Incentive pays are remunerations to employees for their performance. In giving incentives, the company needed to consider several factors. The case of Carrol State University in its want to provide incentives to its employees calls for the need to reflect on the budget, the evaluation process on who and how much to pay as well as the deliberation on the possible effect of the incentive to the organization as a whole. It should be noted that the several faculty members move out to better paying Universities due to compensation problem (Miller, 2014), and an unsatisfactory implementation of incentive remuneration may induce others to do the same.
The performance –based system is an excellent way to promote the cause of the university, in a way that it gets to provide incentive depending on a faculty’s performance; this system would generally encourage better output. This call for the need for improvement in the performance evaluation; a poorly conducted evaluation system can generate dissatisfaction among employees necessitating the need for its improvement. The current faculty performance evaluation as stated in the case may cause a big difference on how a faculty member may earn his merit. In a way, the evaluation process does not place the employees on equal standing due to the varied method of evaluating their performance. The disadvantage of evaluation is that the faculty members against the same criteria when in fact their activities differ. For example, while others are focused on conducting researches, others are bent on teaching most of the time. The evaluation of their performance should be rated based on how well they performed in their specific job to avoid downgrading the morale of other teachers who excelled and exerted their effort.
It is recommended that there should be consistency of pay in relation to the faculty rank. It is noted in this case that some of the assistant faculty members received higher pay more than the associate and full professors. Faculties who have stayed longer with the university should at least be paid equally with that of the new hires if not higher as an incentive for their loyalty. The performance evaluation was currently averaged on a three year basis, but it is recommended to do so in a shorter period of time, say about annually. This evaluation would show the current performance of each faculty member.
In order to reward those who exerted heir effort in research and publication, a different incentive shall be given to them. This is to ensure that they are rewarded for their effort through research incentives. It can be given as a one- time pay to establish the fact that it is a form of remuneration for their research effort and not for their teaching jobs.
The incentive pay determinant is based on the a) a salary increase on each faculty member, b) an additional incentive to members based on their performance as determined by the adjusted evaluation factors, c) those who excelled in their particular field shall be given additional incentives. This would ensure that each member will receive remuneration and would not be morally affected in cases where a co-employee is paid better. In return, faculty members are encouraged to do better in their jobs as they are assured of a just compensation for a job well done. This is an application of the merit pay philosophy wherein individuals are paid and rewarded based on their performance.
References
Miller, Thomas. The Proposed Merit Program: Should the Winners Take All? North American Case Research Association Inc.,
