The Update
Do you believe that the winners should take it all? In this paper I will discuss the existing plan, the proposed plan, how to score the two of the processes, and the ethical issues regarding an open system. As the report states, “Who could complain when there is actually merit money for pay raises” (Miller, 2009, p.1). During the deans meeting, Jeff Foreman, was one of the leads in discussing handling salary increases differently in the future. This would give fewer people more money rather than distributing pay increases to more faculty members as had been the case in the most recent years. A lot of the chairs had come up with different options, but Jeff Foreman said that “Chairs needed to carefully consider because so many factors were involved” (Miller, 2009, p.1). The dean wanted the recommendations of the chairs within forty eight hours so there wasn’t much time. They needed to think and think fast.
The existing plan wasn’t getting the job done in the most effective way. The existing plan that they had was party entitlement that split pay up between most of the faculty. This existing plan that they currently had was divided into thirds. The top third received two thirds of the money, the second third received one third, and the last third received nothing at all. The chairs felt that the winner should take all. They felt that the employees that succeed the most should be rewarded in the greatest possible way. The new proposal would take away from the middle of the pack, but would greatly benefit the winners. This plan wasn’t motivating the members the way it should be. A company should look for ways that will benefit the organization, but with this current plan, the employees didn’t have much drive or reason to succeed.
Though the existing plan has many flaws, there are also some great things that go with it. The great thing about the existing plan is that members knew that it had a huge impact on their pay and raises with some. It rewards people who are great and have a great chance of leaving. Another positive to the old system would be happy members. The new plan will leave more members angry, but the old plan was as harsh.
The new proposal would benefits a select few of the faculty. The top members would receive merit based raises. After tallying the scores in class on Thursday night, the highest score ranging from N/A to Excellent would be a fourteen. There were only a few members that would receive this raise. The top performers were Radihika Bose, Joan Randall, John young, and Jack Carr. The new proposal states that only these top performers will receive the raise based on the new merit. The next group consists of Ken Mehra, Monica Chu, Paul Jackson, and Fred Northern This third of the current members would not be included in the new proposal. The final group included Brant Warder, Brian fisher, Carla Hertz, and Alex Phillips. The final and worst performing group would be the first group eliminated from any pay raise chance.
The most effective thing in this new proposal would be that it is strictly performance based. That being said, the best thing about this would be it benefits the company. It will help because if members know that pay raises are performance based, they will try even harder to outdo the other members. This new proposal will bring out the best in almost all of the employees and it will also help eliminate the poor performers. Changing the existing plan and replacing it with the new proposal will help the members know that they will be rewarded if they succeed. By implementing raises and better incentives to the top performers it will make every single member work that much harder to achieve what they’re really capable of achieving. It will bring out the best in the members, but more importantly, the company.
There are also things that aren’t effective with this new proposal. Many more people will get cut from the raise opportunity. This will make many members very upset and angry with the organization. This happening could lead to more valued members leaving the company. Also, these members could go to a competitor after quitting and that could end up really hurting the company. These negatives are very important to consider when thinking about changed the existing plan.
There are two different types of compensation philosophies. The two are entitlement orientation and performance orientation. The entitlement philosophy that can be seen in many organizations that traditionally have given increases to their employees refers to entitlement orientation. The pay and incentives that are based on performance differences among employees refers to performance orientation. Carrol State uses both of these philosophies. There are many ethical issues that could arise with using an “open” system. People don’t like people knowing what should be private. Other member knowing what members make could either hurt the company or make it a much better one. Some members could get extremely motivated by seeing that someone makes more than them. On the other hand, it could really make some people angry. It could get really embarrassing for some if they’re below average in pay. This could make people less motivated. I believe an open system would be the best choice simply for the motivation that goes along with it. I believe that this system will bring out the best in people. The problem with the “closed” system would be the secrecy of it all. If people know how much you make, then they know how hard someone should be working. I think that if the information is kept secret people who make more work less and people make less work more.