Rewarding and Retaining a Great Receptionist (or don't be afraid to pay a job what its worth to you)

Seth Godin's blog has an insightful post on how to be a great receptionist.  Let me offer my own version of this lesson, because I think it has some important implications for compensation design and management, and let's call it how to reward and retain a great receptionist. 

Every formal pay program features a methodology that helps determine the relative value and pay opportunity for the different jobs in the organization (see more on that here).  And while fairness and consistency (objectives featured in many if not all compensation programs) depend on following that methodology with a certain amount of rigor, it is also important to recognize when exceptions should be made.

Receptionists are a great example.  If you survey the market, you will probably find that most receptionists are paid at what amounts to an entry level salary.  And if your organization uses a market-based pay approach, your first inclination will (and should) be to mimic that level in setting up your own salary range for the position.  Which sets you up nicely to attract and retain, in Seth's words, a "pretty good receptionist".

But what if you see this as a role that is critical to the success of your organization?  What if you want a GREAT receptionist?

I have a couple of clients who have historically bought into the premise that their receptionist is in a position to create immeasurable value as a key ambassador for the company, to insiders as well as outsiders.  And they pay the position accordingly; in one case, at nearly twice the "going rate" for receptionists in the local labor market.  They will tell you that this is money very well spent, as it has enabled them to bring in and retain the kind of talent that an entry level wage could never buy them.

Does this decision compromise the integrity of their pay program?  Not to my mind, assuming that they document this decision and the rationale for making an exception accordingly.  Many organizations have a few "mission critical" positions; positions that by their nature or by an intentional design effort, have the ability to create enormous and unique value for the organization, and for which the organization is (or should be) willing to pay a premium to get the necessary talent on board.  The trick, I believe, is in being upfront and transparent about these decisions, documenting and clearly communicating the business case for the decision.

Virtually every pay program has exceptions.  The point is to be sure that these exceptions are made (again, in a clear and transparent manner) to further the interests and success of the organization, which should ultimately benefit all stakeholders.  What about the employees in other jobs?  In at least one organization, the pay differential for "mission critical" positions served as the impetus needed to motivate other employees to pursue the skill development and training necessary to apply for one of these jobs in the future.

Comments

[http://almostgotit.wordpress.com]

Oh Ann, this one hits fairly close to my heart. Last month I learned (a few years late) that "Secretary's Day" has been legally changed to "Administrative Professionals Day," and not as a simple exercise in semantics. Rather, the term is a real reflection of the exponential growth in the responsibilities and skills we now require of "support staff." And the pay level has failed to advance accordingly. For complicated reasons. These positions are overwhelmingly staffed by women, many of whom are still willing to apply for and accept poorly-funded jobs. Some because they have spousal support, some because they are coming back on the market after staying home with children (or after having gone through a divorce). Many, many of them tend to undervalue their own skills and abilities.

And, because money is a symbol that functions, the low pay of these positions inevitably leads to a pretty-much-universal low esteem or value that employers place upon them, as well.

Therefore, this is one of those areas, like public education, where I'm not quite content to set compensation by market forces. Particulary (!!) as these positions are increasingly important in a world saturated with more and more data, information and communication which needs to be professionally handled, along with a growing dearth of decent customer service.

************
AB - Thanks for your comments and bringing a fresh perspective to the complicated issue of fairly compensating jobs in the female-dominated field of administrative support. With the entry of men into this field (although still in proportionately small numbers) and the increasing difficulty that I know many organizations are facing in filling these roles, the market is beginning to exert its forces here - but not yet in ways adequate to address the issues you describe.