Strategic Management of Performance and Reward
It has been widely accepted that employee engagement is a very important aspect of organisational growth. An engaged labour force has been known to be more invested, loyal and productive. This then implies that it is vital for every company to identify ways in which it can engage its workforce (Cornes, Manthorpe, Moriarty, Blendi-Mahota, & Hussein, 2013). One such method is the adoption of a Strategic Management of Performance and Reward system. Such a system may be meant to motivate more performance but it more often than not goes beyond that. One such program has been adopted at the York St John University. (what is the strategy? ) The University’s high regard for its staff is one aspect that should be highly encouraged ( remember your focus shgoulds be on teaching staff not all staff) on this University and on any other institution that wants to promote growth amongst its staff. The York St John’s University’s decision to have a performance and reward system is also a very good idea ( was there one decision, if so when, or did it evolve over time?)It is a decision that is keen on better delivery for its consumers and a better image for the University. This report seeks to analyse the University’s program and see what can be learned from it and what improvements can be made to it to enhance its delivery.
Every corporation needs a planned reward structure for staffs that addresses the four areas, that is, compensation, recognition, benefits, and appreciation. The trouble with reward structures in many corporations today is their inadequacy (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2010). It could be lacking one or more of these aspects (frequently recognition and/or appreciation), and the aspects that are addressed improperly aligned with the corporations other corporate plans (Byrd, 2014). Effectual rewarding is not simply about increasing salaries, but rather finding the appropriate worker reward programs for the industry setting, the strategic trend of the business and the unique work culture. A triumphant system should identify and reward two kinds of worker efforts and behaviour. Performance is the simplest to address since it has a direct link between the original goals set for the workers and the outcomes that result. Secondly, behavioural performance should be rewarded.
The HR Department is dedicated to organizing the performance and conduct of all the academic staff. This is attained by appropriately rewarding staff performance in order to encourage them to worker harder. Additionally the institution offers staffs the essential support and assistance to encourage and facilitate them to perform efficiently and to the greatest of their capability. Through the University’s performance and reward, procedures all efforts are made to guarantee that staffs efforts and behaviour are compensated appropriately (Armstrong, 2006; Butler, 2014).
The university base pay to its academic staff rates are among the most competitive basic salaries nationally( not true –Remuneration of academic staff is in line with nationally negotiated agreements covering most UK universities). This makes the staff work with total devotion trusting that their efforts are properly compensated (evidence for this ?). The institution has noticed that salaries cannot fully reward an employee who puts that extra effort; therefore, it has introduced allowances such as responsibility allowances, overtime payments ( no!) including other market supplements.
The institution has put in place a compulsory annual leave (no – annual leave is a contractual and legal requirement) this enables the staff to rest after a long hard working year. This has really encouraged the employees (evidence for this ?)since in many institutions such leaves are inexistent ( not true). Additionally, the institution recognizes that sickness is not voluntary, thus, a sick staff is normally remunerated as equally as the others who are at work( as it is with all other employing organisational – sick pay is a legal requirement) . The institution also has initiated a working pension plan that takes great care of the retirees.(no it’s a national pension scheme for all university teachers) When the worker is aware that even after retiring there exist a monetary package their will carry out their duties with total motivation (Jensen, McMullen, & Stark, 2007; Timms, Graham & Cottrell, 2007). The York St John University has established a serene work environment for the employees( what dso you mean by a ‘serene working environment?). This is a benefit since it enhances employee’s relations surroundings this in turn provides staff satisfaction. The HR department exercises equality in equality in the award and rewards distribution (how ?).
Benefits are additional kind of reward included in a strategic reward structure, and the employees definitely notice the kinds of benefits they are provided with. Institutions that fail to match or surpass the benefit ranks of their competitors’ experience difficulties in attracting and preserving top workers. York St John University provides a range of worker benefits and discounts that are detailed in the 2013-14 employee Benefits and Wellbeing Booklet (York St John, 2014). These include:
The University pays for every employee who has operated for at least one-year to obtain a Simplyhealth plan. This plan will permit an employee to claim back their money (up to the annual maximum) towards the daily healthcare including:
(Purely descriptive -all this detail adds little value)
York St John provides childcare vouchers which acts as a flexible way for workers to satisfy the childcare needs. A part of their salary is forfeited for the sake of the vouchers. The academic staff benefit in childcare vouchers since they are non-taxable and are exempted from NI contributions (York St John, 2014).
York St John provides the academic staff the opportunity to buy cycles via a salary ‘sacriﬁce’ system. Staffs contribute monthly via their salaries and are exempted from income tax payment and NI on the subtraction. This, therefore, offers the employees the prospective to save up to over 40% on the worth of a bike and other equipment. The university states that the purpose of reward and recognition is to motivate the academic staff in the institution (Armstrong, 2006; Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni & Fraccaroli, 2012).
In addition to the many numerous rewards and benefits discussed above, the University offers the academic staff yearly pay award determined nationally for the higher education industry.( what is this type of reward structure called?) The institution also provides a percentage increment on all salaries beginning August first each year. Every pay grade is awarded increments and staffs rise up the increments ladder automatically every year (Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni & Fraccaroli, 2012).
According to the University’s reward system, the institution regards its academic staffs as its mainly important assets (citation ?). This is through recognizing that staffs play the ultimate role in the learning process of the students and also their service to other stakeholders, such as employers. The reward system has been structured to attract and retain well-experienced, highly performing and enthused staff, which is of vital significance in ensuring a sustainable and flourishing University( citation /reference?). Employees always anticipate feeling valued in the place of work with their involvements appropriately and honestly recognised (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2010).
One of the key properties of the University’s performance reward system is its high regard for its employees. The university regards is workforce as the most important aspect of its delivery ( you have previously made this point). With such a high regard for the workforce, the company becomes a dream destination for both high quality employees and students or consumers. Attraction and retention of high quality workforce is a dream of every growing institution. When a workforce is maintained, it means that the company does not have to keep training its workforce to ensure growth ( employees should be continuously developed and their skills enhanced). New workforce has to be trained on certain aspects of the organization (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2010).
The reward system of York St John University ensures that the teaching staffs are rewarded according to their performance (how is this achieved?) This motivates them to work harder with the intention of achieving the maximum possible recognition possible ( what evidence do you have that money motivates?). In the end, it is the entire university that ends up being viewed as a performing institution and not specific individuals. This is one very effective method of lowering the disengagement crisis within an organization. It uses formal programs (examples?) that are easy to understand but which promote employee performance while at the same time encouraging an organisation culture that sets the organisation way above its competitors (Armstrong, 2006; Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni&Fraccaroli, 2012).
One way that the York St John encourages performance at the place of work is by awarding those personnel who are known to deliver more towards the growth of the students and the university. This way, employees are motivated to work within the institution and students benefit from the growth from that delivery. The university makes this possible by holding performance reviews yearly and deliberate on the objectives to be achieved within the year. The involvement of employees in setting objectives is vital as it makes the workforce feel appreciate and hence want to delve deeper in their participation in developmental process. This process also sensitises the employees about the objectives of the company hence making it easier for them in the same direction with the company. During such reviews, employees may voice their challenges to ensure they are addressed and hence promoting better performance.( you should say more as to the review process, it’s purpose and it’s effectiveness) The company also gets to benefit from a variety of perspectives hence making it possible for the company more informed on the needs of both the customers and the workforce ( how do you work this out ?Any evidence?). However, a company has to be ready to improvise means of ensuring that the employees know exactly what is expected of them in the long run. In most cases, recognition programs are often just necessary to ensure short term growth. Short term results are in no way a method to create a company culture that will be developmental in the long run. Instead, it only serves to achieve short term goals for the sake of achieving the said recognitions. This is a poor approach to recognition and reward systems. It does not motivate organisational growth. It however serves as a good foundation for the development of better standards (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2010). Such improvements should be made to make it an even better program that is headed for a great future. ( I don’t understand the above argument)
Also included in the reward system is the payment system. This system is not dependent on the contribution of the workforce. Employees who are unable or unwilling to perform are, therefore, entitled to this payment alone (Armstrong, 2006). This form of payment encourages retention on one level. This payment comes with a raise every once a year ( how is this annual increment determined?). It is important in ensuring that employees stay motivated. It helps in making the employees to feel appreciated. With experience, it is assumed that employees improve in their delivery. With this improvement, it is assumed that they also become more valuable to the organisation. This form of growth, presumably, is what necessitates the raise in the salary.
York St John promotes a diverse workforce ( how does it do this ?). Without the intervention of the organisation, workers from diverse backgrounds are likely to feel threatened and harassed. A diverse work place improves the delivery of the workforce. It also serves to welcome and retain quality employees who would otherwise feel unwelcomed in other institutions (Armstrong, 2006). The more diversified an organization is, the better the employees feel and the more they are likely to learn from each other. ( not sure what this argument on diversity has to do with reward and performance management)
Employees are also entitled to other forms of reward systems, including leaves ( you have already made this point), fee remission for those workers who choose to further their education while at the same time pursuing their careers, and a variety of allowances ( you should be more specific here). These methods help to retain the workforce and ensure that employees are motivated to work at York St John’s. (where is your proof/evidence for this?)
With all its good properties, York St John’s also has a few disadvantages in its system. First, it insists on a contribution-free payment system that could be a sufficient reason for a worker to stay put in the system.( what is a contribution free payment system – all employees have deductions from salary for tax, national insurance and pension contributions) This system comes with an annual pay rise that works in accordance to the labour laws (Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni & Fraccaroli, 2012). ( these is no employment legislation in the UK that requires employers to award annual pay rises) Due to its freedom from contribution ( not true) it could lead to de-motivation on the part of workers. Hard working personnel may feel the need for intervention especially against those who do not perform. On the other hand, non-performers have no reason to work harder. (What about intrinsic motivation?)
The performance and reward system at York St John is impactful to both the development of the company and to individuals within the institutions. It is especially effective in encouraging individual performance ( what IS your evidence for this?). Individual performance is encouraged at various levels. It encourages personnel to devote more of their resources towards the success and reputation of the organisation (Aureli & Salvatori, 2012).
First, it encourages a higher labour turnover rate ( do you mean a lolwer turnover rate?). With the university’s devotion to assure its workers of a friendly working environment, workers are motivated to get to work earlier and leave later (evidence for this ?). This aspect is enhanced further by the university’s principle to reward those workers who participate in its overtime program. The overtime program allows academic staff to work beyond their usual working hours and in return they are rewarded for it. For the case of the academic staff, the overtime program is beneficial; on two fronts. It encourages employees to devote more time to their work and hence lead to higher performance. Regardless of the fact that they are compensated for working overtime, they also get compensated again when they perform better than their colleagues who do not have overtime classes (Stewart & Danford, 2008). ( There is no overtime programme for teaching staff – where have you got this idea from ?)
Workers who are governed using the York St John’s system also feel more motivated to work.(evidence for this claim?)They have more to look forward to than their basic salary. The fact that so much attention is given to a reward program is motivating in itself( Evidence for this ?). The fact that employees feel valued within their employment makes them motivated to deliver better services on behalf of their employer. The approaches therefore build towards worker motivation and consequently on organisational performance (Purwanti, Pasaribu, Lumbantobing & Indonesia, 2010).
Worker engagement is also largely impacted. Employees who are rewarded on grounds of performance are more likely to devote their time and energy in their work. Their commitment to their jobs is enhanced leading to more loyalty and performance to their jobs. Employees with a reward system are more likely to be enthusiastic about their job or employer and are therefore more likely to build the reputation and interests of the company (Purwanti, Pasaribu, Lumbantobing & Indonesia, 2010).
The better a reward system is, the more likely an employee is to devote most of his time driving towards the objectives of the company. The academic staff at the university are then in a better position to perform better than those of competing universities.( Most UK universities have basically the same reward systems – so this argument cannot hold true) Worker engagement is also improved by the fact that employees are involved in the objective creation process every once a year. This makes them have a sense of ownership to the university systems and thereby be more likely to deliver than those from other universities (Ayers, 2007).
The approaches employed by York St Johns are also likely to promote employee loyalty. Employees who benefit from programs like the waiver of fees to further their education are likely to protect their opportunities with loyalty (evidence for this ?). Being loyal to their organisation would comprise doing everything to protect its reputation. This would involve more devotion to the job and direct marketing of the institution to improve its image in the public eye. An employee in such a situation understands that the success of the institution and the existence of the program are dependent on his performance and that of the institution (Meldrum, Hare & Cameron, 2009).
Employees deliver better if they feel appreciated. Others deliver on the basis of the mutual relationship they engage in with their employers. A program that seeks to employ these two perspectives is likely to succeed in promoting organisational performance. Such a program first promotes worker motivation, engagement, loyalty and commitment, and reduces turnover, which in turn impact on performance. A proper system to reward those who disregard performance should, however, be introduced to make sure that all personnel contribute to customer growth. Organisations should also involve all personnel in the decision making process to make sure that employees co-own the success story of the company. Employees who are involved in the decision making process are more likely to deliver based on both their understanding of their company objectives and the devotion to guarding a project initiated by them. York St John has a system that promotes performance in a big way. It ensures employees of a friendly working environment and motivates them to deliver beyond their means. However, like all other systems, some minor improvements can be incorporated to make it an even better program. A company should however incorporate its reward system into its culture. This way, employees will in return incorporate performance into their jobs. Reward system should also be one that stands the test of time to ensure its success.
Despite the university’s well-structured reward system, I find that the university lacks the provision for rewarding behaviours. Rewarding particular behaviours that make a difference to the institution might be greatly challenging than gratifying performance; however, this can be overcome by identifying what behaviours are to be rewarded (Nica, Lefter, Popescu, 2011). For instance, compensating staffs for arriving as early and staying late, or even for bringing up new ideas on ways to accomplish their duties more competently and effectively. The initial step would be to discover the behaviours that are essential to the universities well-being (Thomas, 2009; Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni&Fraccaroli, 2012). Those activities may include enhancing student relationships, improvement in critical processes or assisting students expand their knowledge. (How would you actually measure this for inclusion of these areas in a reward system ?)
Moreover, institutions should identify the value of employee recognition, this means recognizing someone in front of one’s peers for particular accomplishments attained, actions shown, or attitudes exemplified via their conduct. Appreciation focuses on expressing gratefulness to a worker for their actions. Expressing appreciation to the employees through acknowledging outstanding performances and the sort of conduct to be encouraged is best achieved through expressions and statements (Armstrong & Armstrong, 2010). This is an additional priceless way to reward employees that the York St John University HR should incorporate in its rewarding system. ( What makes you think that this is not already undertaken ?)
An essential theoretical advantage the reward
strategy has is to permit reward to be efficiently integrated into other HR
processes (Nulty, n.d.). Therefore, assessments, competencies, job structure,
and career development among others must line up beside reward as components of
a rational approach to organizing employees effectively. Therefore, to
guarantee successful venture, institutions must reward their employees
effectively. ( OK – but you would need to elaborate on
‘effective reward’ – why you think YSJ is not effective in this area and what specifically
needs to be done)
Armstrong, M. (2006).Performance Management (1st Ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Armstrong, M., & Armstrong, M. (2010).Armstrong’s Handbook Of Reward Management Practice (1st Ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Aureli, S., &Salvatori, F. (2012). An Investigation On Possible Links Between Risk Management, Performance Measurement And Reward Schemes. Journal Of Accounting And Management Information Systems, 11(3), 306–334.
Ayers, K. (2007). Why Worker Engagement Is Not Enough. Manufacturers’ Monthly, 16.
Bode, C., Singh, J., & Rogan, M. (2014). Deep Dive And Back: Social Impact Projects, Conflicting Institutional Logics, And Employee Retention. INSEAD Working Papers Collection, (40), 1-37.
Butler, K. M. (2014). Friends will benefit your company. Workforce, 93(5), 19.
Byrd, S. (2014). Employee Retention 31 Success Secrets – 31 Most Asked Questions On Employee Retention – What You Need To Know. [N.P.]: Emereo Publishing.
Careers: How To Retain Talent — The Art Of Retention. (2014). Event, 14.
Cornes, M., Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Blendi-Mahota, S., & Hussein, S. (2013). Assessing The Effectiveness Of Policy Interventions To Reduce The Use Of Agency Or Temporary Social Workers In England. Health & Social Care In The Community, 21(3), 236-244. Doi:10.1111/Hsc.12011
Jensen, D., Mcmullen, T., & Stark, M. (2007).The Manager’s Guide To Rewards: What You Need To Know To Get The Best For–And From–Your Employees. New York: American Management Association.
Larkin, R., & Burgess, J. (2013).The paradox of employee retention for knowledge transfer. Employment Relations Record, 13(2), 32-43.
Meldrum, A., Hare, B., & Cameron, I. (2009). Road Testing A Health And Safety Worker Engagement Tool-Kit In The Construction Industry. Engineering, Construction And Architectural Management, 16(6), 612–632.
Nica, E., Lefter, V., &Popescu, G. H. (2011). Instilling Confidence In Employees In Order To Increase Loyalty And Employee Retention. Global Conference On Business & Finance Proceedings, 6(2), 122-126.
Nulty, D. (N.D.). Peer AndSelf Assessment In Performance And Reward Management Dr Duncan D. Nulty And Dr Arthur Poropat Context.
Purwanti, Y., Pasaribu, N., Lumbantobing, P., & Indonesia, P. (2010). Leveraging The Quality Of Knowledge Sharing By Implementing Reward Program And Performance Management System, 499–503.
Stewart, P., &Danford, A. (2008). Editorial: Union Strategies And Worker Engagement With New Forms Of Work And Employment. New Technology, Work And Employment, 23(3), 146–150.
Thomas, K. W. (2009). Intrinsic Motivation At Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Timms, C., Graham, D., & Cottrell, D. (2007). I’m Just A Cog In The Wheel”: Worker Engagement And Burnout In Relation To Workplace Justice, Management Trustworthiness And Areas Of Worklife, 266–271.
Truxillo, D., Cadiz, D., Rineer, J., Zaniboni, S., &Fraccaroli, F. (2012). A Lifespan Perspective On Job Design: Fitting The Job And The Worker To Promote Job Satisfaction, Engagement, And Performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 2(4), 340–360.
Wachter, J., &Yorio, P. (2014). A System Of Safety Management Practices And Worker Engagement For Reducing And Preventing Accidents: An Empirical And Theoretical Investigation. Accident Analysis \& Prevention, 68, 117–130.
York St John.(2014). Human Resources | York St John. Retrieved July 25, From Http://Www.Yorksj.Ac.Uk/Human-Resources/Hr.Aspx
York St John.(2014). Pay & Benefits | York St John. Retrieved July 25, From Http://Www.Yorksj.Ac.Uk/Human-Resources/Hr/Working-At-Ysj/Pay–Benefits.Aspx
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more