Hello colleagues! I'm interested in the issue of compensation for such roles as rep-link, secretary, facilitator. In our company some of these role fillers are not motivated to do this work. Most of them have KPIs and the fulfillment of these roles prevents them from achieving KPI and getting a good salary. We are thinking of creating compensation system for these roles but we are not sure that this is correct. Please tell how you solved this problem. Do you have any ideas on this? Thank you
I'd say it's very likely that adding some kind of comp impact for filling those roles is going to create all manner of issues, and likely make the problem worse. I'd suggest the issue here isn't that those roles are excluded - that's just a symptom. Rather, the issue is with your comp system typing comp to achieving KPI's; that practice has all sorts of problems, and I'd say you'd do far better re-engineering your comp system to remove that aspect of it in the first place. If you haven't already, consider reading Dan Pink's book Drive, which covers that practice in depth, and shares a lot science that suggests it's probably not a desirable practice.
We had some similar discussions in our company after starting with Holacracy (and haven't solved them yet). IMHO there is one question lying underneath: do employees benefit from company success (bonuses, shares) or are they just paid for their work effort?
When I benefit from lets say a dividend from the EBIT, I choose roles where I can help increase EBIT the most. I accept if I have to "carry more" by acting as Lead Link, Secretary or whatever, I just try to create the most value possible
If I have no stake from profit I would like to be compensated for my "extra work" or work that lies outside of what im hired for.
So far we failed to solve this issue with a systematical approach