Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relation between countries’ values of individualism/collectivism and organizations’ top management team (TMT) pay structures. Individualistic countries are expected to prefer more hierarchical TMT pay structures and collectivist countries are expected to prefer more egalitarian TMT pay structures. The manuscript also investigates the international implications of the relation between TMT pay structures and organizational performance. Specifically, it is proposed that a country’s level of individualism/collectivism will mediate the relation between TMT pay structure hierarchy and organizational performance.

A pooled sample of data from 56 organizations in 12 countries was used to investigate the research questions. Individualism/collectivism was measured using country specific individualism/collectivism scores and top management pay structures were operationalized using Gini coefficients. Organizational performance was evaluated using return on assets.

Support was found both for a preference for more hierarchical TMT pay structures in individualistic countries, and that a country’s level of individualism/collectivism mediates the relationship between an organization’s top management’s pay structure and company performance.

Findings demonstrate that organizations use pay structures consistent with their environments. Results suggest cultural dimensions can contribute to understanding cross-national TMT pay structures and that national culture plays a significant role in the relationship between TMT pay structure and company performance.

A striking feature of Jaques' work is his “no nonsense” attitude to the “manager‐subordinate” relationship. His blunt account of the origins of this relationship seems at first sight to place him in the legalistic “principles of management” camp rather than in the ranks of the subtler “people centred” schools. We shall see before long how misleading such first impressions can be, for Jaques is not making simplistic assumptions about the human psyche. But he certainly sees no point in agonising over the mechanism of association which brings organisations and work‐groups into being when the facts of life are perfectly straightforward and there is no need to be squeamish about them.

The UK's Department of Employment latest Research Paper (No. 43) is entitled “Part‐time employment and sex discrimination legislation in Great Britain” and is written by Olive Robinson and John Wallace.

This paper aims to present a theoretical framework which reveals the relationship between job evaluation (JE) and the development of fair wage structure from the organizational justice (OJ) perspective. It focuses on analyzing the dimensions of job-based pay structure and the use of multifaceted construct of OJ (procedures, distribution and interaction) to determine how the perceived justice of JE's multi-levels construct contributes to achieve the fairness of wage structure.

This paper adopts an analytical descriptive approach in terms of explaining the perspectives and viewpoints related to the analysis. This paper is based on examining a theoretical framework provided by the authors based on a theoretical review of literature and a set of empirical evidences.

The design of a hierarchical wage structure counts on the multidimensional approach of JE which consists of three dimensions (processes, outcomes and social system). In addition, the determination of wage structure fairness is dependent on the assessment of the perceived justice of: JE's procedures, wages distribution and management's treatment with its employees.

This study provides a new theoretical contribution in studying the relationship between JE and the design of fair wage structure. This contribution can be regarded as a theoretical foundation for conducting some empirical and comparative studies in the future. The study affords directive mechanisms to policymakers in order to enhance the fairness of the wage structure across the state.

Pay for performance has been studied in Western nations, but much less so in China and its non‐public enterprises. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the current situation of pay for performance in China's non‐public firms, specifically the importance of pay for performance in the current pay system and reasons for adopting pay for performance plans by the management.

A multi‐case study of non‐public sector, knowledge intensive firms based in Shanghai, China is presented. In total, 12 private‐owned, joint ventures and multinational companies from pharmaceutical, information technology and investment industries are included.

This paper explores that pay for performance has been widely used in non‐public sector as an important component of the employee pay mix. Performance also plays a role as a key norm in employee pay determinant plans. Three major factors are identified as reasons for management to apply pay for performance plans. The first concerns external factors – market practices/best practices; while the other two factors are internal reasons – the need to attract and retain good performers as well as the need to improve employee performance.

This paper discusses the content and context changes of pay for performance practices in China after the economic reforms in 1978 to present. It is now evident that Chinese firms are becoming much more receptive to performance‐oriented rewards.

Those who would become economists today have the choice of two ideologies, the one maintaining that the inner laws of the capitalist system are equilibrating and maximizing; the other, that they doom that system to self‐destruction. In the natural sciences, a theory is ‘a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.’ (Third definition in the Shorter OED.) By contrast, in economics it is used, ‘In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something …’ (OED fifth definition).

This study aimed to test how the effects of types of support on employees’ performance and commitment were moderated by structure of pay, namely by the degree to which pay was contingent on level of performance. The constructs of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) were decomposed into two types, according to whether the support was directed at doing the task or at the welfare of the person. The study proceeded to examine how each type influenced performance and commitment under different pay structures.

The survey was conducted in Israel. A self‐report questionnaire was administered to a sample of managers and professionals. The questionnaire consisted of new scales for person‐focused and task‐focused support along with measures of performance, commitment and structure of pay. The main interaction predictions were tested with regression analyses.

Pay contingency interacted with task‐focused POS and with person‐focused PSS in affecting performance. The interactions related to commitment were not significant. The results justify the differentiation of support to the two types. They indicate that different kinds of support that are perceived to be provided either by the organization or by the supervisor boost performance under different pay structures. The effect of support on commitment is not affected by the structure of pay.

Similar surveys should be conducted in additional cultural contexts and with samples representing diverse populations, so that the conclusions from this research can be further generalized. In order to establish causality, a longitudinal design should be used in future research. It is also advised that performance should be measured through outside agents, for example through supervisor evaluation.

In contexts where employees’ pay is contingent upon their level of performance, employers should emphasize task‐related organizational support and supervisors should exert person‐related support in order to boost performance. A reverse pattern is effective when pay is relatively invariable, namely when it is not contingent on performance.

The study is a first attempt to differentiate organizational support, which so far has been studied as one global construct. It introduces further differentiation by proposing that features of the pay structure influence which support type is effective in influencing performance at work.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive review and critique of what we already know about pay systems in Chinese state‐owned enterprises, to identify the gaps in the literature and to stimulate more research in this area.

The paper first describes the policy issues at the macro‐level (government policies) in order to put micro‐level pay practices in a pertinent context. Then the paper provides a detailed review and critique on current empirical studies on pay practices in Chinese enterprises, their antecedents and consequences. Finally, the paper identifies potential research questions and provides some directions for future research.

The paper concludes from the extensive review of the current literature that the following research areas merit attention: Why do some firms pay their employees more than other firms? Why do we observe different types of internal pay structures among firms? What are the consequences of these different structures? Why is the link between pay and performance weak in some firms but strong in others? Under what conditions pay‐for‐performance enhances firm performance?

The paper is one of the most comprehensive reviews of the literature on compensation practices of Chinese companies.

The purpose of this article is to evaluate employee perceptions of pay practice in civil service executive agencies in the wake of changes in the established institutions of pay determination.

A survey design drawing original data from 1,057 civil servants, all members of the IPMS (now merged with EMA to form Prospectus), the union representing scientific, technical and professional occupations in the civil service.

The study distinguishes four distinctive pay practice systems. Pay satisfaction is found to be positively related to two principles: a clear effort‐reward link and an understanding of pay criteria. However, employees are more satisfied with pay when their organisational pay system accords with traditional rather than newer practices. This suggests that embedded norms continue to exert a powerful influence over employee perceptions of pay.

Whilst the respondent profile accurately reflects those working in the scientific, professional and technical grades (predominantly male, white, full‐time workers), aspects of this profile do not accurately reflect the civil service as a whole.

Old habits “die hard”. A sobering message for those practitioners who readily assume that forced change in pay systems will elicit “desired” employee responses.

Against a backdrop of fundamental changes in the character of pay determination in the civil service, this study presents employee perceptions of pay practices, shows how they combine in ways that reflect a distinct set of pay systems and reveals the impact associated with these systems on attitudes and behaviours.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether perceptions of fair pay are characterised by social norms about the appropriate bases of pay differentials.

In order that the employees could voice their opinions without the restrictions of pre‐coded categories individual interviews were carried out with employees from five private sector organizations. The design of the study allowed an examination of attitudes towards pay criteria in the context of changes in organizational pay structures towards more individualism in pay awards.

The most popular bases of pay were “responsibility”, “qualifications” and “performance”. The attitudes appeared to reflect widespread norms about the most appropriate bases of pay. There was some evidence for an interaction between employee attitudes towards pay determination and organizational characteristics on the design and implementation of pay policies.

The interview methodology restricted the size of the sample and consequently the generalisations that can be made from the findings. Future research could use qualitative or quantitative methods to check whether the findings replicate with different types of groups of employees.

The paper contains useful information for human resource practitioners about maintaining “felt fairness” in the design of new pay systems.

The qualitative approach of this study produces rich information about employee perceptions of pay differentials in the context of current changes towards more individualised pay determination.