Incentives should always be linked to performance

Great insight , in depth knowledge really thank-full you are sharing all this with us

ASK someone in an interview why they want to work for you and the reality is that nine times out ten they will not tell you the real reason. xx Maybe you are right. Personal development, good management in focus, and supportive environment compatible with your vision are not important, possibly. The assumption is that money rule the world, which is right. So many bright minds have no chance to develop ideas without money and me , personally watched on many occasions, that money possession was not associated with great mind. Although the point is that money make our living bearable and let us care about relatives. Also there is no question about their role as one of incentives ( how big role depends of the quality of personality being exposed to such incentive ). In my opinion (IMHO) if you need quality personality on board you should treat money as one of incentives -supportive one. It seems we have always been squeamish in the UK when it comes to talking about money but the fact is, with the exception of a lucky few, most of us get out of bed in the morning because we have to. xxx Sorry but that is not always right . At least not fully. Obviously we work for money but also for recognition, achievements, fulfillment, development and so on and so on. If only money matter, the work is a hell. On such occasion small change in offer aimed to our employee made by our competitor would cause havoc in stability of employment. Loyalty is not related to money alone. To me, remuneration or cash is the oil which keeps the cogs of companies running smoothly but it is also a vital ingredient in any recipe for success. xxx Recognition by remuneration, pay rise is a vital ingredient. Playing with greed is not. I do not the process to acquire proper caliber of employee is that simple. It never ceases to amaze me how most companies fail to look at jobs and properly and analyse what each role brings to the overall performance of the organisation. xxx Fast pace of life makes that. That starts with mechanical (through proper software ) checking CVs and MLs as HR have a very little time left to bring human attention to the process of checking thousands cvs and MLs being sent in industrial alike manner (automated on many occasions). There is nothing we can do about it, but we can do much more latter. When the first part of the process of hiring is so accidental and (as I call that) industrial why to continue that talking with live candidate about the money as ultimate factor/ indicator of mutual interest in employment contract. Every role, from receptionist to the boardroom, can be measured in terms of output and performance. In fact I would argue that if you cannot measure performance then there is probably no need for that role to exist in the first place. xxx Yes . Measure has to be applied to clarify the idea about existence of progress or maybe progress does not exists anymore. No measure no knowledge.But the conclusion about "if you cannot measure performance then there is probably no need for that role to exist in the first place." in my opinion (IMHO) is not correct. That just means the person who is supposed to measure, and therefore have proper instruments, is not up for the job. If you take the example of a receptionist there are simple ways you can measure output. You can monitor how long it takes for the phone to be answered you can ask visitors if they were dealt with politely and efficiently when they walked through the door. XXX The idea to make human like a piece of machinery in my opinion (IMHO) is over. Or at least you have to be aware about constrains and consequences (complex ones)- look at the casus : Apple hardware factory in China with huge factor of scores of suicidal attempts . I think that the quality of employees is in ability to support management by use their skills and attitude enhanced by will and gratification and acknowledgement. What we really need in business (IMHO) is to have a workforce mimicking our own skills to carry on business the way we would but with very little supervision. That is less accurate when you go to the very basic posts on the employment ladder, where initiative is not expected at all. When you recruit it makes sense to link remuneration with performance and output. It does not necessarily have to mean bonuses or extra money, rewards can come in all shapes and sizes but there should be always be a direct link. xxx Yes. Rewards,: recognition, career development, progression and so on and so on... Remuneration is a key influence on behavior and every company should have a strategy in place. If you get your strategy right then not only are you getting the best from your staff but by default you are also improving the overall performance of your company at every level. xxx Nowadays , when companies seek money to spare, lay off plenty of staff it is difficult to blame them for lack of interest in sophisticated , developed remuneration strategy. As soon as the crisis is over and the employee market is back on, availability of quality employees became a problem that will regulate itself (IMHO) . No clear remuneration progression or vision of that no quality staff. That is so apparent and well known in respect to the issue of bonuses offered to so called "fat cats" in under performing companies (Banks , Financial Institutions and so on...) Obviously that is my on spot reflection and maybe not that ample as that should be but definitely shows my personal experience gathered through years of business and employment activities.

James, I dont agree with your article. Michel has pointed out something critical. Stratgic C-suite tend to apply hard busines approach to PM. I sense from your article that you are refering to individual contribution. Please apply some sense if you to encourage inputs (linking incentives) or simply linking incentves to rigid outputs?

James , It would be interesting to know what ou think of the evidence that shows that increasing remuneration actually decreases performance. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Couldn't agree more with regards to your comments about remuneration. Never understood this in business myself, people primarily work for money unless its vocational. Why would you ever have to convince people in an interview otherwise. However most interviewers would not take kindly if the answer came back because I need a job and you pay well. They want a softer answer that also convinces them that they are working for the right business. There is alot of 'bs' in business