Money and incentive can be considered as one of the key takeaways for a job. For all employees, their idea of a good job always considers good incentives and at the same time, the management always expects good work from their members of staff. Providing a raise in the salary or other monetary benefits always plays to the satisfaction of both the parties involved, as the employer encourages excellence which is one of their requirements and the workforce responds by giving their best in their operation.
However, as is the case with a lot of approaches to improve workforce throughput, there are some disadvantages to this approach. Such a pecuniary outlook has the tendency to disorient the workplace as the other employees are susceptible to feel bad about themselves. For example, in a normal workplace, every person has the right to believe that their work plays a big part in the organization's growth. When some people are selected for their efficiency, it might paint a bad picture that specifies that the others are not as efficient as the chosen few. Also, identifying and selecting the people who contribute more to the institution can also backfire when done wrongly.
I would say that such money-based incentives should be encouraged only when there is a solid ground in which the people can be judged in. For instance, the number of tickets handled by people in a Customer Service environment is a very good metric to be used here. This number will always be a solid one for each of the individuals and the tickets are open for all involved people.
In conclusion, I believe that providing monetary benefits can greatly improve and enhance the organization's growth, but at the same time, the management must ensure that these benefits are not provided for abstract goals which might cause controversy later on.
Money and incentive can
be considered
as one of the key takeaways for a job. For all employees, their
idea
of a
good
job always considers
good
incentives and at the same time, the management always
expects
good
work from their members of staff. Providing a raise in the salary or other monetary benefits always plays to the satisfaction of both the parties involved, as the employer encourages excellence which is one of their requirements and the workforce responds by giving their best in their operation.
However
, as is the case with
a lot of
approaches to
improve
workforce throughput, there are
some
disadvantages to this approach. Such a pecuniary outlook has the tendency to disorient the workplace as the other employees are susceptible to feel
bad
about themselves.
For example
, in a normal workplace, every person has the right to believe that their work plays a
big
part in the organization's growth. When
some
people
are selected
for their efficiency, it might paint a
bad
picture that specifies that the others are not as efficient as the chosen few.
Also
, identifying and selecting the
people
who contribute more to the institution can
also
backfire when done
wrongly
.
I would say that such money-based incentives should
be encouraged
only
when there is a solid ground in which the
people
can
be judged
in.
For instance
, the number of tickets handled by
people
in a Customer Service environment is a
very
good
metric to be
used
here. This number will always be a solid one for each of the individuals and the tickets are open for all involved
people
.
In conclusion
, I believe that providing monetary benefits can
greatly
improve
and enhance the organization's growth,
but
at the same time, the management
must
ensure that these benefits are not provided for abstract goals which might cause controversy later on.