Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Promotions/Raises

Expand Messages
  • strazhce
    Hi, phenner (and Peter), ... I ll give my view on this: 1. First some context. Our company is very pragmatic (not agile). Our development projects done
    Message 1 of 111 , May 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, phenner (and Peter),

      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "phenner@..." <amphenner@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Since Scrum is team based and you are evaluated as a team instead of an individual conributor, how are companies handling promotions and raises?
      >
      > Our department has just moved everyone over to using Scrum and this is something that has not been solved yet.
      >

      I'll give my view on this:

      1. First some context.
      Our company is very pragmatic (not agile). Our development projects done in-house are very agile, at least internally. There is similarity to your situation - whole projects are evaluated. Specific individuals are not, our management sees personal evaluation as a bad practice - and they have my thanks for that.

      2. How we do professional development:
      Our professional ladder is based on Construx ladder: http://www.construx.com/Page.aspx?nid=244. We promote people based on skills and competence. Employee performance on the project is NOT evaluated, but it is taken into account: how do you perform, do you keep your promises, are you reliable, do you take initiative etc. You receive feedback from your PM or peers as well, esp. when you are working to go up on the ladder.

      Professional ladder is not directly connected to work you do (e.g. testing, analysis, development, project management) nor your wage, but it implies these things. People on higher positions are more capable doing work without further guidance, tend to be team leaders and project managers.

      Our HR has very little to do with promotions. Surprise, surprise :-)

      3. What Peter proposes is a solid advice - wait a bit with changes.
      I see some problems with this:
      - people won't know, what should they do to get promoted.
      - HR: see above - our HR has very little to do with. Only one IT professional may evaluate qualities of the other IT professional. Some senior people/management from your company should specify, what employees should learn in order to be more valuable to your company. More valuable => get promotion, get more money.

      I hope this helps.

      Oleg
    • Ilja Preuß
      I agree that one shouldn t. How does that connect to what I said? Confused, Ilja
      Message 111 of 111 , May 26, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree that one shouldn't. How does that connect to what I said?

        Confused,

        Ilja

        2010/5/26, Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...>:
        >
        > IMO, one should not confuse creativity/innovation with interdependent
        > work. The two are orthogonal.
        >
        > On 5/25/2010 10:15 AM, Ilja Preuß wrote:
        >>
        >> As far as I remember, the Pink talk argues against rewards for tasks
        >> that require creativity (and he actually points out that rewards can
        >> work well for tasks that don't).
        >>
        >> Whereas the research you are pointing to is about rewarding teams vs.
        >> rewarding individuals (vs. doing both). And in the context of, as far
        >> as I can tell, work that doesn't require a lot of creativity.
        >>
        >> Which doesn't render it invalid or uninteresting. I don't see how it
        >> shifts the picture, though.
        >>
        >> Cheers, Ilja
        >>
        >> 2010/5/25 Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...
        >> <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> The Pearsall reference. Beersma et al. I've posted it already,
        >> Yahoo has archived it, and we've debated it.
        >>
        >> I'm not sure why you and Ron seem to have so quickly and
        >> completely forgotten it already.
        >>
        >>
        >> On 5/25/2010 3:36 AM, Ilja Preuß wrote:
        >>>
        >>> Where can I read about that recent research?
        >>>
        >>> 2010/5/25 Paul Tiseo <paul_tiseo@...
        >>> <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> Mark:
        >>>
        >>> Just go back to many of my previous emails on this thread,
        >>> and pick up some of the points I made and references I got
        >>> out of the literature. Pink quotes research about 3-5 years
        >>> old, which is better than most, but the picture *is*
        >>> shifting. Recent research is slightly center of left.
        >>>
        >>> _________________________________
        >>> *PAUL TISEO*
        >>> paul_tiseo@... <http://paul_tiseo@...>
        >>> (904) 382-5704 (cell)
        >>>
        >>> On 5/24/2010 5:32 PM, Mark Levison wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Paul Tiseo
        >>>> <paul_tiseo@... <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>> wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>> Thank you, Ron, for that simplified answer.
        >>>>
        >>>> So why not call out what oversimplifications you perceive.
        >>>>
        >>>> Cheers
        >>>> Mark
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >> --
        >> _________________________________
        >> *PAUL TISEO*
        >> paul_tiseo@... <mailto:paul_tiseo@...>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        > --
        > _________________________________
        > *PAUL TISEO*
        > paul_tiseo@...
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.