Pay for performance is a form of appraisal method in which the teachers are motivated and rewarded for their achievement. It is meant to provide opportunities to encourage better teaching outcomes and quality education to students. Through this method teachers can be innovative on raising education standards and providing students with better content that will ensure they excel in their academic life.
In states where the pay for performance method has been utilized the relationship between the teachers and students has improved greatly. This has also led to improved trusts between the schools and the parents. However critics have opposed the incentives claiming it is not worthy and it will not serve to improve education standards and the students perchance. They claim the incentives may not be effective and has its shortcoming. This essay will attempt to highlight different aspects of the pay for performance incentives including measuring their effectiveness and the disadvantages of using it in the education setting.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
How an Organization Can Measure the Effectiveness of the Pay for Performance Plan
The first method that can be used to measure the effectiveness of the pay for performance plan is monitoring the performance of the students following the implementation of the incentive. This can be done by comparing their academic results during a particular academic season with the results for previous years or semester. If the comparison shows there is improvement of student’s results after the implementation the plan then it will mean the incentive is successful and bound to yield better results. However if there is no considerable improvement in results it will mean the plan is unworthy and unsuccessful (Frey, 2017).
The teachers or educators attitude change can be monitored to show whether the plan is being effective. For instance if the educators are showing willingness to spend more time with the students it means the plan is effective. Other indicators would be the improved commitment of educators to help the students. In this regard educators might be working hard to find support materials such as revision books and text books for the students. The plan would be deem ineffective if the educators are not willing to change their attitude toward their job and responsibilities. If they are using the old approaches they utilized in teaching it would mean the plan is ineffective.
Setting targets can also serve to show the success of the programs. An organization could provide a target for every specific period and see if the teachers work and prepare the students towards its achievement. For instance, if the average mean for the class was at 60 percent the management can raise the target to something like 75 or 80 per cent. This mean the bar will be raised and both the educators and students will need to work extra hard to reach this performance. The management could also instruct the educators of how they will benefit from the pay for performance incentive if they met the target. By doing so, the management will have an opportunity to measure the effectiveness of the program through the class or school performance and achievement of targets (Hamel, Roland, & Campbell, 2014)
The other means to measure effectiveness of the pay for performance plan is by conducting and independent analysis on test scores. This can be done through interviews and surveys on administrators, teachers and school staff. The opinion of the students can also be gathered through this survey and interviews. This will be useful in evaluating the plans design, implementation and the results it have yielded if the plan has not been effective it will be know n through the survey and analysis.
Disadvantages of Pay for Performance Plan; Employees Perspective
Employees might stop relying on self-esteem, teamwork and creativity as characters to boost their performance. They will not start looking at money as their single motivation towards better performance. This would be detrimental in their future career life. In future when they move to employment where they are not offered money as a form of motivation they will cease to enjoy working.
When employees are offered money as reward of better performance they might fail to follow professional and ethical guidelines that are related to their work. They might turn out to do unethical and unlawful activities in order to have better performance. For instance a teacher might engage in cheating and giving their students answers in order for them to perform well. Such activities are unethical and might be destructive to the organizations reputation.
Considering the employers are only focused on the performance, the employee’s needs and expectations might go unattended. The organization is only focused in better performance so in case the employee has some serious need of financial support and they have not been performing as per the expectation of the employer they will not have their needs and concerns attended to. Therefore with this plan, employees needs go unattended, undiscussed and unacknowledged. In this regard there might arise a misunderstanding about the goals and the results expected.
The employees may suffer from failed collaboration and cooperation. Every worker will try to outdo each other in order to earn better incentives. In this regard they will stop to collaborate and work as a team. There will also be unfair competition and this may create rivalry and hatred. For instance, if the plan used in a manufacturing company some employees might steal parts from other craftsmen with the intention of distracting them from achieving their target (Ljungholm, 2015).
Disadvantages Of Pay For Performance Plan: Employer’s Perspective
The pay for performance plan means the employers will be paying more money for their workers to meets specific targets. This means the workers only perform because there is an incentive. If the money reward is withdrawn then there will be no more performance. Therefore is the employer is unable to sustain the reward it means the organization will suffer.
The design, conception and implementation of the plan are expensive and complicated. Employers around the world have been unable to sustain the plans despite their promising nature. There is a case of HP where the company tried to implement the pay for performance plan in thirteen of its separate functional units. Due to miscalculations and incapability to sustain the program, all of them failed in a span of three years (Ljungholm, 2015).
The pay for performance in most cases is temporary. Considering the plan is an extra cost it will be piling more pressure to the employers. The employers may experience hardship of being permanently stuck in new costs if they want to have the plans running for a long duration. If the markets change the losses may be great and unbearable for the organizations considering they are using money based incentives to maintain business, productivity and performance.
The employers may suffer from lost time as designing of the pay-for-performance plan and its subsequent pay system might be time consuming. Maintaining this plan and the pay system also needs a qualified manager or financial officer because it requires professionalism to track performance. Those who fail to employ such officers might suffer inconsistency and this might result in complains and protest form the workers (Frey, 2017).
The employers may suffer as their organizations suffer loss of trust. If the customers came to learn that the organization is paying its workers to perform exceptionally well they might think the company is being dishonest and unreal. They might think their needs are not faithfully attended to. This might make the customers to desist from buying from the organization and this will lead to losses.
References
Frey, B. (2017). Policy consequences of pay-for-performance and crowding-out. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy , 1 (1), 55-59.
Hamel, M. B., Roland, M., & Campbell, S. (2014). Successes and failures of pay for performance in the United Kingdom. The New England journal of medicine , 370 (20), 1944.
Ljungholm, D. P. (2015). Pay-for-performance in the Public Sector. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 7(1), 90.
