Last month, advocacy group Inge de Vries asked our members for their opinion on individual compensation within ING. It is wonderful to see that so many ING employees completed the survey, for which we thank you! It shows that everyone is engaged, but also wants to make their voices heard regarding this topic. In this message, the advocacy group walks you through the key results and the corresponding next steps.
Join now, starting from €0
Financial rewards? Yes!
The general message is clear: more than 80% consider it (very) important that presentations are financially rewarded. This is important information for us, as it confirms that this remains a key item on the agenda for the upcoming collective labor agreement negotiations.
Pay for Growth when you are already at the maximum of your scale?
The answer is clear: 'yes'. Approximately 80% consider it (very) justified that employees who are already at the maximum of their salary scale still receive performance-related bonuses. This is a clear signal that the Pay for Growth scheme aligns with the employees' wishes on this point. Moreover, it confirms that financially rewarding good performance is fitting for ING.
Transparency and communication
A large majority of respondents experience a lack of transparency regarding the rules for assigning scores for the 'job' and 'Orange Behaviors' dimensions. This applies to assigning a score of 2 or lower as well as a score of 4 or higher. Additionally, almost no one covered by the 'variable remuneration' scheme knew what the available budget for this remuneration is and which SUPM score is required to achieve the target percentage of 5%. Moreover, according to several people, assessments are a 'black box' and subjective.
More than 30% indicate that they have not been assessed (at all) based on the objectives agreed upon in early 2025. What also concerns Inge de Vries is that nearly 50% indicate they do not know whether the SUPM score was adjusted after the management meeting. You can also look at it positively: nearly 50% indicate that the score was not adjusted, while a few individuals indicate that the score *was* adjusted.
Incidentally, performance reviews are not necessarily perceived as negative: approximately 75% of respondents actually experienced these conversations as (very) positive or neutral. A similar percentage indicated that their input in the year-end evaluation was taken into account ranging from fully seriously to neutrally. Although Inge would naturally prefer 100% to experience it this way, this is already a good starting point for further improvement.
Point of criticism
However, another point clearly emerged in the comments: some colleagues have the impression that the assessment was adjusted retroactively. They indicate that this, in particular, undermines their confidence in the assessment system.
What now?
The results indicate where improvements are needed, particularly in the areas of transparency, communication, and clear evaluation rules. We take these points seriously and will strive during the collective labor agreement negotiations to make the remuneration policy as fair and clear as possible. Your feedback forms an important basis for this, so thank you for that!
Do you have any questions or comments? Feel free to send an email to Inge de Vries (inge.de.vries@unie.nl) or her colleague Esther (esther.van.berkel@unie.nl). They are happy to help you further.
