According to the WorldatWork’s annual Salary Budget Survey, survey participants are planning a slight rise for salary increase budgets to 3.1 percent for 2018, up from 3.0 percent this year.

With a tight job market, low unemployment, inflation seemingly under control, and reported employer financial gains, a larger growth in salaries might be expected. There are other factors that might explain the plateau in growth, including the increased use of variable pay and the use of non-cash rewards, or an overall more conservative pay philosophy. It is also important to keep in mind the impact of several important regulatory actions have had on salaries: the rising minimum wage in certain regions and the overtime rule. It’s entirely possible that these changes have not been reported as a salary budget increase in some cases. While the overtime rule has been blocked, many organizations had implemented the changes and chose not to undo them. So the picture may be brighter for the workforce than it appears.

Keep in mind that salary increase budgets may vary by industry and geography location. The WorldatWork survey showed this year that there was little variation between states, ranging between 2.9 and 3.1 percent. There appears greater variation by metropolitan area, ranging from 3.0 to 3.3 percent. Highest budgets are reported by high-tech areas.

Selected Survey Highlights 

  • Base salary increases are being awarded to 89 percent of employees in 2017.
  • Promotional increases were awarded to 7.9 percent of employees in 2017. The size of the average promotional increase remained unchanged at 8.4 percent.
  • The percentage of organizations using variable pay increased by one percentage point to 85 percent in 2017.  This increased use of variable pay has been seen for several years and likely reflects organizations looking to further their pay-for-performance philosophy, without adding to fixed costs.
Nonexempt
Hourly
Nonexempt
Salaried
Exempt

Salaried

Officer/

Executives

Average percent
budgeted 2017
5.0% 5.0% 13.0% 35.0%
Projected percent paid 2017 5.0% 5.0% 12.0% 35.0%

Employees are still seeing increases in pay through improved variable pay plan payouts.

Retention of Critical Workers
As we have reported earlier, employee retention is a significant concern to many employers. It appears that efforts to retain workers, particularly high performers, high potentials, and critical skilled workers, may need to be ratcheted up. From findings of a study by Spherion Staffing, employees seem more willing to test their options. The study reported that 25 percent of workers planned to look for a new job in the next three months. At the same time, 35 percent plan to do the same in the next year.

With an improved economy and overall job market, employees believe they have more options available. As such, they believe they can demand a higher salary from their current employer or a competitor. Twenty percent cited compensation as the primary reason they plan to explore their option, more than any other employment factor.

Some workers believe their employers do not appreciate their contributions, making them more likely to move to a new company that will. Feeling undervalued topped the list of non-financial factors workers gave for their interest in exploring alternative job opportunities. At the same time, 23 percent of employees felt their organizations were putting less effort in to retain them than last year.

Contact Us
Please contact me at (847) 921-2812 or at nlappley@lappley.com to discuss planned compensation actions for 2018 and forward this email to anyone who may also be interested in these projections.

Variable pay has evolved greatly over the past five to 10 years, and is expected to change more in the future. However, variable pay programs and changes to them have not occurred without challenges.

Prior to the 1970s, the concept of the annual bonus was primarily reserved for the executive level and based on discretionary payments for accomplishing individual objectives. The need for employers to better control their fixed costs led to variable pay in the broader workforce. Organizations also saw that these programs were effective in focusing employees on critical objectives, motivating the achievement of desired results, influencing the way they performed their work, and helping to better align programs and work efforts with the organization’s mission and strategy.

What’s New?
Variable pay has been on the leading edge of one of the foremost changes in compensation philosophy since formal compensation programs were introduced. It has been driven by shrinking expenditures on salary increases, rising cost of employee benefits, and large increases in funding and expenditures on broad-based employee bonuses. Since variable pay increases do not add to, or compound, future costs and are usually dependent on performance results, companies have expanded their overall compensation investment with greater spending on variable pay.

During the past 25 years, salary increase spending has been cut in half (from 5.5 to 2.8 percent of payroll), while funding for bonuses has tripled (from 4.2 to 12.8 percent of payroll), according to AON Hewitt surveys from 1990 to 2017. Variable pay has filled the gap this created in compensation growth.

The shift in spending from salary increases to variable pay has been in parallel with the expectation that bonus programs would become much more important for achieving pay for performance. Initially, broad-based bonus programs focused mostly on organizational goals. Profit-sharing and gain-sharing plans were early examples. In recent years, there has been a drive to create a stronger line of sight in variable pay plans by incorporating greater managerial discretion and a greater focus on individual performance.

What’s Next?
Recent trends and approaches in variable pay programs show several future directions. Organizations will break away from one-size-fits-all plans to ones that have a small common enterprise-wide component and varying measures and weights intended to better measure the performance of a business unit, function or department. Calibrated plans will take the place of homogeneous plans, and we will see more winners and losers within the organization based on different levels of achievement.

Greater use of qualitative measures will also increase. Early generations of incentive plans relied heavily on quantitative measures. There is a growing recognition that critical outcomes and employee behaviors can be enticed by programs that do not use quantitative formulae. However, these qualitative measures may not be always precisely measured.

In the future, almost all variable pay programs will increase or decrease payouts based on individual performance achievement. In the next 5 to 10 years, this will become a mainstay in pay for performance plans.

Levels of spending on broad-based variable pay plans will also continue to increase as organizations expect it to continue to grow. This will most likely be the result of shifting funds from other rewards programs, such as salary growth and some benefits programs.

What’s Challenging?
Variable pay programs have their difficulties. Many organizations struggle to identify the right measures and weightings. Some have too many measures, which leads to diluting their relevance. Some have too strong a reliance on quantitative goals, where measuring outcomes qualitatively may better represent the organization’s strategic goals. And some are stuck on historical measures that have been used in the past and are unwilling to give them up.

More organizations are implementing an individual pay for performance component to their programs. But according to the recent AON Hewitt survey, employers have had no greater success in differentiating rewards by performance level than what they have experienced with their salary programs. The keys to successfully implementing a pay for performance component of variable pay plans is the quality of goal setting, manager training and accountability for differentiating, and the ability to define differences in employee performance.

Effective communication of variable pay continues to be an area of difficulty for organizations. Employees must know what is expected of them, and it should occur at the beginning of the planned year. Additionally, it is critical that employees receive feedback throughout the year. Furthermore, periodic feedback of results vs. organization-wide goals should occur at least quarterly.

Evolving Role of Variable Pay. In the past two decades, variable pay has gone from applying to only the top executives to the primary driver of pay for performance for all employees in the organization. The concepts of variable pay continue to evolve as organizations push them down further in the organization. What will not change is the growing importance of variable pay and the expectation for shaping employee behaviors and motivating the achievement of key business outcomes.

Please contact me at nlappley@lappley.com or (847) 921-2812 to discuss any comments or questions you may have regarding the implementation of variable pay programs in your organization. Feel free to forward this email to anyone else who may be interested.

Compensation Strategy: How to Develop
Last month’s Compensation Alert discussed the importance of having a compensation strategy. In doing so, we posed three questions that organizations need to know:

  1. Are your compensation programs competitive? To answer this question there is a need to answer the question of:
  2. Are compensation programs doing what you need them to do? And to answer this question the question needs to be answered:
  3. What does your organization want its compensation programs to accomplish?

Compensation strategy is part of a company’s human resource strategy and should be integrated with all other elements of human resources. External factors, such as, trends in supply and demand for talent, customers, markets, and challenges affect where an organization is. Internal factors, such as core competencies, values, culture, strategic initiatives, and skills of current employees additionally affect an organization’s human resource strategy.

Compensation strategy is used to design new programs, evaluate existing programs, and communicate programs.

How to Develop a Compensation Strategy: This month’s eNewsletter will discuss the steps to develop a compensation strategy. Development begins by gathering information from several sources:

  • Obtaining information and perspectives from stakeholders including directors, executives, managers, employees and customers.
  • Considering the organization’s business strategy and human resource strategy, and its stage in the business life cycle.
  • Benchmarking the organization against competitors for both employees and in business. This involves understanding an organization’s relative positioning, but not necessarily blindly following. It also considers the economics of the business. Then deciding what’s best for the organization.
  • Developing an initial trial strategy and testing it with stakeholders.
  • Implementing, monitoring, evaluating and revising.

Understanding competitiveness begins with defining the markets where the organization competes for talent and business. The market typically will vary by level and perhaps by function. It incorporates geography including local, regional, national and global. It will also typically vary by industry and occupation or profession.

Market competitiveness target is a key element of an organization’s compensation strategy. Considerations to position at less than the market median include: stable environment, great reputation and opportunity, high benefits, high scrutiny, affordable area, not-for-profit, plentiful supply of desirable employees, and currently paying below median. Considerations to target above the market median include: currently have great employees and recruit only the best, need particular skills short in supply, unstable employment history, less desirable geography, high cost of living area, highly profitable, and currently paying above median.

Base salary has an important role in compensating employees as it provides ongoing job worth and reflects ongoing performance. Design elements include salary range width, how the organizations expects its employees to move through a salary range, the purpose of each segment of the range, and whether differentials or special short-term ranges are to be used.

Annual incentives are meant to reward annual performance. Elements to consider include eligibility, incentive opportunity, performance measures, performance feedback schedule to participants, and payment or holdback schedule.

Long-term incentives, in contrast, are meant to reward a longer performance cycle. Design elements include length of performance period, eligibility, incentive opportunity, performance measures, performance feedback schedule and payment or holdback schedule.

There are several ways that compensation strategy should be used. Your compensation strategy can help in:

  • Designing new programs
  • Evaluating existing programs
  • Communicating programs

Contact Us

Please contact me at nlappley@lappley.com or (847) 864-8979 to discuss any comments or questions you may have regarding the importance and how to develop a compensation strategy.

As I meet with executives and senior managers, they increasingly want to discuss the returns that their organization is receiving from compensation. They are looking less at employee compensation as a cost and more as an investment. They pose the  question: What is our return on investment from compensation? 

The first step in deciding the impact of compensation is to develop a compensation strategy. This month’s Compensation Alert will discuss the importance of a compensation strategy. Next month we will address how to develop a strategy.

Compensation strategy is important. Organizations need to know:

  1. Are their compensation programs effective? To answer this question, there is a need to answer the question of:
  2. Are compensation programs doing what we need them to do? And to answer this question the following question needs to be answered:
  3. What does an organization want its compensation programs to accomplish?

Compensation strategy is the answer to the last question. Strategy is a statement of what we want compensation programs to accomplish.

Compensation strategy is part of a company’s human resource strategy. External factors such as trends in supply and demand for talent, customers, markets, challenges and business opportunities affect where an organization is. Internal factors such as core competencies, values, culture, strategic initiatives, and skills of current employees additionally affect strategy.

Compensation strategy has several elements:

  • Program objectives: what is the organization trying to achieve?
  • What will the organization pay for? For instance, how important is pay for performance?
  • What markets are being used to compare the company? What type of business, geography, size of organization, competitors?
  • How competitively should the organization pay: median, above average, below average?
  • What programs are being offered to what part or parts of the organization?
  • At each level in the company, what is the right mix of programs?

Compensation strategy provides a road map. If you don’t know where you are going, how do you know when you get there? What road to take? It sounds both obvious and somewhat corny, but an organization needs to know where it wants to go in order to plan effective routes, monitor progress, and know when it has arrived.

Compensation features cannot be effective without reference to desired outcomes. How does the organization know if it’s is spending the right amounts, to get the desired results?

There are several ways that compensation strategy should be used. Your compensation strategy can help in:
•    Designing new programs.
•    Evaluating existing programs.
•    Communicating programs.

Compensation strategy focuses on both what is to accomplished and how it will be accomplished.

Next month’s eNewsletter will address developing a compensation strategy.

Contact Us
Please contact me at nlappley@lapppley.com or (847) 864-8979 to discuss any questions you may have from this eNewsletter. Feel free to forward this email to anyone else who may be interested.

Pay equity is an important consideration for employers today. Unfortunately, it’s not something that happens easily. In fact in a recent study we came across, just over a third of respondents had in place a process to address pay equity issues. Addressing this important concern requires a well-considered process to ensure that individuals doing the same job, with the same skills, and level of proficiency within those skills, are paid equally. And pay equity is not only good for the individuals impacted, but has been shown to have a positive link to overall engagement, turnover, and customer service metrics.

Pay equity isn’t just about fairness. It’s about creating an environment that fosters employees to focus on customers, rather than comparing salaries with coworkers. It’s also indicative of a culture that values its employees and is committed to giving them visibility into the process that impacts compensation. This visibility leads to an excellent employee experience, which in turn leads to an excellent customer experience.

Hiring

The marketplace for talent is increasingly transparent. Between the wealth of information online and the ease with which people can connect and share information on social media, bad employers have nowhere to hide. Taking a strong position on pay equity can help a company’s brand in the marketplace.

The equity focus is also indicative of a culture that embraces diversity of all skills, competency and performance, taking an active role ensuring multiple perspectives are given equal credence.

Turnover

Turnover is costly, disruptive and potentially damaging to the employer’s brand. Although turnover will vary by industry, all organizations want to keep their good employees longer. Compensation, and in particular, equitable compensation, according to all surveys, is a significant factor in retention.

Organizations unable to retain talent face a number of challenges, from impact on productivity and morale, to eroding levels of customer service. Obviously, a formal focus on pay equity is not the only factor to impact turnover. But when organizations focus on things that matter to employees, they reap the benefits of employees that stay with the organization.

Engagement

Engagement has become a critical business metric, linked to everything from revenue to customer experience to organizational alignment. And there is no question that compensation matters to engagement. For instance, a recent study showed that the number one component of engagement and retention was compensation.

Performance

Of course, the goal of HR strategy, including compensation, pay equity, and engagement is to drive business performance. It has been shown that organizations that achieve above average engagement levels for their industry were twice as likely to also achieve above average levels of productivity. In addition, they are two and one-half times as likely to have achieved or exceeded revenue goals.

Conclusion

Pay equity is an important mindset for organizations and the workforce as a whole. When employees are treated fairly and equitably, it builds trust, which leads to engagement, retention and performance. It removes difficult conversations between managers and employees, and it allows focus on the work at hand.

Contact Us
Please contact me at nlappley@lapppley.com or (847) 864-8979 to discuss any questions you may have from this eNewsletter. Feel free to forward this email to anyone else who may be interested.

Low unemployment and a looming labor shortage means employers have to work harder to attract and retain top talent. Across gender and education levels, salary and benefits are the most important factors when job seekers are choosing an employer, according to research conducted by Randstad North America. 

It is becoming a candidate-driven market again, and job seekers have more tools to determine if they are getting paid what they’re worth.

A recent survey by Gallup asked the question: “What do workers want most out of their job and their company?” The answer can help companies develop better retention strategies. It can also give insights into why employees may join the organization.

Gallup asked employees how important certain attributes are when considering whether to take a job with a different organization. Although the reasons for changing employers are often multi-faceted and typically include the ability to do what they do best and greater work-life balance, a significant increase in compensation is one of the most important reasons.

A Significant Increase in Compensation

Roughly four out of 10 employees (41 percent) say a significant increase in pay is “very important” to them when considering a new job. Specifically, more male employees than female employees say this factor is “very important”. Not surprisingly, more millennials and Gen Xers, than baby boomers, rate this factor “very important” in a job search.
Income matters to people, and organizations cannot overlook its importance. Organizations should ensure that managers have conversations with candidates explaining in great depth the company’s compensation strategy and how compensation programs work.Retaining Current Employees
At the same time organizations must focus on retaining current staff, particularly top performers and high-potentials. Most companies address this in several ways:

  • Developing a Compensation Strategy – Organizations develop a compensation strategy to better understand how pay supports the overall strategy and culture of the company.  A compensation strategy will describe targeted levels of competitiveness for salary, incentives and benefits; the organization’s approach to pay for performance; and how pay programs will be communicated.
  • Compensation Market Competitiveness – Companies regularly assess the competitiveness of their compensation programs by comparing themselves to market. Consideration is given to who they compete with and who they hire from and lose employees to.
  • Salary Plan – As my colleague Rich Sperling and I have stated in our presentations to senior management and human resource groups, merit increases to top performers and high-potential employees ought to be at least twice the amount given, on average, to fully-competent employees. For example, with an overall salary increase budget of 3 percent, 20 percent of employees can receive an average of 5 percent, while the remaining 80 percent receives an average of 2.5 percent.
  • Incentive Compensation Programs – Companies are slowing moving to increasing the number of variable pay plans for two important reasons: 1) to reward employees for achieving corporate-driven objectives, and 2) to reduce fixed costs.
Now is a good time to review your organization’s compensation strategy and determine if its goals are being met. If yes, great and continue on track. If not, re-evaluate your compensation strategy to determine if it remains appropriated and review pay programs to ensure they are in accord with your strategy.

Contact Us
Please contact me at nlappley@lapppley.com or (847) 864-8979 to discuss any questions you may have from this eNewsletter. Feel free to forward this email to anyone else who may be interested.

“Don’t sell me products. Instead, lead me to 
solutions that incorporate your products.”
(Vice President of a strategic account)

In this issue of the Salesforce Alert newsletter, my colleague, Tim Weizer, shares a case study regarding a strategic change that helped achieve effective salesforce results.

The senior sales executive of a middle-market financial services company was puzzled. Key accounts of the firm had often said they were satisfied with the company. Yet the company failed to achieve one of its major objectives: getting deeper penetration of those accounts with a new marketing strategy emphasizing new products.

Individual interviews were conducted with selected key accounts at the vice president level. The answer to the puzzle was expressed clearly by one strategic account. “I want your salesperson to know me, my business, and how your products can provide solutions to my problems,” he said. Strategic accounts now demand this value proposition from their major suppliers.

Here are the five steps the company employed to address the situation.

Step 1. Know where you stand before you embark on addressing this situation. The company had interviews conducted with customers and executives at both the vice president and operational levels to get a clear and factual understanding of:

  • The account’s business as the account sees it.
  • Their business goals.
  • Their problems.
  • How the company is viewed as either a problem solver or a product pusher.
  • How the account’s life would be different if the company no longer existed.

Step 2. Get commitment from the company’s executives that major change in the company is acceptable within the company’s risk-averse culture. Armed with the above strategic account input, the sales executive developed an initial estimate of what additional sales and profitability could be expected from addressing this value proposition. He then got management’s agreement to be open to change the process of how it sells to strategic accounts.

It was clear that without this upfront commitment, no significant change would occur. Without commitment, he knew it would be futile to proceed with any further analysis and financial estimates.

Step 3. Rethink the entire strategic account selling process. This step meant doing a thorough analysis of:

  • The steps involved in the traditional selling process.
  • The time spent with the account’s VP and different operational executives.
  • How well the sales skills/abilities/competencies matched up with the account’s needs.
  • How well the sales organization was managed and rewarded for both existing and new products’ results.

An online salesforce effectiveness survey was included in this step to get the field’s input on a number of topics key to their work with strategic accounts.

The company then developed two options: (1) start a new sales group focused on the strategic accounts’ VP level and add a technical specialist to address questions on the spot, or (2) upgrade the existing senior sales representatives with current new product, technical, and solution selling training. A second and more detailed estimate of additional sales and profitability of each option was prepared.

Step 4. Present each option and a recommendation to the senior management group. Include an implementation plan for the recommended option. The sales executive recommended the formation of a new sales position focused on the VP level along with the formation of the technical specialist position.

In addition, small, cross-functional teams were developed to fully address the value proposition expressed by the strategic account, namely “don’t push product…lead me and my people to an answer.”

HR working with the VP Sales developed a team-based compensation plan for this new structure. Particular attention was given to ensure that the new plan did not create unproductive conflict or misaligned objectives between jobs.

Step 5. Get Started. Begin showing the strategic accounts that you are addressing their value proposition. The sales executive began with a pilot of the new sales position, the technical specialist, and a small cross-functional team. The sales executive also conducted two solid months of training for the team that would be supporting and visiting the strategic accounts.

Results have been better than expected. New products sales to the strategic accounts in the pilot group are up and the teams are working well as a unit.

Contact Us
If you would like to discuss this case study or address any questions, please contact Tim at tim@salescne.com or simply reply back to this email to reach Neil.

The face of performance management is changing with organizations such as Microsoft, Deloitte, Accenture and General Electric streamlining their performance reviews, or even scrapping them. This trend comes from a growing perception that annual performance reviews might not be the best way to manage and improve performance in the workforce. 

Perhaps the question isn’t whether we should abandon performance reviews, but how can we make them better. Rather than treating it as a dreary exercise to comply with policy, we should think of how we, as leaders and HR professionals, can drive a culture of continuous feedback where every interaction can build commitment, engagement, and productivity.

Recent research shows that 77 percent of HR executives believe performance reviews don’t accurately reflect employee performance; there is also not much evidence that performance reviews have a positive affect on business performance.

Yet, that same research also indicates that one should not be in too much of a rush to scrap performance reviews or ratings. Many organizations that completely do away with performance reviews see productivity decline. What’s more, employees tend to rate their conversations with their managers lower in the absence of a formal performance rating.

Structure is Needed

I believe what this shows is that some of us resist structure when it’s there, but crave it when it’s absent. Although scrapping performance reviews frees both employees and managers from a process that can be viewed as an unproductive use of time, it also means that the business lacks a formal process for linking employees’ goals and performance with the strategy of the business. It’s hard to be fair and consistent, without a formal process.
Stepping back, performance management is about helping employees set career goals, correcting any performance issues, and ensuring that they have the tools to do their work. Even with the best intentions, much-need performance interventions may fall by the wayside if they are not anchored and documented.Feedback Should be Ongoing
One answer that keeps coming up regarding the question of better performance management is that it should not be simply an annual process, but that it should allow for more frequent feedback. A recent PwC study showed 60 percent of survey respondents (and 72 percent of those under thirty) wanted feedback every week.

This makes absolute sense. Employees should be learning all the time and their managers should be providing ongoing feedback and reinforcing positive behavior to ensure that employee performance is aligned with strategy.

Below are a few ideas about how organizations can implement a more agile approach to performance management.

  • Set clear expectations: Have clear performance goals linked to the overall business strategy with objective metrics so that employees know what is expected of them.
  • Provide feedback more often: in addition to formal feedback sessions, encourage managers to have weekly or at least monthly check-ins with their teams.
  • Keep it simple: get rid of those long performance review sheets and focus on the most important questions and metrics.
  • Look forward rather than backward: rather than dwelling on past successes and failures, focus on what the employee can do to grow in his or her role and how the organization can support the person’s ambitions and performance.

It takes considerable effort to build a high performance culture. We need to consider every interaction as an opportunity to influence employee’s performance in a positive way to build achievement of desired results, commitment and engagement.

Contact Us
Please contact me at nlappley@lapppley.com or (847) 864-8979 to discuss any questions you may have from this eNewsletter.

Many organizations profess to have a pay for performance compensation plan in place. What does that mean exactly? Does it recognize and reward the right employees? 

What the definition should be is that the right employee is whoever has performed well above the majority of other employees during the performance cycle. Those employees that the organization can rightly call high achievers. And those employees whose resignation would cause their manager to lose sleep at night. Everyone else should be treated differently.

So What’s the Problem?
Well, that’s not how things work in many organizations. There are a number of other considerations besides performance alone. The result is that perhaps the right employee does not get rewarded. Or what they are given is not much more than what is also given to the average employee.

Why does this happen? Several potential culprits follow:

  • Not much money to go around: This is a common argument when merit budgets are tight. That is to say that when a manager cannot make much of a distinction when granting increases, the manger cannot make much of a distinction with rewards either. Proponents often say, “Let’s just push the easy button and give everyone the same raise.”
  • Everyone deserves something: Advocates of this strategy suggest that if an employee has not been fired then they should get something for sitting around for 12 months. They proclaim, “Hasn’t inflation increased for everyone?”
  • Someone might quit: An employee quitting is often a manager’s worst fear and in this case, may lead to an interest in providing pay increases that would retain staff. Surely they suggest, “If an employee quits it’s more work for the manager and the potential for criticism from their boss.
  • I want to be liked: “I want to be liked” is an attitude often prevalent among new managers, who want to build a collaborative team. They can be reluctant to make performance assessments and pay increases for their team. Many would blame human resources for not providing enough funds.
  • They avoid career-impacting decisions: Some managers would prefer someone else play judge and jury with an employees’ career.

Making the Hard Decisions

Rewarding the right employee becomes essentially about the manager being willing and able to make discretionary decisions about an employee’s job performance and effectiveness as an employee of the organization.
Because the budget for pay increases is always going to be tight, there will never be enough money for everyone. So an effective manager has to choose how to spend available reward dollars in a way that generates the best return for the organization.In some cases, this means that an average employee may not receive a merit increase this year, even if performance has been ok / satisfactory / meets expectations.

Making these decisions is not easy. Nor is it supposed to be.
My colleague, Rich Sperling, and I have spoken and written extensively on the topic of taking care of top performers and high-potential employees.  Contact me and we will be pleased to share our thoughts with you.
Contact Us
Please contact me at (847) 864-8979 or at nlappley@lappley.com to discuss discriminating pay among employees based on performance.  And forward this email to anyone who may also be interested in this topic.