You are a HR Manager/Director.  You are currently running into a brick wall trying to establish a true pay-for-performance culture.  Old school managers want to give everyone 3%, others want to give increases without a review.  In short, your shop is a freak show.

It could be worse.  You could be attempting to bring pay-for-performance to the US Government. (!)

In a cultural change project with scope rivaling bringing the Clampetts to Hollywood, the Washington Post reports performance management is emerging for consideration in D.C:

"The credibility of performance-management systems, as they are called, will be especially important as the government moves closer to private-sector compensation practices that give managers more discretion in setting salaries. The Pentagon is spending about $65 million to create a more rigorous system for evaluating employees and linking their job ratings to pay raises and bonuses. When completed, it could be a model for the rest of the government."

Why that blurb is encouraging, storm clouds are already rumbling over the federal government's pay-for-performance drive, with many federal employees skeptical any pay-for-performance system can be administered in an impartial manner. Can politics really be kept out of the system? Recently, Lurita Doan, head of the General Services Administration, was under fire for possible violations of the Hatch Act, which was designed to protect government workers from partisan politics.

It appears some GSA employees have received poor evaluations or been demoted for speaking to Congressional investigators. Job performance was involved in the firings of eight US attorneys. Political loyalty appears to have trumped performance. Performance ratings and bonuses are at the heart of a brouhaha at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Can pay-for-performance operate effectively in Washington?  Did Jethro Clampett stay focused on one career for years at a time?