|
员工薪酬形式的运行成本的企业一个显着的比例，同时当企业想在激烈竞争的环境留住人才，还需要培养支付，可以确保优秀的员工为他们的贡献给予奖励绩效计划。
面临的挑战是，大多数组织遵循的薪酬表现为围绕个人的模型。一方面组织要求他们的员工一起工作作为团队，而他们得到奖励的个人表现。这些矛盾常常被证明是在团队和团队合作中发挥关键作用的环境下制定绩效计划有效薪酬的绊脚石。因此，出现了一个需要发展的薪酬绩效计划，解决这些挑战，这是本论文的主题。这可能不是一件容易的事，从下面的例子可以理解。
However, employee compensation forms a significant percentage of running costs for businesses, and at a time when businesses are looking to retain talent in an intensively competitive environment, there is also a need to develop pay for performance programs that can ensure that talented workers are rewarded for their contributions.
The challenge is that most organizations follow pay for performance models that are centered around the individual. (Prendergast, 1999). On the one hand organizations require their employees to work together as teams, while they are rewarded for individual performance. These contradictions have often proved to be the stumbling block in the creation of effective pay for performance plans in environments where teams and teamwork also play a crucial role. Therefore there arises a need for the development of a pay for performance plan that addresses these challenges, this being the topic of this dissertation. This may not be an easy task, as can be understood from the from the following example.
This example is about a large Dutch company whose business model, after a reorganization in the 90s, was almost completely built around teams and team work . The organization had deployed a pay for performance model that was based upon employee ranking. The plan indicated performance milestones at the individual and organizational levels, thereby reinforcing common business objectives at these levels. The plan however did not offer any clear indicators for the team level performance goals and with the intention of bridging this gap, the organization decided to expand the current performance plan and include some sort of team bonus. In the process however, the organization encountered a number of problems, like: Did they want to go with a uniform plan or one that was team specific? Both had their advantages, for a uniform plan meant higher transparency and lower clerical work, while a team specific plan was better tailore for team goals. There were other issues like how they intended to combine pay for performance at team level with the individual level, should both be deployed, or should individual pay for performance replaced by team plans? If a mix is deployed, then should the rewards be homogeneous or should it vary ? What are the factors that influence the variation, and finally how can the ranking system by applied at team level, and most importantly, is it possible to rank team against each other?
Team Performance Measurement Basics 团队绩效测量基础
Although it may sound a bit incredible for a typical team to go from mediocrity to excellence in a sudden spurt of performance, Team 47 of Xerox Corporation did just that. This transformation was owed in a in large part, due to efforts put in by the team in measuring and improving the performance of the team. Better measurement metrics and management of goals has led to team 47 achieving excellence in its performance. It is now setting performance goals that are higher than any other team in the region, and reaching them with impunity. Team members have gone from feeling frustrated and unhappy, to taking pride and ownership in their work. Team 47 is also the recipient of the prestigious X-Award, called "the best of the best" at Xerox. (For more on Xerox's Team 47, see Chapter Five.) This team. The team enjoys the full confidence of its manager and has complete ownership of its measurement metrics and performance and its improvement processes. Can this team's journey to excellence be emulated, and if so, where do you start?
It is important for the team to introspect at the beginning of a new program. It must ask itself, "Is this, too, just a passing trend?" and "How is this program different from what we have already tried?" The basic idea behind team performance measurement, is to enable individuals to work together and make improvements based on based on group problem solving. It is important that you don't implement plans ad-hoc, simply because everyone else is doing it.
Team-performance measurement can provide teams with the information and insight they need to identify strengths and weaknesses in their performance. This information becomes the basis for solving problems related to performance improvement. Performance improvement leads to improved work processes.
The sad part is that in many organizations measurement of team performance is restricted to meeting arbitrary quotas or simply count of the product that is being churned out. Many times there is a disconnect between team objectives and the business vision. The very purpose of team-performance measurement is to ensure that the team goals are in alignment with the vision and strategy of business.
Team performance measurement builds a platform for solving problems. It enables organizations to come up with a structured process for accountability and improvement on a continual basis.
Previous research has indicated that trust between individual members, between teams and between the management and employees is a major binding factor. Management must trust that the empowered teams are doing the right things. Built on the same basis as Team-performance measurement are widely accepted paradigms like Employee Involvement, Organizational Design TQM, Individual Development and Process Reengineering,
BACKGROUND OF STUDY 研究背景
We can categorise a group of people working together into a group, a team and ahigh performance team (Katzenbach and Smith 1993a) depending on their cohesiveness, and ability to perform in unison.
Group: In a group, members may meet regularly, and each individual may provide a report of his own actions and performance. A group is charecterised by unclear ownership, roles and responsibilities, and because of these, there is little commitment or cohesion between the members, there may or may not be common goals, and performance in general, tends to be mediocre.
Team: A team on the other hand is characterized by a common goal. A team is essentially is a group of people working together for a common goal. The results delivered by a team are much more than a sum of the results of the individual members. Researchers assert the fact that teams share the role of managing themselves Several researchers emphasize the fact that in teams, members share the role of managing the team, they meet to discuss, solve problems and make decisions (Katzenbach and Smith 1993a; Kinlaw 1998). The essential difference between a group and a team is that " the team is determined to become a team" (Kinlaw 1998).
In literature there exists a number of definitions on teams. Adair (1986) defines a team as "a group in which the individuals share a common aim and in which the jobs and skills of each member fit in with those of the others". According to Johnson and Johnson (1991), a team is a set of interpersonal relationships that has been established to achieve common goals. Katzenbach and Smith (1993a) apply the following definition: "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable."
High performance team: A team with that delivers very high performance is referred to as a "High performance team". A high performance team is typically able to deliver results that are far superior to that of ordinary ones. According to (Katzenbach and Smith 1993a) the distinctiveness of a high performance team lies in the level of commitment the members display, particularly to one another. Adair (1986) states: "A high achieving team has all the properties of a more ordinary team but in an enhanced degree".
The quality and quantity of the total output of a high performance team is far greater than the input of team members. Such teams however are hard to come by as they require an extraordinary commitment that is beyond management (Katzenbach and Smith 1993b).
Team composition The objective of teamwork is to improve performance by getting the maximum and produce major results out of the human resources (Kinlaw, 1998).
Teamwork begins with selection of team members. To get an understanding of the members and their capabilities we first need to examine the area of team composition and the effect it has on their performance.
Selection of team members is usually based on factors such as the resources available, organizational belonging, personality and the technical skills required in order to perform the specific task etc., Selecting the best and most intelligent individuals does not necessarily lead the project to success. The interaction and team cohesion is far more important for the project to become successful.#p#分页标题#e#
Team roles. Senior (1997) argues that in examining team performance, we must consider the different roles played by members. A review of the literature shows that significant amount of research has been done on Team Role Model developed by Belbin (Aritzeta et al. 2007; Chong 2007; Partington and Harris 1999; Prichard and Stanton 1999; Senior 1997b, 1997a). Belbin's team role theory is made up of nine different roles, and further emphasises that a high performance team displays "a spread of personal attributes, laying the foundation for different team role capabilities" (Belbin, 1993, p. 90). Belbin states that a high performing team needs to have a balanced representation of all nine team roles. This idea has also been dealt with by Aritzeta et al. (2007) as the 'team role balance hypothesis'.
What exactly is a 'balanced' representation in a specific project team?
Several studies have made an attempt to determine and measure the balance.
Partington and Harris (1999) calculated the aggregate score of team members spread through all roles into Team Balance Indices. They defined the degree of team balance, first, through the deviation from an ideal index which is the highest score per team role that can potentially be achieved by a stated number of team members. The second measure related to cases where at least one person scored high or very high in as many as possible of the team roles and, thirdly, where only one person scored high or very high in as many as possible of the team roles. Ross (2008) has also developed a mathematical model that can be used to to predict team effectiveness with such accuracy that it can be used as a tool in the process of team member selection.
However, further research is needed before the model is complete. Chong (2007) who studied the relationship between the the team's overall performance and the number and types of roles in a team found no significant relationship between the more 'balanced' teams measured by the number of roles represented, and their performance. On the other hand he found that but found that specific roles had a greater role to play in team performance. Despite the fact Belbin's team roles and performance model enjoys a great amount of popularity, there are differing views on whether team balance has any significant role to play in team performance.
Water (2008) states that the results of the studies are vague, and no correlation between the two has been found in any other research except Belbin's no. He also states that before a discussion on team balance, it is important to understand how to create a balanced team .
By contrast, Chong (2007) argues that most researchers agree on the link between team diversity in terms of team roles and team performance. Partington and Harris (1999) claim that team balance is not a stand-alone predictor of performance. In conclusion, it may be inferred that establishing a team calls for consideration of a number of variables that affect team performance.
Personality traits. . Traditionally, selection of team members has always been based on personality traits but diversity of traits within the team may also need to be considered to fully understand the relationship between performance and personality (Neuman et al. 1999)
STUDY SCOPE 研究范围
In this research, the focus will be on the creation of different models or techniques that have been deployed by different companies and how these help in creating it better performance. It also gives an idea of the problems associated with virtual teams, where members of a team work from different locations.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research is to analyse and identify different factors influencing the team performance . To analyse specific model and techniques used by virtual team. To evaluate and discuss ideal approaches and issues related to team performance .
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE: 相关文献综述：
As a performance management technique Pay for performance is something that has been explained in various motivational theories including the reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1969), the expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), and the goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990). (See Thierry, 2002a, for an extensive overview of motivational theories in relation to compensation.)
In this research, it is assumed that a pay for performance plan has to support the performance objectives of the team and team members, and thus goal attainment should also be rewarded financially.
The goal-setting theory of Locke & Latham (1990) uses performance goals as a performance management technique. The keystone of this theory is that goals can have a direct influence on performance: "performance goals are immediate regulators or causes of task or work performance" (Locke & Latham, 1990, pp. 253). So how to can these different performance management techniques be combined to bring about better performance management of teams.
This is the point from which we will be addressing the problem of designing a pay for performance plan for teams. It has been assumed that the objective of a pay for performance plan is to support the performance goals of a team and individual team members.
We now turn to the problems identified in the example of the Dutch company
Problem I: Uniform versus team-spe1cific
One of the problems in the example was whether to design a uniform plan or a team specific plan. Apart from practical issues like the clerical burden a pay for performance plan, the basic question here is whether it is practical to support team specific goals with a uniform pay for performance plan. A truly uniform plan cannot usually support the performance goals of all teams in an organization because every team may be judged by different parameters. A truly team-specific plan is best able to support the team goals, it will result in a much higher clerical burden and will also result in a loss of transparency, which is not advisableeither. Thus, a pay for performance plan should combine the positive aspects of these two aspects, but what will be the criterion.
Assuming that a pay for performance plan should support the performance goals, it is important that there be a clear link between goal attainment and bonus from a pay for performance plan.
This would mean that attainment of a performance objective should be key to the attainment of a vested bonus. Ideally, this would be possible if performance goal indicators and pay for performance indicators as well as the goals set on those indicators would be the same. However, in practice this is hard to implement. It is easier in practice to ensure that performance goals and the pay for performance indicators correspond, and with greater correspondence, the link between the goals and rewards also grows stronger.
For example, a team performance goal may perhaps be to increase market share by a certain value and the pay for performance indicator could be the turnover generated by the team It is important to understand that although goals are different from pay for performance indicators, attainment of goals will probably result in a higher score on the pay for performance indicator.
To put it shortly, the extent to which a pay for performance plan can be uniformly implemented across the organization depends on the extent to which the team specific performance goals and the pay for performance indicators fit together in terms of content.
This can only be determined on a case by case basis. If the correspondence is low for some teams, or even worse, if goal and pay indicators conflict with one another, a more team-specific pay for performance plan is desired.
Problem II: Individual versus team rewards
Another problem that faced the organization was with regard to the optimal proportion between team rewards and individual rewards from the team performance management perspective. To answer this question, we must examine the effects of individual and team rewards on team members' behaviour on the one hand, and on the type of behavior that is needed to execute the team task on the other hand. Like goals, individual and team rewards too have different effects on member behavior. (e.g. Weldon & Weingart, 1993).
Individual rewards tend to motivate team members to focus on their own work, even at the risk of losing track of the team interests. Team rewards, on the other hand, stimulate cooperation among team members, which may mean that individual who underperform may be allowed to get away. Task interdependence within the team occupies an important role in determining the mix of individual and team rewards.
This correlation between task interdependence and type of rewards has been researched upon extensively (e.g. Miller & Hamblin, 1963; and Rosenbaum, Moore, Cotton, Cook, Hiesser & Gray 1980), and will be discussed in the next section.
Problem III: Relative versus absolute distribution
The third problem in the example stems from the distribution method of rewards. Because of the ranking system used by the organization, individual team members are ranked against each other and rewards are distributed based on these scores. Although from the organization's point of view, it is an advantage that eliminates uncertainty of the financial resources that may have to be spent on bonuses, from the point of view of the employees, such ranking can create negative interdependence among the team members, and thereby conflict of interest and unhealthy competition. Even if teams are ranked against one another, instead of team members, competition will be created between these teams. If there is no interdependence between the teams for a completion of the work, this will not cause problems. However, in an organizational set up, teams are often interdependent, and such a ranking system may create negative environment.#p#分页标题#e#
Problem IV: Do Goals and pay for performance result in cooperation or competition?
A final problem is about how we can align goals with pay for performance. In a team where there is a high level of task interdependence, a pay for performance plan should create positive interdependence among team members. In the example, the negative impact of the ranking system used by the pay for performance model created competition among team members rather than cooperation, and hence the results obtained were the opposite of what was desired. The interdependence created by a pay for performance plan should be aligned to the interdependence created by performance goals.
The Evaluation Approach 评价方法
We need to de¬ne adequate evaluation criteria and indicate how they are related to the above collaborative learning theories and models. Through this, we can gain effective elective and principled criteria at two distinct evaluation levels.
3.1 De¬ning Principled Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation has been conducted at two levels first at the problem solving level (PS) and second at the group functioning level (GF).
For the former, the problem solving achievements of groups and members were tracked . As for the latter, manner in which group members functioned as a cohesive learning team was analysed.
Speci¬cally, interaction can be characterized and measured by the following parameters:
Active participation aptitude , Social grounding skills based on balanced contributions , Active interaction skills, Group processing.
Evaluation Methods for Individual and Group Performance One evaluation method is where the Collaborative actions in a group's shared scope of work are classified into problem solving and active contributions and information processing behavior. Second evaluation method involves the tracking individual contribution against team contributions. The third evaluation method involves the assessment of tangible results. The fourth kind of evaluation involves self evaluation of teams. And the fifth and final evaluation method is individual self evaluation.
A detailed analysis of the outcome of all these evaluations will render us in a position to predict group and individual behavior and resulting performance.
Teamwork in a virtual framework 虚拟框架中的团队合作
The performance of virtual teams is not vastly different from teams that actually work together in person. The exchange of information may take a little longer in virtual teams, but people are less bothered about take longer to exchange information, but in the absence of direct contact, team members tend to be less bothered about superfluous criticism, gender, age or race (Levi, 2007). This can result in better performance of virtual teams.
Newly created teams, even in the virtual space may require face-to-face meetings. It is important that the members become acquainted and develop trust, set common collaborative goals, roles and rules (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005).
On the negative side it becomes hard to motivate team members who are working virtually, and manage and supervise work of members. In these aspects, On-campus teams deliver better.
A number of studies have been conducted on team size , its correlation with performance and factors like team spirit, individual behavior, team attitudes, and interaction within the team (Cummings et. al. 1974, Grofman et. al. 1984, Helms and Wyskida 1984, Wagner et al. 1987).
The studies seem to suggest that smaller teams enjoy closer relationships among members, better knowledge and have a better idea of the big picture at any given time (Cohen et al. 1992).
Some people on the other hand may prefer to work in larger teams in order to avoid intimacy, enjoy greater anonymity and avoid excessive work load. (Cohen et al. 1992).
In a marketing experiment with teams of two, three, and four members, team performance was found to vary with team size, with four person teams performing significantly higher than the others. (Cosse, Ashworth, and Weisenberger 1999).
Yetton and Bottger (1983) noticed performance improves with increase in team size from three to five, and from there the gains from additional human resources declined as there were no significant gains to be had from teams whose size increased beyond 5 members.
Rosser (1998) in his paper, has stated that ideal team size lies between three and six members. Although it must be said that larger teams have more diverse viewpoints leading to better discussion and debate, although it can also result in problems in decision making, and poor participation. (Cooper, Robinson, & Ball, 2003)
Discussion 讨论
Our research suggests that the effectiveness of a team activity depends on various outher variables. Ideally sized teams (up to 6 members) can deliver effective performance. Size matters more in face-face teams than in virtual ones.
Implications and Limitations: 含义和限制：
The current studies indicate there may be situations wherein teams may avoid sharing information at particularly crucial times. Studies have shown that less knowledge-redundant teams, where not everybody has the same level of knowledge actually share less of information than teams where everybody has equal knowledge..
This redundancy effect reflects the divergence between what teams must be doing, and what they actually do, and this can have a significant impact on decision making teams that require the services of experts from who specialize in different areas to make complex decisions. (Burke, Salas, Wilson-Donnelly, & Priest, 2004).
Stasser and Titus's (1985) biased information sampling effects and many subsequent studies show that teams differ significantly from an even balance of time that is devoted to discussing both shared and unshared information.
It has also been found that information sampling leans toward shared information on judgmentally framed tasks when compared to intellectually framed tasks.
These discrepancies can be enhanced by structuring team discussions, by veering towards intellectually framed tasks and promoting a co-operative and collaborative work milieu.
Structured discussions increases the team's grip over relevant information. By intellectually encouraging teams to gather the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for a superior solution, teams can motivate members to gather decision relevant information. And finally, a co-operative climate will enable greater integrated use of the resources available to the teams.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
