Incentive Compensation Management

INCENTIVE COMPENSATION

 

In the previous chapter we emphasized that the worth of a job is a significant factor in determining the pay rate for that job. However, pay based solely on this measure may fail to motivate employees to perform to their full capacity. Unmotivated employees are likely to meet only minimum performance standards. Recognizing this fact, organizations such as BFGoodrich, Continental Bank, and American Barrick offer some form of incentive to workers. These organizations are attempting to get more motivational mileage out of employee compensation by tying it more clearly to employee performance. Man­agers at Magma Copper Company note that incentive linked with output “causes workers to more fully apply their skills and knowledge to their jobs while encouraging them to work together as a team.” Marshall Campbell, vice president of human resources, re­marked, “If we increase production of ore extraction, and tie output to employee com­pensation, we operate with lower costs and that makes us more competitive in the national and international marketplace.”  In their attempt to raise productivity, man­agers are focusing on the many variables that help to determine the effectiveness of pay as a motivator. Financial incentive plans are being developed--on the basis of knowledge acquired by researchers and HR practitioners--to meet the needs of both employees and employers more satisfactorily.
In this chapter we will discuss incentive plans in terms of the objectives they hope to achieve and the various factors that may affect their success. We will also attempt to identify the plans that are most effective in motivating different categories of employees to achieve these objectives. For discussion purposes, incentive plans have been grouped into two broad categories, individual incentive plans and group incentive plans, as shown in Figure 11-1.

 

Reasons and Requirements for Incentive Plans

Reasons for Adopting an Incentive Plan

A clear trend in compensation management is the growth of incentive plans, also called variable pay programs, for employees below the executive level. In­centive plans emphasize a shared focus on organizational success by broadening the opportunities for incentives to nontraditional groups while operating outside the merit (base pay) increase system.4 Incentive plans create an operating envi­ronment that champions a philosophy of shared commitment through the belief that every individual contributes to organizational success.

(insert Figure 11-1: Types of Incentive Plans)

            Over the years, organizations have implemented incentive plans for a vari­ety of reasons: high labor costs, competitive product markets, slow technological advances, and high potential for production bottlenecks.  While these reasons are still cited, contemporary arguments for incentive plans focus on pay-for-performance and improved organizational productivity.6 By linking compensa­tion to employee effort, organizations believe that employees will improve their job performance. Incentives are designed to encourage employees to put out more effort to complete their job tasks--effort they might not be motivated to expend under hourly and/or seniority-based compensation systems. Financial incentives are therefore offered to improve or maintain high levels of productivity and qual­ity, which in turn improves the market for U.S. goods and services in a global economy. Figure 11-2 summarizes the major advantages of incentive pay pro­grams as noted by researchers and HR professionals.
Do incentive plans work? Various studies have demonstrated a measurable relationship between incentive plans and improved organizational performance. In a survey of organizations with more than 500 employees, conducted by the New York Stock Exchange, 70 percent of organizations with gainsharing pro­grams stated that those programs improved productivity.7 In the area of manu­facturing, productivity will often improve by as much as 20 percent after the adoption of incentive plans.8 Improvements, however, are not limited to goods-producing industries. Service organizations, not-for-profit, and government agencies also show productivity gains when incentives are linked to organiza­tional goals. For example, after beginning an incentive pay program, Viking Freight Systems boosted on-time service performance and reduced customer damage claims, and Taco Bell Corporation reduced food costs and improved cus­tomer service scores after it began an employee bonus program in l99l.

 

FIGURE 11-2:  Advantages of Incentive Pay Programs

• Incentives focus employee efforts on specific performance targets. They provide real motivation that produces important employee and organizational gains.
• Incentive payouts are variable costs linked to the achievement of results. Base salaries are fixed costs largely unrelated to output
• Incentive compensation is directly related to operating performance. If performance objectives (quantity and/or quality) are met, incentives are paid. If objectives are not achieved, incentives are withheld.
• Incentives foster teamwork and unit cohesiveness when payments to individuals are based on team results.
• Incentives are a way to distribute success among those responsible for producing that success.

 

Because of the benefits organizations have derived from incentive pay programs, these programs are predicted to increase in popularity. Highlights in HRM 1 shows the results of one national survey that assessed the level of aware­ness and the projected use of one incentive compensation plan--gainsharing. Interestingly, respondents in each standard industrial code (SIC), the basis upon which the respondents were grouped, were highly aware of gainsharing plans, with increased usage predicted for each employer classification.
However, for two main reasons, incentive plans have not always led to orga­nizational improvement. First, incentive plans sometimes fail to satisfy employee needs. Second, management may have failed to give adequate attention to the design and implementation of the plan.11 Furthermore, the success of an incen­tive plan will depend on the environment that exists within an organization. A plan is more likely to work in an organization where morale is high, employees believe they are being treated fairly, and there is harmony between employees and management.

Requirements for a Successful Incentive Plan

For an incentive plan to succeed, employees must have some desire for the plan. This desire can be influenced in part by how successful management is in intro­ducing the plan and convincing employees of its benefits. Encouraging employees to participate in administering the plan is likely to increase their willingness to accept it.
Employees must be able to see a clear connection between the incentive payments they receive and their job performance. This connection is more vis­ible if there are objective quality or quantity standards by which they can judge their performance. Commitment by employees to meet these standards is also essential for incentive plans to succeed. This requires mutual trust and understanding between employees and their supervisors, which can only be achieved through open, two-way channels of communication. Management should never allow incentive payments to be seen as an entit1ement.  Instead, these payments should be viewed as a reward that must be earned through effort. This percep­tion can be strengthened if the incentive money is distributed to employees in a separate check.

 

Setting Performance Measures

Measurement is key to the success of incentive plans because it communicates the importance of established organizational goals. What gets measured and re­warded gets attention. For example, if the organization desires to be a leader in quality, then performance indexes may focus on customer satisfaction, timeliness, or being error-free. If being a low-priced producer is the goal, then emphasis should be on cost reduction or increased productivity with lower acceptable levels of quality. While a variety of performance options are available, most fo­cus on quality, cost control, or productivity.

(Insert HIGHLIGHTS IN HRM: Awareness of Gainsharing Programs Across SIC Groups Compared with Consideration of Installing Gainsharing)

One authority on incentive plans notes that the failure of most incentive plans can be traced to the choice of performance measures.  Therefore measures that are quantitative, simple, and structured to show a clear relationship to im­proved performance are best. Overly quantitative, complex measures are to be avoided. Also, when selecting a performance measure, it is necessary to evaluate the extent to which the employees involved can actually influence the measure­ment. Finally, employers must guard against “ratcheting-up” performance goals by continually trying to exceed previous results. This eventually leads to em­ployee frustration and employee perception that the standards are unattainable. The result will be a mistrust of management and a backlash against the entire incentive program.

 

Administering  Incentive Plans

While incentive plans based on productivity can reduce direct labor costs, to achieve their full benefit they must be carefully thought out, implemented, and maintained. A cardinal rule is that thorough planning must be combined with a “proceed with caution” approach. Compensation managers repeatedly stress a number of points related to the effective administration of incentive plans. Three of the more important points are, by consensus:

1.  Incentive systems are effective only when managers are willing to grant incentives based on differences in individual performance. Allowing incentive payments to become pay guarantees defeats the motivational intent of the incentive. The primary purpose of an
incentive compensation plan is not to pay off under almost all circumstances, but rather to motivate performance. Thus, if the plan is to succeed, poor performance must go unrewarded.
2.  Annual salary budgets must be large enough to reward and reinforce exceptional performance. When compensation budgets are set to ensure that pay increases do not exceed certain limits (often established as a percentage of payroll or sales), these constraints may prohibit rewarding outstanding individual or group performance.
3.  The overhead costs associated with plan implementation and administration must be determined. These may include the cost of establishing performance standards and the added cost of record keeping. The time consumed in communicating the plan to employees, answering questions, and resolving any complaints about it must also be included in these costs.

 

Incentives for Nonmanagement Employees

Many factors influence the design of incentive plans for nonmanagement em­ployees. For example, incentive plans for this group are designed with consider­ation for the type of work these employees do and the technology they use. Also, when employees work in teams, a team incentive plan may be preferred since in­dividual effort may not be distinguishable from team effort.14  Organizations may also use team incentives in cases where some employees are likely to try to maxi­mize their output at the expense of their co-workers. One report stated that team incentives may reduce rivalry and promote cooperation and concern for the unit’s overall performance.  In addition, in highly competitive industries such as foods and retailing, low profit margins will affect the availability of monies for incentive payouts. All these considerations suggest that tradition and phi­losophy, as well as economics and technology, help to govern the design of nonmanagement incentive systems. The various gainsharing plans discussed later in the chapter are typically offered to both nonmanagement and manage­ment employees.

 

 

Incentives for Hourly Employees

Incentive payments for hourly employees may be determined by the number of units produced, by the achievement of specific performance goals, or by produc­tivity improvements in the organization as a whole. In the majority of incentive plans, incentive payments serve to supplement the employee's basic wage.

 

Piecework

One of the oldest incentive plans is based on piecework. Under straight piece­work, employees receive a certain rate for each unit produced. Their compensa­tion is determined by the number of units they produce during a pay period. At Steelcase, an office furniture maker, employees can earn more than their base pay, often as much as 35 percent more, through piecework for each slab of metal they cut or chair they upholster. Under a differential piece rate, employees whose production exceeds the standard output receive a higher rate for all of their work than the rate paid to those who do not exceed the standard.
Employers will include piecework in their compensation strategy for several reasons. The wage payment for each employee is simple to compute, and the plan permits an organization to predict its labor costs with considerable accuracy, since these costs are the same for each unit of output. The piecework system is more likely to succeed when units of output can be measured readily, when the quality of the product is less critical, when the job is fairly standardized, and when a constant flow of work can be maintained.
Under the piecework system, employees normally are not paid for the time they are idle unless the idleness is due to conditions for which the organization is responsible, such as delays in work flow, defective materials, inoperative equip­ment, or power failures. When the delay is not the fault of employees, they are paid for the time they are idle.

 

Computing the piece rate.  Although time standards establish the time re­quired to perform a given amount of work, they do not by themselves determine what the incentive rate should be. The incentive rates must be based on hourly wage rates that would otherwise be paid for the type of work being performed. Say, for example, the standard time for producing one unit of work in a job paying $6.50 per hour was set at twelve minutes. The piece rate would be $1.30 per unit, computed as follows.

60 (minutes per hour)
12 (standard time per unit)    =          5 units per hour

$6.50 (hourly rate)
5 (units per hour)   =   $1.30 per unit

 

Limited use of piecework.  In spite of its incentive value, the use of piecework is limited. One reason is that production standards on which piecework must be based can be difficult to develop for many types of jobs. In some instances the cost of determining and maintaining this standard may exceed the benefits gained from the system. Jobs in which individual contributions are difficult to distinguish or measure, or in which the work is mechanized to the point that the employee exercises very little control over output, also may be unsuited to piece­work. The same is true of jobs in which employees are learning the work or in which high standards of quality are paramount.
One of the most significant weaknesses of piecework, as well as of other in­centive plans based on individual effort, is that it may not always be an effective motivator. If employees believe that an increase in their output will provoke dis­approval from fellow workers, they may avoid exerting maximum effort because their desire for peer approval outweighs their desire for more money.'6 Over a pe­riod of time, the standards on which piece rates are based tend to loosen, either because of peer pressure to relax the standards or because employees discover ways to do the work in less than standard time. In either case, employees are not required to exert as much effort to receive the same amount of incentive pay, so the incentive value is reduced.

 Negative reaction to piecework.  Despite the opportunity to earn additional pay, employees, especially those belonging to unions, have negative attitudes toward piecework plans. Some union leaders have feared that management will use piecework or similar systems to try to speed up production, getting more work from employees for the same amount of money. Another fear is that the system may induce employees to compete against one another, thereby taking jobs away from workers who are shown to be less productive. There is also the belief that the system will cause some employees to lose their jobs as productivity increases or will cause craft standards of workmanship to suffer.

 

Individual Bonuses

A bonus is an incentive payment that is supplemental to the basic wage. It has the advantage of providing employees with more pay for exerting greater effort, while at the same time they still have the security of a basic wage. A bonus pay­ment may be based on thenumber of units that an individual produces, as in the case of piecework. For example, at the basic wage rate of $7 an hour plus a bonus of 15 cents per unit, an employee who produces 100 units during an eight-hour period is paid $71, computed as follows.

                                    (Hours x wage rate) + (number of units x unit rate) = Wages

                                    (  8       x        $7    ) + (100           x     l5 cents       ) = $71

Bonuses may also be determined on the basis of cost reduction, quality improve­ment, or performance criteria established by the organization.

 

Team Bonuses

Team bonuses, as Highlights in HRM 2 illustrates, are most desirable to use when the contributions of individual employees either are difficult to distin­guish or depend on group cooperation.  Thus, as production has become more automated, as teamwork and coordination among workers have become more important, and as the contribution of those engaged indirectly in production work has increased, team bonuses have grown more popular. Most team bonus plans developed in recent years base incentive payments on such factors as improvements in efficiency, product quality, or reductions in labor costs. Organi­zations can support group planning and problem solving, thereby building a “team culture.”
Team bonuses, unlike incentive plans based solely on output, can broaden the scope of the contributions that employees are motivated to make. For ex­ample, if labor costs represent 30 percent of an organization’s sales dollars and the organization is willing to pay a bonus to employees, then whenever employee labor costs represent less than 30 percent of sales dollars, those savings are put into a bonus pool for employees. Information on the status of the pool is reported to employees on a weekly or monthly basis, explaining why a bonus was or was not earned. The team bonus may be distributed to employees equally, in proportion to their base pay, or on the basis of their relative contribution to the team.

(insert HIGHLIGHTS IN HRM: Computing the Team Bonus at BF Goodrich)

Standard Hour Plan

Another common incentive technique is the standard hour plan, which sets incentive rates based on a predetermined “standard time” for completing a job. If employees finish the work in less than the expected time, their pay is still based on the standard time for the job multiplied by their hourly rate. For example, if the standard time to install an engine in a half-ton truck is five hours and the mechanic completes the job in four and a half hours, the payment would be the mechanic’s hourly rate times five hours. Standard hour plans are particularly suited to long-cycle operations or those jobs or tasks that are nonrepetitive and require a variety of skills.
The Wood Products Southern Division of Potlatch Corporation has success­fully used a standard hour plan for the production of numerous wood products. The incentive payment is based on the standard hours calculated to produce and package 1,000 feet of wood paneling. If employees can produce the paneling in less time than the standard, incentives are paid on the basis of the percentage improvement. Thus, with a 1,000-hour standard and completion of the wood paneling in 900 hours, a 10 percent incentive is paid. Each employee’s base hourly wage is increased by 10 percent and then multiplied by the hours worked.
While standard hour plans can motivate employees to produce more, em­ployers must ensure that equipment maintenance and product quality does not suffer as employees strive to do their work faster to earn additional income.

 

Incentives for Management Employees

Merit raises constitute one of the financial incentive systems used most com­monly for managerial employees. Most recent studies of pay practices indicate that as many as 90 percent of large public- and private-sector organizations have merit pay programs for one or more of their employee groups.  Incentive pay may also be provided through different types of bonuses. Like those for hourly em­ployees, these bonuses may be based on a variety of criteria involving either indi­vidual or group performance. As stated earlier, managerial employees are also usually included in the different types of gainsharing plans. Although they may not technically manage employees, sales employees and professional employees will also be discussed in this section.

Merit Raises

Merit raises can serve to motivate managerial, sales, and professional employees if they perceive the raises to be related to the performance required to earn them. Furthermore, theories of motivation, in addition to behavioral science research, provide justification for merit pay plans as well as other pay-for-performance pro­grams. For employees to see the link between pay and performance, however, their performance must be evaluated in light of objective criteria. If this evalu­ation also includes the use of subjective judgment by their superiors, employees must have confidence in the validity of this judgment. Most important, any in­creases granted on the basis of merit should be distinguishable from employees’ regular pay and from any cost-of-living or other general increases. Where merit increases are based on pay-for-performance, merit pay should be withheld when performance is seen to decline.

 

Problems with Merit Raises

Merit raises may not always achieve their intended purpose. Unlike a bonus, a merit raise may be perpetuated year after year even when performance declines. When this happens, employees come to expect the increase and see it as being unrelated to their performance. Furthermore, employees in some organizations are opposed to merit raises because, among other reasons, they do not really trust management. What are referred to as merit raises often turn out to be increases based on seniority or favoritism, or raises to accommodate increases in cost of living or in area wage rates.  Even when merit raises are determined by per­formance, the employee's gains may be offset by inflation and higher income taxes. Compensation specialists also recognize the following problems with merit pay plans:

1.  Money available for merit increases may be inadequate to satisfactorily raise employees’ base pay.
2.  Managers may have no guidance in how to define and measure performance; there may be vagueness regarding merit award criteria.
3.  Employees may not believe that their compensation is tied to effort and performance; they may be unable to differentiate between merit pay and other types of pay increases.
4.  Employees may believe that organizational politics plays a significant factor in merit pay decisions, despite the presence of a formal merit pay system.
5.  There may be a lack of honesty and cooperation between management and employees.
6.  It has been shown that “overall” merit pay plans do not motivate higher levels of employee performance.24

Probably one of the major weaknesses of merit raises lies in the performance ap­praisal system on which the increases are based. Even with an effective system, performance may be difficult to measure. Furthermore, any deficiencies in the performance appraisal program (these were discussed in Chapter 9) can impair the operation of a merit pay plan. Moreover, the performance appraisal objectives of employees and their superiors are often at odds. Employees typically want to maximize their pay increases, whereas superiors may seek to reward employees in an equitable manner on the basis of their performance. In some instances, em­ployee pressures for pay increases actually may have a harmful effect on their per­formance appraisal.

(insert Figure 11-3: Merit Guideline Chart)

            While there are no easy solutions to these problems, organizations using a true merit pay plan often base the percentage pay raise on merit guidelines tied to performance appraisals. For example, Figure 11-3 illustrates a guideline chart

for awarding merit raises. The percentages may change each year, depending on various internal or external concerns such as profit levels or national economic conditions as indicated by changes in the consumer price index. Under the illus­trated merit plan, to prevent all employees from being rated outstanding or above average, managers may be required to distribute the performance rating accord­ing to some preestablished formula (e.g., only 10 percent can be rated outstand­ing). Additionally, when setting merit percentage guidelines, organizations should consider individual performance along with such factors as training, ex­perience, and current earnings.

Lump-Sum Merit Pay

To make merit increases more flexible and visible, organizations such as Boeing, Timex, and Westinghouse have implemented a lump-sum merit program. Under this type of plan, employees receive a single lump-sum increase at the time of their review, an increase that is not added to their base salary. Unless manage­ment takes further steps to compensate employees, their base salary is essentially frozen until they receive a promotion.
Lump-sum merit programs offer several advantages. For employers, this in­novative approach provides financial control by maintaining annual salary ex­penses. Merit increases granted on a lump-sum basis do not contribute to escalating base salary levels. In addition, organizations can contain employee benefit costs, since the levels of benefits are normally calculated from current salary levels. For employees, an advantage is that receiving a single lump-sum merit payment can provide a clear link between pay and performance. For ex­ample, a 6 percent merit increase granted to an employee earning $25,000 a year translates into a weekly increase of $28.84--a figure that looks small compared with a lump-sum payment of $1,500.
Organizations using a lump-sum merit program will want to adjust base salaries upward after a certain period of time. This can be done yearly or after several years. These adjustments should keep pace with the rising cost of living and increases in the general market wage.

Incentives for Sales Employees

The enthusiasm and drive required in most types of sales work demand that sales employees be highly motivated. This fact, as well as the competitive nature of selling, explains why financial incentives for salespeople are widely used. These incentive plans must provide a source of motivation that will elicit cooperation and trust. Motivation is particularly important for employees away from the of­fice who cannot be supervised closely and who, as a result, must exercise a high degree of self-discipline.

Unique Needs of Sales Incentive Plans

Incentive systems for salespeople are complicated by the wide differences in the types of sales jobs. These range from department store clerks who ring up cus­tomer purchases to industrial salespersons from McGraw-Edison who provide consultation and other highly technical services. Salespersons’ performance may be measured by the dollar volume of their sales and by their ability to establish new accounts. Other measures are the ability to promote new products or ser­vices and to provide various forms of customer service and assistance that do not produce immediate sales revenues.
Performance standards for sales employees are difficult to develop, however, because their performance is often affected by external factors beyond their con­trol.  Economic and seasonal fluctuations, sales competition, changes in de­mand, and the nature of the sales territory can all affect an individual’s sales record. Sales volume alone therefore may not be an accurate indicator of the ef­fort salespeople have expended.
In developing incentive plans for salespeople, managers are also confronted with the problem of how to reward extra sales effort and at the same time com­pensate for activities that do not contribute directly or immediately to sales. Fur­thermore, sales employees must be able to enjoy some degree of income stability.

Types of Sales Incentive Plans

Compensation plans for sales employees may consist of a straight salary plan, a straight commission plan, or a combination salary and commission plan.  A straight salary plan permits salespeople to be paid for performing various duties not reflected immediately in their sales volume. It enables them to devote more time to providing services and building up the goodwill of customers without jeopardizing their income. The principal limitation of the straight salary plan is that it may not motivate salespeople to exert sufficient effort in maximizing their sales volume.
On the other hand, the straight commission plan, based on a percentage of sales, provides maximum incentive and is easy to compute and understand. For example, organizations that pay a straight commission based on total volume may use the following simple formulas:

Total cash compensation = 2% x total volume

or
Total cash compensation =        2% x total volume up to quota
+ 4% x volume over quota

However, the straight commission plan is limited by the following disadvantages:

• Emphasis is on sales volume rather than on profits (except in those rare cases where the commission rate is a percentage of the profit on the sale).
• Territories tend to be milked rather than worked.
• Customer service after the sale is likely to be neglected.
• Earnings tend to fluctuate widely between good and poor periods of business, and turnover of trained sales employees tends to increase in poor periods.
• Salespeople are tempted to grant price concessions.
• Salespeople are tempted to overload their wholesale customers with inventory.

      When a combined salary and commission plan is used, the percentage of cash compensation paid out in commissions (i.e., incentives) is called leverage. Leverage is usually expressed as a ratio of base salary to commission. For ex­ample, a salesperson working under a 70/30 combination plan would receive total cash compensation paid out as 70 percent base salary and 30 percent commission. The amount of leverage will be determined after considering the constraining factors affecting performance discussed earlier and the sales objectives of the or­ganization. The following advantages indicate why the combination salary and commission plan is so widely used:

1.  The right kind of incentive compensation, if linked to salary in the right proportion, has most of the advantages of both the straight salary and the straight commission forms of compensation.
2.  A salary-plus-incentive compensation plan offers greater design flexibility and can therefore be more readily set up to help maximize company profits.
3.  The plan can develop the most favorable ratio of selling expense to sales.
4.  The field sales force can be motivated to achieve specific company marketing objectives in addition to sales volume.

Incentives for Professional Employees

Like other salaried workers, professional employees--engineers, scientists, and attorneys, for example--may be motivated through bonuses and merit increases. In some organizations, unfortunately, professional employees cannot advance be­yond a certain point in the salary structure unless they are willing to take an ad­ministrative assignment. When they are promoted, their professional talents are no longer utilized fully. In the process, the organization may lose a good profes­sional employee and gain a poor administrator. To avoid this situation, some or­ganizations have extended the salary range for professional positions to equal or nearly equal that for administrative positions. The extension of this range pro­vides a double-track wage system, as illustrated in Chapter 8, whereby profes­sionals who do not aspire to become administrators still have an opportunity to earn comparable salaries.
Organizations also use career curves or maturity curves as a basis for providing salary increases to professional employees. These curves, such as the ones shown in Figure 11-4, provide for the annual salary rate to be based on ex­perience and performance. Separate curves are established to reflect different levels of performance and to provide for annual increases. The curves represent­ing higher levels of performance tend to rise to a higher level and at a faster rate than the curves representing lower performance levels.
Professional employees can receive compensation beyond base pay. For ex­ample, scientists and engineers employed by high-tech firms are included in performance-base incentive programs such as profit sharing or stock ownership. These plans encourage greater levels of individual performance. Cash bonuses can be awarded to those who complete projects on or before deadline dates. Pay­ments may also be given to individuals elected to professional societies, granted patents, or meeting professional licensing standards.

(Insert  Figure 11-4: Maturity Curves for Professionals)

           

 

Incentives for Executive Employees

A major function of incentive plans for executives is to motivate them to develop and use their abilities and contribute their energies to the fullest possible extent. Incentive plans should also facilitate the recruitment and retention of competent executive employees. This can be accomplished with plans that will enable them to accumulate a financial estate and to shelter a portion of their compensation from current income taxes.

Components of Executive Compensation

Organizations commonly have more than one compensation strategy for execu­tives in order to meet various organizational goals and executive needs. For ex­ample, chief executive officers (CEOs) may have their compensation packages heavily weighted toward long-term incentives, because CEOs should be more concerned about the long-term impact of their decisions than the short-terra implications. Group vice presidents, on the other hand, may receive more short-term incentives since their decisions affect operations on a six- to twelve-month basis. Regardless of the mix, executive compensation plans consist of four basic components. (1) base salary, (2) short-term incentives or bonuses, (3) long-term incentives or stock plans, and (4) perquisites.29 Another important element in compensation strategy is the compensation mix to be paid to managers and executives accepting overseas assignments.

Bases for Executive Salaries

The levels of competitive salaries in the job market exert perhaps the greatest influence on executive base salaries. An organization’s compensation committee--normally members of the board of directors--will order a salary survey to find out what executives earn in comparable enterprises.30 Comparisons may be based on organization size, sales volume, or industry grouping. By analyzing the survey data, the committee can determine the equity of the compensation pack­age outside the organization.31
Job evaluation will allow the organization to establish internal equity between top managers and executives. For executives, the Hay profile method (see Chapter 10) is probably the most widely used method of job evaluation. Finally, base pay will be influenced by the performance of the executive. Most organizations evaluate their executives according to a set of predetermined goals or objectives.

Bases for Executive Short-Term Incentives

Incentive bonuses for executives should be based on the contribution the indi­vidual makes to the organization. A variety of formulas have been developed for this purpose. Incentive bonuses may be based on a percentage of a company’s to­tal profits or a percentage of profits in excess of a specific return on stockholders’ investments. In other instances the payments may be tied to an annual profit plan whereby the amount is determined by the extent to which an agreed-upon profit level is exceeded. Payments may also be based on performance ratings or the achievement of specific objectives established with the agreement of execu­tives and the board of directors. Objectives influencing the creation of share­holder value include sales, operating margin, cost of capital, and service and quality measures.32
Top corporate executives have the opportunity to earn large sums of money. Frequently, a significant part of their total compensation comes from incentive bonuses. When long-term compensation is added to annual base salary increases and bonuses, the total compensation of some executives may well reach into the millions of dollars. Highlights in HRM 3 shows the compensation received by the nation's twenty highest-paid executives in 1993.

Pros and cons of executive bonuses.  Are top executives worth the salaries and bonuses they receive? The answer may depend largely on whom you ask.33 Corpo­rate compensation committees justify big bonuses as a way to reward superior per­formance. Other reasons for defending high levels of compensation include the following:

1.         Executives are responsible for large amounts of capital.
2.         Business competition is pressure-filled and demanding.
3.         Good executive talent is in great demand.
4.         Effective executives create shareholder value.

Others justify high compensation as a “fact of business life” reflecting market compensation trends.34
Nevertheless, strong criticism is heard regarding high salaries and bonuses awarded to senior executives.35 Some critics attack the size of incentive bonuses and the often vague criteria on which bonuses are based. Others point out that some executives receive record bonuses while their organizations are in financial trouble and employees are asked to make wage and benefits concessions. Large bonuses can also serve to raise prices, ultimately leading to inflation and higher unemployment.
Another criticism of some executive incentive plans is that the time period for which executive performance is measured is often too short and the rewards are too large. This encourages executives to focus on short-term items such as quarterly earnings growth and to neglect longer-term items such as research and development and market share.36 In the long run, therefore, stockholders may not receive a return equal to what they might have earned from other investments, and they might look for a better investment with a different organization.

Form of bonus payment.  A bonus payment may take the form of cash or stock. Also, the timing of the payment may vary. Payment can be immediate (which is frequently the case), deferred for a short term, or deferred until retirement.
Most organizations pay their short-term incentive bonuses in cash (in the form of a supplemental check), in keeping with their pay-for-performance strat­egy. By providing a reward soon after the performance, and thus linking it to the effort on which it is based, they can use cash bonuses as a significant motivator. Cash payment also best serves those executives who must satisfy immediate fi­nancial needs. If the money is not needed right away, the executive can invest it elsewhere and receive a greater return than would otherwise be earned in a de­ferred plan.

(Insert HIGHLIGHTS IN HRM: The 20 Highest Paid Chief Executives)

 

Use of deferred bonuses.  A deferred bonus can be used to provide the sole source of retirement benefits or to supplement a regular pension plan. If they are in a lower tax bracket when the deferred benefits are ultimately received--which is not always the case--executives can realize income tax savings. In ad­dition, interest on the deferred amount can allow it to appreciate without being taxed until it is received. To the organization’s advantage, deferred bonuses are not subject to the reporting requirement of the Employee Retirement Income Se­curity Act (ERISA). Moreover, the organization can have the use of the money during this period. However, deferred income funds also become a part of the company’s indebtedness, a part or all of which might be lost should the company become insolvent. If these funds do not appreciate with inflation, participants also stand to suffer a loss from inflation.

Bases for Executive Long-Term Incentives

Short-term incentive bonuses are criticized for causing top executives to focus on quarterly profit goals to the detriment of long-term survival and growth objec­tives. Emhart Corporation faced this problem when deciding whether to update and expand a profitable facility that manufactured industrial hardware. At one time, Emhart would have opted not to expand, since the executives making this decision received their incentive bonuses primarily on the basis of profit growth.
Expansion of the hardware plant would not increase short-term profit growth and thus would cut into their bonuses. But Emhart revamped its plan, deciding to link executive bonuses with the long-term price of stock Consequently, according to Emhart chairman T. Mitchell Ford, the company okayed the expansion. “The plan lets us manage with a long-term view of the business,” said Sherman B. Carpenter, vice president for administration.
Sears, Combustion Engineering, and Borden, like Emhart, have adopted compensation strategies that tie executive pay to long-term performance measures. Each of these organizations recognizes that, while incentive payments for executives may be based on the achievement of specific goals relating to their positions, the plans must also take into account the performance of the organization as a whole. Important to stockholders are such performance results as growth in earnings per share, return on stockholders’ equity, and, ulti­mately, stock price appreciation. A variety of incentive plans, therefore, has been developed to tie rewards to these performance results, particularly over the long term.
Stock options are the primary long-term incentive offered to executives. The basic principle behind stock options is that executives should have a stake in the business so that they have the same perspective as the owners--i.e., stockholders.38 The major long-term incentives fall into three broad categories:

1.      Stock price appreciation grants
2.      Restricted stock and restricted cash grants
3.      Performance-based grants

Each of these broad categories includes various stock grants or cash incentives for the payment of executive performance: See Figure 11-5 for definitions of the different grant types. Often, as one observer notes, organizations combine stock options with tandem stock appreciation rights plus performance-based grants to balance market performance and internal, strategic performance.39 The granting of stock options contributes substantially to executives’ million-dollar compen­sation packages, as Highlights in HRM 3 demonstrates.

Executive Perquisites

In addition to incentive programs, executive employees are often given special benefits and perquisites. Perquisites, or “perks,” are a means of demonstrating the executives’ importance to the organization while giving them an incentive to improve their performance. Furthermore, perks serve as a status symbol both inside and outside the organization. Perquisites can also provide a tax saving to executives, since some are not taxed as income. Some of the more common perquisites  include  assigned  chauffeurs, country club memberships, special vacation policies, executive physical exams, use of an executive dining room, car phones, liability insurance, and financial counseling.40

Compensation in a Global Environment

With the growth of multinational organizations, HR managers have had to develop compensation packages for managers and executives involved in overseas assignments.41 While those assigned to for­eign positions may still participate in the traditional pay practices of their organizations--merit raises, bonuses, and stock options--they may also receive compensation payments unique to a position over­seas.42 For example, managers and executives asked to go abroad are sometimes given a financial incentive to accept these assignments, to compensate them for any reluctance to relocate.43 Furthermore, they may be provided with supplemental living allowances to compensate for the additional living expenses. In addition, they are often pro­vided with financial assistance covering such items as moving costs, storage payments, and children’s educational expenses.44  Because of the importance of compensation to international HRM, we will elaborate on this topic in Chapter 19.

Challenges for Executive Compensation

Executive compensation is today a highly publicized topic.45 With the large compensation packages given to senior managers and top-level executives, cries for performance accountability and openness abound. For example, to justify the $2.1 million paid Joseph E. Antonini, chief executive officer of Kmart, the com­pensation committee of the board of directors hired an independent consultant to offer an “outside perspective” on the compensation received.46 During the years ahead, compensation professionals note several challenges facing executive compensation:47

1.  Performance measurement techniques must be refined to reflect individual contributions. The measurement and rewarding of executive performance will require creative compensation approaches.
2.  Organizations will need to comply with increased government regulation of executive compensation. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) now permits stockholders to propose and vote to limit executive compensation. Additionally, the SEC requires companies to value stock option grants and report these values in proxy statements. Proxies now require companies to compare their stock’s five-year performance with a broad market index and a peer group. These rules changes signal closer scrutiny of all components of executive compensation.
3.  Organizations will need to continually fend off general attacks on high executive compensation while gaining the acceptance of innovative variable pay strategies by potentially hostile shareholder groups.
4.  Executive compensation practices will need to support global value-creating strategies with well-considered incentive pay programs. Hard questions to be answered include: “What exactly are the implications of global competitiveness and the corresponding strategies required to improve U.S. corporations’ effectiveness?” and “How do these new strategies affect organizations and their compensation systems?”

Gainsharing Incentive Plans

The emphasis on total-quality management has led many organizations to im­plement a variety of gainsharing plans.49 Gainsharing plans enable employees to share in the benefits of improved efficiency realized by the organization or major units within it. Many of these plans cover managers and executives as well as hourly workers. The plans encourage teamwork among all employees and reward them for their total contribution to the organization. Such features are particu­larly desirable when working conditions make individual performance difficult if not impossible to measure.
The basic principle of gainsharing, according to some authorities on pro­ductivity and incentives, is to establish effective structures and processes of employee involvement and a fair means of rewarding system-wide performance improvement. At its root, gainsharing is an organizational program designed to increase productivity or decrease labor costs and share monetary gains with employees.
Inherent in gainsharing is the idea that involved employees will improve productivity through more effective use of labor, capital, and raw materials and share the financial gains according to a formula that reflects improved produc­tivity and profitability. The more common gainsharing plans include profit-sharing plans, the Scanlon and Rucker plans, Improshare, and employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). Highlights in HRM 4 shows the usage of different gainsharing plans according to one study of 1,639 organizations.

Profit-Sharing Plans

Probably no incentive plan has been the subject of more widespread interest, at­tention, and misunderstanding than profit sharing. Profit sharing is any proce­dure by which an employer pays, or makes available to all regular employees, special current or deferred sums based on the organization’s profits. As defined here, profit sharing represents cash payments made to eligible employees at desig­nated time periods, as distinct from profit sharing in the form of contributions to employee pension funds.52
Profit-sharing plans are intended to give employees the opportunity to in­crease their earnings by contributing to the growth of their organization’s profits. These contributions may be directed toward improving product quality, reducing operating costs, improving work methods, and building goodwill rather than just increasing rates of production. Profit sharing can help to stimulate em­ployees to think and feel more like partners in the enterprise and thus to con­cern themselves with the welfare of the organization as a whole. Its purpose therefore is to motivate a total commitment from employees rather than simply to have them contribute in specific areas.
A popular example of a highly successful profit-sharing plan is the one in use at Lincoln Electric Company, a manufacturer of arc welding equipment and supplies. This plan was started in 1934 by J. F. Lincoln, president of the com­pany. Each year the company distributes a large percentage of its profits to employees in accordance with their salary level and merit ratings. In recent years the annual bonus has ranged from a low of 55 percent to a high of 115 percent of annual wages. In addition, Lincoln's program includes a piecework plan with a guarantee, cash awards for employee suggestions, a guarantee of employ­ment for thirty hours of the forty-hour workweek, and an employee stock pur­chase plan.
The success of Lincoln Electric’s incentive system depends on a high level of contribution by each employee. The performance evaluations employees receive twice a year are based on four factors--dependability, quality, output, and ideas and cooperation. There is a high degree of respect among employee and management for Lincoln’s organizational goals and for the profit-sharing program.

(Insert HIGHLIGHTS IN HRM: Types of Gainsharing Programs Across SIC Groups)

Variations in Profit-sharing Plans

Profit-sharing plans differ in the proportion of profits shared with employees and in the distribution and form of payment. The amount shared with employees may range from 5 to 50 percent of the net profit. In most plans, however, about 20 to 25 percent of the net profit is shared. Profit distributions may be made to all em­ployees on an equal basis, or they may be based on regular salaries or some formula that takes into account seniority and/or merit. The payments may be disbursed in cash, deferred, or made on the basis of combining the two forms of payment.

Requirements for Successful Profit-Sharing Plans

Most authorities in the field agree that to have a successful profit-sharing pro­gram, an organization must firsthave a sound HR program, good labor relations, and the trust and confidence of its employees. Profit sharing thus is a refinement of a good HR program and a supplement to an adequate wage scale rather than a substitute for either one. As with all incentive plans, it is the underlying philoso­phy of management, rather than the mechanics of the plan, that may determine its success. Particularly important to the success of a profit-sharing plan are the provisions that enable employees to participate in decisions affecting their jobs and their performance.

Weaknesses of Profit-Sharing Plans

In spite of their potential advantages, profit-sharing plans are also prone to cer­tain weaknesses. The profits shared with employees may be the result of inventory speculation, climatic factors, economic conditions, national emergencies, or other factors over which employees have no control. Conversely, losses may occur dur­ing years when employee contributions have been at a maximum. The fact that profit-sharing payments are made only once a year or deferred until retirement may reduce their motivational value. If a plan fails to pay off for several years in a row, this can have an adverse effect on productivity and employee morale.

    
Three Unique Bonus Plans

To provide employees with bonuses that encourage maximum effort and coopera­tion but are not tied to profit fluctuation, three unique plans have been devel­oped. Two plans, which bear the names of their originators, Joe Scanlon and Alan W. Rucker, are similar in their philosophy. Both plans emphasize participa­tive management. Both encourage cost reduction by sharing with employees any savings resulting from these reductions. The formulas on which the bonuses are based, however, are somewhat different. The third plan, Improshare, is a sharing program based on the number of finished goods that employee teams complete in an established period.

The Scanlon Plan

The philosophy behind the Scanlon Plan is that employees should offer ideas and suggestions to improve productivity and, in turn, be rewarded for their constructive efforts. The plan requires good management, leadership, trust and respect between employees and managers, and a workforce dedicated to responsible deci­sion making. When correctly implemented, the Scanlon Plan can result in im­proved efficiency and profitability for the organization and steady employment and high compensation for employees.
According to Scanlon’s proponents, effective employee participation, which includes the use of committees on which employees are represented, is the most significant feature of the Scanlon Plan.54 This gives employees the opportunity to communicate their ideas and opinions and to exercise some degree of influ­ence over decisions affecting their work and their welfare within the organiza­tion. Employees have an opportunity to become managers of their time and energy, equipment usage, the quality and quantity of their production, and other factors relating to their work. They accept changes in production methods more readily and volunteer new ideas. The Scanlon Plan encourages greater teamwork and sharing of knowledge at the lower levels. It demands more efficient manage­ment and better planning as workers try to reduce overtime and to work smarter rather than harder or faster.
The primary mechanisms for employee participation in the Scanlon Plan are the shop committees established in each department. (See Figure 11-6 for an illustration of the Scanlon Plan suggestion process.) These committees consider production problems and make suggestions for improvement within their respec­tive departments to an organization-wide screening committee. The function of the screening committee is to oversee the operation of the plan, to act on sugges­tions received from the shop committees, and to review the data on which monthly bonuses are to be based. The screening committee is also responsible for consulting with and advising top management, which retains decision-making authority. Both the shop committees and the screening committee are composed of equal numbers of employees and managers.
Financial incentives under the Scanlon Plan are ordinarily offered to all employees (a significant feature of the plan) on the basis of an established for­mula. This formula is based on increases in employee productivity as determined by a norm that has been established for labor costs. The norm, which is subject to review, reflects the relationship between labor costs and the sales value of pro­duction (SVOP). The SVOP includes sales revenue and the value of goods in in­ventory. Figure 11-7 illustrates how the two figures are used to determine the Scanlon Plan incentive bonus.
The plan also provides for the establishment of a reserve fund into which 25 percent of any earned bonus is paid to cover deficits during the months when labor costs exceed the norm. After the reserve portion has been deducted, the remainder of the bonus is distributed, with 25 percent going to the organization and 75 percent to the employees. At the end of the year, any surplus that has been accumulated in the reserve fund is distributed to employees according to the same formula.

(Insert Figure 11-6: Scanlon Plan Suggestion Process)

The Scanlon Plan (and variations of it) has become a fundamental way of managing, if not a way of life, in organizations such as American Valve Com­pany, TRW, and Weyerhaeuser. The Xaloy Corporation, a major manufacturer of bimetallic cylinders, uses a modified Scanlon program based on the following four principles:

Identity                               Employee involvement is linked to the company’s mission and purpose statement.
Competence                       A high level of competence is expected from employees.
Participation                      A suggestion process taps into employee ideas.
Equity                                 Organizational success is based upon a partnership forged among employees, customers, and investors.

The Rucker Plan

The share of production plan (SOP), or Rucker Plan, normally covers just production workers but may be expanded to cover all employees. As with the Scanlon Plan, committees are formed to elicit and evaluate employee suggestions. The Rucker Plan, however, uses a far less elaborate participatory structure. As one authority noted, “It commonly represents a type of program that is used as an alternative to the Scanlon Plan in firms attempting to move from a traditional style of management toward a higher level of employee involvement.”

(Insert Figure 11-7: Determining the Scanlon Plan Incentive Bonus)

            The financial incentive of the Rucker Plan is based on the historic relationship between the total earnings of hourly employees and the production value that employees create. The bonus is based on any improvement in this relationship that employees are able to realize. Thus, for every 1 percent increase in production value that is achieved, workers receive a bonus of 1 percent of their total payroll costs.

 

Lessons from the Scanlon and Rucker Plans

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the Scanlon and Rucker plans is that any management expecting to gain the cooperation of its employees in improving efficiency must permit them to become involved psychologically as well as financially in the organization. If employees are to contribute maximum effort, they must have a feeling of involvement and identification with their organization, which does not come out of the traditional manager-subordinate relationship. Consequently, it is important for organizations to realize that while employee cooperation is essential to the successful administration of the Scanlon and Rucker plans, the plans themselves do not necessarily stimulate this cooperation.
The attitude of management is of paramount importance to the success ot either plan. For example, where managers show little confidence and trust in their employees, the plans tend to fail. Managers further note that Scanlon and Rucker plans are successful only when the following are true:

·   Bonus formulas are clearly understood and can be reviewed by employees.
·   Management is highly committed to making the plan succeed.
·   Adequate training is given to both employees and supervisors.
·   Adequate potential exists for employee rewards.

Like any other incentive plan, the Scanlon and Rucker plans are no better than the organizational environment in which they are used.

Improshare

 

Improshare--improved productivity through sharing--is a gainsharing program developed by Mitchell Fain, an industrial engineer with experience in tradi­tional individual incentive systems. Whereas individual production bonuses are typically based on how much an employee produces above some standard amount, Improshare bonuses are based on the overall productivity of the work team. Improshare output is measured by the number of finished products that a work team produces in a given period. Both production (direct) employees and nonproduction (indirect) employees are included in the determination of the bonus.58 Since a cooperative environment benefits all, Improshare promotes in­creased interaction and support between employees and management.
The bonus is based not on dollar savings, as in the Scanlon and Rucker plans, but on productivity gains that result from reducing the time it takes to produce a finished product. Bonuses are determined monthly by calculating the difference between standard hours (Improshare hours) and actual hours, and di­viding the result by actual hours. The employees and the company each receive payment for 50 percent of the improvement. Companies such as Hinderliter En­ergy Equipment Corporation pay the bonus as a separate check to emphasize that it is extra income.

Stock Ownership

Stock ownership plans for employees have existed in some organizations for many years. These programs are sometimes implemented as part of an employee benefit plan. However, organizations that offer stock ownership programs to em­ployees do so with the belief that there is some incentive value to the systems. By allowing employees to purchase stock, the organization hopes they will increase their productivity and thus cause the stock price to rise.
Not uncommon are plans for purchasing stock on an installment basis through payroll deductions and without the payment of brokerage fees. Over the years, the stock of some of the larger blue-chip companies such as Sears, General Telephone and Electronic, Warner Communications, and Ralston Purina has proved to be a good investment for their employees. Furthermore, stock owner­ship programs have become a popular way to salvage a failing organization, thereby saving employee jobs.

 

Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

Employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) have grown significantly during the past ten years, adding 600 to 800 plans annually that covered a total of 500,000 to 1 million employees. The Chicago Tribune Company, Southwest Airlines,  Roadway Services, and Cincinnati Bell are organizations with established ESOPs. Companies such as Weirton Steel and Hyatt Clark Industries have been rescued by ESOP-financed employee buyouts, and Polaroid and Chevron have used ESOPs to fight hostile takeover bids. ESOPs can be used to generate funds to purchase an organization’s stock otherwise available to outside raiders. Continental Bank decided that employee stock ownership was an effective and innovative way to give employees a share in Continental’s success.
Employee stock ownership plans take two primary forms: a stock bonus plan and a leveraged plan. With either plan, the public or private employer establishes an ESOP trust that qualifies as a tax-exempt employee trust under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. With a stock bonus plan, each year the organization gives stock to the ESOP or gives cash to the ESOP to buy outstanding stock. The ESOP holds the stock for employees, and they are routinely informed of the value of their accounts. Stock allocations can be based on employee wages or seniority. When employees leave the organization or retire, they can sell their stock back to the organization, or they can sell it on the open market if it is traded publicly. Leveraged ESOPs work in much the same way as do stock bonus plans, except that the ESOP borrows money from a bank or other financial institution to purchase stock. The organization then makes annual tax-deductible payments to the ESOP, which in turn repays the lending institution. Organizations may also use the stock placed in an ESOP trust as collateral for a bank loan. As the loan is repaid, the stock used as collateral is allocated to employee accounts. Payments of both the principal and interest can be deducted from the organization’s income tax liability.

Advantages of ESOPs

Encouraged by favorable federal income tax provisions, employers utilize ESOPs as a means of providing retirement benefits for their employees. Favorable tax incentives permit a portion of earnings to be excluded from taxation if that por­tion is assigned to employees in the form of shares of stock. Employers can there­fore provide retirement benefits for their employees at relatively low cost, because stock contributions are in effect subsidized by the federal government. ESOPs can also increase employees’ pride of ownership in the organization, providing an incentive for them to increase productivity and help the organization prosper and grow. Enthusiastic promoters of ESOPs go so far as to claim that these plans will make U.S. organizations more competitive in world markets. The plans, they maintain, will increase productivity, improve employee-management relations, and promote economic justice.62

Problems with ESOPs

Generally, ESOPs are more likely to serve their intended purposes in publicly held companies than in closely held ones. A major problem with the closely held company is its potential inability to buy back the stock of employees when they retire. Unfortunately, these employees do not have the alternative of disposing of their stock on the open market. Requiring organizations to establish a sinking fund to be used exclusively for repurchasing stock could eliminate this problem.
Another criticism of ESOPs is that they cost the country a tremendous amount in lost taxes. If Congress determines that employers are abusing ESOP advantages, or if national budget pressures intensify, it could change the tax rules. A growing problem with ESOPs is that as more retirement income comes from these plans, the more dependent a pensioner becomes on the price of com­pany stock. Future retirees are vulnerable to stock market fluctuations as well as to management mistakes. Finally, although studies show that productivity im­proves when ESOPs are implemented, these gains are not guaranteed. ESOPs help little unless managers are willing to involve employees in organizational de­cision making. Unfortunately, ESOPs are sometimes set up in ways that restrict employee decision making and expose the ESOP to risk, though providing in­vestors with large potential gains.

 

SUMMARY

The success of an incentive pay plan depends on the organizational climate in which it must operate, employee confidence in it, and its suitability to employee and organizational needs. Importantly, employees must view their incentive pay as being equitable and related to their performance. Performance measures should be quantifiable, easily understood, and bear a demonstrated relationship to organizational performance.
Piecework plans pay employees a given rate for each unit satisfactorily com­pleted. Employers implement these plans when output is easily measured and when the production process is fairly standardized. Bonuses are incentive pay­ments above base wages paid on either an individual or team basis. A bonus is offered to encourage employees to exert greater effort. Standard hour plans es­tablish a standard time for job completion. An incentive is paid for finishing the job in less than the preestablished time. These plans are popular for jobs with a fixed time for completion.
Merit raises will not serve to motivate employees when they are seen as enti­tlements, which occurs when these raises are given yearly without regard tot; changes in employee performance. Merit raises are not motivational when they; are given because of seniority or favoritism or when merit budgets are inadequate to sufficiently reward employee performance. To be motivational, merit raises must be such that employees see a clear relationship between pay and performance and the salary increase must be large enough to exceed inflation and higher income taxes.
Salespersons may be compensated by a straight salary, a combination of salary and commission, or a commission only. Paying employees a straight salary allows them to focus on tasks other than sales, such as service and customer goodwill. A straight commission plan causes employees to emphasize sales goals. A combination of salary and commission provides the advantages of both the straight salary and the straight commission form of payments.
Executive bonuses are tied to agreed-upon criteria of organizational perfor­mance. Performance objectives might include profit levels; return on capital or operating indexes covering sales, market share, service, and quality measures; or operating margins. A bonus can be received as either cash or stock, and the timing of the payment may vary. Immediate, short-term, and long-term (de­ferred until retirement) are typical payout periods. Executive compensation will normally also include different types of stock plans as well as other desirable perquisites.
Profit-sharing plans pay to employees sums of money based on the organiza­tion’s profits. Cash payments are made to eligible employees at specified times, normally yearly. The primary purpose of profit sharing is to provide employees with additional income through their participation in organizational achieve­ment. Employee commitment to improved productivity, quality, and customer service will contribute to organizational success and, in turn, to their compensa­tion. Profit-sharing plans may not achieve their stated gains when employee per­formance is unrelated to organizational success or failure. This may occur because of economic conditions, other competition, or environmental condi­tions. Profit-sharing plans can have a negative effect on employee morale when plans fail to consistently reward employees.
The Scanlon, Rucker, and Improshare gainshare plans pay bonuses to em­ployees unrelated to profit levels. Each of these plans encourages employees to maximize their performance and cooperation through suggestions offered to im­prove organizational performance. The Scanlon Plan pays an employee a bonus based on saved labor cost measured against the organization’s sales value of pro­duction. The bonus under the Rucker Plan is based on any improvement in the relationship between the total earnings of hourly employees and the value of production that employees create. The Improshare bonus is paid when employees increase production output above a given target level.