How does rewarding standard performance create commercial risk?

It creates a baseline of mediocrity where your most expensive talent treats their core job description as a series of optional add-ons. You risk your margin by paying twice for the same output while losing the ability to drive true growth behaviors.

Will changing our bonus structure cause immediate turnover at scale?

It will cause turnover among your performance theater actors who rely on these subsidies. Your top performers—the ones actually driving scale—will welcome the distinction because it finally separates their exceptional output from the average baseline.

What is the impact of Performance Theater on long-term culture architecture?

It erodes the connection between value and reward. When competence is treated as exceptional, your culture loses its competitive edge and becomes a haven for negotiators rather than high-impact contributors.

How do we redefine Standard Performance without demotivating the team?

You provide radical clarity. Most teams are demotivated by vague expectations. By defining the salary as the payment for excellence in the role, you restore the integrity of the job description and make bonuses meaningful again.

Can referral-based bonuses be scaled across non-sales roles?

Absolutely. Scale is about everyone contributing to growth. When you reward a developer or an admin for bringing in qualified prospects or new talent, you are bonusing a behavior that is objectively outside their standard job requirements.

Stop Paying People Twice for the Same Job

Your bonus structure is likely subsidizing basic job descriptions and
killing your high-performance culture.

In Brief

The Problem: Leaders are inflating payroll by paying bonuses for tasks that are already covered by a base salary, creating a "pay-to-play" culture for basic duties.
The Cause: A fundamental confusion between "standard performance" and "exceptional contribution," leading to low expectations and a negotiation-heavy environment.
The Solution: Reset the baseline by defining standard job requirements as the price of a paycheck and reserving bonuses exclusively for outcomes that exceed those requirements.

The Fundamental Confusion

Your salary pays people to do their job well. Period.

Their job description, outcome profile, key responsibilities - that's what their paycheck covers. If they can't do those things competently, you don't need a bonus structure. You need a different person.

Bonuses should reward what you want MORE of, not what you expect as standard.

What Bonuses Should Actually Reward

Going Above and Beyond: The extra mile they didn't have to take

Innovation: The idea that improved something for everyone

Leadership: Mentoring others, taking initiative on team projects

Problem Solving: Fixing things that weren't technically their problem

Referral Generation: Introducing a new qualified prospect to the firm that converts to revenue

Notice none of these are "completing your assigned work competently." That's called having a job.

The Dangerous Message You're Sending

When you bonus people for doing their regular responsibilities, you're accidentally teaching them that:

Basic job performance is bonus-worthy (it's not)
Without extra pay, they should do less (they shouldn't)
Their salary doesn't actually cover their full role (it should)
You don't expect excellence as standard (you should)

The Real-World Disaster

I've seen this play out too many times. Companies that bonus people for meeting basic expectations end up with teams who:

Negotiate bonuses for everything
Underperform when bonuses aren't available
View their job description as "suggestions" rather than requirements
Expect extra compensation for standard work quality

You've created a culture where people get paid to show up, then paid again to actually do the job.

How to Fix Your Bonus Structure

Step 1 - Define "Standard Performance": What should every person in this role accomplish for their regular salary? That's your baseline. That's what they're already paid for.
Step 2 - Identify "Above Standard": What behaviors or outcomes would you love to see more of? What would make someone exceptional, not just adequate?
Step 3 - Bonus the Gap: Create incentives for the exceptional stuff, not the expected stuff.

Examples of Bonuses That Actually Work

Instead of: "Bonus for completing your quarterly goals"
Try: "Bonus for exceeding quarterly goals by 15%"

Instead of: "Incentive for good customer service"
Try: "Bonus for customer referrals or testimonials you generate"

Instead of: "Bonus for attending all team meetings"
Try: "Bonus for training 2+ new team members to full productivity"

See the difference? One rewards doing the job. The other rewards excelling at it.

The Psychological Shift

When you stop bonusing people for standard performance, something magical happens:

They stop viewing their job description as negotiable
They understand what's expected vs. what's exceptional
They take pride in standard excellence rather than expecting rewards for it
They get genuinely excited about earning bonuses through real achievement

Your Bonus Audit

Look at your current bonus structure and ask:

Are we paying people extra to do what they're already paid to do?
Would someone performing at standard level earn these bonuses?
Do our bonuses encourage behavior beyond job requirements?
Are we rewarding excellence or just competence?

The Bottom Line

Your salary budget pays for job performance. Your bonus budget should pay for exceptional performance.

If you're using bonuses to motivate people to do their basic job, you've got the wrong people or the wrong expectations.

P.S. - If you just realized you're bonusing people for things that should be standard performance, don't panic. Just reset expectations clearly: "Going forward, bonuses will be for exceptional performance beyond your role requirements." Your best people will love the clarity. Your mediocre people will reveal themselves quickly. Both outcomes help you build a better team.

P.P.S. - Look, this stuff I write about? I can actually help you fix it. If anything ever resonates to the point where you feel the pain and don't know what to do about it, give me a call. That's literally what we do - turn these business headaches into business advantages.

Keep going!

Sel

FAQ’s about this topic:

It creates a baseline of mediocrity where your most expensive talent treats their core job description as a series of optional add-ons. You risk your margin by paying twice for the same output while losing the ability to drive true growth behaviors.
It will cause turnover among your "performance theater" actors who rely on these subsidies. Your top performers, the ones actually driving scale, will welcome the distinction because it finally separates their exceptional output from the average baseline.
It erodes the connection between value and reward. When competence is treated as exceptional, your culture loses its competitive edge and becomes a haven for negotiators rather than high-impact contributors.
You provide radical clarity. Most teams are demotivated by vague expectations. By defining the salary as the payment for excellence in the role, you restore the integrity of the job description and make bonuses meaningful again.
Absolutely. Scale is about everyone contributing to growth. When you reward a developer or an admin for bringing in qualified prospects or new talent, you are bonusing a behavior that is objectively outside their standard job requirements.