Promise and peril

Promise and peril The there was an initial focus by managers to increase pay for excellence performance. The notion was that this would motivate workers and hence lead to desired behaviors and satisfactory performance outcomes in the corporations. Based on available research, it has proved financial incentives plays a role in motivation of employees (Beer, and Cannon 3).
In additional, the article notes of the ineffectiveness of traditional payment methods. It has been noted to make an organization less hierarchical and more competitive (Beer, and Cannon 4). This has been linked to payment being an entitlement and base pay being a functional level rather than a performance.
The article also notes there are challenges in implementing pay-for-performance programs by managers. One of such is seen on the negative impact on motivation, self-esteem, teamwork, and creativity (Beer, and Cannon 4). The second challenge is that the program may lead the employee to forego other things that would help the organization in pursuit of rewards. Merit has also been shown not to be based on performance. The proponent of the program believes the challenges can be overcome through intelligent design of the program (Beer, and Cannon 4).
The article also highlights the role played by managers in pay for performance programs. The article notes managers may opt for adoption, modification, or discontinuation of the programs (Beer, and Cannon 13). The article shows reasons for managers coming up with any of the decision. One influence for decision is on pragmatic commitment to finding ways of improving performance (Beer, and Cannon 13). Their goals are just driven by ensuring there is an improvement in performance but not just desire to apply the new programs. They also viewed the new tool as a combination of other tools that could be used in solving some of the challenge they face.
Moreover, failure to gain result of the new tool makes manager adopts other traditional tools. Such tools include close supervision, clear goals, coaching, and training (Beer, and Cannon 13). The manager’s view these tools as being fundamental in management hence change of decision. Additionally, the manager viewed the new program as requiring more time to implement and attracted difficulties in setting performance standards. The new program has been viewed as advantageous. However, it faces the challenges of implementation by managers.
Works Cited
Beer, Michael and Cannon, Mark. “ Promise and Peril in Implementing Pay-For-Performance.”