Do performance systems encourage only

A certain kind of performance ?

Alison Katz, WHO

Our opposition does not mean that we don’t care about performance. We will get that thrown back at us. Actually it is the contrary. It is because pay for performance systems encourage only a certain kind of performance.

We have salary scales which are already divided into grade and steps. To increase salary each year given satisfactory performance is probably the fairest and most objective system. It relies the LEAST on personal, subjective appreciations. (Whether salary differentials according to grade are fair in themselves is another matter). A staff member who is not performing, should not be renewed ! But those problems are detected and dealt with promptly, when there is proper supervision, career development and responsible management.
Pay for Performance rewards certain elements of work – those which are easily measurable. This encourages a mechanistic, reductionist, simplistic approach to work. It is a very blunt instrument. An entire range of qualities and efforts which are not easily measurable but which may contribute enormously to real productivity, are not taken into account. Furthermore, such systems encourage work to please one’s supervisor, rather than to fulfil WHO’s mandate and it leaves much too much room for personal likes and dislikes, it increases the potential for rewarding those who «please their directors» – already a problem here.
Take the example of teaching. Pay for performance in teaching is strongly resisted by teachers but will be imposed in many countries now. It rewards teachers according to % of pupils passing tests. So obviously the pay-off is in concentrating on the 20 out of 30 who will get through the test. The five who require special attention and the five who are lacking motivation can simply be neglected. Furthermore, teaching becomes directed towards test passing and not learning! They are not the same thing. The same principle applies in all domains, other than perhaps piecework where workers are paid per item produced. In summary, if you feel that all the hundreds of elements of your professional work at WHO are measurable and can be assigned a mark which truly and reliably reflects the entirety of your performance, then fine.
Over and above the very strong objections to the principle of Pay for Performance, such systems imperatively require valid, reliable appraisals. We do not have this. All efforts should be focused on improving the existing system of appraisals.
Most of us have already experienced the sense of frustration with the PMDS. Three or four objectives which don’t exactly correspond to what we have done that year, the inability to reflect major contributions because the format is so restrictive. Neither life nor work can be reduced to such categories. There is far too little possibility for qualitative assessment.

That’s it for now, if anyone has thoughts on this, please send around. As far as I know, Pay for Performance is rejected by most staff association but we need to be absolutely sure it does not get introduced. I sincerely believe that all the problems we have today with appraisals would be multiplied by five.