4 ms·
If the payments are big enough to make a difference, people will crawl over bodies to earn the bonuses and feud viciously if/when they don't get assigned the bo
by hapless 13y ago
If the payments are big enough to make a difference, people will crawl over bodies to earn the bonuses and feud viciously if/when they don't get assigned the bonus-bearing tasks. People will become reluctant to work on the low/no-bonus assignments.
If the payments aren't big enough, then no one will care and nothing will change. You'll pay money for nothing, and workers will be even unhappier to work on some tasks, since the real stinkers will be identified by the attached bonuses.
Fundamentally, in the professional world, we rely on employees' intrinsic motivation to get jobs done. It's well understood that reward systems that tie money too closely to work damage intrinsic motivation, so there has to be a really, really good reason to attempt it.
- mittermayr 13y agoin a situation where salaries are somewhat fair and necessary funding for this is a given, I'd say you're absolutely right, people will understand there's fun and not so fun work to do, but at least you're being paid well for all of it. but in situations where regular salary financing is tense (especially startups who are bootstrapping, or use private funds, or very little seed money), I feel people are more willing to accept less-than-industry-standard pay if the work is fun at least (of which there is only so much in a project). this is why I was trying to figure out whether someone ever transformed this into a salary distribution model.
- hapless 13y agoI misinterpreted your proposal because distributing SALARY this way was too plainly insane. No one with a brain in their head would work for you on that basis. The feuding would start immediately and never end. You cannot make software development into piecework.