I liked someone’s thinking here who said Intel should reward teams and not individuals. I’m just wondering what it would look like if the awards were based on team performance?
Maybe it would be good. Or maybe it would not solve any problem and further complicated things instead. What do you think?
7 replies (most recent on top)
One individual can do little one needs great teams
Have you ever worked the floor??? There are LOTS of folks surfing/texting their friends watching everyone else running..those folks usually have parents/siblings/spouses that are PhD engineers..must be part of the job deal..nepotism. Pareto holds true.
@1fyd+19VtEwZi: It could be for one person, 20% of his work really matters, and 80% is not that important. You might not know that in the middle of all the work. But, some of the 80% work supports the 20%. Nobody can do everything himself.
To me, working in team follows Pareto. 80% do little to nothing and 20% do most the work..not a fan of teams.
I have seen people fighting over tasks, even though it’d be more efficient to share them with the team.
What does it mean "rewarding teams and not individuals"? When a team is being recognized, does not it mean the individuals on the team get awarded?
Anyway, use a simplistic example to show it might be difficult to do it. Assuming the plan is, Person A needs to do tasks 1 and 2, person B needs to do tasks 3, 4 and 5, for the 2-person team to deliver successful results 1+2+3+4+5. Actually, A did 1+2+3, and B only did 4+5, the overall team results (1+2+3+4+5) are successful. The team might get recognition. If awarding individuals, Person A could get extra awards for the extra efforts. But should Person B get pennalized for not being able to do task 3, though the team still succeeds to deliver the results?
If you cannot compete as an individual and need to rely on “the group” for your success, move to a communist country. Otherwise s— it up a earn your pay