績(jī)效工資為什么不管用?
從理論上講,企業(yè)可以建立一個(gè)薪酬體系來(lái)管理員工績(jī)效。其中,可以用獎(jiǎng)金和其他短期激勵(lì)措施來(lái)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)和鼓勵(lì)拔尖的員工,也可以給表現(xiàn)平庸(或者更差的)員工少漲薪,甚至不漲薪,把這部分錢留給頂尖員工,這樣就不必增加總體的工資預(yù)算。這聽(tīng)起來(lái)很容易做到。 然而,在實(shí)際操作中,情況完全不同。 150家大中型公司的高級(jí)經(jīng)理反映,其薪酬激勵(lì)計(jì)劃根本沒(méi)有起到作用。只有不到三分之一(32%)的受訪高管認(rèn)為他們的計(jì)劃“能夠有效地根據(jù)個(gè)人的不同表現(xiàn)給予不同的薪酬。”Willis Towers Watson公司最新公開(kāi)了這一研究。 該研究顯示,只有一半人表示年度獎(jiǎng)勵(lì),比如給優(yōu)秀員工發(fā)放的獎(jiǎng)金,會(huì)根據(jù)員工的工作表現(xiàn)加以區(qū)分。最沒(méi)有效果的是績(jī)效加薪,評(píng)判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在于員工的績(jī)效表現(xiàn)是否優(yōu)異。只有五分之一(20%)的受訪高管認(rèn)為,在他們的公司,績(jī)效加薪“有助于提升個(gè)人表現(xiàn)”。 如果績(jī)效薪酬的方案沒(méi)有這么流行,這也不會(huì)是個(gè)大問(wèn)題。在2014年創(chuàng)造歷史最高紀(jì)錄之后,依靠激勵(lì)性工資來(lái)獲得出色業(yè)績(jī)的公司還在越來(lái)越多。Willis Towers Watson 公司全球薪酬主管勞拉?賽伊恩發(fā)現(xiàn):“公司每年要花費(fèi)幾億美元來(lái)實(shí)施這些令人失望的計(jì)劃。如果這是任何其他業(yè)務(wù)流程,我們現(xiàn)在早就去著手改善投資回報(bào)率了?!?/p> 問(wèn)題出在哪里?激勵(lì)薪酬往往不能產(chǎn)生效果的最大原因似乎是,管理者并不會(huì)堅(jiān)持這個(gè)計(jì)劃。 在績(jī)效加薪上尤其如此。賽伊恩表示:“美國(guó)公司每年加薪的傳統(tǒng)已經(jīng)根深蒂固。30歲以上的員工就是在這種耳濡目染下成長(zhǎng)起來(lái)的,他們期待著漲薪。現(xiàn)在公司說(shuō):‘好,從現(xiàn)在開(kāi)始,不是所有人都能每年加薪了?!麄兿嘈殴芾碚邥?huì)把一部分薪水定得比較低,從而在關(guān)鍵的目標(biāo)領(lǐng)域提供更大幅度的漲薪和更多獎(jiǎng)金?!?/p> 然而,這些管理者難以同那些沒(méi)有獲得加薪的下屬展開(kāi)對(duì)話。所以,更通常的情況是,老板仍然會(huì)增加每年的“績(jī)效獎(jiǎng)金”,而不考慮這個(gè)員工的表現(xiàn)如何。不僅如此,還有26%的受訪公司甚至?xí)o“未能達(dá)到目標(biāo)的員工”發(fā)放獎(jiǎng)金。 如果有更多流動(dòng)的資金,也就是說(shuō),如果公司在他們規(guī)劃的獎(jiǎng)金池中投入了足夠的資金,這可能會(huì)有用。但研究指出,自2005年以來(lái),這種情況只出現(xiàn)了兩次,并補(bǔ)充道:“2015年的獎(jiǎng)金池只有計(jì)劃值的87%。” 研究表示,考慮到獎(jiǎng)金的不足,經(jīng)理不愿意與表現(xiàn)普通或糟糕的團(tuán)隊(duì)成員發(fā)生沖突,就意味著“即便是表現(xiàn)最優(yōu)秀的員工,獲得的獎(jiǎng)金也比計(jì)劃中應(yīng)得的要少。”在目前的人才市場(chǎng),一份微薄的獎(jiǎng)金遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不如競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的簽約獎(jiǎng)金那么有吸引力。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)) 譯者:嚴(yán)匡正 審校:任文科 |
In theory, it sounds like a no-brainer: Come up with a compensation system that rewards and encourages topnotch employees with bonuses and other short-term incentives. Fund it, without blowing up the overall pay budget, by giving mediocre (or worse) performers tiny raises, or none at all. In practice, though, it’s a different story. Senior managers at 150 large and midsized companies in a new Willis Towers Watson studyadmit their incentive pay plans don’t actually work. Barely one-third (32%) of the executives polled think their programs are “effective at differentiating pay based on individual performance.” Only half say annual incentives, like bonuses for top employees, make any difference in how well people do their jobs. Least effective of all: Merit raises, which managers are supposed to give (or not) to employees based on, well, merit. Just one in five (20%) of the executives surveyed thinks merit pay “drives higher levels of individual performance” in their companies. This wouldn’t matter quite so much if pay for performance plans weren’t so popular. But, since reaching a record high in 2014, the number of companies counting on incentive pay to produce stellar results has kept on rising. “Companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on these disappointing programs,” observes Laura Sejen, global chief of rewards at Willis Towers Watson. “If this were any other business process, certainly we’d all have moved to improve the ROI by now.” So what’s the hold-up here? The biggest reason incentive pay so often doesn’t deliver results, it seems, is that individual managers don’t stick with the program. That’s especially true when it comes to merit raises. “The traditional annual raise has become so ingrained in U.S. companies that every employee over age 30 has ‘grown up’ with it and expects it,” observes Sejen. “Now companies are saying, ‘OK, from now on, not everyone gets a raise every year.’ They’re relying on managers to keep some salaries flat so they can pay larger salary raises and bonuses in critical, targeted areas.” Those managers, however, are the ones who face difficult conversations with unhappy subordinates who don’t get pay hikes. So most often, bosses are still handing out annual “merit” increases, regardless of how individual employees perform. Not only that, but 26% of companies in the study have paid bonuses even to “employees who fail to meet expectations.” It would probably help if there were more cash to go around—that is, if companies fully funded their projected bonus pools. The study notes that has happened only twice since 2005, adding that “average projected bonus pool funding levels for 2015 were only 87% of target.” When combined with that shortfall, managers’ tendency to chicken out on conflict with mediocre or underperforming team members means that “even top performers receive a lower bonus than called for in the plan design,” says the study. In the current market for talent, a skimpy payout may look pretty unappealing next to the signing bonus a competitor is offering. |
最新文章