Archive for the ‘palkitseminen’ Category

Kehityskeskustelut historiaan?


Useimmissa keskisuurissa ja suuremmissa yrityksissä käydään vuosittain (joissakin puolivuosittain) kehitys- ja/tai tuloskeskusteluja, rakkalla lapsella voi olla useampiakin nimiä. Niiden hyödyllisyydestä tosin voi olla montaa mieltä. Ainakin Isossa-Britanniassa tehdyn tutkimuksen mukaan

Almost half (44 per cent) did not think their boss was honest during the process, 29 per cent thought they were pointless, and a fifth felt they had had an unfair appraisal, according to the YouGov poll of 3000 workers.

Alexander Kjerulf listaa 9 syytä, miksi nämä keskustelut ovat huono ajatus ja miksi ne pitäisi lopettaa. Tässä muutama niistä:

  • They become an excuse for not talking for the rest of the year
  • They may not be formally connected with promotions and salary negotiations – in reality everyone knows they are
  • No one says what they really think

Samuel C. Culbert jatkaa aihetta Wall Street Journalissa mm. seuraavasti:

I believe it’s immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement, when it’s clear they lead to more bogus activities than valid ones. Instead of energizing individuals, they are dispiriting and create cynicism. Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.

The net result is a resource violation, and I think citations should be issued. If it’s a publicly held company, shareholder value gets decreased. If it’s a governmental organization, time is lost that could be spent in pursuit of the public good. And what participants learn in the process has more to do with how to survive than with meaningful self-development.

Hän tarjoaa vaihtoehdonkin: sen sijaan että arvioitaisiin mennyttä, suunniteltaisiinkin yhdessä tulevaa:

The preview structure keeps the focus on the future and what ”I” need from you as ”teammate and partner” in getting accomplished what we both want to see happen. It doesn’t happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren’t working well together.

Ainakin yksi yritys on todennut saman ja tehnyt radikaalin muutoksen toimintatavoissaan: Merrimac Pharmaseuticals on lopettanut käytännön:

So, why do companies spend so much time and money on trying to come up with new rating systems and fancy pay for performance plans? Actually, I have no idea. I’m hoping someone out there can help me on that one. But, this week is a milestone week in my career – I’ve officially decided to do something about it – I’ve propsed to my executive team that we eliminate our performance rating system and ditch this whole pay for performance idea.

Here’s why:

  • We’re a company trying to develop innovative medicines for patients and we know that real innovation is often preceded by multiple failures that we can learn from and improve upon. By rating short term employee performance through semiannual reviews, we’re preventing employees from focusing on the big picture, taking long-term risks and being innovative. We want employees to fail early and often.
  • A rating based system actually encourages a manager to give less frequent performance feedback to employees preventing real-time learning. That’s a bummer.
  • Having a compensation and reward system based on the faulty premise that financial incentives improve performance, we are undermining powerful intrinsic employee motivation towards achieving our mission of curing cancer. These guys don’t need to be ”bribed” to do a good job, they just want to be paid fairly and competitively.
  • There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that convinces me that a performance rating system acutally improves performance.

Ihan mielellämme seuraamme, josko Andy Porter jakaa myöhemmin kokemuksiaan.

Kapitalismin ongelmana?


John Paul Rollert kysyy HBR-blogissa että voiko kapitalisteihin luottaa? Hän siteeraa William F. Buckleyta joka kuuluu sanoneen:

The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists.

Rollert kertaa viimeisen talouskriisin ympärillä tapahtuneita ylilyöntejä:

Buckley did not live long enough to see the financial crisis unfold, but I suspect he would have felt compelled to quote Schlamm at several points over the last two years, marking events such as the epic unraveling of Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme, the revelation that Merrill Lynch CEO Jon Thain bought an $87,000 rug for his office just months before his firm went belly up, or the incident in late 2009 when several Wall Street CEOs said they couldn’t make their scheduled meeting with the President due to ”inclement weather,” this just a year after emergency action by the government saved them from joining the ranks of the unemployed.

For those who may have forgotten, Goldman came under fire last fall when it seemed that the firm was on track to pay out huge bonuses for a year in which it made a record profit of $13.4 billion. (In the end, in response to the outcry, Goldmanscaled back its bonus pool.) In the eyes of most people, the fortunes of Goldman and the American economy already looked a little too much like A Tale of Two Cities, but complicating matters further was the fact that the firm had enjoyed the upside of both the run up to the crisis and its aftermath, relying on unprecedented government assistance to tide it over in between.

Buckleyn tavoin Rollert haluaa herättää keskustelua yritysten ja yritysjohtajien roolista yhteiskunnassa:

These questions include: What is the role of business in a free society? What about successful businesspeople? Do businesses have responsibilities to the public that go beyond the law? What do they include? What virtues does the practice of business instill? What vices? And what does it mean if the answers the general public gives to these questions diverge significantly from those given by the business elite?


Rationaalista päätöksentekoa?


Incidental economist siteeraa mielenkiintoista tutkimusta (pdf-ladattavissa), jonka mukaan taloudellisessa päätöksenteossa rationaalisuuden oletus on ehkäpä harhaanjohtavaa. Onhan se niin että omalla perstuntumallakin tuntuu siltä että vaikka kuinka valintoja perustelisi taloudellisin perustein, se lopullinen päätös kuitenkin naulataan kiinni ihan tunteella. Ja sekin on jo monessa tutkimuksessa osoitettu, että rahapalkka on usein työn motivaattorina vasta sijalla 5-6..

Näin Incidental Economist summeeraa:

1. Don’t market incentives lead to rational choices? While it is true that incentives matter, in that they influence behavior, they are not decisive. The market may reward choice A over B so there is an incentive to choose A, but they do not force the choice of A.

2. Aren’t irrational choices arbitraged away? No arbitrage opportunities exist for all sets of choices. M & T use the example of the fictitious economist Sam who goes into the field of behavioral economics even though he could earn more money in finance. Remuneratively speaking he made an irrational choice. But there is no arbitrage opportunity for him or anyone else, not for this choice or his choice of how much to save for retirement, wife, car, and so forth.


5. What’s the problem with unbounded rationality? Well, it is just wrong. People don’t have unlimited brainpower. Assuming they do is bad economics, “the equivalent of presuming the existence of a free lunch.” There are loads of empirical studies that demonstrate various ways in which people are not rational; they solve problems with heuristics that lead to sub-optimal results.

6. Do people choose the optimum (rational) option even when they identify it? No, not always, due to lack of self-control. It is common for humans to overeat, over drink, over spend, under exercise, under save, under work, and so on. People procrastinate. In short, people have bounded willpower.

7. Finally, people are not as selfish as rational actors would be.

The Goldman Bonuses


Analyysiä siitä mikä meni pieleen. Huomio kiinittyy siihen miten yrityksen, tässä tapauksessa erityisesti palveluyrityksen (professional service firm) taloudellisen organisoinnin vaikutuksesta sen yrityskulttuuriin.

”I find that the capital markets are quite Pollyanna-ish about publicly traded professional service firms and have written about that in HBR previously (”Capital versus Talent: The Battle That’s Reshaping Business”). The natural form of business organization for a professional service firm, such as an investment bank, law firm, consulting firm or ad agency, is a partnership rather than a public company.”


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.