Case Study: Hathaway and Sandy Caldwell’s Pay

Team Concept Into Compensation In many industries, pay can be determined by many factors.

These include, the level of experience required for a position, the amount of work being performed, and the level of demand for a position. However, many times an organization can utilize a method in which Job performance, alone, is the primary determination of pay. Common in many settings, performance-based pay can sometimes be the best tool for fairness and employee motivation. However, other times It can backfire. In the ease of Hathaway Manufacturing, pay-for-performance Isn’t working very well.

Sandy Caldwell, the Human Resources Manager for Hathaway is seeking to improve the team oriented nature of the company.

To accomplish this, Sandy feels a pay-for- performance system is the best way to implement the cultural change. Unfortunately, the reaction to this change Is Immediate, and completely negative. There could be a several different reasons Caldwell is experiencing the adverse reaction to her new move. However, whatever the reason employees may be unhappy, It Is clear from the response that It Is a bad idea.

Sandy cannot expect everyone to take a Liking to a new format In Job function, and performance-based pay is one that is pretty significant.

Not only does it change the way the company functions, but it may be burdensome to those who excel at carrying out there Job Independently. Second, a company’s chances of success in a performance-for-pay environment can have a lot to do with the Industry Itself. For example, a car dealership may pay salesmen based solely on commission, but a manufacturing Lana may not appreciate those changes in an environment that can be more complicated, or physically demanding.

The company’s reaction is also likely to hinder Sandy’s plans for any type of Improved culture, therefore, completely defeating the purpose. This issue of adverse reaction should be expected in this type of setting, especially. Workers are expected to maintain some type of competitive spirit because it is a natural part of their pay expectation.

However, the new policy does a lot to take that away. Management could benefit by keeping individual performance at the highest level, even If still continuing on with the new performance-based policy.

This could be done by still recognizing individual achievement, and allowing more responsibility and decision-making ability to be performed by team leaders. The plan also falls to clearly communicate an appropriate system of payment. This being one of the key factors of performance-based pay also does much to hurt Sandy new plan.

She could have done more to involve others in the process of determining pay, ND more importantly, waited before starting this new policy without having the details lava out clearly.

I Nils problem does a lot to explain ten Immediate negative reaction. Lastly, for this plan to proceed, management will have to address the issue of the employee evaluation system. This, too, likely contributes to the negative feelings about the new policy simply because it has not clearly been defined by management. Employees need to understand that this type of evaluation is essentially the backbone of how the policy works.

When people work in a team environment, it can actually act as a benefit for those who aren’t as motivated in the workplace.

The team then needs to manage itself, and when all goes well, reap the benefits. While all of these areas may make the idea of a pay-for-performance policy seem too complicated try, going through a more complete and inclusive process of adapting employees is really what is key to its success. The biggest mistake isn’t necessarily the new policy, but instead the implementation of it. Works Cited: Desire, G.

(2011). Human resource management (12th De). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.