For the determination of the specific amounts to be received by each member of the faculty in the existing plan, he suggests that it will be better for the merit pay to be well distributed based on the top two third measurements of performance are allocated. In this sense, it means that professor Foreman is more concern about the fair and equity (Hardré, 2012). Basing on foreman submission for the creation of fairness and equity is spread to all the members of the faculty. This option is based on the distribution of the incentive pay across a very larger pool of the employees.
In his opinion, the greater distribution level will result in lower salary increase which is likely to incentivize faulty in striving for the top two thirds. In regard to the proposed plan, the specific amounts through which the merit raises determines amount through each faculty raises aims at making a reverse. In this case, the aims at a typing trend by aiming at awarding all the members merit pay aiming at top 25% in regard to the faculty (Hardré, 2012). In this case, the highest faculty which is performing will be awarded and it will help in retaining the employees. The proposed plan will bring more of inequity through concentrating the merit pay to the top 25%. In this particular case, there will be the rise of disenfranchisement in 75% bottom level.
In my opinion, I think professor foreman proposal is better since it will focus on equity and fairness. Following the option two, it will the university more performing in research but the interior environment will not be comfortable for all members, in fact, this option will not be focusing on rewarding the efforts shown by the faculties which are high performing which possibly fall outside the top 25% (Hardré, 2012). In this way, for equality and fairness to be seen in the university, option#1 is supposed to be sued through which it will bring fairness to the top and bottom faculties.
Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research, teaching research, and professional development. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 539-561.