Discretionary Bonus

[HACO]

Do they have any stats for prior years on % luxury sales? I can see that gen Y is increasing share of luxury goods 2016-17 but I guess what would be useful for comparison would be the same data for an equivalent cohort in say 1997 and/or a trend over time so see if it's different than yesteryear. Or perhaps a better(?) stat would be %age of income spent on luxuries i.e. are people spending more or less on luxuries than in the old days (if costs of living are rising, you'd expect them to be spending less on luxuries to compensate, due to reduced disposable income).

Did a quick search but couldn't find reliable comparative data between now and back then.

To steer it back slightly more on topic, I suppose the challenge here is that if we are hypothesising that the reasons millennials are expecting more rapid progression is because of cost of living, then this is an external factor unconnected to their work. So they want more rapid advancement for the same level of performance compared to older generations, which is presents a challenge for remuneration. You don't want to be discriminating against older people who are performing as well as younger people by giving them smaller rises/bonuses, so you need a way to manage those expectations.

I generally agree that you shouldn't discriminate based on age (which exists in workplace). It's a well-known fact that if you don't raise your salary fast enough before you're 45-50 then you have very little chance of progressing after that. But in general your raises are much more the result of negotiation and willingness to move around, rather than age.

Personally I'm quite aggressive at asking for more money (or better package in other ways), but I back up my claims with a) the value that I've created in the last 12 months, and b) an alternative offer that gives met the amount I'm asking for. This also gives the manager everything they need to justify the raise to CFO/their manager. It's much less about expectations and more about negotiations and how to approach the matter.

 

[HangTime]

I think this is where experience comes in, as in an understanding of how changes in package come about and the experience to negotiate it. When I was in my 20s, as a lot of millennials would have been when the research was commissioned, I was quite naive and thought that I just had to do a good job of things and it would naturally fall into place. My two employers at the time were also very slap-dash around performance management processes, and I didn't know any better. The first company had no formal process or even regular 1:1s with manager. The second was marginally better but even their processes weren't adhered to, there were supposed to be reviews every six months but I think I had a total of 7 in as many years for various reasons (better after changing teams and a different manager). There was also the 2008 financial crisis making it hard to get decent pay rises or indeed stunting the number of external opportunities, but that may have just been an excuse.

So I guess in summary GenY is more likely to ask for a raise/promotion but perhaps be less effective at doing so until they have learned how it works. There's also a bit of a catch-22 in that it wasn't until I entered management that I had visibility of the way things are handled behind the scenes; prior to that I was under the impression that a manager (or their boss) had a budget of X and the discretion to decide on pay rises, rather than them essentially just being middle-men to pass it up the chain and get approval from Exec/HR. So my salary advanced a lot more in my 30s than it did in my 20s.

 

[Freefaller]

I think if a younger generation can prove themselves as capable competent, and work their arse off, learn and gain experience and qualitative and quantitative evidence of their performance, skills and capability then I think they would progress fast just as anyone in older generations would have. I think there's also a different work ethic in the younger gens now, more of them seem to want to work in that "start up" feel place, rather than a more corporate environment (perhaps that's an unfair generalisation?). If that is true, then they can't expect the same level of advancement. Not yet at least. I think it's still true at the moment, that for fast progression, the corporate ladder still needs to be climbed, with side stepping to different roles to allow for progression.

Yes, very generalised - but large bonuses come with larger profits and higher turnover businesses, unless you're willing to be a small cog in a big wheel and push yourself to a position where you're more visible, I think your bonus/progression will be capped or at least slowed.

My salary only started growing in my early 30s and didn't start to earn a modest amount until later, but I feel a bit more entitled to it than a 20 year old that doesn't understand the toil and mental hardship it's taken for me to get there! I guess I'm of the generation where I feel you need a few bloody noses along the way - perhaps that's wrong and unfair.

 

[dlockers]

Lots of interesting points in here. It is hard to quantify 'toil and mental hardship' - for some it is slogging away at a given role for year(s) at a time. For others, its bouncing across many departments, forcing yourself to get up to speed and beat the team around you in an accelerated time horizon so you can say you've been there, done that; then move on.

A lot of roles are geared towards specialising in operating what another human has defined for you. These are the roles I'd expect to progress slowly in, as fundamentally your job hasn't changed, you've just specialised to the environment and therefore you're just asking for more money to do that same job. These are people who should be worried about their job security.

I work in an org with 25 year olds earning 50k, but compared to the clients we work with, those 25 year olds have several 'roles' under their belt where they've only had 6 weeks to do the work let alone get up to speed. It is difficult for each of them to see outside of their own realities.

 

[Freefaller]

Lots of interesting points in here. It is hard to quantify 'toil and mental hardship' - for some it is slogging away at a given role for year(s) at a time. For others, its bouncing across many departments, forcing yourself to get up to speed and beat the team around you in an accelerated time horizon so you can say you've been there, done that; then move on.

A lot of roles are geared towards specialising in operating what another human has defined for you. These are the roles I'd expect to progress slowly in, as fundamentally your job hasn't changed, you've just specialised to the environment and therefore you're just asking for more money to do that same job. These are people who should be worried about their job security.

I work in an org with 25 year olds earning 50k, but compared to the clients we work with, those 25 year olds have several 'roles' under their belt where they've only had 6 weeks to do the work let alone get up to speed. It is difficult for each of them to see outside of their own realities.

That's a good point - I think specialisms is really a very solid point. That's sort of where I think people are worried about pigeonholing themselves... do they want to be a generalist? Or good at a specific thing? Or have a broad array of skills... There's no easy answer. I mean my example was just what I went through. I know many people that are intellectually more capable than me, did better at university, did an MBA and landed a graduate role at 30k+ (back in early 2000s that was a heck of a salary for a grad) in certain law, banking and oil and gas roles.

I mean the 25 year olds earning 50k is fantastic, as I'm sure they earn their salary, especially if they're having to plough into the work to become an expert in a short period of time to solve a particular problem or add value to the clients. They probably more than earn their salary as that would be quite stressful for a lot of people - that's why I find consultancy type of work both stressful but exciting as you're having to helicopter in, apply some radical or incremental changes that add value quickly. It's fun but can be very draining - I think I had more energy to do that when I was younger, now I prefer more strategic long term roles but I do hanker for a bit of stress from time to time... I must be weird!!

 

[dlockers]

That's a good point - I think specialisms is really a very solid point. That's sort of where I think people are worried about pigeonholing themselves... do they want to be a generalist? Or good at a specific thing? Or have a broad array of skills... There's no easy answer. I mean my example was just what I went through. I know many people that are intellectually more capable than me, did better at university, did an MBA and landed a graduate role at 30k+ (back in early 2000s that was a heck of a salary for a grad) in certain law, banking and oil and gas roles.

I mean the 25 year olds earning 50k is fantastic, as I'm sure they earn their salary, especially if they're having to plough into the work to become an expert in a short period of time to solve a particular problem or add value to the clients. They probably more than earn their salary as that would be quite stressful for a lot of people - that's why I find consultancy type of work both stressful but exciting as you're having to helicopter in, apply some radical or incremental changes that add value quickly. It's fun but can be very draining - I think I had more energy to do that when I was younger, now I prefer more strategic long term roles but I do hanker for a bit of stress from time to time... I must be weird!!

I think this is a key bit I missed out on during my education. I had to land several 'slum dog millionaire' moments to learn how the other half were educated and coached. Reflecting on my initial interviews I realised how much of an idiot I was to say I enjoyed travelling, discussing my journeys around Wales, Cornwall and Newcastle.....only to join an org of truly exceptional humans who were the kids of diplomats, had been to several of the best schools in the word, had travelled extensively etc. Quite funny I was sharing the same lunch table as them (and tbh I only survived because I stood out due to my background; I can't imagine the pressure for the top 1% of kids when they meet another top 1% kid ).

The kids earning 50k by the way, are simply intellects who are able to "catch" issues so that they don't manifest. They are basically a "labourer" if we drew synergies with the building trade. But by the time they've laboured on a plumbing job....a plastering job...a technical build...some landscaping - they're 5x the human their boss was.

The 25 year olds therefore SLINGSHOT past the old boys who are no longer learning at the pace these guys are, and only a few stick it out long term. Energy being a key reason why most bail out after 10 years and go into other industries where the pace of life is a culture shock for the same reason your last sentence eluded to ('hanker for stress').

 

[Rroff]

I think there's also a different work ethic in the younger gens now, more of them seem to want to work in that "start up" feel place, rather than a more corporate environment (perhaps that's an unfair generalisation?).

Definitely find that a lot of younger gens think work is like the movies/tv especially "start up" flavour but not all are motivated with building something up - it also often comes with a very casual attitude, even the harder working ones. We've had to get rid of 3 new starters within the last month because they saw no problem with getting into work up to an hour late and generally just taking breaks whenever and that kind of thing. Despite one of them being hard working we had no choice in the end as it isn't fair to everyone else.

 

[Freefaller]

The kids earning 50k by the way, are simply intellects who are able to "catch" issues so that they don't manifest. They are basically a "labourer" if we drew synergies with the building trade. But by the time they've laboured on a plumbing job....a plastering job...a technical build...some landscaping - they're 5x the human their boss was.

The 25 year olds therefore SLINGSHOT past the old boys who are no longer learning at the pace these guys are, and only a few stick it out long term. Energy being a key reason why most bail out after 10 years and go into other industries where the pace of life is a culture shock for the same reason your last sentence eluded to ('hanker for stress').

That's a great analogy. And I think once you're used to high activity / busy roles with "stress" I think you do miss it a little if you find yourself a role where you feel unchallenged. I mean don't get me wrong I'd love to earn a silly salary to do exciting things that aren't stressful, but exciting and stress are related.

And that stress / excitement is what pushes you to achieve more and therefore earn bonuses - otherwise why would you do it?

Definitely find that a lot of younger gens think work is like the movies/tv especially "start up" flavour but not all are motivated with building something up - it also often comes with a very casual attitude, even the harder working ones. We've had to get rid of 3 new starters within the last month because they saw no problem with getting into work up to an hour late and generally just taking breaks whenever and that kind of thing. Despite one of them being hard working we had no choice in the end as it isn't fair to everyone else.

I got rid of 2 recently for similar reasons - it's a shame but they just didn't understand why they couldn't behave that way. Yet one of them complained that they weren't paid enough... They were comparing themselves to a grad that had been with us 18 months that was working on a significant project, they wanted to work on it as well, but they didn't do anywhere near as much effort or work towards securing that project - they said "how can I learn if you don't give me the responsibility...". Needless to say that conversation didn't go anywhere.

 

[HACO]

That's a great analogy. And I think once you're used to high activity / busy roles with "stress" I think you do miss it a little if you find yourself a role where you feel unchallenged. I mean don't get me wrong I'd love to earn a silly salary to do exciting things that aren't stressful, but exciting and stress are related.

And that stress / excitement is what pushes you to achieve more and therefore earn bonuses - otherwise why would you do it?

To me, the stress and excitement are essential to keep me interested in the job, otherwise I get bored quite easily and that's when I typically want to move jobs. As long as the stress doesn't creep into your personal life I think it's great.

Definitely find that a lot of younger gens think work is like the movies/tv especially "start up" flavour but not all are motivated with building something up - it also often comes with a very casual attitude, even the harder working ones. We've had to get rid of 3 new starters within the last month because they saw no problem with getting into work up to an hour late and generally just taking breaks whenever and that kind of thing. Despite one of them being hard working we had no choice in the end as it isn't fair to everyone else.

This highly depends on the type of job and industry. In consumer-facing roles, factory work, etc you obviously need to be on time and stick to your schedule and if people can't do that then they should go. But I think this point is overemphasised where it makes no sense to limit people to such schedules (e.g. tech, research, fintech, lots of finance roles), especially as the manager wanting to enforce these schedules are quite often the biggest offenders anyway.

I recall my very first job (software engineering role) kind of tried to micromanage my time and it wasn't pleasant and didn't help my productivity at all. After a year even though I was one of the most productive people on the team I got negative feedback because "despite my good quality of work, I took too many coffee breaks and wasn't always at my desk during working hours", even though I never missed a single meeting or deadline and this was used to exclude me from a team bonus for an excellent delivery (something I had heavily contributed to) because in their minds it was unfair to some others. Needless to say I was gone very soon after and that company is no longer in business, most of the smart people I knew from there didn't stay for long either.

I think the global attitude towards work is changing from giving your *time* to your employer to giving them your *productivity*. It used to be that the employees gave their time to the employers, from 9-5 they signed in and did what was asked and got paid and that was it. They had complete dominion over those 8 hours over you, what you, when and how you do it. Now attitude has moved towards giving them your productivity while your time is still, to a reasonable degree, should remain in your own control. You can't hire very smart and productive people and then micromanage how they do their work. That's how you can't retain your best employees.

 

[dlockers]

Definitely find that a lot of younger gens think work is like the movies/tv especially "start up" flavour but not all are motivated with building something up - it also often comes with a very casual attitude, even the harder working ones. We've had to get rid of 3 new starters within the last month because they saw no problem with getting into work up to an hour late and generally just taking breaks whenever and that kind of thing. Despite one of them being hard working we had no choice in the end as it isn't fair to everyone else.

Haha, reminds me. I had a new hire that refused to fill out time sheets because she didn't see the point for her. Sacked her pretty quick.

 

[Freefaller]

To me, the stress and excitement are essential to keep me interested in the job, otherwise I get bored quite easily and that's when I typically want to move jobs. As long as the stress doesn't creep into your personal life I think it's great.

I'm with you 100%.

This highly depends on the type of job and industry. In consumer-facing roles, factory work, etc you obviously need to be on time and stick to your schedule and if people can't do that then they should go. But I think this point is overemphasised where it makes no sense to limit people to such schedules (e.g. tech, research, fintech, lots of finance roles), especially as the manager wanting to enforce these schedules are quite often the biggest offenders anyway.

I recall my very first job (software engineering role) kind of tried to micromanage my time and it wasn't pleasant and didn't help my productivity at all. After a year even though I was one of the most productive people on the team I got negative feedback because "despite my good quality of work, I took too many coffee breaks and wasn't always at my desk during working hours", even though I never missed a single meeting or deadline and this was used to exclude me from a team bonus for an excellent delivery (something I had heavily contributed to) because in their minds it was unfair to some others. Needless to say I was gone very soon after and that company is no longer in business, most of the smart people I knew from there didn't stay for long either.

I think the global attitude towards work is changing from giving your *time* to your employer to giving them your *productivity*. It used to be that the employees gave their time to the employers, from 9-5 they signed in and did what was asked and got paid and that was it. Now attitude has moved towards giving them your productivity while your time is still, to a reasonable degree, should remain in your own control. You can't hire very smart and productive people and then micromanage how they do their work. That's how you can't retain your best employees.

I think you've hit the nub of the problem, productivity. A lot of old school behaviours aer around bums on seats... that said, it does depends on the role - but the problem is a lot of the younger employees (I'm generalising) don't necessarily understand what productivity means, that said that could also be down to poor management as well. It's a multifaceted issue. Micromanagement is awful but some people aren't productive, and *some* management is necessary, and it doesn't have to be micromanagement but unless you give them guidance they won't always proactively chase the work.

Now I'm not saying most younger employees are bone idle, not at all, and with the right management and expectations/deliverables set out clearly then there's nowhere to hide if they don't deliver, especially if you've been supporting / on hand to help. However, many expect to come in, do some emails, do some projects, and then expect fast track pay, promotion. I mean I had a grad (24), who after 9 months, asked me about a promotion, pay rise and so on... "because he's delivered all his work". I of course sat him down and worked out a plan for his work over the next couple of years, which he then rejected and said "that's way too much to do"... I wanted to give him the opportunity to get more experience vocationally, and to help him learn, along with some decent CPD and project experience, only to be told it was too much to do and he deserved more money to do it!

I appreciate this is an isolated incident, but from the professionals on my linkedin this does seem fairly common.

 

[Rroff]

This highly depends on the type of job and industry. In consumer-facing roles, factory work, etc you obviously need to be on time and stick to your schedule and if people can't do that then they should go. But I think this point is overemphasised where it makes no sense to limit people to such schedules (e.g. tech, research, fintech, lots of finance roles), especially as the manager wanting to enforce these schedules are quite often the biggest offenders anyway.

I recall my very first job (software engineering role) kind of tried to micromanage my time and it wasn't pleasant and didn't help my productivity at all. After a year even though I was one of the most productive people on the team I got negative feedback because "despite my good quality of work, I took too many coffee breaks and wasn't always at my desk during working hours", even though I never missed a single meeting or deadline and this was used to exclude me from a team bonus for an excellent delivery (something I had heavily contributed to) because in their minds it was unfair to some others. Needless to say I was gone very soon after and that company is no longer in business, most of the smart people I knew from there didn't stay for long either.

I think the global attitude towards work is changing from giving your *time* to your employer to giving them your *productivity*. It used to be that the employees gave their time to the employers, from 9-5 they signed in and did what was asked and got paid and that was it. They had complete dominion over those 8 hours over you, what you, when and how you do it. Now attitude has moved towards giving them your productivity while your time is still, to a reasonable degree, should remain in your own control. You can't hire very smart and productive people and then micromanage how they do their work. That's how you can't retain your best employees.

Agreed - there is also quite a bit of inflexibility mindset wise with many managers either stuck in the past and/or because it makes things easier for them personally even when it is to the detriment of the business (another thing I've noticed on the rise with younger and younger people promoted into management it seems these days).

There are often situations though, like as dLockers touched on above, where an employee can't see why it is a requirement when it doesn't affect them or their ability to do the job personally. For instance where I work for most roles it is important that people are there for the start of shift briefing.

 

[HACO]

I'm with you 100%.



I think you've hit the nub of the problem, productivity. A lot of old school behaviours aer around bums on seats... that said, it does depends on the role - but the problem is a lot of the younger employees (I'm generalising) don't necessarily understand what productivity means, that said that could also be down to poor management as well. It's a multifaceted issue. Micromanagement is awful but some people aren't productive, and *some* management is necessary, and it doesn't have to be micromanagement but unless you give them guidance they won't always proactively chase the work.

Now I'm not saying most younger employees are bone idle, not at all, and with the right management and expectations/deliverables set out clearly then there's nowhere to hide if they don't deliver, especially if you've been supporting / on hand to help. However, many expect to come in, do some emails, do some projects, and then expect fast track pay, promotion. I mean I had a grad (24), who after 9 months, asked me about a promotion, pay rise and so on... "because he's delivered all his work". I of course sat him down and worked out a plan for his work over the next couple of years, which he then rejected and said "that's way too much to do"... I wanted to give him the opportunity to get more experience vocationally, and to help him learn, along with some decent CPD and project experience, only to be told it was too much to do and he deserved more money to do it!

I appreciate this is an isolated incident, but from the professionals on my linkedin this does seem fairly common.

I think you handled that situation with the employee very well, a shame he didn't understand. Proper growth planning and receiving good mentorship is very important at the beginning of the career and pays dividends many times over for both sides.

 

[dlockers]

I think you've hit the nub of the problem, productivity. A lot of old school behaviours aer around bums on seats... that said, it does depends on the role - but the problem is a lot of the younger employees (I'm generalising) don't necessarily understand what productivity means, that said that could also be down to poor management as well.

As a millennial who had been in a sales position prior to getting a desk job, this was the biggest culture shock of my life. People that clock watched, kept seats warm, spun every request into a "we don't have the head count for that" and were generally about naval gazing and empire building. I'm so glad I found an outcome based role beyond solving x number of tickets. I used my "free time" in my first job to study and sit about 10 certifications.

It's a multifaceted issue. Micromanagement is awful but some people aren't productive, and *some* management is necessary, and it doesn't have to be micromanagement but unless you give them guidance they won't always proactively chase the work.

A good example I was given of this problem though, is when we had a guy in from Ericcson. He said they could make 10 handsets an hour. They had a time in motion study performed, and several million spent on improvements - but the team still worked to the clock to only make 10 handsets. You can imagine a young and hungry millenial, who has suffered two major world crisis' already at this point (credit crunch, 9/11) saying WTF and asking why he/she can't play video games for 6 hours and then quickly assemble the 10 handsets.

Now I'm not saying most younger employees are bone idle, not at all, and with the right management and expectations/deliverables set out clearly then there's nowhere to hide if they don't deliver, especially if you've been supporting / on hand to help. However, many expect to come in, do some emails, do some projects, and then expect fast track pay, promotion. I mean I had a grad (24), who after 9 months, asked me about a promotion, pay rise and so on... "because he's delivered all his work". I of course sat him down and worked out a plan for his work over the next couple of years, which he then rejected and said "that's way too much to do"... I wanted to give him the opportunity to get more experience vocationally, and to help him learn, along with some decent CPD and project experience, only to be told it was too much to do and he deserved more money to do it!

I appreciate this is an isolated incident, but from the professionals on my linkedin this does seem fairly common.

Couple of years is just incompatible for a lot of the work force now. It just won't work. Especially if people, for resting on their laurels, are getting paid significantly more.

A lot of these kids will have done gig economy roles too - where productivity is directly correlated with pay.

 

[Freefaller]

I think you handled that situation with the employee very well, a shame he didn't understand. Proper growth planning and receiving good mentorship is very important at the beginning of the career and pays dividends many times over for both sides.

It does and it's been a key element to my success / growth. I volunteer as a professional mentor for the professional institution to support people's accreditation and work towards chartership - I bring the same into work as I feel it's important.

 

[Freefaller]

Couple of years is just incompatible for a lot of the work force now. It just won't work. Especially if people, for resting on their laurels, are getting paid significantly more.

A lot of these kids will have done gig economy roles too - where productivity is directly correlated with pay.

And this is a massive challenge for talent retention but also growth... Keeps work interesting at least for those of us facing those challenges!

 

[dlockers]

And this is a massive challenge for talent retention but also growth... Keeps work interesting at least for those of us facing those challenges!

Oh man for sure. I find it really difficult on any engagements lasting longer more than 8 weeks to get them interested/keen to stick it out`

 

[Freefaller]

Oh man for sure. I find it really difficult on any engagements lasting longer more than 8 weeks to get them interested/keen to stick it out`

In my industry most projects last anything from 6 months to 3+ years. So at least I can temper the "itchy feet" a little. Most professional engineers understand that importance of doing different roles within a large project environment... but you still get the few that want to do CAD or 4D design all day and not go out to site or do any other discipline.... Which is fine but at the same time, if you're not willing to do a broader element of work I don't want to pay you more!

 

[Kreeeee]

.

 

[Freefaller]

That puts your compensation at over $700,000! That’s incredible given how well you seem to balance work and life, well done!

err... no. Not in the UK at least. And that's as a household as well so takes into account the assets I have (i.e. properties) and my wife's income and investments.

https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

Good tool if you're interested.

also from the .gov website:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...hment_data/file/974381/NS_Table_3_1a_1819.ods

I wish I did earn £500k a year though

I'm not that worried about chasing more than I'm on, if anything in less than 10 years or less I want to start ramping down. In my 40s now and want to spend more time with the family but offer them the best life possible as well.