Voici le résumé d’article qui décrit assez bien les écueils de la rémunération incitative (Pay for Performance P4P). L’auteur, E. James Brennan, est un partisan de la rémunération incitative. Son article a pour but de mettre les administrateurs en garde contre quatre problèmes susceptibles de rendre l’exercice périlleux !
« Pay for Performance, (« P4P » for us cool compensation pros) is all the rage. Those of you who read my postings regularly know that I’m a big proponent of performance-based compensation, in its many forms. Despite being a big supporter, or perhaps because of it, I think its important to discuss the major risks involved with these programs.
1. Incorrect Metrics
Metrics are the “things” that are being measured. These are the foundation of your plan and must represent the measurements of success. I will save you the time of repeating what I, and others, have already said. A couple of interesting articles are here and here.
2. Poorly Set Goals
Goals are the levels that define the success of each metric. These are the drivers of your plan and must represent your destination. Again, I will save time, by pointing out some other articles, here and here.
3. Underwhelming Communication
Performance compensation is often confusing. Clean, clear communications are essential to engaging and motivating your staff. This is a topic we cover here often at the Compensation Cafe. Some good examples are here, here and here.
4. Human Nature
Human nature is the one thing that you cannot build into your compensation programs, yet it is the single biggest risk to pay for performance. A colleague of mine often says that the problem isn’t that P4P programs don’t work well, it’s that they work TOO well. Results and actions must be in alignment. Many companies create great metrics, goals and communications and still have compensation plans blow up. Why is this? For programs that demand high-performance, you must also provide strong management and oversight. Many companies use their compensation plans as a form of management. This may lead to participants slowly defining the good and bad ».