Promise and peril in implementing pay-for-performance
Why would managers abandon pay‐for‐performance plans they initiated with great hopes? Why would employees celebrate this decision? This article explores why managers made their decisions in 12 of 13 pay‐for‐performance “experiments” at Hewlett‐Packard in the mid‐1990s. We find that managers thought...
Saved in:
Published in | Human resource management Vol. 43; no. 1; pp. 3 - 48 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Hoboken
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
01.03.2004
Wiley Periodicals Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Why would managers abandon pay‐for‐performance plans they initiated with great hopes? Why
would employees celebrate this decision? This article explores why managers made their decisions in 12 of
13 pay‐for‐performance “experiments” at Hewlett‐Packard in the mid‐1990s.
We find that managers thought the costs of these programs to be higher than the benefits. Alternative managerial
practices such as effective leadership, clear objectives, coaching, or training were thought a better investment.
Despite the undisputed instrumentality of pay‐for‐performance to motivate, little attention has
been given to whether the benefits outweigh the costs or the “fit” of these programs with
high‐commitment cultures like Hewlett‐Packard was at the time. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:126042BCAE777F63E4D267569D0B65B60D98F304 ArticleID:HRM20001 ark:/67375/WNG-LK5ZM92R-Q |
ISSN: | 0090-4848 1099-050X |
DOI: | 10.1002/hrm.20001 |