Do you think that, as a manger, you would use bonuses regularly?

Why or whynot?Yes because everyone needs a little

encouragement and motivation to keepup the good work. It feels
good to be recognized for your hard work and italso makes you
happy to be a part of the company.

2.Can you think of a time in your own life when being evaluated
and rewarded on aspecific goal lead you to engage in negative
and unproductive behavior?When a teacher comes up to me and
says Im doing a great job or put a lotof effort in and the teacher
lets me know shes proud I sometimes get overconfident and
slack off.

Do you think that, as a manager, you would use bonuses regularly? Why or why not?
As a manager, I would not use bonuses regularly. Bonus is a pay plan that rewards employees for
recent performance rather than historical performance. No one is disputing that bonuses can help
companies attract and retain the best employees. Nor does anyone deny that bonus can encourage
people and boost their performance but it often has the opposite effect if bonus is given too regularly.
Rewards that occur too frequently lose the ability to motivate employees because the surprise and
incentive lessens over time. Due to bonus is based on recent performance, the performance goal is
always set higher and higher after rewarding because employees need continually strive to achieve
higher goals. In this context, bonuses can encourage cheating once rewards is dependent on
outcomes because people will take the shortest route to those outcome.
Using bonuses regularly can bore employees over time and they will feel little incentive to improve.
When times are bad and firm need to cut bonuses, productivity and performance of employees who
receive bonuses regularly is obviously going down. Money can have a motivating effect, but it can also
affect stress levels because people spend too much time thinking about how to achieve the rewards
instead of the task in hand. These people normally gains no satisfaction from their job. Undeniable,
bonus can boost employee performance, increase productivity and create more engaged workforce but
also negatively impact the workplace if employees are over-rewarded. Striking a delicate balance
between incentives and performance figures is necessary to keep the workforce motivated and
continually striving to achieve higher goals.
Do you think that, as a manager, you would use bonuses regularly? Why or why not?

Yes, I think as a manager I would use bonuses regularly.

I agree with the article that bonuses can backfire, but I personally think that most of the times
they keep employees satisfaction level up. Employees feel up beat when rewarded, this would
increase their performance and efficiency. Rewards may back fire but I they would work as
positive catalyst for individual and companys performance most of the times. It would increase
employees satisfaction, self esteem, respect and love towards their job and company.

Can you think of a time in your own life when being evaluated and rewarded on a specific goal
lead you to engage in negative or unproductive behavior?

No, I cannot think of a time when rewarded that lead me to engage in negative behavior.

Each time I got rewarded, I got more respect, satisfaction towards my job and that always helped
me in increasing my productivity and positive behavior.

Do you think providing group bonuses instead of individual bonuses would be more effective or
less effective? Why or why not?

Providing group bonuses have both positive and negative sides. It definitely helps in equity
theory, where people tends to compare their compensation and rewards with their peer.

But I personally think individual bonuses would be more effective. As when we provide
individual bonuses, we rate every individual based on their performance. I think if every
individual is performing better, it will definitely help company to perform better. So every
individual should be rewarded based on his/her performance, so he/she stays focused on his/her
performance. While if we provide bonuses to the employees based on group performance, in that
case star performers might get less rewards because of low performers in the team. This will
increase the dissatisfaction in star performers. If I am not wrong, star performers are the first
priority for any...

) USA: The USA have a federal republican form of government where President is the national as well as

executive head. There is a separate constitution(which bears allegiance to the federal constitution of

1787) as well as citizenship for every state and they are all bound together in a federation,thus all working

as a whole with their autonomy intact. The Constitution of US specifies the subjects listed for the

national/federal and the ones reserved for the States and also the residuary powers lie with the states

only.There are three level of governments - national or federal,state and

local(counties,townships,cities,etc). Separation of powers between the legislature,executive and judiciary

is an important aspect. The Senate (Upper House) and House of Representatives(Lower house) comprise

the congress/legislature of the country. There is no specificity in the constitution regarding the

administrative system but it does state that the President can from time to time as and when necessary

get advise from the principal officers of the various departments regarding his duty as the chief executive

of those departments. There are thirteen departments in the administration that come under the direct

control of the president. The President however does not possess the authority to change/reorder his

cabinet as that power lies with the Congress.

Civil services in USA are also done on merit through competitive exams and also at times there are some

political appointees too who are chosen by the president for their extraordinary achievement in a

particular field suitable to the job. Some departments are headed by individuals whereas some are

headed by Boards and Commissions.

The United States government is best categorized as a constitutional federal republic. It is
based on the relationship between the federal government and the states, which retain a
measure of self-government.