Dear Juniper: agony aunt

Wrong-headed

I am the top dealmaker in our bank. To date, this has always been fairly reflected in my bonus. However, the bank's compensation committee recently decided that our bonus system needed to include bonuses for all kinds of people who are, frankly, peripheral to the success of any deal.

My boss insists that merit is still the main criterion for individual bonus pay-outs and that with my track record I'll be fine.

But I'm worried that this new scheme will encourage even more hangers-on in the deal process and that people who do little to impact direct revenues will be getting bonuses at my expense.

I'm up against wrong-headed egalitarianism.

What should I do?

Yours,

Garth Reed

Dear Garth

In my experience of deal kings across several banks, all egalitarianism is wrong-headed.

Rainmakers thrive in me-first, star cultures, where they often focus entirely on their own virtuoso performance to the exclusion of others.

No surprise that they are less adept at, or adaptable to, teamwork, co-operation and sharing - especially the sharing of rewards.

It strikes me as highly unlikely that, in a climate where excess compensation is under scrutiny and bonuses are being cut, your bank would expand its bonus pool to recklessly award bonuses to people who are not contributing.

With that in mind, together with the assurances you have received from your boss, you could always try turning your thinking upside down.

If the people who work around you are better motivated to contribute more, as a result of being incentivised like you are, that could create a bigger pot for everyone to take a share from.

How wrong-headed is that?

Juniper

Not having it all

I am a female senior banker. I have no children but would love them. My workload is heavy and I doubt I could balance my job and the responsibility of bringing up a child.

In my situation, something would suffer and I would hate for it to be my child. It's surely a myth that senior professional women can actually have it all.

I mean, how does anyone make this fragile balance work?

Yours,

Jane D

Dear Jane

Women who work and have children usually find ways to make sure that neither suffers. If anything suffers it is usually the woman herself.

There are many well-known examples of women in the City of London who juggle family and career. Take a leaf from their book.

Start by becoming more demanding if you want to make the "fragile balance" work. Expect some support and flexibility from your employer and partner. If you think support is unlikely, then change your situation to one where you can seriously consider having children.

It's in your hands.

Juniper

No place for sour grapes

Three months ago I switched jobs. It has proved to be the biggest mistake of my life.

I have ended up in a team where a person junior to me was apparently promised my job.

His sour-grape attitude is making my life hell. As soon as I arrived, a campaign of cronyism developed to make sure I got the message that I wasn't welcome in this team. When I was interviewed I had no idea that an internal person believed the job should be his by rights nor, it seems, did anyone think to tell him I was coming on board.

I have tried to ignore the bad feeling that exists towards me and just get on and do as professional a job as I can.

But underneath the lack of friendliness is wearing me down. Lately, I wonder whether I should jack it in and move on.

Who needs petty infighting? Life is just too short.

Yours,

Unhappy

Dear Unhappy

Life is short but not always too short, especially if you pick your battles carefully and commit to the outcomes they will achieve. Infighting is part of the rough and tumble of corporate life, although in this industry it can get very rough indeed.

I have met few people with the skills to handle contention effectively - typically, only two battle tactics prevail. One is head-to-head confrontation, like two bulls fighting in a pen where only one bull can win.

The other is the seemingly more gentlemanly tactic of avoiding the issue altogether.

Smart people usually only avoid things because they are not clear what they want or don't quite have the stomach for the aggravation that will be involved.

We kid ourselves that it is more grown-up not to get sucked into something, but if we want the problem to disappear, then getting sucked in is the only route to a solution.

Wittingly or unwittingly, you have let the situation drift and this accounts for your growing anguish, the continuing resentment of a colleague and undoubtedly some disruption in the team's performance.

Here's my advice.

Before you throw in the towel, sit down one-on-one with your manager, any other people who employed you, your disgruntled colleague and everyone else in the team who seems affected by your joining.

Put the issue unambiguously on the table - you came on board in good faith, you are qualified for the job and sour grapes need to be put behind people so that team spirit can improve.

As you do this, also ask the least unfriendly people out for drinks, giving them the chance to see your personal and not just your professional side.

Adopt a brighter air and spread around an aura of confidence, one that shows you are unfazed by cronyism and cannot be manoeuvred out by someone who didn't get chosen for your job.

Find out why the internal candidate wasn't selected.

This may give you some insight into how to handle the situation both sensitively as well as more confidently.

There are many things you can try before rolling over in defeat. Jacking your job in before attempting to address the problem would be avoidance in the extreme.

Be positive - you did get the job, after all.

Juniper