It is globally debated that the key way to enhance performance is to base remuneration on the level of productivity. I totally agree with this assertion because most personnel maximize their capacity when they are aware that pay is production driven.
Firstly, it is believed that most companies these days structure their pay based on the scale in which the employee achieve their designated task. In other words, they believe money motivates people generally to achieve a goal and attaching take home to performance level will enhance the staff commitment to the job. In a recent survey conducted by the Association of The Human resources UK about the rate of staff turnover in the banking sector. It was discovered that 60% of workers that quit a job within three years do so because their salary is based on a fixed rate, which does not complement the productivity level. Hence, a company that uses a variable rate that is based on staff performance have low staff turnover.
Furthermore, if a company attach attaches pay to an employee that closes a deal better, it will, in turn, increase the overall organizational bottom line. In fact, This means that it will encourage them to source for more business if they are aware that the more successful the business the merrier their own take home. An example is when a law firm promises to give 10% commission to employees on every brief brought with them, plus an annual all-expense-paid family trip to the country of their choice to the overall worker during the financial period. Thus, this will motivate the lawyer to bring more briefs which will invariably increase the turnover of the business and as well translate to higher profit.
To conclude, in line with the recent discovery that basing employee pay and incentives on achievements yield more productivity, I am in total support of this position because it will enhance the level of employee commitment, in fact, increase the profitability margin of the organization.
It is globally debated that the key way to enhance performance is to base remuneration on the
level
of productivity. I
totally
agree
with this assertion
because
most personnel maximize their capacity when they are aware that
pay
is production driven.
Firstly
, it
is believed
that most
companies
these days structure their
pay
based on the scale in which the
employee
achieve their designated task.
In other words
, they believe money motivates
people
generally
to achieve a goal and attaching take home to performance
level
will enhance the
staff
commitment to the job. In a recent survey conducted by the Association of The Human resources UK about the rate of
staff
turnover in the banking sector. It
was discovered
that 60% of workers that quit a job within three years do
so
because
their salary
is based
on a
fixed
rate, which does not complement the productivity
level
.
Hence
, a
company
that
uses
a variable rate that
is based
on
staff
performance have low
staff
turnover.
Furthermore
, if a
company
attach attaches
pay
to an
employee
that closes a deal better, it will, in turn, increase the
overall
organizational bottom line. In fact, This means that it will encourage them to source for more business if they are aware that the more successful the business the merrier their
own
take home. An example is when a law firm promises to give 10% commission to
employees
on every brief brought with them, plus an annual all-expense-paid family trip to the country of their choice to the
overall
worker during the financial period.
Thus
, this will motivate the lawyer to bring more briefs which will
invariably
increase the turnover of the business and
as well
translate to higher profit.
To conclude
, in line with the recent discovery that basing
employee
pay
and incentives on achievements yield more productivity, I am in total support of this position
because
it will enhance the
level
of
employee
commitment, in fact, increase the profitability margin of the organization.