One of the things I have observed is that most people are not altruistic.
They
pursue vocations for a number of reasons all of which have payback.
The payback may be something other than money - it could be status, a
sense of achievement, or even an investment in some potential future
return like, in the case of some religions, brownie points with a deity.
The point is, people do things to get something in return.
Yet
there are some professions that actively resist this in their ranks,
and I have never understood why. The education sector seems
particularly resistant, yet as a parent I would love to reward the
teachers that apply themselves 110%, are involved in extracurricular
activities and whose students have better learning outcomes than their
equivalent peers paid more.
I
genuinely believe that every job can have a performance pay component
and it isn't that hard when you take the position that performance can
be a mix of absolute and relative.
I define performance as one’s measurable achievement relative (in no particular order) to:
- Their achievement against their own potential,
- Others doing what they do, and
- The requirements of the job.
If
you apply yourself fully and in so doing manage to get a 90% outcome
against the requirement of the job, you might well be entitled to more
than the person that applies himself 50% but gets a 110% outcome.
This is an interesting topic, and one I will explore further in future blogs, but for now I just wanted to ask:
“is
it fair that I get paid the same as someone else who applies themselves
more or less than me, and/or who performs better or worse than me,
and/or who exceeds or misses the requirements of their job?”
I think not.
Cheers!
DK
No comments:
Post a Comment