Why do you think there’s more “fairness” in everyone getting 15% raises across the board rather than the few who perform above others getting better raises? I find that almost the definition of unfair?!
What you’re probably thinking of is that it’s more important for the group to get rewarded, not the individuals… but that’s good NOT because it’s fair, it’s good because in the end, what a company really cares about is the end result of everyone’s work… that doesn’t make it fair to the individuals who actually performed most of such work, quite the opposite. Yes, there’s a trade off being made between fairness and being result-driven, or making the wellness of the group more important than the satisfaction of the individual (or “social justice” if you may use a very overloaded term).
Why do you think there’s more “fairness” in everyone getting 15% raises across the board rather than the few who perform above others getting better raises? I find that almost the definition of unfair?!
What you’re probably thinking of is that it’s more important for the group to get rewarded, not the individuals… but that’s good NOT because it’s fair, it’s good because in the end, what a company really cares about is the end result of everyone’s work… that doesn’t make it fair to the individuals who actually performed most of such work, quite the opposite. Yes, there’s a trade off being made between fairness and being result-driven, or making the wellness of the group more important than the satisfaction of the individual (or “social justice” if you may use a very overloaded term).