{"id":2554,"date":"2021-06-09T08:07:00","date_gmt":"2021-06-09T06:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/i360.trejka05.pl\/?p=2554"},"modified":"2021-07-16T12:33:36","modified_gmt":"2021-07-16T10:33:36","slug":"transcript-loyalty-schemes-for-management-staff-anna-rudzinska","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/transkrypcja-programy-lojalnosciowe-dla-kadry-managerskiej-anna-rudzinska\/","title":{"rendered":"Transcript \u2013 Loyalty schemes for management staff \u2013 Anna Rudzi\u0144ska"},"content":{"rendered":"

KN:<\/strong> Good evening. Katarzyna Nawrocka, on loyalty schemes at night. The topic of today\u2019s episode is loyalty programmes aimed at management staff. This is a rarely discussed but very important topic, which viewers of previous episodes have asked us to cover. At conferences and in the literature, there is extensive discussion of programmes aimed at B2C \u2013 that is, the end consumer \u2013 and those aimed at commercial intermediaries, or B2B. But behind the scenes, in the privacy of boardrooms and HR departments, individual programmes aimed at management staff are being developed. And that\u2019s what we\u2019ll be discussing today. My guest \u2013 and yours too \u2013 is Anna Rudzi\u0144ska. Ania, we know each other, but could you please introduce yourself to our viewers and explain why you, in particular, will be talking to us about this topic?.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR:<\/strong> Good evening, everyone. My name is Anna Rudzi\u0144ska, and I am a partner at RSC Frisberg Poland. We are an executive search firm. I now have over 20 years\u2019 experience in this field. The essence of my work is to identify and support the recruitment of candidates for the most senior positions. As such, I am well aware of the reasons why people are prepared to take on a particular role and the methods a company then uses to maintain that manager\u2019s loyalty \u2013 in other words, to retain them so that they remain with the company for as long as possible. And I understand that we\u2019ll be able to discuss all of this today.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>Ania, I\u2019d like to start our conversation by asking whether it\u2019s true that we\u2019re now in an \u2018employee\u2019s market\u2019. It seems to me that, not so long ago, it was still us \u2013 jobseekers \u2013 who were queuing up for jobs.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Yes, that\u2019s true. Market growth, despite the pandemic, means that it does indeed look as though we are currently still in a period where companies are competing to recruit managers, particularly those with exceptional skills.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>In that case, given that we have an employee\u2019s market, what challenges does this pose for someone in your position when looking for such candidates?<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>The key is to match a job offer very precisely to the individual \u2013 and I want to emphasise this \u2013 to the individual needs, career plans and capabilities of a particular manager, which means that we must do our best to get to know them as well as possible, so that we discuss a given job offer slightly differently with each potential candidate we wish to attract, tailoring the conversation to what will interest them; and these discussions unfold completely differently each time, even though they concern the same job role with different candidates. I, too, have observed certain changes in these needs and preferences over time. In the past, managers did indeed look for jobs that offered stability \u2013 jobs that, for example, carried a certain prestige associated with a global brand. Nowadays, people are more often looking for something more exciting \u2013 even at the expense of that stability \u2013 by experimenting with more business-oriented opportunities. Offers from start-ups \u2013 companies that are just getting off the ground and launching something unique \u2013 are particularly interesting. This is becoming the reason why people are willing to take an interest in a new job offer.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>I\u2019ll chime in here, because I asked a question about the challenges this presents for you, in your role, and it turns out that it\u2019s actually the candidates who are looking for challenges.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Yes, that\u2019s true; that\u2019s the sort of times we live in. This presents us with challenges that mean we have to get to know our candidates well and be able to connect with them. We have to take a very personalised approach, and we have to show them that this job offer provides exactly the challenge they\u2019re looking for. And here again is that individual approach, because a challenge means something different to everyone. For one person, it\u2019s doing something they\u2019ve never done before; for another, it\u2019s doing something on a much larger scale than they\u2019ve done before, and so on and so forth. So it takes a long conversation to identify what makes that particular person unique in an individual way. It strikes me that another interesting observation is that a generational shift is taking place, because today\u2019s managers are people who belong to the next generation, the sons and daughters of previous managers in the modern post-communist reality, and I do indeed see that this younger generation is acutely aware of the world\u2019s immense volatility; consequently, any deferred bonuses, all the planned elements of remuneration, for example, which are spread over several future years, are of less interest to them. They do not count on anything that is deferred; they are not interested in deferred rewards and prefer to exchange such a promise \u2013 for example, one set out in a job offer \u2013 for non-monetary incentives or motivational measures designed to retain them within the company; these may include offers of training, support from the company for their development plans, or participation in a project that holds a kind of ideological or mission-driven value for them. It\u2019s also very interesting, isn\u2019t it, that young people need to feel they are doing something important for people and for the world. This is also a factor that fulfils their interests.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>And from a practical point of view, what are the best ways to reach highly specialised candidates?<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>These days, absolutely every recruiter \u2013 including those specialising in highly specialised managers \u2013 starts off by checking LinkedIn; I\u2019ve even heard that the name is becoming more common in Polish, with some people calling it \u2018LinkedIna\u2019. So it\u2019s absolutely vital that everyone has a properly described profile on LinkedIn, one where you can actually learn a great deal about them. However, for a company like ours, which genuinely wants to reach those unique gems hidden at the bottom of the sea, we have to try to do something more. One method that\u2019s been very helpful for us is simply making use of our network, because my business partner and I \u2013 with whom I run the company \u2013 can share over 20 years\u2019 experience with the rest of our staff, during which we\u2019ve built up a network of people who can now recommend the candidates we\u2019re looking for \u2013 people who possess something unique, something very hard to find on the market \u2013 so this is our personal network. Another factor is, of course, our internal database, which differs from LinkedIn in that we can record precisely that unique information we already know about people we know, have worked with, or who have been recommended to us, and these are the key details that can help us encourage that person to accept this specific offer. Another way of reaching out to interesting candidates is through our participation in events relevant to the sector in which we\u2019re seeking experts; so we try to attend interesting conferences, follow the trade press, discussion groups \u2013 these days they\u2019re mainly online \u2013 so we try to be there to meet as many people as possible, to see who\u2019s the star of the business community in that particular sector, who\u2019s setting the trends and who\u2019s the most innovative, who has the most followers, so to speak. All of this provides us with very useful insights.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>I\u2019d like to ask you about the financial and non-financial incentives designed to persuade the chosen candidate to take this job, as we know that one such incentive is a loyalty scheme, and I\u2019m sure you can tell us about the most attractive elements of these loyalty schemes that are specifically aimed at management staff.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>There are actually two issues here. One issue is how to recruit an employee for a particular company, and the other is how to retain them afterwards for some time \u2013 hopefully for years \u2013 within the company. These are two distinct matters, which sometimes overlap, so to speak, and sometimes do not at all. So let\u2019s try to illustrate this with some examples. Recruiting an employee. It sometimes happens that, to encourage someone to join a company, the company is prepared to offer what is known as a \u201esigning fee\u201d \u2013 a sort of welcome bonus, which is simply a specific, substantial sum of money. This is certainly often a way of, so to speak, resolving the problem that when this person leaves their previous job at some point, they lose a certain portion of the bonus to which they are entitled and which has been promised to them. But because we\u2019re encouraging them to leave that job relatively early, they lose part of that bonus. We try to compensate them for this here with this welcome bonus. These are actually very interesting matters, as they often involve lengthy, intricate negotiations. Let\u2019s imagine a situation where, at their previous job, they have, say, 300,000 waiting to be paid out in a year\u2019s time. So the new company, trying to attract candidates, says, \u201eWell, if it were half a year, we\u2019d wait for you. But a year is simply too long.\u201d And this is where very specific calculations come into play, because according to some very interesting research cited by Forbes, the costs a company incurs to find, identify and recruit an employee at the very top level can sometimes cost the company 200% of that person\u2019s annual salary. So this is a very tangible cost indeed, which the company tries to avoid at all costs. So, first and foremost, this is why these loyalty programmes, which retain employees, have emerged in the first place. And now, when we want to encourage such an employee to opt out of the loyalty programme promised to them by their current employer, we enter into negotiations. And it very often happens that the company says, \u201eOK, of those 300 you\u2019d be missing out on at that other company, we\u2019ll give you 100 as a signing fee\u201d \u2013 simply for turning up for work on your first day. But you\u2019ll definitely get the other 100 at the end of the year. So we\u2019re already securing his loyalty a little bit for that one year. Of course, at that point, he simply loses out on that third 100. And I want to say that if this is the only argument for changing jobs, it won\u2019t work. Put simply, this person won\u2019t turn down that third 100. And that\u2019s precisely where the whole point of my job comes into play. It\u2019s essential that the person has genuinely different, non-financial reasons for changing jobs. If, in this new job, they\u2019ll have a much more interesting role, a more inspiring working environment and so on, then they\u2019ll genuinely shrug off that extra 100, and sometimes even the second one. So that\u2019s how it plays out. Each case must be considered on an individual basis. What else can we say about such examples of arguments for attracting a candidate? We can say a great deal here about situations where a new job requires the candidate to relocate \u2013 usually with their whole family to a completely different place. Companies usually have a whole relocation policy in place. But it does happen that a candidate is so important, so essential, that the company deviates from the terms of that relocation policy and negotiates something entirely tailored to them. This might involve, for example, helping the spouse find a job in the new location, or providing a second company car \u2013 essentially for that spouse. I remember one such situation where a candidate couldn\u2019t make up their mind and eventually admitted that, in truth, the biggest problem was their teenage daughter, who is an equestrian competitor very attached to her club, and it simply wasn\u2019t possible for her to move to a completely different town. And it turned out that it was possible to find a very interesting, and even more interesting, equestrian club in this new place than the one she belonged to. What\u2019s more, the company funded some additional training for her at that club. So, in each case, there is an attempt to identify what the real barrier is to the decision to change jobs, and an attempt to address that problem. In this case, it was her daughter\u2019s passion for horse riding. And these are the kinds of examples that companies can look to when seeking ways to attract talent.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>We already know how to recruit staff. Now let\u2019s talk about how to retain them.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>The factors that make people willing to stay with one company for longer can be both financial and non-financial. Let\u2019s try to list the most common financial incentives. Let\u2019s call them loyalty schemes. In a sense, that is precisely the function they fulfil. Some sectors, such as the financial sector, are even subject to a top-down regulatory requirement which means that part of the remuneration \u2013 usually part of the annual bonus, i.e. this does not apply to the monthly salary but to such additional remuneration paid at the end of the year \u2013 is deferred. Part of it is deferred. This means that in a given year, only a portion of that annual bonus may be paid out, whilst a certain percentage of the bonus is carried over to the following year and will, as it were, be paid out with that deferral. This not only means that it simply isn\u2019t worth leaving before we receive the full amount of remuneration due to us, but it also protects the company against such a risk. Fortunately, this does not happen often, but the law is designed to prevent such difficult situations, and at least in theory we can imagine a scenario where a manager, whose annual bonus is directly dependent on the company\u2019s results or the outcome of a task, for which he is responsible, might take certain business decisions of this kind which, in a given year, would push the results up enormously; consequently, his bonus \u2013 which is a percentage of the company\u2019s profit \u2013 would be very high. In subsequent years, however, the same decision might actually result in losses for the company. And we can imagine that, at least in theory, a person who is not very honest or loyal to the company might decide to take the bonus to which they are entitled and leave the company, failing to stand by it during a period when it faces greater difficulties. So, in order to simultaneously increase managers\u2019 sense of responsibility, the very structure of the contract means that, by staying on for subsequent years, they must take into account that they will also be accountable for those years, and that the decision must be the right one in the long term, and not just in the short term. That is one way of doing it. Another example is what is known as profit-sharing. This is a very interesting concept. Companies usually have an annual plan for the entire organisation, or for individual projects, which is defined by a specific profit target to be achieved. However, there is an additional provision stating that if the company manages to exceed this target, a certain percentage of that excess \u2013 for example, 20% of the additional profit \u2013 may be distributed amongst the managers who have made a significant contribution to the project that has been so successful. Now let\u2019s imagine that this is actually a major project, such as the construction of a motorway. It may well be that this profit will be several million higher, of which 20% would amount to, say, over a dozen million. If that sum is to be divided amongst, say, 10, 8 or 15 people, that is a very large amount of money.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>That sounds like a good incentive.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>That\u2019s a very good incentive. And now there\u2019s another factor. It fosters loyalty in the sense that the company knows it has a major pipeline of projects for the coming years, and that these projects \u2013 some of which last a little longer than a year \u2013 mean that such a large bonus isn\u2019t paid out every year, but only every few years, and that you have to see the project through to the end to receive, say, a bonus worth a million. And that really is the reason why people work at one company for an average of over a dozen years. The average length of service for an employee in such a company is indeed a dozen or so years. Another, fairly standard way of encouraging people to stay with the company for a longer period is the long-term incentive plan. This is commonly referred to as \u2018managerial share options\u2019. It works as follows: either this is promised to an employee upon taking up the post, or, for example, after a certain period of time, they are offered the chance to join this share option scheme. In other words, a certain percentage of their salary is set aside to purchase shares in the company where they work, either at the share price on the date the bonus is granted or at a highly preferential price not available to anyone else on the market \u2013 in other words, a very favourable price. And the manager can only dispose of these shares \u2013 that is, sell them \u2013 after three years. This means that, for the first three years at the very least, it is not really in their interest to leave the company. What\u2019s more, every year, during the annual review of their performance, the company buys them a further tranche of these shares. Consequently, every time he wants to leave, some of these shares have not yet reached the end of that three-year period. And so, a portion of them can never be cashed out. This means that there really is never a \u2018perfect\u2019 moment to leave, and so this is a classic example where it\u2019s fairly easy to calculate exactly how much you stand to lose by leaving. And sometimes, this is precisely the signing fee that a new employer might offer. Another example is the promise of a very large bonus linked to achieving a significant business milestone for which the person is responsible. This might be, for instance, in a start-up company \u2013 that is, a new business \u2013 reaching break-even point. It could be in a company whose aim is to increase its value, and perhaps even eventually sell it to another owner \u2013 achieving precisely that, in fact. So we promise a very large bonus, which is often simply a percentage of the company\u2019s sale price, or of the profit resulting from the sale of the company. Each year, these interim targets are also rewarded separately, and these interim targets involve the steady growth in the company\u2019s value. An increase in the company\u2019s value is really\u2026 We\u2019re talking about much larger sums of money than the example I gave earlier, namely sharing the company\u2019s profits. Because profits are, in fact, what we\u2019ve generated in a given year minus costs. The company\u2019s value, on the other hand, includes everything \u2013 property, staff, and so on. This involves significantly more money, so a percentage of the company\u2019s value and of how much it has increased \u2013 that company value \u2013 is a very compelling argument that keeps even highly-paid managers in their roles. And I suppose those would be the most interesting, or the most common, purely financial bonuses. Perhaps we could also mention that in some companies, the bonus is calculated using a specific algorithm adopted by the firm. If a manager fulfils certain achievements or tasks correctly, the value of the bonus to which they are entitled is calculated. However, if this bonus happens to exceed a certain amount \u2013 for example, 100% of that person\u2019s annual salary \u2013 then they cannot be paid more than that 100%. And this excess is, as it were, carried forward to subsequent years, which has a twofold effect. Firstly, it\u2019s a shame. As a result, you find yourself waiting for the next year again; and secondly, it provides a minimal sense of security, in that if I were to fail to achieve such success the following year, that outstanding bonus \u2013 as if due from the previous year \u2013 would still be waiting for me.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>So we set these thresholds, and thanks to them we have a loyal employee who is also willing to wait for their main salary.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Exactly. As I\u2019ve already mentioned, this bonus may also be linked to certain financial thresholds that must not be exceeded for various reasons, or to a specific task that needs to be completed. Reaching break-even, securing a sale, increasing the company\u2019s value \u2013 in other words, reaching a certain stage in the company\u2019s life cycle.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>Ania, we\u2019ve covered the financial reasons why it\u2019s worth working for a particular company; now let\u2019s focus on the non-financial ones.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Especially as we\u2019re talking about top managers on today\u2019s programme, let\u2019s be honest about this. They\u2019re usually people who\u2019ve already paid off their mortgages and, in some cases, secured their future \u2013 so the sums involved really do have to be very substantial to actually make them stay. If the sums aren\u2019t quite that substantial, then all those non-salary factors do indeed take on great significance. Among them are also those which, in some respect, do have a financial aspect \u2013 for example, funding for very expensive, highly specialised training courses. For a true IT enthusiast, an expensive training course in Silicon Valley \u2013 which is incredibly difficult to get into and, on top of that, is exorbitantly expensive \u2013 is indeed very attractive. Similarly, an MBA \u2013 take Heineken, for example \u2013 is a company renowned for always reserving a few places for its top managers at the world\u2019s leading universities. Such MBA programmes can cost 50,000 or even 70,000 euros. This is very often an offer that fosters loyalty not only, shall we say, morally through a sense of obligation, but also in very practical terms, as it can be treated as a kind of loan that is, as it were, repaid in instalments year on year. Consequently, if an employee decides to leave the company before they have, shall we say, worked off the loan amount equivalent to the cost of the studies, they must repay that sum themselves. So this is another reason why people stay. Other non-salary factors may include highly personalised development programmes covering further study, additional training, and sometimes mentoring, sometimes cross-mentoring \u2013 that is, I act as a mentor to someone, whilst my own mentor is elsewhere, sometimes in a completely different company, sometimes in the other hemisphere, in a very distant place. And finding someone who is truly a great source of inspiration and a great help to me is a very interesting motivating and loyalty-building factor. Especially as these always involve a series of meetings and take some time. Employees are often willing \u2013 indeed, paying almost no attention to the financial aspect \u2013 to remain loyal to a company that shares their individual values. This is incredibly important these days. It serves a mission in which that person believes. A company that is currently working on the next Covid vaccine gives its employees the sense that they are part of something important for the world. A company working on, say, the utilisation of waste heat or other aspects of climate protection and combating climate change gives its employees a sense of being part of something important. Companies that are doing something incredibly experimental from a business perspective also simply make people feel engaged. They have a sense of being part of something extraordinary, something unique. All of this together keeps an employee on board, regardless of the financial aspects. A high standard of workplace culture and interpersonal relations, which the company genuinely cares about. Sometimes it\u2019s the little touches, such as a well-equipped kitchen where staff spend time cooking up a storm, which somehow helps relationships develop more quickly.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>They are integrating.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>And it brings people together. For example, I know of a company where there\u2019s a nursery for staff on the ground floor of the office block. Firstly, everyone has the nursery on their way to work. Secondly, everyone bonds a little around this nursery, getting to know each other\u2019s families and so on. And at least whilst the child is of nursery age, they try not to change the nursery, which is usually very good. Thirdly, for example, a company might promise in the contract that after a year it will take over and fund the nursery. So these are the sort of things. But generally speaking, this is something we\u2019re seeing \u2013 these non-wage factors are becoming increasingly important. It\u2019s growing enormously and is becoming far more significant than financial factors \u2013 apart from extreme cases \u2013 than it used to be. To sum up, I\u2019d like to share one more general thought: generally speaking, people feel very much at ease in schemes where they have some say in the decisions. In other words, a sort of \u2018cafeteria-style\u2019 structure offering various forms of bonus. This could, for example, be designed so that an employee or manager, by carrying out their tasks correctly, showing commitment and putting forward initiatives, can accumulate sort of extra points. At some point, they can convert these points into some sort of bonus, with a whole list of options available. It\u2019s up to them to decide whether, for example, they\u2019d prefer extra holiday leave. Sometimes this might even be a year\u2019s holiday funded by the company. According to the latest research, the most attractive programmes are those where a specific promotion plan \u2013 that is, a career path \u2013 is linked to this individually tailored skills development programme. The things I\u2019ve been talking about \u2013 mentoring, coaching, various training courses \u2013 are sometimes very sophisticated, expensive and hard to access. If these are, as it were, linked to a promise of promotion and the chance to work on interesting tasks, then it becomes very appealing. And one more thing that comes to mind \u2013 managers who stand out can be offered the chance to participate, for example, in strategic company decisions. This is incredibly motivating. In general, the sense of having an influence on the company is something that really engages people and keeps them loyal for the long term. As a headhunter \u2013 as my profession is commonly known \u2013 I find it extremely difficult to persuade someone to leave a job if they feel that the company\u2019s fate and strategy depend on their decisions. So even if lower-level staff are invited to participate in a committee, or in the discussions of a decision-making body where they also have a say and can discuss the company\u2019s strategy, it can be very compelling. That\u2019s all I think we can say about these non-wage programmes.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>You mentioned the possibility of managers earning points and redeeming them for appropriate bonuses. We tend to associate earning such points and redeeming them for rewards with loyalty programmes aimed at B2C customers. I\u2019d like to ask you about the overarching objective when it comes to loyalty programmes aimed at management staff.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Whilst in consumer-focused loyalty programmes we want customers to buy as much as possible from us, we take particular care to cater to these different consumers in various ways. For example, we are prepared to offer more to a customer with a so-called \u2018high-value shopping basket\u2019 than to one who buys very little anyway. And it\u2019s very much the same when it comes to looking after employees. The overarching aim, of course, is to retain them with the company for as long as possible. Perhaps not for as long as possible, as it\u2019s said that a turnover rate of around 6\u20138 per cent staff turnover is optimal for a company, so it\u2019s not about everyone staying with the company forever; rather, we do indeed strive to secure the loyalty of those key employees, and just as with consumers, we go to the greatest lengths to retain the most valuable ones. Can we draw a complete parallel here, an analogy? But the fact is that we know that, if we\u2019re a company selling services, it\u2019s the \u2018heavy user\u2019 of our services whom we\u2019ll go to great lengths to retain. The return on the costs we incur is obvious, whilst the consumer who makes very little use of our services is the one who, for example, sometimes cannot get through to the helpline at all \u2013 in other words, no one actually benefits from this, because the cost of deploying too many call centre staff to answer calls from these consumers \u2013 who are of the least importance to us \u2013 exceeds the expenditure on them and outweighs the potential profit from these customers. The situation is similar with staff. Lower-level staff are more readily available on the labour market and easier to replace when they leave. A manager, on whom the company\u2019s strategy depends, on whom the greatest value for the company rests, does indeed enable the company to employ far more costly methods of securing loyalty. It\u2019s a very clear idea.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>I get the impression that we\u2019ve already answered the question I was going to ask next, namely about the differences between these loyalty schemes, which are aimed at employees at different levels.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>That\u2019s one thing, because whilst we might think that these programmes vary depending on job level, it\u2019s also the case that sometimes, at a fairly low level, we have an employee with skills that are extremely rare on the market. That\u2019s also a very interesting phenomenon. I remember that we were once looking for an engineer specialising in forgings. We\u2019re all familiar with the term \u2018castings\u2019, but \u2018forgings\u2019 are something very few people know about. Well, it turns out that there are probably only a dozen or so enthusiasts and experts in this field across Europe. Various Western European countries are turning to Poland, as they are already facing a shortage of such managers, and they are prepared to offer very generous loyalty schemes not because these individuals hold high-ranking positions, but simply because they possess absolutely unique skills, or what they bring to the company and ensure for the company. They, too, are being looked after very carefully. Let\u2019s imagine, using the example mentioned today of companies producing COVID vaccines, or those committed to the environment, working on something new \u2013 a medicine that isn\u2019t yet available, but which we\u2019re eagerly awaiting. Usually, when such hope emerges, several companies set out in parallel and work on the same topic. And it\u2019s a race. And at that point, the loss of an employee who possesses that rare and exceptional knowledge, and who has already gained some experience through working with us \u2013 the loss of that employee is indeed a huge blow to the company, and this even triggers special loyalty programmes, even if the person isn\u2019t at a very senior level. And the third difference we see when looking at various loyalty programmes is one that stems from a company\u2019s business model. From the sector we\u2019re discussing. Sector-specific differences mean, for example, that a property development company may offer its employees bonuses in the form of preferential prices on the purchase of flats. A company that is a start-up, whose ultimate goal is to sell to a new owner. This moment of sale presents enormous financial opportunities \u2013 the prospect of a truly substantial bonus \u2013 which a company whose growth strategy does not involve a sale to a new owner cannot offer. A company planning to go public means that, upon listing, we gain a new incentive to retain staff, as we can offer them shares again at preferential prices that will not be available on the open market. It also depends on the business model, as I\u2019ve said, the type of industry, and the company\u2019s stage of development. Indeed, a start-up can offer extra remuneration for reaching break-even and then for the first profits. So these are the reasons why such programmes can take very different forms depending on the industry, not just on job level and, in particular, an individual\u2019s skills. I think there\u2019s another important difference, a reason for the variations between loyalty programmes, which relates to the fact that this remuneration policy needs to take into account the specific characteristics of different professional groups, even within a single company. In other words, it is not the case that we have the same loyalty programme for all employees; rather, for a group of sales staff, for example, it might be very appealing if they were offered the chance to exchange their car, let\u2019s say a completely average one like the one they\u2019ve been driving so far, for a company BMW. That would be very appealing to them. On the other hand, for a group of IT specialists, this turns out to be a completely unattractive proposition. On the other hand, if they were offered training in Silicon Valley for achieving specific results in their work, that would be interesting. So these differences are linked to the specific nature of the job. I think this is also very important.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>And what determines whether a particular company offers a more limited or a more comprehensive loyalty scheme?<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Well, I think this ties in with what we were talking about earlier. There are different sectors, and they offer different opportunities. It also simply depends on the company\u2019s financial strength, and on the stage of its development. We talk a lot here about companies sharing their success with their staff, but the opposite can also happen: a company may be in decline. It lays off staff, but a few key employees have to stay on board to, as the saying goes, \u2018turn off the lights\u2019, and they are also rewarded for their loyalty. A kind of agreement is also signed with them, which includes a financial incentive to ensure they do not look for other work \u2013 which is, of course, understandable, given their full awareness that the company is closing down, isn\u2019t it? There are also reasons why companies are prepared to make an exceptional effort \u2013 a costly one, so to speak \u2013 to retain staff, given the particular circumstances the company finds itself in, for example, precisely this fierce competition between companies that have entered the race to, for example, develop a new Covid vaccine. This is also a time when a particularly large company is prepared to go to great lengths to recruit an employee.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>Ania, to round things off, I\u2019d like to ask you about your experiences and about the most unusual \u2013 yet spectacular \u2013 elements of loyalty schemes aimed at management staff.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

AR: <\/strong>Some very interesting \u2013 I would even say extreme \u2013 loyalty schemes were offered \u2013 although this approach is now gradually being phased out \u2013 in one of the mature markets of so-called \u2018old Europe\u2019. Bank CEOs were encouraged to remain in their posts right up until retirement. This was achieved by the company funding their pension at a rate of 80% of their salary from the time they were in active service. Sometimes this was a promise to pay out, for example, 10 years after leaving the company to retire. Sometimes it was for life, and sometimes it even included a promise that the benefits would pass to the wife. In other words, even after his death, his wife would still receive 80% of his salary from the time when he was working. This represents an enormous cost for the company, and today companies are indeed gradually trying to phase this out. Another rather interesting initiative, or programme, was a very thorough study carried out by one company, the aim of which was to identify those professions that will soon disappear from the market, because, for example, artificial intelligence will replace some of the skills and competences, but today we still need those skills; we need people who possess them. Consequently, the company offered these individuals the opportunity to retrain or prepare for a different profession. And the company funded specific degree programmes or specific courses for them as a result. And sometimes, where possible, it even promised to transfer the person to a different role \u2013 a completely different role \u2013 once they had acquired these new skills. That\u2019s also very interesting. Sometimes these are small things, such as a mindfulness course appearing in the range of options on offer. It seems to have very little to do with the actual job, and yet, doesn\u2019t it? One such interesting example I recall is when a company entered the Polish market and bought a plot of land at a very favourable price, on which it built a factory and an office. The favourable price of the site was also down to the fact that it was far enough away from the big city for employees to commute there comfortably every day. Well, but still within reasonable reach of that big city. As a result, to persuade people to take up employment in this remote and not particularly convenient location, the company financed the construction of an entire housing estate for staff, comprising charming little houses with gardens; employees at a certain level were granted these properties under a specific lease arrangement. After a certain number of years, they could decide whether to continue paying the instalments and become owners of the property, or whether to transfer it \u2013 as it were, assigning their rights \u2013 to someone else. This led to a small town springing up around the company, complete with nurseries and all the necessary infrastructure. It fostered a tremendous sense of community amongst the staff; whole families with children got to know one another, and so on. Furthermore, apart from the strictly financial aspect of the house, this integration also fostered a sense of loyalty. And these are probably the more interesting examples I can cite.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

KN: <\/strong>That\u2019s very interesting. Unfortunately, I have to bring our conversation to a close, although it\u2019s been a fascinating chat. Thank you very much for joining us today and for sharing your knowledge. All we can say to you is: see you soon and good night, and I look forward to seeing you for the next episode.<\/p>\n

.<\/span><\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KN: Good evening. Katarzyna Nawrocka, discussing loyalty programmes at night. The topic of today\u2019s episode is loyalty programmes aimed at management staff. This is a rarely discussed but very important topic, which viewers of previous episodes have asked us to cover. At conferences and in the literature, there is extensive discussion of programmes aimed at B2C \u2013 that is, the end consumer \u2013 and those aimed at commercial intermediaries\u2026<\/p>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2555,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-o-programach-lojalnosciowych-noca"],"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":67,"label":"O programach lojalno\u015bciowych noc\u0105"}]},"featured_image_src_large":["https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/06\/20_Anna_RUDZINSKA_PLANSZA_1-1024x576.jpg",1024,576,true],"author_info":{"display_name":"Tomasz Makaruk","author_link":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/author\/autor\/"},"comment_info":0,"category_info":[{"term_id":67,"name":"O programach lojalno\u015bciowych noc\u0105","slug":"o-programach-lojalnosciowych-noca","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":67,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":26,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0","cat_ID":67,"category_count":26,"category_description":"","cat_name":"O programach lojalno\u015bciowych noc\u0105","category_nicename":"o-programach-lojalnosciowych-noca","category_parent":0}],"tag_info":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2554\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2555"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/i360.com.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}