The shift to contingent or variable pay It has been rued that pwy wyse wreshject to two barst time performance (Brown, 1999). Employees may either be paid for the time they spend at work (or the time taken to perform a certain tark) or they may be paid according to the quantity or quality of the work produced. Tradicional workers were paid (nt compete for their time at work. Hence, employees are often placed on an hourly rate of pay, weekly or a monthly salary Uoder sich time based systems, aditional hou worked may be paid tre mium rites overtime rates). In terms of salary systems, pay progression through the grade has traditionally been related to service rather than ini vidual performance In contrast, whide employees may still be paid in relation to their times work performance-based variable or contingent pay we link the level of pay in some way to productivity, output or performance. In the past, such pay sent by renales were common for production workers, not least in the use of piecework systems where the employee is paid by the quantity of work produced within a period of time, but in recent times there has been a decline in such systems for manual workers. The 2017 Annual Survey of Howed Eaming (ONS 2017) found that incentive and bonus pay constituted 1.2 of total earnings for all full-time employees, although it is still more common mong mule than female employees and varies according to occupation Evidence of a more strategic reward model might be indicated by a growth in individual performance related or contingent reward. A key element of the US New Pay paradigm was its advocacy of more contingent or ride ments within the reward package and there is indeed some evidence of this growth. A US survey of pay practices (World Work, 2015) shows that 87% of respondentsuse variable pas, including sales bonuses More than four-fifth mward bonuses and two-thirds recognition payments such as pot' awards. A majority of organitations use some form of incentive plan but only 1996 profit-sharing plans Virtually all organizations assess employee performance and the most common criterion for determining pwy increases continues to be Individual performance against job standards, although individual performance ainst management objectives or personal objectives is gaining pound The evidence from the UK, however, in more mixed. Analysis of the most recent WERS data indicates that over half of all workplaces used some form of Incentive scheme in 2011 but this was much more likely in private sec tor workplaces than in public, and this has not changed significantly since the 2004 marvey (Van Wanrooy et al, 2013). The interesting finding from the WERS analysis is that the type of variable pay has changed since 2004, with an increase in the use of merit pay (performance-related puy progression) and 30 decline in payment by results schemes (ex bonuses). The 2011 survey also found a decline in employee share plans from 19% of workplaces in 2004 to 10% in 2011. The latest UK CIPD survey of reward practices (CIPD, 2019) indicates that 44% of organizations use some form of performance related vuri able pay scheme and that this proportion has been decreasing since 2012 when It stood at 65%. The use of such schemes is found to be more prominent in large organisations and those in the private sector A review of the literature on performance related pay (PRL) in the public sector in the USA (Perry et al., 2009:43) argued that, at the aggregate level, out analysis finds that performance related pay in the public sector comis endly fails to deliver on its promise Similarly, a UK literature review on PRP in the public sector (OME, 201410) found that, while PRP schemes can be elective in improving outcomes... a central conclusion is that the outcomes from PRP se mixed, dependent upon organisational and occupational context and scheme design and implementation REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY 7.4 Outline the key arguments for and against performance-related pay. Consider the different perspectives of various stakholders