🚀 go-pugleaf

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>RESPONSE:
>One factor I've found in discussing merit pay or pay-for-performance is,
>that apart from the risk of bias or subjective evaluation, the dollars
>usually provided in corporate merit programs usually aren't perceived as
>enough to motivate employees to perform for merit increases. In Canada,
>merit increases for high performance seem to fall into the 3 - 5% range in
>industries I've been associated with (banking, finance, insurance) which on
>a $30M salary amounts to about a maximum of $1500 before taxes (less than
>$30 a week). It's simply seen as not enough to justify the effort or
>commitment. Work we've done with hospitals indicates that alternative
>reward and recognition systems can provide better results.
>
>Chris Hutcheson
>IDEA Ltd.
>Toronto, Ontario, Canada


COMMENT:
PERHAPS A "PAY FOR SKILLS" PHILOSOPHY MIGHT BE AN ANSWER WHERE
THE ESSENTIAL TASKS FOR JOB PERFORMANCE ARE CLEARLY DOCUMENTED
ALONG WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS REQUIRED TO OPERATE EQUIPMENT,
COMMUNICATE WITH CO-WORKERS, UNDERSTAND SYSTEM (THEIR SYSTEM),
CALCULATE APPROPRIATELY, OR WHAT EVER THE POSITION REQUIRES. ADVANCED
SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE THAT ENHANCED THE SYSTEM WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY
REWARDED.  THE FOCUS HAS TO BE ON ENHANCEMENT OF THE SYSTEM.  IF THE
SKILL IS DETRIMENTAL TO THINGS UP STREAM OR DOWN STREAM, THERE IS NO
BENEFIT, THEREFORE NO MERIT.