{"id":46579,"date":"2016-02-21t05:00:46","date_gmt":"2016-02-21t10:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/48e130086c.nxcli.net\/?p=46579"},"modified":"2020-06-08t10:03:49","modified_gmt":"2020-06-08t14:03:49","slug":"performance-based-subjective-systems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2016\/02\/21\/performance-based-subjective-systems\/","title":{"rendered":"partner comp: three subjective compensation systems"},"content":{"rendered":"

plus balloting details for those who use paper and pencil.\"judge<\/strong><\/p>\n

by marc rosenberg<\/span><\/i>
\npartner comp: art & science<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

there are at least three performance-based systems for partner compensation.\u00a0none rely completely on\u00a0intractable formulas, but instead introduce various degrees of subjectivity. needless to say, none are without some controversy.<\/p>\n

more on partner compensation:<\/b> 11 points in designing a partner comp system<\/span><\/a> | <\/span>3 tiers of compensation<\/span><\/a> | <\/span>what partners earn and how they earn it<\/span><\/a> | <\/span>how partners view compensation: it\u2019s not all about the money<\/span><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

but each system requires serious thought. here’s a comprehensive of the three approaches. which does your firm use now? why? which might be a better approach?<\/p>\n

let’s take a closer look:<\/strong><\/p>\n

read more →<\/a><\/p>\n