Whatever happened to team reward?

Summary

With the latest research evidence showing that employers (in both the private and public sectors) are still interested in the concept of rewarding team performance, we:

• examine the incidence and types of team reward;
• review practice in a number of mini-case studies;
• highlight some of the potential benefits and drawbacks; and
• offer some practical advice on how to design and introduce a successful scheme.

Our analysis of team reward finds that:

• Despite its theoretical advantages, team reward remains on the margins of current reward practice, operated by a small minority of surveyed organisations. But recent research finds that there is a continuing interest in the concept of team pay.
• The low take-up of team pay reflects the serious practical difficulties associated with introducing and managing a scheme. To work effectively, team pay must meet a number of stringent criteria - it should support effective teamwork in team-based organisation; teams must be clearly-defined and identified; and performance measures should genuinely reflect team contribution.
• The definition of what constitutes a team varies widely. Teams may relate to: a small group of employees; to all employees within a particular site or location (such as a high-street store or offices within a department); or to all employees within the organisation.
• Team reward operates in a variety of forms and contexts. Schemes vary according to the level in the organisation, the size and nature of the team, the form of reward and the performance measures used.
• Team pay typically takes the form of a bonus payment, awarded in addition to basic salary and tied to some measure(s) of team performance. Team rewards may be triggered by one, or a combination, of individual, team and company-wide performance measures.
• Team pay typically represents one strand of an organisation's total reward mix. Team-based incentives are more common in a manufacturing environment where there is a greater tradition of teamworking and performance/productivity measures may be more clearly defined.
• The complexities of team-based pay schemes mean that organisations should think very carefully before considering its introduction. Experience suggests that team reward works best where it fits with an organisation's culture, structure and team-based operations. But in a white-collar setting, team pay may be more problematic, with the worst schemes characterised by ill-defined teams, flabby performance measures and, ultimately, a lack of support and commitment from staff.

The spread of teamworking throughout British industry, coupled with growing concerns about the efficacy of individual performance-related pay schemes, has led to a growing interest in the concept of team reward. By reinforcing teamworking arrangements and encouraging group endeavour, its supporters claim that team reward can maximise employee potential and improve business performance.

Yet, despite its theoretical advantages, team reward remains a minority pursuit, operated by just a small percentage of employers. The low take-up reflects the serious difficulties involved in implementing and operating a successful scheme. In practice, team pay is difficult to design and complex to administer. There is no standard model or approach - schemes vary widely according to the type of organisation, the nature of teamworking and the goals of the business.

Although some organisations believe team reward works for them, the research has identified a range of potential pitfalls - from how to define the scope and boundaries of what constitutes a team, to identifying clear and meaningful performance targets that genuinely reflect group effort and differentiate between high and low performers. As the CIPD's good practice guide points out: "Team pay looks good in theory, but its adoption and use is rarely painless"¹.

The rise of team reward

"The reaction against wholly individualistic and restricted merit pay plans, the wholesale restructuring and re-organisation of UK industry, a more 'caring and sharing' late 1990s' political and social milieu, and the popularity of team-based working and related HR initiatives; these have all fuelled the interest in team and collective rewards"².

The growth of team reward reflects the impact of important and far-reaching changes to the structure of industry and the management of employee relations. Flatter organisational structures, multiskilling for flexibility and greater pressures to improve quality, profitability and customer service have all created the conditions for greater teamworking. As competitive pressures have increased and organisations have looked to introduce payment systems that improve performance, attention has focused on how team-based pay systems might deliver these objectives.

The spread of team pay has also reflected a reaction by some employers against individual merit schemes that are seen to undermine the teamwork ethic. Rewarding employees for individual performance encourages them to focus on their own interests rather than those of the team, causing managers and team leaders to treat team members as individuals rather than approach them in terms of what they can offer collectively.

All the available research evidence suggests that, in introducing team pay, organisations are seeking to deliver three key objectives:

• support teamworking arrangements, encourage co-operation and underline the importance of effective teamwork;
• provide incentives and a method of rewarding improved team performance; and
• relate team reward to the completion of clear, agreed targets and standards of performance.

Defining team reward

"Team-based pay schemes provide financial rewards to individual employees working within formally established teams. Payments are linked to team performance or the achievement of agreed team objectives, and may be shared equally or proportionately among team members"³.

The definition of team reward generally used by pay commentators covers a wide range of schemes that reward employees collectively on the basis of their performance. This broad definition covers a variety of team pay systems, from small team incentives and site-based team bonuses to gainsharing plans and company wide profit-sharing schemes (see below).

According to reward consultants Brown and Armstrong, team reward schemes should be considered in relation to four key factors⁴:

• the level in the organisation and size of the team (organisation-wide, location or unit or small group);
• the nature of the team (permanent, temporary or project);
• the form of reward (cash bonus, shares, basic pay increase, non-financial recognition); and
• the types of performance measures used (financial, operational or other).

Extent of team reward

"Team pay is more talked about than practised" ⁵.

Despite the potential benefits, team pay remains on the margins of current UK reward practice. As the CIPD's recent research report commented "the expected growth in the use of newer forms of relating pay to performance (such as team rewards) has not materialised"⁶. Although figures on the extent of team pay vary quite widely, a batch of research studies have shown it is still relatively rare:

• The latest IRS annual review of reward strategies found team-based pay operated by just 5% of survey respondents or one in 20 employers⁷. Although this proportion is up from the 4.4% recorded in 1999, it is below the figures recorded by IRS in each year between 1996 and 1998 (see table 1 ).
• Confirmation of the relatively low coverage of team reward was also provided by CIPD research conducted in 1998⁸. This large-scale survey of 1,158 private and public sector organisations found that just 8% of management and non-management employees received team-based pay - a sharp drop from the 24% recorded by the then IPD in its 1996 study.
• An earlier report by the Institute for Employment Studies revealed that while team pay was on the increase, formal schemes still exist in only a minority of surveyed organisations⁹. Despite the growth in teamworking, few employers were found to have introduced team-based pay systems, with most still operating organisation-wide wage schemes such as merit pay or profit-sharing. Overall, only one in 10 respondents to the IES survey claimed to have team reward systems in place.
• These findings were echoed by research from the Industrial Society which concluded that few organisations were prepared to support the development of teamworking with team-based reward¹⁰. Of the 408 personnel and training managers surveyed, just one in 10 said their organisation paid a bonus based on team performance.
• However, two more recent reports - a European-wide study by Towers Perrin¹¹ and a joint study by the Confederation of British Industry and William M Mercer¹² - have found a higher incidence of team reward, with schemes operated by 22% and 19% of organisations respectively.

Continuing interest

"There is no doubt that, following the trend in the US, the level of interest in team reward has grown substantially in the UK, and latterly in Europe, in recent years"¹³.

Although the precise extent of current provision is open to debate, the research suggests that employers are still considering team pay for the future. Indeed, surveys have consistently revealed a considerable discrepancy- what the IES called the "lag" factor - between the number of organisations who say they are contemplating team reward and those that have actually introduced a formal scheme. Over the past five years, as table 1 shows, Pay and Benefits Bulletin's annual review of pay prospects has consistently found a gap between the number of organisations who say they operate team reward schemes and those contemplating its introduction.

Obviously, how one defines the concept of team reward will determine how widespread it is found to be. But, as Armstrong has commented: "Whatever definition of team pay is used, it is clear that this is not an approach to reward that has yet achieved, or perhaps will ever achieve, the popularity of individual performance-related pay schemes"¹⁴.

Types of team reward

"There is no single definitive approach to team pay - there are many different varieties of teams, many types of scheme and a wide range of payment systems"¹⁵.

The research evidence shows that team pay strategies vary according to the type of organisation, the nature of teamworking and the particular goals of the business. In practice, team pay is strongly influenced by the organisation's context - what matters is "best fit" rather than "best practice".

US compensation writer, Ed Lawler has identified three approaches to team rewards¹⁶:

• individuals may be rewarded for their contribution to the team (the most common approach);
• organisations may reward the team as a whole for its performance; or
• teams are rewarded in accordance with the success of the business.

How teams are paid will largely depend on the type of team. Mark Thompson of the IES has argued that unconsolidated bonuses are the most appropriate payment method for temporary teams, while permanent teams tend to adopt either a modification of performance-related pay (where appraisal incorporates a teamworking element or some form of bonus) or skills/competency-based pay.

For white-collar (managerial, professional, technical and clerical) staff, the main method of providing team pay is to distribute a cash sum related to team performance among team members. For example, the CIPD research in 1996 found that, of the 24% of organisations with team pay, based mainly in the financial services, hi-tech and pharmaceutical industries, almost nine in 10 (87%) operated team bonus or incentive schemes, 26% used team payments as part of an individual's appraisal process and 22% adopted team pay within a skill or competency-based reward scheme¹⁷. But while team bonuses are found to be the main form of payment, how the bonus pool is calculated and distributed varies considerably according to the nature of the team, the organisation's unique requirements and circumstances, and the performance criteria employed.

By contrast, team pay schemes operating for manual workers have tended to be more straightforward, with bonuses linked either to the physical output of teams or the time saved on team tasks. Some organisations operate multi-factor schemes where team payments are tied to a variety of targets such as attendance, quality and customer service, alongside the traditional productivity measures.

Advantages . . .

"The case for team pay looks good in theory, but there are some formidable disadvantages. The criteria for success are exacting and it has not been proved that team pay for white-collar workers will inevitably be effective" ¹⁸.

Measuring the effectiveness of team reward plans is difficult. Brown and Armstrong's recent review of existing research finds that there is "a fairly impressive body of evidence to indicate that, in appropriate circumstances, team reward plans are effective, in terms of both their 'hard' results and 'behavioural' impact"¹⁹. They note that, in a manufacturing context, profit-sharing plans are linked with high levels of financial shareholder return and gainsharing with significant productivity improvements.

But the authors point out that in many of these studies it is hard to assess the extent to which performance gains are dependent on "improved teamworking rather than the team reward vehicle". They also point to evidence which suggests that bonuses can help to improve the performance of an already effective team, but simply exacerbate the problems in a poorly performing group. Moreover, while the research shows that work-measured group incentive schemes can deliver significant increases in productivity, there is little evidence to show that team pay for white-collar workers will prove to be cost-effective".

One of the principal benefits of team reward highlighted by pay commentators is that it provides an incentive to improve team performance. Research by the CIPD in 1996 found that more than half of respondents (52%) with team pay were confident that it had improved business performance, although only 22% could quantify the performance increase²⁰.

Aside from providing an incentive to improve performance, team pay can also help to encourage teamworking and more cooperative behaviour, helping to clarify team goals and enhance flexibility through multiskilling. Group incentives may also help to provide for closer alignment between the efforts of individual team members and the wider objectives of the team and the whole organisation. The fact that team bonuses are generally paid as a non-consolidated lump sum bonus also gives organisations a greater degree of flexibility and control over their paybill costs.

. . . and disadvantages

Although team reward may offer some potential advantages, in the words of Brown and Armstrong, "the research is far from universally positive"²¹. The recent CIPD study noted that the relatively small take-up of formal schemes is probably due to the fact that many companies feel unable to meet the "stringent" conditions which need to be applied for its successful introduction. Indeed, two of the organisations that featured as team pay case studies in Pay and Benefits Bulletin 400 (back in 1996) have both since abandoned this approach. Ethicon has replaced its multi-factor team bonus with a straightforward individual incentive scheme (reflecting the complexities involved in the scheme's design and administration), while Kent County Council has removed the team award scheme covering head office management in its Adult Education Service which again reflected a number of problems, from defining the teams, to the time-consuming and bureaucratic process involved in determining the awards.

In general, commentators and pay practitioners have identified a range of potential pitfalls:

• identifying teams - the CIPD says that the success of team pay rests on the ability of organisations to identify "well-defined and mature teams";
• valuing individual contribution - it may be difficult to assess the contribution of individual team members and identify meaningful performance targets that provide a clear link between team effort and reward. By removing the focus on individual contribution, individual employees may be demotivated (particularly high performers). As Armstrong has noted, "members of teams still like to be treated as individuals . . . and rewarded accordingly"²². Employees find it particularly demotivating if they feel factors outside their control play a large part in determining their team bonus;
• organisational flexibility - team reward may also prejudice organisational flexibility by encouraging staff to stay in high-performing, well-rewarded teams while, conversely, confining the poorest performing staff to the lowest-rewarded teams. As a result, staff may be reluctant to move between teams;
• group norms - the pressure to conform to group standards may hinder organisational performance and stifle individual effort, by encouraging teams to maintain output only at the level required to trigger the financial reward; and
• peaking out - research on team reward has highlighted a "peaking out" effect, whereby performance gains tend to fall significantly after the scheme has been in operation from between two and three years.

Think before you leap

Organisations looking to introduce team reward should thus tread carefully. The practical problems involved can prove insurmountable. Schemes are difficult to design and complex to administer. To work effectively, team reward needs to fit closely with an organisation's working environment, culture and objectives. Teams need to be clearly defined as do performance measures and appraisal methods. The CIPD's action plan recommends that schemes should be planned carefully, customised to meet the needs and circumstances of the organisation and communicated fully to employees.

Similarly, the IES has identified a number of key steps to implementing team reward, including:

• setting team goals;
• developing performance measures;
• aligning team goals to organisational objectives;
• determining the method of salary allocation; and
• monitoring and reviewing the process.

Without adopting a staged, planned approach, Brown and Armstrong say there is a danger that some organisations will "repeat the earlier experience with merit pay: considerable initial publicity, building exaggerated expectations, leading to over-hasty scheme borrowing and introduction, with insufficient attention to scheme tailoring and implementation, leading to disappointing results, disillusionment and rejection"²³.

Team pay in practice

Set out below is a series of mini-case studies illustrating the type and variety of team pay systems currently in operation - from small team incentives and site-based rewards to company-wide team bonuses and competency-related pay plans. We also consider the Government's proposals to extend team pay to large parts of the Civil Service.

Small team incentives

PII

The Northumberland-based pipeline-inspection company operates a team-based bonus scheme for its 40 field crew employees which aims to "reinforce its team-based operations, relate rewards to the completion of team targets and encourage group effort and cooperation". The file crews are responsible for conducting pipeline inspections (identifying any leaks, cracks, corrosion, dents, etc) and preparing a written report which is sold to the respective client.

The size of these project teams varies according to the nature and type of work being undertaken, although they typically range from a minimum of two employees up to a maximum of around four. Team rewards are linked to the field crew's overall performance. Where an inspection is successfully completed on time and without problems, crew members are each paid a team bonus (in addition to their basic salary). The size of bonus for each team member varies according to their level of seniority and their contribution to the crew's performance, with awards paid as a percentage of base salary.

Site-based rewards

NEXT RETAIL

In the retail sector, team-based pay is being used to replace traditional commission payments. Next Retail's approximately 13,000 store-based staff are awarded a team bonus linked to the attainment of monthly sales targets. Where an individual store successfully achieves its pre-determined sales targets then all employees in that outlet receive a bonus payment, worth a percentage of base salary. This is paid on top of the annual merit award effective in February each year.

Similarly, one leading electrical retailer IRS spoke to said that they were currently trialing a team-based pay scheme in a small number of their high-street outlets. In place of commission payments, all employees within the store receive a bonus payment linked to the store's overall sales target. The trial is still in its infancy but the company says it is considering whether to roll out team reward nationwide across all of its stores.

TESCO EXPRESS

The company's store-based incentive scheme is linked to a number of factors. Having initially employed Express store staff on the same terms and conditions as its supermarket outlets, the company decided to trial a team-based multi-factor bonus scheme in new stores from March 1999. To develop teamworking and improve performance, the bonus scheme sets targets and rewards performance at a team level.

The scheme is based on four key factors: shop sales; recorded costs; unrecorded stock loss and customer service, which each account for 5% of the total bonus payment. Provided the store meets its targets, all employees below site manager level may receive a bonus worth up to 20% of base salary in each four-week period. While the potential payout is high, the basic pay rates for staff working in the Express stores were set 5% below the supermarket rates to part offset any additional costs. However, the company says that the aim of the scheme was not to save costs but to "incentivise" their Express store staff.

GALA CLUBS

The concept of tailoring team reward to improve the performance of a particular site or division is a feature of the scheme operated at Gala Clubs, the UK's largest bingo operator. The company's Marketplace scheme comprises a bonus pooling arrangement whereby clubs in a given city or region, pool their collective business targets. The business contribution of each club to the collective targets is agreed between clubs' general managers and area operations managers.

The bonus is determined according to each club's contribution and performance against the overall targets. It is available to all club employees from general manager to team member. Paid at half-yearly intervals, the bonus is worth the equivalent of two weeks' gross pay of each individual employee, and is awarded pro rata against their weekly hours worked and hourly rate. If targets are met each year, employees receive an unconsolidated bonus worth one month's salary.

Company-wide schemes

SE WATER

In some organisations - especially larger 0nes - company-wide bonus schemes are giving way to more flexible arrangements that try to tailor team rewards to specific parts of the business.

SE Water, like a number of the major utilities, currently operates a team bonus scheme for all its 340 employees below senior management level. The scheme was first introduced in January 2000 as a means of replacing the former Inland Revenue-approved profit-related pay scheme that was wound up when the tax benefit was removed by the Government. Initially, the company used the PRP pool to set the overall budget for its team bonus, which is linked to three key performance measures:

• operating profit;
• service levels (as measured by the water regulator Ofwat); and
• water quality.

The team pot is split roughly three ways in accordance with the above factors. In each category, employees may end up with a proportion of the bonus pot (90%, 95% or 105%) depending on their overall team performance. If company-wide targets are met, the team pot is divided among eligible employees who receive two six-monthly payments in February and August each year. Under the terms of their most recent pay review, employees were awarded a 3.5% across-the-board pay rise plus a team bonus from an overall pot of 3% (up 0.5% on the previous year).

But in the light of the company's recent reorganisation, SE Water has said that, in future, it hopes to break down the company-wide bonus scheme to reflect team performance in the various functional areas, such as network contract, leakage and debt recovery. Although the organisation is keen to retain a company-wide bonus element, it hopes to explore the possibility of other key functions operating their own team bonus schemes in the near future.

Multi-factor schemes

IBC VEHICLES

The multi-factor bonus scheme at IBCVehicles offers its 1,400 manufacturing employees the opportunity to earn a non-consolidated bonus worth up to 1% of basic salary.

The bonus is linked to the performance of the whole manufacturing operation in relation to four key targets - health and safety, attendance, product quality and meeting the production schedule - each of which accounts for a quarter of the potential award. These are "hit and miss" targets(set by the parent company General Motors) with a fixed payment made for reaching the set level of achievement. Under the terms of the most recent pay review, employees were awarded an on-target payment of 1% in December 2000.

Gainsharing

PHILIPS COMPONENTS

Other manufacturing operations prefer to employ a system of gainsharing. This is a formula-based type of bonus scheme that allows employees to share in the financial gains and efficiency savings made by the organisation as a result of improved performance.

At Philips Components, a subsidiary of the Dutch electronics giant, about 760 of the company's 890-strong workforce who are covered by a teamworking pay structure participate in a gainsharing scheme. This delivers a bonus payment to team members paid in addition to their basic salary rise. Provided that pre-determined output and yield levels are met, teams qualify for a bonus payment. Each team is allocated an award - either bronze, silver or gold - and individual team members receive an equal share of the appropriate bonus.

BP AMOCO, GRANGEMOUTH

Each year, employees at BP Amoco's Grangemouth site are awarded market-related pay rises plus a gainsharing bonus based on site performance. The site board agrees annual performance contracts for the forthcoming year. The gainsharing plan is divided between input and output measures. The former (which account for 35% of the overall bonus) cover people and organisation objectives, the completion of projects on time and the development of new strategy. Output measures (which account for the remaining 65%) include a range of factors such as cost, profits, safety and reliability. Financial, safety and reliability measures are annual or quarterly cash-based targets. Where these are met or exceeded, employees receive a share of the savings made. The input factors are straightforward " yes/no" targets, which only pay out if a project is fully completed within the year.

Combination schemes

CALL CENTRES

Team rewards have also become a common feature of call centre remuneration, with team bonus schemes operated by a third of respondents to an IRS survey (See Benchmarking call centre rewards ).

Employees at Sitel Consulting receive a bonus tied to a combination of individual and team performance measures relating to quantity, attitude/customer service and product knowledge. Payments worth up to 5% of gross salary are available, with the bonus weighted 80% to individual and 20% to team performance.

By contrast, Halifax Direct links bonus payments to a combination of individual, team and whole centre performance. The four key elements of the bonus scheme include: individual sales targets; customer service "hurdles"; team sales; and call centre performance. The team component is worth 2.5% of individual salary for on-target performance, rising to 5% for "exceeding" targets.

Competency-based schemes

PET PLAN GROUP

In some organisations, team pay arrangements have been adopted within the context of a skill-or competence-based reward scheme. The Pet Plan Group operates competency-related pay for teams. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cornhill Insurance, providing a range of insurance policies for animals such as cats, dogs and rabbits.

Pet Plan's competency framework consists of eight headings, broken down into further subheadings. These range from "task planning" and "motivating others" to "communication and business skills". To support this framework, there is a weighting system (rated 1 to 5) that shows the relative importance of each competency area to each role in the organisation. For any job role, the overall weighting is limited to a score of 20. As part of the appraisal process, line managers also assess individual performance by using a system of personal grading boundaries.

Using a grid, with the personal grading on the horizontal axis and the eight competencies on the vertical axis, scores are calculated by multiplying the weighting by the personal grading. A total for the eight competencies is determined for each employee and this score is added into team totals. This determines an overall pay pot for specific teams which is then divided according to employees' individual performance totals. Although appraisals are carried out quarterly, the process takes place annually. All pay awards are competency-related, with no across-the-board element. Under the terms of the latest deal, the remuneration "pot" was worth 4% on paybill and this triggered average awards worth around 3% to the company's 260 employees.

Public sector schemes

CIVIL SERVICE

An increased emphasis on team performance lies at the heart of the new pay arrangements proposed for large parts of the Civil Service set out in the Makinson report²⁴. The significance of the report lies in its proposal to move away from the current discredited system of individual performance awards to one based on team bonuses.

According to Makinson, these non-consolidated, non-pensionable awards should be kept separate from the appraisal process, be clearly differentiated from basic pay and give every employee the chance to earn a bonus worth up to 5% of base salary. Incentives should link to targets set out in the public service agreements and, in general, relate to the performance of an individual office.

Although Makinson's report was concerned with front-line staff working in four large government departments - the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise - the proposals are viewed as capable of wider application. HM Customs and Excise is currently piloting the introduction of team bonuses in a number of trial sites and was due to make a decision on the introduction of a department-wide scheme at the end of the last financial year.

This year's Treasury pay remit guidance to departments and agencies, says that implementation of team-based performance incentives "will start in 2001-2002". The guidance also notes that while team rewards have been less widely used to date, "team as well as individual performance" is seen as "key to better service delivery for some organisations". With team and individual incentives both having a potentially important part to play, the Treasury advises organisations to "design innovative reward systems that reflect their culture and values, the sort of business they are and the outputs and outcomes they are trying to achieve".

Only time well tell whether the plans for team rewards in the Civil Service prove successful. To succeed, team rewards will have to reflect genuine team effort and employ clear and meaningful performance measures. Although Makinson's proposals aim to ensure that team targets and incentives are "SMART" (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-limited), the exact measures to be chosen and how these will be tied to the goals set out in the Public Service agreements are still to be resolved. Moreover, any new scheme will have to overcome the serious problems associated with the current individual merit system (such as poor progression and narrowing performance differentials), while allaying the unions' concerns that private sector reward strategies cannot simply be grafted onto a public sector culture where the values and needs are very different. The slow progress to date of the pilot scheme in HM Customs and Excise suggests that the scale and practicalities involved in designing and managing team pay schemes are already proving complex and time-consuming and indicate that, as in other sectors, the take-up of team reward is likely to prove slow and limited.

Team reward action plan

Before introducing team pay, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recommends that organisations "conduct a rigorous analysis of their situation and requirements" to ensure that team pay fits with the organisation's culture and will support its key business objectives. In developing a scheme, the CIPD good practice guide sets out an action plan that employers should follow:

1.Assess the need for team rewards.

2.Find out if the organisation is ready for team rewards.

3.Identify teams.

4.Set objectives.

5.Consult employees.

6.Consider options in conjunction with employees:

• team pay; and/or
• other forms of non-financial team reward.

7.Design the team pay scheme in conjunction with employees considering:

• performance measures;
• formulae linking performance to reward;
• the value of bonuses (bonus scales);
• the method of distribution to team members; and
• the rewards (if any) for individual contributions related to performance, skill or competency;

8.Communicate details of the team pay scheme to employees.

9.Consider other non-financial methods of rewarding teams.

10.Conduct training in managing team rewards and in teambuilding.

11.Introduce team rewards.

12.Monitor and evaluate the team reward system.

Source: Rewarding teams, CIPD Good practice guide, 2000.

¹"Rewarding teams", M Armstrong, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Good Practice Guide, 2000.

²"Paying for contribution: real performance-related pay strategies", D Brown and M Armstrong, Kogan Page, 1999.

³"Team reward: part 1", Pay and Benefits Bulletin 396, March 1996.

⁴"Paying for contribution: real performance-related pay strategies", D Brown and M Armstrong, Kogan Page, 1999.

⁵"Rewarding teams", M Armstrong, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Good Practice Guide, 2000.

⁶"Reward determination in the UK: research report", P Thompson and S Milsome, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2001.

⁷"Pay prospects for 2000/01 - a survey of the private sector ", Pay and Benefits Bulletin 507, November 2000.

⁸"The IPD performance pay survey: executive summary", 1998.

⁹"Teamworking and pay", M Thompson, Institute for Employment Studies, April 1995.

¹⁰"Managing best practice, no. 19: teambuilding", Industrial Society, January 1996.

¹¹"Euro Rewards 2000: reward challenges and changes - survey results", Towers Perrin, 1999.

¹²"Employment Trends survey 2000: measuring flexibility in the labour market", Confederation of British Industry and William M Mercer, 2000.

¹³"Paying for contribution: real performance-related pay strategies", D Brown and M Armstrong, Kogan Page, 1999.

¹⁴"Rewarding teams", M Armstrong, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Good Practice Guide, 2000.

¹⁵"The IPD guide on team reward", M Armstrong and O Ryden, 1996.

¹⁶"Pay and organisational effectiveness", E Lawler, McGraw Hill, 1971.

¹⁷"The IPD guide on team reward", M Armstrong and O Ryden, 1996.

¹⁸"Rewarding teams", M Armstrong, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Good Practice Guide, 2000.

¹⁹"Paying for contribution: real performance-related pay strategies", D Brown and M Armstrong, Kogan Page, 1999.

²⁰"The IPD guide on team reward", M Armstrong and O Ryden, 1996.

²¹"Paying for contribution: real performance-related pay strategies", D Brown and M Armstrong, Kogan Page, 1999.

²²"Rewarding teams", M Armstrong, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Good Practice Guide, 2000.

²³"Paying for contribution: real performance-related pay strategies", D Brown and M Armstrong, Kogan Page, 1999.

²⁴"Incentives for change: rewarding performance in national government", J Makinson, available from HMTreasury, tel: 020 7270 4558, email: public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk, free.