PLAN DESIGN
Compensation
Pay and Personality
Ted Turnasella
Principal
Comp-unications
W
hen it comes to compensation,
many managers seem to sub-
scribe to a “vending machine”
view of people. They see the link
between compensation and
behavior from a simplistic and
somewhat mechanical perspec-
tive. If you put 75 cents into a
vending machine, out pops a
soda. If management puts money
into people, out will come some
desired result. But the reality is
different. People are much more
complex than machines, and
compensation plan design is
often more art than science.
Sound compensation plan design usually pro-
ceeds in three phases: discovery, design and
implementation. During the discovery phase,
information is collected and analyzed for use dur-
ing the design phase. The design phase results in
programs that attempt to link the company’s pay
philosophy and objectives with the pay level and
earning opportunities provided to employees.
During the implementation phase, the new pay
plan policies and structures are overlaid on the
existing population to determine any areas of
adjustment that may be required. A communica-
tions plan is usually completed to outline the con-
tent and timing of messages that will be conveyed
to employees and supervisors. When all of these
phases are complete, managers may believe that
the new pay plan can be launched. But can it?
In fact, during the discovery, design and imple-
mentation phases, environmental factors are
often overlooked. These environmental factors
are the employees themselves, or to be more spe-
cific, their personalities. Theodore Weinberger
stated it very well when he wrote, “At the risk of
political incorrectness, I believe those of us in the
© 2002 Sage Publications
Plan design improves
when employees’
personalities are factored
into the equation.
compensation field must accept an uncomfort-
able fact about variable pay. While we emphasize
the importance of reward programs for motivat-
ing high performance, factors beyond our control
moderate 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 plan
designers talk about employee populations that
are “risk averse” or “risk tolerant.” Practitioners
often consider such factors in shaping the pay
plan design and preparing for its implementa-
tion. Generally, employees at the lower end of the
pay scale are viewed as being risk averse because
most of their income is used for life’s essentials.
Putting any money at risk to achieve a higher
level of earnings is perceived as threatening to
such an employee population. Employees with
significant amounts of discretionary income—
those in the higher pay scales—are considered to
be more risk tolerant. They are more willing to
put some pay at risk to achieve a higher level of
compensation overall.
Sometimes, the aversion to risk is associated
with people in certain jobs. For example, sales
representatives are often thought to be comfort-
able with taking risks, whereas engineers and sci-
entists are usually viewed as more conservative in
this regard. In any case, these observations, per-
ceptions and assumptions simply do not go far
enough. In a recent article, Ira Feder stated, “One
weakness of cash rewards is that they don’t allow
for the individual differences in the very diverse
human beings that they intend to motivate.”2
We know much more about human behavior
than 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-
MARCH/APRIL 2002 49
 PLAN DESIGN
Compensation opment consultants who work with companies to
improve team dynamics, coach and counsel
executives to improve their performance and
resolve interpersonal conflicts have long used
such valuable tools as Myers-Briggs analysis. Yet,
in the area of pay plan design, this insight into the
personalities of pay plan participants goes large-
ly unexplored and underused.
Personality profiling can be of great value in
two critical areas of compensation practice. First,
personality profiling can act as one of many fac-
tors that shape the design of a compensation
plan. In every compensation plan design, compa-
nies make critical decisions about the nature and
amount of earning opportunities that the pay
plan will provide and the performance criteria by
which employees earn rewards. Understanding
the personalities of the employees, for example,
sales representatives or retail associates, for
whom the plan is intended, can provide great
insight into how the plan will be perceived and
evaluated by the participants.
Second, personality profiling can provide a
much more effective basis for communicating
the plan to its participants. Effective communica-
tion is, perhaps, the most important element in a
successful compensation plan, perhaps even
more 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 we
can use and consider personality as a factor in
pay plan design and communications. It deals
with personality profiling in a very basic way. The
actual application, interpretation and use of per-
sonality profiling is a complex subject and well
beyond the scope of this article.
Personality Profiling
There are many personality models, and each
model uses various intersecting personality
dimensions to define a person’s personality.
Many of these models, such as Myers-Briggs, are
based on the work of Carl Jung. In the early 1920s,
Dr. William Marston developed a personality
model, referred to as DISC, that intended to
explain people’s emotional responses. To test his
theories, he developed a test to define and mea-
sure four dimensions of human personality: dom-
inance, influence, steadiness and compliance. In a
true DISC analysis, not only is each of these dimen-
sions analyzed, but also the relationship between
the factors is analyzed. Such an analysis can be
used to describe a person’s motivations, likes and
50 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW
dislikes. This kind of information may be useful to
compensation practitioners who are attempting
to motivate effective employee behavior.
To be useful, any model, including the DISC
model, must be reliable and valid. It would be
impossible to present a thorough survey of the
research done on the subject of personality mod-
els within this article. However, Karen Roodt of the
Technikon Natal in South Africa conducted one
such research study of DISC, which demonstrat-
ed high reliability and validity.3
Description of Each
Personality Dimension
As stated above, Marston believed that there are
four factors that determine a person’s personality
and that serve to predict their behavior. The basic
premise of his work is that people live and work
in two different environments—a hostile envi-
ronment and a favorable environment. Every day,
we face many situations involving one of these
two environments. The choices that we make and
Effective communication
is, perhaps, the most
important element in a
successful compensation
plan, perhaps even
more important than
the design itself.
the actions that we take in dealing with each
environment can be broken down into two sepa-
rate roles—an active role or a passive role. The
four personality types shaped by these factors are
described below.
➤ Dominant (D). People who prefer to take
active roles in hostile environments are defined
as having dominant personalities. They are
unafraid of taking risks and enjoy facing chal-
lenges. Dominant personalities initiate action,
especially when things are not going well. Their
communication style is direct and, at times, blunt
to the point of being rude. They drive hard to
obtain results and are not deterred by temporary

setbacks. People with dominant personalities can
become bored if their environment does not
change. 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 are
demanding of themselves and others.
➤ Influential (I). People who prefer to take
active roles only in favorable environments are
described as having influential personalities. Such
people enjoy persuading others and view such
accomplishments as evidence of being well liked.
People who demonstrate influential personalities
prefer 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 eyes
of others. They are willing to trust others readily
to form lasting relationships. They are optimists
and will sometimes avoid having to look at the
negative side of an issue or decision. Their need
for acceptance is demonstrated in their need to
dress fashionably and impress others with their
network 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 not
afraid of dealing with life and its changes, but
they do not seek out challenges and would prefer
not to make waves. They are patient and willing
to work at a steady pace to achieve their goals.
They like the status quo and need to be prepared
in advance for any changes in their environment.
They want others to appreciate them for what
they accomplish, and they dislike deadline situa-
tions and pressure because such factors can com-
promise quality.
➤ Compliant and conscientious (C). The last
of the four personality types is characterized by a
compulsion to be compliant and conscientious
and to avoid trouble at all costs. These are the
people who take a passive role in the face of a
hostile environment. Such people may lack con-
fidence. They find security only in order and in
rules and concepts that do not change arbitrarily
or without warning. They can get lost in the
details of work without ever seeing the bigger pic-
ture. Avoiding trouble at all costs is a principle
they live by. A person with this personality type is
cautious and will not take chances or make risky
decisions easily. They need personal attention
and will often try to be what they believe others
want them to be.
PLAN DESIGN
Compensation
In reality, most of us combine elements of each of
these four personality types in our daily lives.
Generally, however, only one of the types will
stand out and will come to represent our domi-
nant personality characteristic. It is possible,
using personality profile testing methods, to
determine a person’s dominant personality and,
thereby gain insight into that person’s receptivity
to and comfort with different types of earning
opportunities offered within pay plans.
Pay Plan Design Dimensions
A total compensation plan accomplishes two
basic objectives. First, it provides the conceptual
framework for establishing compensation levels
for jobs, usually based on job content. Second, a
compensation plan provides earning opportuni-
ties to employees as either adjustments to base
pay or payments in cash or some equivalent.
Ideally, the earning opportunities provided are
linked to results or behaviors that are of value to
the organization.
In this discussion of pay and personality, the
focus is not on the processes involved in estab-
lishing pay levels. These processes usually rely on
market studies and job evaluation methods
administered by the organization. Employees
usually have little knowledge of such methods.
Instead, the focus is on the design and communi-
cation of opportunities to earn additional
income. By offering such earning opportunities,
organizations attempt to influence employee
behavior, for example, to motivate increased sell-
ing effort, focus attention on quality or improve
customer service.
The factors involved in designing earning
opportunities include the following:
1. Performance criteria. The link between an
earning opportunity for the employee and a ben-
efit for the company is established in the perfor-
mance criteria and goals that are embedded
within the compensation plan. Excellent criteria
are well defined and lend themselves easily to
credible tracking and evaluation. They define
success for the company. Compensation plan
participants will understand and agree with the
criteria in place. They will believe that selected
criteria are directly linked to the company’s suc-
cess and that they can be accurately measured or
evaluated. Such criteria are usually referred to as
objective criteria. At times, companies will use
criteria that cannot be measured objectively but,
rather, must be evaluated based on available
MARCH/APRIL 2002 51
 PLAN DESIGN
Compensation records, management observation and other
related information. For purposes of designing
earning opportunities, evaluative or subjective
criteria often do not serve as well as more objec-
tive performance criteria because the link
between effort and reward is more tenuous.
2. Performance goals. A goal is the quantita-
tive expression of the desired achievement for
particular performance criteria. To be effective as
elements in a compensation plan offering an
earning opportunity, the goal needs to be chal-
lenging but not impossible to reach. Often, plan
participants will have some role to play in the
goal-setting process itself. Such activity height-
ens the willingness of plan participants to accept
the goals as fair.
3. Performance assessment basis. The organi-
zation level at which performance is measured
through the criteria and goals can have a pro-
found impact on human interaction. Generally,
The organization level at
which performance is
measured through the
criteria and goals can
have a profound impact
on human interaction.
criteria measured at the individual level will
heighten any competitive propensities that the
pay plan and human dynamics will permit. Plan
designers need be vigilant to avoid situations that
encourage competition, when cooperation is an
essential ingredient in the organization’s success.
Criteria measured at the team, departmental or
organization level will tend to encourage team-
work at these levels but may diminish individual
motivation. It is the performance assessment
basis that determines if an additional compensa-
tion will be distributed to employees and how
much in total will be spent. In other words, it is
the attainment of defined objectives that will trig-
ger the establishment of the pool of money to be
given to employees.
4. Reward distribution basis. The reward dis-
tribution basis is different from the performance
52 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW
assessment basis. If the performance assessment
basis generates the pool of money to be distrib-
uted to plan participants, it is the reward distrib-
ution basis that determines who gets what. For
example, suppose the basis for performance
assessment is pretax profit for the division. The
plan describes that if pretax profit is at least 10%,
then a bonus pool of $100,000 will be created. The
basis for distributing this pool (reward) might be
a pro-rata share based on the individual employ-
ee’s salary or some other formula.
5. Influence over outcomes. The degree to
which the employee can influence the results
being measured or tracked is sometimes referred
to as “line of sight.” Reasonable line of sight is an
essential link in incentive plan design. If plan
participants see themselves as having little influ-
ence over the performance criteria and goals
embedded in the plan, then the incentive plan
has little chance of driving performance. In
essence, such a design could be thought of as a
lottery, not a true incentive plan.
6. Type of reward. Rewards, or additional
earnings that employees obtain under a pay plan,
can be delivered in several forms. Some plans pay
out cash in a lump sum. Pay-for-performance
plans usually offer increases in base pay. Stock or
other forms of equity-based instruments are
often used, especially for executive compensa-
tion. Other compensation plans offer goods and
services. Finally, there are psychic rewards, such
as plaques, letters of congratulations or other
positive acknowledgements that may have little
economic value but provide personal satisfac-
tion. Depending on their personality type, people
will value rewards differently.
7. The amount of money at risk relative to
total compensation. The mix of compensation
within an incentive pay plan refers to the rela-
tionship of the amount of money at risk to the
total compensation package being offered to the
employee. Employees at lower compensation lev-
els often have only a small portion of their total
compensation at risk that is dependent on the
attainment of a company, team or individual
goal. Conversely, employees at the upper end of
the economic spectrum, for example, executives,
often have considerable amounts of money at
risk in their compensation packages.
8. Frequency of payment. The frequency with
which performance earnings are delivered is one
of the critical elements of pay plan design. Greater
frequency of payment will cause employees to

become more dependent on the reward program
income but may result in lower amounts, which
may have less motivational impact.
Plan Design for Different Personalities
1. Dominant Personality
➤ Performance criteria. People with highly
dominant personalities will not respond well to
discretionary or evaluative performance criteria.
They want control. They want to know what they
have to do to obtain a meaningful reward. Any
condition that suggests their hard efforts might
go unrewarded or unnoticed will diminish their
motivation. Because high-D people like and even
need change, the performance criteria and goals
for earning opportunities should be changed
periodically to prevent the high-D personality
from becoming bored and stale.
When establishing performance criteria for
high-D personalities, the designer must ensure
that every criterion will have an offset. High-D
people can become so focused on goal attain-
ment that they will strive to reach goals under any
circumstances and at any cost. Quality may be
sacrificed for quantity goals. Profit may be sacri-
ficed for revenue goals. Therefore, when estab-
lishing criteria for the high-D person, there must
be negative consequences for any outcomes that
will negatively effect the organization.
To keep people with dominant personalities
focused and motivated over the long run, perfor-
mance criteria should be changed to reflect new
business challenges.
➤ Performance goals. To fully engage a domi-
nant personality to take advantage of an earnings
opportunity, the employee should be given a
chance to participate in and perhaps even nego-
tiate performance goals. Establishing goals is ulti-
mately management’s prerogative, but shared
goal setting can increase the level of high-D
employee commitment and improve results. For
high-D employees, the use of objective, formula-
based performance criteria and goals will be
most effective. The goals themselves should rep-
resent a true challenge; that is, they should be dif-
ficult, but not impossible, to achieve. Challenge
motivates high-D employees as long as they have
control over the outcomes.
➤ Performance assessment basis. Evaluating
the performance of high-D employees ought to
be based more on individual, not team, effort and
PLAN DESIGN
Compensation
accomplishment. Employees with a dominant
personality want control. They may not be good
team players, and they will not want their incen-
tive rewards to depend on the actions of others.
➤ Reward distribution basis. As with the
basis for evaluating results, employees with a
dominant personality will want to receive a
reward based on their individual efforts. In other
words, even if the determination for paying an
incentive is based on team or company perfor-
mance, the high-D personality will want to be
recognized and rewarded individually. The com-
pensation design for a team-based incentive plan
that has high-D members will need to contain an
individual recognition and reward mechanism.
➤ Influence over outcomes. Without such
influence, high-D people will resent the lack of
control and will focus their attention elsewhere.
➤ Type of reward. Earning opportunities for
people with dominant personalities generally
should be in cash and should be unlimited.
Capped incentive earnings will diminish the
competitive spirit of the high-D personalities and
disappoint them. If the compensation plan does
not provide any other challenges, they may look
elsewhere to feed their need for competition.
High-D people value recognition when they have
accomplished challenging goals. Expense
accounts, with not too much red tape, may be
valued by high-D people who want to be seen as
successful and prosperous.
➤ The amount of money at risk relative to total
compensation. Dominant personalities enjoy risk
provided they have control over the outcomes.
Compensation plan designers can, if the situa-
tion warrants, build considerable pay-at-risk for
high-D people. The amount of rewards based on
performance should also vary widely. In other
words, the level at which any reward is earned
should be fairly high. The amount of reward for
exceptional performance should also be high.
The principle at work in such a design is “greater
risk, greater reward.” High-D people should not
receive rewards for lackluster performance.
➤ Frequency of payment. Highly dominant
people are challenge focused but not very
patient. They want recognition for a job well
done. A successful incentive compensation plan
will provide earning opportunities for short-term
as well as long-term goals, if possible.
➤ Pay plan communication. Communication
of earning opportunities to people with high-D
MARCH/APRIL 2002 53
 PLAN DESIGN
Compensation personalities should stress the attainment of
goals and the fact that the performance goals will
not be easy to attain. Because highly dominant
persons respond to change well and in fact require
it 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 plan
different from last year’s plan. Communications,
verbal or written, should be direct and to the
point. The link to the company’s success should
be simply stated without conditional phrases.
2. Influential Personality
➤ Performance criteria. People who fit the
influential personally profile will be more com-
fortable with performance criteria that are based
on social interaction, such as leading or being a
member of a project team. This is not to say that
they are uncomfortable with competition. High-I
people can be competitive when striving for
recognition and rewards. They will, however, be
more tolerant of and comfortable with evaluative
(discretionary) criteria and goals if they have had
a chance to discuss these with their manager in a
one-on-one exchange. The discussion need not
evolve around negotiation of goals but should
focus more on clarification of the employee’s role
and the need for a person in that role to interact
with others to be successful.
Any criteria or goals that suggest isolation or
that may cause negative reactions from subordi-
nates or colleagues, for example, reduction of
overtime 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-I
employees.
When establishing performance criteria for
high-I personalities, the designer must ensure
that the plan performance criteria be precisely
stated and have internal structure, that is, dead-
lines and limits. However, high-I employees enjoy
their freedom, so the structure should be built
into the criteria, not imposed from an external
source. In other words, the goal is to provide
high-I people with structure while maintaining
autonomy. Because influential personalities tend
to lose themselves in social relationships, they
may lose sight of the business purposes that the
compensation plan is encouraging them to focus
on. Quantity may be sacrificed for quality goals.
Ensuring that people feel good about their work
may replace the need for results. As with the
high-D personality, when establishing criteria for
54 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW
the high-I person, there must be negative conse-
quences for any outcomes that will negatively
affect the organization.
➤ Performance goals. People with influential
personality types seek to influence others. In this
regard, engaging the high-I personality in a dis-
cussion of the goals to be reached is essential to
obtaining their buy in. The nature of the interac-
tion should be somewhat democratic. That is, the
manager should invite a free exchange of ideas
and be prepared to discuss business objectives
from a fairly broad perspective. The manager
should 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 goals
involves public recognition of their achievement.
Therefore, rewards should be based on a range of
goal achievement that begins at a moderate to
high difficultly level. The upside potential—that
is, 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. Evaluating
the performance of high-I employees ought to be
based more on team or group, not individual,
effort and accomplishments. Employees with an
influential personality want to influence others
and 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-I
person to interact with many other people
through their team members.
Performance assessment at the team level
should focus on objective and measurable
results. However, when assessing the perfor-
mance of the high-I personality on an individual
basis, an evaluative (subjective) method will be
more 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 the
basis for evaluating results, employees with an
influential personality will be comfortable with
rewards that are distributed equally on a team
basis. However, their need for praise and accep-
tance will require a display of recognition for
their personal efforts. In other words, even if the
determination for paying an incentive is based

on team or company performance, the high-I
personality will want to be recognized individual-
ly. The high-I personality will compete as aggres-
sively as the high-D personality but more for
recognition.
➤ Influence over outcomes. Generally, employ-
ees want control over the results that will form
the basis of a bonus payment or a raise in pay.
This is true of the high-I personality as well, but
not to the same extent as it would be for a high-D
personality. Because high-I people tend to focus
on personal relationships, they will not require
the same degree of control over results, as do high-
D people. They will be more comfortable dealing
with unstable performance factors, especially if
they are working in a team situation, which
would tend to create a “shared fate” attitude.
➤ Type of reward. Earning opportunities for
people with influential personalities must
include “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 in
not to suggest that such rewards be spurious or
gratuitous. Any reward offered within the context
of a compensation plan should be earned and
based on real accomplishments. Expense
accounts and club memberships would be highly
valued by high-I personalities because these pro-
vide vehicles for increased social interaction.
➤ The amount of money at risk relative to
total compensation. Influential personalities will
be more willing to accept risk if the performance
criteria and goals are team based. Compensation
plan designers can, if the situation warrants, build
moderately high pay-at-risk for influential per-
sonality types based on team goals. The amount
of rewards based on performance should also vary
accordingly. In other words, the level at which
any 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 principle
at work is greater risk equals greater reward.
➤ Frequency of payment. Highly influential
people are socially focused but not patient. They
need frequent evidence of being accepted and
valued. A successful variable compensation plan
for high-I personalities will provide frequent
opportunities to recognize the progress being
made and any exceptional efforts made by team
members. For high-I people, recognition might
include such things as meetings with the CEO to
PLAN DESIGN
Compensation
discuss accomplishments, milestone accom-
plishment parties or other social events.
➤ Pay plan communication. Communication
of earning opportunities to people with high-I
personalities should stress individual recognition
and rewards and teamwork and cooperation
needed for the company to reach its business
objectives. People with influential personalities
will more readily accept business objectives that
are defined in general, personal terms with less
emphasis on objective descriptors. Their
response to personal explanations directly from
senior management about the challenges the
company is facing will be as strong, and perhaps
stronger, than their response to any hard cold
facts that are presented. In other words, high-I
people will be motivated by the expressed per-
sonal commitment made by senior management.
In addition, the communications should present
a clear link from the company’s business objec-
tives to the role of the employees in achieving
People with high
influential personalities
want and need to be
connected to the greater
good and to feel that
they are part of a
productive society.
those objectives. People with high influential per-
sonalities want and need to be connected to the
greater good and to feel that they are part of a
productive society.
3. Supportive Personality
➤ Performance criteria. A person with a highly
supportive personality is not a good choice for
variable pay plans because his or her preference
is for stability and security. Dealing with the uncer-
tainties and ambiguity of performance under a
variable compensation plan is not something
that will be easy for high-S people. However, in
fashioning the performance criteria for high-S
people, the compensation plan designer can
improve this situation in the following ways.
MARCH/APRIL 2002 55
 PLAN DESIGN
Compensation Performance criteria, namely, those factors
that are to be evaluated to determine success
under the compensation plan, will need to be
well rooted in the history and experience of the
company and completely understood by the
employee 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 be
difficult for highly supportive people to buy into
and will be viewed as a threat to their security. If
possible, performance criteria should be objec-
tive and measurable, not discretionary or evalua-
tive in nature. Objective criteria, when the rules
are clearly stated, are much more reliable than
evaluative goals. High-S people respond well to
reliable situations.
➤ Performance goals. High-S personalities
generally want to avoid change and pressure or at
least minimize their effect on the peaceful, stable
lives that they value. Setting goals for such people
should address this need. If compensation plan
goals are designed to contain a time limitation
(i.e., a deadline), then these deadlines should be
as generous as possible while still meeting the
company’s objectives. This holds true for other
kinds 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 if
they push the high-S beyond where he or she
wishes to go. Therefore, the performance goals
for high-S people should not involve significant
change or tight deadlines and untried strategies.
Goals set for performance criteria should, as was
the case with the criteria themselves, be based on
historical patterns or trends that are easy to iden-
tify and understand (e.g., number of returns for
the last three years).
Because high-S people do not adapt easily to
change or pressure, their participation in setting
goals should be done with care. They will need to
be sold on the soundness of the performance cri-
teria and the supporting historical data before
they will commit to any level of challenging goals.
After criteria are identified, the high-S person will
need time to adjust to the change in his or her
environment. Because they are not good negotia-
tors, managers need to be careful that they do not
talk high-S people into goals that they view as
unattainable.
➤ Performance assessment basis. Highly sup-
portive people will be comfortable having their
performance based on either team or individual
results. However, they may find more security
56 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW
and stability in a team environment if the team
members interact harmoniously and deal with
predictable business outcomes. Discord within a
team or team dynamics that are not predictable,
for example, creative design teams, will be detri-
mental to the performance of a high-S person.
Highly supportive people
will be comfortable
having their performance
based on either team
or individual results.
High-S people should be placed on teams and
have their performance against goal measured on
a team basis if the role they will play in the tacti-
cal business plan requires supporting other team
members. If not, assessment of their perfor-
mance should be individually based. High-S peo-
ple will need to have input into any changes
being made the performance assessment factors.
➤ Reward distribution basis. Supportive peo-
ple do not need as much individual recognition
as do dominant or influential people. They will
readily accept team-based rewards and share
them equally with other team members, as long
as they view the other team members in a posi-
tive light and the distribution as being fair. If they
do not, they may resent the rewards given with-
out actually expressing their displeasure and, in
fact, may harbor negative feelings that will affect
their future performance.
If rewards are given to a high-S person on an
individual basis, there should not be too much
fanfare about it. High-S people are not necessari-
ly comfortable being in the spotlight. Individual
rewards to supportive people should focus on
their 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 to
total compensation. Supportive personalities are
not usually risk takers, nor do they require high
risk/reward compensation strategies to get them
focused and motivated. With this in mind, com-
pensation plan designers can structure the total
target compensation (i.e., base pay and incentive

pay at goal) for supportive personalities at lower
values than for dominant personalities.
Supportive personalities will be more willing to
accept risk if the performance criteria and goals are
team based and well connected to historical prece-
dent. Compensation plan designers can, if the sit-
uation warrants, build moderately low pay-at-risk
for supportive personality types. As stated above,
the amount of rewards based on performance
should also vary accordingly. That is, the level at
which any reward is earned should be moderate-
ly low, and the amount of reward for exceptional
performance should also be moderately low.
➤ Type of reward. In addition to cash, rewards
for people with supportive personalities should
include longevity rewards, that is, rewards for
excellence over long periods of time, as either
cash or gifts. As stated above, any reward offered
within the context of a compensation plan
should be earned and based on real accomplish-
ments. This is especially true for the high-S per-
son. High-S personalities would value personal
time off to spend with their families as a mean-
ingful reward.
➤ Frequency of payment. Highly supportive
people are patient. They enjoy working in envi-
ronments that are stable and in which progress is
steady. The frequency of incentive payments for
supportive people can be long term, for example,
annual. Although high-S people are patient and
willing to wait for a reward, they still will require
performance feedback on a regular basis and
reassurance that goals and criteria have not
changed.
➤ Pay plan communication. Communicating
variable pay plans to people with highly support-
ive personalities should focus on the long-term
relationship of the company with the employees.
It should focus on company loyalty, teamwork
and management’s faith in the talent of its
employees. Business goals and objectives should
be explained, as much as possible, in evolution-
ary, not revolutionary, terms. If the pay plan
involves optional rewards for employees, the
number of options for high-S people should be
limited. They should be presented as attainable
through steady, hard work. Management should
state its commitment to support the employees
as much as possible.
If the compensation plan is a new pay initia-
tive, then the communication to high-S people
should be planned well in advance. It needs to be
thorough in its presentation of facts, the compa-
PLAN DESIGN
Compensation
ny’s reasons for instituting the plan and how the
plan 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 because
avoiding risk is their predominant character trait.
They are skeptical people and will be less likely to
be 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 of
exactly what will happen, when it will happen
and to whom it will happen. The rules and condi-
tions of the compensation plan must be explicit,
clear and detailed. More than anything, high-C
people seek to avoid situations of ambiguity and
independent choice that could reflect negatively
on them. They want to follow precise instructions
that do not vary. They want to know all the details
and proceed strictly according to the book.
In fashioning compensation plan perfor-
mance criteria, plan designers should focus on
criteria that relate to paying attention to details,
for example, reduction of defects through quality
checking. Goals that involve making decisions or
taking risks, for example, developing product
promotions, would be poor choices for compli-
ant personalities.
As is the case with high-S people, compliant
personalities will not respond well to variable pay
opportunities that are based on new business ini-
tiatives. If at all possible, the performance criteria
for high-Cs should be rooted in clearly communi-
cated and well-established standard operating
procedures. Success in meeting plan goals ought
to be based on criteria that require repetitive,
flawless execution. Once established, the perfor-
mance criteria should not be changed until the
plan has terminated.
High-C people will value performance criteria
that are objective and measurable, as long as they
are 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 they
receive reassurances that management will be
even-handed and fair in its assessments and that
the employee’s inability to meet “expectations”
will not be dealt with harshly.
➤ Performance goals. High-C personalities will
avoid risk if they can. Goals that are set for such
employees should reflect this risk avoidance.
MARCH/APRIL 2002 57
 PLAN DESIGN

Compensation Minimum acceptable performance thresholds
should be set as low as possible. The goals them-
selves should be only slightly challenging. In other
words, as much reassurance as possible should
be put into the variable pay plan, and as much risk
as possible should be taken out. Allowing high-C
people the chance to participate in the goal-
setting process is problematic. Their natural ten-
dency to avoid risk and conflict will make them
reluctant to commit to goals presented by the
company that they view as too difficult.
Conversely, their sense of soldier loyalty may
cause them to accept, silently and perhaps
resentfully, the goals they are given even if they
believe the goals are unattainable. Such an
employee can be defeated before the game
begins.
➤ Performance assessment basis. Highly
compliant people will prefer to have their perfor-
mance based on team results. Operating in teams
gives the high-C people the support they need, as
long as the team values what the high-C is able to
do best, which is attend to details and operate
strictly according to established procedures.
➤ Reward distribution basis. Compliant peo-
ple do not need individual recognition. They may
even avoid it. They prefer to work in teams, and
they will accept team-based rewards and willing-
ly will share them equally with other team mem-
bers. Their need to avoid conflict makes them
more comfortable with an equal distribution of
rewards than a distribution based on individual
contribution factors, which can cause internal
discord. If rewards are given to a high-C person
on an individual basis, such rewards should focus
on their accuracy and thoroughness in complet-
ing the tasks that were assigned to them.
➤ The amount of money at risk relative to
total compensation. Because compliant person-
alities are the most risk-averse group of the four
mentioned so far, they are far less likely to want
substantial portions of their income put at risk in
variable pay programs. If they are placed into
such plans, the amount of money placed at risk
should be as small as possible while still retaining
some impact as a motivator and communicator.
Compliant personalities will be willing to
accept some risk if the performance criteria and
goals are team based and well connected to stan-
dard operating procedures that do not vary. In
such situations, the high-C person will feel more
in control of the outcomes that result in addition-
al income. Compensation plan designers ought
to build low pay-at-risk into plans for compliant
personality types.
➤ Type of reward. In addition to cash, rewards
for people with compliant personalities should
include 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 on
the accuracy and precision of the employee in
meeting their objectives would also fill this need.
➤ Frequency of payment. Highly compliant
people are natural worriers. They do not require
frequent motivation, but they do require frequent
reassurance 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 as
the support for small, interim incentive payments.
➤ Pay plan communication. The focus of
compensation plan communications for high-C
people should be on the need for teamwork and
should state in detail how feedback on perfor-
mance criteria will be collected and delivered to
plan participants. Communications should state
precisely what the goals of the company are. The
high-C will need to be sold on the program, in
great detail, to feel comfortable with it. Once sold,
however, the high-C may become the plan’s most
ardent supporter.
Communicating variable
pay plans to people
with highly compliant
personalities should
focus on the need for
everyone to do their
jobs and execute their
tasks flawlessly.
Communicating variable pay plans to people
with highly compliant personalities should focus
on 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

58 COMPENSATION & BENEFITS REVIEW

 PLAN DESIGN

Compensation
objectives, should be explained in as much detail Conclusions That Can Be
as possible, including the resources that will be
available to employees to be successful.
Drawn from the Model
One size does not fit all. It is an old saying but true
If the compensation plan is a new pay initia-
in this context. Money may be a universal moti-
tive, then the communication to high-C people
vator and communicator, but money is not really
should be planned in great detail so that it can be
what compensation plan design is all about. The
presented to employees down to the individual
message is usually more critical to the success of
employee level.
a compensation plan than the money. It is clear,
not only from the DISC personality model but
from experience with human interaction, that
Practical Use and Considerations
people are different. They think differently and
It would be impractical to design variable pay
react differently. It is possible to successfully
plans in four different versions to suit each per-
design and implement compensation plans with-
sonality type. This would clearly be the case when
out knowledge of the personality profiles of the
designing a compensation plan for a large num-
plan participants. History has demonstrated this.
ber of employees. But in situations involving a
However, history also demonstrates that many
compensation plan for only a few plan partici-
well-intentioned and well-designed compensa-
pants, personality profiles might be valuable.
tion plans fail. The real question, then, is, how
Even in situations involving large groups of
can we increase positive outcomes and decrease
employees, there are two compelling reasons to
negative outcomes? How can we improve the
include personality profiling in the discovery phase
odds of successfully implementing a new com-
of a compensation plan project. First, under-
pensation plan? Understanding people is one of
standing the predominant personality type, even
the keys.
in large groups, can positively influence the plan
design and make success more likely. Second,
even if four versions of a compensation plan can-
not reasonably be developed to accommodate Acknowledgement
each personality, it may still be possible to modi- The author wishes to express sincere thanks to
fy the communications and training associated Grover Clark for his assistance in developing the
with the new compensation plan to be more ideas presented in this article.
effective in a successful implementation of the
plan. Instead of one memorandum, for example,
to all employees to announce the advent of the Notes
compensation program, two or more memoran- 1. Weinberger, T. E. (1996, June). Bell curve pay:
da or communication sessions could be devel- Realizing maximum return from new hires.
oped to address each one of the personality styles ACA News, 39(6).
present in the employee population. Even if this 2. Feder, I. (2000). Rewards for the new millenni-
were not possible, understanding the predomi- um. WorldatWork Journal, Second Quarter, 7.
nant personality type of the employees to be cov- 3. Roodt, K. A reliability and validity study on
ered by the new plan can make such planned the discus personality profiling system.
communications and training more effective. Durban, South Africa: Technikon Natal.

Ted Turnasella is the principal consultant for Comp-unications, a compensation consulting firm that
develops effective compensation programs of all types. He has more than 25 years of experience in human
resources, 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 expert
speaker on human resource issues. Turnasella holds a bachelor’s degree from Saint Peter’s College in Jersey
City and a master’s degree in labor and industrial relations from New York Institute of Technology. He is
a member of the Consultant’s Forum of the Society for Human Resource Management and World at Work.

MARCH/APRIL 2002 59