People are learning and developing throughout their whole lives. In my opinion, both quality of work and experience are important. A senior executive may argue that he deserves more in terms of monetary welfare than the other employers because he has been long serving the company. One cannot deny the fact that experience matters but many times, the employees with seniority are not the most productive. In fact, in some companies, those with tenure may be those who are heard saying "Can't be done; tried it ten years ago and it didn't work." They may also be the ones who get the best holidays, best shifts, and easiest assignments. This breeds resentment and conflict.

In many companies, seniority is considered one of the primary factors in rewarding the workforce. In a full employment economy, where there is high turnover at the entry level, and even in some middle and senior management positions, it seems all the more important to keep the long term workers. They provide stability and security for your production processes and service relationships.

On the other hand, as competitive and profitability pressures continue to force us to rethink how we get our work done so that we can reduce costs, increase quality, and increase our productivity, we must find new ways to increase performance or face the hard realities of reducing headcount. We also want to reward those workers who consistently are the high producers.

What we don't need is "seniority warfare" in the workplace. What we do need is a way to honor those employees who are the most productive as well as those who have demonstrated their commitment to the company over time.

How do we balance these often conflicting goals while still increasing our overall performance? This approach also means we move our cultures from political rewards to rewards based on the principles of high performance, growth, and profitability. Moving to a principle-based culture and away from one based on favoritism and politics also means everyone is treated fairly and in the same manner.

But I do believe we can find a reconcile which enables us to balance the goals of a stable, long-term workforce with one that is high performing.

Everyone in the business needs to be governed by the same rules. Everyone needs to have a direct stake in the performance of the company, although the degrees of that stake may vary by level. It is also essential that members of the workforce not be rewarded simply because they have been there a long time. They also need to perform, add value, and contribute to the growth and profitability of the company. If we simply reward tenure which is not tied to performance, we sew the seeds of low integrity and the eventual breakdown of the system.

Achieving this balance is by no means an easy fete. There are many points that need to be considered before deciding an increment. Only if the candidate fits the characteristic of an ideal workman, should he be given his laudable credit making sure the company policies are abided by.

-"Human Resource"- A magazine for the discerning professional
www.humanresource.net.in