Much heat and great indignation in the media today as it becomes known that the MoD (an arm of government that has overtaken the Child Support Agency in the public ordure stakes) is paying £47m in bonuses to its staff. Most of the critics seem not to understand the nature of this scheme. Essentially it uses a pot of money (possibly around 3% of payroll) accumulated by withholding small amounts from earlier pay reviews. It is distributed among staff as a non-consolidated payment based on annual appraisal ratings (it looks as though around two thirds of staff shared the pot). As it is not consolidated into basic, contractual pay it is not an addition to the annual paybill. It should be similar in amount to what was paid in previous years – just (potentially) distributed differently each year.

This approach, which is common across government departments, allows them to comply with the Treasury requirement for there to be some form of performance related pay (PRP). So the consequence of cancelling it, as the critics wish, would be to return to the bad old days when there was no reward for doing well or consequences from doing as little as possible. Partly the problem lies in using the word bonus: fat cats and bankers spring to mind. How about ‘contingent pay’?

Much of the media anger arises from a perception of the MoD as a department that has performed badly/let our troops down over recent years. So how come a lot of people can perform well enough to earn their contingent pay but the Department perform badly? Appraisals, on which this distribution is based, reflect how well individuals have performed against what was asked of them for that year. Is not their fault if what they were asked to do did not result in extra helicopters?

This disconnect, between an individual’s task and overall organisation success, applies everywhere. An accounts clerk working his or her socks off cannot overcome the fact that the company went after the wrong market. In the commercial sector this can be overcome by linking some or all of a bonus to company profits. Even in the government sector some organisations, for example Regional Development Agencies, are awarded an overall rating each year, which has the potential to be fed into individual bonuses.

Rating the performance of central government departments is another story, however. We maintain the fiction that these departments are run by their minister and, as we know, politicians do not make mistakes.

Recent research by Mercer has found that 35% of all sick leave is taken on Mondays but only 3% on Fridays. Which must mean the vast majority of those away on Monday are back in by Friday (if not Tuesday).

Mercer suggest that Monday sickness and frequent short-term absences can be a symptom of low employee engagement and morale. More cynical readers might wonder whether this might better be credited to weekend excess and little fear of the consequences of staying away.

Cynicism apart, the real lesson of this survey is that the sophistication of many HRIS systems makes detailed analyses easier than ever. Mercer extend their own analysis to consider differences between men and women and between full- and part-time staff. But why stop there? Many investigations into absence fail to be useful because they aggregate too many different causes and situations. Modern HRIS systems enable you to avoid that pitfall and the consequent over-generalisations.

Perhaps you should code in all the additional stuff you know about your staff and work out what proportion of the Monday sickies had been playing soccer or rugby at the weekend? Or rock climbing? Or sky diving? You might improve your absence statistics at a stroke by sifting out all those application forms that proudly fill up the ‘other activities’ box with such high-risk pastimes. After all, few train-spotters or embroidery enthusiasts end up in A&E on a Sunday afternoon.

I never learned to type properly and, consequently, my keyboard time is not as efficient as it should be. Occasionally I have flirted with typing tutor programmes but willpower and dedication always desert me. I have recently been experimenting with a speech to text program and have been mightily impressed. The software required very little initial training so that I was up and running virtually straight out of the box. By no means do I have RADA-like diction and know that I can, all too easily, descend into mumbling yet the number of times it misinterprets what I say are very few.

The greatest benefit comes when I am writing longer pieces of text for a proposal, report or this blog. Normally I find it difficult to maintain my train of thought through the many corrections of my miss-keying. The software is also very useful when filling in forms and the like. Instead of moving hand to mouse to place the cursor in the box, hand back to keyboard to type and then back to mouse to select the next box I can just leave my hand on the mouse and say the words as I select each box in turn.

The software I bought is Dragon NaturallySpeaking (other programs are available) and my only complaint is that the microphone headset that came with the box was designed for a much smaller head than mine. Luckily I had a suitable, adult-sized one already. Oh yes, and do remember to switch the microphone off when you’re on the telephone.

If you were wondering how MPs are filling their time now that they have less to write on their expenses look no further than Labour member Ashok Kumar. He has tabled a motion that employers should be legally compelled to contact all applicants both to acknowledge receipt of application and again after selection has been made to notify applicants whether they have been successful. This may be good practice, and good manners, but think of all the red tape and opportunities for litigation that would follow. But why stop there? Why not impose a legal obligation on all teenagers to write prompt letters of thanks for Christmas and birthday presents? Not only would that breed a more polite society but might help fill the hole in Royal Mail’s business left by all those disgruntled customers who, thanks to the strikes, now pay all their bills online.

I attend most Richmond Group sessions and I certainly could not resist attending one with the title “Speed through your workload”. The session, last Monday evening, presented by Helen Whitten, MD of Positiveworks left me with several good intentions for improving my efficiency (sadly, I have a very long list of good intentions). The session focused on techniques for speeding up your efficiency at reading documents and reports and on helping you to remember the content and facts and figures generally.

The efficient reading element explained how we often fall into the error of trying to read every word in the order written when an initial scan of the contents to learn the shape of the document would allow a more selective, and speedier, reading. The remembering part centred on the use of mind maps to structure information. I do use mind maps when planning proposals or reports but am the first to acknowledge that I have only dabbled and resort to a normal page-based list of headings and bullet points at an early stage. I have now resolved to persevere for longer with the full-blown multicolour variety and to become more proficient in using the software that I have.

There is much heat, and less light, everywhere on the topic of bonuses. Mostly it is aimed at the banks but now the spotlight has fallen on the CIPD with a decision to allow the Chief Executive to retain her 20% performance bonus (on her salary of £300,000) at a time when the organisation has been reducing jobs and stopping bonuses for lesser staff (qv. articles in Personnel Today). I do not know enough of the facts to comment on this particular issue but there is a general clamour against bonuses. This has its dangers.

Executive bonuses are generally based on achieving quantified targets (in the case of the banks it was the nature of the targets that were wrong, rather than the concept). So what happens if bonuses are banned? Will the executives not try as hard to meet those targets? Well possibly. There are a great many pressures on executives’ time and attention and target-based bonuses help maintain focus on those specific metrics. More significantly what, otherwise, happens to basic pay?

Bonuses are not just a top-up reward for the employee. They also provide a safeguard that an element of cost will vary with a key performance measure, usually income-related. Normally, zero bonus will reflect poor performance and maximum bonus better-than-can-be-expected achievement. Standard performance will lie somewhere in between. So, assuming the CIPD remuneration committee got its research right, the market rate for the job, and the person, under a bonus-free contract is not £300,000 but somewhere between that and £300,000 plus the maximum bonus (possibly 20% in this case). Flat salaries will inevitably cost more than bonus-free contracts; but without the same guarantee of results.

The CIPD has launched a 10-point set of guidelines to help HR Directors and Remuneration Committees set executive remuneration. The guidelines are considered and temperate and have avoided the temptation to rush to simplistic solutions (unlike much press and political comment). The first four points discuss the appropriate characteristics of executive reward structures and, in particular, the variable elements and the need to avoid schemes that encourage inappropriate risk taking. All good stuff.

Interestingly, the remaining six points focus on role and responsibilities of remuneration committees. They discuss the factors they should take into account, stress the need for the committee to be knowledgeable on reward matters, if necessary, calling upon appropriate independent expert advice (my favourite, that one) and to be prepared to exercise judgment.

At the present time, when you read of ‘executive remuneration’ and ‘remuneration committees’ the words ‘fat’ and ‘cats’ leaps to mind. But it is not just City firms and large plcs that rely on remuneration committees to set directors’ pay. Just about every charity, not-for-profit organisation and many quangos report to a board of trustees from which a remuneration committee will be formed. These committees normally take direct control of the Chief Executive’s pay and, in most cases, the rest of the executive team as well.

Committee members in these organisations can often have a harder task than their counterparts on big company boards. Here boards comprise people from a wide variety of backgrounds; sector specialists, representatives of funding organisations, local or national government representatives, and many others. Unlike on big company boards, many will come from backgrounds where pay is highly structured right to the top of the organisation. In some of the smaller organisations executive pay is definitely not in the fat cat league and can be well below that of some board members. Very few board members in this sector have any experience of individual-based pay. Whereas commercial organisations can link pay to audited business metrics success, in this sector, can be much more complex to quantify.

All these factors can lead to an over-cautious approach being taken, especially when it comes to bonus or incentive pay. While the world is pre-occupied with working out how to restrain City bonuses this is a sector where linking executive pay to performance is often viewed with suspicion and seen as too difficult.

Human Resources magazine reports that Cable & Wireless has renamed its HR function “People & Brand”; to be lead by their new Director of Brand and Culture.

The news item says that the new man’s responsibilities cover HR, resourcing, talent management, culture change, corporate communications and brand management across the business. So possibly things are not quite as bad as they seem and when an employee (bet they call them colleagues) wants to discuss pay the door they go through may still say HR. If not, pity the poor graduate trainee  having to write ‘People and Brand Officer’ in the ‘what job’ box on the ‘where are they now’ section of the alumni newsletter.

OK, a new label can help to kick-start change but stick to words that work in everyday use and have face-value currency. I for one do not want to be accredited to a Chartered Institute of People.

It doesn’t matter how often I go into ASDA, TESCO, or even Harrods (actually I lie; I’m saving up for that last one) they just accept my credit card – or indeed, any card I know the PIN for. No questions asked. But try to buy on line and suddenly you are into Big Brother territory. (Yes I know this post is not about HR but even HR consultants can have grumpy-old-men moments).

You finally find what you want, get well into the buying process and click on ‘pay now’. Suddenly you get thrown out of the loop into a log-in-or-register-process. Why? I don’t have to sign up before I join the checkout queue in Tesco.

So you make up a username and password to placate their computer but there is worse to come. Apparently you bought something from that company once before and your email address is barred to anyone who does not know your password. This means you had already invented a username and password for that company – but forgot to add them to the list of passwords pinned to your computer (what do you mean you’re supposed to hide them?).

Even worse, some sites, such as the one that started me off on this, remember your credit card details and refuse your order because that previous payment was on a card that has now expired. Why is there never a forget-me-once-my-order-is-complete box? And if you ring up there will probably be one of those queuing systems that keep telling you that your call is important to them – how do they that before they answer? And another thing …..

Personnel Today* reports on one local council that is asking staff to work fewer hours, or take unpaid leave, “to help save jobs”. In the same article they quote the CIPD, the CBI and the Bank of England as cautioning (not necessarily referening to this council) that this sort of action may only be delaying redundancies rather than saving jobs. I would add another concern.

By taking this approach the council is implicitly assuming that all its jobs are needed and that as soon as the economy picks up the status quo can resume. If you are manufacturing widgets and orders turn down there will be a fairly simple correlation between orders and production hours. In administration and the public sector the connections are much more complex.

The danger is that, if the economy does not pick up as hoped, the council will be forced to make savings quickly. If this happens the cuts will have to be in the larger staff groups. These, of course, are the ones that deliver the ‘real’ services that we all want – refuse collection, gardeners, teachers, etc. – not all those nice-to-have jobs with obscure titles that proliferate across local government. These latter jobs, often resulting from one political pet project or another, are scattered around in smaller groups so any culling inevitably takes longer. To protect real services they need to start reviewing these areas now.