Year 2010 has been greeted sweet. So approximately what percentage of your salary will be raised by your office work? And how about a bonus that you receive? Of course the higher, the better - because if you wrote so much for, well ... .. the price of a kilo of chilli sauce pan will rise again soon. If salary naeknya so much for aja and bonus zero, where we can make life saving for the future?
Ideally the amount of increase in salaries and bonuses that could also be fair: that those who are performing well of course entitled to a percent increase in salary and bonuses are more fantastic than those who work and quality ngasal Brekele.
Unfortunately, building a system capable of distinguishing great perfomers with poor performers not as easily make instant noodle stew. As a result, there are many companies who then generalize the amount of annual salary increases and bonuses to all employees. No matter that some of them really work hard sweat, and some also work spurious.
Of course it would be afdol if there is a mechanism that makes the increase of salaries and bonuses could be more fair. Here are two formulas or methods that are sometimes used by companies to make a differentiation between a good employee who did not.
Rank Forced method. This method is partly driven by a sense of dismay the management was reluctant to see the boss (or embarrassed and afraid) to distinguish employees work performance. As a result we often see the boss gives an A all the subordinates (I do not have the heart to pack if you have to love me the value of C to the staff, so "beautiful reasons" that appears. Duh!).
So then came the idea of forced rank. This method is essentially forcing the bosses to rank his men, from highest to lowest. For example, if a boss has 5 kids fruit, then he must rank fifth, ranging from who is at rank number one and number five (ranking criteria refers to the daily performance of his men).
Through this method of forced rank, the bosses are forced to seriously identify who has a good performance (and therefore worthy to rank number 1), who's number 2, and so on. With this method, then the boss no longer can no longer perform the generalization assessments to their subordinates (which often hide the fact that some of his subordinates are better than others).
Slowly, through a system of forced rank, then created a mechanism to differentiate their differentiation and are not robust. Of course, for those who rank higher then deserved salary increases and bonuses are larger than the rank is rated lower.
Normal Distribution Method. This method actually has a similarity with forced rank. Both depart from the spirit that there should be a division between a good performance with a mediocre. But if forced to force rank ranking division one by one (from the number one ranking until the very bottom), then the normal distribution method based on distribution of performance percentage, and is usually applied at the level of department / division.
For instance, the marketing division has 100 employees, the rating assessment of employees should be distributed normally: ie, only 20% are eligible to receive an A, 60% received a B, and 20% get the value of C (compositions can also be as follows: ration value A = 20%, the value of B = 30%, the value C = 30%, and the quota value of D = 20%). In essence, the assessment rating of A s / d C or D should be distributed equally, and should not be all piled on the value A.
Just as forced rank, the normal distribution method has also insisted that every department is not extravagant to give an A to all employees, and should be more objective in distinguishing between who has a good performance with a no.
Both methods of forced rank and normal distributions encourage every employer to make distinctions of performance ratings to their subordinates. It is expected that in this way, the amount of increase in salaries and bonuses could be more fair.
Ideally the amount of increase in salaries and bonuses that could also be fair: that those who are performing well of course entitled to a percent increase in salary and bonuses are more fantastic than those who work and quality ngasal Brekele.
Unfortunately, building a system capable of distinguishing great perfomers with poor performers not as easily make instant noodle stew. As a result, there are many companies who then generalize the amount of annual salary increases and bonuses to all employees. No matter that some of them really work hard sweat, and some also work spurious.
Of course it would be afdol if there is a mechanism that makes the increase of salaries and bonuses could be more fair. Here are two formulas or methods that are sometimes used by companies to make a differentiation between a good employee who did not.
Rank Forced method. This method is partly driven by a sense of dismay the management was reluctant to see the boss (or embarrassed and afraid) to distinguish employees work performance. As a result we often see the boss gives an A all the subordinates (I do not have the heart to pack if you have to love me the value of C to the staff, so "beautiful reasons" that appears. Duh!).
So then came the idea of forced rank. This method is essentially forcing the bosses to rank his men, from highest to lowest. For example, if a boss has 5 kids fruit, then he must rank fifth, ranging from who is at rank number one and number five (ranking criteria refers to the daily performance of his men).
Through this method of forced rank, the bosses are forced to seriously identify who has a good performance (and therefore worthy to rank number 1), who's number 2, and so on. With this method, then the boss no longer can no longer perform the generalization assessments to their subordinates (which often hide the fact that some of his subordinates are better than others).
Slowly, through a system of forced rank, then created a mechanism to differentiate their differentiation and are not robust. Of course, for those who rank higher then deserved salary increases and bonuses are larger than the rank is rated lower.
Normal Distribution Method. This method actually has a similarity with forced rank. Both depart from the spirit that there should be a division between a good performance with a mediocre. But if forced to force rank ranking division one by one (from the number one ranking until the very bottom), then the normal distribution method based on distribution of performance percentage, and is usually applied at the level of department / division.
For instance, the marketing division has 100 employees, the rating assessment of employees should be distributed normally: ie, only 20% are eligible to receive an A, 60% received a B, and 20% get the value of C (compositions can also be as follows: ration value A = 20%, the value of B = 30%, the value C = 30%, and the quota value of D = 20%). In essence, the assessment rating of A s / d C or D should be distributed equally, and should not be all piled on the value A.
Just as forced rank, the normal distribution method has also insisted that every department is not extravagant to give an A to all employees, and should be more objective in distinguishing between who has a good performance with a no.
Both methods of forced rank and normal distributions encourage every employer to make distinctions of performance ratings to their subordinates. It is expected that in this way, the amount of increase in salaries and bonuses could be more fair.
0 komentar: on "Formula Granting Salary Increase and Bonuses"
Posting Komentar