DANTAS, S. N. M.; DANTAS, Seane da Nóbrega Mascena
Resumo:
The creation and regulation of the annual productivity bonus to reward employees of
the Paraíba Court of Justice, through State Law nº 11,651/2020, represents a
significant milestone in recognition policies and the promotion of efficiency and
effectiveness in public service. The awarding of the bonus aims to recognize the
work of employees and judicial units that excel with the best productivity and
efficiency indices in the reference year, according to predetermined criteria and
indicators. Therefore, this study aims to assess the perception of the employees of
the Paraíba Court of Justice regarding the productivity bonus and its relationship with
functional performance, identifying how judicial governance is being implemented.
For this purpose, an exploratory, descriptive study with a quantitative and qualitative
approach was conducted. The study population comprised employees occupying the
positions of judicial technicians and analysts (judicial area) who carry out their
activities in first-degree judicial offices. Data collection was carried out on the Paraíba
Judiciary's portal, through the productivity panel, resolutions, reports, and
spreadsheets. Additionally, a questionnaire was administered to 129 employees of
the Paraíba Court of Justice via institutional email, with a link provided via Google
Forms. The results revealed a significant distrust among employees of the Paraíba
Court of Justice regarding the transparency, objectivity, and fairness of the criteria
used for awarding productivity bonuses. The analysis of the indicators and
parameters of Resolution No. 16/2023 indicates a need for significant improvements
in the definition and communication of these criteria. Moreover, the lack of
stakeholder participation in formulating the criteria contributed to the employees'
negative perception. The results also highlighted a division in employees' opinions
about the justice and fairness of the bonus, with some considering it fair and others
pointing out flaws in the evaluation criteria and the bonus amount. The study shows
that the current bonus model has a negative motivational impact, harming the
organizational climate and generating distrust, demotivation, and internal conflicts.
The perception is that the current criteria do not adequately capture the complexity of
employees' activities, overvaluing certain procedural tasks and neglecting other
important tasks, which distorts performance evaluation and can encourage unfair
competition. The linkage of the bonus to external factors and the lack of predictability
in the evaluation rules are pointed out as factors that compromise the justice and
transparency of the process, resulting in a demotivating and uncooperative work
environment. In light of these issues, it is clear that a joint effort is needed to review
and improve the productivity evaluation parameters. This includes ensuring
transparency and objectivity of the criteria used, as well as adequately considering
the complexity and particularities of the work performed by employees. Only then will
it be possible to establish a fairer, more reliable, and effective evaluation system that
properly recognizes and values each individual's effort and contribution to the proper
functioning of the judiciary.