This paper provides answers to questions, contained in the case study. The main idea, promoted throughout the paper’s entirety, is that in order for the Cavendish Hall Hotel to be able to increase the quality of the affiliated employees’ performance, the latter should be provided with incentives to become increasingly associated with the company’s corporate values. The most serious flaw with the design of the payment system (introduced by Daphne Jones), is the fact that it is being based upon the neo-Liberal (Libertarian) assumption that, while addressing their professional duties at work, employees act in the thoroughly autonomous manner, with the prospect of making a monetary profit serving them as the only performance-stimulating incentive (Giroux, 2005). Within the context of the Libertarian paradigm of management, Jones’s initiative did make a good logical sense. After all, the introduction of her ‘progressive’ payment system should have resulted in increasing the overall extent of the Hotel’s operational efficiency, which in turn should have led towards making this Hotel more commercially competitive. In the reality, however, the introduction of this system proved to counter beneficial. The reason for this is that, contrary to what Libertarians believe, the functioning of a particular commercial enterprise is not merely the sum of the concerned employees’ professional performances. Rather, it is something that comes as a result of these employees continuing to indulge in the close and personal interaction with each other, while at the workplace. What it means is that the performance of a commercial organisation cannot be discussed outside of what may be identified as the set of the discursively relevant societal factors – something that never occurred to Jones. Therefore, the implementation of the mentioned payment system was doomed to sustain an utter fiasco from the very beginning. Apparently, while designing the new payment system in question, Jones remained thoroughly arrogant of the fact that the qualitative aspects of how employees interrelate with each other, affect the Hotel’s overall performance as much, as do the money-related considerations, on these employees’ part. There can be only a few doubts that the introduction (announcement) of the score-based payment system, on the part of Jones, was not well conceived either. The reasons for us to think in this way are as follows:  1. Due to the absence of the thoroughly objective performance-appraisal system, the introduction of Jones’s initiative naturally prompted staff-members to assume that the effectiveness of how they address their professional duties will be somehow reflective of their ability to press guests for tips. This simply could not be otherwise – being an intellectually bright individual is not the main indication of a professional adequacy, on the part of those who seek to be hired as porters or chambermaids.  2. After having heard that their performance will be ‘score-tested’ and that even the most underachieving staff-members will still be given a 1 % raise to their salaries, the would-be-affected employees naturally came to conclude that the manner, in which they used to address their professional duties (prior to the system’s introduction