It is common in Britain for museum people, along with other national
and local government staff to be in performance pay schemes.
In these, the basic structure is that one is appointed to a pay-band,
and then get moved up the band faster, or only moved up, depending
on performance.  Some schemes give pay points to those who do
'acceptable' work, some only to those who do 'exceptional' work.

Performance is measured, usually, on the extent to which tasks/
objectives for the previous year have been completed.  As the
assessing is done by the person's manager, and countersigned
by the manager's manager, those involved can react to disasters
and opportunities which make the performance indicators inapropriate.
Also, there is an underlying assumption that the indicators are
agreed between employee and manager.

One point that is of concern to employees and unions is what
happens when the manager fails to complete the report at the
proper time.  The best solution I have seen is for the employee
in a late-running report to be treated as if he or she had recieved
a 'exceptional' marking, and the manager as if he or she had recieved
an 'unacceptable' or 'acceptable' marking.

All points on the scale are subject to annual negotiation, so even
if one is not moved up a point on the scale, there is a possibility
that the salary will rise.

'Unacceptable' markings do not result, as far as I know, in reductions
in salary, rather they (should) start a course of remedial action,
training, and so on which leads to an 'acceptable' marking, or to
dismissal.

Some organizations use three categories, some five, some four.

--
Patricia Reynolds
[log in to unmask]