As I have recently become aware of the problems you are facing with regards to the distribution of merit awards to employees in the Water Planning Division, I am writing this memo to help you sort through the inherent issues and help you to arrive at a solution. In the past, workers who have received the merit award have become depressed for several weeks following their receipt of the award. Understandably, this is a confusing situation for you and most likely deeply troubling, as you do not wish to cause psychological injury to any of your employees. As I reviewed the case file, there are several underlying issues in the merit award distribution process that might be causing the problems.
The major dilemma that I see in the merit award distribution process is a lack of transparency. The employees express a lack of awareness over how the distribution of merit awards is determined, and as such, they may come to the conclusion that the process is overly politicized, and has nothing to do with actual merit, but rather how much management likes the employee who wins the merit award. Additionally, it appears from the case study that many of the employees, even those with seniority and who perform well, are underpaid and some are even struggling to get by. Thus, there is likely a sense on the part of employees that the merit award system is a token used by management in lieu of more tangible awards. Further, the secrecy of the merit award distribution system lends itself to employee gossip and backbiting. The award winner may find themselves marginalized by their co-workers after receiving the award, and social isolation can often lead to depression.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Understanding and Motivating Workers".
As you consider the possibilities for the merit award, there are several principles that should inform your thinking goals. While the merit award is ostensibly used as a motivator for employees, you should keep in mind that, in the words of H.G. Rainey (2014), “Motivation alone does not determine performance.” Thus, when evaluating your short-list of candidates for the merit award, you should examine their employee files carefully for objective measures of performance, such as their productivity and attendance, among other indicators. As it appears, many of the higher-paid employees are under the impression that lower-paid employees are given greater consideration in the merit raise distribution process. In my review of the case study, it does appear that this is the case; the awards given out in recent years have gone to “younger” employees who are earning under $30,000 annually. While I understand the temptation to provide monetary raises to the employees who appear to need it most, the merit raise should be based on actual performance, and the employee’s current salary should not be taken into consideration.
As the employees at the Water Planning Division appear to have arrived at the conclusion that the merit raise system is actually a social welfare system in disguise, which I know is not the case, this underscores the need for transparency in the merit award distribution process. Perhaps in future years, you may wish to tie the merit award to a specific, concrete goal, which has been shown to increase employee motivation and productivity. To draw upon the wisdom of H.G. Rainey once more, “assigning difficult, specific goals enhances performance” (2014) and provides employees with a sense of self-efficacy (Rainey, 2014). The allocation of merit awards based on the accomplishment of a specific, concrete goal will certainly allay employee suspicions and gossip about the process, and the recipient will be less likely to experience marginalization and depression.
Should you make the decision to change the merit award distribution process, there are several risks and challenges you will face. To begin with, you are employed by a governmental organization, and the establishment of specific goals is anathema to the organizational culture in many public sector environments. Rainey (2014) notes that “government organizations often have vague goals,” and in my experience, I would have to agree. Many government employees consider “hard” goals to be better suited to the for-profit, corporate world, and often resent being challenged to meet specific benchmarks. Thus, the establishment of a goal in order to win a merit raise may inspire some hostility and “pushback” from your employees in the early phase of the process. Additionally, the more senior employees may balk at such a profound cultural change in the organization, as it appears that many of them have grown comfortable in their jobs, and they will thus be the most resistant to change.
Another risk you face should you decide to change the merit award distribution process is the risk that all organizations face when they make a substantial change to their organizational culture, and that is increased employee turnover. This risk may be especially great in your instance, as individuals who self-select into public sector professions often do not enjoy a competitive work environment. For this reason, the implementation of a “goal” as a condition of receiving the merit award may arouse resentment in some employees, and they may begin to look for work elsewhere. Further, you may find that employee productivity and performance temporarily drops as a result of the changes. However, this lag in productivity will likely only be temporary, and you should see increased performance after a few months.
Overall, I have three recommendations for you to resolve the problems related to the distribution of merit awards. The first recommendation is to create more transparency with regards to the manner in which you and other members of management decide who ultimately receives the merit award. Such transparency will eliminate accusations of favoritism, dispel employee gossip, and will reduce the likelihood that recipients become depressed. My second recommendation is to begin tying the receipt of the merit award to the attainment of a clear, specific goal. Thus, when the recipient is announced each year, the other employees will better understand why the recipient deserved the merit raise. Additionally, the establishment of specific goals in the Water Planning Division will almost certainly boost employee productivity and motivation. My third, and final, recommendation is to keep in mind the importance of intrinsic motivation in the workplace, as recommended by Rainey (2014). While all employees like to receive a monetary raise and increased benefits packages, they also need to feel that their work has meaning and value to the larger society. Additionally, as prescribed by the Behavioralist Abraham Maslow, all human beings have needs for personal, intellectual and spiritual growth, and many organizations, both public and private, are integrating Maslow’s theories into their operations (O’Connor & Yballe, 2007). As many of the employees in the case study express a sense of stagnation in their present roles, you may want to consider undertaking job re-design for many of these positions. This job design intervention can take the form of integrating new responsibilities into individual jobs, which would provide a sense of challenge to the employees, as well as give them an opportunity to learn new skills. Often, learning new job skills and feeling challenged are excellent intrinsic motivators. If you have any questions regarding my recommendations, feel free to contact me at (123) 456-7890 ext 1234.
- O’Connor, D. & Yballe, L. (2007). “Maslow Revisited: Constructing a Road Map of Human Nature.” Journal of Management Education 31 (6), 738-756.
- Rainey, H.G. (2014). Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, 5th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
