Case Study:

One motivational issue that Google pays particular attention to concerns its star performers.Most organizations treat performance evaluation ratings—and accompanying compensation differences—much like grades in a college course. Just as a distribution of grades might have a few A's, more A-'s, B+'s, B's, and B-'s, and a few C's, so too do performance evaluations windup with a few 5's, more 4's, 3's, and 2's, and a few 1's. Thus, scores and rewards have a "bell-curve" distribution, with fewer people in the tails and more in the middle. Moreover, just as an A is only a bit more rewarding than an A-, so too does a 5 get just a bit more than a 4. Although there's a logic to that view of evaluation and compensation, it misses an important insight from scientific work on performance. That work suggests that the top 1 percent of performers contribute 10 percent of the firm's productivity all by themselves. Similarly, the top 5 percent of performers contribute 25 percent of the productivity all by themselves. Put differently,stars aren't just a little bit better than typical employees—they're worlds better. This is especially true in white collar jobs where there are no equipment or process constraints on what employees can do. As Bill Gates once argued, "A great lathe operator commands several times the wage of an average lathe operator, but a great writer of software code is worth 10,000 times the price of an average software writer." Laszlo Bock, the former head of Google's People Operations group, followed such advice when rewarding star performers. He argues, "Internal pay systems don't move quickly enough or offer enough pay flexibility to pay the best people what they are actually worth.The rational thing for you to do, as an exceptional performer, is to quit." Thus, Google practices what he calls "paying unfairly"—where "unfairly" means a rejection of the notion that 5's should only get a little more than 4's or 3's. "If the best performer is generating ten times as much impact as an average performer, they shouldn't necessarily get ten times the reward," Bock notes, "but I'd wager they should get at least five times the reward." He continues, "The only way to stay within budget is to give smaller rewards to the poorer performers, or even the average ones. That won't feel good initially, but take comfort in knowing that you've now given your best people a reason to stay with you, and everyone else a reason to aim higher."

Post your Questions:

1.    Compare the findings described above for Millennials to your own views on Millennial characteristics. What surprises you about the findings? What doesn't surprise you?

2.    If you think about the three types of commitment—affective, continuance, and normative—which do you think is most changed among Millennials (or twenty-somethings)? In what way?

3.    Consider all the initiatives and programs Google uses to inspire employee loyalty. Do most of those seek to "move the needle" on affective commitment, continuance commitment, or normative commitment?

4.    Do you agree with Bock that star performers should get a lot more—not just a little more—than average performers? If someone earning a 3 on Google's evaluation system gets a two percent (2%) raise, what should employees earning 4's and 5's get?

5.    Given the budget issues created by giving star performers more, should someone earning a 3 get a two percent (2%) raise—or should they get less? What are the arguments for and against a two percent raise level for average performers?

6.    Consider all the things Google's People Operations group does to motivate its employees. Which motivation theories do they seem to be leveraging, and how?

 

1.Millennials are the individuals who value money, spend money carefully, and save money for their future. Moreover, I had read that Millennials like to spend more time with their children as they are the first generation who grew up in day-care. So, the findings by PwC related to work-life balance does not surprise me. But the finding that Millennials value leisure time more than Generation-X or baby boomer surprised me.

2., I believe that continuance commitment is the most changed amongst millennials.

Here is what I feel and what has caused the change:

Affective commitment is the aspect of how much willing the employee is to stay at their organisation. Millennials once they are aligned with the overall objectives and organisational goals, feel the right fit in the team and have work satisfaction have the affective commitment and then show behaviours which are in line with organisation.

Normative commitment is the employee feeling that they should stay at the company. It means leaving the job would have a disastrous impact and they will have guilt about the possibility of leaving. The skills, knowledge and expertise will create gaps and impact the overall organisation. Although I feel millennials have a more selfish approach and keep looking at career progression the ones which align with their job might stay back of normative commitment factors.

Hence I feel continuance commitment is the most impacted and here is my understanding:

• Continuance commitment is the need of staying back in the organisation. Possible reasons include lack of work alternatives or remuneration cost of shifting jobs. Millennials and with the boom of a startup have less attention span and commitment & hence tend to move jobs once they find better workplaces or higher pay scale.

Millenials with the willingness to find better workplaces don't feel the need to stay at an organisation with a fear that the salary and fringe benefits won't improve. They are ready to move to workplaces which offer more engagement and satisfaction with work.

Generational gaps do exist in the market and such continuance commitment was seen higher amongst previous generations.

The organisation having a great pay scale and having an engagement strategy is not sufficient. It is important they key drivers are present in the organisation. It is a challenge for an organisation to create and keep creating various engagement approaches so that millennial generation feel aligned.

It is important for companies to ensure that performance is being managed as it an important driver for a millennial. Timing, frequency and feedback of performance reviews matter a lot.

The reputation and credibility of the employer also work as a great challenge and engagement threat for the motivation of millennials. 

3.Programs and Initiatives

Total rewards incentivize the workers with quite simply financial emoluments. Organizations structure their technology and processes in order that at every touchpoint of the employee-organization relationship, workers receive rewards that they worth a lot of and build their work a lot of productivity. The total rewards program basically focuses on the worker expertise and job satisfaction. workers are rewarded in a very range of how, however, these is majorly classified into the subsequent teams.

Monetary benefits:

This is the essential driver for associate employee's relationship with the firm. workers need a competitive remuneration structure that's clear and well outlined with the employee's skills.

Non-monetary rewards:

• Employees wish secondary advantages which can be long run or applicable to persons related to him or her. This strengthens the bond with the organization.

Recognizing the effort:

• Spot recognition, appreciating excellence motivates the worker to extend his or her efforts and encourages peers at the same time

Flexibility:

• A number of facilities are provided to form the work-life balance easier for the worker. Studies1 have shown that workers with access to versatile work arrangements tend to be a lot happy, committed, and engaged with their jobs, which ends up in accrued innovation, quality, productivity, and growth.

???????Opportunities:

• Employees hunt for growth and alternative opportunities, crucial for a made career. The firm will offer opportunities for learning, training, movement, internships, and alternative various experiences. The following diagram shows a number of the aspects which may be targeted whereas planning rewards structure underneath every dimension (not exhaustive)

Initiatives

Employee remuneration accounts for a significant share of prices budgeted by the associate organizations. With the dynamic work atmosphere, the normal remuneration management has been facing nice challenges each within the public and personal sectors. Consequently, this ends up in heaps of issues which will {affect|have an associate effect on} the performance of an organization and even cause existential threats. A survey has incontestable that the money reward that was thought-about to be necessary|a vital} issue by organizations isn't as important. supported a 2002 survey of one,500 workers (of all ages) conducted by Viscount Nelson Motivation, Inc, San Diego, California, the ranks of worker motivators in descendent order ar as follows:

1. A learning activity
2. Versatile operating hours
3. Verbal praise
4. Accrued authority
5. Autonomy
6. Time with their manager
7. Break day from work
8. Public praise
9. Alternative of assignment
10. Written praise

Modern rewards management seems and develops within the context of managing transformation. It doesn't merely acknowledge and redound the members who contributed to the organization, in fact, it's a selected action theme of company strategic objectives and values outlook conversion. To some extent, the fashionable rewards management breaks through the classes of 'money' and substance, which indicates that indirect financial gain and a few nonmonetary compensations are factors that are considered necessary within the reward structure style. These days, corporations usually have a complete reward management program, that takes into thought the goals of their workers. this can be necessary for the program to be relevant and accepted by the workers.

4. Yes, because we need to improve and continue to improve than yesterday

5. Yes, it can be in a form of incentive in third part. If the performer do lot better this must be recognize.

6. On giving more budget in the better performer.