Las Vegas Sun

February 1, 2015

Currently: 52° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account


The dark side of offering incentives

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Last week, 35 public school teachers and administrators indicted for allegedly cheating to raise test scores in an Atlanta school district began turning themselves in to authorities. They may be the tip of the iceberg; a state investigation implicates 178 educators in the scandal.

Were these teachers and principals all “bad apples,” intrinsically unethical individuals who somehow ended up in the same school district? Not likely. They were ordinary people who allegedly did unethical and dishonest things to achieve the student performance targets needed to keep their jobs and earn their bonuses. The Atlanta cheating scandal illustrates the dangers of the modern infatuation with incentives and what’s called “pay for performance.”

Lawmakers often view incentives as the answer to almost every policy problem. Stock returns lagging? Change the tax code — as Congress did in 1993 — to require executive pay to be linked to “objective metrics.” Medicare costs spiraling upward? Launch a pilot program — as the Department of Health and Human Services has — basing physician payments on measured outcomes. Children failing to learn their ABCs? Tie teacher pay — as Atlanta’s school district did — to student test scores.

What happened in Atlanta is only the latest instance in which performance incentives tempted employees into opportunistic, even illegal behavior. During the 2008 credit crisis, performance-based pay lured mortgage brokers into approving unqualified borrowers and financial executives into making risky derivatives bets. Incentive pay played a leading role in the Enron and WorldCom frauds. It was implicated in the 1980s savings and loan crisis.

These cases show the underbelly of pay for performance. Explicit incentives work for simple tasks where an employee controls the outcome and where product quality is easily assessed — for example, offering employees of a moving company $20 for every sofa they move in an hour without damage. It’s pretty clear whether the sofas got moved and whether they got damaged.

But what about complex, hard-to-monitor tasks where the desired outcome is difficult to measure and subject to influences outside the employee’s control — such as educating a child or restoring a patient to health? It is almost impossible to design objective performance metrics that can’t be met through illegal or undesirable behavior. In the case of education, it could be falsifying student test scores; in the case of health care, it could be controlling blood pressure through medications that make patients feel sick instead of persuading patients to exercise. And when you create a system that inadvertently incentivizes illegal or undesirable behavior, you get more of it.

Policymakers and reformers assume the solution is “getting the incentives right.” They believe incentives might help and can’t possibly hurt. But as the Atlanta scandal shows, and as social science has proved, incentives can hurt. Pay for performance can create workplaces that suppress ethics and conscience. Instead of more productive employees, you get more opportunistic, unethical and criminal employees. Incentive plans are like dynamite — useful but also dangerous. These plans should be handled only by experts, with great care and in small amounts.

What is the alternative to pay for performance? It’s worth remembering that before free-market ideology and the dogma of incentives took root, employers often compensated employees — including teachers, doctors and business executives — with flat salaries and modest bonuses adjusted annually according to the employer’s opinion of whether the employee had done well. The system relied on subjective, after-the-fact rewards more than objective, predetermined incentives. That required a fair amount of trust and a sense of mutual obligation. Employers had to trust employees to work to earn their predetermined salaries rather than loafing. (Bad employees can be fired, but this solution costs the employer, too.) Employees had to trust that if they stuck around and did a great job, their employers would recognize and reward them.

Standard economic theory predicts that systems based on mutual trust and respect between employer and employee shouldn’t work. But innumerable behavioral studies prove trust is a real phenomenon, and history shows it can indeed motivate employees. For example, before Congress changed the tax code in 1993 to tie executive pay to objective performance metrics, boards paid CEOs far less. Yet investors enjoyed higher stock market returns than today.

This doesn’t mean pay for performance is always bad. When the task is simple and it’s easy to spot employee misconduct — remember those sofa movers — incentive plans can get better results than a flat salary. Crude incentive plans that look only at a few simple performance measures and that are driven by the demands of elected politicians are especially dangerous.

We should let employers and supervisors on the front lines of the workplace — not politicians, bureaucrats or would-be reformers — decide how best to motivate employees. They might decide they need more trust and fewer incentives.

Lynn Stout is a professor of business and corporate law at Cornell Law School and the author of “Cultivating Conscience: How Good Laws Make Good People.” She wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. The persons who perpetrated this sham and scam for personal gain lost their moral compass. For money! Period. End of story. And likely it is the tip of the iceberg. The tragedy lies with the forgotten students who got much less than they deserve.

    Carmine D

  2. Whatever happened to mutual trust and integrity? Poor management has led to this ethical crisis. Writer Lynn Stout states, "That required a fair amount of trust and a sense of mutual obligation. Employers had to trust employees to work to earn their predetermined salaries rather than loafing. (Bad employees can be fired, but this solution costs the employer, too.) Employees had to trust that if they stuck around and did a great job, their employers would recognize and reward them."

    In the last few years, one sees a changing from teamwork to those withholding information or training from their peers so that they can present it formally and appear as an expert meriting performance pay. This is highly dysfunctional and lends itself to a degragated state of collaboration amongst educators, deteriorating quality education at a school site due to the competitive nature of pay for performance.

    Unlike what all the Demming advocates chant, school employees are not the same as factory, product-oriented workers. When you work in a factory, there is a constant, where you put together the product correctly, and quickly. You cannot do that with learning human beings. For decades, I have heard so called educational experts refer to students as "products" because they believed teachers were making a student into some kind of model human being who meets some ideal in standards.

    But as we all know, each and every human being is unique and dynamic. There is no uniformity nor constant of the product student going down the great conveyor belt of schooling. And so, this "pay for performance" will only invite such unethical abuses as tampering with student test results. This is not the first instance of such cheating by desparate educators, no.

    Follow the history of the Students First, Michelle Rhea, whose pay for performance mandates were undermined by cheating educators under her direction. Please keep in mind, that our very own, Governor Brian Sandoval, has Michelle Rhea as one of his advisors for education in Nevada. What do you think will happen in Nevada should school districts implement the "pay for performance" models? Is it an accident that we have recently witnessed Nevada Lawmakers waiting for an update on school districts putting together a "pay for performance" model, only to discover nearly school district in Nevada failed to comply with the directive, and to top it off, the Nevada Department of Education was not on top of it monitoring the situation?

    Part 1 of 2
    Blessings and Peace,

  3. Part 2 of 2
    A parent is a child's first and lifetime teacher, and should have a say in what is going on.

    As it is, the many school districts in Nevada have stopped and taken pause over recent problems with pay for performance models. Some upper level educators have stated that the pay for performance, will not be put into place until it is "perfect", as it will be linked with the new teacher and administrator evaluations. Today, I spent the entire day learning about "The Adult Theory of Development," which is related to "Cognitive Therapy," and one of the weighing factors in the new evaluation rating of the "dispositions" of teachers and administrators. If a person had to synthesize a day's worth of professional development, it might as well be narrowed down in common folk terms to mean "adult behaviors".

    No sane soul should rush into this pay for performance hornet's nest. Remember, teachers can not select the students that are assigned to their classes. Where pay for performance exists, there are instances where student placements into classrooms are driven by ulterior motives (to place a highly disruptive, low achieving student in a specific teacher's classroom to create that (usually tenured) teacher grief, or as a retaliation, causing that teacher's rating to drop---it really does happen). Pay for performance is inherently unfair to teachers when they are subjected to other's choices. And what happens to the school specialists (for Art, Music, P.E., and Library)? Such teaching staff are not linked to test scores. School support staff also should be factored into all this. It takes, afterall, "A village to raise a child."

    The public, parents, caregivers, and taxpayers should be lining up and opposing "pay for performance" as a way to improve learning and student outcomes. Parents should remind Lawmakers that their children are not robotic work products stamped out to be the same as one another. Nevada's infrastructure needs to be adequately and sustainably funded so there is a consistent delivery of educational services of the highest quality possible. Pay for performance invites corruption at every turn, and an informed populace should proceed with great caution.

    Blessings and Peace,