we’ve been pursuing from day one at Maki !!!! goooo 🪐 https://lnkd.in/e6PxwH8Y

54

5 Comments

A BIG problem is coming for leaders seeking promotion, but there is GOOD NEWS for individual contributors. Here is what I see and what you can do about it: What I see is that AI-based efficiency and economic pressure are limiting headcount growth. This creates a challenge for leadership promotions because they have long relied on headcount as a big factor in role definition. While decision-making skill and impact should be the metrics, it's just much easier to count people. So, if teams aren’t growing, leaders will be less likely to get promoted. However, leadership complexity is going to grow. Leaders may not be managing more people, but when 10 engineers can do the work of 50 because of AI, the leader will need to be able to keep up with a more rapid pace of change. But because people change their beliefs and patterns slowly, companies are still going to see 10-person teams as a first-level management job without realizing the difference. Most companies will only change with time and pain. Until then, leadership promotions will stall. Your main options for leadership growth are thus: a) Leave and "promote yourself" in a startup structure b) Wait for others to do (a), leaving their teams and scope to you. This will allow you to “increase your headcount" and thus be promotion-eligible. Now for the good news: Individual contributors do not have this problem. AI will put some individuals completely out of work, but it will also make a class of work so efficient that fewer people are needed. Economic theory indicates that some will lose their jobs in this scenario while others see their wages drop. But, AI may also give rise to the "Super-IC" - the individual who can now produce what 2, 5, or 10 people did before. Those who develop the right skills to become "Super-ICs" will then produce 5 or 10 times as much value. While the company will keep most of that (capitalism), the Super-IC will be in a position to demand promotion to "Staff" or "Principal" levels and receive the related pay. The big difference between the IC’s situation and that of the manager is that we are used to measuring and rewarding ICs based on total work output and impact. When this output and impact increase, so will the rewards given to the ICs. Nothing about the human "mental model" of valuing star performers has to change for this to happen. This is different than how we value managers, which has long used number of people as a proxy for seniority and value. So, ICs stand to gain more easily from AI-based efficiency than middle managers. Don't like this vision? The good news is that needs we cannot see right now will be discovered and emerge. The work we can share is inventing our way into a better future. What other paths do you see for career growth in the future economy? Want help navigating this changing world? My best known course can help: https://buff.ly/eqcp0Jq

211

25 Comments

When a Job Evaluation Results in a Higher Grade, Now What? Re-evaluating jobs is essential for maintaining an equitable and competitive pay structure. But what happens after the evaluation, especially when a job is regraded upward? It’s a scenario compensation teams regularly face and it’s often a gray area in policy and practice. Let’s say a job is re-evaluated and placed into a higher grade due to increased scope, impact, or external market benchmarking. Do you give an increase to employees currently in that job? Or only if their pay is below the new range minimum? Minimum standard: ·       If an employee’s current pay falls below the new grade range, it’s best practice (and common sense) to bring them up to at least the minimum, effective immediately or at a transition date. But what if the employee’s current pay is already within the new, higher range? This is where judgment is applied. Here are some key considerations: #1 - Is there a formal reclassification policy? Many companies only increase pay if it falls below the range, treating the rest as “in-range” and therefore not requiring a base pay raise. #2 - Has the employee’s scope of work evolved, or was the role misaligned to begin with? If the employee has been performing at a higher level for some time, a market or equity adjustment may be warranted even if pay is technically within range. #3 - Are you signaling the value of the job clearly? Regrading without a salary increase, can feel like a hollow gesture to employees who perceive they've taken on more difficult job responsibilities or delivered higher valued results. #4 - Pay equity and compression: If the regrade causes compression with peers or supervisors, you may need to adjust the employees’ pay to maintain internal equity. Best practice? Consider a case-by-case approach within a clear framework. For example: **If pay is below the new minimum, then bring pay to at least the minimum. **If pay is within the range but low , then consider a base pay increase or market/equity adjustment. **If pay is above midpoint or near the range maximum, then consider no action, but communicate clearly. And always, document the rationale for transparency and consistency. How does your organization handle these scenarios? Share practices and pitfalls to avoid in the comments below. #Compensation #TotalRewards #JobEvaluation #PayEquity #HR #InternalEquity #PayPractices #JobArchitecture #CompensationConsultant #SHRM #WorldatWork

78

7 Comments