4 ms·
Of course we're competing. That's the whole point of a merit-based bonus system. What's your counterargument?
by ethomson 13y ago
Of course we're competing. That's the whole point of a merit-based bonus system. What's your counterargument?
- mhurron 13y agoWhen one person succeeds we all succeed breaks down when you are pushed to succeed at the expense of everyone else. You are supposed to be working for the good of the whole, not just yourself. Cooperation and team work are also meritorious, but they are not rewarded or encouraged in this type of merit-based system.
- ethomson 13y agoI agree with you, but this doesn't address the clever and glib but ultimately content-free argument above. You can stack rank on any criteria - including cooperation and team work.
- jacques_chester 13y agoYou're handwaving away the problem of measuring intangibles.
- michaelt 13y agoGenerating value for your employer is not a zero-sum game. If I make the company an extra $x and the company rewards me with a bonus of $0.1x that money doesn't have to come from the guy next to me, it comes from the extra $x I brought into the company. The idea that "there's a fixed budget for raises" or "that money goes into a different pot" is simply a way of refusing while transferring blame to an inanimate object.
- marshray 13y agoEven if the reality is that there is a fixed budget for raises that needs to be awarded fairly, it doesn't logically imply there should be a fixed number of 'excellent' and 'awful' employee reviews to be handed out.
- Ensorceled 13y agoIt should not be a zero sum game. I attempt to pay my team based upon what they are worth to the company; not how they rank compared to their co-workers. You should be able to have an entire team of #1 developers ...