Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Partners
Changes in Management Compensation?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CleverNick" data-source="post: 784162" data-attributes="member: 10293"><p>There's a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" and speculations here. First of all, so far there hasn't been anything announced regarding tying MIP to QPR, so basically you all are assigning motives to something which is merely a speculation and only exists in message board conjectures. </p><p> </p><p>Secondly, I somewhat agree that "performance" is a nebulous thing which often cannot be captured perfectly. Yes, there may be situations where a manager might be clueless or might show favoritism or might show "anti-favoritism". However, from what I have seen, those situations are usually weeded out pretty quickly. Not sure how it is in your area, but we have people meetings where scores are reviewed and cross-checked between managers to make sure that nobody is getting the shaft. A more common scenario is that a manager might be lenient and the average QPR score of his people might be higher than another manager, not because of favoritism but just because he grades on a different curve than somebody else. On the flip side, you might have a manager who is a hard grader who gives everybody lower scores. The people meetings help to normalize the scores among different managers so that somebody who works for a hard grader isn't penalized and somebody who works for a lenient grader isn't rewarded. I HOPE that this is standard practice in all areas. If it isn't, then it should be!</p><p> </p><p>Is it a perfect system? Obviously not because there is still subjectivity. But it is pretty darn good and generally speaking, people get the score that they deserve.</p><p> </p><p>What also happens from what I've seen is that people think of themselves more highly than they actually are. I remember hearing about a study asking people how they compare to their peers, and something like 80% said that they were above the median. Obviously, by definition only 50% can be above the median so the conclusion is that people have an inflated self-worth, ego, whatever you want to call it. When a person gets a score which is "only" average, they might protest because it does not coincide with their own self-perception even though average means that they are better than half of their compatriots. Somebody might incorrectly feel that their manager is out to get them, when in fact, the manager is just trying to be objective and provide an honest assessment of the person versus his peers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CleverNick, post: 784162, member: 10293"] There's a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" and speculations here. First of all, so far there hasn't been anything announced regarding tying MIP to QPR, so basically you all are assigning motives to something which is merely a speculation and only exists in message board conjectures. Secondly, I somewhat agree that "performance" is a nebulous thing which often cannot be captured perfectly. Yes, there may be situations where a manager might be clueless or might show favoritism or might show "anti-favoritism". However, from what I have seen, those situations are usually weeded out pretty quickly. Not sure how it is in your area, but we have people meetings where scores are reviewed and cross-checked between managers to make sure that nobody is getting the shaft. A more common scenario is that a manager might be lenient and the average QPR score of his people might be higher than another manager, not because of favoritism but just because he grades on a different curve than somebody else. On the flip side, you might have a manager who is a hard grader who gives everybody lower scores. The people meetings help to normalize the scores among different managers so that somebody who works for a hard grader isn't penalized and somebody who works for a lenient grader isn't rewarded. I HOPE that this is standard practice in all areas. If it isn't, then it should be! Is it a perfect system? Obviously not because there is still subjectivity. But it is pretty darn good and generally speaking, people get the score that they deserve. What also happens from what I've seen is that people think of themselves more highly than they actually are. I remember hearing about a study asking people how they compare to their peers, and something like 80% said that they were above the median. Obviously, by definition only 50% can be above the median so the conclusion is that people have an inflated self-worth, ego, whatever you want to call it. When a person gets a score which is "only" average, they might protest because it does not coincide with their own self-perception even though average means that they are better than half of their compatriots. Somebody might incorrectly feel that their manager is out to get them, when in fact, the manager is just trying to be objective and provide an honest assessment of the person versus his peers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Partners
Changes in Management Compensation?
Top