Analyze peer posts and respond with analysis using one peer reviewed article supporting thoughts. 2 peer posts and each response is to be 150 words minimum. See posts below

Post 1
Organizations need to understand what motivates employees and managers in order for pay-for-performance plans to be effective. Pay-for-performance plans will not motivate all, so the introduction of a pay-for-performance model cannot be arbitrary. Firms that are weak in goal setting and short in financials may not benefit from these type plans. Also, despite the argument that these models widen the wage gap, organizations still elect to implement plans to potentially increase employee motivation, job satisfaction, and efficiency since some worker output is unsatisfactory (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015; Ledic, 2018; Theuvsen, 2004). These models serve as an organizations attempt to align pay for performance output and attract talent that is motivated by such plans (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015). Pay-for-performance models do appear to work but under certain conditions. Factors related to the organization and the employees within influence the success of pay-for-performance models. Such factors may include whether a firm is profit or non-profit and what organizations determine that specifically motivate employees (Theuvsen, 2004). The cost of maintaining pay-for-performance plans can be a deterrent to organizations which is why there is minimal use in the public sector (Georgantzis et al., 2017). When employees have awareness to how individual financial positioning can increase, organizations can capitalize upon this. Organizations can use pay-for-performance plans to motive and increase performance in employees, but the plan will only work if said employee is motivated by money (Ledic, 2018). There is a belief that pay-for-performance plans at times do not produce targeted outcomes or have produced negative results (Kovacs et al., 2020). Lastly, plans will only work if the organization can afford to pay the compensation and expend additional resources to monitor employee output (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015). The company I have worked for the past five years had a pay-for-performance plans prior to my arrival, which went to the way-side but is now being considered for return. The leadership is stellar in the organization and it makes it difficult to set apart those that outperform others. By implementing a pay-for-performance plan, those with more drive and are financially driven can be motivated to contribute more and benefit the company. I meant to obtain the name of the plan that the current CEO utilized in her past roles which she advocates has been very successful, but I will have to share that in a following post.

What does the literature tell us?

            The literature tells us that there are many theories used to understand how and why these type plans would be contemplated and used; in three articles alone theories noted included reinforcement theory, expectancy theory, equity theory or goal-setting theory, Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory, valence theory, microeconomic theory, institutional theory, management theory, agency theory, and crowding theory (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015; Georgantzis et al., 2017; Ledic, 2018; Theuvsen, 2004). There is not one single way to create or implement a pay-for-performance plan (Kovacs et al., 2020). Theuvsen (2004) explains two types of plans that include bonus and value-based systems. Bonus plans result in an employee attaining  goals and are typically used as short-term incentives while value-based plans place focus on managers and teams (Theuvsen, 2004). Plan concepts are developed toward individuals, teams, or an organization (Ledic, 2018). Regardless of the type of plan, whether individualized or not, plans are found to have increased job satisfaction along with financial gain, with an individualized plan having stronger effects (Ledic, 2018). Group and organizational plans are less effective because the result is dependent upon group performance versus individual performance (Ledic, 2018). Generally, the introduction of a pay-for-performance plan is thought to yield positive motivational results and improve effectiveness and efficiency (Theuvsen, 2004). However, plan implementation does not come without risk. If employees are not motivated by reward systems then the plan may not be as successful as believed. Various pay-for-performance plans exist and increase competition and can be paid out as bonuses or incentive pay (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015; Ledic, 2018). Pay can be incremental, by percentage, or based on level of output (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015). Plans should include considerations such as what is incentivized, who is incentivized, the payment attributes, the basis for payment, and gaming safeguards (Kovacs et al., 2020). These determinations must be made in order guide whether or not there are consequences when goals are not attained, if the plan applies to managers or all employees, if payments are considered as rewards or penalties, are paid often or further apart, what type formula determines the size of the payment, and if safeguards are in place to assess the process (Kovacs et al., 2020). These areas of consideration have been found to differ widely when plans were compared, even when comparison was within a single profession; this is likely due to organizations having developed the plans to fit policy objectives (Kovacs et al., 2020).

Are there specific studies that refute or support the concept?

Research reflects both scenarios where pay -for-performance supports and refutes such plans adding any value to organizations. Georgantzis (2017) explains that experts on the subject have always been divided. Pay-for-performance plans have not become overwhelmingly utilized and have only slightly grown since 1994 (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015). Theuvsens (2004) study considered the fact that the success of these plans involve psychology and extrinsic rewards, or in other words, rewards that are external and motivate people to perform such an action. Georgantzis (2017) stated managers viewed implementation of plans as a positive measure as compared to a lower level employee view. Ledic (2018) found that employees involved in pay-for-performance plans displayed more effort in performance of duties. However, as mentioned the extrinsic reward must be an actual motivator to a person since not all employees are motivated by the same thing. Ledic (2018) also found that pay-for-performance plans do matter but it is noted that although employee effort and income may increase it may come at the expense of diminished job satisfaction. Another study reflected that Caucasians and males are typically in roles that utilize pay-for-performance plans (Gittleman & Pierce, 2015). There is a belief that pay-for-performance plans overshadow the intrinsic (Georgantzis et al., 2017).

Post 2
Financial incentives are ways to encourage performance in a variety of industries whether driven by market demands in a competitive environment or influenced by compliance regulations mandated by governmental rules.  Employers and employees alike are motivated to reach goals tied to performance.  Measurable performance goals provide feedback that tracks how impactful incentive plans are.  This discussion is focused on the impact pay-for-performance incentives impact the dynamics of an organization and whether or not incentive compensation plans or beneficial to companies.  This discussion will offer an opinion on the drawbacks of incentive plans.

Maslows hierarchy of needs is a psychological perspective that asserts that there are basic levels of human needs.  As each need level is obtained individuals may advance to the next level of need in hierarchal order diagramed on a pyramid.  Maslows theory proposes when individuals physiological needs are reached, the person advances to safety, next love, and belonging, then esteem, and finally the top of the pyramid, self-actualization.  From Maslow, McClellands theory of motivation is developed which, determines individuals are motivated primarily in three ways, the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power (Al-Nsour, 2011).  Each of these needs drives outcomes that in some way or other influence pay performance incentives.  For instance, the motivation need to achieve involves goal setting that is realistic yet challenging.  If the goal is either unrealistic or lacks a true challenge, the motivation to excel is lost hence, the goal that is set may not be achieved as motivation declines. According to McClelland, the need for affiliation considers belonging to a group where one feels accepted and even liked by others (Al-Nsour, 2011).  This is a motivating factor that supports the need for human interaction and relationship (Al-Nsour, 2011).  In this dynamic, groupthink can prevail that can cause goals to be met and lead to the achievement of pay performance.  Alternatively, groupthink can lead to the failure of achieving the goals, as the group is focused single-mindedly and may overlook other measures that could produce a better outcome.  The third way that motivates achievement is the need for power and influence over others that results in winning (Al-Nsour, 2011).  The need for power may exhibit as personal power or institutional power.  Personal power may be considered by others within a workgroup as less favorable as it is inspired by intrinsic personal values whereas, institutional power insists upon a team winning effort.  Institutional power drives others to excellence and is not so centrally focused on a single individual.

There are arguments for and against incentive plans and merit pay.  Generally, performance incentives provide motivation for improving task-oriented performance.  Bailey et al., (1998)  recognize piece-rate contingency as a concept that improves performance among workers.  Bonner and Sprinkle (2002) agree, affirming monetary incentives increases efforts which in turn increases performance.  The literature goes on to note the degree of task complexity can lead to a deeper level of engagement by an individual but also threatens cohesiveness among teams if each member of the group does not equally embrace task complexity mutually.  Further, increases in task complexity can cause a decrease in the positive effect incentives are designed to have on performance by attenuating the incentiveseffort relation or by attenuating the effortperformance relation according to Bonner and Sprinkle (2002).  The upside to performance incentives and the downside to performance incentive is equally identified in the literature. 

Peacock et al., (2007) brings attention to Pearce (1987) pointing out the issues surrounding pay for performance.  The idea that within an organization individuals who are compensated for performance operate as a single entity is a misconception.  The reality is individuals within an organization are comprised of a collective organizational membership and therefore operate as a group or team (Peacock et al., 2007).  Moreover, the work task is often complex and requires collaboration that involves others that make up the team.  Hence, when individuals respond contrarily to the team dynamic in a self-centered way, the team is hurt and ultimately the organization is hurt.  The primary goal of the company to improve overall performance.  The organizations intrinsic value is defaulted to fulfilling an incentive plan for an individual or even a few of the individuals on the team, damaging the companys reputation.  This outcome testifies to the folly of incentive plans and pay matrix that does not produce the ultimate desired outcome.

Dramatizing the distinction of individual incentives and group incentives Peacock et al., (2007) use the game of Charades.  Individuals are organized into groups where one player within the group aims for an individual incentive, while the rest of the team play for a group reward (Peacock et al., 2007).  What was meant as an exercise of fun revealed the unbalance of individual incentive reward compared to the shared incentive reward among the group.  The individual reward was perceived as more advantageous than the shared group reward, concluding there is an emotional divide between individual incentives and group incentives.  This can be disruptive and destructive to organizational dynamics. 

Organizations truly face the challenge of remaining competitive and are constantly seeking ways to improve performance.  Balancing efficiency and peak performance is a daunting task.  Incentive plans may be well meaning but do not always obtain the desired outcome.  The literature provides evidence that suggests performance incentives can motivate individual performance but also can threaten group performance.  While on the one hand individuals may be motivated by personal power it could be detrimental to the institutional power of the group.  As such, organizations should consider the literature findings and customize incentive plans that have a group incentive only.  This suggestion is supported by theory which indicates monetary incentives motivate improved performance.  The optimal design is customized incentive plans.  There is no one size fits all just as no one employee is alike.  Organizational leaders must embrace the challenge of what works best for a given task.  By identifying what the organizational goal is and incentivizing according to the goal organizational leaders can avoid losing focus.

This exam consists of both short-answer answer and long-answer questions.  USE YOUR OWN WORDS.Short Questions: Read the questions CAREFULLY. Be sure to answer EACH part of the question. Be concise: answer each question in one clear paragraph, writing complete sentences (rather than bullet points), using no less than 5 sentences and no more than7 sentences. You will lose points if you write less or more than 5-7 sentences.

1.    How does Heywood define political ideology in his book? Be specific.  Summarize three otherways of understanding ideology that he discusses in one sentence each, making clear how they differ from Heywoods use of the term in the book.

2.    Name the five core ideas/values/beliefs of socialism.  Summarize each idea in one sentence

.3.    Name the four core ideas/values/beliefs of feminism. Summarize each idea in one sentence.

4.    Name the five core ideas/values/beliefs of fascism.  Summarize each idea in one sentence.

5.    Name the five core ideas/values/beliefs of anarchism.  Summarize each idea in one sentence.

6.    Discuss the meaning of property for socialists, liberals and conservatives.  Be as detailed as you can about the role the idea of property plays in their different political ideologies, indicating where they are similar and how they might be different.

7.    Discuss the role of hierarchy in conservatism, liberalism and socialism.  What is the stance of each political ideology on hierarchy, and how do they differ from each other?

8.    Explain in detail four of the differences between communism and social democracy.  Use specific examples of each.Long Questions: Answer each question in 2 paragraphs (10-12 sentences) by drawing on the lectures, readings, and films we watched for class. Read carefully. Be sure to answer each part of the question.

9.    Drawing on the readings by Heywood and Graeber, provide a detailed summary of fascism and anarchism. Define the key themes of each ideology, explain when they each emerged, and what their evolution has been over time. Then bring them into conversation and describe the relationship between the two political ideologies and why they clash so profoundly.  Finally, think about the YouTube video we watched, The Black Bloc, and make an argument about the relationship between what we learned about these political ideologies in the readings, and the people who clashed at Charlottesvillewhat were the many different arguments about Anti-Fa in the documentary, both for and against it? 

10.  Drawing on the Heywood chapter and lecture, summarize feminism as a political ideology.  In three sentences, summarize the history of the evolution of feminism as a political ideology using specific examples.  In one sentence each, summarize the following traditions that Heywood discusses: liberal feminism, socialist feminism, third-wave feminism, and transfeminism.  What does Heywood say about each of them, and why are they important to feminism? Finally, in three sentences, identify the concrete ties you see between feminism as a political ideology discussed by Heywood, and the contemporary feminist movement we watched a video about, Ni Una Menos, who also organized massive protests recently on international Womens Day throughout Latin America and elsewhere.  How does the vision of the current feminists that are a part of Ni Una Menos protests overlap or break with the arguments Heywood makes about feminism?  Be specific.

11.  What is neoliberalism? Summarize it in five sentences.  Be specific, and draw from the many arguments and examples used by Heywood, the videos we watched, and what was explained in lecture.  When and in what context did it first begin to successfully change government policy?  How exactly does neoliberalism relate to classical and modern liberalism?  Who were neoliberalisms biggest supporters, and what were the different ways it managed to become dominant throughout the world?  Finally, what might be the relationship between the rise of authoritarianism today and neoliberalismwhat exactly is the relationship between these two trends in political ideology?  Be detailed and specific.  Finally, do you think neoliberal democracy is really in crisis today?  Why or why not?  Be specific.

12.  The global age (1980s-present) has dramatically shifted the trajectory and content of political ideologies. First, drawing from Heywood, define globalization in two specific sentences. Then, in two sentences each, and using specific examples, summarize how the global age has shaped and changed each of the following political ideologies we have studied in class: liberalism, fascism, anarchism, nationalism, and feminism.  Your argument can build on the points you make about each political ideology, but try not to be too repetitive.  In other words, make a unique argument about the specific changes facing each political ideology as a result of globalization.

13.  Imagine you could design your own political ideology.  What would it look like?  What would the key ideas for it be?  Develop your own unique political ideology by combining some of the ideas of at least three different political ideologies we have studied in class.  Make an argument for why you hold your new political ideology would be best. Then, make an argument about how your political ideology would be different from other existing political ideologies.  What aspects of existing political ideologies are you not including and why?  Why did you pick specific aspects of each existing political ideology and not other aspects (for example: I like the notion of individualism from liberalism, but I dont like the notion of rationality because…).  Be as specific as possible by drawing on information from Heywood, the videos, and the lectures. (You will be graded not on the basis of what your beliefs are but rather on the depth of understanding you demonstrate of Heywoods book as you craft your own argument)