The Freeman Street Smart
Mayor Tommy Osmeña has a tendency to remove the allowance of non-performing or under-performing workers. Is this an effective motivator? Why or why not?
“For me, this is a right decision of Mayor Tom. I think he is into quality of workers and not into quantity. This is the right track of our government — to provide efficient and quality service to the people.” “Yes. It sets a standard on performance, especially that these workers serve the public. If this will be implemented, the employees will be motivated to double their effort in public service. It will not only improve the employees’ performance, it will also improve the public’s perception of government.”
“Speaking from a BPO employee’s perspective, I would have to partially agree with it. To me, it depends on the contractual obligation of the Employer or the Company. It has to be set well amongst the employees or workers and has to be done with a written consent. I see no harm in doing so, for as long as it is for the betterment of the employee and the employer. For as long as the grounds and the expectations are properly set, it is just fair and just to implement it to ensure competency.”
“In psychology, there is the so-called operant conditioning. Someone’s behavior will change if a certain stimulus is added or removed. Money is known to be one of the greatest motivators of man. In fact, it even drives people to even do better with their jobs. I believe that when the reward is removed, the driving force is gone. According to a lot of studies, reward systems work better than punishments.” EDITOR’S NOTE: We are bringing back Street Smart, a venue for our readers to react on timely issues or participate in surveys. The views of those who are featured in this section do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this paper.