This paper examines pay for performance (PFP) as a variable compensation strategy tied to measurable employee output. It traces the shift away from traditional tenure- and education-based pay structures, arguing that money serves as a powerful motivator in competitive, globalized markets. The paper surveys key advantages of PFP — including increased productivity and cost efficiency — alongside significant drawbacks such as workplace competition, morale problems, and administrative burdens. Drawing on the work of compensation scholars including Edward Lawler, the paper identifies the organizational conditions and communication practices that must be in place for a PFP system to function equitably and effectively for both employers and employees.
Debates over the employment pay program known as pay for performance have been part of the business landscape for many years (Bloom). The debate centers on a variety of issues but is also hampered somewhat by a lack of clarity and agreement as to what pay for performance actually is. Some participants in the debate speak of the program as a system of base salary increases linked to performance appraisals, while others focus on incentives. For purposes of this discussion, pay for performance means a variable pay approach anchored to a measurement of performance — whether that is how many hours an attorney bills each month or a more subjective standard such as how well a manager fosters teamwork. Often, evaluations are based on best-to-worst forced ranking systems — known to many employees as "rank and yank" — which are thought to provide a way of identifying and rewarding strong performers while encouraging everyone to work harder and smarter. True pay for performance is more formalized than an occasional bonus. It is variable compensation that must be re-earned each year and does not permanently increase base salary (Silva).
A pay for performance system demands that all involved abandon their traditional views on employee compensation. Traditionally, employee compensation programs attempted to treat all employees the same and based compensation on some form of pre-ordained schedule, or on tenure or education. Such systems were clear and precise, but offered little incentive — everyone was paid regardless of how well they were performing, based purely on how long they had been with the company or how many degrees they held.
A properly conceived pay for performance program, however, shifts the emphasis from precision to incentives. There can be little argument that motivation is a key element in the success or failure of any business (Steers). A motivated workforce is more productive and more efficient. As we live in a money-oriented world, money is a far better motivator than nearly any other compensation device, and so it is understandable that rewarding job performance through the awarding of money is a far better motivator than mere praise or personal satisfaction (Tang). A system that rewards anyone regardless of performance and dedication does little to motivate or stimulate effort and achievement.
The major goal of any compensation program should be to motivate employees to do their best. Since the dawn of globalization, the United States has seen its world market share begin to erode, and employers have been experimenting with methods to increase productivity while keeping costs low in order to allow American businesses to remain competitive on the world stage (Kose). The old compensation programs that most American businesses used provided good wages for their employees but built in little incentive for employees to cooperate in ways that reduced costs and increased production. Under traditional compensation programs, employees received their pay regardless of how well they performed.
The programs that employers have begun using go by a number of names, such as merit pay, variable pay, alternative pay, and pay for performance (Koss). Each of these programs has its own nuances, advantages, and disadvantages, but they are all based on the idea of providing compensation tied to performance.
It should be obvious that most employers are attracted to a system that pegs pay to performance. Such a system encourages employees to work efficiently and reduces the likelihood that an unproductive worker will go unrewarded for poor effort. As an employee's output increases, the employer has more products to sell, which in turn increases profits.
"Equality concerns, competition, and morale risks"
"Lawler's conditions and trust factors for PFP success"
"Role of management, clarity, and goal design"
No compensation program is without its problems, and some of the criticisms of the pay for performance system are accurate, but the fact remains that the system can benefit both employers and employees if it is properly organized. The key to a successful program is clearly setting forth expectations and communicating them to employees. If this is done, both the employer and the employee stand to benefit.
You’re 38% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.