On 24 Mar 2002, at 16:37, Mark Wonsil wrote:

> That was me and I think may have not been clear.  My point is that the
> reward should match the performance

Evaluating performance is necessarily subjective and the fewer the
numbers in assessing performance the more likely the result to be
skewed in preference to favour a few elements.  Introduce an
element of self-interest and the stage is set for unpleasantness.
The archtypical response is that people are measured by results.
But how much of a given result is due to individual performance and
how much is due to circumstance?  Was the high-tech boom in the
stock market in the late 1990s the result of superior 'performance'
by dot com executives?

> If some boss said to me, "Did a good job Mark, but you were just lucky
> - no bonus or raise this year.",

You are introducing a specious consideration here.  The issue is
not whether people should be rewarded or not but whether
'excessive' reward is ever warranteed.  The beneficial nature of
positive encouragement on human beings is well understood and
should be employed wherever possible.  However I have grave
doubts that 'bonus' packages that measure in the tens of millions
have any greater impact on the recipient's 'performace' than ones
measured in the hundred's of thousands.  In fact, the few studies
that I have knowledge of indicate that many recipients eventually
come to consider regular performance bonuses simply part of their
wage package and eventually completely disconnect the 'bonus'
from the company's performance.

Sincerely,
Jim


---     e-mail is NOT a secure channel
James B. Byrne                mailto:[log in to unmask]
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *