But I don’t see how this is incompatible with this approach. If anything, decoupling time from earnings and instead focusing on aligning people with tangible business outcomes seems far more likely to drive innovative, profitable behaviour than the alternative
The problem of course is that outcomes always partly depend on the environment, which means you never have full control over the outcomes. If the outcome is negative because of some black swan event, what will you do? Will pay the company back some of what you earned before?
This is of course the typical problem with "performance pay" of the executive team. When the outcomes are good, they "earned" their bonuses. When the outcomes are bad, it's somebody else's fault. Executives only win. They never lose.
I agree if we’re saying ‘hit X revenue target for Y bonus’. But if the outcome is primarily peace of mind that someone is accountable, available and willing to sort it out if something goes wrong (which I would say is the core emotional appeal of my offering) then the only negative is if I don’t fulfil that, in which case they would be well within their rights to cancel our arrangement and find someone who can.
Historically, they put profit first.
But I don’t see how this is incompatible with this approach. If anything, decoupling time from earnings and instead focusing on aligning people with tangible business outcomes seems far more likely to drive innovative, profitable behaviour than the alternative
The problem of course is that outcomes always partly depend on the environment, which means you never have full control over the outcomes. If the outcome is negative because of some black swan event, what will you do? Will pay the company back some of what you earned before?
This is of course the typical problem with "performance pay" of the executive team. When the outcomes are good, they "earned" their bonuses. When the outcomes are bad, it's somebody else's fault. Executives only win. They never lose.
I agree if we’re saying ‘hit X revenue target for Y bonus’. But if the outcome is primarily peace of mind that someone is accountable, available and willing to sort it out if something goes wrong (which I would say is the core emotional appeal of my offering) then the only negative is if I don’t fulfil that, in which case they would be well within their rights to cancel our arrangement and find someone who can.
Stock holders might have a different opinion.
I’m curious, why is that?