Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/macro-microeconomics/1636987-promise-and-peril
https://studentshare.org/macro-microeconomics/1636987-promise-and-peril.
This has been linked to payment being an entitlement and base pay being a functional level rather than a performance. The article also notes there are challenges in implementing pay-for-performance programs by managers. One such is seen as one negative impact on motivation, self-esteem, teamwork, and creativity (Beer, and Cannon 4). The second challenge is that the program may lead the employee to forego other things that would help the organization in pursuit of rewards. Merit has also been shown not to be based on performance.
The proponent of the program believes the challenges can be overcome through intelligent design of the program (Beer, and Cannon 4). The article also highlights the role played by managers in pay-for-performance programs. The article notes managers may opt for adoption, modification, or discontinuation of the programs (Beer, and Cannon 13). The article shows reasons for managers to come up with any of the decision. One of these decisions decisions is a pragmatic commitment to finding ways of improving performance (Beer, and Cannon 13).
Their goals are driven by ensuring there is a performance improvement, not just a desire to apply the new programs. They also viewed the new tool as a combination of other tools that could be used in solving some of the challenges they face. Moreover, failure to gain result from the new tool makes manager adopts other traditional tools. Such tools include close supervision, clear goals, coaching, and training (Beer, and Cannon 13). The managers view these tools as being fundamental in management hence the change of decision.
Additionally, the manager viewed the new program as requiring more time to implement and attracted difficulties in setting performance standards. The new program has been viewed as advantageous. However, it faces the challenges of implementation by managers.
Read More