PPB April 2018

are not detail oriented, and require frequent change and personal interaction to be happy. On the other hand, most CSRs are natural Supporters and Controllers, opposites of the Dominant and Influencer types. CSRs are organized, structured and methodical. They are logical thinkers, detail oriented, good listeners by nature and are very private. They don’t like change, are introverted, have a low sense of urgency and need time to process information and make decisions. They are the ones that get things done. And this is where the conflict arises. While the sales professional has a high sense of urgency and is willing to take risks, the customer service representative is committed to processing all that is on his or her plate in an orderly fashion. The CSR is naturally risk averse and is made uncomfortable by the fast-acting, fast-talking sales professional. Despite these differences, the two rely upon each other. Without the vitality, confidence and energy of the sales professional, there are no orders and revenue. And without the CSR’s eye for detail and commitment to process, sales professionals would be forced to execute their own orders— something they are behaviorally ill-equipped to do. Fortunately, there are some things business owners can do to help bridge these differences and ensure their teams function well: 1 Understand style. Most conflicts that exist between salespeople andCSRs relate to behavioral preference, not personal animosity. The CSR’s lack of urgency isn’t because he or she doesn’t care, nor While the sales professional has a high sense of urgency and iswilling to take risks, the customer service representative is committed to processing all that is onhis or her plate in an orderly fashion. | APRIL 2018 | 71 THINK Q&AWith Claudia St. John Send your human resources‑related questions for Claudia St. John to PPB@ppai.org . Select questions will be answered in future issues. Q We are rolling out a new performance management program. Is there one that you prefer? A While I don’t have a specific program to recommend, I confess that I remain underwhelmed with the vast majority of them. The annual process of setting goals and then reviewing accomplishments 12 months later is fraught with challenges. Annual conversations are hardly sufficient to truly manage performance. Often the goals change throughout the year, but the performance goals usually don’t, meaning that employees are evaluated based on out‑of‑date criteria. And there is always the problem of forgetting about the accomplishments or failures early in the 12‑month period and putting added weight on the performance in the months and weeks leading up to the annual review. Instead, I prefer quarterly goals that require ongoing feedback and communication. And if you want to tie performance to some sort of incentive pay, be sure that: • The criteria upon which the incentive pay is based are transparent and understood by the employee • The employee legitimately has the ability to affect results • The incentives are aligned to the employee’s unique motivators • The program is easy to administer • The financial incentive is meaningful Q We have always verified a candidate’s previous salary history early on in the hiring process by asking for a copy of a pay stub or the candidate’s previous year’s tax filing. Is there any problem with that practice? A We don’t recommend this practice. First, a pay stub and/or tax return contains revealing information that an employer shouldn’t have pre‑hire, such as age, number of dependents, marital status, social security number, garnishments, miscellaneous deductions on pay stubs, other deductions on taxes (think medical costs, child care, etc.). Obtaining this information post‑hire is acceptable but not pre‑hire. In addition, a few cities and states have moved to prohibit employers from asking for previous salary information altogether and even more prohibit asking for W‑2s and tax returns. The main reason for these laws is for equal pay reasons. People (primarily women) who were underpaid at previous jobs cannot find pay equality if future employers know what they made before and base their offer on that information. Asking for salary history perpetuates inequitable pay. Instead, we recommend companies focus on what they want to pay for the position and make sure they offer the same regardless of sex, age, etc.