(03-17-2009 07:32 PM)gsloth Wrote: (03-17-2009 04:40 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: Regarding gsloth's comment. That may be fine if your bonus is tied to a definitive goal or target (sales, etc). As noted above some firms use it differently. You have two staff members, one working above and beyond and the other on cruise control, . . . .if the difference is the bonus one might get, I don't see that withholding it is fair. I also don't see pulling a senior or high mid-level employees bonus if the end result is that they are effectively working for less per hour than people that work for them, doing less complicated work.
I will say this, and maybe it was just the nature of being a software company - but everyone is on the front lines, facing the customer. (OK, almost everyone.) Even the development managers had a role in selling our software, listening to customers needs and working with the internal product management teams, architects, sales guys, and us consultants. It was a team job. And I'm not sure it's that much different in a financial company, though the terms may be different.
And honestly, unlike your firm, our guys were all salaried. (Well, I'm not sure about our off-shore development teams, but that's another sensitive topic of conversation entirely.) So you can guarantee that the managers were making more in salary than the rest of us in salary (and I knew enough, as I was on the cusp of the management tier as things went south, and continued to help with appraisals and other stuff as things tightened up). And actually, their bonuses were even larger and tied even more tightly not just with company results but their own internal growth targets (or other metrics).
I figured that's what the bonuses used to be. But when you game it with a guarantee of nothing less than last year, that is all that it is - a game. You've eliminated much of the risk and perceived incentive to do better, which I thought was the capitalistic way. After all, if it's going to crater and no amount of effort on your part is going to get you back to your targets, what's the incentive to work harder to get out from under things? I have actually witnessed this happen at multiple companies (as a contractor). I guess that's what sad about this.
Yes, at my company back then, morale sucked, from the lost bonuses, tumbling stock price, and shrinking workforce. But we survived (grumbling along the way) in part because what we were left with were the best of the best (not trying to be immodest, but that's often what happens) and because we were actually grateful to still have a job.
I don't know. I cannot muster the sympathy for anyone in this case, even those who got a $1,000 bonus. Because I've seen folks play by the rules and figure out a way to live with lost performance bonuses that they were kind of counting on, not game the system so that folks can continue to rake in whatever they thought they were worth. Just sick. 
I think it's the difference in industry. As consulting engineers (detailed design of water and wastewater treatment plants) our product is basically our own manpower - - the hours needed to produce either reports or design drawings.
From talking to people in other businesses, I don't think our bonuses would be considered large by almost any standards. At my level, which is pretty high on the management and production side (vs sales) it is not anywhere near the percentages you mentioned earlier.
We have metrics to meet as well, and I wear two hats so I've seen both sets.
But the young project manager I mentioned before illustrates the point well.
His salary is below the trip wire (barely) where he still gets paid 100% straight time for OT. His project management metrics are off scale good. However he made so much in OT last year that (1) he's paid more than engineers a grade level up (and he earned it), and (2) if he were promoted to the next level project management, putting him in the bonus pool and eliminating OT, he would take a significant cut in pay.
So put yourself in the next tier. You kick tail, your projects do well, you work lots of OT - - - if they cut your bonus unilaterally when the company as a whole does less well, you can make less than someone who is working OT, but not bonus eligible, even if you're a pay grade up.
At some level, I think you're right, if the company is doing poorly, everyone is going to share in that pain.
The point I'm making is that if you share the pain with people who are contributing in a large way, but are not necessarily responsible for poor business decisions at higher levels, you run the risk of losing assets.
In our business, we depend on our experience. Engineers are our assets, so maybe my viewpoint is skewed.
In general though, I think MBA's and those whose sole function in a company is squeezing the last dime of profit out of an orange (i.e., those who dream up mortgage backed securities for example) . . . . as opposed to maybe making a tangible product, should probably be more susceptible to the market at any rate.
It's probably wrong of me to think about them this way, but I see folks in that profession as focused solely on figuring out how to extract the last bit of money out of the system. And for some reason it galls me that we have seemingly elevated the salaries and rewards for the profession of extracting money without producing anything to levels far, far, far above what most professionals could hope to make.
as evidenced by the referenced million dollar bonuses.
What do they say about the Golden Rule - - those with the gold make the rules? Maybe it should be that those who manage the gold make the rules. I guess that's obvious, but somehow it's bothersome.
