Reference no: EM131387538

CASE: On Pegging Pay to Performance

"As you are aware, the Government of India has removed the capping on salaries of directors and has left the matter of their compensation to be decided by shareholders. This is indeed a welcome step," said Samuel Menezes, president Abhayankar, Ltd., opening the meeting of the managing committee convened to discuss the elements of the company's new plan for middle managers.

Abhayankar was am engineering firm with a turnover of Rs 600 crore last year and an employee strength of 18,00. Two years ago, as a sequel to liberalisation at the macroeconomic level, the company had restructured its operations from functional teams to product teams. The change had helped speed up transactional times and reduce systemic inefficiencies, leading to a healthy drive towards performance.

"I think it is only logical that performance should hereafter be linked to pay," continued Menezes. "A scheme in which over 40 per cent of salary will be related to annual profits has been evolved for executives above the vice-president's level and it will be implemented after getting shareholders approval. As far as the shopfloor staff is concerned, a system of incentive-linked monthly productivity bonus has been in place for years and it serves the purpose of rewarding good work at the assembly line. In any case, a bulk of its salary will have to continue to be governed by good old values like hierarchy, rank, seniority and attendance. But it is the middle management which poses a real dilemma. How does one evaluate its performance? More importantly, how can one ensure that managers are not shortchanged but get what they truly deserve?"

"Our vice-president (HRD), Ravi Narayanan, has now a plan ready in this regard. He has had personal discussions with all the 125 middle managers individually over the last few weeks and the plan is based on their feedback. If there are no major disagreements on the plan, we can put it into effect from next month. Ravi, may I now ask you to take the floor and make your presentation?"

The lights in the conference room dimmed and the screen on the podium lit up. "The plan I am going to unfold," said Narayanan, pointing to the data that surfaced on the screen, "is designed to enhance team-work and provide incentives for constant improvement and excellence among middle-level managers. Briefly, the pay will be split into two components. The first consists of 75 per cent of the original salary and will be determined, as before, by factors of internal equity comprising what Sam referred to as good old values. It will be a fixed component."

"The second component of 25 per cent," he went on, "will be flexible. It will depend on the ability of each product team as a whole to show a minimum of 5 per cent improvement in five areas every month-product quality, cost control, speed of delivery, financial performance of the division to which the product belongs and, finally, compliance with safety and environmental norms. The five areas will have rating of 30, 25, 20, 15, and 10 per cent respectively.

"This, gentlemen, is the broad premise. The rest is a matter of detail which will be worked out after some finetuning. Any questions?"

As the lights reappeared, Gautam Ghosh, vice-president (R&D), said, "I don't like it. And I will tell you why. Teamwork as a criterion is okay but it also has its pitfalls. The people I take on and develop are good at what they do. Their research skills are individualistic. Why should their pay depend on the performance of other members of the product team? The new pay plan makes them team players first and scientists next. It does not seem right."

"That is a good one, Gautam," said Narayanan. "Any other questions? I think I will take them all together."

"I have no problems with the scheme and I think it is fine. But just for the sake of argument, let me take Gautam's point further without meaning to pick holes in the plan," said Avinash Sarin, vice-president (sales). "Look at my dispatch division. My people there have reduced the shipping time from four hours to one over the last six months. But what have they got? Nothing. Why? Because the other members of the team are not measuring up."

"I think that is a situation which is bound to prevail until everyone falls in line," intervened Vipul Desai, vice president (finance). "There would always be temporary problems in implementing anything new. The question is whether our long term objectives is right. To the extend that we are trying to promote teamwork, I think we are on the right track. However, I wish to raise a point. There are many external factors which impinge on both individual and collective performance. For instance, the cost of a raw material may suddenly go up in the market affecting product profitability. Why should the concerned product team be penalised for something beyond its control?"

"I have an observation to make too, Ravi," said Menezes, "You would recall the survey conducted by a business fortnightly on 'The ten companies Indian managers fancy most as a working place'. Abhayankar got top billings there. We have been the trendsetters in executive compensation in Indian industry. We have been paying the best. Will your plan ensure that it remains that way?"

As he took the floor again, the dominant thought in Narayanan's mind was that if his plan were to be put into place, Abhayankar would set another new trend in executive compensation.

Question:

But how should he see it through?