Why have bonuses?

So Don – you think its acceptable that people get their salery for not doing their best – and have to have more money waved in front of them to ensure they do their best.

Why not just sack them ( or threaten to) for underperforming to motivate them.

Apparently it works in public service.

Well, I’m glad I wasn’t being thick and that bonuses are F-all to do with anyone else.

It’s not more money, it’s part of the overall salary. They get a pay cut (eg no bonus) if they don’t perform.

TJ – have you ever met human beings before? Most respond better to a carrot than a stick – it is well known and understood. If you motivate with a negative action you get far less from people. You also come across as being very under appreciated in previous work posts – that you have gone above and beyond what was expected of you. Imagine there was some sort of recognition for your efforts – something useful rather than a certificate or kind words. Money, perhaps?

A large part of how bonuses work is the way in which people are managed and reported on. If, for example, you were given a set of goals or targets to achieve in the coming year (very common now) and that was based around your salary. A bonus might be awarded if you exceeded your targets – rewardng you for doing better. It really is that simple.

According to this video, and other research like it, bonuses work well for call-centre type jobs, and not for jobs requiring initiative. So bankers obviously need them.

Tootall – merely pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in this debate.

Take teachers – expected to give of their best all the time and threatened with the sack for not doing so. No bonus culture there. So in the case of teachers its the stick that motivates apparently but for bankers only the carrot does.

But these bankers apparently will not do of their best until they are offered large bonuses. I say sack then for shirking for not doing of their best

Apparently it works in public service.

The aim is to pay people who perform the best, the best and to move out those who don’t perform adequately. In between the two sets, there are those who perform adequately – they may be doing their best but not have the aptitude of those who perform better or they may have the aptitude but not the drive. If they are doing a satisfactory job, there is no point in getting rid of them. Although, there are commercial organisations who sack their worst performing 10% every year, no matter what their results.

How about that we take these people who need bonuses to motivate them and instead motivate them by sacking them for poor performance instead.

There is a vast difference between doing an average job and poor performance. Bonus’s are designed to reward those who go the extra step.

merely pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in this debate.

Except you haven’t.

Really? So why are teachers expected to do of their BEST all the time merely under the threat of the sack ( and that threat being made more explicit) but bankers are expected to only do their best with the incentive of a bonus?

So why are teachers expected to do of their BEST all the time merely under the threat of the sack

I know a lot of teachers and don’t agree at all with this statement.

all the time merely under the threat of the sack

Isn’t it incredibly hard to sack a teacher ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/9011225/Poor-teachers-to-be-sacked-in-a-term-under-reforms.html

Typical public vs private bullshine. If teachers now say thay they are motivated by money, why not admit that you made a mistake and join the ratrace.
I always thought teachers taught so they could impart imformation and improve others…. Not feather their own nest.
I’m sick of listening to the petty jealousies from the likes of TJ on this subject. Grow some, get a different job or shut the F. up!!!
FFS!

What all the pies said, incredibly hard to sack a teacher and to prove average performance.

That makes my point – the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?

It’s not so much the fact that the money is given as a bonus, so much as the fact that many executives/bankers are paid an obscene amount of money.

If you happen to think that growing inequality is a bad thing (I do) then big bonuses are bad.

If you think that bonuses mean this then I guess they aren’t too bad.

That makes my point – the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?

Because they are not motivated by money, are they? If teachers were motivated by money and bonuses we’d be seeing calls for more privately run schools managing their own budgets, more privately run health centres and hospitals, wouldn’t we?

There are plans for there to be a carrot as well

Isn’t this like the pensions debate those who haven’t want the others brought down to their level instead of striving to get that themselves.
It’s also like the pensions debate in that people focus on the extremes (bankers bonuses and council leader final salary schemes) and not general schemes most applicable employees are on.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/16/schools.uk3

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) rejected the government’s proposals to extend the existing pay scale by introducing a new Excellent Teachers Scheme, which relies heavily on performance-related pay

“The extension of performance related pay based on pupil progress to the main scale will further demoralise and demotivate teachers and make the profession less attractive.”

What do you think TJ – were the unions looking to reward the excellent teachers, or protect the crap ones?

One has to wonder what they were afraid of?

😉

That makes my point – the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?

Answers TJ, please? Low risk and low rewards provided by the public sector or high risk with high rewards, with the added bonus of public scrutiny in the private sector?
If you want the bonuses, I personally don’t see any problem in privatising the health and education services, do you?

So in the hypothetical situation where teachers were given identical basic salaries and offered discretionary bonuses to be based on pre-arranged and agreed (sensible) performance targets, what do you think would be the outcome for (a) teachers, (b) pupils, (c) schools?

DS, some services are just that, not revenue generators.

Profit based bonuses in Care for example would lead to corners being cut, to the detriment of the Service Users.

Safeguards and regulation just don’t work where the ethos of profit replaces the fundamentals of care.

That makes my point – the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers

That does not make your point, your point was that UNLESS teachers did their BEST they would be sacked. That’s not true. If teachers are average, or even slightly below average they’re fine, as has been the case for decades. If they are complete tripe, then they will be sacked. Which is sensible.

On the other hand if someone in the banking industry is just average, they will be sacked. If they work their nuts off to achieve greatness, they will be rewarded.

Profit based bonuses in Care for example would lead to corners being cut, to the detriment of the Service Users.

Or they could lead to services being delivered more efficiently with no consequence to Service Users other than a reduction in cost. The difficult bit is working out which has happened and that is where the failure of such systems often occurs in both the private and the public sector.

If you happen to think that growing inequality is a bad thing (I do) then big bonuses are bad.

If you think that bonuses mean this then I guess they aren’t too bad.

This sums up the main issues, for me…

If the company is doing well, based on the collective input of the workforce, then it is reasonable that a bonus is widely distributed – the JL model.

FWIW, from many of the business I have worked with (directly and as a consultant) it is the collaborative effort that makes a business profitable. The posts above about intellectual based organisations are interesting because that is the sort of area I have knowledge of, and the research fits well with my views on this.

On the other hand, for businesses that do arrive at success through outstanding individual effort, then it is right to recognise and reward that effort.

The common mistake is to (financially) recognise and incentivise individual achievement in a team oriented setting / culture – you do need to motivate, but the whole team.

Profit based bonuses in Care for example would lead to corners being cut, to the detriment of the Service Users.

TJ seems to think that it would increase productivity and motivation and would be a good idea. I don’t see why it should lead to corners being cut, except if it run by sloppy employees.
Rusty, I do happen to understand what I’m talking about here and would just like TJ to answer the question about being willing to accept the higher risks involved as a way of obtaining the bonuses he wants.

Isn’t this like the pensions debate those who haven’t want the others brought down to their level instead of striving to get that themselves.

No. This is TJ banging his drum until we all agree with him that there is an unjust difference between teachers and bankers. He has a view and we must all bow down and see the world from his POV otherwise he will consume all of the internet with his arguements.

Or at least that’s how I see it 🙁

TJ seems to think that it would increase productivity and motivation and would be a good idea.

Really – where did I say that?

I am still awaiting some sort of rational explanation why some groups of employees have to have large sums of money dangled in front of them to be motivated to do their best and it is considered acceptable that they will not perform at their best unless this is done when other groups of employees will apparently perform of their best without any incentives but they are threatened with the sack if they do not perform of their best.

tootall – its exposing the hypocrisy of the bonus culture.

The company owners reduce the time available for calls and squeeze more clients in – care is spread too thinly.

People genuinely suffer because of this.

It’s not rocket science, surely you can see this?

Teaching is a real can of worms – the pay structure needs a root and branch review as it is set up to cause stagnation and disatisfaction.

mrs rkk01 changed career about 4-5 yrs ago, and is doing very well. Repeated “outstanding” inspection results, developing a resource base that is recognised throughout the county, and is highly in demand due to her methods and approach. Has networked and developed excellent relationships with other staff, parents and outside supporting professionals….

She brings with her previous professional management experience and a good knowledge of social interaction / behavioural psychology.

She is one of the lowest paid teachers in the school 👿

Why? – because teachers are paid on a “time served” basis.

Good, experienced, teachers in her school CANNOT progress to other, more rewarding senior roles (which would meet their aspirations), because “they are too expensive”

So, you can move schools when you are cheap, and inexperienced…

You are cheap when you are inexperienced (in teaching terms, other expertise counts for jack) – irrespective of your performance???

The whole thing seems set up to frustrate and demotivate.

Scrap the salary increase by time served nonsense. promotion and pay should be based on performance / achievement

TandemJeremy – Member

That makes my point – the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?
Posted 42 minutes ago # Report-Post

I’m only agreeing with your suggestion that offering bonuses should be applied to everyone as a way of motivating. Now you’re backtracking as usual AND falling back on the no-one is responding to my ever so important question strategy.
Yes I agree that bonuses are a valid for of motivation and should be applied to teachers, health workers and civil servant after these organisations are privatised. As it’s your idea TJ, you have no problem with this, do you?

There will always be sloppy employees though.

Anyway, is it not the case that the bonus simply represents a portion of the total package that could be withdrawn in an extreme case much more easily than paying half someone’s wage..?

I don’t think it matters that half their salary is expressed in terms of bonus. It’s only a word.

TandemJeremy – Member
That makes my point – the threat of the sack is being used to motivate teachers. surely they should be being offered bonuses as according to you guys that is the only way to motivate staff?

Hah if only that were true. The reason we need Academies and Free Schools is precicely so that teachers can made accountable to the headmasters and parents. There hasnt been ANY threat of the sack in LEA run comprehensives. That will remain the case in unreformed Scotland.

Bonuses are good, they can make you work harder and better and promote innovation. In banking they grew too much and became something that people felt the were entitled too. That is no longer the case, believe me.

TJ you choose to work in the public sector, some of us work in business. Take off your hairshirt and stop being so bloody patronising.

tootall – its exposing the hypocrisy of the bonus culture.

To whom? Get a blog.

Errmmm- academies and free schools perform worse at higher cost than LEA schools so that shows the paucity of that arguement.

So why do the private sector need bonuses for motivation but the public sector do not?

does anyone actually have an answer to this?

TooTall, +1 and 😆

As this now looks like it’s going to turn into a ‘Lets have a go at TJ’ thread I’ll leave it there.

Shame, some interesting points raised.

teachers are paid on a “time served” basis

I’ve always wondered why teachers get a bonus for just being there another year. Anyone care to explain that one? Does it happen elsewhere in the public sector?