One of the best known and most used ways to motivate employees to more severe and more efficient work is to give the employee the reward money for reaching specific targets organization. This idea seems to be perfect, the manager wanted to mobilize the workers to work harder on a particular project provides an additional, adequate to the effort, the injection of money for achieving certain goals, making the worker more likely to work on this project.
Michael Beer, a professor at Harvard Business School, argues that this process is much more complicated than might appear at first glance. To illustrate this, Beer has used the example of Hewlett-Packard, where he stopped the practice of paying for performance.
In the 90's, Hewlett-Packard pose ideal conditions for innovation in pay. The organization was decentralized and consisted of thirteen units to be the headquarters of the company. Remuneration system in the company was based on recognition of merit employees compared to the rest of their group, consisting of workers falling within the same salary bracket. Were not implemented bonuses for managers. Remuneration in the form of stock options were granted at the discretion. Due to the fact that managers of individual individuals perceived inadequacy of the pay system, they began to push for a central body to make changes.
According to Beer, the managers of many organizations look favorably on the rewarding results. They believe that it attracts skilled staff who help them maintain and motivates them to work. They expect that the incentive spotaci remuneration for the results will be large enough that the profits from the introduction of such a system will outweigh the costs associated with it.
From the standpoint of the employee, pay for the results, it seems a good solution. Due to the idea of \u200b\u200bpaying for results, it seems to be more equitable than the classical system of remuneration prevailing in HP. An additional aspect of this system is the direct effect of increasing the employee his salary.
problems in Hewlett-Packard
first unit, which has decided to changes in the system of remuneration, it was a branch located in San Diego. Managers have implemented a system, divided into three levels, binding targets with the remuneration band of workers. It was assumed that one can achieve a level of not more than 90% of units, level 2 no more than 50% of the 3 teams and no more than 10-15% of the teams.
the first six months, the system seemed to take an exam. Most of the teams reached the level of the second and third. Because of this, that the costs were higher than anticipated, increased requirements to achieve a particular level. This action was początkiem problemów HP.
Zespoły zaczęły być sfrustrowane, że działania od nich niezależne, takie jak dostarczanie podzespołów, wpływało na ich wyniki pracy. Wysoce efektywne zespoły zaczęły odrzucać nowych członków zespołu, którzy wydawali się mniej kompetentni, co znowu prowadziło do podziału zespołu. Zmniejszyła się także wymiana pracowników między zespołami, zmniejszając możliwość wymiany wiedzy i zwiększenia efektywności pozostałych zespołów. Działania pracowników koncentrowały się to achieve a higher level of wages and lead to greater frustration when the level was not impossible to achieve.
Managers, however, noted that most of their time they spend on creating a pay system. They concluded that the introduced system is not motivated and not develop appropriately staff. This system was hard to master, especially for a company that is as decentralized as HP. For these reasons, the introduction of such a global system of remuneration to the organization has been suspended.
According to the author, most zakasującym observation arising from the actions HP is to compare the expectations they had managers in relation to the benefits, which are offered, with real costs that have occurred.
above example, such a large corporation like HP, shows that the introduction of performance-related pay in an organization requires a lot of thought. It seems necessary to understand the needs of employees and to determine appropriate goals that can become their targets. Some Experts say the wrong set objectives of such a system, leading to cessation of work on all tasks, which are not included in their squad, because they do not lead to an increase in salary. In addition, such a system should be kept in balance between the expectations of employer and employee, otherwise it will not be properly understood by either party.
[Beer, Michael, Mark D. Cannon. "Promise and Peril in Implementing Pay for Pe rformance: A Report on Thirteen Natural Experiments." Harvard Business School Working Paper, no. 02-064, 2002]
0 comments:
Post a Comment