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

Re: Promotions/Raises

Expand Messages
  • majkic.sensei
    I would suggest two ideas here. First is less risky. At start of every quarter, you should have consensus (management and team) about
    Message 1 of 111 , May 6, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I would suggest two ideas here.

      First is less risky. At start of every quarter, you should have consensus (management and team) about projects/modules/tasks/etc. which the team should finish at the end of quarter. Then bonus is calculated as:

      Q_rate_of_company_success*Q_rate_of_team_success*base_money_value

      Usually base_money_value = percent*salary

      This way every team member gets same percent of his/her salary as a bonus and bonus depends mostly on team success.

      Second method is more risky and I would suggest this one for teams with resolved dysfunctions (almost) completely. If you have fixed amount of money for team bonus, let the team decide how to split sum to team members. Write team member names on board, put some number (20 for example) of sticky dots and let the team decide how many dots they should move under every name. When they finish, situation will be clear - every dot = 5% of complete bonus.

      Let me explain something here. Scrum doesn't claim that all team members should be paid equally, but all team members should be treated equally. Salary policy for different positions and people, as well as salary negotiations are out of Scrum scope, right?

      Cheers,
      Marko

      --- 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.
      >
    • 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.