On 28 Mar 99 at 18:02, George Pinckney wrote:
> I hope this metaphor is not too far-fetched (or too cynical) for
> 1999. Have you seen many companies make radical changes in their
> reward systems that were successful, sustained, and transforming?
George, I am getting more and more people contacting me about this issue,
in part because they are observing their systems are problematic. Got
another call today. But, the answer, in general is yes, there are
companies revamping radically - I don't have specifics handy.
Still and all, we need to recognize that ANY specific way of doing it has
drawbacks. Companies are using (and sometimes succeeding and sometimes
making things worse) with gainsharing (people gain as company gains); team
based rewards (based on project achievement); individual (based on
achievement of specific objectives)' individual rankings (ugh).
Any system that doesn't pay for performance has drawbacks.
It's clear to me that whatever approach is used must be consistent with
the existing org. culture, so a one size fits all is a recipe for
disaster.
So, unfortunately, it's near impossible to take something that has worked
in company x, and impose it on company y and expect it to succeed.
Robert Bacal, author of PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT,(McGraw-Hill). Details at
http://members.xoom.com/perform and http://members.xoom.com/cooperate.
"Performance management - about people and creating success"=
Join the Performance Management/Appraisal discussion group by sending an email to perfmgt-subscribe@egroups.com
Visit the Perf. Management/Appraisal Resource Center at http://members.xoom.com/perform/index.htm
--"worknews" <rbacal@escape.ca>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>