• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What would you think of a place that paid you partly based on how things went?

There is a local carwash that pays you an industry standard wage, maybe something higher than that, and so high school students can work for $8-9/hour. What they do though, is have monthly bonuses for every location, and for every employee that works 15 hours a week or more.

This means you get paid $8-9/hour, but you also get maybe an extra $200-300 (not sure on exact numbers) as an incentive to do your best. There are months when they don't make it, but they know why, and it would have to be because of a reason, things in their control.

I was talking to a business partner about this model and if it would work as an open book system or not, where all the employees can see how much money is going around. The idea would be that with the right people (Is finding the right people the issue here?), this would motivate everyone to do their fair share of everything. It also doesn't make any one manager a bad person.

Part of the model would be that if someone had to be fired, it would be a group decision, not something done between one or two managers.

This system would promote honesty, probably increase the average time an employee stayed with this business, and in general, make workers happier. Who doesn't want more money when they do a good job?

The obvious down side might be that the owners don't make as much right away, but if you don't have to replace workers often, maybe that will make it worth it? Everything in the business would become better, like the way customers are treated, because the employee knows that if the customer comes back in, it's more business, which means more money for him at the end of the month.

Edit: I realize this is done through stock options for some people, but it isn't applied a lot to retail jobs. Commission is offered with some, but that promotes laziness outside of making the sale alone.
 
I think the whole concept of what you are thinking would never work in retail in the United States. People are too greedy, lazy, unethical and just plain stupid.

Now some of the idea I think would work very well as in incentive bonus. Offering as I would say Pay-on-performance option would entice them to meet set goals as well as to work together to make sure the company as a whole succeeds.

group decision to fire people? No way! Who would ever fire themselves even if they were the poorest performer? They would make excuses. . . Now if it came to a point where the $$ coming only supported 9 of 10 employees then yes open the floor to everyone and see if some ideas come up. Everything from ways to generate extra revenue to ways to cut the budget would get everyone involved in the finance side and they would understand if they can't produce a set result someone has to go. Not everyone needs access to things like attendance records, sick/vac time, disciplinary actions, complaints and various things like that which are taken into account when deciding "who" to fire.

group choices also tend to lean toward favoritism so one guy may be a super hard worker but doesn't socialize much so the group may oust him first chance they get. Generally big decisions like that are left to the ones who are the most invested in the company (stand to lose the most) which is why everyone isnt included. Now if everyone was considered a "part" owner to some degree that might change things a bit.
 
That's a good point, and so I agree, some things would have to be kept confidential to an appointed manager. Regarding firings, I think that if they were discussing to get rid of a specific person, everyone but them would meet and discuss it. They would have to be causing a problem or not doing their part, at which point it should be expected.

Any other thoughts?
 
I think what you're suggesting is going a bit too far. But I did work at a retail establishment once where we received a monthly bonus based on the store's score on a monthly inspection. So we had some extra incentive to keep the store looking good. The bonus was up to $1 per hour worked in the month.

In practice, we always received nearly the full bonus. I don't know if that's because it was too easy to pass the inspection, or if we just did a really good job.
 
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
That's a good point, and so I agree, some things would have to be kept confidential to an appointed manager. Regarding firings, I think that if they were discussing to get rid of a specific person, everyone but them would meet and discuss it. They would have to be causing a problem or not doing their part, at which point it should be expected.

Any other thoughts?



The group discussion model wouldn?t work, as was mentioned above it is easily abused and would create a ton of HR and liability issues.

Really though, that aspect of running the business is the manager?s responsibility. His primary job is to review and evaluate the performance of his direct reports, and if they are below standard provide coaching and development. If the employee is unwilling to improve (or in the rare case, is unable to improve) then it really should be left to the manager?s discretion as to when a termination is appropriate.

The bonus model can be effective though, many companies use similar programs as motivational tools. Lots of call centers use similar programs, althouh you really wouldn't have to be as open with the books as you are describing.
 
Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo
That's a good point, and so I agree, some things would have to be kept confidential to an appointed manager. Regarding firings, I think that if they were discussing to get rid of a specific person, everyone but them would meet and discuss it. They would have to be causing a problem or not doing their part, at which point it should be expected.

Any other thoughts?

That could be percieved as a lynch mob sort of and again fall to favoritism. An alternative would be to say if there are 10 employees + management have maybe 2 regualr joes in a team lead type position. These guys could come to the meetings and provide as we call them "trench" reports or stuff the staff feels is important. This provides a bit of anonymity for them while bringing their concerns to the table without everyone being in on it.

 
Who's to say who did the best job and deserves the bonus?

I think that'd cause a lot of issues among employees.
 
Back
Top