Two frameworks to use when rewards decisions feel a little too convenient.
FAIR looks at the system. SIGNS looks at the signal. Most pay problems sit in one of those two places. Often both.
FAIR is how to diagnose whether a rewards system actually holds up.
Most pay problems are system problems. And the hardest system problems are the ones that don't announce themselves. A comp decision nobody argues with at the time (they never do) can turn into the reason your best person leaves six months later.
FAIR checks four things: Friction, Alignment, Impact, Return.
Try FAIR at fair.arminoorata.comSIGNS is how to diagnose what a decision is actually communicating.
Leaders think about the intent behind a raise, a bonus, a title change. Employees think about what the decision means about them. Those are not always the same thing, and the gap is where trust usually comes apart.
SIGNS checks five things: Story, Intent, Gap, Norms, Signal Strength.
Try SIGNS at signs.arminoorata.comHow they relate
FAIR and SIGNS run as a loop. FAIR conveys if the system is sound. SIGNS indicates if a single decision inside that system is landing the way it was meant to. A weak system puts out weak signals. And over time, those weak signals wear down the system that produced them.
Using FAIR and SIGNS together can guide through both.
You’ll also see Aα in places. Same construction, different exponent. α is finance shorthand for excess return, value generated beyond what a benchmark predicts. Which is, more or less, the wager on this site: fair pay isn't just defensible. Done right, it generates alpha. Read more →