#MGT30 by example. Merit money ; Let's build our commissioning system
Paying people for work, without destroying their motivation, is one of the most difficult challenges for a company. A shared observation with my client, we decide to submit to the employees the definition of their commission system (the bonus on activities).
The company is new, three years old, about a hundred people. It's a private school in IT. The director began by duplicating the operating rules she applied in her previous company, a large one. We could surely invent a fairer and more motivating system.
We started with the recruitment team, five people. Their mission is to carry out long-term training (17 weeks of courses, 24 sessions per year). A commission system already existed with 12 essentially quantitative criteria. The director wanted a simpler and more collective-oriented system.
With the director we have defined the constraints of the bonus system:
collective rather than individual, qualitative rather than quantitative.
Key results for the coming year were already known and shared with the team (number of sessions, number of students, number of candidates).
I brought the recruitment team together in two one-hour workshops.
Each one gave his appreciation of the current system in the form of perfection game
They synthesized assessments." we want a more legible system."
I gave them the constraints expressed by management
In brainstorming mode, they listed all the criteria and classified them on two axes: quantitative-qualitative, individual and collective.
With the dot voting practice, they prioritized the criteria to select maximum four criteria per category.
Second workshop, one week later:
We reviewed the backlog from the first workshop. Based on suggestions, the team decided to replace one criterion and rewrite two.
Inspired by the "Buy a feature workshop", I distributed “monopoly” tickets at each of the points. Each had 10 notes of the same value (provide different colors per person) and had to place them on the four boxes: Individual and quantitative, individual and qualitative, collective and quantitative, collective and qualitative. With this system, they agreed on the distribution while respecting the initial constraints.
Result: 60% collective and qualitative, 20% individual and quantitative, 20% collective and quantitative, 0% individual and qualitative;
Then, by family of criteria, they applied the same principle to sort the criteria and give them relative weight; Result: 6 criteria with the ability to measure them regularly (at least monthly).
They selected very interesting criteria : ability to improve collectively based on the number of improvement actions carried out. This requires the implementation of a retrospective ritual that they had recently initiated.
The system has been in place for two months, they were able to calculate the indicators each month and bonuses were paid accordingly. For information, they received only 50% of the premiums expected over these first few months.