Hacking HR to Build an Adaptability Advantage

So you arrive for a job, and you are told, "this is how we compensate you." Here are all the pieces, and how, in theory, they work.

Each enterprise has a position based on their industry, market share, profitability, etc...that amounts to "we can give you x."  However, instead of allowing for choice, it is a mostly or entirely prescribed model.

This is a HUGE missed opportunity for personal relevance, and by way of, engagement. I would argue it would be much more attractive, after negotiating the total value of "x", to have a conversation about what it could look like.

For all the compensation models, I think there are basically three variables.

1. Money: cash vs. "cash in kind"
2. Time: interval or immediate
3. Contigency: given or "given if"

Enterprises can articulate their constraints. E.g., a certain percentage of "x" has to be contigent on whatever (individual, group, department, org performance for example) or, a certain percentage has to be interval (e.g., weekly monthly) vs immediate (e.g., lumpsum). These constraints would have to be appropriately limited, or again, it defeats the purpose.

However, the rest can be designed with the employee. What do they prefer? What balance of cash and benefits?

Better, imagine if it could be shifted on an annual or bi-annual basis. This means employees are compensated in the way most personally meaningful to them, and companies are still controlling their compensation costs (perhaps they might even save money in some cases).

I think moving from "has to be" to "could be", from "closed" to "collaborative", is the appropriate direction for many topics, and compensation is no exception.