Analyst or Manager Compensation
When business doesn't meet expectations, heads roll. One or more executives will receive a tidy compensation package as part of their exit from the struggling business.
Professionals, folks who are not Directors or Vice Presidents, are also ousted when business stinks.
For those of you who are not Directors or Vice Presidents, which compensation package would you sign up for, if your company offered you a choice? Alternatively, recommend a different package if you don't like any of the three presented here.
Package #1 = A base salary of $62,000 per year. Employee is not bonus eligible. Employee is at risk for downsizing if business is poor.
Package #2 = A base salary of $60,000 per year, plus a bonus that could be up to ten percent of your base salary, depending upon company and individual performance. Possible salary range = $60,000 to $66,000 per year. Employee is at risk for downsizing if business is poor.
Package #3 = A base salary of $40,000 per year, plus a bonus (paid quarterly) that could be up to one hundred percent of your base salary, depending upon company and individual performance. Possible salary range = $40,000 to $80,000 per year. Employee is at a much lower risk for downsizing if business is poor.
Labels: Compensation, Human Resources
posted by Kevin @ 5:22 PM
3 Comments:
OK, I'm picking Package 3. I'm a risk-taker at heart, or just confident that I'll perform so well that, heck, they'll give me more than the $80K total :)
It would be super if new employees were given a choice like this. It sure would give the employer insight into their personality, too.
I'm intrigued by option #3. Personally I am somewhat conservative and would choose #1. I like the idea of incenting an employee via a performance bonus, however in some organizations an analyst or manager doesn't have the clout to push the organization in the direction she/he sees fit. It really depends on how the organization uses these types of employees.
I would love an organization that paid everyone according to schedule #3. It would infuse some accountability into everyone.
Lots of larger companies end up doing something similar to option number two.
There would be some fear associated with option number three, in that if a business had a bad year, then many employees would quit, because the company cannot achieve financial objectives. Option three would have to be constructed in a way that made sure excellent employees were paid at about the industry average when a business had a bad year.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home