I can't address all your questions since I need to sleep ...grin...
On 9 Apr 99 at 2:23, Philip Pogson wrote:
> Winfried cited Robert Bacal writing:
>
> >That said, when you pay people equally for different productivity, that
> >has side-effects. When you pay people based on some criteria to
> >distinguish those more deserving from less, that has side-effects.
> >
> >It's that simple.
>
> Robert,
>
> Like Winfried, I too am intrigued as to why you believe the issue of
> "pay for performance" is so simple. I find myself asking why you
> appear not to explore the assumptions underlying this statement: to
> subject your assumptions to rigorous critique.
If you could re-read the paragraph you quoted, and then have a specific
question about the simpleness I owuld be glad to try answering. (I never
said pay for performance was simple).
> Questions I have include:
>
> - Is "pay for performance" the same in your mind as "reward for
> performance" because to me pay and reward cannot be reduced to one
> and the same?
No, not the same.
> - Where does "recognition for performance" come in? Who gets
> recognised
> and for what?
Important!
> - If level of pay is so strongly and necessarily correlated to
> level of
> performance, why does national and international research
> consistently show that pay is generally 3rd of 4th on the list of
> the important outcomes human beings want from work.
For a lot of methodological reasons actually. It's complex and has to do
in part to self-report methods. More to the point these surveys "wash out"
individual differences. Some people think pay is very important, some not.
When you aggregate the numbers, you lose that, and it's hidden.
> Why, for
> example, do talented, committed people choose to work for
> not-for-profits for (relatively) low pay and conditions? Is it
> perhaps because the reward, if not the pay, is instrinsic? That
> people can contribute to a higher cause, make a difference, live out
> their values and their love for others?
Sure. But you could ask the opposite quesiton (in the year of Y2K): Why
are people in high demand professions (like IT) switching companies on the
basis of huge pay increases? And why are companies offering them to both
attract and keep their staff (at least to 2000)?
> - Is there a universal, non-controversial way of defining "high"
> and
> "low" performance, suitable for all circumstances and all
> industries or is defining performance, in your opinion, situation
> specific?
No. In my books, and all my work, I continually nag at people on this
subject, to toss out ratings, rankings, all the goofy forms, and TALK.
> If the latter, like Winfied, I believe one must then put
> a lot of time and effort into developing a shared vision of what
> "performance" is in each context. Then, of course, one finds oneself
> dealing with each individual's mental model and tacit/explicit
> assumptions of what "perforance" is.
Sure. I wouldn't use those words, because to be blunt, managers dealing
with these issues aren't interested in hearing that. But I don't disagree.
> - Finally, what place does time have in measuring performance? Why
> might
> it be that the investment industry has developed "golden handcuffs"
> and deferred bonuses if not to highlight the trade offs between long
> term and short term performance?
Not sure what you mean. In IT, the deferred bonuses are used specifically
to keep people (via pay incentives) beyond 2000 and Y2K. It's a huge
issue.
If, however, pay is not an incentive, as your surveys suggest, it's at
least a bit odd that most companies are using it!
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>