View from the Bridge and Life on Deck: Contrasts and Contradictions in Performance-Related Pay

Kelly, Aisling; Monks, Kathy

doi:10.4135/9781446280263.n7

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The application of PfP components is heavily debated (Frey & Osterloh, 1997;Kelly & Monks, 1998;Osterloh & Frey, 2000). Their aptitude for employee selection and motivation (Winter, 1997) is discussed both from behavioral as well as economic perspectives.…”

Section: Pay-for-performance Compensation Systems In Nposmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Antecedents of Pay-for-Performance Systems in Nonprofit Organizations

Brandl

Güttel

2007

Voluntas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The applicability of pay-for-performance systems (PfP-systems) in nonprofit organizations (NPOs) is discussed controversially both in literature and in practice. Existing theoretical models emphasize the importance of the employee's motivation and output control for the effectiveness of PfP-systems. However, empirical evidence on which factors influence PfP-system's introduction in NPOs is still lacking. Based on an exploratory study of nine Austrian NPOs, this paper develops hypotheses on what organizational factors distinguish NPOs that rely on PfP-systems for managing employees' performance differences from those that use alternative approaches (e.g., job enrichment, NPO-spirit). Findings suggest that decisions on the application of PfP-systems are influenced by five determinants: perceived degree of competitiveness regarding funding and service provision; degree of strategic freedom; clarity of strategic objectives; existence of management instruments; and organizational culture.Résumé L'applicabilité de la rétribution pour la performance (PfP : pay-forperformance) dans le cadre des organisations à but non lucratif (NPO : Non Profit Organisation) fait l'objet d'une discussion controversée à la fois dans les documents et dans la pratique. Des modèles théoriques existants mettent l'accent sur l'importance de la motivation des employés pour l'efficacité des systèmes PfP. Cependant, la preuve empirique sur la nature des facteurs qui influence l'introduction des systèmes PfP dans les NPO fait encore défaut. En se basant sur une étude prospective de neuf NPO autrichiennes, cet article développe des hypothèses sur la nature des facteurs organisationnels qui distinguent les NPO ayant recours aux systèmes PfP pour gérer les différences de performance des employés de celles qui utilisent des approches alternatives. Les conclusions suggèrent que les décisions portant sur l'application des systèmes PfP sont influencés par cinq facteurs déter-minants : le degré perçu de compétitivité concernant le financement et la prestation de services, le degré de liberté stratégique, la clarté des objectifs stratégiques, l'existence d'instruments de gestion et la culture de l'organisation.Zusammenfassung Die Anwendbarkeit von leistungsbezogenen Vergütungs-systemen in Nonprofit-Organisationen wird sowohl in der Literatur als auch in der Praxis kontrovers diskutiert. Theoretische Modelle betonen die Bedeutung der Mitarbeitermotivation und Ausgabesteuerung für effektive leistungsbezogene Vergütungssysteme. Allerdings fehlen noch immer empirische Beweise darüber, welche Faktoren Einfluss auf die Einführung leistungsorientierter Vergütungssys-teme bei den Nonprofit-Organisationen haben. Basierend auf einer Forschungsstudie neun österreichischer Nonprofit-Organisationen stellt dieser Beitrag Hypothesen dazu auf, welche organisatorischen Faktoren die Nonprofit-Organisationen, die bei der Handhabung der unterschiedlichen Mitarbeiterleistungen auf leistungsbezogene Vergütungssysteme bauen, von den Organisationen abheben, die alternative Method...

show abstract

Section: Pay-for-performance Compensation Systems In Nposmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Antecedents of Pay-for-Performance Systems in Nonprofit Organizations

Brandl

Güttel

2007

Voluntas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, studies by Beer and Casson (2004) in the USA and Procter et al (1993) in the UK indicate that there is not a simple path between PRP implementation and better performance. While there are a variety of reasons for the failure of such schemes, three are prominent namely, employee perceptions of the scheme criteria and methods of assessment, problems with identifying individual employee contributions (Kelly and Monks, 1998) and the destructive effect on intrinsic motivation, teamwork and creativity (Pfeffer, 1998;Pfeffer and Sutton, 2001). As a response to those criticisms, and of interest to this article, there has been a growing interest in the USA in group-wide performance management schemes (Gomez-Meijia et al, 2000;Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001).…”

Section: Evidence-based Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Still Searching for the Evidence? Evidence-based Policy, Performance Pay and Teachers

Farrell

Morris

2009

Journal of Industrial Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evidence based policy (EBP) movement became prominent in the UK in the late 1990s, portrayed as an ideology-free method of policy development and implementation. This article assesses the EBP claims by analysing a case study of one piece of policy implementation, namely the introduction of performance-related pay (PRP) for schoolteachers in England and Wales. Using primary and secondary sources, the article argues that while previous evidence was brought into the policy development processes, it was largely ignored. Indeed, prosaic political considerations may well have shaped the policy. Indeed, the teachers' attitudes towards PRP suggest that few of the objectives will be met.

show abstract

“…Despite such a blueprint and their growing use, there is increasing questioning of the effectiveness of PRP schemes, prone as they are to problems (Pfeffer, 1998). In the UK there is an illustrative series of case studies of PRP implementation in the private sector (Kelly and Monks, 1998;Kessler and Purcell, 1992;Kinnie and Lowe, 1990;Procter et al, 1993). A variety of reasons for failure emerge, particularly arising out of employee perceptions of the criteria and methods of assessment, but also problems of identifying individual employee contributions.…”

Section: Performance-related Pay In the Public Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

Resigned Compliance

Farrell¹,

Morris

2004

Educational Management Administration & Leadership

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the introduction of performance-related pay (PRP) in schools in Wales. Specifically, it evaluates the attitudes of teachers to PRP by means of a large-scale questionnaire survey. The results suggest a strong antipathy to PRP for school teachers on the basis that it would be divisive and difficult to implement. In particular, teachers felt that it would be problematic to isolate the performance of individual teachers and deleterious to collegiality and teamwork in schools. Moreover, teachers were critical of the methods of assessment, differences between schools, the potential for subjectivity and favouritism, the negative effect on morale and the bureaucratic burden.

show abstract

View from the Bridge and Life on Deck: Contrasts and Contradictions in Performance-Related Pay

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Organizational Antecedents of Pay-for-Performance Systems in Nonprofit Organizations

Organizational Antecedents of Pay-for-Performance Systems in Nonprofit Organizations

Still Searching for the Evidence? Evidence-based Policy, Performance Pay and Teachers

Resigned Compliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About