Pay for Performance in Public Schools

Introduction 

The Pay-for-performance strategy focuses on ensuring that employees maximize their productivity within their workplace environments, which would serve as a determinant of their compensation. The approach has been somewhat effective in ensuring that companies are able to push their employees towards a much more advanced platform for enhanced performance When adopting the compensation strategy, it is essential to consider several key factors, which include the techniques that would help in measuring the effectiveness of the strategy, as well as, some of the underlying disadvantages. The disadvantages can be evaluated from the perspectives of the employers and employees taking into account that this strategy impacts employers and employees equally. The focus of this report is to examine how organizations would measure the success of the strategy and determine the drawbacks associated with the approach.

Effectiveness of Pay-for-Performance Plans 

Organizations are entitled to measure the effectiveness of the plans and strategies associated with pay-for-performance, as this serves as a key determines of whether the programs are aligned with their mission or vision in terms of employees' productivity. The first approach to take when measuring the effectiveness of the plans is to determine their relevance in terms of improving employees' productivity (Petersen, 2013). The significance of the plans can be determined by examining output before and after the plans have been put in place. That will help in deciding whether indeed the adoption of the plans may have had any notable impacts towards increasing output. The second approach implemented to measure the efficacy of the plans entails evaluating employees’ satisfaction. The adoption of the plan is expected to increase employee satisfaction, as it creates a front through which to ensure that employees earn more based on their productivity (Petersen, 2013). If the employees do not show any significant improvement in their satisfaction levels, that would suggest that the plans adopted have not been able to achieve the expected effectiveness.

Disadvantages from the Employee’s Perspective 

When considering the perspective of the employees, the main drawback of adopting the plan entails the creation of a high likelihood of resistance to change. Park & Sturman (2012) indicate that although a majority of companies taking pay-for-performance plans find themselves experiencing significant advantages, it becomes hard for them to adopt any changes that are likely to affect the employees. For employees to be able to perform at an optimum, they must get used to the operational procedures that have been put in place. Consequently, this means that employees are likely to resist any changes to the operational procedures that may have been put in place, considering that they hold the view that this is likely to reduce their productivity levels. The long-term effect that this is likely to have on an organization is that it will create a sense of stagnation; thus, making it hard for the organizations to build on their respective capacities to maximize on their performance.

Disadvantages from the Employer's Perspective 

From the perspective of the employer, the main shortcoming of the plan is the creation of a platform for contention among individual employees, considering that it presents a high possibility of favouritism. Nyberg, Pieper, & Trevor (2016) take note of the fact that employees may find themselves experiencing disputes among themselves, especially in cases where managers show favouritism allowing some of the employees to achieve greater bonuses and higher remuneration. The outcome is that the adoption of these plans creates a high possibility of reduced motivation and satisfaction among employees even though it creates a high possibility of higher salaries. Ultimately, the adoption of these plans may have a reverse outcome when compared to what is expected in terms of improved productivity levels.

Conclusion 

Pay-for-performance plans refer to compensation strategies adopted within organizations that determine pay increments, bonuses, and higher remuneration for employees depending on their productivity. The adoption of this approach in public school systems remains controversial, considering that some of the states have achieved success with some experiencing facing. When considering the perspective of the employees, the main drawback of adopting the plan entails the creation of a high likelihood of resistance to change. On the other hand, from the perspective of the employer, the main shortcoming of the plan is the creation of a platform for contention among individual employees, considering that it presents a high possibility of favouritism.

References

Nyberg, A. J., Pieper, J. R., & Trevor, C. O. (2016). Pay-for-performance’s effect on future employee performance: Integrating psychological and economic principles toward a contingency perspective.  Journal of Management ,  42 (7), 1753-1783.

Park, S., & Sturman, M. C. (2012). How and what you pay matters: The relative effectiveness of merit pay, bonuses and long-term incentives on future job performance.  Compensation & Benefits Review ,  44 (2), 80-85.

Petersen, L. A. (2013). Pay for performance: what we measure matters.  AMA Journal of Ethics ,  15 (7), 570-575.