A couple of nights ago I was reading about salary benchmarking and relative wage scales, and I realized I haven’t seen much wage survey data for leadership/management development programs. Not all of these programs are rotational but many are, and the lack of available survey data often makes putting together compensation packages that are both attractive to candidates and economical for the employer difficult.
I suppose the simplest way for a company to find the right salary to attract talent off of college campuses is to look at the average salaries being paid to students out of the schools they recruit at, and then offering packages at p50/75/90/whatever their compensation philosophies dictate. In practice, however, this is probably an unreliable benchmarking method since the talent in any graduating class (regardless of discipline) will take jobs across a broad
1. Put another way: From a recruitment standpoint companies are competing against one another for different segments of any given graduating class (differentiated by experience, mobility, background, interests and other criteria). Depending on the role a company is filling, its dream candidate may be completely unattractive to another company recruiting from the same candidate pool.
range of industries/functions at various levels of responsibility.
It seems like in practice the way most companies determine the optimal pay mix to attract target talent in rotational programs is by offering what they need to in order to hire their candidates, and then addressing compression issues (both among program incumbents and the larger population) as they come up. I don’t think this is a right or wrong way to approach things – but it may be the best way available.