Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay: Thayer's Rejoinder

• Published date: 01 April 1990
• Date: 01 April 1990
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9001000205
• Subject Matter: Articles

Professional Notes
Performance Appraisal and Merit
Pay: Thayer’s Rejoinder
1
Frederick Thayer
University of Pittsburgh
ohn
Nicolay’s all-out attack on my arguments about the futility of
~ &dquo;merit pay systems&dquo; (Thayer, 1989:60-66) gives me an opportunity
~~ to briefly restate my position. The way to begin, I think, is by point-
ing out where he and I are in relatively narrow agreement.
1. It is indeed possible to look upon the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
(CSRA) as the operational elaboration of Management of Objective concepts
(MBO), in that &dquo;Federal employees were to participate in designing their own
standards....&dquo; Nicolay then asserts that our agreement on this matter quickly
ends, especially since CSRA was explicitly intended to enhance the ability of
bosses to punish subordinates. Bosses (whether colonels in the military, pro-
fessors and deans in universities, or husbands at home) usually believe they
are compassionate and benevolent, but this does not transform them into
&dquo;partners.&dquo; I would think it obvious that &dquo;participation&dquo; in the &dquo;design&dquo; of
standards is largely meaningless of itself. And it appears equally obvious that
if MBO
is ever to fulfill its promise of carrying through on &dquo;team manage-
ment,&dquo; it will have to be decoupled from personnel systems in which one
member of a team is required to punish one or more of his or her &dquo;team-
mates.&dquo; To put this rejoinder in a slightly different way, I would suggest that
Nicolay set about examining how the women’s movement might react to a
husband/superior-wife/subordinate MBO concept for families. The larger
point here is that theories of organization are all-pervasive, not the property
of &dquo;academics&dquo; alone, nor even those associated with &dquo;complex&dquo; or &dquo;bureau-
cratic&dquo; organizations.
2.
I also agree that &dquo;the courts pointed the way (for CSRA)&dquo; by supporting a
&dquo;growth in personal rights (of protection against arbitrary punishment),&dquo; and I
have so stated elsewhere. Quite clearly, CSRA was designed to make sure
that legally defensible personnel files would be available to buttress adverse
personnel actions and budget-directed reductions in force. Thus, where
Nicolay tends to look, upon CSRA as a form of human rights legislation, I
see it as an effort to reduce employee protection. If CSRA had enhanced pro-
tection, the problem of &dquo;whistle-blowers&dquo; would not...