Never have I been able to understand or formulate a good bonus scheme.The more I have looked at the problem, the more convinced I become that they are simply not an efficient means of rewarding an employee or encouraging them to greater effort.supporting a hypothesisWhenever I talk to people operating a bonus scheme, it does not fill me with confidence that they are satisfied with their system. It’s as if they are trying to support a hypothesis, rather than find evidence against it.Bonus schemes, as used by big business and government agencies, are virtually always an out-and-out swindle – just a hidden way to give the recipients a sly pay increase, which they do not deserve.In our real world, let us at least be honest with each other; often we lose sales without any real errors on our part and due, perhaps, to reasons beyond our control – such as non-stop rain, the moving of a bus stop or useless double lines that stop our custo-mers parking and popping into our shops for a quick snack.Whenever this happens to us, we start looking for our own failings, as indeed we should, but often it is out of our control. So the potential recipient of the bonus loses out and becomes disgruntled.EPHEMERAL INCREASETwo years ago, I wrote that our retail stores were increasing between 10% and 30%, for no reason we were aware of. I said it would not last and it did not, as we ended up with about a 10-12% increase by the end of the year.Now, if we had had a bonus system in place, we would have paid out for nothing, and that’s my problem: how do we decide whether the extra profit is due to an individual’s performance or, as is more common, a team effort – plus at times for no reason or credit to ourselves. It just happens.Perhaps I could paraphrase John Kennedy and say to our staff: “Think not what your company can do for you, but what you can do for your company.”BASIS FOR THE BONUSIf you award bonuses based on increased turnover or profitability – say inflation is 10% and sales increase by 10% – who deserves the reward? And of course, it’s easy to inflate sales at the expense of profits.So the answer must be profit? No, go easy, the company may have negotiated a reduction on electricity, the telephone, gas or just plain property tax charges, without any intervention of the bonus recipient. Or the company might have lashed out a great deal of money on new fuel efficiency equipment. In my case, that would be my money and decision, not a manager’s decision.So after all this chat, we appear to be where we started, with no clear answer.Maybe the problem is insoluble – a bit like trying to convince my wife, Barbara, that, when I give her a new cheque book, it is not like a good book, which she cannot put down until she has finished it. n
Fun Home Gabriella Pizzolo is set to officially begin performances as Small Alison in Fun Home on October 6. She steps in for Tony nominee Sydney Lucas, who she had previously understudied, in the Tony-winning musical. The production is playing at Broadway’s Circle in the Square.Based on the graphic novel by Alison Bechdel, Fun Home charts a girl’s quest to come to terms with her father’s unexpected death. As she moves between past and present, Alison dives into the story of her volatile, brilliant father and relives her unique childhood at her family’s funeral home.The cast of Jeanine Tesori and Lisa Kron’s tuner also includes Michael Cerveris, Judy Kuhn, Beth Malone, Emily Skeggs, Roberta Colindrez, Zell Morrow, Joel Perez and Oscar Williams. View Comments Related Shows Show Closed This production ended its run on Sept. 10, 2016
Press Association Yorke told 888sport.com: “The legacy that Sir Alex has left behind after 26 years has meant we’re used to seeing a certain type of football so you can understand the reaction of certain individuals who have played for the club for a very long time who are entitled to their opinion. “Whether Van Gaal agrees with that is another story. “I can see why people are voicing their opinion because it’s not how United go about their business and it’s been very hard at times for people to bear. “You’ve got to take certain risks. It’s all well and good having a game plan where you grind teams down and have the ball so much but the game is about excitement and taking chances. “Nobody wants to see that type of football because at the end of the day we’re in the entertainment business. United in the past have been all about being exciting. “Right now is not what we’re looking for and it will take a little while to come back. “There is a transitional period we’re going through but we’ll be okay. The reality is that the excitement will come back to United whether it’s under Van Gaal or somebody else.” United are currently fourth in the Barclays Premier League table. Their two top-flight games prior to Saturday’s 2-0 home win over West Brom were both goalless draws. United were recently accused of a “lack of creativity and risk” by ex-United midfielder Paul Scholes, who suggested he would not enjoy being a part of the current side. Van Gaal responded by stressing he disagreed with and was unconcerned by Scholes’ comments, but now criticism has come his way from another member of Sir Alex Ferguson’s treble-winning side of 1999. Former Manchester United striker Dwight Yorke has criticised the football the club have been playing under manager Louis van Gaal.