|
So what's the problem with paying out per the new schedule? Obviously it's not going to be the full amount, but they're not doing the full amount of work. I mean, that sounds like a dick move but hear me out... It sounds like they were hired not knowing about this bonus, right? These bonuses are strictly project-based performance incentives that they knew nothing about until they were assigned to the project...? If that's the case, I think the fairest thing is to adjust the bonus schedule based on the new project schedule, and then pay out per that schedule. You're still giving out bonuses for work performed on time, it's just that the temporary person will leave before the schedule permits them to earn the full amount. Honestly they could leave tomorrow, right? If they did that, you wouldn't pay them the whole thing would you? Also what is the temporary person doing now? Aren't they working on other projects that have their own incentives? I think the biggest thing to think about is that you're likely going to hand this work over to someone else after the temporary person leaves, so what happens to that new person? Do they now get nothing because the first person took all the incentive money that wasn't really earned? Don't forget that there's no guarantee that the first person will actually complete the work by the milestones. So whoever comes after would have to work extra hard to have a chance of getting ANY of the bonuses. It wouldn't really be fair to punish them for their predecessor's mistakes. I mean, I work in engineering... our performance bonuses are never promised, nor are they project based. They're assumed, but in the end they're based on how well the company does. If I do awesome but the company overall does poorly, I get a big fat $0 bonus. I've never seen this sort of incentive structure... but it kind of makes sense if this is just a data entry sort of thing I guess.
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:in order for a bonus to be properly incentivizing you do need to tell people about it in advance and have clear criteria by which it is achieved Yeah, Pryor's method sounds like a way to trick people out of a bonus. You give them a raise and say "Hey since we applied this 2 weeks ago it's like we gave you a bonus!" I mean, you could just do the performance review 2 weeks sooner...clearly you've already completed the review and decided to give the employee a raise, so you're just arbitrarily delaying it. edit: also if we assume a 5% raise, you're really just giving them a 0.20% salary bonus. That's 2 weeks of earning 5% more salary than you expected. edit: OK he said 10% raise (holy poo poo), so that's a 0.40% salary bonus then...still not really much. I guess if you're getting a 10% raise that's a big deal, but now you're arbitrarily raising the company's long term operational costs for short term performance. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Wouldn't it be the best business decision to just say gently caress it and pay them 0? Well, no. People will find out pretty quickly that you're a lying rear end in a top hat and nobody will want to work for you. You'll end up only able to hire the people who are willing to work JUST hard enough to keep their job. If that's good enough for you then congrats on your short-sighted business plan. I'm not saying this is the best incentive structure, but if you don't keep your promises people will find out. Even if it's a lovely structure, if you do your best to pay out, you'll have a much easier time finding and retaining reliable talent. If you rely on technicalities to screw people out of money they thought they were working hard for, then you'll lose productivity and/or people. Or you'll find one person crazy enough to try to sue you to try to get the bonus money you screwed them out of. They'll lose, of course, but not before you spend a lot of money on lawyers. Hiring people is expensive, and high turnover is bad for the company. Yes there's probably a number you can put to it, but it'll take a lot of time and effort to find that number. If you're not going to go through that time and effort, then it's probably in your best interest to put effort in to keeping people, rather than treating them as disposable commodities.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Veskit posted:Assuming I'm acting for only my career's best interst That'd be your job's best interest, not your career's. If you want to jerk around your direct reports just so your numbers look good, then that's a good short term plan. Long term, you'll eventually get busted and it'll keep you from advancing. It's a narrow view and it's irresponsible from the big picture perspective. If you demonstrate that you can't trusted to make big picture decisions, then you're going to dead end your career pretty fast.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Bro, you are talking about the world you wish we lived in. I WISH I lived in your world. In my world, the executives are engineers who got promoted because the company was growing and they were the most senior at the time. Rinse/repeat every few years until you have a VP.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Veskit posted:I literally have no understanding of what paradigm you're living You would fit right in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2018 00:40
|
|