260 likes | 455 Views
STRATEGIC COMPENSATION. A Human Resource Management Approach. Chapter 4 Traditional Bases for Pay: Seniority and Merit. Prepared by David Oakes. Collective Bargaining. Designed to: Negotiate labor contracts Provide grievance procedures Led to: Job control unionism
E N D
STRATEGIC COMPENSATION A Human Resource Management Approach Chapter 4 Traditional Bases for Pay: Seniority and Merit Prepared by David Oakes
Collective Bargaining • Designed to: • Negotiate labor contracts • Provide grievance procedures • Led to: • Job control unionism • Collective bargaining units • Union shops
Seniority Pay • Designed to award job tenure • Set base pay with time- designated increases • Facilitates administration of pay • Avoids perception of favoritism • Poor fit with most competitive strategies
Longevity Pay • Designed to • Pay grade maximum for length of service • To reduce employee turnover • Used for most government employees • General Schedule System for federal employees
General Schedule • Divided into 15 Steps • Based on skills, education, & experience levels • Employees eligible for 10 within-grade pay increases • Step waiting periods of 1-3 years
Merit Pay Plans • Pay increases based on performance • Reward excellent effort or results • Motivate future performance • Helps retain valued employees • In 2004, raises averaged 3.5%
Elements of Merit Pay • Based on objective & subjective indicators of job performance • Periodic performance reviews • Realistic & attainable standards • Pay increases reflect performance
Performance Appraisal Plans • Trait systems • Comparison systems • Behavioral systems • Goal - oriented systems
Trait System Characteristics Work quality Appearance Dependability Cooperation Initiative Judgment Leadership responsibility Decision-making ability Creativity
Comparison Systems • Rates & ranks performance • Pay raises based on ranking • Types • Forced distribution • Paired comparisons
Behavioral Systems • Critical-incident technique (CIT) • Behaviorally-anchored rating scales (BARS) • Behavioral observation scales (BOS)
Critical Incident Technique • Employees & supervisors identify & label job behaviors & results • Supervisors observe & record • Requires extensive documentation
Behaviorally-Anchored Rating Scales • Based on 8 - 10 expected job behaviors • Employees rated on ability to perform each behavior • Ratings highly defensible
Behavioral Observation Scales • Documents positive performance behaviors on job dimensions • Employees rated on exhibited behaviors • Ratings averaged for over-all rating
Goal - Oriented System Management- by-Objectives • Supervisors & employees set objectives • Highly effective technique • Rated on how well objectives are met • Mainly for professionals & managers
Performance Appraisal Practices • Conduct a job analysis • Incorporate results into ratings • Trains supervisors on use • Implement Formal appeals process
Sources of Performance Appraisal Information • Employee • Supervisor • Coworkers • Subordinates • Customers/clients
360 Degree Performance Appraisal • Uses more than one appraisal source • Reduces recruiting & hiring costs • Appropriate for work team evaluations
Common Raters’ Errors • Bias errors • Contrast errors • Errors of central tendency • Errors of leniency or strictness
Bias Errors • First-impression effect • Positive halo effect • Negative halo effect • Similar-to-me effect • Illegal discriminatory biases
Contrast Errors • Supervisor compares employees’ performances to other employees, not to explicit performance standards • What if the best employee is average?
Errors of Central Tendency • Supervisors rate all employees as average • Usually occurs when only extreme behaviorsrequire documentation
Errors of Leniency • Leniency errors-managers rate employees’ performances more highly than they would rate them using objective criteria • Causes employees to believe they are going to receive larger pay raises than they deserve
Pay For Performance Link • Link appraisals to business goals • Analyze jobs • Communicate • Establish effective appraisals • Empower employees • Differentiate among performers
Limitations of Merit Pay Programs Failure to differentiate Poor measures Supervisor biases Poor communication Undesirable social structures Using non-merit factors Undesirable competition Motivational value small
Competitive Strategies • Lowest-Cost • Reduce output costs per employee • Merit pay works if tied to long - term productivity • Differentiation • Make product or service unique • Merit pay can promote creativity and risk-taking