employee motivation-money matters

8/18/2019 Employee Motivation-Money Matters

1/12

Employee Motivation: Money Matters

1

Employee Motivation: Money Matters New Directions in Compensation & Incentives


May 2006

By: Sumeet Varghese

Sponsored by: Vurv Technology


2/12


2

EXECUT IVE SUMMARY

The interests of human resource managers and

compensation professionals converge when it comes to

compensation plans. A major headache for talent

managers today is to operate within constrictive limits to

make pay as motivating as they can for the employee.

An important challenge companies face is to design a

pay program that not only contributes to employee

retention but directly impacts their motivation as well.

As Steve Chinn, Director of Compensation and Benefits

at Novo Nordisk says, “While we worry about getting

and retaining the right kind of people in the

organization we miss the critical link in between: how tomotivate and reward people for their performance and

their contributions to organizations.” This paper will

examine ways to bring talent management and

compensation practices together to attract, motivate,

retain and develop human capital assets.

THE CHANGING PAY FOR PERFORMANCE LANDSCAPE

Traditional merit systems have dominated the workplace

for the past 40 years. Barry Maclean, Practice Leader in

Compensation Solutions at Vurv Technology, says that

since the 60s and 70s many companies have grappled

with the issue of finding suitable pay-for-performance

solutions. Over time a mix of merit pay, stocks, and

bonuses have been used to motivate employees.

However, except in a few instances, most companies are

not satisfied with their programs. In a time when

competition for talent is a priority, the “native talent” is

restless. In an online poll conducted by the Human

Capital Institute during a special webcast on the topic,

about 40% of respondents said their programs were

moderately effective and motivating from an employee’s

perspective1. Barely 2% found it highly effective. Almost

1 See Talent Development Compensation & Incentives Webcast Series, Employee Motivation: Money Matters Wed, 22 Mar 2006 at

http://www.humancapitalinstitute.org/hci/events_webcast_archive.guid?_trainingID=396

51% of respondents felt the merit program

needed an overhaul and 45% strongly supported a

change in the way bonuses were administered.

“Truly, the key is to find a program that covers all

employees,” says Maclean. Historically pay for

performance programs have been skewed to

benefit different pools of employees. While

general trends may vary by company size,

strategy, etc., Maclean’s recap of past trends

shows:

Merit increases have evolved over the past 30-40

years to reach a stage where non-management

merit is a major cost component of the program

but not a major component for middle or topmanagement.

Bonuses have been utilized in a diametrically

opposite manner than merit has. Cash/stock

bonuses have been very strong components for

the last two decades and are only now becoming

an important element in exempt employee

compensation, a clear indication that there is an

opportunity to draw in non-exempt people into

the scheme.

Stock options are heavily skewed towards

management, and a major component of top

management compensation. There has been a

pullback since the 80’s and 90’s due to the

dotcom bubble burst and the backlash against

expensive executive compensation.

According to Maclean one of the main challenges

in implementing a motivational pay for

performance system based on the old model is to

rectify the skewed nature of its various

components with respect to different classes of

employees. “While the relative value of all these

components plays out in different ways for


3/12


3

different employee categories,” says Maclean, “the

change in non-management levels in the past decade

has brought in variable pay into the mix, even though

there is heavy reliance on merit.” Moreover, there

remains a strong tendency to focus on senior

management while everyone else is viewed as part of the

delivery system. This may be because top officials lead,

strategize, do the deals, drive the corporate culture, and

contribute to the creation of stockholder value, but such

a picture can be misleading.

Given the demographics of large organizations the cost

of any pay for performance program is heavily skewed

towards non-management employees. Just the merit

component for non-management employees is likely to

be four or five times the entire cost of the package fortop executives, observes Maclean. See table 1, below:

Table 1

Both the merit and bonus components of the program in

Table 1 require fixing, says Maclean. The Human Capital

Institute webcast poll revealed that employees were

dissatisfied with the merit and bonus components of

their pay for performance package. Only 44% of

respondents reported the use of satisfaction surveys to

get employees’ perspective on compensation. Of the

remaining respondents, 22% stated exit interviews were

used to get employee ideas about compensation, and

20% suggested their organizations use different

methods.

The reasons why a merit system doesn’t work, says

Maclean, are simple enough to understand. The

WorldatWork Study shows2:

95% of employees view merit increases as an

entitlement like vacations and basic benefit

programs. They don’t get any more motivational

impact from merit increases than they get from

benefit programs.

The difference between average and top

performers’ merit increases is 2%. Data shows

average performers receive 3% and the top

performers 5%.

Merit programs are not funded at a level sufficient

to motivate a change in desired employee

behavior.There isn’t enough money to keep up with

advancing market rates. For instance, the average

merit budget in 2006 is 3.75% and the average

range structure increase is 2.5% In order to keep

compensation in line with the market the actual

merit funding will only be 1.25%. This money is

virtually meaningless at an individual employee

level. But from a management perspective, the

1.25% can be an enormous sum of money in an

organization with 20,000 employees.

MERIT MATRIX EXAMINED

A traditional merit matrix comprises two

dimensions: employee performance depicted by

rows on a five point rating scale and employee

salary arranged in columns. The intersection of

the two contains the cell that shows merit

increases. Generally a merit matrix is expressed in

“compa-ratios”. It is a way of looking not only at

performance but also at how you are paid in

relation to the job you perform in the

2 Also known as the International Compensation Association,the WorldatWork regularly publishes reports on salary/rewardsrelated activities. See report titled “Bonus Program Practices: ASurvey of Members of WorldatWork”, August 2005at http://www.worldatwork.org for an account of the limitedimpact merit systems have.


4/12


4

marketplace. A compa-ratio is obtained when salary is

divided by the salary range mid-point. Most

organizations position the midpoints to the market.

What that means is if your compa-ratio is 100% you are

paid at the market rates. The concept has been around

for 40 or 50 years and is designed to accelerate low paid

but high performing employee salaries, and slow down

the higher paid but low performing employees. As Table

2 shows:

Low-paid, high performers receive the largest increases

since they are low paid and eligible to receive maximum

merit increases. They are also the most vulnerable

employees as they are talented and underpaid.

Competitively paid average performers keep pace with

the market. Employees who meet expectations and arecurrently paid in the middle range, where the market

would expect them to be, are held constant under the

merit increase program.

Highly paid, low performers receive little or no salary

adjustment.

Table 2

In the traditional merit matrix, large inequities are

perpetuated. Consider the case of two employees in the

same job with a midpoint salary of $50,000 (see Table 5

below). Both exceed expectations and are in the same

performance range. If Employee A is paid at the lower

end of the range and employee B at the top of the

range, Employee A is eligible for a 5% to 7% merit

increase. The real inequity is that at the end of

the whole cycle Employee B is making 40% more:

Table 3

In order to overcome perceived inequities, some

organizations have replaced the traditional merit

matrix with merit guidelines that pay out like a

bonus. They have eliminated the second aspect of

decision-making where an individual is paid in the

range and treat a merit increase as a bonus.

Employee performance is rated to determine the

pay increase and is built into the base pay

permanently, as shown in Table 4.


5/12


5

Table 4

However, when this non-matrix model is used for two

employees in the same job with the same performance, it

makes matters worse as the difference in pay increases.

Because of the way the program works both employees

can get 4-7% merit increases. But the increase is applied

at the salary level so there is a compounding effect. Thehigh performer is paid even more with the end result

that the gap keeps growing. See Table 5 below:

Table 5

TARGET PAY … THE PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE

Since the traditional merit matrix isn’t designed

for merit increases that are administered like

bonuses and the alternative bonus-like merit

increase guidelines perpetuate real pay inequities,

Maclean is of the opinion that a better approach

would be to target what an employee should be

paid based on performance and allocate salary

increase dollars based on gap analysis. It is

important to close the gap between what they

should be paid and what they are currently paid.

People are more likely to leave if they’re not paid

what they’re worth, rather than because they

didn’t get a merit increase.

Target pay, Maclean’s alternative, is a

straightforward, four-step process. It involves:

• Target Pay: Determining where someone

should be paid in the range based on

their performance and capability

• Target Pay Gap: Determining the

difference between the target pay and

current pay

•

Gap Analysis: Allocating the budget based on the amount of difference

• Using variable pay plans to reward one-

time performance once and not adding

that to base pay in perpetuity

A target pay matrix indicates a minimum and

maximum salary range and has nothing to do

with how much of an increase someone should

get. The range is divided into five equal parts

called quintiles. The middle quintile highlighted in

the table below brackets the market. Target pay

considers pay for performance not as a one-year

snap shot but over time. It factors in knowledge,

skills, and experience increases over time. An

employee’s salary grows at the same rate as the

skills for the job are acquired, and is tied into

what the market value is for that job.


6/12


6

Table 6

Target pay is an underutilized management and

retention tool. A target pay approach also irons outperceived and real inequities. For example, three

employees in the same job at the same level of

performance would receive an equitable increase over a

period of time. Assuming a 3.75% increase in budget,

$5,663 can be allocated in the following ways among

the three employees:

• Allocate the entire amount to Employee A

• Allocate $4,663 to Employee A and $1,000 to

Employee B• Allocate $5,000 to Employee A and balance to

Employee B

The most important point here is that employee C is

absent from the decision process because C is paid

significantly over what C’s performance would fetch in

the market though C is eligible to receive an incentive

bonus.

TARGET PAY AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL

Maclean’s Target Pay approach to employee

compensation addresses two core challenges existing

models face: expanding differential pay rates for the

same kind of employees and the skewed nature of

reward for the various employee levels. To manage this

he suggests extending target-based incentive

programs further down in the organization as the

ideal counterpart to target pay. A webcast poll

conducted by the Human Capital Institute found

that for 51% of respondents the non-exempt

individual contributor is the lowest level in the

organization that is eligible to participate in a

formal incentive program. Only 25% reported

programs for the exempt individual contributor

category. Moreover, while 2% said incentive

programs did not go beyond the supervisor level,

20% of the participants mentioned they did not

have such programs for people below the middle

management rung.

LINE OF SIGHT - KEY TO INCENTIVE EFFECTIVENESS

While the ideal is to extend incentive eligibility to

the lowermost levels of the organization and get

as many employees in a formal plan as possible,

there are problems that cannot be wished away,

notes Maclean. Studies show that many incentive

plan participants don’t know how their

performance contributes to overall corporate

success. Besides, it becomes increasingly difficult

to define precisely individual performance

objectives that merit an incentive as one goes

further down into the organization. But

establishing “lines of sight” clearly showing

linkages between job performance and corporate

goals can rectify such problems. There’s no

problem in locating the line of sight for top

management. They know what is expected, have a

clear view and can easily identify what objectives

in their area of responsibility relate to the

corporate goals. Linkage becomes hazy and less

certain for lower management and individual

contributors. Maclean’s advice is to deploy

objectives-based, target incentives plans where

line-of-sight is clear. “Line of sight can be used as

a criterion to determine what somebody should be

getting,” he points out.


7/12


7

INCENTIVE OBJECTIVES … GETTING IT “WRITE”

Diminishing line-of-sight isn’t the only shortcoming

when it comes to incentive plan effectiveness. Poorly

written and communicated objectives are often a major

drawback because employees are not trained or they are

trained in tools that don’t lend themselves to

compensation plans. It’s common to use the SMART

method to solve the problem.3 However, though such an

approach may work well for personal development, it is

inadequate for variable compensation plans, says

MacLean, who proposes utilizing what he calls the

MASTERS model.

MASTERS are similar to SMART goals but are more

demanding, stringent and tougher to achieve. Theystand for the following characteristics:

Measurable. Objectives have to be quantified with

the help of categorical measures/metrics

Aligned. Strategic objectives are aligned with

corporate goals

Stretch. Employees strive for breakthroughs not

something obtainable by reaching beyond routine

expectations.

Time-framed. It is the duration for an objective to

be achieved

End-Results. Outcomes are more important than

processes or activity

Scaled. By having minimum, target, and optimum

outcome tiers, organizations can help employees

move over a continuum of performance rather than

remain stationary at a point on that scale. In other

words, we may be able to say whether someone

partially met, fully met or exceeded the objectives.

There is a major difference in the way SMART and

MASTERS address the same employee in the same area.

For example, a typical SMART performance goal may

read “Conduct two customer service training courses in

3 SMART is an acronym for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevantand Time-based

the first quarter of 2006”; a MASTERS incentive

objective may be expressed as follows:

67% of trainees will achieve a 25% higher

customer service feedback rating within 30 days

of completing the customer service training course

Minimum acceptable performance is 33% of

trainees achieve at least a 25% higher

feedback rating

Optimum performance is 85% or more of trainees

achieve at least a 25% higher feedback rating.”

Clearly, MASTERS objectives focus on the

outcomes of the training, not the activity of

conducting the training sessions, and can be

aligned with a minimum payoff under anincentive plan.

SPOT-BONUS … AN UNDERUTILIZED MOTIVATIONAL

TOOL

In cases where line of sight is not clear he

recommends the use of spot-bonuses or team

incentives to recognize and reward contributions.

“It is important to spot non-management

performers & reward them”, Maclean says,

“especially if we don’t know what to do about

those employees who do not fit into such a

program.” Those employees who are not able to

participate in a target program are eligible for a

spot bonus. “Spot-bonuses are an effective tool

for motivating and rewarding employees who are

out of-line-of-sight,” says Maclean, “but it is best

to mange the process on a decentralized basis.”

Typically, the spot-bonus process should also have

the following features:

• Manager has a predetermined budget

• Guidelines are used for determining

allocations of budget


8/12


8

• Approvals are submitted up the chain-of-

command either on a scheduled (e.g., each

month) or spontaneous basis

• Documentation (log events) from performance

management process is used to validate

recommendations

The timing of the payoff immediately reinforces desired

behaviors and is more effective than the annual

performance appraisal ritual. “Apart from the

recognition, employees also see greater value in receiving

the payment as a lump sum rather than receiving it over

26 pay periods,” observes Maclean.

When a spot-bonus program is based on pool funding,

Maclean recommends the following steps:

Determine percentage of total eligible employees, e.g.

50%. The purpose is to limit it so that it doesn’t turn up

like an entitlement in a merit program

Set up pre-determined reward levels; two or three levels

are sufficient

Calculate pool funding in a way that 20% are at a higher

reward level and 30% at a lower reward level

Top management should monitor the process by

tracking allocations against budget throughout the year

PAY FOR POTENTIAL TO RETAIN FUTURE STARS

A compensation program modeled on Maclean’s ideas

can take care of existing and predicted employee pay

packages. However, the talent management challenge

lies in designing programs around future stars that

ensure their retention. In the past, frequent and rapid

promotions ensured that future stars’ pay kept pace with

their potential. Today’s flatter organizations have

effectively capped promotional pay adjustments.

Maclean’s program also has a pay for potential aspect

that, in his words, articulates “a compensation formula

that from a process standpoint begins to merge with

talent management effort.”

To apply the pay for potential concept, a

traditional 9-box potential grid, as shown below,

may be helpful. Each cell has an employee

description in terms of potential and the level of

readiness. For example, the future star will be a

super star in the next couple of years.

Table 7

“By aligning the cells with target levels of pay,”

says Maclean, “we may get a good indication

about where the future star should be paid, which

is somewhere between 60-80% of the range at

this point for the job they are in.” Similarly, by

employing gap analysis technique “we can ensure

we are allocating what limited salary budget we

have to employees that have the largest target pay

gaps.” This approach helps align compensation

and succession planning systems for high

potential employees.

TALENT MANAGEMENT “ROUND TABLES”

The effort to integrate talent management and

compensation planning is gaining traction

through the emerging trend of using collaborative

“round tables”. Round tables are typically marked

by the following set of practices:

Managers develop preliminary recommendations

for direct reports on the basis of performance

ratings, the next career move, development plans

and the ability to do something new, all the time

keeping in mind salary and bonus

recommendations.


9/12


9

The preliminary recommendations are consolidated into

cross-departmental round table groups where they are

reviewed by a team of three to five managers

The round table process “rolls” up the organization for

all employees or for a select group of high-potential

employees.

CONCLUSION

For those organizations that have made the shift from

old-school merit pay to incentive pay, linking incentive

plans to profitability and retention numbers is a

challenging undertaking. According to Steve Chinn

employees may still tend to focus on merit comparisons

making the whole process look disingenuous. He also

finds it troublesome to align everyone in theorganization to roll in the same direction when there are

multiple corporate goals. “The alternative,” says Chinn

“is to devise a total rewards programs that packs in

incentives based upon weightings for different

individuals for team involvement and organizational

involvement.” People lower in the organization can

derive a small percentage of incentive from the same

pool. However, the most important piece is to

communicate every month how employees are

performing against corporate goals.

Jim Finkelstein, President and CEO of FutureSense,

believes we should stop calling our programs pay for

performance unless we learn how to differentiate

performance and avoid creating conflict inside

organizations. “The fundamental flaw with the system,”

says Finkelstein “is that while we can differentiate

between shades of gray in employee performance, [in]

the traditional matrix we only identify two levels of

performance with a majority of employees bracketed in

the middle portion of the matrix.” It is important, he

adds, to first define performance and then differentiate

those rewards meant for various kinds of performance.

He suggests rewards should be made more meaningful

and motivating to affect long-term sustainable behavior.

The flip side of the story is that managers will have to

make more discerning decisions because most employees

will get little or nothing so that the high

performers get more.

It will be some time before we see a successful

switch from an "entitlement" mindset to an

incentive-based compensation, and utilize

compensation as a talent management tool. The

road ahead for successful organizations lies in

purging their outdated merit-based processes to

accommodate a more flexible and targeted

compensation program that not only values

employee performance even as it factors in their

future potential, and ties up the whole package

neatly to meet talent management and business

initiatives.


10/12


10

CONTRIBUTORS

This white paper based on the Human Capital Institute

webcast Employee Motivation: Money Matters, New

Directions in Compensation and Incentives

PRESENTER

BARRY MACLEAN

COMPENSATION SOLUTIONS PRACTICE LEADER

VURV TECHNOLOGY, INC.

Barry has 30 years of combined corporate and consulting

knowledge/expertise having held the positions of

compensation director and director of human resource

development, as well as having been a principal with

Sibson & Co., and a managing principal with Mercer,

Willis Corroon and MacLean Associates before co-

founding InfoTechWorks. Barry has managed

compensation, performance management and career

planning client engagements with hundreds of

organizations including Fortune 500 companies (TRW,

Schering Plough, Hoffman LaRoche, Pitney Bowes),

financial institutions (New York Stock Exchange, Mellon

Bank, Prudential, Great West Life, BCBS plans), hospitals

and health systems (Mercy Medical Center, Thomas

Jefferson University Hospital, St Thomas Health System,

Doctors Hospital), as well as other notable companies

such as DisneyWorld, National Geographic and Ballys

Park Place and the International Union of Operating

Engineers on projects ranging from base pay strategy

and administration, to sales compensation, variable pay,

executive compensation and employee opinion surveys.

Barry is a graduate of Davidson College and did his

graduate work at the University of Pennsylvania.

PANELISTS

STEVE CHINN

DIRECTOR OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

NOVO NORDISK, INC.

Steve is responsible for the design, development and

implementation of all compensation and benefit

programs. He has over 20 years of Human

Resources experience, including recruiting for

People Express Airlines, a generalist for Sedgwick,

plc., and compensation & benefits with Blue Cross

and Blue Shield of NJ. Steve graduated from The

College of New Jersey (formerly Trenton State

College) in 1983 with a B.A., majoring in

Psychology and Business. In 1992, Steve received

his M.S. from Rutgers University in Human

Resources and Industrial Relations and his

Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) from

WorldatWork (formerly the American

Compensation Association). In 1995 Steve

received his Senior Professional of Human

Resources for the Society of Human resource

Management.

JOSEPH DONALD, SR.

COMPENSATION CONSULTANT

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Joe joined the Office of Personnel Management

after a 35 year career in the private sector. During

this career, he managed all facets of private sector

human resources programs for four major

corporations. Positions included responsibility for

staffing, pay management, benefits programs and

human resources systems. He has both managed

the implementation of programs in these areas

and designed and developed program upgrades

and improvements. He has designed and

implemented state of the art human resources

systems as well as sophisticated performance pay

programs. Additionally, he has designed and

managed the complete automation of recruiting

programs and, recently, he managed the

modernization of both defined contribution

(401k) and defined benefit (including cash

balance) retirement programs. He has spoken at

American Society of Training and Development

conferences, World at Work conferences and the

Human Resources Systems Professionals

conferences as well as other professional


11/12


11

meetings. He holds a BA degree from Saint Michael's

College and an MBA from Fairleigh Dickenson University

with additional post-graduate work at Rutgers

University. He is a Chartered Life Underwriter.

Jim Finkelstein, President and CEO, FutureSense, Inc.

Jim's experience has included being a Partner in a Big

Five firm, a CEO of a professional services firm, a

corporate executive for Fortune 500 companies, and an

entrepreneur with his current company, FutureSense, Inc.

With close to 30 years of consulting and corporate

experience, Jim understands the convergence of

environment, culture, development and rewards in order

to improve business performance through people. He has

specialized in business and people strategy, motivation

and reward, and organizational assessment,development, communications and transformation. He

has applied his competencies in all areas that impact

people at work - from why they show up to why they

stay. He has worked for diverse industries - from health

care to high tech, building programs and providing

services to Boards of Directors, senior executives,

management and employees. Jim received his MBA in

Organization Behavior and Development from the

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a

BA in Psychology and Economics from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut

MODERATOR

JOY KOSTA

DIRECTOR OF TALENT DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP

COMMUNITIES

THE HUMAN CAPITAL INSTITUTE

Joy brings twenty-five years of experience in multiple

facets of organizational development, human resources

and business management with an emphasis in customer

satisfaction, service quality, process improvement, and

applying the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance

Excellence. As founder and President of Performance

Partners in Health Care, a company dedicated to

building better patient experiences, she has authored

several curriculums in leadership and staff development,

and co-authored with Harold Bursztajn, MD

Senior Clinical Faculty member, Harvard Medical

School, Building a Treatment Alliance with

Patients and Families.

AUTHOR

SUMEET VARGHESE


12/12


12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This White Paper is made possible by Vurv Technology,

sponsors of HCI’s Compensaion & Incentives Learning

Track.

ABOUT VURV TECHNOLOGY

Velocity Resource Group specializes in providing low

cost, highly effective Internet-based candidate sourcing

services. Velocity delivers low cost "overnight" services to

clients in response to their position requirements. The

simplicity, speed, quality, and effectiveness of Velocity Resource Group's services enable corporate clients to

focus their in-house recruitment talent on hiring

qualified candidates. In addition to Internet resume

sourcing, Velocity also offers base-level candidate

qualification (QAI) support and specialized record

retention capabilities to assist corporations tasked with

OFCCP compliance. The people + technology-driven

services provided by Velocity result in significant gains in

productivity at lower costs. For more information, please

visit: www.velocityresourcegroup.com

ABOUT THE HUMAN CAP I TAL

INST I TUTE

The Human Capital Institute is a catalyst for innovative

new thinking in talent acquisition, development anddeployment. Through research and collaboration, our

programs collect original, creative ideas from a field of

top executives and the brightest thought leaders in

strategic HR and talent management. Those ideas are

then transformed into measurable, real-world strategies

that help our members attract and retain the best talent,

build a diverse, inclusive workplace, and leverage

individual and team performance throughout the

enterprise.

The Human Capital Institute gratefully

acknowledges the financial and volunteer

contributions of our Underwriters. They include:

- BERNARD HODES GROUP

- BEST SOFTWARE

- BRASSRING LLC

- CENTER FOR TALENT RETENTION

- DBM

- DNL GLOBAL, INC.

- DOUBLESTAR, INC. - HYPERION

- EMPLOYEASE

- EXXCEED

- FIRST ADVANTAGE CO.

- FYI CONSULTING LLC

- HIREDESK

- HRSMART, INC.

- IBM

- JOBSTER, INC.

- JWT EMPLOYMENT COMMUNICATIONS

- KENEXA

- LOMINGER LIMITED INC.

- MENTTIUM CORPORATION

- MONSTER GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS

- MONSTER JOBS

- MULTI-HEALTH SYSTEMS

- MYBIZOFFICE, INC.

- PEOPLECLICK

- PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT NETWORK

- PILAT NAI

- PLATEAU SYSTEMS LTD

- PREVISOR

- SABA SOFTWARE, INC.

- SAGE GROUP PLC

- SEQUENT, INC.

- SKILLSNET CORPORATION

- SOFTSCAPE

- SUCCESSFACTORS.COM

- TALEO CORPORATION

- UNICRU

- VALTERA

- VURV TECHNOLOGY, INC.

- WORKSTREAM, INC.

employee motivation-money matters

Documents