It is often said that paying employees based on their performance is the most effective strategy to motivate them. However, I completely disagree with this method because of some reasons.
It is possible to encourage people working in their workplace by paying them based on their production and sells. Even though it is one of the approaches that can be influenced to work more efficiently, other factors are far more important. These factors include communication skills and some moral values like punctuality. For example, if employees raise money but after the time when they are compromise with their employers in contracts, resulting in dissatisfaction and demotivation. Another point is that when bosses do not respect for the people who work for them, they are highly likely to quit their job and do not care about the salary because working in irrespective environment can lead to a sense of sadness. It seems that in the opposite circumstances, we can see the people who work much better.
Moreover, in some careers, the output is not measurable. For instance, tutors have to evaluate students, teach them and meet their needs in myriads of classical environments. In some cases, more energy is required, leading to disappointing teachers who practice more with their students if they are low-paid. some may argue that monetary value is the priority, so through this lens, if a worker is impolite, he is still good enough for the company where he has been employed and this individual can be motivated through such an approach. However, I think it is not beneficial for the company in the long run, causing the loss of customers due to his bad temper.
In conclusion, although it is feasible to encourage people to pay more if they sell more, I highly contend that this is not the best option.