Evaluating Pay-for-Performance Systems: Critical ...

5 downloads 70350 Views 205KB Size Report
University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA ... necessary resources and training to achieve performance goals ..... This has been a problem in automotive sales when.
COMPENSATION/Pay for Performance

Evaluating Pay-for-Performance Systems: Critical Issues for Implementation

Compensation & Benefits Review 42(4) 231­–238 © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886368710374391 http://cbr.sagepub.com

Myron Glassman, Professor, Old Dominion University1, Aaron Glassman, Doctoral Candidate in Management, University of Maryland2, Paul J. Champagne, Professor, Old Dominion University1, and Michael T. Zugelder, Associate Professor, Old Dominion University1

Abstract Most organizations use a merit pay or pay-for-performance system (PFP) to improve employee performance. Despite its popularity, a PFP system can be difficult to implement. Success depends on several issues. These include adequate funding, suitable job characteristics, and appropriate performance feedback. Moreover, even under the best circumstances, PFP systems may cause unintended consequences such as dysfunctional behavior, unethical conduct and even employment discrimination. Still, when the critical issues for proper implementation are appropriately addressed, a PFP system is and should continue to be a successful management tool to enhance employee performance in the workplace. Keywords merit pay, pay-for-performance system, employee motivation, compensation

For most people, pay is a primary reason for working. Indeed, compensation is at the core of any employment exchange, and it serves as a defining characteristic of any employment relationship. Yet when it comes to the effectiveness of money for rewarding and motivating employee behavior, expert opinions are, and have historically been, divided. The two approaches that help explain the relationship between pay and motivation are needs theory and process theory. Although it is probably an overstatement to say that these approaches are direct opposites, they do argue for different pay–motivation relationships. Needs theory views motivation as an internal drive to satisfy various levels of needs. Because this drive is internal, it generally cannot be manipulated by extrinsic rewards. In fact, as Figure 1 shows, needs theorists beginning with Maslow and later Herzberg would argue that since money does not satisfy higher order needs, it has a limited ability to motivate. Money motivates only if one earns too little to meet “basic needs,” causing dissatisfaction. In fact, Herzberg says that, at best, money only prevents dissatisfaction and cannot promote satisfaction. In the final analysis, needs theory suggests that it is the intrinsic aspects of the job that motivate people.

Process theory, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with the process by which behavior is initiated and sustained. Motivation, from this perspective, is largely a function of external forces and the appropriate use of incentives. Here, there is the potential for a relatively strong relationship between motivation and pay. For a strong relationship, employees must believe the rewards are allocated fairly, that is, consistent with equity theory. Also, the rewards must be valued, performance expectations must be perceived as reasonable, and the reward must be given when the performance goal is reached. That is, the principles of expectancy theory must be met. Although this perspective does not rule out internal need-satisfaction, it emphasizes the external incentives that come from working. So, money can be a primary motivator. Regardless of which theoretical perspective, if any, one adopts, in this country, most organizations claim they use a pay-for-performance (PFP) system1 where 1

Norfolk, VA, USA College Park, MD, USA

2

Corresponding Author: Myron Glassman, Department of Marketing, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

232

Compensation & Benefits Review 42(4)

Needs theory MASLOW

HERZBERG

Self Actualization

The work itself: Responsibility Advancement

Satisfiers or motivating conditions

Esteem

Achievement Recognition

Belonging

Quality of interpersonal relations

Safety

Physiological

Dissatisfiers or hygiene conditions

Job Security

Working conditions Salary

Figure 1. Need theory

they reward employees with merit-based pay to enhance and improve work behavior. Yet despite the commonsense appeal of a PFP system, a serious problem is that management practices, including the use of a PFP system, are rarely based on good academic evidence about what does and does not work. Pfeffer and Sutton describe this as the “knowing/doing” gap and lament that business education has not changed what managers actually do.2 That is, research findings regarding PFP have sometimes been ignored. When these findings are ignored, the PFP system typically fails, unfairly harming the technique’s reputation. In this article, several key issues that need to be addressed when evaluating an existing or proposed PFP system are discussed. In addition, problem areas and recommendations about when a pay-for-performance system is appropriate are presented.

Evidence in Support of PFP Systems The large number of success stories regarding PFP is not surprising. Excellent evidence supporting PFP comes from research conducted in actual work situations. One success story found that a new PFP system increased productivity by about 30%. This is much greater than the impact of job enrichment (9% to 17% improvement) or employee participation (less than a 1% increase) on productivity. Subsequent meta-analysis has shown similar results regarding the effectiveness of pay incentive systems.3 Other research, much of it in health care, has shown how PFP can affect not only individual productivity but

also various clinical, financial and patient satisfaction indicators. In one program, providers who achieved quality of care goals in a variety of chronic healthcare areas were rewarded. In addition, some boards use PFP incentives to align the interests of executives and shareholders. Because PFP systems seem to work, and in fact are recommended in some situations, it is worthwhile knowing what explains PFP’s impact on productivity. Some argue that in addition to the much explored incentive effect on current employees, PFP may cause a “sorting effect.” That is, a PFP system results in better job–employee fit because people who are motivated by money will apply for and stay in a position where PFP is used. Similarly, those not motivated by money are likely to quit and look for a job where pay is less dependent on performance. Although the reason for increased productivity may not matter to management, it is important to distinguish between the incentive effect and the sorting effect. When productivity improvement involves the same employees (little turnover), the productivity increase is due to the much studied incentive effect. However, if personnel change, then the improvement in performance is likely because of the sorting effect. Lazear, for example, found a 44% productivity increase for a glass installation company that switched from salaries to individual incentives.4 Of this increase, about 50% was because of increased productivity, whereas the other 50% was because of less productive workers leaving and being replaced. Although the exact reason may be unclear, there are, in fact, many examples of organizations where PFP improved

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

233

Glassman et al. both employee performance and organizational productivity. Because a poor PFP system can have negative consequences, a faulty system should be fixed or abandoned. But, what causes a PFP system to be faulty?

Funding More than anything else, PFP systems fail when there isn’t enough money to meaningfully reward all high performers. “Having enough money” includes the ability to provide meaningful rewards on an ongoing basis, provide the necessary resources and training to achieve performance goals, and provide training for those who will evaluate employees and administer the PFP system. Because a PFP system is a classic behaviorist approach to motivation, what gets rewarded gets done and when it is “done” a reward is expected. So, if an employee meets the stated performance goals, the promised reward must be forthcoming. Still, this begs the question, “How much of a reward is enough” and, although there are no hardand-fast rules, Kauhanen and Piekkola suggest that a merit reward be at least 5% of total salary.5 Others have found that merit pay can motivate when it is as little as 3% of base salary.6 Taking a different approach, IBM is reported to give star performers an increase 2.5 times the average.7 However merit is rewarded, PFP systems are more expensive when highly paid employees are involved. Again, whatever method is used to determine the reward, the amount should be noticeable in the paycheck and should give the employee greater purchasing power. The amount of “merit” required for a reward affects funding because the reward should be related to effort and accomplishment. Therefore, the higher the performance goal, the more expensive the program. This helps explain the range of percentages; lower percentages, lower goals; higher percentages, higher goals. So, despite the desire to set “stretch goals,” managers should ensure that the goals are not only attainable but that their employees will feel that the monetary rewards are worth the effort. If they do not, performance can drop and become worse than if merit was not used because the sense of hopelessness in achieving performance goals may result in reduced motivation causing employees to do “just enough to get by.” To be effective, a PFP system must be funded on an ongoing basis since employees quickly become accustomed to the extra money and because PFP can permanently reduce intrinsic motivation. If the bonus is reduced or eliminated, employees may see this as a pay cut that may necessitate a change in lifestyle or financial hardship. Also, once employees develop a PFP mindset, intrinsic motivation can drop, and they are less likely to do things because they “should do it” or for the good of the company.

So, even though adequate funds in subsequent years can never be guaranteed, management should be reasonably certain that there will be enough money to support the PFP system for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, there may be unintended consequences such that the firm would have been better off never having implemented the system. Funding is also required to provide training so that employees can acquire the knowledge and skills needed to earn a merit reward. As stated above, a PFP system generally will not succeed if employees feel they cannot achieve the goals. It is not enough just to tell a person to “do better” because this assumes the individual has the skills required to perform the job and merely lacks motivation to do so. Often, this is not true and company-sponsored training, in addition to improving skills, may also improve motivation, loyalty, and involvement since employees feel less like an expense and more like an investment.

Nature of the Job A PFP system may fail because of job characteristics. Some jobs are such that they define what people must do, limit the ability to do more than what is required, and have little room for meaningful improvement. Some aspects of a nurse’s job have these characteristics. For example, nurses are expected to respond when patients push the call button. The standard requires the nurse to respond within a defined time. Even if the nurse responds more quickly, it may not matter to the patient or improve patient care. So, after a time, meeting the standard is no longer meritorious and the use of merit pay is inappropriate. Although some may argue for continuous improvement, there is the real possibility that a tighter standard will lead to more errors and, as such, patient care may be compromised rather than improved. This also can apply to sales. For example, the performance and productivity of a sales person for a long-distance moving company is limited by the ability of the company to load and move a household’s goods, that is, it must have enough trucks. In fact, if the sales person is too productive, customers can become dissatisfied as their goods linger in a warehouse waiting to be moved. A PFP system works best when there is a narrow range of job tasks and people across departments or within a department who perform different jobs are not part of the same merit pool. Here, the identification and weighting of the merit pay requirements are straightforward. However, if the job is multifaceted or if people from different departments are compared, it becomes difficult to identify relevant components and determine their relative value and importance. Furthermore, if a job requires teamwork, yet employees are rewarded based on individual as opposed to group output, then workers are more likely to maximize their

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

234

Compensation & Benefits Review 42(4)

own performance rather than be concerned about team performance and goals. This can easily lead to a drop in morale and jealousy and conflict among team members may increase. If the rewards are team based and an employee has to rely on others to achieve merit goals, then the individual’s lack of control over the performance of others may cause frustration and conflict, thus undermining the merit system. That is, the employee may spend more time dealing with social loafing issues rather than concentrating on the job. As mentioned above, there are many jobs where people have limited control over outcomes. In this situation, there is a tendency to create input goals rather than outcome goals. Unfortunately, this rewards effort rather than accomplishment, and because of this a merit system is inappropriate. The firm is better served by setting a minimum standard for performance that most can reasonably accomplish. PFP requires goal stability, and this can be difficult with some jobs. For those jobs where goal stability is possible, a PFP system will not work if goals are always changing. Employees are less likely to “jump in” because the odds are that efforts prior to the shift will not be rewarded. With stable goals, employees are more likely to “jump in” and benefit from the PFP system. Even stable goals can lead to problems because they can delay or preclude taking on new endeavors and tasks. For example, an employee may be unwilling to take on a new task if this might make it more difficult to achieve a stated goal because, as noted earlier, people will only do what they believe is rewarded. Some jobs require creative, novel or risk-taking behavior. PFP can limit this. The reason is that people will work at a level that they feel certain will lead to goal attainment. For example, some salespeople do not prospect for new clients when they know they can reach sales goals by calling on existing clients. The risk of failure in selling to new customers is too great to warrant the effort. Further, a PFP system may fail if the job attracts people who are intrinsically motivated; prefer solidarity, equality, and harmony; or who desire security. This may explain why many unions disapprove of PFP systems because they undermine the predictability and security of a seniority system. Jobs in education, government, charitable organizations and nonprofit “helping professions” tend to attract intrinsically motivated people. In the final analysis, PFP systems can fail if job characteristics prevent the employee from controlling performance outcomes. The individual must have the materials needed to perform the job meritoriously since without these materials, outcomes cannot be controlled. A good example where this control is lacking is public education

where the teacher has little if any control over the student’s readiness to learn or the student’s motivation to learn. Because of this, merit pay systems in schools have generally not been successful.

The Performance Feedback System Poor evaluation and feedback systems can easily doom a PFP program. Some argue that performance appraisals encourage fear, promote short-term thinking, stifle teamwork and are no better than a lottery. In other words, PFP systems rely on a flawed technique, so they cannot work. Obviously, others believe that performance appraisals are valid. Assuming validity, a PFP system will not work if employees see the evaluation system as a lottery. Employees will see it that way if they do not feel that the system is fair and that the evaluators have been well trained to implement a PFP system. What then constitutes an appropriate performance evaluation system? First, management must decide what to reward. This is important as the case of Enron shows that a merit pay system focusing on the wrong things can have a disastrous effect. In addition, the criteria should be relevant and generally agreed on. Gaining agreement may be difficult in a politically charged work environment where different groups want the firm move in different directions. If there are too many goals, the relative value of the various job components can be difficult to establish. For example, assume 6 job characteristics will be evaluated. And, an average score of 8 on a 10-place scale is enough to qualify for merit. Should someone who receives 8s on all 6 characteristics get the same merit raise as someone who scores only 6 on 3 characteristics and 10 on the other 3? The weightings may lead some employees to ignore lower weighted job components. Of course, minimum performance standards for each component could be mandated and substandard performance in one area might affect or even preclude a merit reward. Unfortunately, this complexity violates one of the basic tenets of PFP systems—simplicity. PFP systems can fail if the appraisal system does not clearly define performance levels and there is no clear and significant distinction between “average” and “merit.” Research has shown that most employees, in fact, are “average” and, as such, “meet expectations.”8 In any organization, there are between 15% and 20% that most would agree are “the best” and between 2% and 4% who are “the worst.” This distribution holds true in dysfunctional firms as well as those that perform well. While “average” or “meets expectations” may differ between firms, within a

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

235

Glassman et al. given firm, most employees tend to be average. Because most employees are average, a PFP system is less likely to benefit the firm if meritorious performance is not significantly better than average performance or if more than the anticipated 15% to 20% will be considered meritorious.

Evaluator Training An effective system can fail if the evaluators are not well trained. The more factors to be evaluated and the greater their subjectivity, the more important are the skills and perceived fairness of the evaluators. This means managers must be trained on performance appraisal techniques and on the key characteristics of the job being evaluated. However, even with adequate training, an evaluator may still be considered biased or unfair. Once again, in a politically charged environment this bias (or its perception) can be difficult to eliminate since an employee not rated meritorious, especially when the criteria are subjective, may feel the rating is because politics rather than performance. Merit systems may fail even when the evaluator receives good training and tries to be fair because the supervisor maybe reluctant to tell employees they are not meritorious. As a result, the supervisor gives too many outstanding ratings so everyone gets a merit raise which, of course, undermines the system. Finally, a merit system is less likely to succeed if the evaluator and employee are heavily dependent on one another and if there is fear that a poorly rated employee may retaliate. Furthermore, a close relationship between the employee and evaluator may make a fair assessment difficult. Beyond this, prior associations can lead to higher evaluations because of an escalation of commitment to the employee. Unfortunately, there are strong psychological and social pressures that may undermine an otherwise well planned PFP system.

Unintended Negative Consequences Clearly then, there are several issues that that firms need to address to make a PFP system work. Still, even if these are handled well, there are other potential problems, that is, unintended negative consequences. As mentioned earlier, a good merit system has to discriminate between meritorious and nonmeritorious performers. However, if the system magnifies small performance differences, then organizational divisiveness can occur. Also, conflict may increase as a result of increased information flow between employee and supervisor. And, if the amount of money available for merit pay is not generous and employees see the merit system as a zero sum game, then they may become defensive or

combative. This can be especially destructive when the firm is promoting a culture based on teamwork.

Unintended Ethical Consequences A PFP system may cause ethical lapses and attempts to “game” the system. For example, employees may try to “game” the system to meet goals and focus on ends rather than means. In addition to gaming the system, employees may engage in unethical behavior, especially if doing the “right thing” is not rewarded. This has been a problem in automotive sales when salespeople are only compensated if they “move the metal.” As a result, they frequently sell the customer a car that does not meet the buyer’s needs or use high-pressure sales practices that upset the customer. This results in negative word-of-mouth, which harms the firm’s image. Recently, there have been a number of scandals involving teachers giving students answers to standardized tests. These scandals involve school systems where an implied PFP system is used. That is, although there may be no monetary rewards for high test scores, test scores are used to determine whether a school is or is not meeting “educational goals.” Because an actual or implied PFP is not appropriate for education, these unethical behaviors should not be surprising. One could argue that unethical behavior will increase as the reasonableness of the goals and control over achieving those goals decrease. Rightfully or wrongfully, employees may believe that a poorly designed and implemented PFP system justifies unethical behavior.

Unintended Legal Consequences A poor PFP system opens the door to claims of compensation discrimination under four separate federal civil rights statutes and similar state laws in both the public and private sectors. For example, if a female employee claims her pay raise was less than the raise of her male colleagues and the performance standards are nebulous or the appraisal system is weak, then the employer may face liability. Claims of pay discrimination can be based on The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. For liability under these laws, workers need only show that the PFP system included prohibited criteria and the criteria prevented them from getting a merit reward. Therefore, subjective and vague PFP standards can lead to unintentional discriminatory conduct and resulting claims. Further, PFP criteria that are not job related and consistent with business necessity will result in liability, even if there is no proof of intentional discrimination, if

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

236

Compensation & Benefits Review 42(4)

they adversely affect employees who are members of a protected class. By its passage of the Ledbetter Act (2008), Congress greatly expanded exposure to pay discrimination claims under all four federal civil rights statutes by adopting the “paycheck” rule. This allows claims to be filed as late as 180 days after the last paycheck for which the PFP system discriminates. The Act reverses the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber that required claimants to file within 180 days of the inception of the program. EEOC statistics show that compensation discrimination constitutes a large percentage of claims against employers despite the fact that the Commission makes it clear that pay decisions should be based on class neutral job-related criteria. A PFP system based on vague and subjective performance standards may encourage or require excessive evaluator discretion leading to unjustifiable compensation decisions. This occurred in a PFP system used to evaluate the support staff of a large high-tech service sector company with 20,000 employees. Because of vagueness, it was found that the firm’s PFP system produced gender- and race-based discrimination because managers were allowed excessive discretion to manipulate ratings to pay some employees more.9 Government employers using a defective PFP system can be taken to task based on violation of other civil rights statues not listed above and federal and state constitutions. This makes PFP systems particularly difficult to legally administer in the public sector. For example, in 2008, the Securities and Exchange Commission withdrew its merit pay system after independent arbitrators found it resulted in both age and race discrimination. Similar concerns surfaced in 2009 about the Senate’s proposed reinstatement of a PFP program for use by the Pentagon for national security personnel.

Conclusion So when is a PFP system likely to be successful? It is more likely to be successful if it meets the criteria outlined in Table 1. The list makes it clear that certain positions, for example, sales, and certain firms, for example, manufacturing, are in a better position to meet the criteria for a PFP system because they are more likely to be able to successfully address funding and job characteristics issues. On the other hand, a merit system is less appropriate and less likely to be effective in government, health care, nonprofit, and an array of other organizations where funds are limited, where employees tend to be intrinsically motivated, and where performance is not easily measured. In these organizations, PFP is only appropriate to bring poor performance up to the required standard.

Table 1. Pay-for-Performance Issues Checklist Funding Is the merit pay adequate to motivate given the effort needed to excel? Will the merit reward be noticeable in the paycheck? Is there enough money to reward all high performers? Is the merit pay program ongoing? Are there funds to train evaluators? Are there funds to help employees improve? Are there funds to provide necessary resources to excel? Is there enough money to mitigate unintended consequences related to money? Job characteristics Are tasks to be rewarded within a narrow range? Is performance capped or limited? Are the goals stable? Does employee have adequate resources to succeed? Does the employee have control over outcomes? Does the job attract extrinsically motivated people? Is teamwork required to achieve merit? Performance feedback Are desired outcomes clearly identified? Are measured criteria relevant, agreed on, and understood? Are performance goals appropriate in number and weight? Does the system clearly identify superior performers? Will the evaluators be candid? Are the evaluator and employee dependent on each other? Is assessment conducted by trained and independent evaluators? Will the evaluators take the task seriously? Unintended consequences Will intrinsic motivation disappear? Will teams become dysfunctional? Will goals or weights cause certain things to not be done? Will goals result in “gaming,” unethical or illegal behavior? Will the system exacerbate “politics” in the organization? Will the system result in illegal discrimination? The reward is too small and demotivates workers Note: Items in italics should be answered “NO” to indicate that the pay-for-performance system is appropriate.

Once that standard is reached and, assuming that there is no room for meaningful improvement, the PFP system may no longer be needed and in fact could become harmful. This is especially true when the PFP system results in a shift in corporate culture such that everyone accepts and performs at the new performance standard. So why do so many firms inappropriately use PFP systems despite a clear set of conditions required for success and despite the harm that can be caused by a poorly implemented system? Granola argues that every 5 years or so a new human resources (HR) solution comes along promising to solve all personnel problems.10 So, to be seen as having cutting-edge HR practices, many organizations adopt (and misuse) a proposed solution without critically analyzing the applicability of the system for that firm.

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

237

Glassman et al. This may explain much of PFP’s misuse, especially in public sector organizations. Lozeau, Langley, and Denis state that public sector organizations are pressured to use private sector tools to appear “legitimate” and use the tools even if the organization is not sure the technique is appropriate.11 That is, public sector organizations feel they are required to adopt business-like techniques despite the fact they are not businesses. Lozeau et al. go on to explain this misutilization by saying that new managerial techniques typically achieve success in pioneering organizations. As the success becomes widely known, more and more firms (both public and private) adopt it to improve their operations (hopefully) and public image (definitely). Of course, this results in more and more misapplications as the context becomes further removed from the original. In other words, over time, the social process– being seen as being on the “cutting edge”–rather than the applicability of the technique, determines whether it will be adopted, and this rather than improved productivity takes on a dominant role in determining whether the firm will adopt PFP. Complicating the evaluation of PFP programs is the fact that enlightened pay practices go along with other good employee programs and practices. Specifically, because the implementation of a PFP system typically coincides with improvements in management practice, it is difficult to determine the cause of increased productivity. For example, a firm recognizes that there is a performance problem and implements a PFP system. Coinciding with the implementation of the PFP system is a general improvement in management practices, for example, clearly defined goals, training and so on. As such, it is difficult to determine whether the improvement in productivity is due to PFP rewards or to improved management practices. In conclusion, conditions where PFP is more likely to succeed and a checklist outlining the requirements for a successful PFP system were presented. The use of the checklist is important since some firms currently using PFP might learn that they would be more successful if they discontinued its use. For firms using PFP in the appropriate environment, the checklist can help pinpoint weaknesses and help improve the system’s effectiveness. The important thing to remember is that PFP is not inherently good or bad, but, like most management tools, its success depends on the appropriate application and implementation. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/ or authorship of this article.

Notes   1. PFP and merit pay are defined in many ways ranging from one-time bonuses to base-pay increases to profit sharing. These distinctions will not be addressed, although the nature of one’s current PFP system will affect the interpretation of our analysis.   2. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2006). Evidence based management. Harvard Business Review, January, 63-74.   3. Locke, E., Feren, D., McCaleb, V., Shaw, K., & Denny A. (1980). The relative effectiveness of four ways of motivating employee performance. In K. Duncan, M. Gruenberg, & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life (pp. 363-388). New York, NY: Wiley.   4. Lazaer, E. (2000) Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90, 1346-1661.   5.  Kauhanen, A., & Piekkola, H. (2006). What makes performance-related pay schemes work? Finnish evidence. Journal of Management Governance, 10, 149-177.   6. Ramaswami, S., & Singh, J. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of merit pay fairness for industrial salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 46-66.   7. Risher, H. (2002). Pay-for-performance: The keys to making it work. Public Personnel Management, 31, 317-332.   8. Terpstra, D., & Honoree, A. (2005). Employees’ responses to merit pay inequity. Compensation & Benefits Review, 37, 51-58.   9. Hansen, F. (2009). Merit pay produces pay discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.workforce. com/section/02/ feature/25/91/53/259165_printer.html 10. This is not to suggest that PFP systems are a fad because commission, piece-work, and group bonus systems have long been in place. 11. Lozeau, D., Langley, A., & Denis, J. (2002) The corruption of managerial techniques by organizations. Human Relations, 55, 537-564.

Bios Myron Glassman is a professor of marketing at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. He is interested in the relationship between HR and marketing orientations, that is, how marketers want “customers for life” to increase profits whereas HR wants “temps for the day” to reduce costs. He is also interested in the academic–practitioner gap. He has published in Business Horizons, Behaviour and Information Technology, Psychology and Marketing, and Compensation & Benefits Review. Aaron Glassman expects to complete his doctorate in management from the University of Maryland in mid-2011. He is a FAA licensed commercial pilot, flight instructor, and adjunct

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015

238

Compensation & Benefits Review 42(4)

instructor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. When he is not teaching aviation, he is busy adapting aviation concepts to general management practices to help organizations better understand leadership, motivation and management through an aviation human factors lens. Paul J. Champagne holds a PhD from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He is a professor of management at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, and is the Chair of the Department of Management, as well as Chair of the Faculty Senate at Old Dominion University. He teaches courses in human resources management, organizational behavior, and organizational development. His primary areas of interest, with

regard to research, are legal issues related to human resources and a variety of organizational behavior topics, including motivation. Michael T. Zugelder is an associate professor who teaches the legal environment and employment law courses in the College of Business and Public Administration at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. His research has focused on employment/civil rights law and workplace intellectual property issues. He received a JD (cum laude) from the College of Law, University of Toledo in 1980, BA and MBA degrees from Indiana University in 1974 and 1976 and is admitted to practice before the state and federal courts in Virginia.

Downloaded from cbr.sagepub.com at OLD DOMINION UNIV LIBRARY on October 21, 2015