I looked up the word “bonus” in the dictionary. I found this definition:
“Something given or paid in addition to what is usual or expected.”
Well, that’s not quite right, is it? In recent years in business and finance, bonuses have been both usual and expected. Then I saw that two other definitions had been provided:
“A sum of money or an equivalent given to an employee in addition to the employee’s usual compensation,” or, in sport,
“A sum of money in addition to salary that is given to a professional athlete for signing up with a team.”
Lexicographers, in other words, have been forced to come up with alternative definitions of the word bonus in response to other people’s use of the word. But we really have done some harm to the English language here. If a payment is going to get made automatically, or almost automatically, then it should be called something else: a top-up, perhaps, or a supplement. If there is no performance-related element - and no element of surprise either - then it is hardly a “bonus”. (You can read an even harsher take on this issue here.)
I’m sure I am not alone in thinking that GE’s Jeff Immelt set the right example when he waived his right to a bonus earlier this week. Now that’s what I call leadership.