Maximizing Employee Performance with Behavior Based Incentive Plans



As Dalton believes in offering the sales representatives with the remuneration package alone and no salary, this stands as a very negative connotation of the entire payment structure. If for instance, a sales representative is unable to find a single sales lead in a particular period of time, he would not receive any payments at all. It would mean that all his hard work and devotion for the sake of IFP would essentially go to waste. What is important is to understand how IFP can give its best to its own employees who are indeed receiving nothing at all, more so when they are being committed to the company and its stance in essence. There is a dire need to understand how IFP’s viewpoint would be taken over by the employees. I do not agree that the employees would be on their toes if they receive just the compensation for the sales leads that they bring in instead of the salaries that they should be getting (Weitzul 1993). This is a direct case of meting out differential treatment for the employees because they are being hard done by. Justice needs to be done so that they remain motivated and glued to their respective jobs. The remuneration package used by Mike Dalton might not serve the purpose of the sales representatives and indeed the employees at large because it does not warrant a just policy to meet their most basic needs at work. This should be done away with at the earliest so that the employees might heave a sigh of relief and work to their best effect in the future (Gunsch 1991). The sales team will always be at the mercy of their sales leads and they thus know that if they fall short on this count, they would be removed from their jobs and hence their termination would mean a lot of economic problems for not only their own selves but also their families. These are important pointers which should be understood by Mike Dalton and his decision-making team members.