Motivating Government employees
During 1980s, finding qualified employees for jobs in governmentsector was difficult because base pay was low, but keeping themmotivated and committed once hired, proved even more difficult,same problem was faced by WAPDA.
The problem traced was the antiquated pay-for-performance system,introduced in 1990, the system allowed 5 percent annual salaryincreases for the consecutive 8 years within the salary rangeassigned to each positions. Each year at appraisal time, managersmet informally with their employees to review each employee’sperformance during the year. If employees performed satisfactorily,they received salary increases of 5 percent. As a result, almostall employees received yearly 5 percent merit increase and reachedthe top of their salary range in the minimum of eight years.
This system discouraged superior performers, because managers couldnot reward them.
Managers could not approve or disapprove a merit raise. No matterhow hard these star employees worked, they received the same raisesas everyone else. Moreover, those who had less seniority but higherperformance than their colleagues might still be paid less untiltheir eighth year, when they finally reached the top of the payscale. Few had the patience to wait.
Higher management on realizing that their reward system was notencouraging performance, the personnel department was directed todevise a system that would encourage initiative, motivateemployees, and reduce turnover. The first step was to develop jobdescriptions for all positions in WAPDA, from supervisor toclerical job. Job descriptions would remedy a defect in the oldsystem: poorly defined criteria for performance appraisals.
The new job description were assigned no more than six key goalsper position and included specified measurements to be used inassessing whether the person holding that position had accomplishedeach goal. For instance, one of the goals for supervisor is totrain, motivate, and supervise lower-level employees. The data usedto measure this objective include training records, skillcertification, productivity statistics, and employee morale figuresderived from attitude surveys.
Under the old system, managers could only approve or disapprove anemployee for a merit raise. The new system allows manager fiveratings, ranging from provisional to outstanding. But officialsknew that just presenting more appraisal options would not solvethe problem. They examined the government merit system, which hasfive performance levels, and learned that fewer than 1 percent ofgovernment employees were rated in the lower two categories.Managers tabulate the point totals for each employee and comparethe results to the minimum values established for each level in therating system. Merit raises are awarded on the basis of thesevalues.
The second merit system is still too new to be judged, butparticipants are enthusiastic.
Managers invited employees from throughout the governmentorganizations to participate in drawing up the job descriptions sothat they would understand how the descriptions were created andwhat the revamped merit system was expected to accomplish.
Employees now have a clear understanding of performanceexpectations, and managers have a more objective method ofevaluating employee performance.
1: What type of non-financial rewards could be offered by the WAPDAadministrators to reinforce high employee performance?
2: What role does Equity theory play in the new system?