Kamu Sektöründe Bireysel Performansa Göre Ücret Uygulamaları: Başarısızlığın Yaygınlaşması

Year 2016, Volume: 71 Issue: 2, 627 - 651, 15.06.2016

Selim Coşkun , Hakan Dulkadiroğlu , Nevzat Kunduracı

https://doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002405

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Kamu yönetiminde uzun süredir performans temelli bütçe programları, stratejik yönetim, kalite
yönetimi, piyasa analizi, performans yönetimi gibi özel sektör kaynaklı araçlar kullanılmaktadır. Bu
araçlardan en fazla tartışılanlardan birisi performansa göre ücret programlarıdır. Performansa göre ücret
uygulamaları giderek yaygınlaşmasına karşın araştırmalar kamuda bireysel performansa göre ücret
programlarının büyük oranda başarısız olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu çalışma kapsamında farklı ülkelerin
kamu yönetiminde gerçekleştirilen performansa göre ücret uygulamaları, bu alanda yapılan araştırmalar ve
programların uygulama nedenleri irdelenmektedir. Bireysel düzeyde gerçekleştirilmeye çalışılan performansa
göre ücret uygulamalarındaki başarısızlıklara rağmen uygulamanın yaygınlaşmasındaki paradoksal durum
analiz edilmeye çalışılacaktır.

Keywords

Kamu Sektörü, Bireysel Performans, Performansa Göre Ücret, Kamu Reformu, Yaygınlaşma

Individual Pay for Performance in the Public Sector: Dissemination of the Failure

Abstract

For a long time public organizations have been using tools and techniques originating from the private sector such as performance based budget programs, strategic management, quality management, market analysis and performance management. Among these tools and techniques, pay for performance programs may be the most discussed one. Even though reports and surveys indicate that individual pay for performance schemes in the public sector failed to a large extent, these programs have been diffusing throughout the world. This study analyzes pay for performance practices in public administration in different countries. In this context, the research on the success/failure of the pay for performance programs will be explained briefly. Then, different views on the dissemination of the programs in the public sector are reviewed. Even if pay for performance programs at the individual level do not have a success, we are going to
explain why the programs are getting popular as a paradox

Keywords

Public Sector, Individual Performance, Pay for Performance, Public Reform, Dissemination

References

• Akgöz, Semra, İlker Ercan ve İsmet Kan (2004), “Meta-Analizi”, Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (2): 107-112.
• Andersen, Lotte B. (2007), “Professional Norms, Public Service Motivation, or/and Economic Incentives: What Motivates Public Employees?”, Presented at the European Group of Public Administration Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, September 19-22.
• Andersen, Lotte B. ve Thomas Pallesen (2008), “„Not Just for the Money?‟ How Financial Incentives Affect the Number of Publications at Danish Research Institutions”, International Public Management Journal, 11(1): 28-47.
• Bakan, İsmail ve Tuba Büyükmeşe (2005), “Sağlık Sektöründe Uygulanan Performansa Göre Ücretlendirme Karşılaşılan Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri: Bir Alan Çalışması,” XIII. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi Bildirileri, 12-14 Mayıs, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Balcı, Asım ve Hamza Kırılmaz (2005), “Performansa Dayalı Ücretlendirme Sistemleri ve Kamu Sektöründe Uygulanabilirliği: Sağlık Bakanlığında Döner Sermaye Gelirlerinden Performansa Dayalı Ek Ödeme Sistemi”, Nohutçu, Ahmet ve Asım Balcı (Der.), Bilgi Çağında Türk Kamu Yönetiminin Yeniden Yapılandırılması–1 (İstanbul: Beta Yayınları): 169-201.
• Bellé, Nicola (2010), “Così Fan Tutte? Adoption and Rejection of Performance- Related Pay in Italian Municipalities: A Cross- Sector Test of Isomorphism”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30 (2): 166-188.
• Bertelli, Anthony (2006), “Motivation Crowding and the Federal Civil Servant: Evidence from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service”, International Public Management Journal, 9 (1): 3-23.
• Brudney, Jeffrey L ve Stephen E. Condrey (1993), “Pay for Performance: Explaining the Differences in Managerial Motivation”, Public Productivity & Management Review, 17 (2): 129-144.
• Buelens, Marc ve Herman Van den Broeck (2007), “An Analysis of Differences in Work Motivation Between Public and Private Sector Organizations”, Public Administration Review, 67: 65- 74.
• Cardona, Francisco (2006), “Performance Related Pay in the Public Service in OECD and EU Member States”, Seminar on Remuneration System for Civil Servants and Salary Reform (Vilnius, Lithuania: Sigma Program, OECD).
• Condrey, Stephen E. ve Jeffrey L. Brudney (1992), “Performance- Based Managerial Pay in the Federal Government: Does Agency Matter?”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2 (2): 157-174.
• Demir, Serdar (2007), Performansa Dayalı Ücret Sistemleri, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü).
• Crewson, Philip (1997), “Public-service motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of Incidence and Effect”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7 (4): 499-518.
• DiMaggio, Paul J. ve Walter W. Powell (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields”, American Sociological Review, 48 (2): 147-160.
• Dowling, Bernard ve Ray Richardson (1997), “Evaluating Performance-Related Pay for Managers in the National Health Service”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8 (3): 348-366.
• Egger-Peitler, Isabell, Gerhard Hammerschmid ve Renate Meyer (2007), “Motivation, Identification, and Incentive Preferences as Issues for Modernization and HR Strategies in Local Government—First Evidence from Austria”, Presented at the European Group of Public Administration Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, September 19-22.
• Fletcher, Clive ve Richard Williams (1996), “Performance Management, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment”, British Academy of Management, 7 (2): 169-179.
• Forest, Virginie (2008), “Performance Related Pay and Work Motivation: Theoretical and Emperical Perspectives for the French Civil Service”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74 (2): 325-339.
• Gabris, Gerald T. (1986), “Can Merit Pay Systems Avoid Creating Discord between Supervisors and Subordinates? Another Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7 (1): 70-89.
• Gabris, Gerald T. ve Kenneth Mitchell (1986), “Personnel Reforms and Formal Participation Structures: The Case of the Biloxi Merit Councils”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 6 (3): 94-144.
• Gabris, Gerald T. ve Kenneth Mitchell (1988), “The Impact of Merit Raise Scores on Employee Attitudes: The Matthew Effect of Performance Appraisal”, Public Personnel Management, 17 (4): 369-386.
• Gabris, Gerald T. ve Douglas M. Ihrke (2000), “Improving Employee Acceptance toward Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay Systems: The Role of Leadership Credibility”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20 (1): 41-53.
• Gaertner, Karen N. ve Gregory H. Gaertner (1985), “Performance- Contingent Pay for Federal Managers”, Administration and Society, 17 (1): 7-20.
• Georgellis, Yanius, Elizabetta Iossa ve Vurian Tabvuma (2011), “Crowding Out Intrinsic Motivation in the Public Sector”, Journal of Public Administation Research Theory, 21 (3): 473-493.
• Gailmard, Sean ve John Patty (2007), “Slackers and Zealots: Civil Service, Policy Discretion, and Bureaucratic Expertise”, American Journal of Political Science, 51: 873-889.
• Greiner, John M., Roger E. Dahl, Harry P. Hatry ve Annie P. Millar (1997), “Monetary Incentives and Work Standards in Five Cities: Impacts and Implications for Management and Labor”, (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press).
• Heinrich, Carolyn J. (2007), “False or Fitting Recognition? The Use of High Performance Bonuses in Motivating Organizational Achievements”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26 (2): 281-304.
• Heneman, Herbert G. ve Phillip Young I. (1991), “Assessment of a Merit Pay Program for School District Administrators”, Public Personnel Management, 20 (1): 35-47.
• Hickson, Gerald B., William A. Altemeier ve James M. Perrin. (1987), “Physician Reimbursement by Salary or Fee-for-Service: Effects on Physician Practice Behavior in a Randomized Perspective Trial”, Pediatrics, 80 (3): 344-350.
• Houston, David J. (2000), “Public-Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (7): 13-28.
• Houston, David J. (2009), “Motivating Knights or Knaves? Moving Beyond Performance-Related Pay for the Public Sector”, Public Administration Review, 69 (1): 43-57.
• Ingraham, Patricia W. (1993a), “Of Pigs in Pokes and Policy Diffusion: Another Look at Pay-forPerformance”, Public Administration Review, 53 (4): 348-356.
• Ingraham, Patricia W. (1993b), “Pay for Performance in the States”, American Review of Public Administration, 23 (3): 189-200.
• Jurkiewicz, Carole L. ve Tom Massey (1997), “What Motivates Municipal Employees: A Comparison Study of Supervisory vs. Non-supervisory Personnel”, Public Personnel Management, 26 (3): 67-77.
• Kellough, Edward J. ve Lloyd G. Nigro (2002), “Pay for Performance in Georgia State Government: Employee Perspectives on Georgia Gain after Five Years”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 22 (2): 146-166.
• Kellough, J. Edward ve Haoran Lu (1993), “The Paradox of Merit Pay in the Public Sector: Persistence of a Problematic Procedure”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 13 (2): 45-64.
• Kellough, J. Edward ve Sally C. Selden (1997), “Pay-for-Performance Systems in State Government: Perceptions of State Agency Personnel Managers”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17 (1): 5-21.
• Kouides, Ruth W, Nancy M. Bennett, Bonnie Lewis, Joseph D. Coppuccio, William H. Barker ve F. Marc LaForce (1998), “Performance-Based Physician Reimbursement and Influenza Immunization Rates in the Elderly”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14 (2): 89- 95.
• Lah, T. J. ve Perry James L. (2008), “The Diffusion of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 in OECD countries: A Tale of Two Paths to Reform”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 28 (3): 282-299.
• Lee, Soo-Young Lee ve Andrew B. Whitford (2008), “Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Pay: Evidence from the Public Workforce,” Journal of Public Administation Research Theory, 18 (4): 647- 671.
• Mansur, Ayşe T. (2005), “Performansa Dayalı Çalışma Sisteminin Uzmanlık Eğitimine Etkileri”, Konferans Metni, Haydarpaşa Numune Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, İstanbul.
• Marsden, David (2004), “The Role of Performance-related Pay in Renegotiating the „Effort Bargain‟: The Case of the British Public Services”, Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 57 (3): 350-70.
• Marsden, David ve Stephen French (1998), “What a Performance: Performance-related Pay in the Public Services”, (London: LSE Centre for Economic Performance Special Report).
• Marsden, David ve Richard Richardson (1994), “Performing for Pay? The Effects of “Merit Pay” on Motivation in a Public Service”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 32 (2): 243-61.
• Medimagazin (2005) “Suistimale Yol Açıyor, Motive Etmiyor”, Pazartesi, 16 Mayıs 2005, http://www.medimagazin.com.tr/medimagazin/tr-8220suistimale-yol-aciyor-motiveetmiyor8221-1-230-1803.html (24.12.2014).
• Milkovich, George T. ve Alexandra K. Wigdor (1991), Pay for Performance: Evaluating Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
• Moon, M. Jae (2000), “Organizational Commitment Revisited in New Public Management: Motivation, Organizationalculture, Sector, and Managerial Level”, Public Performance & Management Review, 24 (1): 77-94.
• Murnane, Richard J. ve David K. Cohen (1986), “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and a Few Survive”, Harvard Educational Review, 56 (1): 1-17.
• Nachmias, David ve Paul J. Moderacki (1982), “Patterns of Support for Merit Pay and EEO Performance: the Inherent Difficulties of Implementing Innovation”, Policy Studies Journal, 11 (2): 318-327.
• Nesanır, Nasır, Erem Ali, Bilge Bedri ve Ahmet Saltık (2006), “Manisa‟da Birinci ve İkinci Basamak Sağlık Kurumlarında Çalışan Hekimlerin Bakış Açısıyla Performansa Dayalı Döner Sermaye Uygulaması”, Toplum ve Hekim, 21 (3): 231-238.
• Nigro, Lloyd (1981), “Attitudes of Federal Employees Toward Performance Appraisal and Merit Pay: Implications for CSRA Implementation”, Public Administration Review, 4 (1): 84-86.
• OECD (1993), Private Pay for Public Work. Performance-related Pay for Public Sector Managers (Paris: OECD).
• OECD (1997), Performance Pay Schemes for Public Sector Managers: An Evaluation of the Impacts (Paris: OECD).
• OECD (2005), Performance Related Pay Policies for Government Employees, Organisation For Economic Co-operation And Development (Paris: OECD).
• Park, Chun-Oh ve Jaehyun Joo (2010), “Control over the Korean Bureaucracy: A Review of the NPM Civil Service Reforms Under the Roh Moo-Hyun Government”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 30 (2): 189-210.
• Pearce, Jone L. ve James. L. Perry (1983), “Federal Merit Pay: A Longitudinal Analysis”, Public Administration Review, 43 (4): 315-325.
• Pearce, Jone L., William B. Stevenson ve James L. Perry (1985), „Managerial Compensation Based on Organizational Performance: A Time Series Analysis of the Impact of Merit Pay‟, Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2): 261-278.
• Perry, James L. (1986), “Merit Pay in the Public Sector: The Case for a Failure of Theory”, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 7 (1): 57-69.
• Perry, James L. (1988), “Making Policy by Trail and Error: Merit Pay in the Federal Service”, Policy Studies Journal, 17 (2), 389-405.
• Perry, James L. (1997), “Antecedents of Public Service Motivation”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7 (2): 181-197.
• Perry, James L., Beth Ann Petrakis ve Theodore K. Miller (1989), “Federal Merit Pay, Round II: An Analysis of the Performance Management and Recognition System”, Public Administration Review, 49 (1): 29-37.
• Perry, James L., Trent A. Engbers ve So Yung Jun (2009), “Back to the Future? Performancerelated Pay, Empirical Research, and the Perils of Persistence”, Public Administration Review, 69 (1): 39-51.
• Rogers, Everett M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., (New York: Free Press).
• Roy, Claude ve Francine Seguin (2000), “The Institutionalization of Efficiency-Oriented Approaches for Public Service Improvement”, Public Productivity & Management Review, 23 (4): 449- 468.
• Shaw, Jason D., Michelle K. Duffy, Atul Mitra, Daniel E. Lockhart ve Matthew Bowler. (2003), “Reactions to Merit Pay Increases: A Longitudinal Test of a Signal Sensitivity Perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3): 538-544.
• Soydan, Tarık (2012), “Eğitim Alanında Performans Değerlendirme Sisteminin Geçerliği Üzerine Yönetici ve Öğretmen Görüşlerine Dayalı Bir Araştırma”, Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 13 (1): 1-25.
• Swiss, James E. (2005), “A Framework for Assessing Incentives in Results-based Management”, Public Administration Review, 65 (5): 592-602.
• van Bockel, Jeroen ve Mirko Noordegraaf (2006), “Identifying Identities: Performance-driven, but Professional Public Managers”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19 (6): 585-97.
• Weibel, Antoinette, Katja Rost ve Margit Osterloh (2010), “Pay for Performance in the Public Service- Benefits and (Hidden) Costs”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (2): 387-412.
• Zaim, Halil (2007), “Performansa Dayalı Ücret Uygulanmasının Doktor Memnuniyeti Üzerindeki Etkileri”, Sosyal Siyaset Konferansları Dergisi, 53: 359-374.