Case Analysis – The Best-Laid Incentive Plans

This paper seeks to answer two questions from the case entitled `The Best-laid Incentive Plans` by Steve Kerr. The first one is to identify relevant metrics while the second one is to discuss the potential incentive and disincentive characteristics of your metrics.
2. Questions and Answers:
2.1. Identify relevant metricsThe relevant metrics being used by Harim were efficiency and cost reduction which are focused on employees and company activities rather than on the customer. This fact is based on Harim’s plan to bring down costs which had caused the placing for savings on all the factors that could influence cost (Kerr, 2003). As proof it was commented that the company has found itself paying out bonuses but still the profitability of the company did not improve (Kerr, 2003).
2.2 Discuss the potential incentive and disincentive characteristics of your metrics.
The potential incentive characteristics include the fact the employees are given out bonuses for having produced savings. Producing saving could be beneficial to the company as this will enable it to have funds for growth as well as sustaining its working capital requirements.
On the other hand, the potential disincentive characteristics include the fact that the program is not fully understood by the employees as to the real purpose of the cost reduction and how it would redound to their benefits.  Another disincentive characteristic is that it is more employee-focused than customer -focused which contributes to employees not understanding why they are the targets. The program also assumes that the organization was not working hard enough while the employees know that it is not the usual case in most companies. This has the effect of affecting the self esteem of people in the organization and necessary their job morale.
The program lacks a clear definition of the criteria for success. By failing to explain the cost reduction program the employees may not understand the bottom line effects of the program. This could make them think that eventually it could result to their losing their jobs since their jobs also have cost to the company. The employees not seeing the big picture will be confused and this could cause them to lose their loyalties to the company and this could be more disastrous for the company.
The metrics program of Hiram focuses on the intermediary steps and assumes that such enhancements will make a positive impact on the bottom line (Kerr, 2003). By falsely assuming that short term positive impacts will result, the opposite could result because the employees cannot understand the direction that they are taking. Or although it could produce positive result in the short run, the long term success is actually being sacrificed.
It may be argued that although the long term objectives or goals are broken down into short terms objective, focusing on the short objective may create more problems. To illustrate, although less employees could mean less labor cost, it could also mean less customer service and customer loyalty, which is usually built over long term but could be lost in an instant by failing to address their short term needs as customers can switch anytime.
Another disincentive characteristic is its failure to link with corporate strategy of marketing. Although the quality and cost of provided services need to be controlled at manageable levels the need to have more satisfied customer are equally if not more important. By measuring only the amount of cost that will be saved without relating with amount of revenues that will be lost, the company is in a losing game from which it is clearly missing the point of any incentive program or performance metrics.
3. Conclusion:
Performance should first be measured in terms of revenues before using cost reduction for the essence of going into business is using up assets and resources to generate revenues that expected to be higher that could cover up the expenses. Hiram’ program failed in this aspect.
Reference:
Kerr, S. “The Best-Laid incentive Plans”, Motivating People, Harvard Business Review Case Study, 2003
 
Approximate price: $22
We value our customers and so we ensure that what we do is 100% original..

With us you are guaranteed of quality work done by our qualified experts.Your information and everything that you do with us is kept completely confidential.You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.The Product ordered is guaranteed to be original. Orders are checked by the most advanced anti-plagiarism software in the market to assure that the Product is 100% original. The Company has a zero tolerance policy for plagiarism.The Free Revision policy is a courtesy service that the Company provides to help ensure Customer’s total satisfaction with the completed Order. To receive free revision the Company requires that the Customer provide the request within fourteen (14) days from the first completion date and within a period of thirty (30) days for dissertations.The Company is committed to protect the privacy of the Customer and it will never resell or share any of Customer’s personal information, including credit card data, with any third party. All the online transactions are processed through the secure and reliable online payment systems.By placing an order with us, you agree to the service we provide. We will endear to do all that it takes to deliver a comprehensive paper as per your requirements. We also count on your cooperation to ensure that we deliver on this mandate.