A business professional asks: The repercussions of increasing remunerations based only on the quality of work
Today, in the early morning, a question was posed to me by a business and marketing professional as to what could be the modern risks and difficulties their business will be prone to, if they were to adopt a new post-Covid policy: to increase each individual salaries/stipends only “on the basis of quality of work”.
Employments differ by many types like internship, apprenticeship, subcontracted, part-time and full-time job and remote working. However, employees of today are not only subordinates of their respective entities, but they make up the core structure of the “business continuity” approach and play a huge role in executing your market contingency plans. The nature of the position within the company delegated to each individual employee demands time, devotion and willingness. Every business has it’s own method(s) or formula of measuring their quality and goal-oriented success. And the measure of quality of the work only to dictate increase in salaries can create enough room for unwanted risks and uncertainty for the employees within the business itself. This can be examined from two different angles, economic-well being and corporate security. These risks have become more imminent with the onset of the Covid pandemic.
Seeking to only evaluate the quality of work and not the living-condition and needs can also create a carrot and stick approach, where the employee may face constant criticism and rejection for their efforts or may start sacrificing even more time and energy due to it. Resulting in lethargy, exhaustion and resentment. The amount of salaries being fixed time-to-time must be adjusted in accordance to the current economic inflation, deflation and market interest rates as well as banking services accessibility requirements. While the quality of every work makes the backbone of every productivity and profit capture, the human measurement of it is still susceptible to discrimination and personal biases and objections, which may be considered irrelevant to the judgement of the quality of work itself. As every employee sees the need to grow his or her areas of improvement and knowledge, and the quality of a stable living, they are faced with the hurdle of a growing inflation, lack of affordability and monetary devaluation. It not only decreases their spending power, but robs them of the grace-period during which they have to manage and pay utilities, debts and other financial obligations in time.
From a corporate security perspective: keeping salary/stipend growth requirements halted for employees without the thorough consideration(s) of stakeholders and legal counsel, and the absence of a mission-driven reasoning or correct explanations behind it, could lead to potential risks of insider threats. Posed by disgruntled and frustrated employees such as:
1) Physical assaults and attacks
2) Damage of property(s) and arson
3) Corporate and industrial espionage; An employee may seize the opportunity of “ reprisals” by stealing and passing confidential information to rival businesses or criminal enterprises in exchange of a payment or rewards.
4) Public protesting and defamation campaigns
In conclusion, the stagnancy and negligence of salary/stipend increase for a longer time period is not only detrimental to the quality of work the employee provides but also to the morale, financial security and well-being of the employee. The communication gaps between employees and employer become wider with time. As poor corporate culture has reflected in some cases, the subtle disregard of employment contract and ethics becomes obvious over time.
Originally published at https://www.linkedin.com.
