The employment agreement does not imply that you will be given increased compensation for doing more work...
Again, read TFA. What the article suggests is that if annual performance reviews are not carried out properly, then the employer has violated the contract:
For the first 10 years in my career at any new job, I worked hard for 1 year. I finished more projects than my peers. Iâ(TM)d take on extra work. Iâ(TM)d automate and simplify many of the processes so the business ran like silk. Peer reviews backed up my performance. After 1 year, it was time for the annual review as promised in the signed contract.
Ah, but here comes the interesting part. Listen up, because this concerns you the business owner or middle manager. At the end of one year, my raise and bonus were at cost of living levels. Or, the annual review was âoepushed backâ citing company delays.
When asked why the review was not stellar since I beat out most if not all of my peers on speed and output, no answer was given. Sometimes, it was corporate politics. Sometimes, it was because management was lazy and didnâ(TM)t want to pay. Sometimes, it was due to âoewe want you to socialize moreâ and âoeplay the gameâ.
I discovered other programmers who pumped out quality output at staggering rates went through the same thing as I did at review time.
So, middle managers and business owners, pay attention. At that point, you BROKE the employment agreement. I exceeded above and beyond my standard job output. And at the end of the one year, you simply paid the same you would for an average output software engineer. You were getting 50% or more increased output over another guy with the same or relatively same salary.