Project coordination

Source (project/general)

Best practice

See page body for best practice

Challenge

How to deal with salaried roles that are underperformed?

Added by

As per current compensation working group thought process projects are free to choose their own remuneration model. Within this model compensation can take the character of one-offs like bounties, coordinape etc.. But it also can take the character of recurring compensations like salaries. Salaries usually will be chosen to simplify the compensation allocation mechanism. Within a salaried role, the roles responsibilities, tasks and respective acceptance criteria will likely not be as clearly defined as in one-offs. 

As a result, performance observation becomes trickier. There is a trade-off, project coordinators need to take between the depth of definition of a role and the likelihood of ambiguity that a role has been fulfilled. 

Should the project coordinator perceive that a role is not fulfilled, talking in an open, non-judgmental way about perceptions and trying to find a common understanding is always the first and best option. We assume that this will in most cases lead to a good agreement that leads back to the happy path.  

However, in case of a perceived severe underperformance of a role and or the role holder not being open to discussions, the following points have been proven as helpful to resolve the problem. 

Who would be judging the performance of a role?

The coordinator/champion

The team itself

Clients if client facing

Best practices:

DM level discussion could be a good first step to make sure a person knows about the expectation. Context matters. The coordinator needs to judge the severity of the underperformance. The more severe the more public the topic might need to be taken.

Make the problem, that comes with the underperformance of the role public by putting it as a project risk in the weekly meeting. Ideally the role holder would understand this message and reach out or adjust.

Lazy consensus as evaluation mechanism at the end of each Season. This means every Season people are in some sort of re-elected.

Writers guild best practice for ad-hoc evaluation if needed:

small group discussion and evaluation of performance

bring it to team, present findings and propose re-election

Project coordination

Source (project/general)

Best practice

See page body for best practice

Challenge

How to deal with salaried roles that are underperformed?

Added by

As per current compensation working group thought process projects are free to choose their own remuneration model. Within this model compensation can take the character of one-offs like bounties, coordinape etc.. But it also can take the character of recurring compensations like salaries. Salaries usually will be chosen to simplify the compensation allocation mechanism. Within a salaried role, the roles responsibilities, tasks and respective acceptance criteria will likely not be as clearly defined as in one-offs. 

As a result, performance observation becomes trickier. There is a trade-off, project coordinators need to take between the depth of definition of a role and the likelihood of ambiguity that a role has been fulfilled. 

Should the project coordinator perceive that a role is not fulfilled, talking in an open, non-judgmental way about perceptions and trying to find a common understanding is always the first and best option. We assume that this will in most cases lead to a good agreement that leads back to the happy path.  

However, in case of a perceived severe underperformance of a role and or the role holder not being open to discussions, the following points have been proven as helpful to resolve the problem. 

Who would be judging the performance of a role?

The coordinator/champion

The team itself

Clients if client facing

Best practices:

DM level discussion could be a good first step to make sure a person knows about the expectation. Context matters. The coordinator needs to judge the severity of the underperformance. The more severe the more public the topic might need to be taken.

Make the problem, that comes with the underperformance of the role public by putting it as a project risk in the weekly meeting. Ideally the role holder would understand this message and reach out or adjust.

Lazy consensus as evaluation mechanism at the end of each Season. This means every Season people are in some sort of re-elected.

Writers guild best practice for ad-hoc evaluation if needed:

small group discussion and evaluation of performance

bring it to team, present findings and propose re-election