It is the proposed entry grade benchmark salary for new ministers. It is supposedly the "just right, not too hot, not too cold" porridge whipped up by the Gerard Ee panel.
So now the next question is: Will this figure, in serving its purported aim of attracting enough top talent into the PAP fold, and thence into ministerial posts, set in motion a motivational drive for the incumbent to keep performing well on the job, and thus to earn more (much more?) than this starter $1.1 million with each passing year, as experience is accumulated?
Or is this the wrong question?
TODAY (6 Jan) attempted an answer -- in the context of a company, not a government -- with a commentary article, "Stop tying pay to performance... the evidence is overwhelming -- it does not work", by Bruno Frey and Margit Osterloh. Here is the link:
http://www.todayonline.com/Business/EDC120106-0000003/Stop-tying-pay-to-performance
The article posits that it is time to "unlink" pay from performance because the growing evidence points to "pay for performance" as being ineffective. It may even "induce executives to take company-killing risks".
There are other ways to motivate employees that yield better results at lower cost, it says, adding that all variable-pay-for-performance schemes suffer from four inescapable flaws:
1) In a modern economy, where new challenges emerge constantly, it is impossible to determine the tasks that will need to be done in the future precisely enough for variable pay for performance to work well.
2) People subject to variable pay for performance don't passively accept the criteria. They spend a lot of time and energy trying to manipulate the criteria in their favour.
3) Variable pay for performance often leads employees to focus exclusively on areas covered by the criteria [the infamous KPIs!] and neglect other important tasks.
4) Variable pay for performance [which is, by definition, extrinsic] tends to crowd out intrinsic motivation and thus the joy of fulfilling work. Such motivation is of great importance to business because it supports innovation and encourages beyond-the-ordinary contributions.
The two writers assert that research has shown that human beings are not interested solely in material gain. They care for the well-being of other individuals and value recognition from co-workers. Many employees apply themselves because they find their work challenging and worthwhile.
What are these non-material motivations, and how are the right candidates found?
One, select employees more carefully, hiring people who are truly interested in the work, not people whose primary goal is earning the highest pay.
Another approach is to pay fixed compensation but adjust it on the basis of a comprehensive evaluation of employees' work after some time.
At the end of the year, companies can also distribute part of their profits to employees according to their contribution to overall performance, rather than preset criteria.
Awards and recognition are effective motivators as well. Research suggests that effort increases among both the winners and other employees when awards are given out.
-------------------------------------------------
Reading the article above, I think the PAP goverment, and the Gerard Ee panel, will say that these ideas are indeed part and parcel of the spirit of the proposed changes. So, I wonder if we are still asking the wrong question. I have to think about it.
-----------------------------------------------
Dragon footnote:
I had wondered yesterday why Marina Bay Sands' ad featured an ice-carving dragon. Another ad, by City Square Mall, in today's ST solved the puzzle for me:
This is the Year of the Water Dragon. Ah, so elemental! (There are supposedly five elements in the Chinese zodiac: wood, fire, water, Earth and metal).
Disclaimer: I just have a fascination with dragons, not the Chinese zodiac, or any other zodiac [except the Ford Zodiac... I once had a Matchbox diecast toy of this car.]
No comments:
Post a Comment