You Manage It! 1: Global Is There a Downside to Meritocracy?

Pay-for-performance systems are predicated on the simple idea that rewarding employees based on their contribution is not only fair but also important in order to attract, retain, and motivate the best performers. This view is widely shared in the United States, and most U.S. companies devote a substantial amount of their compensation dollars to achieve this (what is referred to as “individual equity” in this chapter). However, critics in other countries often note that too much meritocracy may create a blind spot for management because the organization may allocate insufficient resources to other important aspects of the employment relationship. A few examples follow:

  • ▪ Sick Leave The United States, unlike most Western countries, does not have a mandatory sick-leave policy for employees. The Healthy Family bill, which would require such a policy, has been introduced in Congress during the past 10 years but has always failed to pass due to opposition by powerful business groups. According to U.S. Department of Labor statistics, more than a third of civilian workers in the United States do not get sick leave. Supporters of the Healthy Family bill argue that this represents a health hazard to both employees and the public because low-wage workers can’t afford to stay away from work when sick.

  • ▪ Child Care Unlike most European nations, American firms seldom provide day care for their employees’ children and there is no government policy that supports it. The U.S. National Institute of Child Health Development rates only 10 percent of day care centers as high quality, with the median annual salary of a day care worker below that of a parking lot attendant. At the same time, day care consumes over 40 percent of the median income of many low-wage workers. Compare this to France, for instance, which devotes more than twice the amount of its GDP to day care than does the United States. As a result, day care is available in France to all parents, with the fee tied to the parents’ personal income.

  • ▪ The Myth of the “Lone Star” Most American firms believe in snapping up and retaining top talent through targeted incentives for so called “key contributors.” In collectivist countries, such as in China and South Korea, it is the team that matters rather than the lone star. A group of Harvard business professors warns against the obsession of U.S. firms with identifying and rewarding lone stars: “The idea that you can catapult your firm into the big leagues with one or two top performers is a myth . . . the truth is, in the absence of equally talented colleagues, stars probably won’t excel at their jobs or stick around for very long.”

Critical Thinking Questions

  1. 11-13. Do you think offering incentives to key contributors motivates them as well as other employees to do a better job? Why or why not? If not, what alternative ways do you propose? Explain.

  2. 11-14. Are there any potential problems with devoting most compensation dollars to rewarding top performers, even if this means neglecting investments to improve the welfare of all employees (such as day care or paid sick leave)? If you were asked the hypothetical question of what percentage of compensation dollars should be directed toward individual contributors versus directed to investments in programs to improve the welfare of all employees, what percentage would you choose? Justify your answer.

  3. 11-15. According to Jim Kochanski, a compensation consultant at Sibson Consulting Co., there are four reasons to allocate scarce compensation dollars to reward key contributors: “it is considered ‘fair’ by most employees; it can motivate effort, focus, and cooperation; it can attract and retain stars; and the alternative is not very good (the alternative is ‘entitlement’).” Do you agree or disagree? Explain.

Team Exercise

  1. 11-16. Class is divided into teams of five. Some teams are asked to defend the view that most financial incentives should be targeted for key contributors. The other teams are asked to defend the contrarian view; that is, that devoting most compensation resources to the welfare of all employees is a better policy. Each pair of teams (pro and con) will debate for about 15 minutes, moderated by the instructor. Debate is then opened to discussion for the entire class.

Experiential Exercise: Team

  1. 11-17. Class is divided into teams of five. Lets assume a firm with 5,000 employees has a pool of 50 million dollars annually to allocate either to bonuses for individual contributors or to support activities that enhance the welfare of all employees (such as day care or paid sick leave). Each team is asked to divide the pie into performance-based bonuses for individual contributors versus alternative allocation of cash resources to programs designed to improve the welfare of all employees. The instructor will play devil’s advocate, asking each team probing questions as to why they chose a particular proportion for these alternative allocations.

Experiential Exercise: Individual

  1. 11-18. Research the success (or failure) of pay-for-performance systems for individual employees. Based on your research, would you recommend that these systems be expanded, limited, or eliminated altogether? Justify your recommendations.

Sources:Based on Plumer, B. (2013). Five shocking facts about child care in the United States. www.washingtonpost.com ; McGregor, J. (2013). Should paid sick leave be mandated for all employees? www.washingtonpost.com ; Groysberg, B., Lee, L., and Abrahams, R. (2013). The myth of the lone star: Why one top performer may not shine as brightly as you hope. [no longer online] http://online.wsj.com ; Bruce, S. (2013). News flash—30% do pay for performance well! Do you? [no longer online] http://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com (note: interview with Jim Kochanski at Sibson reported in this article).
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.216.118.40