Week 5 Rope Case: Fair Day’s Work
MBA 63X
A James
Major Point of Story
The juxtaposition of how management views a fair day’s work to how a worker views a fair day’s wage. Management and staff sometimes have competing interests and while directives may be given about performance improvement requirements, these directives are sometimes made without first getting staff buy in for the process. This can cause a disconnect in interests as exemplified by Ginny. The slogan work smarter places the onus on the management team to show workers how to work smarter. However, the catch phrase fair day’s work places the onus on the employee to determine what is a fair day’s work based upon his or her pay. Ginny believes that she is giving a fair days work for a fair days pay and will endeavor to ensure this status quo is maintained as long as there is no one looking over her shoulder.
Theory
Our economic system is predicated on the belief that those who work hard and apply themselves will be rewarded for their labor by a fair day’s pay. This foundational transaction is often at the core of companies’ belief that to keep employees going, a wage will suffice as a motivator for performance and performance improvement. Studies have however shown that this is rarely the case. Yes, it is true that a wage is the default motivator because money is measurable and fungible, but at best it is only a secondary motivator.
Organizations provide rewards to staff with one simple fact in mind, to motivate their performance and encourage their loyalty and retention. As agency theory indicates however, staff and management can view goals, rewards, results, and motivation quite differently to the point of being diametrically opposed. Agency theory postulates that owners use pay and other forms of compensation to have management collaborate on running the organization effectively – from