[javierluraschi]

No you can’t, the system is setup to make you work that hard. Their compensation policy is based on rewarding disproportionally the top performers…

So if you can work 10% more than your peers, you get not 10% bonus but rather 30%-100% more. So it makes business sense to put the extra 10%, until everyone is working at 110% and then again, adding an extra 10% pays off, rinse release, death spiral.

The compensation model is pure evil.

[9rx]

> So it makes business sense to put the extra 10%

Does it actually? I'd buy that it makes silly arbitrary emotion sense to bask in the nonsensical feelings about an even bigger number. The actual business case is much less clear. There is obviously an opportunity cost associated with that extra 10% and 30-100% is not necessarily the best opportunity. I suspect it is often not.

[11324msthrow]

Microsoft engineer throwaway chiming in.

I think the parent emphasizes the wrong side of it, although I agree with them strongly that it is a damaging way to do things. Yes, you get slightly more upside on the top end, but it's more like 30% vs. 10% for an average performer, there's no 100% bonuses here unless you're in the "ruling class" (roughly VP and above).

The actual risk is that if you're on the downside of what they call "differentiation", if you're not the one who pushed above your peers, what used to be called meets expectation is now considered below expectations, and is a path towards pip and layoff. Lack of growth for non-terminal roles is also now identified as a path towards pip and layoff.

Microsoft is intentionally turning up the heat to thin the herd.

[pixelatedindex]

Or, you can just be happy getting the lower end of the bonus. It’s not like the pay and RSU is peanuts. Or work just enough to be in the middle of the bell curve. I put in the work to be in the top part earlier but it is absolutely not worth it, they will lay you off anyway.