The interviewer would like to know your thoughts on being paid based on your work performance, versus being compensated solely on your years of experience. As millennial employees continue to dominate the work scene, more and more employees are requesting compensation based on delivered results. Do you feel that you should be paid based on tenure, or results? Discuss this with the interviewer and back your answer with an example, if possible.
"I feel that employees should be paid, and rewarded, based on their performance. A new employee will find motivation in being rewarded for performance, and it encourages a healthy competition with tenured employees."
"As a manager of people myself, I feel that both performance and experience should be weighted when deciding compensation, pay increases, and promotions. You want to ensure that you compensate your highest performers appropriately but that their growth is stable and manageable in the long-term. Could you share with me how Apple rewards stellar employee performance?"
"In a perfect world, an employee with both work experience and performance would get the job. If I had to choose one over the other, I would choose performance. The reason is that work performance shows an employee's drive, focus, and commitment to his or her duties in a role. The employee takes their job seriously and cares about their contribution to a team."
You have a great premise, but note that the question relates to reward versus landing the job. I altered the language slightly to address the slight discrepancy.
"In a perfect world, an employee would be rewarded for their experience and performance. I, however, believe performance should be rewarded over experience. Work performance displays an employee’s ability to remain steadfast in their drive, focus, and commitment. A strong performance indicates Personal Responsibility and a high level of care for their work and contribution to the team."
Was this answer helpful?