Follow
The Daily Sabbatical/Harvard | Nov 30, 2012 | 12984 views

Should Pay-for-Performance Compensation be Replaced?

Questions are being raised about whether pay for performance at its core is fatally flawed or at least misused

P

ay for performance sounds right. It aligns managers and investors. It has been the gold standard for compensation at least since proponents of agency theory 25 years ago began advocating the use of stock options in compensation packages. Its use is a source of praise in the evaluation of governance by rating agencies that provide guidance to shareholders in proxy voting.

As a result, pay for performance is almost universally employed in the US and increasingly elsewhere, even though the forms it takes ebb and flow. But now questions are being raised about whether pay for performance at its core is fatally flawed or at least misused.

Mihir A. Desai is the Mizuho Financial Group Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School
Mihir A. Desai is the Mizuho Financial Group Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School

Mihir Desai, the Mizuho Financial Group Professor of Finance at Harvard Business School, has written recently decrying the practice of tying executive compensation to a company's stock price. He equates P4P to "outsourcing" the appraisal of management to compensation committees—a practice that encourages managers to act for near-term success of the business. This pleases investors who have a short-term interest, at the expense of the long-term performance of the company.

One way to address this issue would be to remove the irrationality of the markets (itself a controversial topic) from the calculation of compensation by linking performance-based pay to numbers such as operating profit. This does not mitigate the argument against short-term incentives. Nor does it address the tendency of compensation committees to rely on numbers rather than judgment. Going even further, perhaps nonfinancial measures, such as those related to product quality, customer perceptions of service quality, or success in developing talent, should be injected in some way into the calculation.

Regardless of the solution favored, Daniel Pink reminds us that all of these practices run counter to a great deal of research questioning the value of extrinsic (monetary) incentives in influencing desired effort, especially if they are routinely expected and aimed at managers who may be relatively insensitive to added monetary awards.

Any effort to inject long-term thinking into pay for performance requires some amount of judgment on the part of those responsible for compensation. For example, awards can be made subject to performance, however it is measured, over longer periods of time. But what is the right length of time? How much of the total compensation should it involve? How is it explained clearly to managers who are not financially oriented? Longer-term incentives involve delays in compensation that may make a job much less attractive to managers with shorter-term needs or interests. On the other hand, it may serve as a way of sorting out managers with a longer-term view of the job.

What we can conclude from the discussion is that no single approach to paying for performance fits every organization. But the discussion suggests several pertinent questions:

Should pay for performance be decoupled from company valuation? Should more judgment on the part of compensation committees be required in determining performance pay? Or does this introduce new potential problems to the process? Can the effectiveness of pay for performance be improved by extending payout periods or determining performance on non-financial criteria? Or should reliance on pay for performance be reduced in the total compensation package?

Is "pay for performance" losing its allure? What do you think?

[This article has been reproduced with permission from Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, the online research journal of University of Harvard Business School http://hbswk.hbs.edu/.]

Next Article in Harvard
Like this article? Subscribe to Forbes India
Just give us your mobile number and we will get in touch with you
Post Your Comment
Name
Required
Email Address
Required, will not be published
Comment
All comments are moderated
 
Comments (5)
H Sankaradhas Dec 25, 2012
Performance based compensation may be good for a short period for a particular project not for long term employment. Fixed salary with performance based annual increase and appreciations/commendations for excellence/exceptionally outstanding performances will keep the employee morale high.
A.mubarak Hussain Dec 4, 2012
Pay for performance is always the best method, because If you want to improve the development of the Concern, each and every clients needs first quality and then quantity. Without performance of each and every employee a concern cannot give continuous development to achieve like six sigma ( The unofficial organization of Dubbawala of Mumbai doing with the quality standards of six sigma daily). I am always on the side of the pay for performance.
Raj Aphale Dec 4, 2012
Absolutely. Variable pay based on individual performance was never the right way of motivating people. But what is new here? This concept and is at least 30 years old!
Op Goel Nov 30, 2012
The performance pay is a form of Outsourcing. True. Except for full responsibility of actions of employees' including their security care rests with the company, whereas in case of outsourcing, these responsibilities lie with the entity given the outsourced job.

The next issue is, What is performance of contribution of Manager.
Nor the loss or gains in cyclic industry like metals, Neither result of unforeseen events, like war, typhoon, climate change...can be attributed to performance parameter.
To neutralise these factors, the performance baseline need to be taken as average of similar type of entities. The parameters of performance need to take into consideration the immediate gains, like percentage gain over the industry average, visible in net worth, comparative increase in profit , customer bas (qualitative and quantitative) product quality, brand value, middle and long term estimates.
Above factors may smoothen the performance monitoring and take decision about managers retain ability and compensation package.
Kanchan Kumar Chattopadhyay Nov 30, 2012
Yes , it should be replaced by other motivators otherwise efficiency bar compensation allegedly would leave negative feeling on other employees which consequentially affect productivity either improving
or adversely.
Most Popular
Buy Facebook Likes - Followersandlikes4u.com
Insta-Subscribe to
Forbes India Magazine
For hassle free instant subscription, just give your number and email id and our customer care agent will get in touch with you
OR
click here to Subscribe Online