Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: Is It Time To Redefine Promotion?
I recently received an article from a friend. In it were examples of people being promoted because they did a great job. Everyone has seen examples of the great salesperson, who becomes the mediocre sales manager and so on. Still, it is in the nature of people to seek promotion, a feeling of moving ahead.
Is it time business redefines promotion?
Acknowledged or not, most business has compartments for each of their staff positions. In the compartment is a range of salary and prestige the occupants may hope to achieve. What are considered lower level jobs, have less salary and prestige than what are considered higher level jobs. This creates [an artificial] desire to advance from one level to the next. Doing so is seen as “moving up” and natural for people to desire.
Suppose instead a company were to revere and reward it’s people based on contribution rather than title? In fact, why not dispense with the titles all together? For example rather than a technician why not just Joe or Bob? If Joe or Bob contributes more to the success of the company than the person now called manager, why shouldn’t they be paid more and have greater say in the company?
I know this is very radical thinking and would require an extensive change of current thinking. That does not mean we cannot start to work toward such a system. I think it is a shame that a person who is great at what they do needs to leave that job to feel they are advancing. A redefinition of advancement is in order, in my opinion.
This must start with compensation, relative to title.
From there the prestige of position needs to shift to prestige based on ability.
Responsibility should be given to those who earn it.
Meaningful decisions come from those qualified to make them.
A nation that does not revere it’s plumbers on an equal basis with it’s philosophers is likely to have poor philosophy and bad plumbing?
Joined: 04 Sep 2007 Posts: 47 Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject:
One very large and successful shop that I know of has gone to a system where employee compensation and position is based for the most part on gross profit for each individual employee (within certain ethical standards which should be obvious). It does not matter how long they have been there or what their job is specifically.
_________________ Tom Ham
AutomotiveManagementNetwork.com - Hams Management Systems
Joined: 15 May 2007 Posts: 774 Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:20 pm Post subject:
Tom Ham wrote:
One very large and successful shop that I know of has gone to a system where employee compensation and position is based for the most part on gross profit for each individual employee (within certain ethical standards which should be obvious). It does not matter how long they have been there or what their job is specifically.
Hi Tom,
Measuring an employee's true contribution to a company is one of the most difficult things imaginable. Something I feel imposible to quantify with numbers.
There was a delivery person at a local company. She did a remarkable job, always pleasant, innovative, always correct deliveries, a huge asset to me as a client. We bought more and more from the company because of her great delivery service.
The company let her leave, by refusing a $0.50 an hour raise, over the course of a year. Two weeks later we swapped to a competitor who hired her. The original company's gross profit dropped 25%, instantly. Soon the manager was fired because of loss of gross profit. Not sure if they ever figured it out?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
