Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc. is one of the major providers of casino services. It is rated as the largest world provider of the same. The company possessions are branded as Harrah’s (R), Caesars (R), and Horseshoe (R). The Harrah’s still possesses World Series of Poker (R) and London Clubs International family of casino entertainment (Banker, 2011).
The strengths of Harrah’s in gain sharing program are evidenced by the incentive pay plan. This is one of the Harrah’s strategies of encouraging the employees to work hard in their services they offer to the customers. The strategy has a strong hold in motivating the workers to improve on their performance. In the process, the workers compete among themselves to improve on individual performance, and thus lead to an increase in performance level of the casino. As the performance level of the casino is increased, the rival casinos receive a healthy competition from it. The strategy conveys a message of respect and reward to the workers, despite the fact that the company is customer and revenue oriented. The workers performance with reference to customer service in a given department, or a building acts as an indicator of the share of the reward to be received. The workers get rewarded provided they improve on their service to customers. The reward is not based on the financial status of the company. Thus, if even in periods where the casino suffers a loss, the workers still get their rewards.
The Total Rewards scheme was an effective tool for collecting information from customers, and comprehending customers likes and dislikes. This facilitated formulation of relevant strategies to be used in the marketing of the company. It also led to efficient monitoring, evaluation and eminent improvement in customer base for the casinos. This was aimed at; gaining more from customers through game payments, an increase in returns for the company, and a desire to meet the goal of customer service.
The weaknesses of Harrah’s gain sharing program cannot be overruled. The incentive pay plan, results in many workers putting an extra effort in their performance. This is driven by the fact that most of them are in dire need of getting to the reward system cut line. As a result, most of them end up not meeting the expectations of the reward system and eventually feel not motivated.
Delong and Vijayaraghavan (2003) argued that, although the number of service metrics to customers had a positive increase, the pay back for the same services in many buildings was at a low turnout. This led to a consistence in difficulties in increasing the quality of services. But since the program was a continuous...