PRP方案通常是私营部门组织中管理者经常使用的方案(Tsai, 2016)。手工、文书和技术性质的员工通常不那么包容，即使他们的工作绩效可以相对容易地衡量(Tsai, 2016)。涉及以业绩为基础的薪酬的计划通常是自筹资金的，其结果是业绩的改善比以奖励为目的的薪酬要好。一些批评者认为，薪酬并不是工作场所的主要激励因素(Belle, 2015)。弗雷德里克·赫茨伯格的观点认为，工作角色本身被认为是真实本性的动机来源。这一观点得到了一些研究的支持，这些研究称，员工将薪酬视为次要激励因素，在十大因素中排名第五。另一些人则表示反对PRP，因为它会导致组织中薪酬最高和最低的员工之间的差异加剧(Bregn, 2013)。CEO薪酬作为一个平均薪酬变量，近年来增长迅速。
IPRP方案存在一定的缺陷。毫无疑问，要清晰地表述一个公平的绩效衡量标准是困难的。制定不注重个人努力的目标也可能是困难的，因为这可能导致团队的高成本(Hasnain et al.， 2012)。此外，很难将奖励建立在适当的时间框架上。如果在短期内对它们进行了很大程度的定义，则可能并不完全符合本组织的最佳利益。如果他们被定义为长期的性质，这可能不会导致充分的激励参与者(Ljungholm, 2015)。认为PRP方案设计不合理会影响其他方案的改进。例如，一个组织可能会发现他们及时引入系统的努力被浪费了。他们可能会发现，这是因为员工不愿意接受必要的培训。培训限制了短期生产力，因此也将同样影响到他们的最后薪金。
Schemes of PRP are usually the ones that are often utilized for the managers within the organizations of private sector (Tsai, 2016). Employees that are of manual, clerical and technical nature are generally less inclusive even when their work performance is enabled for measurement with relative ease (Tsai, 2016). Schemes that involve performance based pay are commonly self-funded resulting in performance improvement better than the payments for the purpose of rewarding. It is argued by some of the critics that pay is not considered as primary motivator within the workplaces (Belle, 2015). The view of Frederick Herzberg is asserted within this that job role itself is regarded as the motivational source of true nature. This is backed up with the studies wherein it is claimed that staff have regarded pay as secondary motivator and ranked it at 5th in the list of ten elements. Others have showcased their objection to the PRP on the basis of the fact that it can result in accentuating the variance among the employees that are highest paid and lowest paid within an organization (Bregn, 2013). Pay of CEO as an average pay variable, is growing rapidly within the past years.
The following is identified as the key advantages. It delivers incentives of direct nature to the workforce for achieving the defined targets of work. It becomes possible to take into consideration employee contribution which becomes recognized as a tangible reward. Another benefit is the development of performance culture through the IPRP introduction. This helps in enhancing utilization of corporate framework for the line managers to derive help in order to set the goals considering it enables improvement of performance and productivity of an individual. IPRP allows for there to be more likeliness among the employees to concentrate over their needs in order to improvise if there is a direct link of it to the pay. Employees already know that best performance will be rewarded through an effective IPRP system. It is considered as a way that is most effective in combating with the poor performance and establishing a way of providing rewards to the high performers can enable retaining of the workforce that is most industrious (Gittleman, 2014).
There are certain drawbacks of the schemes of IPRP. There is no doubt that it could be difficult to articulate a fair performance measure. It could also be difficult to formulate objectives which do not focus on effort of individuals as this could result in costing the team highly (Hasnain et al., 2012). It can further be difficult to base the rewards on the appropriate frame of time. If they are defined in short term to a high extent, it might not be completely in the best interest of the organization. If they are defined as long term in nature, it might not result in adequately motivating the participants (Ljungholm, 2015). It is considered that PRP schemes with poor design could interfere with other programs of improvement. An organization for example might result in finding that their efforts of just in time system introduction were wasted. This they might find due to the workforce reluctance within undertaking the training that is required. The training had limited the short term productivity due to which it will similarly affect their final pay.