Blue-eyed boys

A recent proposal that teachers should be subjected to performance-related pay has been widely welcomed. Surely it will reward the conscientious and dedicated while weeding out the incompetent and the timeservers.

However, in reality, performance-related pay doesn’t work like that at all. Rather it tends to reward those who commit themselves to corporate objectives, who are good at ticking boxes, who toe the line and don’t rock the boat. In other words, crawlers and arselickers. It is what has been described as “blue-eyed boy syndrome”.

Many years ago, I saw someone spectacularly promoted far beyond his abilities because he was adept at saying what the top management wanted him to, and enthusiastically adopting every latest fad and buzzword, while being able to maintain the image of being a bit of a hard-talking rough diamond. He eventually crashed and burned, but for many that is the route to the absolute pinnacle of corporate life.

How can a system in which pay increases are determined by the capricious whim and prejudice of management be in any way regarded as fair? People should be paid the rate for the job, dependent on how much it takes to recruit suitably-qualified candidates, and bonuses should be handed out to everyone determined by overall corporate performance.

In my experience, the most effective workers in any organisation are those who are dedicated to their job, but plough their own furrow and have a healthy disrespect for management bullshit. Consequently they are often dismissed as “difficult” or “mavericks”. But slavish, toadying conformity never produced any business breakthrough, nor inspired any school pupil.