Introduction
A pay-for-performance system in the public sector is one of the ways to regulate the budget and reduce costs. Using this can be an effective way to increase the efficiency and performance of employees. Civil servants and public institutions will work more efficiently while receiving the same wages. Such a system has advantages for both citizens and the public sector. Therefore, a pay-for-performance model must be applied to improve work effectiveness.
Advantages of Implementation Pay-for-Performance System
When using the pay-for-performance (PFP) model, employees do not have a fixed rate but are paid based on performance. This approach is currently actively used in the USA, where since 1978, “PFP programs have been adopted by more than 20 states and many local governments” (Nigro et al., 2014, p. 161).
These programs allow workers in the public sector to be paid wages that are relevant to their performance. That helps to keep the quality of the public sector performance at a high level. Moreover, given that civil servants are paid mainly through taxes, this approach allows for maintaining the stability of taxes for citizens and containing social resentment.
A fixed wage for all public sector workers can lead to a slowdown in public institutions’ work due to employees’ loss of interest. When employees are paid independently of their work, they may lose motivation and commitment to their work.
In the Bible, the money people gave to the temple was given “to the workmen, and repaired in addition to that the house of the LORD” (King James Bible, n.d., 2 King 12:13). Hence, the payment went to those people who made direct efforts to ensure that the temple continued to exist that can be applied to the public sector as well.
The main advantage of pay-for-performance in the public sector is that this system increases productivity and cost efficiency. In addition, such programs allow less productive employees to be fired and more qualified people to be attracted and recruited, increasing the productivity of the institution (Nigro et al., 2014). Furthermore, employees feel more valued because the pay evaluates their efforts. It contributes to increasing the motivation of employees and their commitment to work.
Moreover, using this model helps maintain the quality of services provided in the public sector at a high level. There is an opinion among citizens that public sector workers receive too high salaries, which do not correspond to the quality of their work. The PFP system requires the creation of “measurable standards and objectives” against which the work of employees is evaluated (Nigro et al., 2014, p. 162). Employees seeking higher wages will perform work tasks to a set standard, which will improve the organization’s public image.
However, the implementation of the PFP program can cause some problems. One common problem is the loss of employee motivation to work towards the company’s goals. In a pay-for-performance environment, workers can “seek to meet personal performance objectives” (Nigro et al., 2014, p. 162). In such conditions, management cannot create an effective team that will work for the organization’s goals.
Moreover, Park (2022) notes that problems often arise because the PFP model is not applied to the organization’s leadership. That reduces the motivation and interest of employees in work due to a sense of injustice and superiority of management. However, these problems can be solved by choosing the right PFP program that will be effective within a particular organization.
Pay-for-Performance Programs
Pay-for-performance programs can be of different types, depending on whose work will be evaluated when determining payment. Individual piece-rate pay is based on each employee’s “specific behaviors or accomplishments” (Bucklin et al., 2022, p. 313). As a result, there is a significant productivity improvement, as everyone strives to receive a higher salary. However, this model can create barriers to effective teamwork and impair the emotional health of the organization (Bucklin et al., 2022). Therefore, it requires additional supervision and regulation by management.
With a team approach, employee salaries are influenced by the team or department’s performance. Unlike an individual program, this model promotes communication between employees. However, Bucklin et al. (2022) note that this approach is “effective when all employees within the group perform at equal levels” (p. 314). In this case, each of the employees can make the same contribution to the achievement of common goals that can benefit the public sector.
However, certain key factors must be in place for this system to succeed. First, the organization needs to develop standards and objectives against which performance will be judged (Park, 2022). The work goals for employees will be more understandable, and the assessment system will be transparent.
Secondly, it is necessary to ensure constant communication between supervisors and employees so that they can improve their results based on the feedback received (Bucklin et al., 2022). Another way to improve the efficiency and productivity of an organization is to train employees continuously. In this case, it will be possible to maintain the relevance between their wages and performance. Moreover, the pay-for-performance system must be applied at all levels, including management (Park, 2022). That will create the same conditions for all employees of the organization and reduce the likelihood of internal conflicts.
Conclusion
Thus, using the pay-for-performance model in the public sector helps to increase the efficiency of employees and, as a result, of an institution. It helps to keep the public sector at a high level by having measurable standards and motivating employees. That, in turn, increases citizens’ satisfaction with public services and creates a positive reputation among them. However, the successful implementation of the PFP approach requires additional efforts from management to select the appropriate program and supervise work processes.
References
Bucklin, B. R., Li, A., Rodriguez, M. M., Johnson, D. A., & Eagle, L. M. (2022). Pay-for-performance: Behavior-based recommendations from research and practice. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 42(4), 309-335. Web.
Nigro, L. G., Nigro, F. A., & Kellough, E. J. (2014). The new public personnel administration. Cengage.
King James Bible (n.d.). Web.
Park, J. (2022). What makes performance-related pay effective in the public sector? Target, pay design, and context. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(3), 416-443. Web.