Effectiveness of Individual Performance Related Pay System in Improving Employee Performance
Verified
Added on 2024/04/25
|10
|3476
|449
AI Summary
Explore the critical evaluation of Individual Performance Related Pay (IPRP) system in enhancing employee performance. Understand the circumstances where IPRP system works effectively and where it falls short.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
STRATEGIC HRM
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Introduction In the field of Human Resource Management (HRM) Individual Performance Related Pay or IPRP is comparatively a new addition. In this system, human resource department of the organizations manages the payment scale of the employees by linking the progression of salary of the employees with their performance standard (Gärlinget al.2017). The system is also known as merit pay system. This essay is focused on the critical evaluation of the effectiveness of IPRP system in the context of improving employees’ performance standard. Along with that, the essay will also identify and analyze the circumstances in which the IPRP system does not work properly. The essay will use some published articles to get reliable information about IPRP. Critically evaluating the extent to which the individual performance related pay or IPRP can stimulate higher levels of performance from employees In an article, Dr. Mark Bussin has mentioned that Individual Performance Related Pay is the payment system that can vary based on the performance of the individual employee, team or the company. Dr. Mark Bussin has also clarified that high performance is the standard that everyone tries to achieve in all the activities in their life (Humancapitalreview.org 2018). In the same article, it has also been indicated that IPRP system is applied on the people, who are associated with the competence rating, grades or salary structures. It is not like the incentive system of the company. In the other words, IPRP system can be defined as the rating system that has direct impact on the payment size of the employees (Humancapitalreview.org 2018). Nuckols (2017) has mentioned that IPRP system creates a strong relationship between the reward system and performance level of the employees. At the same time, the IPRP system also helps to meet the strategic objectives of the business. In this context, Brysonet al.(2017) argued that IPRP system influences the individuals towards superior performance level at their workplace and it sends clear message to the individuals, who are non-performer within the organization. Therefore, the argument made by Anselmiet al.(2017) is clearly indicating that IPRP system can stimulate the performance levels of the employees to the higher extent. On the contrary, Shieldset al.(2015) commented that the effectiveness of the IPRP system is limited to certain organizational position of the employees. Hence, it is an argumentative matter whether or not the 2|P a g e
IPRP system has any positive impact on the performance standards of the employees at every organizational level. According to Tayehet al.(2015), the IPRP system is very effective in the sectors like, manufacturing sector and financial sector because in these two sectors, the payment and promotion of the employees depends mostly on their individual performance standards. On the other hand, Bellé (2015) commented that use of IPRP system is more in the developed countries than the developing countries because in the developed countries the employees are highly motivated by their payment scale than the employees in the developing countries. In a study done by Paul Suff, Peter Reilly and Annette Cox, it has been mentioned that the IPRP system was first introduced in UK during 1980s and the primary aim of this system was to bring some cultural change within the organizations and encourage the employees towards the achievementofhighperformancelevel(Employment-studies.co.uk2018).Inthecurrent scenario, IPRP system is one of the key rewarding strategies in many organizations. Critically analyzing the IPRP systems in the organizations, it can be mentioned that the system is nowadays a strategy of motivating the employees. In support of this, the argument of Meker and Barlas (2015) can be mentioned, in which it has been claimed that IPRP system brings better job satisfaction to the employees. However, Ogundejiet al.(2016) stated that the effectiveness of IPRP system depends on the infrastructure of the company. The infrastructure must be supportive enough for achieving better level of effectiveness. Moreover, the IPRP is also organization specific. The IPRP system of an organization may not work in other organization. Therefore, it is difficult to identify the right design for the effective IPRP system (Anselmiet al.2017). At the same time, it has also been identified in some organizations that IPRP system stimulates the performance of the employees on temporary basis, but it cannot develop a performance-based culture within the organizations. For example, Starbucks has implemented the IPRP system; however, the management of the company still faces many complaints due to the negligence of the employees (Gärlinget al. 2017). It clearlyindicatesthatthe employeesof the companyare notaccustomedwith performance-based culture or it can also be stated that IPRP system failed to motivate the employees towards performance improvements. 3|P a g e
In this context, Halpernet al.(2017) added that IPRP system sometimes creates work burden on the employees. It is because under the IPRP system, the managers expect higher level of performance from the employees and if the employees fail to meet the expectation, managers use to force the employees for more achievements, so that the performance of the team can be improved. This sometimescreates negative impactson the performance standards of the employees. However, Japingaet al.(2017) claimed that the IPRP system was developed for base-level employees not for the managers or personnel at the higher level of organizational hierarchy. While analyzing the effectiveness of the IPRP system, it is important to analyze the theory based on which the IPRP system has been developed. Closely reviewing the IPRP system, it has been understood that the system is based on the Maslow’s motivational theory, which is also known as need hierarchy theory of motivation (Kahnet al.2015). As per this particular theory, the motivation of employees depends on their needs at different level. Maslow has divided the human needs in five different levels, which are shown in the below diagram: Figure 1: Maslow’s need hierarchy (Source: Meker and Barlas 2015) 4|P a g e
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
The above diagram is showing that the basic need of the employees is physiological need. This need of the employees is for food, shelter and cloth. In the context of an organization, it can be stated that the ground level employees are at this level of need and as the employees get promoted in the organizational hierarchy their needs go up in the Maslow’s need hierarchy. The system IPRP is based on this theory of motivation (Bellé 2015). Critically analyzing this theory, it can be identified that the physiological needs of the employees can be met properly if the employees earn enough amount of money. Hence, in this case, it can be stated that IPRP system is influenced by the physiological needs of the human beings. On the other hand, every employee within an organization always tries to involve in a group and as the employee get promoted at the organization due to better performance, people tends to involve that employee within their group (Ogundejiet al.2016). Hence, from this point of view again the IPRP system is motivated by belonging need. The esteem and self-actualization needs of the employees have also influenced IPRP system because without having enough level of income or money, it is very difficult to reach to the esteem or self-actualization needs in the Maslow hierarchy (Tayehet al.2015). Therefore, the above discussion is indicating that from the very beginning the IPRP system aims to motivate the people towards better performance, so that they can earn more money. Hence, it can be stated that the IPRP system is effective for motivating the employees towards higher level of performance (Anselmiet al.2017). Another important matter that must be considered while analyzingtheIPRPsystemisthatIPRPsystemisindividualspecificorteamspecific (Ir.polytechnic.edu.na 2018). Hence, when an organization implements the IPRP system, the employees know that if they perform better they will earn more and at the same time, they will get recognized by their colleagues also. In the case of team performance, every team member gets motivated by the IPRP system because if the performance standard of any team member declines, the chances of increasing the payment scale of the other team members are decreased (Nuckols 2017). Due to this, every team member cooperates with each other so that the performance standard of the team become improved. It is indicating that the IPRP system also creates a sense of cooperation among the employees within the organization. Therefore, the findings in the above discussion are clearly indicating that the benefits of IPRP system are more than the loopholes in the system. Moreover, the discussion has also proved that 5|P a g e
the IPRP system is effective enough to stimulate the higher levels of performance within the organizational framework. However, in this context, it must be noted that the effectiveness of IPRP system is not equal at every circumstances in the organization. In some circumstances, the IPRP system becomes highly effective, but in some other circumstances the system becomes inactive or inefficient. These different circumstances are discussed below: The IPRP system is highly effective or efficient in the circumstance in which the organizational activities largely depend on the efficiency of the base level employees or workers. For example, in the car manufacturing organizations like, Toyota or Ford where the efficiency or quality of the car depends on the skills and knowledge of the base level workers, the IPRP system works properly. It is because if the base-level workers can develop a car as per the exact expectation of the engineer without any mistake, overall efficiency of the company enhances (Ogundejiet al. 2016). There is another situation in which the IPRP system becomes very effective to motivate the employees and that is in the target based working environment. For example, in the financial sector, the IPRP system becomes very effective because in the financial service providing organizations the primary target of the employees is selling the financial products, which is very difficult (Kahnet al.2015). Due to this, in the financial service sector, more or less every employee has certain targets, which they can achieve easily under the IPRP system because this system motivates them improving the performance standard, so that they can achieve targets easily. Meker and Barlas (2015) stated that the IPRP system is very effective in the organizational circumstances, where the performance criteria of the individuals is established on the actual performance of the employees. At the same time, Shieldset al.(2015) noted that the IPRP system is also effective in the organizations where the individual performance of the employees is linked with the reward system of the organization. In the other words, Bellé (2015) mentioned that the IPRP system is effective where the payment scale of the employees depends on the managerial assessment. It is because the employees try to satisfy the managers and due to that they get easily motivated towards the performance improvement. There is another situation, 6|P a g e
wheretheIPRP systembecomesvery effectiveand thatiswhen theformalsystemof performance management of the company directly depends on the performance level of the employees as well as the company. It is because in this type of situation it is very easy to motivate the employees towards better performance standard as they know if they do not perform well, they will never achieve any promotion (Anselmiet al.2017). Another circumstance is in the organizations that deal with social welfare activities. In this type of organizations, the income depends highly on the donation and government grants, so if they do not perform well, they do not get donation or grant from the government (Ogundejiet al. 2016). Hence, if in this type of organization IPRP system is implemented, the effectiveness becomes higher. Every situation that has been mentioned above is very suitable for implementing the IPRP system because in each of this circumstance the promotion or income level of the employees depends on their performance to large extent. Due to this, the employees become more conscious about their performance standards. However, there are also some circumstances, where the IPRP system does not work properly to motivate the employees. These circumstances are stated below: In the government owned organizations the IPRP system does not work properly or effectively to motivate the employees. It is because in most of the government owned organizations the promotion of the employees is not directly based on their performance standards. There are many other factors that decide the promotion of the employees. Moreover, the level of competition in case of the government owned company is low (Tayehet al.2015). Due to this the IPRP system does not work properly in the government owned organizations. On the other hand, the IPRP system is also not effective in the circumstance where the salary level of the employees is fixed and there are some fixed policies for the salary increment of the employees. In this type of situation the IPRP system does not work to motivate the employees because from the very beginning the employees know that their promotion or salary increment will not take place before a certain time (Anselmiet al.2017). Another situation where the IPRP system cannot motivate the employees is in the initial time of the organization. It means in the case of new organizations, the IPRP system does not work because in a new organization the financial strength is very low and due to that the organization 7|P a g e
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
cannot increase the payment scale of the employees based on their performance standard. If the company does so, it cannot control its cost level and it cannot reserve enough amount of money for future purposes (Kahnet al.2015). Hence, implementation of IPRP system cannot work in this type of organization. The situation where the business of the company depends on the creativity of the employees, the IPRP system cannot motivate the employees. It is because the employees cannot enhance or stimulate their creativity to get better payment from the organization. Due to this, if the management implements this system within the organization, the IPRP becomes ineffective. Therefore,from theabove discussion, itcan beclearlyunderstood thattherearemany circumstances where the Individual Performance Based Payment system does not work properly. Hence, it can be stated that if the organizations plan to implement the IPRP system at the workplace, the management at first needs to analyze the type of the business and at the same time, they also needs to understand the actual needs of the employees because the effectiveness of IPRP system highly depends on the need hierarchy of human beings. Conclusion In this study, it has been identified that Individual Performance Related Pay system is widely used system in the current scenario. The study has also mentioned that the use of this system has been started in 1980s and from that time, the system became much popular in the business world. As per the findings in the study, the IPRP system is much effective in motivating the employees because it is based on the Maslow’s need hierarchy theory of motivation. However, at the same time, the study has also clarified that the system does not work properly in every circumstances because it is organization specific. 8|P a g e
Reference list Anselmi, L., Binyaruka, P. and Borghi, J., 2017. Understanding causal pathways within health systemspolicyevaluationthroughmediationanalysis:anapplicationtopaymentfor performance (P4P) in Tanzania.Implementation Science,12(1), p.10. Bellé, N., 2015. Performance‐related pay and the crowding out of motivation in the public sector: a randomized field experiment.Public Administration Review,75(2), pp.230-241. Bryson, A., Forth, J. and Stokes, L., 2017. How much performance pay is there in the public sector and what are its effects?.Human Resource Management Journal. Employment-studies.co.uk.2018.InstituteforEmploymentStudies.[online]Availableat: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]. Gärling, T., Andersson, M., Hedesström, M. and Biel, A., 2017. An Experimental Study of Influences of Performance-Related Payments on Timing of Delegated Stock Purchases.Journal of Behavioral Finance,18(1), pp.78-85. Halpern, V.J., Shireman, P.K., Woo, K., Rathbun, J. and Johnson, B., 2017. What is an Advanced Alternative Payment Model?.Journal of vascular surgery,66(4), p.1299. Humancapitalreview.org. 2018.Human Capital Review - Individual Performance Related Pay (PRP).[online]Availableat:http://www.humancapitalreview.org/content/default.asp? Article_ID=292 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]. Ir.polytechnic.edu.na.2018.IrPolytechni.[online]Availableat: http://ir.polytechnic.edu.na/bitstream/handle/10628/424/Shilongo.%20The%20impact%20of %20performance%20related%20pay%20on%20employees.%20MVAF.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed 7 Jan. 2018]. Japinga, M., Saunders, R., Gellad, Z.F. and McClellan, M., 2017. The Evolving Payment Reform Landscape: New Opportunities for Gastroenterology Leadership.Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology,15(9), pp.1322-1325. 9|P a g e
Kahn III, C.N., Ault, T., Potetz, L., Walke, T., Chambers, J.H. and Burch, S., 2015. Assessing Medicare’shospitalpay-for-performanceprogramsandwhethertheyareachievingtheir goals.Health Affairs,34(8), pp.1281-1288. Meker, T. and Barlas, Y., 2015. DynamicConsequencesof Performance‐Based Payment Systems in Public Hospitals.Systems Research and Behavioral Science,32(4), pp.459-480. Nuckols, T.K., 2017. With the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, Pay for Performance Is NowNationalPolicyPayforPerformanceIsNowNationalPolicy.Annalsofinternal medicine,166(5), pp.368-369. Ogundeji, Y.K., Bland, J.M. and Sheldon, T.A., 2016. The effectiveness of payment for performance in health care: a meta-analysis and exploration of variation in outcomes.Health Policy,120(10), pp.1141-1150. Shields, J., Brown, M., Kaine, S., Dolle-Samuel, C., North-Samardzic, A., McLean, P., Johns, R., O'Leary, P., Robinson, J. and Plimmer, G., 2015.Managing Employee Performance & Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press. Tayeh, M., Al-Jarrah, I.M. and Tarhini, A., 2015. Accounting vs. market-based measures of firm performance related to information technology investments. 10|P a g e