As for your point about giving revenue, I'm unclear on why an employee would get a large amount of revenue? The shareholders of the company won't find that prudent as they've taken the risk for the company. I don't see it as an issue of confidence at all.

If I work for someone and they pay my salary and benefits, I really don't have much risk. I believe those who join in the risk should share in the reward. That's not to say, an employee shouldn't receive monetary compensation for innovation or a quality idea, but if I save the company $250,0000 with an idea, do I deserve half of that amount? I believe the answer is no as I'm still going to get paid each pay period while the shareholders may not get a return on their investment (i.e. – risk).

I agree that to make it big, you must do it on your own. But that extends to folks far beyond the scientific area. It's just a trade-off, being on your own is super hard and I think it's even hard starting by yourself.

Lastly, I'd ask you type your real name. My blog isn't to be controversial and I'm not attempting to garner large amounts of traffic, but when there's a discussion I think all folks involved would prefer to know we're talking with a real person. I don't like making assumptions about people, but I don't know how to reply to you without some context.

Lastly, I hate conversations like this. They are always fruitless. I have never met a single business owner who is generous (and confident enough in their business) enough to give up some revenue to great employees. Sure, they'll give fractional shares but not revenue. Bonuses are not returning revenue, they are a joke. One last thing, with regards to 'scientific' employees: employers frequently take advantage of those employees. Sales people are the bullhorns of the company, and rarely can a good idea come from that type of person. If you need your pants talked off, they are the person. Otherwise get someone with some introspection and intelligence. People who think for a living typically have a great imagination and can produce rockstar ideas. The only way a scientific person can make it big is to do it on their own.

As for your point about giving revenue, I'm unclear on why an employee would get a large amount of revenue? The shareholders of the company won't find that prudent as they've taken the risk for the company. I don't see it as an issue of confidence at all.

If I work for someone and they pay my salary and benefits, I really don't have much risk. I believe those who join in the risk should share in the reward. That's not to say, an employee shouldn't receive monetary compensation for innovation or a quality idea, but if I save the company $250,0000 with an idea, do I deserve half of that amount? I believe the answer is no as I'm still going to get paid each pay period while the shareholders may not get a return on their investment (i.e. – risk).

I agree that to make it big, you must do it on your own. But that extends to folks far beyond the scientific area. It's just a trade-off, being on your own is super hard and I think it's even hard starting by yourself.

Lastly, I'd ask you type your real name. My blog isn't to be controversial and I'm not attempting to garner large amounts of traffic, but when there's a discussion I think all folks involved would prefer to know we're talking with a real person. I don't like making assumptions about people, but I don't know how to reply to you without some context.

Lastly, I hate conversations like this. They are always fruitless. I have never met a single business owner who is generous (and confident enough in their business) enough to give up some revenue to great employees. Sure, they'll give fractional shares but not revenue. Bonuses are not returning revenue, they are a joke. One last thing, with regards to 'scientific' employees: employers frequently take advantage of those employees. Sales people are the bullhorns of the company, and rarely can a good idea come from that type of person. If you need your pants talked off, they are the person. Otherwise get someone with some introspection and intelligence. People who think for a living typically have a great imagination and can produce rockstar ideas. The only way a scientific person can make it big is to do it on their own.

Encourage your employees to work less than 40 hours. Perhaps way less. You have to be genuine in this and let them know you are genuine. Completely break the 8-to-5 pattern entirely. I've been in a strict clock-watching environment before. Team members end up working (more like “wasting”) 7:59-5:01 and stabbing the backs of those who don't cover those specific hours.

Instead, pay for accomplishments. If someone is an all-star who completes projects in 30 hour work weeks, allow them outperform *or* meet expectations at their discretion. Of course, meeting expectations earns no merit increase–but then again, inflation-indexed pay increases are not merit increases, either. I think of the musing from the mythical man month that good programmers are 5-10 times as productive as mediocre ones–which I can easily believe. Those “mediocre” employees will get 85% of the pay of their “good” counterparts, and will probably last almost as long as their counterparts in the organization.

There are the rare few get to follow and be rewarded substantially for their ideas (monetarily or otherwise). I don't hold the employee responsible. Its true that some employees just want to work, and what's wrong with that? As an economy, we can't have a workforce where everyone wants to do something other than what they are told (someone has to follow orders and walk the path that they are told to walk). But there are a few who want more, having management who have the intelligence to see, proceed with, and raise the visibility of (that individual) is what I would want as a business owner. One good idea does not guarantee the survival of a business (or rarely), new ideas from the anti-Gene types are what a company needs (but few have figured out that they need to reward the anti-Gene for the idea, not a penance of a bonus).

I think to avoid becoming a Gene, a business has to personalize our work structure (why not four 10-hour days?), environment (why always in the office?) and match upward growth opps or financial incentives to us individually.

Rewarding behavior for the sake of rewarding behavior is demotivating. Budget-adjusted “merit” increases are motivating. Not firing people is demotivating. Structured bonuses are demotivating. We are gamblers. Predictability bores us. If you know you have a job next year, you're quickly becoming obsolete through your complacency.

Recessions are motivating. Non-regular, substantial rewards are motivating. Blunt conversations are unpleasant and awkward, but they're motivating.

Superstars self-motivate themselves internalizing this pain/pleasure trade. The rest of us need a little external realization.