{"id":46567,"date":"2015-12-27t05:00:34","date_gmt":"2015-12-27t10:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/48e130086c.nxcli.net\/?p=46567"},"modified":"2024-08-14t09:36:09","modified_gmt":"2024-08-14t13:36:09","slug":"partner-compensation-an-art-not-a-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2015\/12\/27\/partner-compensation-an-art-not-a-science\/","title":{"rendered":"partner compensation: an art, not a science"},"content":{"rendered":"
the 4 engines that drive management.<\/strong><\/p>\n by marc rosenberg<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n the allocation of partner income is much more an art than a science. anyone who thinks otherwise is either na\u00efve or has never been a partner whose income was subjected to an income allocation process.<\/p>\n more on partner compensation:<\/b> how partners view compensation: it\u2019s not all about the money<\/span><\/a> | <\/span>why most partner comp systems are performance-based<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n partner compensation is not a science. <\/em><\/strong>if allocating partner income were a science, it would be easy to concoct the perfect formula that factors in all relevant performance metrics, both tangible (production) and intangible (leadership, mentoring staff, loyalty, teamwork, etc.), producing results that would be considered fair and acceptable to most or all partners. there would be few arguments among the partners because they would feel the formula says it all and leaves nothing for debate.
\n read more →<\/a><\/p>\n