european reward conference 2017- "keeping your reward fundamentals relevant" (breakout...

10 February 2017

Keeping your reward fundamentals relevant

© 2017 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Willis Towers Watson and Willis Towers Watson client use only.

Joris Wonders and Judith Laarman, Danone

Contents

2© 2017 Willis Towers Watson. All rights reserved. Proprietary and Confidential. For Willis Towers Watson and Willis Towers Watson client use only.

Introduction to Judith Laarman and Danone

Q&A with Judith (part 1)

Danone C&B Transformation / Reward Strategy

Willis Towers Watson views on job levelling & architecture and

base pay

Q&A with Judith (part 2)

Job levelling & base pay at Danone

3

Q&A


REWARD

STRATEGY

JOB LEVELLING AND

ARCHITECTUREBASE PAY

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT

One DANONE

One PurposeDriven Company which

respects everyone’s uniqueness and

develops each talent to the maximum, through a meaningful journey,

in strong diverse teams.

5

Job Levelling and Architecture



Work is

leaving

organisations

Distinction

between job

and person

blurring?

Roles and

objectives are

changing more

rapidly than ever

Career paths

are more

diverse and

less linear

Traditional job

evaluation is too

rigid and

bureaucratic

Common job

architecture needed to

support HRIS

Job Levelling Health Check tool

7

Summary of our 11 Health Check tests

Assessing the effectiveness of current job levelling and architecture and alignment with organisation goals.


Health Check Concerns Effectiveness tests

A. Is our Job Levelling methodology suitable?(A1) Business Alignment/ Applicability of Job Levelling factors

(A2) Number of grades/ bands

B. Have we got our implementation and governance right?

(B1) Grade alignment

(B2) Distribution of grades/ bands

(B3) Maintenance of documentation

(B4) Number of re-evaluations

(B5) Equal pay legislation compliance

C. Does our grading structure link effectively to other areas of HR?(C1) Alignment to Base Pay

(C2) Talent and Reward applications

D. How satisfied are HR and employees with our approach?(D1) HR/ Reward feedback

(D2) Employee and Line Manager feedback


8

Example outputs



9

Example outputs


10

Base pay


Giving base pay a reality check

11

Stop confusing “pay for skills” with “pay for last year’s performance”


Suggesting that old tools and

approach to the annual merit

cycle may need to

change. As the number

one driver of attraction

and engagement, we need to

get base pay

right in the

modern context

Performance Rating

Salary Range Position

Below Minimum

Lower Third Middle Third Upper Third

Unsatisfactory performance 0.0% – 2.0% 0.0% – 2.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Performance needs

improvement2.0% – 4.0% 1.0% – 3.0% 0.0% – 2.0% 0.0% – 1.5%

Good performance 4.0% – 7.0% 3.5% – 6.0% 2.5% – 4.5% 1.0% – 3.0%

Excellent performance 7.0% – 11.0% 5.0% – 8.0% 3.5% – 6.0% 2.5% – 4.5%

Half of employers

expect to pay more for certain skill sets in the next 3 years*

Our managers execute our base pay program well*

51%Source: 2016 Willis Towers Watson Talent Management & Reward Survey

What’s Trending?

12

Rethinking base salary programme purpose…


PURPOSE QUANTUM

Meaningful amounts

Performance-based or

promotion increases should

be perceived as meaningful

or “zero” increases are

provided

“Meaningful” may vary by

job level and salary

DIFFERENTIATION

2Less emphasis

on last year’s

performance

Broader future oriented

and skills view and career

progression

Objectives for aligning to

“market”

Rethink the annual cycle

“Annual” may not be right cadence for all talent segments

Meets an age

of transparency

The degree of individual pay

variance may differ by talent

segment

Salary increases may also be

differentiated by talent

segment

Clear communication of

differentiation criteria is

essential

1

4

3


Q&A

REWARD

STRATEGY

JOB LEVELLING AND

ARCHITECTUREBASE PAY