hen it comes to compensation,many managers seem to sub-scribe to a “vending machine”view of people. They see the linkbetween compensation andbehavior from a simplistic andsomewhat mechanical perspec-tive. If you put 75 cents into avending machine, out pops asoda. If management puts moneyinto people, out will come somedesired result. But the reality isdifferent. People are much morecomplex than machines, andcompensation plan design is

often more art than science.Sound compensation plan design usually pro-

ceeds in three phases: discovery, design andimplementation. During the discovery phase,information is collected and analyzed for use dur-ing the design phase. The design phase results inprograms that attempt to link the company’s payphilosophy and objectives with the pay level andearning opportunities provided to employees.During the implementation phase, the new payplan policies and structures are overlaid on theexisting population to determine any areas ofadjustment that may be required. A communica-tions plan is usually completed to outline the con-tent and timing of messages that will be conveyedto employees and supervisors. When all of thesephases are complete, managers may believe thatthe new pay plan can be launched. But can it?

In fact, during the discovery, design and imple-mentation phases, environmental factors areoften overlooked. These environmental factorsare the employees themselves, or to be more spe-cific, their personalities. Theodore Weinbergerstated it very well when he wrote, “At the risk ofpolitical incorrectness, I believe those of us in the

compensation field must accept an uncomfort-able fact about variable pay. While we emphasizethe importance of reward programs for motivat-ing high performance, factors beyond our controlmoderate the success of such interventions.These factors are the cognitive abilities and per-sonality traits of employees.”1

It is not unusual to hear compensation plandesigners talk about employee populations thatare “risk averse” or “risk tolerant.” Practitionersoften consider such factors in shaping the payplan design and preparing for its implementa-tion. Generally, employees at the lower end of thepay scale are viewed as being risk averse becausemost of their income is used for life’s essentials.Putting any money at risk to achieve a higherlevel of earnings is perceived as threatening tosuch an employee population. Employees withsignificant amounts of discretionary income—those in the higher pay scales—are considered tobe more risk tolerant. They are more willing toput some pay at risk to achieve a higher level ofcompensation overall.

Sometimes, the aversion to risk is associatedwith people in certain jobs. For example, salesrepresentatives are often thought to be comfort-able with taking risks, whereas engineers and sci-entists are usually viewed as more conservative inthis regard. In any case, these observations, per-ceptions and assumptions simply do not go farenough. In a recent article, Ira Feder stated, “Oneweakness of cash rewards is that they don’t allowfor the individual differences in the very diversehuman beings that they intend to motivate.”2

We know much more about human behaviorthan is evident in the one dimension of risk aver-sion. Many psychological models have been pro-duced that, in general terms, portray human per-sonality types and predict preferred behavior,attitudes and tendencies. Organizational devel-

© 2002 Sage Publications MARCH/APRIL 2002 49

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

W

Pay and PersonalityTed Turnasella

PrincipalComp-unications

Plan design improveswhen employees’ personalities are factoredinto the equation.

opment consultants who work with companies toimprove team dynamics, coach and counselexecutives to improve their performance andresolve interpersonal conflicts have long usedsuch valuable tools as Myers-Briggs analysis. Yet,in the area of pay plan design, this insight into thepersonalities of pay plan participants goes large-ly unexplored and underused.

Personality profiling can be of great value intwo critical areas of compensation practice. First,personality profiling can act as one of many fac-tors that shape the design of a compensationplan. In every compensation plan design, compa-nies make critical decisions about the nature andamount of earning opportunities that the payplan will provide and the performance criteria bywhich employees earn rewards. Understandingthe personalities of the employees, for example,sales representatives or retail associates, forwhom the plan is intended, can provide greatinsight into how the plan will be perceived andevaluated by the participants.

Second, personality profiling can provide amuch more effective basis for communicatingthe plan to its participants. Effective communica-tion is, perhaps, the most important element in asuccessful compensation plan, perhaps evenmore important than the design itself. Well-designed pay plans that are poorly communicat-ed often fail because they are misunderstood.

The purpose of this article is to explore how wecan use and consider personality as a factor inpay plan design and communications. It dealswith personality profiling in a very basic way. Theactual application, interpretation and use of per-sonality profiling is a complex subject and wellbeyond the scope of this article.

Personality ProfilingThere are many personality models, and eachmodel uses various intersecting personalitydimensions to define a person’s personality.Many of these models, such as Myers-Briggs, arebased on the work of Carl Jung. In the early 1920s,Dr. William Marston developed a personalitymodel, referred to as DISC, that intended toexplain people’s emotional responses. To test histheories, he developed a test to define and mea-sure four dimensions of human personality: dom-inance, influence, steadiness and compliance. In atrue DISC analysis, not only is each of these dimen-sions analyzed, but also the relationship betweenthe factors is analyzed. Such an analysis can beused to describe a person’s motivations, likes and

dislikes. This kind of information may be useful tocompensation practitioners who are attemptingto motivate effective employee behavior.

To be useful, any model, including the DISCmodel, must be reliable and valid. It would beimpossible to present a thorough survey of theresearch done on the subject of personality mod-els within this article. However, Karen Roodt of theTechnikon Natal in South Africa conducted onesuch research study of DISC, which demonstrat-ed high reliability and validity.3

Description of Each Personality DimensionAs stated above, Marston believed that there arefour factors that determine a person’s personalityand that serve to predict their behavior. The basicpremise of his work is that people live and workin two different environments—a hostile envi-ronment and a favorable environment. Every day,we face many situations involving one of thesetwo environments. The choices that we make and

the actions that we take in dealing with eachenvironment can be broken down into two sepa-rate roles—an active role or a passive role. Thefour personality types shaped by these factors aredescribed below.

➤ Dominant (D). People who prefer to takeactive roles in hostile environments are definedas having dominant personalities. They areunafraid of taking risks and enjoy facing chal-lenges. Dominant personalities initiate action,especially when things are not going well. Theircommunication style is direct and, at times, bluntto the point of being rude. They drive hard toobtain results and are not deterred by temporary

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

50 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW

Effective communicationis, perhaps, the mostimportant element in asuccessful compensationplan, perhaps even more important than the design itself.

setbacks. People with dominant personalities canbecome bored if their environment does notchange. They love variety and crave adventure.They view the status quo as a point of departure,not as a comfortable place to be. Finally, they aredemanding of themselves and others.

➤ Influential (I). People who prefer to takeactive roles only in favorable environments aredescribed as having influential personalities. Suchpeople enjoy persuading others and view suchaccomplishments as evidence of being well liked.People who demonstrate influential personalitiesprefer to deal with others in a one-to-one relation-ship where they have greater control of the inter-action. Mostly, they enjoy being around people,and they seek acceptance and prestige in the eyesof others. They are willing to trust others readilyto form lasting relationships. They are optimistsand will sometimes avoid having to look at thenegative side of an issue or decision. Their needfor acceptance is demonstrated in their need todress fashionably and impress others with theirnetwork of friends and professional affiliations.

➤ Supportive or steady (S). Some people pre-fer to act within favorable environments by tak-ing a passive role. Their personality is character-ized as being supportive or steady. They are notafraid of dealing with life and its changes, butthey do not seek out challenges and would prefernot to make waves. They are patient and willingto work at a steady pace to achieve their goals.They like the status quo and need to be preparedin advance for any changes in their environment.They want others to appreciate them for whatthey accomplish, and they dislike deadline situa-tions and pressure because such factors can com-promise quality.

➤ Compliant and conscientious (C). The lastof the four personality types is characterized by acompulsion to be compliant and conscientiousand to avoid trouble at all costs. These are thepeople who take a passive role in the face of ahostile environment. Such people may lack con-fidence. They find security only in order and inrules and concepts that do not change arbitrarilyor without warning. They can get lost in thedetails of work without ever seeing the bigger pic-ture. Avoiding trouble at all costs is a principlethey live by. A person with this personality type iscautious and will not take chances or make riskydecisions easily. They need personal attentionand will often try to be what they believe otherswant them to be.

In reality, most of us combine elements of each ofthese four personality types in our daily lives.Generally, however, only one of the types willstand out and will come to represent our domi-nant personality characteristic. It is possible,using personality profile testing methods, todetermine a person’s dominant personality and,thereby gain insight into that person’s receptivityto and comfort with different types of earningopportunities offered within pay plans.

Pay Plan Design DimensionsA total compensation plan accomplishes twobasic objectives. First, it provides the conceptualframework for establishing compensation levelsfor jobs, usually based on job content. Second, acompensation plan provides earning opportuni-ties to employees as either adjustments to basepay or payments in cash or some equivalent.Ideally, the earning opportunities provided arelinked to results or behaviors that are of value tothe organization.

In this discussion of pay and personality, thefocus is not on the processes involved in estab-lishing pay levels. These processes usually rely onmarket studies and job evaluation methodsadministered by the organization. Employeesusually have little knowledge of such methods.Instead, the focus is on the design and communi-cation of opportunities to earn additionalincome. By offering such earning opportunities,organizations attempt to influence employeebehavior, for example, to motivate increased sell-ing effort, focus attention on quality or improvecustomer service.

The factors involved in designing earningopportunities include the following:

1. Performance criteria. The link between anearning opportunity for the employee and a ben-efit for the company is established in the perfor-mance criteria and goals that are embeddedwithin the compensation plan. Excellent criteriaare well defined and lend themselves easily tocredible tracking and evaluation. They definesuccess for the company. Compensation planparticipants will understand and agree with thecriteria in place. They will believe that selectedcriteria are directly linked to the company’s suc-cess and that they can be accurately measured orevaluated. Such criteria are usually referred to asobjective criteria. At times, companies will usecriteria that cannot be measured objectively but,rather, must be evaluated based on available

MARCH/APRIL 2002 51

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

records, management observation and otherrelated information. For purposes of designingearning opportunities, evaluative or subjectivecriteria often do not serve as well as more objec-tive performance criteria because the linkbetween effort and reward is more tenuous.

2. Performance goals. A goal is the quantita-tive expression of the desired achievement forparticular performance criteria. To be effective aselements in a compensation plan offering anearning opportunity, the goal needs to be chal-lenging but not impossible to reach. Often, planparticipants will have some role to play in thegoal-setting process itself. Such activity height-ens the willingness of plan participants to acceptthe goals as fair.

3. Performance assessment basis. The organi-zation level at which performance is measuredthrough the criteria and goals can have a pro-found impact on human interaction. Generally,

criteria measured at the individual level willheighten any competitive propensities that thepay plan and human dynamics will permit. Plandesigners need be vigilant to avoid situations thatencourage competition, when cooperation is anessential ingredient in the organization’s success.Criteria measured at the team, departmental ororganization level will tend to encourage team-work at these levels but may diminish individualmotivation. It is the performance assessmentbasis that determines if an additional compensa-tion will be distributed to employees and howmuch in total will be spent. In other words, it isthe attainment of defined objectives that will trig-ger the establishment of the pool of money to begiven to employees.

4. Reward distribution basis. The reward dis-tribution basis is different from the performance

assessment basis. If the performance assessmentbasis generates the pool of money to be distrib-uted to plan participants, it is the reward distrib-ution basis that determines who gets what. Forexample, suppose the basis for performanceassessment is pretax profit for the division. Theplan describes that if pretax profit is at least 10%,then a bonus pool of $100,000 will be created. Thebasis for distributing this pool (reward) might bea pro-rata share based on the individual employ-ee’s salary or some other formula.

5. Influence over outcomes. The degree towhich the employee can influence the resultsbeing measured or tracked is sometimes referredto as “line of sight.” Reasonable line of sight is anessential link in incentive plan design. If planparticipants see themselves as having little influ-ence over the performance criteria and goalsembedded in the plan, then the incentive planhas little chance of driving performance. Inessence, such a design could be thought of as alottery, not a true incentive plan.

6. Type of reward. Rewards, or additionalearnings that employees obtain under a pay plan,can be delivered in several forms. Some plans payout cash in a lump sum. Pay-for-performanceplans usually offer increases in base pay. Stock orother forms of equity-based instruments areoften used, especially for executive compensa-tion. Other compensation plans offer goods andservices. Finally, there are psychic rewards, suchas plaques, letters of congratulations or otherpositive acknowledgements that may have littleeconomic value but provide personal satisfac-tion. Depending on their personality type, peoplewill value rewards differently.

7. The amount of money at risk relative tototal compensation. The mix of compensationwithin an incentive pay plan refers to the rela-tionship of the amount of money at risk to thetotal compensation package being offered to theemployee. Employees at lower compensation lev-els often have only a small portion of their totalcompensation at risk that is dependent on theattainment of a company, team or individualgoal. Conversely, employees at the upper end ofthe economic spectrum, for example, executives,often have considerable amounts of money atrisk in their compensation packages.

8. Frequency of payment. The frequency withwhich performance earnings are delivered is oneof the critical elements of pay plan design. Greaterfrequency of payment will cause employees to

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

52 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW

The organization level atwhich performance ismeasured through the criteria and goals canhave a profound impacton human interaction.

become more dependent on the reward programincome but may result in lower amounts, whichmay have less motivational impact.

Plan Design for Different Personalities

1. Dominant Personality

➤ Performance criteria. People with highlydominant personalities will not respond well todiscretionary or evaluative performance criteria.They want control. They want to know what theyhave to do to obtain a meaningful reward. Anycondition that suggests their hard efforts mightgo unrewarded or unnoticed will diminish theirmotivation. Because high-D people like and evenneed change, the performance criteria and goalsfor earning opportunities should be changedperiodically to prevent the high-D personalityfrom becoming bored and stale.

When establishing performance criteria forhigh-D personalities, the designer must ensurethat every criterion will have an offset. High-Dpeople can become so focused on goal attain-ment that they will strive to reach goals under anycircumstances and at any cost. Quality may besacrificed for quantity goals. Profit may be sacri-ficed for revenue goals. Therefore, when estab-lishing criteria for the high-D person, there mustbe negative consequences for any outcomes thatwill negatively effect the organization.

To keep people with dominant personalitiesfocused and motivated over the long run, perfor-mance criteria should be changed to reflect newbusiness challenges.

➤ Performance goals. To fully engage a domi-nant personality to take advantage of an earningsopportunity, the employee should be given achance to participate in and perhaps even nego-tiate performance goals. Establishing goals is ulti-mately management’s prerogative, but sharedgoal setting can increase the level of high-Demployee commitment and improve results. Forhigh-D employees, the use of objective, formula-based performance criteria and goals will bemost effective. The goals themselves should rep-resent a true challenge; that is, they should be dif-ficult, but not impossible, to achieve. Challengemotivates high-D employees as long as they havecontrol over the outcomes.

➤ Performance assessment basis. Evaluatingthe performance of high-D employees ought tobe based more on individual, not team, effort and

accomplishment. Employees with a dominantpersonality want control. They may not be goodteam players, and they will not want their incen-tive rewards to depend on the actions of others.

➤ Reward distribution basis. As with thebasis for evaluating results, employees with adominant personality will want to receive areward based on their individual efforts. In otherwords, even if the determination for paying anincentive is based on team or company perfor-mance, the high-D personality will want to berecognized and rewarded individually. The com-pensation design for a team-based incentive planthat has high-D members will need to contain anindividual recognition and reward mechanism.

➤ Influence over outcomes. Without suchinfluence, high-D people will resent the lack ofcontrol and will focus their attention elsewhere.

➤ Type of reward. Earning opportunities forpeople with dominant personalities generallyshould be in cash and should be unlimited.Capped incentive earnings will diminish thecompetitive spirit of the high-D personalities anddisappoint them. If the compensation plan doesnot provide any other challenges, they may lookelsewhere to feed their need for competition.High-D people value recognition when they haveaccomplished challenging goals. Expenseaccounts, with not too much red tape, may bevalued by high-D people who want to be seen assuccessful and prosperous.

➤ The amount of money at risk relative to totalcompensation. Dominant personalities enjoy riskprovided they have control over the outcomes.Compensation plan designers can, if the situa-tion warrants, build considerable pay-at-risk forhigh-D people. The amount of rewards based onperformance should also vary widely. In otherwords, the level at which any reward is earnedshould be fairly high. The amount of reward forexceptional performance should also be high.The principle at work in such a design is “greaterrisk, greater reward.” High-D people should notreceive rewards for lackluster performance.

➤ Frequency of payment. Highly dominantpeople are challenge focused but not verypatient. They want recognition for a job welldone. A successful incentive compensation planwill provide earning opportunities for short-termas well as long-term goals, if possible.

➤ Pay plan communication. Communicationof earning opportunities to people with high-D

MARCH/APRIL 2002 53

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

personalities should stress the attainment ofgoals and the fact that the performance goals willnot be easy to attain. Because highly dominantpersons respond to change well and in fact requireit to keep them focused, compensation plan com-munications should focus on changes and devel-opments in the plan design or in the environ-ment that will make the new compensation plandifferent from last year’s plan. Communications,verbal or written, should be direct and to thepoint. The link to the company’s success shouldbe simply stated without conditional phrases.

2. Influential Personality

➤ Performance criteria. People who fit theinfluential personally profile will be more com-fortable with performance criteria that are basedon social interaction, such as leading or being amember of a project team. This is not to say thatthey are uncomfortable with competition. High-Ipeople can be competitive when striving forrecognition and rewards. They will, however, bemore tolerant of and comfortable with evaluative(discretionary) criteria and goals if they have hada chance to discuss these with their manager in aone-on-one exchange. The discussion need notevolve around negotiation of goals but shouldfocus more on clarification of the employee’s roleand the need for a person in that role to interactwith others to be successful.

Any criteria or goals that suggest isolation orthat may cause negative reactions from subordi-nates or colleagues, for example, reduction ofovertime hours, would be difficult for high-I peo-ple to deal with. It is social interaction and a feel-ing of being admired that motivate high-Iemployees.

When establishing performance criteria forhigh-I personalities, the designer must ensurethat the plan performance criteria be preciselystated and have internal structure, that is, dead-lines and limits. However, high-I employees enjoytheir freedom, so the structure should be builtinto the criteria, not imposed from an externalsource. In other words, the goal is to providehigh-I people with structure while maintainingautonomy. Because influential personalities tendto lose themselves in social relationships, theymay lose sight of the business purposes that thecompensation plan is encouraging them to focuson. Quantity may be sacrificed for quality goals.Ensuring that people feel good about their workmay replace the need for results. As with thehigh-D personality, when establishing criteria for

the high-I person, there must be negative conse-quences for any outcomes that will negativelyaffect the organization.

➤ Performance goals. People with influentialpersonality types seek to influence others. In thisregard, engaging the high-I personality in a dis-cussion of the goals to be reached is essential toobtaining their buy in. The nature of the interac-tion should be somewhat democratic. That is, themanager should invite a free exchange of ideasand be prepared to discuss business objectivesfrom a fairly broad perspective. The managershould listen carefully to what the high-I employ-ee is saying and be prepared to change an opin-ion on a different point of view.

Influential personality types are competitive;they will respond as well as high-D types to high-ly challenging goals but only if reaching the goalsinvolves public recognition of their achievement.Therefore, rewards should be based on a range ofgoal achievement that begins at a moderate tohigh difficultly level. The upside potential—thatis, maximum earnings for exceptional perfor-mance—may also be more focused on “psychic”rewards than on cash as they are for the high-D.

➤ Performance assessment basis. Evaluatingthe performance of high-I employees ought to bebased more on team or group, not individual,effort and accomplishments. Employees with aninfluential personality want to influence othersand win their respect and admiration in accom-plishing results. They do not seek individual con-trol. Team or group goals also reinforce identifi-cation with the organization and allow the high-Iperson to interact with many other peoplethrough their team members.

Performance assessment at the team levelshould focus on objective and measurableresults. However, when assessing the perfor-mance of the high-I personality on an individualbasis, an evaluative (subjective) method will bemore appropriate because it provides manage-ment with a way to recognize the high-I employ-ee for the intangible or social performance fac-tors that the high-I person values.

➤ Reward distribution basis. As with thebasis for evaluating results, employees with aninfluential personality will be comfortable withrewards that are distributed equally on a teambasis. However, their need for praise and accep-tance will require a display of recognition fortheir personal efforts. In other words, even if thedetermination for paying an incentive is based

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

54 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW

on team or company performance, the high-Ipersonality will want to be recognized individual-ly. The high-I personality will compete as aggres-sively as the high-D personality but more forrecognition.

➤ Influence over outcomes. Generally, employ-ees want control over the results that will formthe basis of a bonus payment or a raise in pay.This is true of the high-I personality as well, butnot to the same extent as it would be for a high-Dpersonality. Because high-I people tend to focuson personal relationships, they will not requirethe same degree of control over results, as do high-D people. They will be more comfortable dealingwith unstable performance factors, especially ifthey are working in a team situation, whichwould tend to create a “shared fate” attitude.

➤ Type of reward. Earning opportunities forpeople with influential personalities mustinclude “psychic” rewards. Letters of commenda-tion and public displays of recognition, for exam-ple, gifts or plaques, are important to high-I peo-ple and should be given liberally. However, this innot to suggest that such rewards be spurious orgratuitous. Any reward offered within the contextof a compensation plan should be earned andbased on real accomplishments. Expenseaccounts and club memberships would be highlyvalued by high-I personalities because these pro-vide vehicles for increased social interaction.

➤ The amount of money at risk relative tototal compensation. Influential personalities willbe more willing to accept risk if the performancecriteria and goals are team based. Compensationplan designers can, if the situation warrants, buildmoderately high pay-at-risk for influential per-sonality types based on team goals. The amountof rewards based on performance should also varyaccordingly. In other words, the level at whichany reward is earned should be moderately high.The amount of reward for exceptional perfor-mance should be consistent with this approach.In any variable compensation plan, the principleat work is greater risk equals greater reward.

➤ Frequency of payment. Highly influentialpeople are socially focused but not patient. Theyneed frequent evidence of being accepted andvalued. A successful variable compensation planfor high-I personalities will provide frequentopportunities to recognize the progress beingmade and any exceptional efforts made by teammembers. For high-I people, recognition mightinclude such things as meetings with the CEO to

discuss accomplishments, milestone accom-plishment parties or other social events.

➤ Pay plan communication. Communicationof earning opportunities to people with high-Ipersonalities should stress individual recognitionand rewards and teamwork and cooperationneeded for the company to reach its businessobjectives. People with influential personalitieswill more readily accept business objectives thatare defined in general, personal terms with lessemphasis on objective descriptors. Theirresponse to personal explanations directly fromsenior management about the challenges thecompany is facing will be as strong, and perhapsstronger, than their response to any hard coldfacts that are presented. In other words, high-Ipeople will be motivated by the expressed per-sonal commitment made by senior management.In addition, the communications should presenta clear link from the company’s business objec-tives to the role of the employees in achieving

those objectives. People with high influential per-sonalities want and need to be connected to thegreater good and to feel that they are part of aproductive society.

3. Supportive Personality

➤ Performance criteria. A person with a highlysupportive personality is not a good choice forvariable pay plans because his or her preferenceis for stability and security. Dealing with the uncer-tainties and ambiguity of performance under avariable compensation plan is not somethingthat will be easy for high-S people. However, infashioning the performance criteria for high-Speople, the compensation plan designer canimprove this situation in the following ways.

MARCH/APRIL 2002 55

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

People with high influential personalitieswant and need to be connected to the greatergood and to feel that they are part of a productive society.

Performance criteria, namely, those factorsthat are to be evaluated to determine successunder the compensation plan, will need to bewell rooted in the history and experience of thecompany and completely understood by theemployee as well. In other words, the perfor-mance criteria need to be based on extensive his-torical fact. Criteria based on new business initia-tives that have no basis in past experience will bedifficult for highly supportive people to buy intoand will be viewed as a threat to their security. Ifpossible, performance criteria should be objec-tive and measurable, not discretionary or evalua-tive in nature. Objective criteria, when the rulesare clearly stated, are much more reliable thanevaluative goals. High-S people respond well toreliable situations.

➤ Performance goals. High-S personalitiesgenerally want to avoid change and pressure or atleast minimize their effect on the peaceful, stablelives that they value. Setting goals for such peopleshould address this need. If compensation plangoals are designed to contain a time limitation(i.e., a deadline), then these deadlines should beas generous as possible while still meeting thecompany’s objectives. This holds true for otherkinds of goals as well. Stretch goals that are high-ly motivating to high-D personalities will be dis-abling and distasteful to high-S personalities ifthey push the high-S beyond where he or shewishes to go. Therefore, the performance goalsfor high-S people should not involve significantchange or tight deadlines and untried strategies.Goals set for performance criteria should, as wasthe case with the criteria themselves, be based onhistorical patterns or trends that are easy to iden-tify and understand (e.g., number of returns forthe last three years).

Because high-S people do not adapt easily tochange or pressure, their participation in settinggoals should be done with care. They will need tobe sold on the soundness of the performance cri-teria and the supporting historical data beforethey will commit to any level of challenging goals.After criteria are identified, the high-S person willneed time to adjust to the change in his or herenvironment. Because they are not good negotia-tors, managers need to be careful that they do nottalk high-S people into goals that they view asunattainable.

➤ Performance assessment basis. Highly sup-portive people will be comfortable having theirperformance based on either team or individualresults. However, they may find more security

and stability in a team environment if the teammembers interact harmoniously and deal withpredictable business outcomes. Discord within ateam or team dynamics that are not predictable,for example, creative design teams, will be detri-mental to the performance of a high-S person.

High-S people should be placed on teams andhave their performance against goal measured ona team basis if the role they will play in the tacti-cal business plan requires supporting other teammembers. If not, assessment of their perfor-mance should be individually based. High-S peo-ple will need to have input into any changesbeing made the performance assessment factors.

➤ Reward distribution basis. Supportive peo-ple do not need as much individual recognitionas do dominant or influential people. They willreadily accept team-based rewards and sharethem equally with other team members, as longas they view the other team members in a posi-tive light and the distribution as being fair. If theydo not, they may resent the rewards given with-out actually expressing their displeasure and, infact, may harbor negative feelings that will affecttheir future performance.

If rewards are given to a high-S person on anindividual basis, there should not be too muchfanfare about it. High-S people are not necessari-ly comfortable being in the spotlight. Individualrewards to supportive people should focus ontheir length of service, steadiness and depend-ability. Because supportive people are possessive,they will appreciate rewards in the form of mate-rial things, for example, gifts that they can use.

➤ The amount of money at risk relative tototal compensation. Supportive personalities arenot usually risk takers, nor do they require highrisk/reward compensation strategies to get themfocused and motivated. With this in mind, com-pensation plan designers can structure the totaltarget compensation (i.e., base pay and incentive

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

56 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW

Highly supportive peoplewill be comfortable having their performancebased on either team or individual results.

pay at goal) for supportive personalities at lowervalues than for dominant personalities.

Supportive personalities will be more willing toaccept risk if the performance criteria and goals areteam based and well connected to historical prece-dent. Compensation plan designers can, if the sit-uation warrants, build moderately low pay-at-riskfor supportive personality types. As stated above,the amount of rewards based on performanceshould also vary accordingly. That is, the level atwhich any reward is earned should be moderate-ly low, and the amount of reward for exceptionalperformance should also be moderately low.

➤ Type of reward. In addition to cash, rewardsfor people with supportive personalities shouldinclude longevity rewards, that is, rewards forexcellence over long periods of time, as eithercash or gifts. As stated above, any reward offeredwithin the context of a compensation planshould be earned and based on real accomplish-ments. This is especially true for the high-S per-son. High-S personalities would value personaltime off to spend with their families as a mean-ingful reward.

➤ Frequency of payment. Highly supportivepeople are patient. They enjoy working in envi-ronments that are stable and in which progress issteady. The frequency of incentive payments forsupportive people can be long term, for example,annual. Although high-S people are patient andwilling to wait for a reward, they still will requireperformance feedback on a regular basis andreassurance that goals and criteria have notchanged.

➤ Pay plan communication. Communicatingvariable pay plans to people with highly support-ive personalities should focus on the long-termrelationship of the company with the employees.It should focus on company loyalty, teamworkand management’s faith in the talent of itsemployees. Business goals and objectives shouldbe explained, as much as possible, in evolution-ary, not revolutionary, terms. If the pay planinvolves optional rewards for employees, thenumber of options for high-S people should belimited. They should be presented as attainablethrough steady, hard work. Management shouldstate its commitment to support the employeesas much as possible.

If the compensation plan is a new pay initia-tive, then the communication to high-S peopleshould be planned well in advance. It needs to bethorough in its presentation of facts, the compa-

ny’s reasons for instituting the plan and how theplan will affect the employees.

4. Compliant Personality

➤ Performance criteria. The compliant person-ality (high-C) is perhaps the worst possible candi-date for a variable compensation plan becauseavoiding risk is their predominant character trait.They are skeptical people and will be less likely tobe comfortable with unproven, variable pay plans.Although they may be willing to take limited, pru-dent risks, they need to know all of the details ofexactly what will happen, when it will happenand to whom it will happen. The rules and condi-tions of the compensation plan must be explicit,clear and detailed. More than anything, high-Cpeople seek to avoid situations of ambiguity andindependent choice that could reflect negativelyon them. They want to follow precise instructionsthat do not vary. They want to know all the detailsand proceed strictly according to the book.

In fashioning compensation plan perfor-mance criteria, plan designers should focus oncriteria that relate to paying attention to details,for example, reduction of defects through qualitychecking. Goals that involve making decisions ortaking risks, for example, developing productpromotions, would be poor choices for compli-ant personalities.

As is the case with high-S people, compliantpersonalities will not respond well to variable payopportunities that are based on new business ini-tiatives. If at all possible, the performance criteriafor high-Cs should be rooted in clearly communi-cated and well-established standard operatingprocedures. Success in meeting plan goals oughtto be based on criteria that require repetitive,flawless execution. Once established, the perfor-mance criteria should not be changed until theplan has terminated.

High-C people will value performance criteriathat are objective and measurable, as long as theyare directly aligned with the role (job description)of the employee and well communicated.However, they will also accept evaluative (i.e.,subjective) performance criteria, but only if theyreceive reassurances that management will beeven-handed and fair in its assessments and thatthe employee’s inability to meet “expectations”will not be dealt with harshly.

➤ Performance goals. High-C personalities willavoid risk if they can. Goals that are set for suchemployees should reflect this risk avoidance.

MARCH/APRIL 2002 57

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

Minimum acceptable performance thresholdsshould be set as low as possible. The goals them-selves should be only slightly challenging. In otherwords, as much reassurance as possible shouldbe put into the variable pay plan, and as much riskas possible should be taken out. Allowing high-Cpeople the chance to participate in the goal-setting process is problematic. Their natural ten-dency to avoid risk and conflict will make themreluctant to commit to goals presented by thecompany that they view as too difficult.Conversely, their sense of soldier loyalty maycause them to accept, silently and perhapsresentfully, the goals they are given even if theybelieve the goals are unattainable. Such anemployee can be defeated before the gamebegins.

➤ Performance assessment basis. Highlycompliant people will prefer to have their perfor-mance based on team results. Operating in teamsgives the high-C people the support they need, aslong as the team values what the high-C is able todo best, which is attend to details and operatestrictly according to established procedures.

➤ Reward distribution basis. Compliant peo-ple do not need individual recognition. They mayeven avoid it. They prefer to work in teams, andthey will accept team-based rewards and willing-ly will share them equally with other team mem-bers. Their need to avoid conflict makes themmore comfortable with an equal distribution ofrewards than a distribution based on individualcontribution factors, which can cause internaldiscord. If rewards are given to a high-C personon an individual basis, such rewards should focuson their accuracy and thoroughness in complet-ing the tasks that were assigned to them.

➤ The amount of money at risk relative tototal compensation. Because compliant person-alities are the most risk-averse group of the fourmentioned so far, they are far less likely to wantsubstantial portions of their income put at risk invariable pay programs. If they are placed intosuch plans, the amount of money placed at riskshould be as small as possible while still retainingsome impact as a motivator and communicator.

Compliant personalities will be willing toaccept some risk if the performance criteria andgoals are team based and well connected to stan-dard operating procedures that do not vary. Insuch situations, the high-C person will feel morein control of the outcomes that result in addition-al income. Compensation plan designers ought

to build low pay-at-risk into plans for compliantpersonality types.

➤ Type of reward. In addition to cash, rewardsfor people with compliant personalities shouldinclude psychic rewards that are personalized.Personalized gifts, such as watches or jewelry,would be good choices for high-C people.Personal letters of commendation that focus onthe accuracy and precision of the employee inmeeting their objectives would also fill this need.

➤ Frequency of payment. Highly compliantpeople are natural worriers. They do not requirefrequent motivation, but they do require frequentreassurance and feedback on how they are doing.In a variable pay plan, this can be delivered in pre-cise and concrete short-term performance feed-back. Such feedback will be reinforced if used asthe support for small, interim incentive payments.

➤ Pay plan communication. The focus ofcompensation plan communications for high-Cpeople should be on the need for teamwork andshould state in detail how feedback on perfor-mance criteria will be collected and delivered toplan participants. Communications should stateprecisely what the goals of the company are. Thehigh-C will need to be sold on the program, ingreat detail, to feel comfortable with it. Once sold,however, the high-C may become the plan’s mostardent supporter.

Communicating variable pay plans to peoplewith highly compliant personalities should focuson the need for everyone to do their jobs and exe-cute their tasks flawlessly. The role of the employ-ees, even more than the business goals and

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

58 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW

Communicating variablepay plans to people with highly compliant personalities should focus on the need foreveryone to do their jobs and execute theirtasks flawlessly.

objectives, should be explained in as much detailas possible, including the resources that will beavailable to employees to be successful.

If the compensation plan is a new pay initia-tive, then the communication to high-C peopleshould be planned in great detail so that it can bepresented to employees down to the individualemployee level.

Practical Use and ConsiderationsIt would be impractical to design variable payplans in four different versions to suit each per-sonality type. This would clearly be the case whendesigning a compensation plan for a large num-ber of employees. But in situations involving acompensation plan for only a few plan partici-pants, personality profiles might be valuable.

Even in situations involving large groups ofemployees, there are two compelling reasons toinclude personality profiling in the discovery phaseof a compensation plan project. First, under-standing the predominant personality type, evenin large groups, can positively influence the plandesign and make success more likely. Second,even if four versions of a compensation plan can-not reasonably be developed to accommodateeach personality, it may still be possible to modi-fy the communications and training associatedwith the new compensation plan to be moreeffective in a successful implementation of theplan. Instead of one memorandum, for example,to all employees to announce the advent of thecompensation program, two or more memoran-da or communication sessions could be devel-oped to address each one of the personality stylespresent in the employee population. Even if thiswere not possible, understanding the predomi-nant personality type of the employees to be cov-ered by the new plan can make such plannedcommunications and training more effective.

Conclusions That Can Be Drawn from the ModelOne size does not fit all. It is an old saying but truein this context. Money may be a universal moti-vator and communicator, but money is not reallywhat compensation plan design is all about. Themessage is usually more critical to the success ofa compensation plan than the money. It is clear,not only from the DISC personality model butfrom experience with human interaction, thatpeople are different. They think differently andreact differently. It is possible to successfullydesign and implement compensation plans with-out knowledge of the personality profiles of theplan participants. History has demonstrated this.However, history also demonstrates that manywell-intentioned and well-designed compensa-tion plans fail. The real question, then, is, howcan we increase positive outcomes and decreasenegative outcomes? How can we improve theodds of successfully implementing a new com-pensation plan? Understanding people is one ofthe keys.

AcknowledgementThe author wishes to express sincere thanks toGrover Clark for his assistance in developing theideas presented in this article.

Notes1. Weinberger, T. E. (1996, June). Bell curve pay:

Realizing maximum return from new hires.ACA News, 39(6).

2. Feder, I. (2000). Rewards for the new millenni-um. WorldatWork Journal, Second Quarter, 7.

3. Roodt, K. A reliability and validity study onthe discus personality profiling system.Durban, South Africa: Technikon Natal.

MARCH/APRIL 2002 59

Co

mp

en

sa

ti

on

PLAN DESIGN

Ted Turnasella is the principal consultant for Comp-unications, a compensation consulting firm thatdevelops effective compensation programs of all types. He has more than 25 years of experience in humanresources, both in the corporate world and as an independent consultant. His experience covers the man-ufacturing, banking, publishing, retail and travel industries. He has written many articles for profession-al journals, spoken at the national conference level and appeared on network television as an expertspeaker on human resource issues. Turnasella holds a bachelor’s degree from Saint Peter’s College in JerseyCity and a master’s degree in labor and industrial relations from New York Institute of Technology. He isa member of the Consultant’s Forum of the Society for Human Resource Management and World at Work.