- What are the similarities and differences between Lincoln’s praise system and motivation program for educators in the NYC research? What other similarities/differences exist between these two organizations in terms of selection, staff retention, job security, etc.
Reward system and motivation program
- Provided financial incentives. Lincoln adopted piece rate and gave extra extra to its employees, and NYC trial also offered reward.
- Various factors were taken into account. In deciding an employee’s merit ranking, Lincoln assessed four factors independently: dependability, quality, productivity, ideas and cooperation. The foundation for NYC trial’s awarding bonuses included environment (15%), pupil performance (25%) and pupil improvement (60%).
- Lincoln provided massive amount year-end bonus products (averaged near 100% of regular settlement); as the NYC trial only provided very small amount of rewards (an mind-boggling majority earn a quantity near to $3000, less than 4. 1% of the common annual teacher salary).
- Lincoln’s rewards were predicated on measurable aspects, such as their productivity, high quality, cost decrease ideas and individual contributions to the business; while the NYC trail’s rewards were predicated on things that are ambiguous and even uncontrollable by the educators, such as attendance and exam performance.
- Lincoln provided extra to each individual, as the NYC trial provided group-based rewards. Group-based motivation schemes launched the potential for free using and adds monitoring and analysis cost, and most of the colleges actually paid teachers equally.
- Lincoln’s prize system was company-wide, while the NYC trial gave a great deal of autonomy to each school.
Lincoln didn’t employ the service of many recent graduates, and experienced a strict insurance plan of filling all but basic level positions by promoting from within the company. There was insufficient information for the NYC instructors case.
Lincoln’s employees generally loved working there, and its turnover rate was far below that of all other companies. Inside the NYC teachers case, retention was a dimension of the educators’ habit under the motivation system.
Lincoln complemented its rating and pay system with a Guaranteed Continuous Career Plan, while NYC trials didn’t provide such occupation security to the teachers.
- Why has incentive pay prevailed for employees at Lincoln Electric, but less so teachers? What have been the employee’s reactions to these programs?
At Lincoln, there was some other procedures that support the incentive program, while in the NYC teachers circumstance, incentive pay stood alone. Besides the huge add-ons, Lincoln provided employees a solid sense of ownership by promoting from within, respecting employees’ feedback, selling shares to employees and having employees put stencil on every machine they done. Workers received paid predicated on the piecework productivity, so these were highly motivated to improve their output. Lincoln also provided security against layoffs and assure continuity of job. All of these combined jointly and created an extremely strong company culture. For NYC instructors, the result of the motivation pay was not a lot of because there is no other coverage to aid it.
In addition, Lincoln’s incentive pay was based on things that are measurable and can be handled by the employees, as the incentive system for NYC instructors is ambiguous and is based on something that cannot be totally controlled by the instructors. At Lincoln, an individual’s show of the reward pool was determined by a “merit rating” which steps specific performance (based on four independent factors) compared to that of other associates of the department or work group, and the merit rankings varies widely. Employees also received paid by part rate, that was fair for everyone because you work more and you have more. For NYC professors, although high-quality teaching did improve learner performance, university student performance was also damaged by other factors, such as their background, IQ, etc. So when is mentioned in the case, professors might lack knowledge of the creation function, so even if indeed they wanted to find the incentive pay, they might not know how. Furthermore, universities were examined by their comparative performance in comparison to their peer universities and all colleges in the town, so you can find opportunity that the professors in a school work really hard, but they still lagged behind if everybody else works even harder. Therefore, teachers were less prepared to adjust their teaching tendencies.
Moreover, Lincoln provided rewards to every individual directly and there was difference in term of the total amount; while in the NYC teachers case, each school possessed the power to decide how to spread the amount of money and it turned out that a majority of teachers get equal amount. Therefore, at Lincoln, staff were willing to stop their breaks to produce more, because this straight affected their income. But NYC professors were less stimulated because so long as the institution gets reward, very likely they can find the reward without working hard.
Lastly, Lincoln employees were happy to improve their behavior for the motivation pay because they respected monetary pay back and it was very nice. However, for the instructors, the incentive of teaching students cannot be attributed to money. Instead, they might place more values such as responsibility, self-fulfillment.
Based on the examination, it is not shocking that employees reacted to these programs very diversely. At Lincoln, employees generally sensed satisfied and were highly motivated to improve efficiency. Teacher bonuses, however, failed to change university student or teacher action, or even decrease student accomplishment.
- For each business (Lincoln and Instructors), how well are its’ HR regulations aligned using its labor force, culture, and organizational goals?
For Lincoln, its HR regulations aligned using its labor force, culture and organizational goals well. Lincoln’s strategy was to focus on reducing costs and passing the savings to the client by continuously minimizing prices. To build quality products at a lower cost than its competition, Lincoln handsomely rewarded employees because of their productivity, high quality, ideas and contributions. In this way, employees were motivated to work harder and harder and create more principles for company, and the company could then discuss the increasing earnings with its employees as a return. There was a virtuous group at Lincoln.
In production industry, efficiency and production is nearly everything. Lincoln management was aware that competition could help a person realize his/her full potential, so they introduce piece rate as a way to calculate salaries. This system was fair to every worker – you get more if you work harder, so generally individuals were satisfied and motivated. At the same time, Lincoln wanted to be sure that they contend in an optimistic way, so they make everyone reliant on one another. The HR regulations enabled the staff compete with each other and reach their full potential in a team environment.
For NYC educator trial, its HR procedures aligned with its labor force, culture and organization goals inadequately. From my perspective, the goal of education is to help students become ongoing, lifelong learners and cultivate good personality, and these aspects can’t be measured by the current incentive scheme. Assessing teachers predicated on the exam ratings and attendance of the students is not thorough.
In addition, I believe it is worth debating whether such competition should be employed to academic institutions or not. Competition could actually make the classes concentrate on some aspect while neglecting others. Also, we ought to assume that professors want their students to be well-educated, also to accomplish that goal, instructors should cooperation with each other and trust one another. Therefore, the motivation system might do more harm than good.
In conclusion, HR policies shouldn’t stand alone. It ought to be aligned using its workforce, culture and organizational goals.