“Job security and salary should be based on employee performance, not on years of service. Rewarding employees
primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons
and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
answer
Above statement puts forward a strategy to gauge job security and salary of an employee. I would like to say that importance should be given to employee performance rather than years of service. In next few paragraphs I will try to come up with statements which will support my claim.
First of all, when an employee is gauged by performance then he knows that he has to perform well to achieve the job security and raises. I would like to put forward the example of strategy that has been applied by many companies in recent times. These companies instead of hiring full time employees gave preference to hiring contract employees. Main obvious reason behind the action was contract employees are more dedicated to work than full time employees. As contract employees feel insecure about the future they try to impress the company with better work quality. On the other hand full time employees might not put some extra effort in their day to day job as they know that job is secure.
Moreover, when you give raises just based upon years of service chances are that high performing employees will get hurt. For instance, consider that there is an employee who is relatively new but really excellent in job and has saved significant amount of companies money. And there is some other employee who has been in service for last twenty years but who is not very efficient in the job. Then at the year end, if raise is given to the experienced employee just because he is senior then this is definitely going to make high performing employee nervous. High performing employee is going to fee bad as he cannot see correlation between performance and rewards given. Chances are that this might cause high performing employee to provide average performance in next few years. Directly this is going to affect companies performance.
Along with above two claims I would like to put forward example of the biggest chip manufacturer company of current era, Intel Corporation. Even Intel uses performance based system "FOCAL" rather than system based on seniority. At the end of every year an Intel employee is required to submit a document which explains his two biggest achievements for that year. Feedback is also taken from other employees regarding every employee's performance. After considering only these two documents rewards are given to an employee and no importance is given to "years of service". Since last few years in top business magazines Intel has been rated very high for employee satisfaction. Definitely this is not possible without employee preference for FOCAL process.
Therefore, I think that performance should be given to employee's performance.
primarily for years of service discourages people from maintaining consistently high levels of productivity.”
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion stated above. Support your views with reasons
and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
answer
Above statement puts forward a strategy to gauge job security and salary of an employee. I would like to say that importance should be given to employee performance rather than years of service. In next few paragraphs I will try to come up with statements which will support my claim.
First of all, when an employee is gauged by performance then he knows that he has to perform well to achieve the job security and raises. I would like to put forward the example of strategy that has been applied by many companies in recent times. These companies instead of hiring full time employees gave preference to hiring contract employees. Main obvious reason behind the action was contract employees are more dedicated to work than full time employees. As contract employees feel insecure about the future they try to impress the company with better work quality. On the other hand full time employees might not put some extra effort in their day to day job as they know that job is secure.
Moreover, when you give raises just based upon years of service chances are that high performing employees will get hurt. For instance, consider that there is an employee who is relatively new but really excellent in job and has saved significant amount of companies money. And there is some other employee who has been in service for last twenty years but who is not very efficient in the job. Then at the year end, if raise is given to the experienced employee just because he is senior then this is definitely going to make high performing employee nervous. High performing employee is going to fee bad as he cannot see correlation between performance and rewards given. Chances are that this might cause high performing employee to provide average performance in next few years. Directly this is going to affect companies performance.
Along with above two claims I would like to put forward example of the biggest chip manufacturer company of current era, Intel Corporation. Even Intel uses performance based system "FOCAL" rather than system based on seniority. At the end of every year an Intel employee is required to submit a document which explains his two biggest achievements for that year. Feedback is also taken from other employees regarding every employee's performance. After considering only these two documents rewards are given to an employee and no importance is given to "years of service". Since last few years in top business magazines Intel has been rated very high for employee satisfaction. Definitely this is not possible without employee preference for FOCAL process.
Therefore, I think that performance should be given to employee's performance.
