任何一個企業都有一個目標，即招聘高技能和工作效率高的員工。那么問題出現了,員工往往更關心薪酬或獎勵而不是在工作上發揮潛能。因此,為了解決企業和員工之間的利益沖突,一些企業開始嘗試將“薪酬與績效”這兩個元素放在一起對比(Cadsby et al .,2007)。同樣,最好的方法之一是跟上競爭激烈的全球市場的步伐，這樣有利于招到高執行力的員工 (Lyester and Arthur, 2007)。

如今在許多企業中都實行“根據績效給薪酬”這項策略，主要是由三個趨勢所導致的。首先是重心發生變化，從原來的工作文憑轉移到員工的真實能力和職業能力素質以及他們對專業知識的融會貫通。其內在含義是指企業內部獨特的工資談判和把薪酬水平分散開。二是轉變制度同構，基于政治或企業之間的合法性競爭和市場競爭力。

The goal of any organization is to hire highly skilled employees and to maximize their productivity. Problems arise when employees tend to be concerned more with compensation or financial
rewards rather than exerting efforts for superb performance. Hence, to solve this conflict of interest between the organization and the employees, some try to link the two elements- pay and
performance (Cadsby et al., 2007). Likewise, one of the best ways to keep up with the competitive global market place is rewarding highly performing employees (Lyester and Arthur, 2007).

There are three trends leading to pay for performance practices to be implemented in many organizations nowadays. First is the shift of focus from job to the actual knowledge and competencies of the employees and the knowledge transfer between them. The implication of this is the individualized pay negotiations and dispersion of pay levels within the organization. Second is the shift from institutional isomorphism which is based on political or organization legitimacy to competitive isomorphism which is based on market forces. The shift leads to requirement of more coherent pay structures and increase of values attached by the employee s to immediate financial rewards particularly regular compensation. Lastly, the decentralization of the collective bargaining structure also leads to introduction and spread of pay for performance (Gomez and Werner, 2008).

This paper is an assessment of the pros and cons of the pros and cons of pay for performance scheme based on the goal to maximize productivity among employees and the trends that leads to this practice.

根據績效分配薪酬—Pay for Performance

Pay for performance is a compensation scheme in which compensation or pay is systematically equated from output or performance (Wragg and Wragg, 2004). This is also called pure merit
system. With this compensation systems, there are additional amounts to the base pay which are linked to achievement of goals and performance rating during specified period. It differs from
one-time bonuses and typical grade-and step promotion plans because the increases are not predetermined and will be based solely on the measurable achievement of goals and high performance. A pay for performance system uses open salary range with minimum, midpoints, and maximum defined and performance will be the basis for any movement within the ranges. With a pay for performance system, the function of compensation becomes two fold: First, it serves as the link between existing base pay and the market. Second, it becomes a measurement of performance by the employees .#p#分頁標題#e#

This is an attempt to use financial incentive to motivate the employees by liking efforts exerted and rewards receive. By this, the employees are expected to produce more so that they can increase their earnings because the higher is the output, the higher will be their compensation (Caruth and Handlogten, 2001). Hence, the goal of pay for performance practices can be looked into two perspectives. First, pay for performance is claimed to be an effective sorting devise to identify and attract the most capable applicants. Second, in the case of the existing employees, pay for performance is an incentive scheme to maximize the performance and productivity of the employees.

"根據績效分配薪酬“的優點—The Pros of Pay for Performance

This section presents some of the advantages and justification for the implementation of pay for performance. The principle behind pay for performance is its incentive property. The following
advantages focus on the incentive aspect of the pay for performance.

Employees can be sorted and differences in employee performance will be recognized. This cannot be done with the conventional compensation systems. Hence, through implementing pay for performance, the output of the employees will be identified precisely and be rewarded accordingly. It only makes fair for the high performing employees to be paid more than the low or average employees. Moreover, this will motivate employees to perform better because they know that their performance will be recognized and rewarded (Caruth and Handlogten, 2001). It should also be taken into account that employees differ in rate of performance and proficiency and it should be the highly performing ones that should be rewarded and given merit (Singer and Francisco, 2009).

Knowledge that high performance will be recognized and rewarded will increase competition among employees. Competition among the employees is beneficial for themselves and the company as well. Competition within the workplace will initiate and increase the desire of employees to be the best in their task. However, it will only be beneficial if competition will be based only to output, performance, and end results (Caruth and Handlogten, 2001).

Pay for performance can attract and retain productive employees. From the recent studies, it was observed from human resource records that employees with high levels of performance are more likely to leave the company while those with low levels of performance are more likely to stay in the case of weak relationship between pay and performance. It was also observed in other researches that pay for performance increased productivity and made sorting efficient too (Cadsby et al., 2007). However, some experts argue that pay for performance can attract and retain high performers and discourage poor performers from joining or staying in the company (Singer and Francisco, 2009). Moreover, An organization with reputation for paying significant incentive is more likely to attract competitive applicants than company that does not pay incentives. This is also a proof in the case of the applicants, on their intention to work with high levels
(Caruth and Handlogten, 2001).

Pay for performance will also reduce absenteeism. Since the goal of all the employees is to increase their outputs in order to get high compensation, employee absenteeism will be avoided too.They will be less likely to abuse sick leave because unnecessary time off will be unfavorable for the employees themselves (Caruth and Handlogten, 2001). The employees can be expected to maximize their performance first by maximizing their attendance in the office.

Likewise, pay for payment will also reduce idle time including excessive breaks, long lunch breaks, personal businesses, personal phone calls and chat among co workers. The employees are more likely to be conscientious in the use of time in order to maximize their earnings as well (Caruth and Handlogten, 2001).#p#分頁標題#e#

”根據績效分配薪酬“的缺點—The Cons of Pay for Performance

While there are a number of advantages associated with pay for performance, it may also have unintentional adverse consequences in the work climate. Here are some of the disadvantages
of pay for performance implementation.

Pay for performance may influence the employees to neglect unrewarded tasks. With the aim to reach the measurable goals, employees may tend to ignore immeasurable and yet important
aspects of the job. They may tend to focus on aspects of the job that will enhance their payment appraisal (Wragg and Wragg, 2004). Hence the external reward system should also focus on the efforts of the employees and not on the intended tasks alone (Gomez and Werner, 2008).

Another con of pay for performance compensation scheme is additional costs. While there is a general idea that pay for performance will save money because it will not be dispersed widely as only the high performing employees will be rewarded, this will also cost the organization additional costs for monitoring, appraisal and performance management. Moreover, cost of salary of the employees will always be uncertain as it will only be known after the evaluation period. The company may be vulnerable to budgetary cutbacks in times of economic crisis and may not afford such uncertain costs (Wragg and Wragg, 2009). Limited salary budgets may not afford sufficient differentiation between employees performing at different rates. Very low differentiation may not be able to suffice to achieve the desired motivation for higher performance and will only develop mediocrity attitude among them (Singer and Francisco, 2009).

Inefficient pay for performance may also lead to demotivation of the unrewarded. Based on the theory, unrewarded employees will understand they have low levels of performance; hence will exert to improve or leave which are both favorable for the company. However, this is not always the scenario in the real world. Some times, employees may not be motivated by schemes that do not benefit them. In times of budgetary cuts, some employees who perform highly may not be given rewards. They will likely attribute this to wasted efforts (Wragg and Wragg, 2009). To base this on theory, the under rewarding inequity perception may lead to adverse actions such as lower efforts (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003).On the other hand, if everyone benefits, the purpose of the scheme becomes illogical. Hence, the performance appraisal must be designed carefully (Wragg and Wragg, 2001).

While competition was mentioned as a pro of pay for performance, it becomes a con when competition is favored more than cooperation. It was observed in companies implementing pay for
performance that employees tend to be less willing to assist their colleagues. It was observed that competition brought about by individualized pay for performance scheme discouraged team
working and increased jealousy. Likewise, in some instances, pay for performance scheme is also unfavorable for the employee- manager relationship. Trust and cooperation to and from both
parties are less likely to occur attributed particularly on the pay for performance scheme (Wragg and Wragg, 2009).

There are two challenges in order to come up with a beneficial pay for performance schemes. First, there must be an acceptance of the plan by the various stakeholders. A very comprehensive and effective compensation plan is likely to fail without acceptance from the employees, and lack of consideration to organizational politics and institutional factors (Gomez and Werner, 2008).

Second, there should be an effective external reward to motivate the right behavior and result. An effective external reward system should focus on employees' efforts and not on their intended
tasks only. A right reward criterion will motivate desirable behavior from the employees (Gomez and Werner, 2008). Pay for performance, in order to be beneficial, should be backed up by an
effective performance appraisal design (Wragg and Wragg, 2001).

績效考核設計—Performance Appraisal Design

Performance appraisal is a tool used by managers to evaluate employee's work to identify the level of performance. In the case of pay for performance compensation scheme, the purpose of
performance appraisal design is to justify salary changes and serve as a basis for these changes (Lyester and Arthur, 2007). For companies implementing pay for performance compensation
scheme, it is a choice between behavior-based or results-based performance appraisal schemes (Gerharrt and Rynes, 2003).

Most companies still use behaviorbased performance assessment design. This is a subjective assessment of the employee behavior. The evaluator should have adequate opportunity and
knowledge to judge effectively employee's actions. His interests should be aligned with that of the organization's interest so that not his personal criteria will be used. The pros of this design can be discussed in three points. First, it can be used for any type of job, whether it is output oriented, timeoriented, etc. Second, this will avoid the neglect of unrewarded aspects of the tasks because these will be considered under behaviorbased performance appraisal design. Efforts and other positive attitudes will be rewarded accordingly. Third, this scheme can also help to focus on how results are to be achieved, thus controllingagency costs (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003).#p#分頁標題#e#

The cons of behaviorbased performance appraisal design, on the other hand has two broad points. First, this scheme has the potential to be subjective and inaccurate as it is based on judgment of the evaluator only with the guide of the company's criteria but empirical proof will not be provided. Moreover, validity and accuracy of the measurement tools may also be questioned. Thus,behavior-based performance appraisal design will always be difficult to link to credibility. Second, this scheme also leads to weak pay-performance relationship. This weak relationship is attributed to manager's leniency and inflation of ratings either to gain personal popularity or to protect pro social behaviors, teamwork and
team cohesion, and management-employee relationship (Gerhart and Rynes, 2003).

Hence, organizations shift to resultsbased performance appraisal design. Some examples include: stock options, profit sharing, individual incentives and gain sharing. In the past, such
payment schemes were reserved for higher positions such as executives but the trend now is to extend it to lower ranking employees in order to empower and motivate them as well. This is also a beneficial response to emerging trends of alternative forms of employment such as outsourcing, temporary employment, and individual contracting. The main advantage of this type of scheme  is its objectivity and measurability. In this design, credibility and payperformance relationship is strong. Nevertheless, its weaknesses are the cons that were mentioned in the previous section of the paper.