Haute Lumière

Commerce · VI.10 · MMXXVI · daylight

La Bourse  /  Volume VI  /  Nº VI.10  /  Workbook — the Gainshare employee

WORKBOOK — THE LUMINOUS GAINSHARE EMPLOYEE

Chapter VI.10 · Auditing a Governance System

For the person working inside a gainshare arrangement — where a defined share of verified improvement returns to the people who created it. A gainshare is governed by a committee, and that committee is the body this chapter teaches you to audit. Your share passes through its decisions before it reaches you.

---

THE THING NOBODY TELLS YOU ABOUT A GAINSHARE

A gainshare has four written parts: a baseline, a measure, a share, and a period with a verifier. You have read them. They are probably fine.

Underneath them sits a fifth part that is almost never written down: somebody decides the edge cases. A baseline gets adjusted when a plant is reconfigured. A claim is ruled in or out of period. A measure is clarified when two people compute it differently. A one-off is excluded as exceptional.

Every one of those is a governance decision, and in aggregate they move more money than the share percentage does. The share is negotiated once and published; the adjudications happen quarterly and are usually not.

So the six measures in Chapter VI.10 are not an abstraction for you. Pointed at the gainshare committee they answer the question that decides your income: is this scheme being administered, or is it being managed?

And the good news is structural: a gainshare committee generates exactly the records this audit needs. Claims, dates, rulings, payments. The archive is better than most boards have.

---

PART ONE — DISCOVERY

What the scheme already does well

Exercise 1.1 — The three rulings you would defend (90 minutes)

Find the three adjudications in the scheme's history that you think were right — including at least one that went against a claim. Write, for each: who raised it, how long it took, what evidence decided it, and whether the reasoning was written down.

Do this before anything else and do it honestly. You are establishing the mechanism that works, and you will need it twice: once because it is the standard your later findings are measured against, and once because a conversation with a committee that opens on its three best decisions goes somewhere, and one that opens on a grievance does not.

Exercise 1.2 — The claim register (3 hours)

Build the register from the scheme's own records. One row per claim or adjudication:

  date raised | date ruled | route | who raised | outcome | date paid

Date raised is the first written trace — the email, the form, the shift log — not the date it reached the agenda. Route is whether it followed the written process or was settled outside it. Date paid is your downstream proof.

If you cannot build this from what is published to members, that is your first and largest finding, and it has a one-line remedy you will ask for in Part Four.

---

PART TWO — THE SIX, POINTED AT YOUR SCHEME

What to measure, and what each one tells you

Exercise 2.1 — Weighted participation: who actually decides your share

Count the tiers. Typically: a committee that rules, a wider group consulted, and a membership informed. Assign decision weight and compute

      N_eff  =  1 / Σ sᵢ²

at three weightings. Publish all three.

The number to hold onto is the ratio of employee-side effective participation to total. A committee of eight with two employee representatives gives the employee side a quarter of the effective weight regardless of how many people attended the briefing. That is the figure to know before any conversation about the scheme, and it is not an accusation — many schemes are designed that way deliberately and function well. It is simply the fact that the rest of your reading depends on.

Exercise 2.2 — Latency: how long your money waits

Compute days from claim raised to ruling, and from ruling to payment. Then find the floor: the scheme's own period. A quarterly scheme cannot pay faster than quarterly, and holding that against the committee is unfair and will cost you credibility.

Report excess over the period floor, separately for the two legs. The finding that matters is almost always in the second leg: a ruling made in week three and paid in month five has a delay that belongs to payroll or treasury, not to governance, and knowing which is which is the difference between a solvable problem and a grudge.

Exercise 2.3 — Non-ruling, not reversal

Committees rarely reverse a ruling. They let claims sit. Compute the share of claims raised with no ruling recorded within one period — the un-adjudicated backlog — and track it as a series.

This is the single most informative number in your audit and it is invisible in every scheme report, because scheme reports count what was paid. A rising backlog with a stable payout rate is the signature of a committee that has lost capacity, and it is fixable with an extra meeting rather than a dispute.

Exercise 2.4 — Exceptions and the denominator

Two numbers together: the share of adjudications settled outside the written process, and the share of the scheme's total value that the written process governs at all.

The second one is the one to compute first. If the formula is fixed but the baseline is adjustable by management outside the committee, then the committee governs the share and not the amount, and the amount is where the money is. Establish that before you form any view about how the committee is performing — you may be auditing a body that does not have the thing you care about.

Exercise 2.5 — Who appears in the minutes

Count recorded interventions by name across a year: top decile share, singleton count, effective number of voices. Count employee-side and management-side separately.

A committee where employee representatives are present at every meeting and recorded in one intervention a year is a committee with an attendance problem that looks like a participation success, and it is the exact failure the effective-number formula was built to expose.

Exercise 2.6 — Rule and practice

Inventory the scheme document's provisions: every right you hold and every duty it places on the committee. Notice periods, publication requirements, appeal routes, the verifier's independence, the obligation to give reasons.

Then ask the archive whether each was exercised in twelve months. Dormancy is usually highest on exactly the provisions that protect you — appeals that have never been used, reasons that were never required in writing — and a right nobody has exercised is a right nobody has tested.

Then the other direction: practices with no basis in the document at all. These are rarely sinister and always consequential, because an unwritten rule cannot be appealed by somebody who has just joined.

---

PART THREE — HOW THE LEDGER WORKS

Reading your own line

Exercise 3.1 — Trace one payment end to end (2 hours)

Take one gainshare payment you received. Work backwards: the payment, the period's verified improvement, the baseline it was measured against, and every adjustment applied in between. Write each step with its date and its authority — who was entitled to make this change, under which provision?

Most people find one step where the authority is unclear. That step is where your audit has its highest value, and the question that unlocks it is never "was this correct?" but "which provision authorises this?" — a question a committee can answer without anybody being wrong.

Exercise 3.2 — The baseline drift series (90 minutes)

Plot the baseline over every period since inception, marking each adjustment with its stated reason. Compute total drift as a percentage of the original baseline, and the share of periods in which an adjustment occurred.

A baseline that moves in your favour as often as against it is being maintained. One that moves in one direction only is being managed, whatever the reasons attached to each individual move. The series shows what no single adjustment can, and it is the strongest evidence a member can assemble without any access the scheme does not already give them.

Exercise 3.3 — Name the holdout (30 minutes)

Propose one number that is computed and published every period and that may never appear in any objective or incentive — for either side. The count of distinct claimants is a good default: it moves with whether people believe the scheme is worth using, and nobody can improve it by trying.

Getting this into the scheme document is a small ask that costs the company nothing and protects the measure permanently.

---

PART FOUR — WHAT TO ASK FOR

Five asks, in ascending order of difficulty

Each is specific, each is cheap, and each is more persuasive arriving with the arithmetic attached than alone.

1. Publish the claim register, anonymised. Date raised, date ruled, outcome, date paid. No names. This is the entire audit made possible and costs one spreadsheet export a quarter. Ask with: your own partial register, showing what it revealed.

2. Reasons in writing for every adjudication. Two sentences, in the minute. Most committees believe they already do this; the archive usually shows they do it for contested cases and not for routine ones, and the routine ones are where precedent quietly forms.

3. The un-adjudicated backlog as a standing figure. One number in every scheme report. It is the measure most likely to be fixed the moment it is visible, because no one wants it rising and the remedy is an extra meeting.

4. A named holdout, excluded in writing. From Exercise 3.3, written into the scheme document at its next review.

5. A verifier engaged by someone other than the party being measured. The principle is the same one that governs the statutory accounts and the argument is ordinary rather than adversarial. This is the hardest ask, so make it last and make it after the first four have produced something useful.

And one thing to ask for that is not about you. A retention rule for the scheme's records: where they live, who holds them, how far back. Schemes lose their archives at every reorganisation, and the members who suffer are the ones who join in five years and cannot see the precedent that governs their claim. Asking for it while nobody has a stake in it is the most generous act available to you here, and the cheapest.

---

SELF-ASSESSMENT

The test. Take your two pages to a colleague who has never read the scheme document. If they can tell you which single change would most improve the scheme for everybody — and if that change is a rule and not a person — you have built the instrument. If they ask whether the company is cheating you, you have written an accusation, and the number you are missing is the one that would have made the accusation unnecessary.

---

WHY THIS IS WORTH YOUR EVENINGS

A gainshare is the rare arrangement in which reading the governance carefully pays you directly. Everything in this workbook is computed from records the scheme already keeps, requires no permission, and produces a document that a committee can act on without anybody losing face.

And it compounds. The claim register you build this year is the baseline series somebody uses in three years to show that the backlog fell, that adjudication latency halved, and that the number of distinct claimants doubled — which is the strongest evidence any scheme can produce that it is worth having, and the argument that gets the share percentage raised at the next review.

You are not auditing the scheme because you distrust it. You are building the record that lets it be defended.

---

THE FOUR CONVERSATIONS, IN ORDER

With one other member, before anything. Build the claim register with somebody else. Two people reading the same records catch the transcription errors that would otherwise become your most embarrassing finding, and a register built by two is much harder to characterise as a grievance. Choose somebody whose instinct differs from yours; if you both expect the backlog to be large, neither of you will notice when it is not.

With an employee representative on the committee, second. Not to complain — to ask what the committee finds hard. You will usually learn that rulings take time because evidence arrives late, or that the same three edge cases recur because the measure is ambiguous in one clause. Both of those are findings you could not have obtained from the archive, and both point at remedies that cost the company nothing.

With the committee, third, and with the three rulings you would defend. Open on those. Then the register, then one ask. Not five — one, and make it the first on the list, because a committee that has agreed to publish an anonymised register has agreed to be measurable, and every later ask follows from that.

With the verifier, last. Ask one question: what were you engaged to check, and by whom? Their answer is your boundary statement for the entire scheme, and it is frequently narrower than members assume — often a check that the formula was applied correctly to agreed inputs, which says nothing at all about whether the inputs were agreed well.

WHEN THE AUDIT SAYS THE SCHEME IS FINE

It often will, and you should plan for that outcome as carefully as any other.

A scheme with a short backlog, reasons written for every ruling, a baseline that drifts in both directions and an appeal route that has been used and survived is a well-governed scheme, and the correct thing to do with that finding is to publish it. Say so plainly, to the committee and to the members, with the arithmetic attached and the boundary statement intact.

This matters for two reasons. The first is that a scheme whose governance can be shown to be sound is much easier to expand — the argument for a larger share rests on the trust the ledger has earned, and an audited ledger has earned more of it. The second is that an auditor who only ever reports faults is an auditor whose reports are read as a genre rather than as evidence. The most valuable thing you can establish in year one is that this instrument is capable of returning a clean result, because every finding you make in year three depends on somebody believing that it could have come back the other way.