41–50 of 136 posts
What is a "Peer bonus structure"? I appears in #3 Recognition, "Peer bonus structure was very well done, but not widely used inside engineering."
This is true at a certain threshold. Appreciation is immeasurably better than an demoralizing, insultingly-sized bonus. However on the other end, if you go above and beyond normal expectations and save or earn the company millions of dollars, a "thank you" from your boss on the company newsletter is not going to cut it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem asinine. Although frankly I can't think of many ways that seem much better. Do you always just give everyone on your team the exact same bonus?
In certain companies, bonuses are dependent on three factors: company success, team success, and individual success, based on targets agreed upon at a certain point in time. To me, that seems a lot more fair than implicitly believing all members of a team are of equal levels of skill, productivity, etc.
It does not follow that the way to do that is a rigid, formal cycle of performance reviews and ranking.
Too, I recognize that this author of this presentation spent time to make it public, and sharing this sort of information is always welcome, so moaning about the format might seem a little rich. But in the glorious tradition of the internet, I'ma gonna bitch about it anyway. I really really hate this new fad of posting these Powerpoint-style slide decks. I would always prefer to read prose, even inexpert prose, than through yet another comically inept link on scribd or google docs.
Moaning off. Thanks again to the author.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In certain companies, bonuses are dependent on three factors: company success, team success, and individual success, based on targets agreed upon at a certain point in time. To me, that seems a lot more fair than implicitly believing all members of a team are of equal levels of skill, productivity, etc.
It is obviously true that people should be compensated for company, team, and individual success. It does not follow that the way to do that is a rigid, formal cycle of performance reviews and ranking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one option. Not giving bonuses at all is another option. Tying incentive comp to business events (recruitment, customer acquisition, an A/B test and minor feature change that produces a 1% uplift, etc) is another option. Anything has to be better than going out of your way to stratify an otherwise well-functioning team.
I just have a hard time believing incentives don't work. For example, if I lost all of my stock options today and was told I'd never get another raise or bonus, except CoL, I'd quit on the spot. In fact I'd argue, if there were no financial incentives, most HNers wouldn't do startups. I know everyone likes to say they do it to change the world and the passion of something or other. But in reality I've yet to see many…
One of the reasons you don't see many founders take a $50k/yr salary is that very few of them are truly confident of success. I once heard an aphorism, "don't trust a founder who won't put their own money into the company." It's a little pointed and unrealistic, but you get the idea. In an industry driven by a mythology of becoming the next big thing (parallels to the equally one-in-a-million mindset in the music industry), no founder can afford, professionally and with regard to reputation, to treat themselves as anything but a foregone success, and that attitude requires "competitive compensation." This means they want to be paid as much as other unsure founders.
The "low-salary superboss" is a product of already-successful companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Stack ranking means that if you have a group of 20 people, during each performance review cycle the group manager is expected to rank them from 1 to 20, and the company distributes bonuses and promotions accordingly. That just seems completely asinine." Worse, there is often an associated ideal distribution ("the curve") with fixed ratios for "exceeds expectations", "below expectations" and so on and managers are un…
I was in a place that decided to give out bonuses to my team (consisting of 3 members and a leader) in the following way: 1. Allocate fixed amount to give out per team 2. Have team leader's manager determine how that pie would be shared between team leader and us 3 team members. 3. NOT have 360° feedback 4. Incorporate team leader feedback on team's performance into this decision I'm not sure what type of HR schmuck…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had to look up "stack ranking" just now, so, for the benefit of the class: Stack ranking means that if you have a group of 20 people, during each performance review cycle the group manager is expected to rank them from 1 to 20, and the company distributes bonuses and promotions accordingly. That just seems completely asinine.
I once worked at company that employed a lot of hourly wage type people. One exec wanted to stack rank each group of wage employees each month and fire the bottom 25%. I tried to explain to him the negative morale effect that would lead to lower performance across the board, the fact any employes who were decent would just leave on their own, and there is a significant training cost for each new employee that he was…
Pro: http://www.cogmap.com/blog/2009/11/12/force-ranking-to-fire-...
Con: http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Career ladders are wishful thinking and an easy way to undervalue contributions. They imply that professional development largely occurs along a single axis rather than multiple ones. Who's worth more, Peter Norvig or Marissa Mayer? What about an overachieving SWE I vs an mailing-it-in SWE III?
Additionally, poorly structured career ladders can to lead to "Promotion Until Incompetence", where people are repeatedly promoted until they are unable to warrant another promotion. Thus, everyone is stuck at a level of mild incompetence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just have a hard time believing incentives don't work. For example, if I lost all of my stock options today and was told I'd never get another raise or bonus, except CoL, I'd quit on the spot. In fact I'd argue, if there were no financial incentives, most HNers wouldn't do startups. I know everyone likes to say they do it to change the world and the passion of something or other. But in reality I've yet to see many…
Losing all of your stock options or having something else taken away is not a negative case for incentives, it's an example of a disincentive , which also has an effect. They aren't the same thing, and you can tell because you don't know how well you'd be working if you never had the options in the first place (and hadn't been denied them or otherwise been treated unfairly). One of the reasons you don't see many foun…