Ineffectiveness of Incentive Pay Programs
Today, most companies are employing incentive pay programs to promote the motivation and productivity of their workers. The move is cultivated by the pervasive assumption that a promise of an award encourages employees to increase their output and productivity. However, this is not usually the case. Incentive pay programs manipulate employees even more than seniority and merit pay programs. The programs tend to stimulate temporal compliance, especially in certain workplaces (Martocchio, 2013). The crux of the problem is connected to the unsuitable psychological assumptions among employees. In fact, research has shown that this is the major factor that undermines the programs as compared to implementation glitches. The execution of incentive pay programs manipulates employees because they work devotedly for reasons related to the expected rewards. This mostly creates temporary compliance as opposed to long-standing change of behavior and attitudes. It is no surprise for employees to revert to their initial unproductive ways upon the withdrawal of the programs.
Therefore, the programs can be equated to bribery because it makes the workers to express commitment only during a certain period of time. As such, they hardly spur lasting and enduring devotion. More so, the programs are less effective than seniority and merit pay programs. The later rewards workers based on the measure of performance and experience (Martocchio, 2013). Consequently, seniority and merit pay programs better contribute to workplace harmony. For example, they register fewer cases in which some employees make their workmates appear incompetent because the programs rarely nurture the perception of favoritism in an organization. Unlike incentive programs, seniority and merit pay modules reflect rewards based on solid experience or performance. Hence, they are more likely to change the attitude, values, and productivity of workers in the long-run.
Inappropriateness of the Programs in the Healthcare System
Although incentive pay programs have been shown to be significantly efficient or inefficient depending on how they are designed, it may be inappropriate to establish such as a system in a healthcare system. This is a sector where professionalism and lasting productivity must be ensured all times and motivation and commitment should be continuously vibrant. Healthcare plays a pivotal in national growth and development and undermining this sector poses a major threat to the entire economy. That way, incentive pay programs may easily compromise this system. However, the human resource management should facilitate the development of an approach that ensures workers are paid what commensurate with the sector competitive pays because it is also a major factor that demoralizes the employees.
Seniority and merit pay programs are the most suitable ways of rewarding workers in this field. The fact is that the most healthcare sectors across the world are not living up to expectations of many (Harris, 2016). To this end, there are better ways of improving this sector rather than the use of incentive pay programs. Some of the promising solutions include better pay, an increase of the healthcare workforce, and the improvement of hospital conditions, especially in terms of resources. A majority of hospitals are struggling to reduce patient wait times and the number of follow-up visits (Harris, 2016). Therefore, without better pay and working conditions, incentive pay programs are bound to fail, especially in universal healthcare systems.
However, this does not mean that incentive pay programs cannot work in the healthcare system. The argument is that this should rarely be a preference since it is reasonably inappropriate when used solely, which means it should be integrated with other approaches. In cases when they are implemented, they should be designed accordingly. For instance, they should focus on individual and organizational success, emphasize on both short-term and long-term motivation, provide a structured outlook, and bear commendable financial implications. Such incentives would be imperative because they showcase the normal organizational culture of appreciating employees. That way, the healthcare system would not be an exception because it is important to execute the programs strategically since they can be concretely inappropriate.
Companies should not Train Employees
Reliable knowledge and skills are the top constituents of a potential employee. As such, some organizations go to the extent of training their employees in efforts to secure revered manpower and improve the organizational performance. This is an information age and the need for up-to-date knowledge and skills cannot be over-emphasized. However, companies do not have to train their employees. Organizations can employ workers with the necessary knowledge and skills. In this case, it is the responsibility of an employee to develop the ideal skills. In an era where the market is characterized by fierce competition, training programs may delay the momentum of competing (Beer, Finnstrom & Schrader, 2016). Training programs require resources which can exploit the financial capacity of a company.
It is strategic to seek a worker who has proved to possess the suitable skills. In a move to achieve a competitive edge against the major rivals in the market, organizations attract competent workers from reputable companies through the provision of better salaries and working environment. In addition to bringing top-notch skills to the organization, the employee can share the secrets of his/her former company thus promoting the acquisition of a competitive edge. Further, training may be a poor investment in the event where the trained employees leave the organization and join competitors. The case is especially so when the employee is disloyal and greedy. Therefore, in the presence of other opportunities, companies should not necessarily train their employees. Being the responsibility of the worker, he can pursue additional knowledge and skills to increase his/her capacity and competency.
References
Abdul Aziz, S. F., & Selamat, M. N. (2016). Stimulating Workplace Learning through Training Characteristics and Motivation to Learn. Jurnal Pengurusan, 481-17.
Beer, M., Finnstrom, M., & Schrader, D. (2016). Why leadership training fails - and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, (10), 50.
Harris, D. (2016). Executive Pay Incentives: Be Careful What You Ask and Pay For. NACD Directorship, 42(6), 72-73.
Martocchio, J. J. (2013). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall/Pearson Education International.
