Every recruiter I've known has a story about a bonus. Usually it's one they were promised, one that came in lower than they expected, or one that went to someone who billed less.
I don't believe in discretionary bonuses, and we don't pay them at Aspiring Partners.
What goes wrong
A discretionary bonus puts the decision about what you earn in the hands of a manager, at the end of the year, behind a closed door. Even when the manager is fair, the team can't see how the decision was made.
In my experience that leads to two problems. The first is favouritism, real or imagined. The second is that it rewards people who are good at pleasing managers rather than the people doing the work. Over time those people get promoted, and the culture follows them.
When I described what I want to my team, my own words were that arse kissers need not apply. I still mean it.
I also see a lot of the contingency market using discretionary systems in ways that limit a recruiter's ability to build a practice. A recruiter builds up a territory, the territory starts to pay, and then it's split or handed to someone else. The reason given is usually growth or fairness. Often the real reason is protecting the employer's margin.
If you've built client relationships over years and watched them taken away, you'll know how that feels.
What I liked at RGF
The commission plan I liked most was at RGF. It was simple. You knew what you had to deliver and what you'd earn when you delivered it.
That changed how people worked. A group of high performers competed with each other and pushed each other to get better. Nobody had to guess what the firm valued, because the plan told them, and nobody had to spend energy on what their manager thought of them, because their results were there for everyone to see.
That's the kind of plan I want here, clear from day one. Deliver this, and you earn that. Everyone knows what they need to do to get what they want.
Why I don't favour a big base salary
I've never paid myself a big salary. I've always been motivated by closing deals, and I've done my best work when what I earned was tied to what I delivered.
So I favour a clear commission plan over a large base salary. A big base can feel safe, but it weakens the link between your work and your income, and it gives the employer more reason to want control over how you spend your time.
This won't suit everyone. If you need a high fixed salary to feel secure, that's a reasonable choice, and there are firms that will give you one. I'm looking for recruiters who want to build a significant business for themselves and their families, and who are confident enough in their own results to want to be paid on them.
Being open about it
I'm working through our commission plan now, and I want it to be transparent. I'd like recruiters who are thinking about joining to see how it works before they decide, not after.
I won't put numbers in a blog post. Pay and fee splits depend on the role and experience, and I go through them on the first call. What I can tell you is how it works: no discretion, no surprises, and if you bring in a client, that relationship stays yours.
A test for your current plan
Here's a simple test. Could you work out today, within a small margin, what you'll earn this year based on what you expect to bill?
If you can, you probably have a plan that works for you. If you can't, it's worth asking who decides, and how.
