A Radical Formula: 100% Effort for 100% Pay

As employers or employees the formula of 100% pay for 100% effort is rather simple and yet it is a difficult balance to achieve. Consider the full ramifications of the statement from both perspectives.

Have you ever known a person to contact payroll and make arrangements to pay back a portion of their weekly salary due to their own lack of performance?

Each fortnight an employee collects my their apportioned salary for performing contracted obligations. Usually an employment contract will identify a number of hours for which the employee is expected to work. In many cases it may also involve meeting minimum performance standards. Should I fulfil these obligations each fortnight I can expect that I will be paid all of my salary. 

Each fortnight I authorise payroll for a number of employees. Some work hard, others less hard. Some have seem to have natural talent whilst others need coaching. Each person responds differently to their responsibilities, yet they all collect 100% of their salary each fortnight.

If 100% salary is collected then should 100% effort be expected? Have you ever known a person to contact payroll and make arrangements to pay back a portion of their weekly salary due to their own lack of performance? Alternatively, what about a situation where an employee can’t perform because of the action or inactions of the employer?

By signing a time sheet an employee is confirming that they have fulfilled their obligations in regard to attitude, effort and outcome. By authorising the time sheet the employer is confirming that they agree with the employee’s assessment of their efforts, and that the organisation has provided the resources, systems and support required to do the job well. Each signature represents an agreement that both parties have made, and remake every fortnight, to act in good faith and honour the employment relationship. 

How quickly, subtly and easily can the balance be shifted?

Scenario 1
I can avoid putting in full effort for the time I should. I can almost meet all of my targets and argue mitigating circumstances for the last 10% which remain unachieved. With the busyness of my supervisor I can slip under their radar with extra break time, late starts, early finishes, missing deadlines, internet searches and distracting conversations. I may even be able to behave in such a way that managing my performance becomes frustrating for my supervisor, who being ill-equipped with appropriate skills to manage non-performance, soon gives up and my recalcitrance becomes entrenched and part of the office culture and expectations. My non-performance is tolerated. Throughout this activity I put in less effort but collect 100% of my salary. And when finally my employer has enough and wants to correct my behaviour, the fact that it has been tolerated for so long with no action means that my employer’s sudden change in response toward me can be argued as unfair or unduly harsh.

Scenario 2
I am committed to my role, motivated by my values, a desire to be recognised, or a fear of losing my job. I work hard. I perform well above the expectations of my contract and I eagerly take on more responsibility. Role creep brings me new opportunities, or I create them for myself, which in turn leads to work satisfaction and further motivates me. I start early or finish late, or both. I work harder and I even compensate for the unsatisfactory efforts of others. It looks to those a little removed from my situation that me or my team are managing sustainably, but if I left the role I would leave a gap equivalent to another half of myself again. I achieve more and at the end of the fortnight I collect 100% of my salary.

Scenario 3
I attend work every day and strive to achieve that which is expected of me. The workload is relentless, either because of great demand (external) or unrealistic expectations (internal). To keep up I miss breaks, work longer hours, and even ensure that I keep on top of my emails by having them directed to me 24/7. I am compelled to donate a significant amount of extra time and effort above the expectations of my contract. Each fortnight I collect 100% of my wage.

How familiar are some of these statements, either as they have been part of your own thinking or you have heard them made by other employees or employers?

I am a graduate, and everyone understands in my field that I will need to work very long hours to secure my career. 

• I am a person who responds to human suffering and its presentation in my place of work does not end because my shift ends. 
• I am a person who began in a role which suited me and I did well, but the role evolved around me and I was expected to manage and make do and I don’t have the skills to perform the new role. 
• I usually perform well, but temporary circumstances have reduced my effectiveness and I need some flexibility and tolerance for a while until some other matters can be resolved. 
• I understand how busy we are because of this change and so for a while I will put in more time and energy that I am obligated to do, but please understand that I can’t sustain it.
• I resent the decision you made and feel hard done by, so you can forget about my cooperation. 
• You owe me because you have failed to recognise me.
• This employee is unmotivated / incompetent.
• We can’t discipline this employee because we are nice people / they are a nice person.
• We cannot challenge this person because our organisational values means that we treat people respectfully.

I worked with a remarkable colleague who was very clear about the obligations involved between employers and employees. She lived by the principle of 100% effort for 100% pay. What was also implied in this formula was a third variable, that of 100% support.

Completed, the formula makes for a useful principle for both employers and employees. As a foundation within your organisation’s culture the formula offers a sense of mutuality and promotes fairness. Applied, it prevents burnout, poor performance, and guards against confusion and mistrust. The application of the formula to a given situation provides insight into the way an organisation ought to respond. That is in each performance assessment and in each review of work life balance are we measuring:

As a foundation within your organisation’s culture the formula offers a sense of mutuality and promotes fairness. 

• support for the employee; 
  
• clarity of expectations; 
• adequacy of resources and systems;
• uncontrollable variables such as client demand;
• employee and supervisor attitude and outcomes;
• organic changes in the employee’s role;
• temporary changes (e.g. health);
• previous management approaches.

It is only after applying the 100% principle to these variables that an employer is in a position to fairly respond to changes in an employee’s performance and determine if coaching for improvement or performance management is required. Similarly, the employee can apply the same principles before determining if their employer is being unfair.

Ultimately, in the non-profit sector I hope we go the extra mile to value our employees, but in doing so we cannot forget that respect and fairness requires us to manage non-performance and to address circumstances where our colleagues are either under-resourced or over-worked.

Need assistance to work through workload or performance issues? Click CONTACT above..