Performance should be an expectation of employment, and it is the leader's job to create an environment where maximum performance is possible. - Rob Burn, President, L & L Solutions
Performance-based pay is easy to understand: the idea is to remunerate the staff according to the results they bring in, and not just for the time spent at work. Nevertheless, anyone who has been part of an HR team will tell you that the reality behind it is much more complex. When it is done well, it energises the staff, makes the employees’ work compatible with the objectives of the business, and keeps the best workforce. At the worst, this will generate irritation, inequality, and even people being pushed away from your company.
In this aspect, Performance-based compensation (PBC) has created such an interest in the debates among the HR community. The management is usually under pressure to make the reward more significant, and at the same time, the design and functioning of this type of plan are ambiguous. What it is made of and how it really functions, as well as why HR leaders should give it their full attention, will be the next step.
Performance-based compensation converts a part of an employee’s pay from a fixed salary into incentives. The incentives may be in the form of yearly bonuses, quarterly performance pay, sales commission, profit-sharing, or even stock options that can only be exercised if certain targets are achieved.
The key motive is to forge a direct link between the working hours and the reward. Every employee who performs better is given the chance of earning more, and in the instance when the targets are not met, the employee will see smaller payouts. The concept shown on paper looks fair and motivating. But the details of what is measured, how it is tracked, and in what way the results are rewarded can mean everything.
Measurement of performance is the first big obstacle. For a sales rep, the objective might be very clear - to increase sales. But what about a project manager, a software developer, or a nurse? Their work is often collaborative, long-term, or influenced by factors outside their control.
If HR puts up wrong objectives, it can promote incorrect behaviour. For instance, an approach where a customer service crew is only rewarded for shortening the time required for closing a ticket might end with the group trying to finish the dialogues quickly instead of solving the problems radically. Performance-based pay only works if the measurements reflect the content of the labour that is valued most.
Transparency and fairness in paying employees are what staff expect from the employer in a workplace situation. Staff do not want to know only the amount of money they will bring in, but also the reasons why. This fact, in turn, leads to the incentive plans that, if not designed properly, are even more dangerous in the workplace.
If one finds the method to be unfair and rare to achieve, then motivation will decline. Even worse, the idea of rewards may be viewed as favouritism and politics rather than genuine recognition of performance. When that trust is lost, it is difficult to regain it. So HR cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the cultural influence of these matters.
Performance-related pay not only influences the characteristics of the individuals but also alters the team dynamics. When incentives focus too much on individual achievement, teamwork loses badly. People are likely to be more competitive than cooperative with each other.
The system, if it happens that it creates wide gaps between the high-income earners and the rest, may develop such. And if the payouts are based on goals that suddenly change due to market fluctuations or leadership decisions, then worker will feel that they have been cheated out of their bonus. Only 19% of global companies feel prepared for pay transparency, and those who aren’t ready risk issues with compliance, fair pay, and trust.
An additional typical problem is the "all or nothing" situation. Suppose you have put in the work for the whole year, and then you find that only a very small fraction is missing for the attainment of your bonus. In this case, the system will not leave the employees feeling inspired to take the initiative further, but instead, it will make them feel discouraged and alienated.
One of the main points where HR technology can significantly affect business success is related to the process of performance management. Technologies not only collect accurate performance data but also reduce human bias and deliver real-time dashboards, thus making employees comprehend their progress. Consequently, people do not have to wait until the annual review; instead, they can check their goals’ accomplishment anytime during the year.
HR executives can also profile and evaluate numerous plan designs by using the technology before actually implementing one. The bonus or financial incentive distribution simulation through HR helps them plan better and remove the possibility of surprises like budget surplus or unfairness. Nevertheless, tech is merely a facilitator. The real achievement of PBC rests on strategic planning and struggle.
First of all, a good work-based PBC plan has to be one that carefully combines constant and variable pay. Apart from enjoying the security of a base salary, employees will have the option of increasing their income by the extent of their performance. Further, it has to create realistic, measurable, and outcome-related goals that are within the scope of what an employee is able to do.
Transparency is no less a factor. In case employees are given the full details of how goals will be set, progress tracked, and payouts computed, they will be more inclined to view the system as fair. HR leaders should help managers to be equipped and ready to hold open performance discussions so employees would never wonder the reasons behind receiving certain bonuses.
Money is not the only focus of compensation, and neither is it the biggest one; culture also plays a part. A company’s values get the limelight through the incentive plan. Employees may become overly focused on achieving the numbers and, at the same time, disregard such things as teamwork, innovation, or long-term thinking.
Therefore, most companies are blending the use of numbers with the introduction of qualitative targets such as customer feedback, leadership behaviours, etc. After all, PBC should become a medium of supporting the company's mission and values rather than harming them.
The option of performance-based compensation will always be there. The desire for recognition other than a yearly raise persists among employees, and at the same time, companies will keep on looking for ways to avoid the inflation of fixed costs and yet be able to reward the results achieved. The predicament that confronts HR leaders is how to strike the right balance between motivating employees and yet ensuring fairness, culture, and trust are not compromised.
As a rule, the best course of action is to handle PBC as an ever-changing setup. Begin with a pilot, gather opinions, improve the factors and company, and so on. Keep the communication flow open, do managerial training, and employ technology to make quality assurance an easy task.
If done properly, performance-based compensation would not just be one of the company's pay strategies but would turn into a powerful tool of employee engagement, retention, and long-term success. If done wrongly, it is capable of leading employees to disengagement, mistrust, and turnover. HR leaders' decisions determine the direction their organisations will take.
Dive deeper into the future of healthcare – Keep reading on Health Technology Insights.
To participate in our interviews, please write to our HealthTech Media Room at sudipto@intentamplify.com
