Anonymous wrote:I understand wanting to be appreciated and respected for your abilities and work but I don't get the mindset that says the only reason to do a good job is to get a 3.5% raise instead of a 3% raise.

Do you want people to strive to better themselves, or to strive to stay where they are? Or to realize it is time to move on

I understand wanting to be appreciated and respected for your abilities and work but I don't get the mindset that says the only reason to do a good job is to get a 3.5% raise instead of a 3% raise.

Anonymous wrote:I hate the thinking that if someone is a 5, then someone else must be a 1. A well-run office will have all solid to high performers. If you have as many poor performers as high performers, then the office is poorly managed and the manager should be fired.

solid or poor performers, you still need to rate workers to match a range from 3 to 4.5, with majority being between 3 and 3.8
5 means that the worker is in the wrong category, technically not possible

I hate the thinking that if someone is a 5, then someone else must be a 1. A well-run office will have all solid to high performers. If you have as many poor performers as high performers, then the office is poorly managed and the manager should be fired.

sounds like a company where peoples careers are at a dead end road. What is magical enough for 1 worker to be able to do to better their position?
Unless you cater for the type of worker who needs to mommy track and just get some paycheck
What will happen to your business if those workers stay and never leave?

Everyone wants metrics. But, not every job can be measured (in the short term) by metrics. Sales, sure. But, R & D, over one year, it might be hard to quantify the value in 1 year.

As an example, about 10 years ago, I came up with an idea that revolutionized something (details do not matter). Before we could market the idea, we had to demonstrate it worked. That took two years. Metric wise, those two years were a waste of money for the company: my billable hours dropped from 1800/yr to about 1100/yr. I had no new contracts to support it (yet). My manager had my back, and protected me from layoff for the low billable hours.

Two years later, we parlayed that idea -- and about 1500 hours (or 100K in company cost) into a 15 million dollar per year revenue stream that has been going on 8 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.

But is the least productive worker really so bad that you want them to leave? How much hassle will it be to replace that person and will the new hire come at a higher wage?

Yeah with raises less than cola, I might slack off too.

Anonymous wrote:I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.

But is the least productive worker really so bad that you want them to leave? How much hassle will it be to replace that person and will the new hire come at a higher wage?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.

That doesn't change the fact that you should have metrics to prove that the high performer was, in fact, a high performer. I'm all for performance-based bonuses, but to award them based on the manager's subjective belief about who's performing and who's not is total anarchy.

"Anarchy" might be better. This is more likely to foster suspicion, resentment and general grumbling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.

That doesn't change the fact that you should have metrics to prove that the high performer was, in fact, a high performer. I'm all for performance-based bonuses, but to award them based on the manager's subjective belief about who's performing and who's not is total anarchy.

Yep.

Anonymous wrote:I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.

That doesn't change the fact that you should have metrics to prove that the high performer was, in fact, a high performer. I'm all for performance-based bonuses, but to award them based on the manager's subjective belief about who's performing and who's not is total anarchy.

I would blow my brains out if my company had that kind of thinking in regards to compensation. WTF?!?!?! Did Bernie Sanders come up with that idea? People are different, work habits and work ethic varies from person to person. If you give one person 5%, well, I would imagine you should give 1% to the least productive worker. If that person leaves, oh well. At least you rewarded the high performer.

I'm shocked that any medium-sized office doesn't already have performance-based management, including raises, in place in 2016.

In my company, the manager divides up the raise pool the way the manager sees fit. I have had some that just go even. Pissed me off. I prefer it based on performance.

Now, it is based on the 1-5 rating. I am typically a 4 (exceeds expectations), and over time, it has paid off.

Curious why you don't have any metrics or a spreadsheet to help you figure this out. What if a raise puts someone over the range for their position? Seems like a salary administration nightmare.