Many employers are always searching various types of methods to develop employees’ productivity, such as subsidizing the employees with healthy pursuits, believing that it might be one way to achieve their goal. However, there exists an opposing argument against this view that will be discussed here.
On the one hand, it is commonly believed among employers that if the employees are avoided from being stressful at work, they will possibly have more efficient ways in dealing with the tasks given. Furthermore, the life balance of the employees and their leisure time are more fulfilling. It could also be a driving factor than paying increment or bonuses such as perks and incentives which are difficult to attain. Finally, being healthier my lead to be more efficient and even more creative to complete the assignments instructed by the company.
On the other hand, the obstacle of the leisure-based subsidies lacks when it comes to measurement since its efficiency is impossible to assess. To illustrate, with the target related-payments, the employers can at least see the progress, whether the employees can achieve it or not. It is also assumed that if the budget was allocated to pay (for instance) the job training or day release program, the employees would advance their career progression to higher level. These matters are all easier to measure, especially in performance evaluation and appraisals. This option is even more motivating for the employees to push and maximise their potential to attain the reward after completing the target.
To sum up, it seems that while health related subsidies plays a pivotal role, the lack of quantification is substantial drawback. Spending budget on job training would appear to function effectively for the company.
Many
employers are always searching various types of methods to develop
employees’
productivity, such as subsidizing the
employees
with healthy pursuits, believing that it might be one way to achieve their goal.
However
, there exists an opposing argument against this view that will
be discussed
here.
On the one hand, it is
commonly
believed among employers that if the
employees
are avoided
from being stressful at work, they will
possibly
have more efficient ways in dealing with the tasks
given
.
Furthermore
, the life balance of the
employees
and their leisure time are more fulfilling. It could
also
be a driving factor than paying increment or bonuses such as perks and incentives which are difficult to attain.
Finally
, being healthier my lead to be more efficient and even more creative to complete the assignments instructed by the
company
.
On the other hand
, the obstacle of the leisure-based subsidies lacks when it
comes
to measurement since its efficiency is impossible to assess. To illustrate, with the target related-payments, the employers can at least
see
the progress, whether the
employees
can achieve it or not. It is
also
assumed that if the budget
was allocated
to pay (
for instance
) the job training or day release program, the
employees
would advance their career progression to higher level. These matters are all easier to measure,
especially
in performance evaluation and appraisals. This option is even more motivating for the
employees
to push and
maximise
their potential to attain the reward after completing the target.
To sum up, it seems that while health related subsidies plays a pivotal role, the lack of quantification is substantial drawback. Spending budget on job training would appear to function
effectively
for the
company
.