Impact of performance-related pay on sales motivation and job satisfaction

¶ … performance-related pay impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel?" This is unclear.

Do you mean:

"Does performance-related pay impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel?" or

"How much does performance-related pay impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel?"

"In what ways does performance-related pay impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel?"

The first is easier to answer than the other two. The question you actually ask invites you to look at the ways in which PRP actually does impact motivation and job satisfaction. (These can be positive or negative.)

The questions you ask subsequently would tend to fit with my Question 1: "Does performance-related pay impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel?"

Your final objective ("d) establish a set of recommendations for implementing and sustaining a performance related pay programme as part of a wider performance management system.") would answer a second main question:-

"If PRP does impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel, how can it be made to work more effectively?" This does require you to be able to demonstrate the positive and negative impacts of PRP.

It is not a big job, but tidy this section up.

(As an aside, how is Fujitsu-Siemens a solely European manufacturer? Do you mean all manufacturing takes place in Europe?)

Changes made

p. 21

Maslow: Don't forget that, as circumstances change, an individual can also go back down the hierarchy. (Think of the credit crunch and how it affects people's priorities.)

Observation added

p. 22

Herzberg's rather bizarre use of the term "hygiene" needs to be defined more clearly. What, exactly, is a "hygiene factor"?

Additions made

p. 24

(Paragraph 1) Your oblique reference to the Deming school of thought, where the system is seen to be almost entirely responsible for the results achieved, needs further reflection and comment. For example, if this were true, what might it imply about the validity of PRP schemes, or the way they are designed? Similarly, if Goal Theory applies to task-orientated people, does it have any relevance for those who are more people orientated? (Relate to the theory of motivational types; Blake and Mouton, people -- v- task orientation.)

Does this raise any doubts about the practicalities of having a standardised PRP system? What do you think the implications are for the answers to your research questions, and your subsequent recommendations?

Flesh this out more by developing these types of discussion.

Mann's findings need to be explained more fully. For example, what are the findings he refers to, and why do they question whether employers can motivate employees? Why -- exactly -- do Cameron & Pierce reject Kohn's arguments? Do you think they make a good case for doing so, or not? (Much of what you present on their behalf is simply unsupported opinion.)

Explain more about the Performance Measurement Matrix. Is there a common line of thought from there to the Balanced Scorecard?

Additions made

p. 31

Flesh out the criticisms of the BSC. In particular, what are the "features of earlier frameworks that could be used to enhance the framework" which the BSC does not consider?

Additions made

p. 32

You write: An analysis of how the balanced scorecard approach has benefited companies of all types -- but these are largely a reasoned justification, or rationale, for why a BSC should benefit a business. This is not really evidence that the reality lives up to the promise. So, present this as an argument for the BSC not evidence of success.

Changes made

Reflect more on each of the tools mentioned, and whether there is either a common conceptual thread, or whether they are reactions against each other; part of a continuum, or fundamentally different approaches. Or are they, like the Spanish Inquisitors, arguing about how many angels can fit onto the head of a pin? Are they trying to achieve the impossible and thus eloquent but irrelevant?

Unsure what this all means.

p.39

Paragraph 1: Say who considers the Performance Prism to be particularly useful.

This is clearly stated already.

p.55 ff

I have a concern when I look at some of the responses (Section 5) that the answers do not match the questions. In particular, the answers to the question about metrics do not mention metrics at all. Can you review these and, where you feel it is necessary, go back to the respondents to try and get more information? (Also, p. 57, why are metrics, i.e. The choice of what to measure, fair simply because one meets or exceeds a goal?

) The sales people seem to repeatedly confuse "metrics" with "goals" (i.e. "targets"). What do you infer from this? Is there anything you need to foolow up on here?

Tutor is mistaken; the Goals are the Metrics under

Consideration here.

"The Impact of Performance-Related Pay

on Motivation and Job Satisfaction of Sales Personnel

in the Computer Industry

with Recommendations to Improve Management Practices"

Case-study of SEMICO INC

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary

The search for better ways to motivate people in the workplace continues unabated, but the search is becoming increasingly complex as an increasing number of theorists weigh in on what factors tend to affect job performance and employee satisfaction. Although no consensus has been forthcoming, the theoretical work that has emerged concerning employee motivation can be divided into three basic perspectives, the first of which maintains that motivation comes from within and it is not even possible to motivate others, the second of which argues that employees must be motivated by management so managers must possess the requisite people skills for this purpose and a third perspective that combines elements of the first two views. In reality, though, pay continues to rank at the top of virtually all lists of what factors motivate employees and increase their sense of job satisfaction. Therefore, the topic selected for this study concerned the impact that incentive pay has on employee motivation and job satisfaction, two constructs that have been shown to be directly related to an organization's performance, productivity and profitability. In reality, it just makes good business sense that highly motivated employees who are satisfied with their jobs will be more productive workers who are also more committed to the organization and its goals. Employees who are more committed to an organization are also less likely to move on to greener employment pastures elsewhere as soon as the economic winds shift direction, after they have gained valuable experience and expensive training that has been provided by their current employer. There are some important considerations involved in the implementation and administration of any type of incentive pay program, though, that must be taken into account in order to ensure that the benefits of such initiatives are not outweighed by some of the constraints that have been shown to adversely affect the effectiveness of performance-related pay programs. The general research question that guided the study was, "Does performance-related pay impact motivation and job satisfaction of sales personnel?" To answer this research question, the study established the objectives to: