--000000000000fe280a062b472328 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe280a062b472327" --000000000000fe280a062b472327 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, Yes, I have heard about this concern in Canada and also from some in the Bay Area. The recruiters were compensated based on the national weighted average of all sites (not just those in their region). What I am finding is that recruiters who support high performing sites are dissatisfied, while those who support low performing sites are pleased. This is what I understand was communicated to the RDOs: [image: image.png] And this is what I communicated to the recruiters: *November incentive payouts are scheduled for Friday, January 3rd. I wanted to let you know that because we are a centralized function, incentives will be paid out to CG Recruiters based on the revenue weighted average of the keys obtained across all sites. The revenue weighted averaging means that larger revenue sites carry more weight on the calculation than smaller sites. For the month of November, the revenue weighted average across all sites was 4 keys - therefore all of you will be incentivized based on 4 keys and will receive $400. Recruiters being equally incentivized based on the average performance of all sites enables us to easily flex recruiters across sites as needed without concern for how their incentive is being impacted. Your incentive will be reflective of the collective performance of all sites, rather than the specific sites you supported during a given time frame. * We have a TA Town Hall tomorrow afternoon and I do expect additional concerns to be surfaced during this time. Analissa On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 8:44=E2=80=AFAM Timothy Thomas wrote= : > Hi Analissa, > > I hope you're doing well. > > I wanted to pass along some feedback I've heard from my GMs in Canada. > Veronique and to some degree Elizabeth are not pleased with the way in > which the incentive plan is not tied directly to the sites they manage, b= ut > the region as a whole. For instance, Veronique has done an exceptional jo= b > with our recruiting needs in Calgary and Winnipeg, two sites that perform= ed > very well on the new plan. Unfortunately her payout was influenced by the > underperformance of the other sites in Canada. > > Any thoughts on this? > Thanks! > > -- > > *Tim Thomas* > Head of Midwest & Canada Divisions | *TheKey* > Mobile: 514.591.9387 > [image: TheKey] > --000000000000fe280a062b472327 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, Yes, I have he= ard about this concern in Canada and also from some in the Bay Area. The re= cruiters were compensated based on the national weighted average of all sit= es (not just those in their region). What I am finding is that recruiters w= ho support high performing=C2=A0sites are dissatisfied, while those who sup= port low performing sites are pleased.=C2=A0 This = is