Re:People can read their manager's mind
by pinkrooftop on Thursday December 31, 2015 @10:56PM
(#10821053)
My company has metrics and goals but rewards a limited pool of annual bonuses based on all managers getting together and calibrating contributors on gut feel. Rewards have literally been based on an outside managers opinion that "my perception is your Apple doesn't really do work worthy of a bonus increase this year, but my Orange does" we've lost a lot of good people over the years
[ Parent
| on HN ]
IMO, you need a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures when setting compensation. Pure qualitative and you encourage a lot of pointless politicking. Pure quantitative and you encourage a lot of pointless gaming.
True story about gaming that I'll try to keep short: we had a promotion process that was multi-dimensional and one dimension was "scope of impact" (ie: how broad is your influence: self, team, group, organization, company, world).
We literally had a director present a promotion case for a manager and the scope element was assessed at "world" (several levels higher than needed to qualify). When asked for supporting evidence, he regaled us with the tale that the manager had taken initiative to place small cardboard boxes in each break room to collect spent alkaline batteries for recycling. Because allowing the batteries to be more effectively recycled helped the global environment, the scope of impact was "world".
Whoosh...
I think most things that are not manual labor should be more qualitative though.
And yet you're still there?
Re:People can read their manager's mind
by pinkrooftop on Friday January 01, 2016 @09:56AM
(#10822010)
Is it really different elsewhere? Besides despite this politics approach to reward it's prob the best deal I personally can get in a job