Replies FOR 1 HOUR WRITER

Replies
2 replies: · Sufficient word count (minimum 300 words)	5
Major points are supported by the following: · At least 1 scripture reference and 1 scholarly source plus the text. · Good examples (pertinent, conceptual, or personal, examples are acceptable). · Thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, comparing/contrasting concepts).	5
Appropriate “netiquette” manners (For example, no name calling or labeling another student’s idea a derogatory term, such as “stupid,” “dumb” even when disagreeing—See Student Expectations ).	2.5
Brings clarity to issues being discussed relating issues to Scripture/biblical principles and experience.	5
Spelling & grammar	2.5
Total	50

Each Reply Needs to be at least 300 words.

Reply #1

Tiffany,

Some companies choose to utilize a variable pay plan in which employees receive tangible rewards or incentives for superior performance (Mathis, Jackson & Valentine, 2014, p. 408).  The reasoning behind this type of pay plan is the idea that those whom contribute more to the company’s success will in turn receive a higher monetary reward for their hard work than those whom do not contribute quite as much.  This is contrasting to a pay system based on seniority.  A pay for performance pay system acknowledges the fact that some employees have a higher contribution to the company’s success, while a seniority based pay system implies that the length of time an employee has been with the company is superior to actual performance contribution (Mathis, et al. 2007, p. 408).

            Many companies that are struggling financially choose to adopt a pay for performance pay strategy in order to cut costs.  Publix on the other hand, chose to adopt a pay for performance pay system in 2006 (Springer, 2007) in order to reinforce hard work and good behavior.  Typical food retailers do not adopt this type of pay system; instead pay is normally based on seniority (Springer, 2007).  Publix new pay for performance was met with backlash by some of its older employees.  In fact, one 75 year old employee was caught off guard by his pay cut and felt as though the company was trying to push him out the door (Albright, 2007).  Albright (2007) discusses how the restructured pay system Publix established was intended to encourage employees to work harder, but instead discouraged some of its employees and even left some feeling ashamed and confused.  Springer’s (2007) article shows a different side of things, though.  Publix new pay system may not have made all of its employees happy, but it has served its purpose.  Publix announced in 2007 that the majority of its employees had earned a raise and those employees that were deemed to be exceptional were rewarded with as much as a $1 an hour raise (Springer, 2007).  Maria Brous, a spokeswoman for Publix, stated that one of the factors behind pushing the decision to change to a pay for performance pay system was the fact that workers may become complacent after several years of employment (Springer, 2007).  Just because an employee has put in 30 years of service, does not mean that that employee is working to his or her full potential.  This is a slightly controversial topic, as some believe those whom have put in the most amounts of years with a company should be paid higher, while others believe that those whom contribute the most to a company on a daily basis should be paid higher.  Brous believes that the customer’s experience will benefit from this new pay system because employees will be striving to please customers in order to meet the expectations of their managers (Springer, 2007).  Publix did see some turnover following this implementation, but Springer (2007) describes this as “welcomed turnover”.  It may be assumed that those looking to get by simply doing the bare minimum on the job may have felt the desire to leave Publix.  This is the type of welcomed turnover that Publix saw.  All in all, Publix was successful in implementing a pay for performance pay system.

            Colossians 3:23 (New International Version) states, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters”.  As a Christian, one should strive to do the best he or she is able to do at his or her job, because the Lord has asked that His people do so.

Reply #2

Jinelle

Pay for performance in layman words mean that you provide the most pay to those employees who do the most for the business. Pay for performance can be divided into three categories individual, group and organizational.  In terms of an organization approach to per for performance if the company isn't performing, therefore pay is negatively impacted, this means that the entire organization is being measured collectively to determine the compensation.  Group pay for performance would reflect the efforts of a group. An employee pay for performance plan is “one that engages the employee for feedback, measures their compensation plans against peers in their industry, and ensures that goals and objectives are made clear to all relevant parties” (Belkin, 2013). Organizations using the pay for performance philosophy guarantees that “pay, and incentives are structured to reward performance differences (quantity, quality, speed of work, customer satisfaction, and so forth) among employees” (Mathis 2014).

Nokia in 2013 implemented a new pay for performance corporate wide compensation plan. Nokia’s director of global benefits praise the success of the compensation plan to the work of the Human Resource team and the techniques that were used to implement the new shift.  The human resources director of Nokia Lynn Miller states that the plan has proven a success and discusses the benefits the new plan offers its employees. “Employees still have an annual performance review, but there is a check-in each quarter for each worker to track progress and address concerns. Employees who were rated as exceptional performers received the differential pay, which was more than the amount given to about 85 percent of employees who were rated average, a category known as “valued performance.” Those with below-average ratings received no incentive pay, which was a departure from past Nokia practices” (Valikus, 2014).

The article discuses that the initial step to making the shift was to develop focus groups to collect the opinions on the existing pay program. From the focus group they received a negative feedback. The Human Resource department then developed a pay strategy that would combat those negative reviews of the previous pay program. A leadership team and personnel committee was also used in the process. Communication was said to be the most critical component of implementing the new plan, as all levels of management were kept informed and was a part of the project and were completely understanding of the new compensation plan.  It was important for all levels of management to be knowledgeably of the plan so that they could relay the information to the employees and be able to address any questions and concerns they may have.

It is debated that pay for performance is not a differentiator in the organization. The true way to achieve this is to place the priority on engaging “your employees on an individual basis to encourage retention. Achievement of corporate goals will happen naturally if the employee base is happy, motivated, and feeling like they are appreciated” (Belkin, 2013). Despite what the priority may be when implementing pay for performance into a company I believe it is a great motivator for employees. God himself has set us down on earth with the hopes of one day going to heaven. We are judged and compensation for our love, honor and sacrifice for him by achieving eternal life with him in that holy place. It is only fair that our earthly life has rewards like pay for performance to keep us always trying and aiming to achieve more for ourselves.

 

 

 

References

Belkin, Greg (2013). Making Pay for Performance an Organizational Differentiator (Again).         Retrieved from http://www.peoplefluent.com/blog/pay-for-performance-differentiator

Mathis, R., Jackson, J., & Valentine, S. (2014).  Human Resource Management (14th ed.,).

             Stamford, CT:   Cengage Learning.

Valitkus, Laime. (2014). Nokia Shifts to New Pay for performance plan. Retrieved from

http://www.bna.com/nokia-shifts-new-b17179873696/

Nokia, (2014).  http://company.nokia.com/en