| There’s a huge loyalty tax being paid here. Although the transparency is nice to have, it’s simply not a sustainable model. People grow at all sorts of rates professionally. Some people can grow from a formal level to another in a year as they get a hang for their responsibilities/job. Some people have extremely hard years due to external factors too. This type of system incentivizes nobody. Why work hard? Why do challenging stuff? Why take on the jobs with most responsibilities? Etc > In the coming months, we aim to develop written guidance on what career growth looks like for different roles, and we'll start experimenting with rewards and recognition other than salary for particularly noteworthy achievements. How do you reward or give recognition if your system isn’t fully thought through or based on the traditional methods of perceived impact and notable accomplishment? Isn’t that exactly what this would be anyway? Honestly this sounds like a startup who just landed recent funding thinks they are “disrupting” the market with new unconventional TC methods. Not everyone is the same. One person with ten years of experience is another persons four years. What fairness is to me is understanding where you sit relative to your peers and market. It is checks and balances of your worth and not political players reaping the rewards constantly. It’s the whole idea that there’s three types of workers: experts, operators, and politicians. The former two actually do the work, the latter just takes the credit more visibly. |
Rewards in a system with intrinsic variance are harmful and unjust.