Motivation system with elements of market relations
Hello, dear readers habra.
I want to bring to the general public the idea of a bonus system (motivation) of employees.
The metaphysics of the idea is to bring market relations into production processes.
According to legend, this idea was first proposed in 1982 by Valery Vodyanov, a Soviet specialist in organizational technology, and used in the construction of the Kalinin NPP.
According to the same legend, outstanding results were obtained and the team of builders turned into a kind of integral “we”, showing record-breaking performance. Read about it here .
Moreover, such an unusual solution to the problem of motivation and related events inspired Alexander Prokhanov to write the book Angel of Flying .
')
So, as I wrote above, even though the moped and not mine, I still allowed myself to play around with this idea and change it a bit and expand it.
I will explain the result of my inventions below and ask dear readers to criticize constructively and, if possible, to answer in the comments the questions in the conclusion.
Before setting out the mechanics of the system, it is necessary to describe the criteria for its applicability. So the system is applicable for:
All criteria are combined by the condition "And"
Well, that's the whole system. Now consider the main policies for the distribution of the total bonus fund for employees.
I will give two extreme forms, as well as a form that seems to me the most correct.
Principle: "The boss knows best"
The most conservative for most organizations option. It lies in the fact that the most zur-chief of the company delegates to its tops the right to distribute parts of the fund. And those in turn can delegate below. For example, if the total bonus fund is 1000 rubles, then the general director says: You Vasil Petrovich have the right to dispose of 200 rubles, Pyotr Mikhalych - 300 rubles, and Irina Vasilyevna 200 rubles, and I will keep 300. In turn, Vasil Petrovich, Pyotr Mikhalych and Irina Vasilyevna go to their units and do the same (or not). If the boss wants to promote democracy, he will try to distribute the right to dispose of the bonus fund to employees, but if he prefers an authoritarian management style, he will not give anyone anything. In this form, the system significantly loses its effectiveness.
Principle: "We are all equal and approximately equal in strength specialists."
Everything is simple here. The rights to administer the bonus fund are divided equally among all. Everyone has the same personal bonus fund.
Principle: “We are many, but we are all different. The best should get more opportunities. ”
The total bonus fund is divided according to the level of professionalism. Here you can take the grades of employees, or their ratings. For example, a senior-level specialist has a personal bonus fund of 100 rubles, Middle - 30 rubles, and Junior either does not have it at all or only 5 rubles.
In my opinion, this is the most optimal system.
There are other possible policies based on different principles. I suggest that the reader independently dream up on this topic.
For some reason, very often, when I talk about this system, the first thing that comes to mind of the interlocutor is a thought of something like, “well, everyone will immediately begin to negotiate with each other about the transfer of money.” I specifically singled out this myth in a separate section and now I will debunk it. To begin with, we define several conditions when this undertaking makes sense:
Thus, the worst thing that can happen in the system is a cycle of enumerations from several nodes. Masha -> Petya -> Vasya -> Masha, where all employees are on the same level of hierarchy.
Such a cycle is easily calculated by constructing a graph of funds transfers. In this column there will be an anomalous “isolated” cycle, which will be visible to the naked eye.
You can immediately call this gang of fraudsters on the carpet and stomp on them.
And further. Not the fact that such education will be sustainable. After all, always entering into such a scheme, an employee voluntarily renounces the opportunity to get something that he may actually need. In addition, the chief may have a larger bonus fund, which means it is easier to just work well than to look for a way to deceive the system.
As I wrote above, the metaphysics of the system consists in bringing elements of market relations into ordinary work. In fact, each employee is a small employer, as he is able to directly pay someone’s work. At the same time, having this opportunity, he is interested in distributing his fund in the best possible way, since his immediate superior also rewards him for good work.
From all this interesting effects follow:
For example, I work in a company with more than 250 people. We have a lot of departments and it often happens that a programmer from one department beats the problem that has already been solved in the next. However, it is difficult to get help, because in the next section there is a life and no one cares about someone else’s problems. If such a bonus system existed, it would be easy to go, ask for help, get it and thank it.
I agree with the statement that salary is a hygienic factor. It seems to me that the salary is the company's payment for your personal potential, and the bonus is the payment for your contribution to the work. However, it is very difficult to estimate the value of this contribution. In the Soviet Union there was even a special discipline studying these things — the scientific organization of labor. They invented all sorts of things such as the coefficient of labor participation.
In the proposed system, it is always clear from what your premium has developed. Moreover, it is composed of many other employees' ratings, i.e. possesses minimal subjectivity.
There are a lot of bureaucracies, politics, nuances, intrigues, etc. in a multitude of offices. Sometimes, it is almost impossible to push through the allocation of resources for a solution. There was a problem in my project. We did not have an examination on one instrument. And for TWO YEARS I was not able to break through the selection of a specialist from a neighboring department for the rather lengthy training of my staff. But if I had a bonus fund, then I would simply “buy” this specialist, bypassing the authorities in after hours. Moreover, not only I was interested in this specialist, but also my subordinates. They would also have "financed" this venture without problems.
The combination of these important factors, it seems to me, significantly increases motivation.
The distribution of the personal bonus fund can occur not only upon the evaluation of someone's work, but also through the announcement of tenders.
Example. Here I sit, for example, and I am at war with setting up replication on PostgreSQL and I can’t do it at all. Then I place on any internal board I will declare: “Help with replication on PostgreSQL. Crying 400r. I have an ordinary master slave, I need detailed instructions and direct help. Deadline 10.10.2010 ”or“ Help with Spring, I don’t understand nichrome ..... ”etc. These tenders can be quite complex and even collective. For example, a group of middles might ask the seigneur to hold a master class on some framework and pay for this work.
Similarly, you can offer your services, for example, “I will hold a master class on version control systems (SVN)”, “KDE patch under FreeBSD”. Those. the employee can sell his help or skills to neighboring departments.
Well, perhaps that's all. It is a pity that such things as arbitration, the policy of anonymity, fines, and many other things are left behind.
I hope to hear from a respected public, the answers to the questions below and of course any constructive criticism.
I want to bring to the general public the idea of a bonus system (motivation) of employees.
The metaphysics of the idea is to bring market relations into production processes.
According to legend, this idea was first proposed in 1982 by Valery Vodyanov, a Soviet specialist in organizational technology, and used in the construction of the Kalinin NPP.
According to the same legend, outstanding results were obtained and the team of builders turned into a kind of integral “we”, showing record-breaking performance. Read about it here .
Moreover, such an unusual solution to the problem of motivation and related events inspired Alexander Prokhanov to write the book Angel of Flying .
')
Foreword
So, as I wrote above, even though the moped and not mine, I still allowed myself to play around with this idea and change it a bit and expand it.
I will explain the result of my inventions below and ask dear readers to criticize constructively and, if possible, to answer in the comments the questions in the conclusion.
System mechanics
System Applicability Criteria
Before setting out the mechanics of the system, it is necessary to describe the criteria for its applicability. So the system is applicable for:
- Collectives (companies) with the number of employees from 30 people
- Collectives (companies), which are mainly project-based, and not operational activities
- Collectives (companies) in which a sufficiently high connectivity graph of industrial relations. In other words, if each employee interacts not with one or two other employees, but with a sufficiently large number (for example, from 5 or more).
All criteria are combined by the condition "And"
System mechanics
- The entire workflow is broken down into short weekly iterations.
- For the entire working team (project / company) a certain amount of rubles is reserved for each iteration, which is called the general bonus fund
- The size of the bonus fund should be comparable to the "salary" fund
- For each employee, his personal bonus fund is formed from the general fund, which he has the right to dispose of at his discretion (on the rules for the distribution of the general fund in the next chapter)
- From their personal bonus fund each employee is entitled to reward any employee (including management), except himself
- The personal bonus fund is issued for a period of iteration and the employee is obliged to distribute it during the iteration at its discretion
- It is advisable to accompany each accrual of the award with a comment on what services it has been made.
- If an employee does not distribute his fund, then he is fined at the established rate, and his foundation is burned for this iteration
- In addition to bonus accruals, each employee also has the right to fine. But:
- When fined, the employee receives the same penalty for half the amount
- Penalties are written off from his bonus fund, as well as bonus
- At the end of each iteration, when all bonus funds are distributed, it is calculated who received how much
- The results are summarized in a single table and posted on public display.
- Accumulated premium is paid once a month (quarter)
Well, that's the whole system. Now consider the main policies for the distribution of the total bonus fund for employees.
I will give two extreme forms, as well as a form that seems to me the most correct.
General Premium Fund Distribution Policies
Authoritarianism
Principle: "The boss knows best"
The most conservative for most organizations option. It lies in the fact that the most zur-chief of the company delegates to its tops the right to distribute parts of the fund. And those in turn can delegate below. For example, if the total bonus fund is 1000 rubles, then the general director says: You Vasil Petrovich have the right to dispose of 200 rubles, Pyotr Mikhalych - 300 rubles, and Irina Vasilyevna 200 rubles, and I will keep 300. In turn, Vasil Petrovich, Pyotr Mikhalych and Irina Vasilyevna go to their units and do the same (or not). If the boss wants to promote democracy, he will try to distribute the right to dispose of the bonus fund to employees, but if he prefers an authoritarian management style, he will not give anyone anything. In this form, the system significantly loses its effectiveness.
Anarchy
Principle: "We are all equal and approximately equal in strength specialists."
Everything is simple here. The rights to administer the bonus fund are divided equally among all. Everyone has the same personal bonus fund.
Meritocracy
Principle: “We are many, but we are all different. The best should get more opportunities. ”
The total bonus fund is divided according to the level of professionalism. Here you can take the grades of employees, or their ratings. For example, a senior-level specialist has a personal bonus fund of 100 rubles, Middle - 30 rubles, and Junior either does not have it at all or only 5 rubles.
In my opinion, this is the most optimal system.
There are other possible policies based on different principles. I suggest that the reader independently dream up on this topic.
Protection from fraud
For some reason, very often, when I talk about this system, the first thing that comes to mind of the interlocutor is a thought of something like, “well, everyone will immediately begin to negotiate with each other about the transfer of money.” I specifically singled out this myth in a separate section and now I will debunk it. To begin with, we define several conditions when this undertaking makes sense:
- You will negotiate with colleagues equal to you on the career ladder or below. It makes no sense to go to the chief and wink at him about the transfer of money.
- Your colleague must have a substantial bonus fund for you.
- The money laundering scheme must be installed once, otherwise you will be tired of looking for accomplices each time.
- Your colleague will not give away his fund just and wants to get from you the same
Thus, the worst thing that can happen in the system is a cycle of enumerations from several nodes. Masha -> Petya -> Vasya -> Masha, where all employees are on the same level of hierarchy.
Such a cycle is easily calculated by constructing a graph of funds transfers. In this column there will be an anomalous “isolated” cycle, which will be visible to the naked eye.
You can immediately call this gang of fraudsters on the carpet and stomp on them.
And further. Not the fact that such education will be sustainable. After all, always entering into such a scheme, an employee voluntarily renounces the opportunity to get something that he may actually need. In addition, the chief may have a larger bonus fund, which means it is easier to just work well than to look for a way to deceive the system.
My comments on the system
As I wrote above, the metaphysics of the system consists in bringing elements of market relations into ordinary work. In fact, each employee is a small employer, as he is able to directly pay someone’s work. At the same time, having this opportunity, he is interested in distributing his fund in the best possible way, since his immediate superior also rewards him for good work.
From all this interesting effects follow:
Strengthening horizontal ties, the destruction of interdepartmental boundaries
For example, I work in a company with more than 250 people. We have a lot of departments and it often happens that a programmer from one department beats the problem that has already been solved in the next. However, it is difficult to get help, because in the next section there is a life and no one cares about someone else’s problems. If such a bonus system existed, it would be easy to go, ask for help, get it and thank it.
Fair reward for good work
I agree with the statement that salary is a hygienic factor. It seems to me that the salary is the company's payment for your personal potential, and the bonus is the payment for your contribution to the work. However, it is very difficult to estimate the value of this contribution. In the Soviet Union there was even a special discipline studying these things — the scientific organization of labor. They invented all sorts of things such as the coefficient of labor participation.
In the proposed system, it is always clear from what your premium has developed. Moreover, it is composed of many other employees' ratings, i.e. possesses minimal subjectivity.
Real opportunity to influence
There are a lot of bureaucracies, politics, nuances, intrigues, etc. in a multitude of offices. Sometimes, it is almost impossible to push through the allocation of resources for a solution. There was a problem in my project. We did not have an examination on one instrument. And for TWO YEARS I was not able to break through the selection of a specialist from a neighboring department for the rather lengthy training of my staff. But if I had a bonus fund, then I would simply “buy” this specialist, bypassing the authorities in after hours. Moreover, not only I was interested in this specialist, but also my subordinates. They would also have "financed" this venture without problems.
The combination of these important factors, it seems to me, significantly increases motivation.
Small system expansion
The distribution of the personal bonus fund can occur not only upon the evaluation of someone's work, but also through the announcement of tenders.
Example. Here I sit, for example, and I am at war with setting up replication on PostgreSQL and I can’t do it at all. Then I place on any internal board I will declare: “Help with replication on PostgreSQL. Crying 400r. I have an ordinary master slave, I need detailed instructions and direct help. Deadline 10.10.2010 ”or“ Help with Spring, I don’t understand nichrome ..... ”etc. These tenders can be quite complex and even collective. For example, a group of middles might ask the seigneur to hold a master class on some framework and pay for this work.
Similarly, you can offer your services, for example, “I will hold a master class on version control systems (SVN)”, “KDE patch under FreeBSD”. Those. the employee can sell his help or skills to neighboring departments.
Conclusion
Well, perhaps that's all. It is a pity that such things as arbitration, the policy of anonymity, fines, and many other things are left behind.
I hope to hear from a respected public, the answers to the questions below and of course any constructive criticism.
- Is this system capable of giving a qualitatively higher level of motivation for talented and productive employees compared to traditional schemes (quarterly bonuses, bonuses for goals)?
- Would you like to work in a company with such a bonus scheme?
- Will this system have a positive effect if implemented in the company where you are currently working?
- What side effects do you think this scheme can give?
- If you are a manager with the number of subordinates from 15 people, how would you react to the implementation of this system?
- What changes would you suggest to make to the system?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/285488/
All Articles