Pay for Performance and Merit Pay

2007 ◽  
pp. 1423-1427
Author(s):  
Joan E. Pynes
Keyword(s):  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Merit Pay

Three Federal Demonstration Projects: Using Monetary Performance Awards

1994 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert B. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Technology Use ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
Evaluation Research ◽  
Blue Collar ◽  
Gain Sharing ◽  
Monetary Rewards

Three federal demonstration projects have been using monetary rewards for performance with mixed results. Two of the projects, Navy and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, use individual merit pay in research and development environments. A third, an Air Force project, involves blue collar employees, and utilizes gain sharing. This article analyzes evaluation research conducted to date. Results show it is difficult to separate pay outcomes from the effects of multiple interventions. However inconclusive, there is evidence that improvements have been produced without many of the side effects which have been described in the literature on pay-for-performance in the federal government.

Effects of Performance-Contingent Pay on Employee Attitudes

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brigitte W. Schay
Keyword(s):  
Performance Appraisal ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
White Collar ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Employee Attitudes ◽  
Civil Service Reform ◽  
Civilian Employees

This article compares the effects of two different pay-for-performance systems implemented as a result of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Analyses are based on responses to five annual attitude surveys administered between 1979 and 1984 to civilian employees at four Navy R&D laboratories. Two of the labs, located in California, implemented pay for performance for all their white collar employees under a CSRA demonstration project testing an integrated approach to pay performance appraisal and position classification. The other two labs, located on the East coast, served as a comparison group for the federal-wide merit pay system covering supervisors and managers. Overall results were found to be more positive for the two demonstration labs in California.

Can Pay for Performance Succeed in Government?

1988 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Perry ◽  
Beth Ann Petrakis
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Performance Management ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
Recognition System ◽  
Civil Service Reform ◽  
Current Program ◽  
Pay System

Pay-for-performance programs have become increasingly popular in recent years. The federal government introduced a merit pay system for managers under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The failure of the system led to its reform in 1984. The current program, the Performance Management and Recognition System (PMRS), is described and assessed. The paper offers a prognosis for PMRS's future. Other public sector experience is reviewed to identify the probable success of managerial merit pay.

scholarly journals The Problem with Public University Salaries in Kenya

2014 ◽  
pp. 21-22
Author(s):  
Ishmael I Munene
Keyword(s):  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
Institutional Context ◽  
Public University ◽  
Compensation Scheme ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Regular Feature ◽  
Performance System ◽  
The University ◽  
Robust Compensation

Faculty strikes over salaries have become a regular feature in Kenya’s public universities. The article identifies the preponderance of union-negotiated pay increase, absence of a merit pay system and the lack of differentiated pay tied to institutional context as key contributing factors. It recommends a more robust compensation scheme that includes pay-for-performance system, context-based differentiated pay for university executives and the democratization of the university budget processes.

scholarly journals Academic capitalism and faculty burnout: evidence from the United Arab Emirates

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 1368-1393
Author(s):  
Omar Al Serhan ◽  
Roudaina Houjeir
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Pay For Performance ◽  
Merit Pay ◽  
Academic Capitalism ◽  
Maslach Burnout Inventory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Financial Compensation ◽  
Financial Pressure ◽  
Faculty Burnout

In this paper, we investigate the factors that affect burnout of faculty, which we refer to as “academic fatigue”, in the context of the business professors in the highly competitive and globalized market of the United Arab Emirates, which, unlike the United States, does not offer tenure to professors. It is the first paper to addresses an increasingly important area in the higher education sector in the UAE where increasing competition between institutions, the financial pressure on universities, and government funding cuts are having a knockdown effect on all parts of the higher education supply chain, including faculty. Data was collected from business faculty in a major UAE public university using a quantitative survey that designed based on Maslach Burnout Inventory MBI Educators Survey (MBI-ES). We find that while purely aspects of financial compensation (including satisfaction with pay, pay for performance sensitivity, and merit pay allocation) are not significantly related to faculty burnout, faculty satisfaction with the research and teaching workload reduces burnout significantly.  Our results do not support the academic capitalism paradigm in a strict financial sense, but rather in a holistic sense that incorporates non-financial compensation. Key Words: Academic Capitalism; Faculty Burnout; United Arab Emirates; Higher Education; depersonalization; stress; tenure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document