This paper examines Lockheed Martin's compensation philosophy, which ties employee pay directly to individual performance and contribution to company objectives. While the current annual evaluation system is effective, the paper identifies a significant flaw: the 12-month interval between salary reviews discourages employees who improve performance mid-year from seeing timely compensation increases. The paper recommends transitioning to semi-annual evaluations to accelerate rewards for high performers, enhance employee motivation, and foster internal competitiveness. The analysis considers implementation challenges, including increased HR and supervisory workload, and argues that these investments would strengthen organizational culture and focus.
The current compensation philosophy of Lockheed Martin is based on a pay-for-performance ideal, yet the issue extends beyond simply compensating individual effort. Performance—and corresponding pay—is determined by market conditions and how well an individual's contributions advance the company's overall objectives. The company establishes clear goals, and employees who work diligently to help Lockheed Martin achieve these targets receive the highest compensation levels. While lower performance may not result in dismissal, it ensures that employees do not receive compensation equivalent to higher-performing colleagues. Despite the overall quality of the compensation plan, one significant flaw exists that warrants consideration and correction.
This flaw centers on the extended time between salary evaluations. Evaluations occur only once annually, in February. For employees who improve their performance in March or April, nearly a full year must elapse before they are rewarded for their increased dedication to the organization. While it would be impractical to adjust salaries constantly based on fluctuating work levels, moving to semi-annual evaluations would be feasible and potentially advantageous. Such a change would allow diligent employees to advance more rapidly and see salary increases aligned with their perceived contribution level. Rewarding employees in this manner could sustain higher performance levels and attract talent seeking organizations that promptly recognize and value commitment.
Several key factors affect the internal and external environment surrounding Lockheed Martin, including financial and cultural organizational aspects that influence employees, compensation strategy, and stakeholder perception of policy changes. When organizations address compensation practices, two philosophical schools typically emerge. The first prioritizes equal pay for equal work performed. The second recognizes that unequal compensation should reflect unequal contributions and performance levels. Properly executed, "equality" in compensation should mean paying individuals based on their work quality and the extent to which they advance organizational goals. This principle underlies Lockheed Martin's success, as the company rewards higher performance with higher compensation.
Within this framework, employees effectively determine their own wages—within their job's pay range—through the effort and dedication they invest. This approach represents a powerful motivational tool that can foster stronger organizational commitment. While money alone does not motivate all employees, those who receive higher compensation for greater effort recognize the tangible value of increased productivity and are more likely to sustain it. Not every employee will respond equally, but those seeking advancement at Lockheed Martin will concentrate their efforts on becoming visible to management. This consideration reinforces the case for semi-annual evaluations: employees forced to wait an entire year for re-evaluation, even while performing at higher levels, may lose focus and motivation. They may feel their increased efforts are not being appropriately recognized, undermining the pay-for-performance model's effectiveness.
Implementing semi-annual evaluations would demand additional human resources in the HR department due to the increased volume of reviews. The evaluation process would essentially double in frequency, shifting from annual to bi-annual cycles. This change would not necessarily require doubling the HR staff, but it might necessitate hiring additional HR personnel or restructuring responsibilities to ensure sufficient time for thorough evaluations. Similarly, supervisors would need to dedicate more time to performance assessment, since they are responsible for communicating employee performance data to HR and recommending compensation adjustments. This expanded role would require supervisors to observe employee performance more closely and track progress over extended periods rather than conducting a single annual review.
Such organizational changes could affect Lockheed Martin's internal culture and increase competitive dynamics. However, this would not necessarily prove detrimental. While the company already maintains strong external competitiveness, heightened internal competition could create a leaner, more focused organization. Top performers would rise and receive recognition more quickly, and the entire company would concentrate on priorities that truly matter. All employees would develop clearer understanding of organizational expectations, enabling them to align their daily efforts with company priorities. This mutual clarity would benefit all stakeholders: employees would see faster reward for their contributions, and Lockheed Martin would grow stronger and more strategically focused. Such positive cultural shifts could establish beneficial patterns for future employee generations.
"Costs and organizational culture benefits of the recommendation"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.