The problem is, those existing systems were there for a reason. And I'd guess the reason usually was that the previous, less formal system also had their weaknesses. Most notably, they are very probably very subjective.
IMHO performance ratings and deciding who gets a promotion simply are very hard problems, and no good solutions. So people are always dissatisfied with the current approach, and so add rules and layer to fix it. Eventually, the system becomes unworkable and bloated, and are stripped down to the basics again. Which we currently observe.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if the cycle continues, and more rules and formal processes will be added.
The more creative the work, the higher the difference in performance. It seems to, it's unfair that people who do substantially more, are paid the same amount of money as underperformers.
If you take the view that collective action always trumps individual action, no matter how great, then your most effective performers will be team-oriented people who might not see things this way.
Do you take this position when dining at a restaurant? When your food is amazing, do you pay more for it? When it's poor, do you pay less?
Probably not. If you care a lot about the restaurant's quality (maybe it's your neighborhood place), you might offer some constructive criticism in the form of yelp reviews or feedback cards. If that fails, you'd probably reluctantly sever your relationship with the restaurant.
Why should this kind of relationship not apply to employees? The only difference being an employer should probably do more to try to get performance up before severing the relationship.
>Do you take this position when dining at a restaurant? When your food is amazing, do you pay more for it? When it's poor, do you pay less?
Actually, I do. I leave tips depending on the quality of food and serving.
>Why should this kind of relationship not apply to employees? The only difference being an employer should probably do more to try to get performance up before severing the relationship.
It applies to employees as well. Employees might leave for a place with a better pay, actually, I know a lot of software developers who change the job once in 2-3 years to make it more market because their employees don't think they need to pay more. If employer is doing something which is quite unique, and people need to learn this on the job and it takes a lot of time, not paying good performers is detrimental to the business.
Is this a regional/local situation where you live? I've worked at a handful of restaurants in the Northeastern US in the back-of-the-house staff and never once did cooks get a cut of tips.
IMHO performance ratings and deciding who gets a promotion simply are very hard problems, and no good solutions. So people are always dissatisfied with the current approach, and so add rules and layer to fix it. Eventually, the system becomes unworkable and bloated, and are stripped down to the basics again. Which we currently observe.
But I wouldn't be surprised at all if the cycle continues, and more rules and formal processes will be added.