Lurker Posted March 5, 2012 Author Posted March 5, 2012 Yearly apprisal. One-to-one meeting with the boss. He or she will go through the apprisal process and then based on scores etc. and human elements, a bonus is decided.. Hmmm. And you are probably gonna laugh at this, or maybe cry, depending on your vantage point. Do you guys get a Monthly paycheck? Looks like it is quite unlike here (paycheck every 2 weeks, or twice a month). Not sure how I have never known this after all this years!:blink::blink:
Lurker Posted March 5, 2012 Author Posted March 5, 2012 If you're a manager than you must have your company goals financially infront of you. Now For example, if you've to meet the goal of completing projects worth estimated $ 500'000 then identify How much of that estimate is achieved by projects worked upon by Person A and Person B then distribute accordingly. Whereas in those projects where they both worked together then find out a differentiating criteria such as # of hours worked upon, solution implement by whom? or whose idea was it to develop that solution (A or B). This is the most fairest way. Very true Ponka. Those are some of the parameters that I didnt share. Typical company goals, department goals etc. I kept it to a topic that I thought was relevant and a good quandry to be in. But you are right of course, aligning with company goals is the way to go.
asterix Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 Hmmm. And you are probably gonna laugh at this, or maybe cry, depending on your vantage point. Do you guys get a Monthly paycheck? Looks like it is quite unlike here (paycheck every 2 weeks, or twice a month). Not sure I have never known this after all this years!:blink::blink: :blink: You are talking about yearly Bonus na..So Yearly bonus will need six monthly or annual apprisal of the performance in various projects and targets achieved..
Lurker Posted March 5, 2012 Author Posted March 5, 2012 You are talking about yearly Bonus na..So Yearly bonus will need six monthly or annual apprisal of the performance in various projects and targets achieved.. Sorry about that. No wo bonus bhool jao ab. What about your salary over there? Is that monthly pagaar? Ke mahine mein do dafa salary aati hai? Ke kahin dihaadi pe kaam hota hai? idhar we get paid every 2 weeks (mostly) or every 1st and 15th of the month.
asterix Posted March 5, 2012 Posted March 5, 2012 Sorry about that. No wo bonus bhool jao ab. What about your salary over there? Is that monthly pagaar? Ke mahine mein do dafa salary aati hai? Ke kahin dihaadi pe kaam hota hai? idhar we get paid every 2 weeks (mostly) or every 1st and 15th of the month. Usually Monthly here...
akshayxyz Posted March 6, 2012 Posted March 6, 2012 It would be unfair to value young guys work compared with oldie's, and unfair to judge speed of oldie with young one's adhoc work. There wont be a case of dilemma here - if you have monitored and recorded the performance throughout the year, and understood the related the impact of their work - as compared to their peers, and what is expected of their respective positions. Besides, I would assume (as it is sort of established practice), bonuses have to be awarded as a % of the Basic (or CTC). There have to be company guidelines for deciding %ages based on the relative performances vis-a-vis expectations off their positions. If they stood out significantly, or under-performed significantly then only skew the normal %ages, otherwise if both performed at par - then it has to be distributed as per similar % of their CTC (or Basic).
Vijay.Sharma Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Lurker, here is a totally out of the box solution (something that I have done in the past and it ended up creating a great team for the most part (no decision will make everyone happy so dont even try to)) but it will work only if you know that the individuals in question may be matured enough to think from a perspective that is beyond their own. Let the two know of the situation (withhold too many details), and ask them how they would rate the other as in how much of the bounty would they give the other. The reasoning and logic behind such an approach is this - First Person Perspective: From the perspective of person A (or person B for that matter) he has done a good job and he deserves his bonus. So you have a situation where both fellas feel they deserve a good bonus. Third Person Perspective: This is you and obviously the fact that you have started this thread means you are really not sure whether it is a 50-50 call. You know for sure that one of the two deserves more but your mind is taking sides (or playing devil's advocate) frequently. Hence this perspective is not of much help given the situation. Second Person Perspective: This will reveal to you the respect based on demonstrated performance that one has for the other. Of course the assumption here is they are not enemies or totally biased against each other. Gage, subjectively, the value that Person A thinks Person B brings to the team/work and vice versa. If there is one truth about work psychology then it is that peer rating is often the best indicator of a person's value. A Manager's rating almost never holds greater value than peer rating nor does it do enough justice to individuals in the team. You can see this phenomenon reflecting itself all over human civilization in many facets if you care to observe.
akshayxyz Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 ^ sounds like dumbed down version of 360 degree feedback. Kudos, if you figured it out by yourself.
Vijay.Sharma Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 ^ sounds like dumbed down version of 360 degree feedback. Kudos, if you figured it out by yourself.Its not actually 360 degree or even dumbed down version of it. It is purely based on peer ratings. In my Innovation (TRIZ) thingy one of the areas is Trends of Evolution / Directed Evolution....what we can see is that this trend of "feedback" is shaping humanity in many many ways. Even if you consider it from a professional job satisfaction perspective - what does he want most? respect from peers. What motivates him most is not a pat from the Manager or bonuses, etc but it is the respect he commands among peers. Now, look at the technology evolution. We see an explosion of blogs, tools, gadgets, etc. What do people crave for? How many "Likes" did they get - that is peer acceptance. Edit - I think I understand what you meant by 'dumbed down version of 360 degree feedback'. Yep it does seem so in a way - like a lateral 180 degree within the 360 degree
goose Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Which one would you struggle to replace the most given the talent pool in your industry?
bihutoli Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Which one would you struggle to replace the most given the talent pool in your industry? + 1. Chances are one of them will leave in the next one year if your bonus pool is so low.
Vijay.Sharma Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Which one would you struggle to replace the most given the talent pool in your industry?NO one is indispensable in this world. Just coz it is difficult to find someone with same set of skills dunn mean you need to keep giving them better bonuses. Of course I understand that the context is that both the guys have performed well. But the logic of "difficult to replace" is fear logic - that's my take.
goose Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 NO one is indispensable in this world. Just coz it is difficult to find someone with same set of skills dunn mean you need to keep giving them better bonuses. Of course I understand that the context is that both the guys have performed well. But the logic of "difficult to replace" is fear logic - that's my take. This is how a major component of many bonuses are decided. Performance in that particular year is only half (maybe less) of the story. How much do you need to pay to retain or attract comparable talent?
Vijay.Sharma Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 This is how a major component of many bonuses are decided. Performance in that particular year is only half (maybe less) of the story. How much do you need to pay to retain or attract comparable talent?But just coz most companies do it that way dunn mean it makes it right, no? To be specific, that argument is what we call the fallacy of type "Appeal to Common Practice" or "Appeal to Popularity". It takes the following form - X is a common action. (read 'This is how a major component of many bonuses are decided. Performance in that particular year is only half (maybe less) of the story. ') Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc. (read, 'How much do you need to pay to retain or attract comparable talent?'). If you actually think thru that - it means the organization is not giving a "performance bonus" at all. It is giving a "fear of threat bonus".
Mariyam Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 @ Vijay, I haven't understood your method. For eg. if Lurks is the boss and its me and you who are the employees. You want Lurks to ask me to rate your proportion of the bonus and you to rate my share. Suppose, I rated you high and you rated me quite low on the performance scale. It could be because 1) I rated you highly because you are a good worker, and you rated me poor so that you get a lion's share of the bonus. 2) I rated you well to appear magnanimous, and you rated me poorly because my contribution was really poor. 3) Both of us were telling the truth. 4) Both of us were lying. How would Lurker know which of the following scenarios it really was? How can he apportion the bonus without knowing our thought process that goes into rating the other?
Vijay.Sharma Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 @ Vijay, I haven't understood your method. For eg. if Lurks is the boss and its me and you who are the employees. You want Lurks to ask me to rate your proportion of the bonus and you to rate my share.Lurker would basically gage from me how valuable do I think you and your work has been. He would gage the same from you about me. Suppose, I rated you high and you rated me quite low on the performance scale. It could be because 1) I rated you highly because you are a good worker, and you rated me poor so that you get a lion's share of the bonus. 2) I rated you well to appear magnanimous, and you rated me poorly because my contribution was really poor. 3) Both of us were telling the truth. 4) Both of us were lying. How would Lurker know which of the following scenarios it really was? How can he apportion the bonus without knowing our thought process that goes into rating the other?Yes, all situations are possible. And that is why I said that it would work when both you and me are mature individuals and do not have enmity / bias against each other. I shared the principle I would use with Lurker. How Lurker puts it into practice is left upto him because putting it into practice requires you to understand the specifics of the situation that go beyond the information Lurker has shared with us. More importantly, I shared what I would do (and did) in such a situation. It's up to Lurker to decide if he finds the principle interesting and useful for his situation. The principle itself is neither right nor wrong.
Lurker Posted March 12, 2012 Author Posted March 12, 2012 ^^ yeah I have both Stanley and Ryan up here lol. Seriously though, thanks everybody for their inputs specially Vijay and Mariyam, I may try some of these in our team building later spring (which I am so looking forward to! NOT)
Recommended Posts