薪酬管理外文文献翻译

外文文献翻译译文一：外文原文原文：What Make a Salary Seem ReasonableHighhouse Scoot，Brooks-Laber Margaret EAlthough considerable research attention has been directed at understanding perceptions of salary fairness, very little attention has been given to how salary expectations are formed or how trivial elements of the job search context may influence these expectations.Twoexp eriments demonstrated how the simple manipulation of response options for a multiple-choice item may influence subsequent salary expectations and salary satisfaction. Results are discussed in light of Parducci's(1995) contextual theory.It has been repeatedly shown that the way in which a question is asked can influence perceptions of what is normal. For example, Harris found that people who were asked 'How short was the basketball player?' estimated lower heights than people who were asked 'How tall was the basketball player?' Similarly, Loftus found that people who were asked 'Do you get headaches frequently?' reported more headaches than people asked 'Do you get headaches occasionally?' More recently, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues identified numerous examples of how the wording of survey items can strongly impact self reports. For example, Schwarz reported research showing that people claimed a higher life success when the numeric values of a life-success item ranged from -5 to + 5, than when they ranged from 0 to 10. He described another study showing that psychosomatic patients reported symptom frequencies of more than twice a month when the item's response scale ranged from 'twice a month or less' to 'several times per day', but did not do so when the scale ranged from 'never' to 'more than twice a month'. Schwarz suggested that respondents to surveys assumethat the values in the middle range of a scale reflect the 'typical' value in the 'real world', whereas the extremes of the scale correspond to the extremes of the distribution. More provocative is the finding that, in addition to affecting respondents' behavioural reports on surveys, these simple context effects may also affect subsequent judgments. For example, patients in Schwarz and Scheuring's study reported a higher health satisfaction when the response scale suggested that their symptom frequency was below average.Similar to the Schwarz and Scheuring study, our research examined the effects of response scales on subsequent judgments. However,the response-scale paradigm was used to examine broader theoretical issues regarding the impact of the job-seeking context on expectations about pay. Despite the importance of starting salary in the job choice process,very little research has focused on factors that has focused on incumbent satisfaction with organizational pay noted that the existing meagre research on job-seeker expectations for staring salary is more fragmented than programmatic.The authors suggested that researchers draw from the vast literature on decision-making to understand how individual and situational factors influence salary perceptions.Our failure to find effects consistent with adaptation-level theory for our sample of job seekers was consistent with Parducci, Calfee, Marshall, and Davidson's (1960) failure to support adaptation-level theory predictions in the lab. Parducci and his colleagues found that, holding all else constant, variation in the mean of a distribution of numbers had no effect on student perceptions of the typical number. Similary, Ordóñez et al. (2000), in a study of distributive fairness perceptions, found that MBAs presented with two reference salaries (i.e., salary of a peer paid higher and salary of a peer paid lower) did not average these reference points in the manner predicted by adaptation-level theory. Ordóñez and her colleagues recommended that future research examine what happens when people are presented with more than two reference salaries.Parducci's (1995) contextual theory generally proposes that attribute judgments reflect a compromise between a range principle and a frequency principle. Most relevant tothe present concern is the frequency principle, which is a tendency for people to assign the same number of contextual representations to equal segments of the scale of judgment. For example, if fewer than one half of salaries available in the immediate context (e.g., salaries in classified advertisements) are below a particular salary, that salary is perceived to be in the bottom half of the scale of judgment. As another simple example, consider a summer job seeker whose three friends have accepted jobs with hourly rates of $5, $10, and $11. An offer of $8.50 may be perceived to be near the bottom of salaries available in the market, because two of the three available strategies are above that offer, even though it is objectively above the midpoint of the salaries of his friends. A related phenomenon, called the alternative-outcomes effect (Windschitl & Wells, 1998), has been observed for people judging the likelihood of winning a raffle. In one study, participants were presented with two different raffles involving 10 tickets. In the first situation, they were told 'You hold 3 tickets and seven other people each hold 1.' In the second situation, they were told 'You hold 3 tickets and one other person holds 7.' People felt much more certain of winning in the situation where they held more tickets than any individual competitor (3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1) than when they held fewer tickets ( 3-7), despite the fact that the probability of winning either raffle is the same. In both this example and the previous hypothetical salary examples, people are influenced by the context in which information is presented, ignoring the absolute value of the current situation. Contextual theory posits that when events that elicit hedonic judgments are concentrated at the upper endpoints of their contexts, they elicit greater happiness, regardless of the absolute levels of the events. This means that an important factor influencing satisfaction with any particular outcome is the placement of that outcome relative to other possible outcomes, or the proportion of contextual representations below that outcome. Other researchers have also suggested that reference points are not combined into a single comparison point (Kahneman, 1992) and that satisfaction is determined instead by the relative frequencies of positive and negative events (Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1990). When applied to starting salary expectations, these models seem to suggest that the frequency of salary options above and below a targetsalary, not the lower and upper bounds of the salary distribution, will influence starting salary expectations. The experiments were designed to examine this proposition within the context of a simple multiple-choice item on a career-expectations survey.Participants were business students (N= 204) enrolled at a medium-sized public university in the Midwestern United States. Participation occurred during class time in seven marketing classes, ranging in size from 21 to 37 students. The majority (i.e., 90%) of the students were juniors or seniors, and male (52%). The average participant was 21 years of age. A'career attitudes survey' was designed that contained seven typical items inquiring about students' plans after graduation, along with demographic questions. Items were in multiple-choice and open-ended formats, and addressed issues such as how many jobs the students planned to apply for, what methods they planned to use to find jobs, and the nature of their expected first job. Embedded within the survey was the starting salary item that was the focus of the endpoint-level and option-frequency manipulations. The item read 'What do you expect your starting salary to be?' Participants received one of four response scales differing on the two factors. Table 1 presents the response options by endpoints of the range (low= $15,000-50,000; high= $30,000-65,000) and frequency of multiple-choice options above a target salary(low frequency; high frequency). The overall range roughly corresponded with the range of annual starting salaries of recent graduates from the business school (i.e., $21,000-65,000). Note that the manipulation of range endpoints (see Fig. 1) is distinct from a manipulation of range width, which has appeared in earlier research by Rynes et al. (1983) and Highhouse et al. (1999). The width of the salary range (i.e., $35,000) remained constant across experimental conditions in our study. The option-frequency manipulation was designed using $40,000 as the target salary(low frequency = 1 response option above $40,000; high frequency = 4 response options above $40,000). The target salary is the midpoint of the entire salary range (i.e., half the distance between the lowest salary in the low endpoint level condition and the highest salary in the high endpoint level condition). Each participant received one endpoint level and one frequency condition in a2 x 2between-subjects factorial design.Although previous research has shown that the social environment can have an impact on perceptions of a fair staring salary, far fewer studies have investigated the impact of contextual features of the decision-marking environment that may influence salary expectations. The research that does exist has focused on the width of the range of salaries available in the market. Our research builds on this work by showing that factors other than range width may influence salary expectations. Drawing from Parducci's contextual theory. We expected that, holding salary range constant, the frequency of salary options above and below a target salary would influence salary expectations independent of the level of the endpoints of salaries in the market. Our first experiment, using the manipulated response-option paradigm, showed that the frequency of response options above a target salary in the response categories for an item on a typical career survey influenced later reports of expected staring salary for a group of business majors. Contrary to Helson's adaptation-level theory, the salary endpoint level had no effect on expectations for this group. Thus, consistent with Parducci's proposition, our findings showed that one must consider not only the level of the endpoints of salaries in the immediate context but also the perceived frequency of salaries. The second experiment showed that these effects can extend beyond salary expectations to influence satisfaction with job offers. The frequency of response options above the midpoint salary in a multiple-choice item had a main effect on salary satisfaction and job attractiveness for psychology students presented 20 min later with a hypothetical job advertisement.These research results suggest that salary expectations,at least for naive job seekers,can be influenced by simple features of the contextual environment. Unfortunately, longitudinal investigations are highly dynamic.Future research is needed that employs more moment-to-moment assessments(see Stone, Shiffman,& DeCries, 1999)of job seekers' salary expectations.We do suspect,however,that our results are not limited to the simple numerical anchors set up in our experiments.Considerable research has shown that simple numerical anchors can strongly influence judgments of experts as well as novices (e.g, Northcraft andNeale,1987).Similarly, studies using such varied experts as agricultural judges (Gaeth Shanteau,1984) ,parole offices (Carroll& Payne, 1976),and court judges (Ebbesen & Konecni,1975) have concluded that the experience of these judges does not make them less susceptible to simple context effects.Barber and Bretz(2000) noted that understanding how different contexts can evoke difference in how a given salary offer will be evaluated is important for organizations"as organizations cannot predict employee reactions to pay practices without knowledge of the standards against which those practices will be evaluated" We believe that,in addition to the importance of this knowledge for organizations,such knowledge is important for job seekers. Job seekers need to be aware that their salary expectations can be inadvertently affected by their exposure to salaries that may or may not be meaningful to their situation.People are constantly faced with skewed distributions of salaries because they tend to hear more about fellow job seekers who were paid high salaries than they are to hear about fellow job seekers who were paid the industry average. This creates a cognitive context in which offered salaries are likely to be perceived as being in the bottom half of the scale of judgement,even when they are objectively near the middle of the distributions of salaries. This could be positive if it leads employees to hold high expectations of pay,as these expectations may be associated with higher negotiated salaries.Generally,though,it is important for job seekers to realize when they are being affected by context.Job seekers need to be aware of the danger of marking inferences from small saiples,as small samples of salaries may not represent the salary distribution in the population of relevant jobs.Demonstrating context dependence may be as simple as showing people how a multiple-choice option on a typical survey can influence their standards for appropriate pay.Future research might consider whether such basic training techniques can inoculate job seekers against simple context effects.Source：Frequency Context Effects On Starting-Salary Expectations. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, V olume 67, 2003(1): P69二、翻译文章译文：什么使薪酬看起来合理？虽然很多研究工作应该注意理解对工资公平、怎样看管给出了期望的薪水如何形成或者是多么微不足道的要素影响上下文可以找工作的这些期望。

薪酬管理外文文献翻译1 薪酬管理的涵义与内容1.1薪酬管理的涵义企业的薪酬管理，就是企业管理者对本企业员工报酬的支付标准、发放水平、要素结构进行确定、分配和调整的过程。

传统薪酬管理仅具有物质报酬分配的性质，而对被管理者的行为特征考虑较少，其着眼点是物质报酬。

现代企业薪酬管理理念发生了完全不同的变化，薪酬管理的着眼点转移到了人。

企业经营首先要树立目标，企业目标的实现有赖于对员工的激励。

激励分为外部和内部两种。

按照传统的类别划分，工资、奖金、福利等物质报酬是外部激励要素；而岗位的多样化、从事挑战性的工作、取得成就、得到认可、承担责任、获取新技能和事业发展的机会等则是员工的内部激励要素。

现代薪酬管理将物质报酬的管理过程与员工激励过程紧密结合起来，成为一个有机的整体。

1.2薪酬管理的内容企业薪酬管理主要包括以下几个方面的内容:1、确定薪酬管理目标薪酬管理目标根据企业的人力资源战略确定，具体地讲包括以下二个方面:(1)建立稳定的员工队伍，吸引高素质的人才；(2)激发员工的工作热情，创造高绩效；(3)努力实现组织目标员工和个人发展目标的协调。

2、选择薪酬政策所谓企业薪酬政策，就是企业管理者对企业薪酬管理运行的目标、任务和手段和组合，是企业在员工薪酬土所采取的方针策略。

(1)企业薪酬成木投入政策。

比如，根据企业组织发展的需要，采取扩张劳动力成本或紧缩劳动力成本政策。

(2)根据企业的自身情况选择企业合理的工资制度。

例如，是采取稳定员T收入的政策，还是激励员工绩效的政策?前者多与等级和岗位工资制度相结合，后者与绩效工资制度相结合。

(3)确定企业的工资结构以及工资水平。

例如，是采取向高额1资倾斜的工资结构，还是采取均等化，或者向低额结构倾斜的工资政策?前者要加大高级员工比例，提高其薪酬水平；后者要缩减高薪人员比例，降低其员工薪酬水平。

因此薪酬政策是企业管理者审时度势的结果，决策正确，企业薪酬机制就会充分发挥作用，运行就会畅通、高效。

关于薪水谈判的研究性别是个体因素，其做为谈判倾向的起薪，到目前为止，已经获得极大的关注。

许多实验室研究已证实,女性与男性相比，可能对回报的期望值低（卡拉汉-利维及麦斯，1979年；梅杰与科纳雷，1984年），而实际上产生这样的期望低工资也很有可能为女性（梅杰,旺德斯利斯, &麦克法林，1984年）。

这些结果的研究人员推测：女性与男性比更少为起薪谈判。

性别差异在谈判的可能性最近已经审查的范围内模拟招聘过程（卡曼＆海特尔，1994年）。

男性更有可能报告说，他们将从事哪些研究人员称之为“积极的谈判策略”，获得他们所需的工资水平，如拒绝提供初始工资和使用的谈判战略得到一个可接受的工资。

女性，另一方面，更可能预期使用“的传统战略”，如强调了相关的教育，并强调其动机如何努力工作。

除了采用不同的战术，实验室研究还表明，与男性相比，妇女可能会收到不太有利的谈判结果（金＆辛森，1994年）。

如果女性谈判技巧比较缺乏，通过工资谈判训练来降低男女之间的差异是很可能的。

在抽样的收到以内容为导向的谈判培训的工商管理硕士毕业生（例如学习了各种战术，可以以合理的薪金要求被雇佣），男性通过谈判得到的结果明显比女性更好。

然而，当自我管理培训（涉及制定目标，确定障碍，并制定计划，克服已查明的障碍）在以内容为导向的培训中被介绍，性别差异的对薪酬谈判的影响达到最低（史蒂文斯，诺维茨基，＆吉斯特，1993年）。

自我管理培训，有效地提高了妇女自觉控制局势，从而增加通过谈判提高其工资的可能性。

然而，由于史蒂文斯等人（1993）研究利用一个模拟的谈判任务，在何种程度上会讨价还价的妇女在现实世界的薪金谈判，不能进行评估，并围绕问题的成功妇女的努力，提高初始工资提供仍然没有答案。

虽然这些问题已收到超过较少注意性别方面的工资谈判，一些研究探索的影响结构性因素对谈判的策略和成果的一个实验室内的范围内。

例如，一个与他人有密切关系的电视广告的价格谈判的研究。

中文5240字本科毕业设计（论文）外文参考文献译文及原文学院经济管理学院专业工商管理年级班别学号学生姓名指导教师年月日薪酬管理与精神激励机制摘要薪酬只是员工待遇的一部分，企业仅重视薪酬激励，非但不能收到预期效果，甚至陷入恶性循环中。

企业在完善薪酬管理过程中，应当重视精神激励的作用。

关键词：薪酬，待遇，精神激励，人力资源管理1薪酬管理的困难性与员工难以对薪酬满意的原因薪酬管理是人力资源管理学中理论与实践相差距离最大的部分。

学习薪酬管理方面的理论知识对人力资源经理的帮助几乎是微不足道的。

之所以如此，主要是因为薪酬管理有如下三个特性：1、敏感性薪酬管理是人力资源管理中最敏感的部分，因为它牵扯到公司每一位员工的切身利益。

特别是在人们的生存质量还不是很高的情况下，薪酬直接影响到他们的生活水平。

另外，薪酬是员工在公司工作能力和水平的直接体现，员工往往通过薪酬水平来衡量自己在公司中的地位。

所以薪酬问题对每一位员工都会很敏感。

2、特权性薪酬管理是员工参与最少的人力资源管理项目，它几乎是公司老板的一个特权。

老板，包括企业管理者认为员工参与薪酬管理会使公司管理增加矛盾，并影响投资者的利益。

所以，员工对公司薪酬管理的过程几乎一无所知。

3、特殊性由于敏感性和特权性，每个公司的薪酬管理会差别很大。

另外，由于薪酬管理本身就有很多不同的管理类型，如岗位工资型、技能工资型、资历工资型、绩效工资型等等，所以，不同公司之间的薪酬管理几乎没有参考性。

从理论上讲，只有当员工的真实付出与真实回报不成正比的时候，员工才会对他的薪酬不满。

但实际上，即使薪酬的发放有多么公正和合理，大多数的员工也会对自己的薪酬不满。

对薪酬的不满并非客观的不公和不合理所至，其原因就在于：（1）低于期望值当员工的薪酬低于他的期望值时，就会对薪酬不满。

而这个期望值只是员工个人的自我定位。

一般而言，员工往往过高估计自己在公司中的贡献和价值，自然就会有过高的期望值，自然就会有许多人对自己的薪酬不满。

原文一：Pay for performanceNot everyone sees the trend toward paying for skills and/or competencies as a good thing:It would be easy to conclude from reports in the business press that merit pay is dead and organizations need to reconstitute pay plans to pay people in some new way. Suggestions include paying employees for the knowledge, shills, abilities and behaviors they bring to the workplace. Although interesting, this call for wholesale reform overlooks fundamental tenets of economic and behavioral theories.Pay for performance is the holy grail of modern compensation administration—widely sought but hard to actually achieve .Pay for performance is the flag, motherhood, and apple pie, but it is easier said than done. One primary problem is defining performance properly, so that the organization pays for results and not for effort. Once over that hurdle, there remains the large impediment of finding enough money to make the reward for top performance meaningful. Many different approaches are used—various variable pay schemes, annual awards in lieu of permanent increase in base pay, and the traditional merit pay salary increase.The concept of pay for performance has different meanings to different people. Many either fail to recognize the pay for performance fails when the different in reward between adequate performance and outstanding performance is inconsequential or cannot solve the problem of funding adequate differentiation while dealing with essential range maintenance costs.For example, Logue reported on the introduction of performance-based pay for unionized employees in a public university. The old system had four annual, essentially “automatic,”5percent steps from minimum to maximum. The new system added 10 percent to the top of the salary range. All employees would move through the regular range automatically, but growth within the top 10 percent was based only on performance. Since 20 percent of all salary increase funds were allocated to performance increases, top performers could receive additional amounts over andabove the automatic movement through the standard portion of the salary range.Such performance-based salary increases (PSIs) went to 12 percent of the represented employees, who receive PSIs ranging from 3.9 to 5.9 percent in the first fiscal year (2000 to 2001). PSIs ranged from 0.5 to 4 percent in fiscal year 2001 to 2002 due to the greater number of employees receiving increases. One wonders what happened the third year! In any event, achieving an extra 1 or 2 or 3 percent is unlikely to stimulate anyone to significantly higher levels or performance, particularly when they are guaranteed automatic annual increases.Others take steps to address the differentiation problem:Through the implementation of a new tool called the Monoline Merit Increase Matrix, one organization shows how it rewards employees based on performance and gets more mileage out of its merit increase budget…The Monoline Merit eliminates the use of comparisons for merit increase. It is designed to create a larger distinction in the merit percent provided between top performers and employees who meet expectations and are paid fairly for their work…Under the new methodology, managers must examine the possibility that employees who meet performance goals do not have to receive a merit increase if they are competitively paid.Pay for whose performance :Even if one can solve the differentiation problem, there still remains the problem of determining the locus of performance pay plans all devolve into two broad categories, depending on whether performance is measured at the group or at the individual level:Group plans can fail to specifically direct or reward individual employees behaviors. As a result, group plans have produced somewhat limited results with respect to improvements in employees performance or organizational profitability. Further, group plans do not different reward individual who perform well vs. those who do not. This may exact the perception of pay inequities among better performers.Performance pay plans based on individual performance are more effectives in improving individual employee performances vs. group plans. Typically, these plansprovide specific and objective goals for employees to work toward. However, rewarding individual performance may reduce cooperation among employees and focus employees on a restricted range of results.Designing an effective compensation programFirst, an effective compensation program should recognize that monetary rewards do change employee behavior despite what some academicians have claimed. The power of money is twofold. It not only is valued for itself, for what it can buy, but it can also serve as a powerful communication devise, as a score card if you will.Second, stick to the basics when designing a salary program. Pay people at a reasonable market level for base salary based on survey data (what is reasonable will depend on your ability to pay and the availability of the talent you need.) focus primarily on external pay market data, and maintain internal equity only within each separate pay market. That is, internal equity is important within information technology, engineering, accounting, etc., but is not important between these groups as they are in separate pay markets. One size never fits all!Third, use variable pay everywhere. For those positions that cannot be individually measured, use group measures (work group, location, division, and/or corporate measures, as appropriate). For those positions that can be individual measured, use a combination of individual and group measures (individual measures to motivate individual effort, group measures to encourage cooperative behavior).Fourth, keep the performance measures as simple as possible and limit their numbers, preferably to two or three, Remember, what you measure is what you get, so pick your measures carefully.Fifth, communicate, communicate, communicate. Communicate the details of the program. Communicate the rationale for the measures—that is, how they fit into the organization’s strategy. Commu nicate on an ongoing basis actual performance versus target performance.Source: Martin G.Wolf,2002 “linking performance scorecards to profit performance pay” ACA News,vol.41,no.4,april,pp.23-25.译文一：绩效薪酬并不是所有人都认为薪酬体系向技能或能力工资转变的趋势是一件好事：从各类经济刊物的报道中不难看出，绩效工资已经不起作用了，企业需要使用新方法重塑他们地薪酬计划。

中文3600字原文：外文出处International Foundation News外文作者Frank L.GiancolaA Framework for Understanding New Concepts in CompensationmanagementOver the past 25 years, several major new concepts in compensation management have reflected overly ambitious goals . Experts have disagreed about their basic premises, and the business world has had trouble accepting them. Examining the history of three such concepts-skill-based pay, broadbanding and total rewards -is worthwhile , for it reveals the challenges they present and helps define a pattern for how professionals deal with these and other new ideas in the profession . Skill -Based PayThe skill -based approach for determining base pay is based on an employee’s skills, rather than his or her current job. Leading thinkers in compensation management have supported this approach since the 1980s. According to compensation experts Patricia Zingheim and Jay Schuster it is the “next great thing in pay and benefits”. In an interview Edward Lawler called it “the compensation system of the future.”This approach shifts the focal point from the job to the person, with the goals of providing employees with greater incentives to improve skills and competencies and giving management a more versatile workforce. Generally, employees are paid to acquire higher skills in their own field or lateral ones in related fields. From a systems standpoint, job descriptions, job evaluation plans and job-based salary surveys are replaced by skill profiles, skill evaluation plans and skill-based salary surveys.The disappearance of the traditional job provides the primary rationale for this change. Today，employees are said to have variable and unstable work assignments , with roles that cannot be assigned a valid pay rate in traditional job evaluation plans . Contentious TenetsThe main tenets of skill-based pay (SBP) conflict with mainstream business thinking. The first tenet is that pay should be based only on skills, taking the value of an employee’s work to an organization out of the pay equation. In effect, SBP advocates are asking compensation professionals to set the same pay rate for employees, based on their skills, even though they might have substantially different duties and responsibilities and make substantially different contributions to a firm’s success. The omission of something of fundamental value to the firm makes the concept a hard sell with managers and employees. In recent years, compensation experts have affirmed the value of work as an essential part of the pay equation.The second tenet is the notion that pay should be based on how many skills employees have or how many jobs they potentially can do , not on the job they currently hold . Here again, SBP advocates make what many firms consider an unreasonable request. They introduce a controversial pay for potential concept that directly contradicts the pay for performance concept compensation professionals have diligently strived to establish. In recent years, emphasis has been on what employees actually accomplish on the job, rather than on static concepts relating to who they are, such as their management potential or length of service. Also, by asking firms to pay employees for a job that they might perform in the future, SBP is a practice few firms could afford. With these core beliefs, SBP has experienced an uphill battle for acceptance as the primary means to determine base pay.Questionable AssumptionThe SBP concept rests on a questionable assumption -that a job does not reflect the skills of the person required to do it. That makes job evaluation plans an inappropriate method for evaluating skills and setting pay rates. According to SBP advocates, skills must be valued by using market-based skill surveys. They overlook the fact that most point-factor job evaluation plans award the bulk of their points for the possession and application of knowledge, skills and abilities. On this point, Lawler has stated ,“In many cases , this ( skill-based pay ) will not produce dramatically different pay rates than are produced by paying for the nature of the job . After all, the skills that people have usually match reasonably well the jobs that they are doing.”Also overlooked is the fact that many occupations (e.g., accountant, electrician and actuary) do reflect the skills required to perform them; when salary surveys are conducted and employees are paid based on occupation titles and job summaries , skill requirements are being valued .Ambiguous DefinitionFew “new” ideas in compensation management represent a complete break from the prior ideas. Although SBP was billed as a new idea in compensation when introduced, it included old compensation practices, such as career ladders and generalist classifications.The result is that today，when companies are surveyed to see if they use SBP practices , those that use old SBP practices are counted among the firms that have signed on to the concept . This gives a false picture about the adoption of this “new”, way of paying employees and contr ibutes to varying descriptions of the concept’s level of acceptance.Competency-Based PayIn the 1990s, competency-based pay was introduced as a type of SBP plan for professional and managerial employees. It calls for base pay to be determined based on competencies instead of duties and responsibilities. Shortly after the concept was introduced, controversy arose as to what constitutes a legitimate competency. Today, there are many alternatives to choose from—core, organizational, behavioral and technical competencies. One compensation expert has asked for a governing body, similar to those in the accounting profession, to help sort out what the termcompetency actually means in the world of employee compensation.Changes in the economy and the nature of work—such as the rise of the contingent workforce and the disappearance of traditional jobs, which were predicted to result in a need for SBP—have not materialized. That and the lack of administrative support systems probably have contributed to the concept’s slow growth. Today, SBP is associated with blue-collar workers in manufacturing industries, which are in decline in the United States, while competency-based pay has had a greater impact on performance management than on base pay.Despite these issues and setbacks, prominent compensation experts continue to support the concept.BroadbandingOne of the most visible concepts in compensation management in the 1990s was broadbanding, which collapses many salary grades and ranges into fewer bands with broader salary spans. Its popularity was attributed in part to the 1990s trend to downsize organizations by reducing the number of hierarchical levels.When broadbanding was introduced, some thought leaders saw it as a new pay program for managing salaries and supporting organizational initiatives, such as eliminating bureaucracy and reducing costs.Others saw it as a “higher order of change” and a new way of managing human resources that would be a catalyst for organizational change and represent much more than a new way to reduce bureaucracy and costs.The concept was loosely defined, and companies were said to have welcomed the opportunity to adapt it to their unique needs. And some were given credit for adopting it, even though one cited plan had 13 bands, with multiple salary ranges within them, making it resemble a traditional salary administration plan.FlexibilityOne constant in the dialogue on broadbanding is that it provides the flexibility to accommodate change and to define job responsibilities more broadly. Proponents have dismissed traditional salary administration systems as being too structured, with too many rules.Execution IssuesEarly experience with broadbanding was not completely positive. Although these systems were supposed to reduce costs, managers had too much discretion to increase salaries within the bands. After several years, salaries had progressed to levels that could not be justified.“Second generation” banded systems gave less freedom for managers to determine salaries. These systems include more bands and specifically define salary ranges within the bands,making them resemble the traditional systems they were supposed to replace.Two compensation textbooks have reserved final judgment on the value of broadbanding. One sees it as a potential reprise of the type of salary administration “flexibility” that gave rise to the traditional plans. These plans were developed to reduce favoritism and inconsistencies that resulted from a lack of structure and controls that exist in broadbanding.Total RewardsIn the past decade, professional associations, major human resource consulting firms and compensation experts have advocated the total rewards approach to the development of a firm’s rewards strategy. Some billed it as more than a passing phase and possibly the greatest breakthrough in compensation since health care plans were combined with pay packages.The approach calls for HR professionals to consider all aspects of the work experience of value to people when developing a strategy to attract, retain and motivate employees .It extends the prior concept of total compensation, which encompassed only pay and benefit programs, and gives form to an idea described in a compensation textbook widely used in the 1970s.Thus, the idea is more novel than radical.In the early 2000s, after the intense competition for talent and the economy of the 1990s had cooled, employers sought ways to reduce costs and needed a strategy that places more emphasis on low-cost rewards and less on costly pay and benefit programs, such as stock options. Total rewards meets that need with its message that learning and development, recognition and other soft-dollar programs are as important as pay and benefits in satisfying employees. In addition, it provides a flexible and broad array of rewards that responds well to globalization, mergers and acquisitions, and other forces that increase workforce diversity.Execution IssuesThe launch of total rewards confirmed the axiom that new compensation programs typically are simple in concept, but complex in execution. When HR practitioners put the concept into practice, they encountered many stumbling blocks. That led two consultants to describe human resource professionals in late 2004 as “feeling confused or sensing chaos regarding total rewards.” A primary cause of the confusion was experts who used different names, definitions and models to describe it. Corrective actions were taken to address these issues, courses were developed on total rewards management and the basic concept was simplified.Still, compensation professionals are likely to use other terms to refer to it, with the labels for outdated reward strategies—compensation and benefits package and total compensation—being used about as frequently as the new term.ConclusionsIn sum, new concepts in compensation management have the following general profile:•Are novel, but not radically new•Are simple in concept, but complex in execution•Do not always have expert agreement on main tenets•Overlap with prior concepts, creating a misleading impression about their adoption•Result in major execution issues, largely because of conceptual confusion •Do not reach expected adoption figures•Have a place in the field, but not a dominant role.Given this pattern, compensation professionals are advised to examine newconcepts closely to see if the ideas are too broadly defined, reflect expert agreement,represent significant change and provide guidance on execution and best applications. In addition, practitioners should closely review usage surveys of new concepts to determine if a concept’s broad definition and historical roots have caused related prior practices to be counted as evidence of the new one’s acceptance. They also should seek information as to why organizations have turned down or stopped using a new concept. And, at the risk of appearing behind the times, they would bewell-advised to wait until the knowledge base on the concept has been fully developed before adopting it.Source: International Foundation News, 2009(5):p12-15.译文：薪酬管理新概念的理解框架法兰克·詹科拉在过去的25年里，几个主要的薪酬管理的新理念过于反映其雄心勃勃的目标。

文献信息：Prasetya A.Enterprises salary system design and performance evaluation [J] Economic crisis, health systems and health in Europe，2015,5（2）：103-112.原文Enterprises salary system design and performance evaluationPrasetya AAbstractAny effective way of management must rely on a basis: people, all the staff of enterprises. Compensation system as an important aspect of enterprise management system, for an enterprise to attract, retain and motivate employees have a significant impact, attract, retain and motivate key talent, has become the core of the enterprise recognized goal. The compensation system design is not only an effective way to realize the core objective, is also an important content of modern enterprise development.Keywords: salary system and equity incentive, senior executives, design1 IntroductionHuman capital to the enterprise wealth maximization, the greatest degree of retaining key talent, attract potential talent, the basic principals and successful is perfect competitive compensation system. With the concept of human capital is more and more people Heart, attract, retain and motivate key talent, has become the core of enterprise determine target, compensation system for enterprises An important aspect of the system, to attract talents play an important role. Compensation system design is an effective way to reality is the core objective, but also an important content of the development of the enterprise to modernization, so the height weight by enterprises Depending on the.2 Literature reviewEarly in the traditional compensation phase, the employers always minimize workers to cut costs as much as possible, and through this method make the Labor of workers have to work harder in order to get paid enough to make a living. William. First, Quesnay’s minimum wage theory is that wages and other commodities, there is a natural value, namely maintain staff minimum standard of living life informationvalue, the minimum wage for workers does not depend on the enterprise or the employer's subjective desire, but the result of the competition in the market. The classical economists Muller believed that certain conditions, the total capital in the enterprise salary depends on the labor force and for the purchase of labor relationship between capital and other capital; For the payment of capital wage fund is difficult to change in the short term. Wages fund quantity depends on two factors: one is a worker, directly or indirectly, in the production of products and services production efficiency; the other one is in the process of production of these goods directly or indirectly employ labor quantity. With the development of era, the simple forms of employment have already can't satisfy the demand of the workers, so some interests to share views was put forward to motivate workers.On this basis, the Gantt invented the "complete tasks rewarded" system to perfect the incentive measures. Represented by American economist Becker’s theory of human capital school of thought argues that human capital is determined by the human capital investment, is present in the human body to the content of knowledge, skills, etc. Martin Weizmann share of economic theory that wages should be linked to corporate profits. Increase in profits, employee wages fund, increased profits, and employee wages fund. Between enterprises and employees is the key of the labor contract is not in a fixed wage of how many, but in the division of labor both sides share proportion. In modern compensation phase, the contents of the compensation has been changed, increased a lot of different compensation models, and more and more pay attention to employee's personal feelings and development, employees can even according to individual condition choose different salary portfolio model. Employees can be paid off on surface of the material and spiritual.3 Pay system overviewIn the past the traditional pay system, usually are business owners value orientation as the guide to carry on the design. With the continuous development of the overall market environment, in the modern enterprise management concept has also changed. They are aware of the established compensation system should adapt to the employee benefit as a starting point, the self-interest pursuit and employeedemand together, to establish a set of enterprises and employees to maximize the interests of the two-way, so as to achieve win-win situation. Since the 90 s, the western developed economies in the enterprise owners and managers try to change the traditional form of compensation, relocation compensation system, the importance of also constantly try to innovate salary system of design and diversification.Performance pay system is established in accordance with the enterprise organization structure based on the results of the individual or team performance appraisal for salary distribution system. Total compensation is generally associated with individual or team performance. Now the enterprise model is used to combine individual performance and team performance. At the same time will be long term incentive and short-term incentive flexible model. In this kind of pay structure, contains a variety of forms of performance pay.Skill-based pay system on the basis of employees' skill determine employee wages level, and to the improvement of skills as their employees progress criteria. The compensation model can encourage employees to continuously learn new knowledge, to keep up with The Times, is the industry leader, when technology and equipment upgrades to the fastest response time to complete the change, and is helpful to form the learning corporate culture. If for flat organization structure, management jobs and opportunities for advancement are less, the compensation system can be very skillful professionals to make up for in terms of compensation. But with technical compensation system with the problem is that the enterprise needs to pay for a large number of staff training, and if the participants of the training is not all to use knowledge in actual production, enterprises will not be able to obtain benefits, resulting in wasted costs.Total compensation is the unity of the material reward and spiritual reward. Among them, external compensation including all in monetary form of economic compensation, internal compensation includes not to substantial form of economic compensation, more focused on the return of spirit. John’s Lipoma at the end of last century proposed the compensation design, customization and diversity is more representative of the overall package. He should show that the basic wage, additionalsalary, salary welfare, work supplies allowance, bonus, promotion and development opportunities, psychological income, life quality, and individual factors that ten compensation factors into consideration, the formation of compensation system, the design method is different from the past traditional salary structure, is the biggest different compensation system design approach from the owner as the center to the worker as the center, employees can choose a suitable for their own pay combination, is no longer a passive receiver. In this compensation mode, economic compensation and the economical compensation together, paying equal attention to material and spiritual.4 The implementation of the compensation system designSalary survey is the key in the compensation system design. It is not only the necessary to understand the enterprise existing compensation system, is also the basis of compensation system design again. Salary survey should be real in-depth internal employee survey, as far as possible let employees at all levels give true feelings, make compensation system designers understand the staff for the specific demands of overall compensation. In had certain understanding of the current salary system and problems, will determine the compensation system on that basis to the general principles of design. Compensation system and the determination of design general principle also should according to the specific conditions of different enterprise itself to specific design. At the same time, according to the general principle to determine the scope of the staff at the level of compensation.Enterprise in selecting the most suitable for their own compensation system, the following sections are often the most concern, such as the division of different levels and at the same level of position within the sort, the post assessment results and with the duty staff due to personal quality differences between how to determine the pay difference. Enterprise in selecting the most suitable for their own compensation system, the following sections are often the most concern, such as the division of different levels and at the same level of position within the sort, the post assessment results and with the duty staff due to personal quality differences between how to determine the pay difference.Enterprise operators and management personnel representing the highest quality, at the same time they also foreign representative enterprise image, and holds the enterprise the way forward. They tend to have certain matter accumulation, more the pursuit of spiritual satisfaction and the realization of self-worth. For management personnel shall be designed to be scientific and reasonable compensation system, comprehensive consideration, not only give reasonable compensation in terms of material, at the same time to consider their spiritual pursuit.General manager's daily work mainly are transactional, administrative work, but is not directly concerned with the production related, so during the design compensation system will post wage and performance wage together, thus the personal salary combined with enterprise business objectives. To general managers to take a wider range of incentives, such as the annual performance review top employees equity incentives, encourage managers over fulfilled the goal, and form a competitive atmosphere of the company culture, drive the enterprise vitality. Increase the general manager’s shareholding proportion.For the use of EV A on the sales staff, can draw lessons from Tula bank ever take method, the sales staff to set up a commission system based on EV A. Each sales staff receives a salary, in addition to qualification to get bonuses, the bonus amount depends on the "added value" has created. So that the program works: the company will be the added value of products are listed out, after distribution after the full cost of the product. The finance department monthly compiled a list of each product and added value of the net sales report. Each sales staff receives a copy of the report, as well as the use of the added value of the net total details of its own performance in the same format of monthly report. Further to deduct from the added value of net pay, perks and other fees and should share part of the management fee. After adjusting for these report line represents the added value.5 ConclusionIn the modern enterprises increasingly competitive today, talents become the key factor of enterprise long-term development more and more Business owners. And how to retain existing talent, and recruit more people of insight to join together createenterprise Interest, become the compulsory subject of enterprise owners and management, and improve the compensation system is retaining talents and attracting talents essential link.译文企业薪酬体系设计与绩效评估Prasetya A摘要任何一种行之有效的管理方式的运用都必须依赖于一个基础：人，企业的所有员工。

中文5367字本科毕业设计（论文）外文参考文献译文及原文学院经济管理学院专业工商管理年级班别学号学生姓名指导教师年月日目录摘要 (1)1 简介 (2)2SEC所公布的薪酬规则以及在162(m)章程中的I.R.C部分 (5)3数据的收集 (6)5 CEO的薪酬对股东所产生的影响 (6)6持有人和股东的目标 (8)7结论 (9)薪酬为效益而支付？政府章程和薪酬之间的关系出处：Journal of Financial Economics 62 (2001) 453–488摘要SEC 组织要求公开国会在1992～1993年间所制定的关于收入超过一百万美元薪酬的人员的税收决议, 即关于国内税中的税收代码为162(m)的税收的决议。

我们在审查这些因章程的改变其薪酬结构也会发生变化的大小样本企业的证据时发现: 许多百万美元的企业都以减少了员工的薪酬来回应162(m)政策，同时发现，企业员工薪酬的增长率也普遍下降了。

不仅如此，在1993年，企业的许多岗位也受到了该章程的影响。

我们进一步发现，在1993年后，许多企业的奖金和总薪酬对股票的收益越来越敏感了。

我们还发现：我们对其他的控制因素一旦影响了CEO们的工作热情，CEO对其财富的担心也会对企业的其他股东的财富产生影响。

资料显示：那些收入处于在一百万美元附近或者高于一百万美元薪酬的CEO在1993～1996年间对章程的敏感性有增长的趋势。

总之, 我们的研究结果显示, 一些企业会以减少了薪金来回应162(m)章程的出台。

更加重要地是, 当企业受到了162(m)的影响，CEO的那些与企业效益相关的年薪所受到的影响也会随之增加。

关键词：CEO报酬，规章，合同，公司治理1简介CEO的薪酬最近常被公众和学术研究者进行评论，评论的焦点集中在：CEO 的薪酬和公司的业绩没有直接挂钩。

像在1999年2月25 日, 政府委员会主席阿伦・Greenspan在国会的讲话就批评了当前的薪酬水平在正常的货币供给水平之外。

外文题目The Ethics of Compensation Systems外文出处Business Ethics.2004(52): P149-151.外文作者Matt Bloom原文：The Ethics of Compensation SystemsMatt BloomABSTRACT. Compensation systems are an integral part of the relationships organizations establish with their employees. For many years, researchers viewed pay systems as an efficient way to bring market-like labour exchanges inside organizations. This view suggested that only economic considerations matter for understanding how compensation systems effect organizations and their employees. Advances in organizational research, particularly those focused on issues of justice and fairness, suggest that the fully understanding the outcomes of compensation systems requires examining their psychological, social ,and moral effects. IntroductionCompensation has always been viewed as a centrally important element in almost any employment relationship (Milk vich and Newman, 2005). Early efforts to study compensation we dominated by economic views of compensation systems. Theper vasive view at that time was that optimal compensation systems met the ‘‘fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work’’ criteria. Employment relationships were viewed, for the most part, like market transactions for labour that had been brought inside the skin of a firm or organization. According to this view, the key for managers and others who design pay systems is to ensure that pay accurately reflected the economic value contributed to the firm by a worker. Here, fairness is expressed only in economic terms. Since that time, management scholars have developed a much richer understanding of what fairness means to employees and how perceptions of fairness affect their attitudes and behaviors (Folger and Cropanzano,1998). We know that the meaning of fairness for employees goes well beyond economic issues; it alsoincorporates issues related to trust, work relationships, and ethics.We now know that compensation systems are much more than simply mechanisms for bringing. market transactions for labour inside an organization. To be sure, compensation systems can help create effective economic exchanges of labour (which is given by workers) for financial remuneration (which is given by the employing organization). But, compensation systems also play important social and symbolic roles in organizations and through these roles pay systems effect a variety of important outcomes such as the nature of work relationships, employee commitment, and performance. Research on high-performing organizations strongly suggests that great organizations are those that create and nurture relational exchanges that are based upon trust, mutuality, care, and respect (Rousseau, 1995).Summarizing this literature, O’Reilly and Pfeffer(2000: 3) summarizes this literature this way: ‘‘great people want to work at great places where they can actually use their talents, where they are treated with dignity, trust, and respect, and where they are engaged .by the values and culture of the organization.’’Given the vital role that compensation systems play in employment relationships, it is also very likely that they play an important role in shaping whether people feel they are treated with dignity, trust, and respect and whether they believe the values and culture of the organization are worthy of their fullest commitment and highest efforts.Research on organizational justice has been particularly important for understanding the non-economic effects of compensation systems (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg and Cropanzano,2001). This research has shown how fairness issues form an important part of the fabric of employment relationships. It also creates a basis for understanding how fairness may also be a critical component of a well-designed compensation system. At one level compensation systems are viewed as fair when they meet the criteria of fair pay for fair work. Here fairness refers to the allocation of pay itself. These distributive justice concerns are known to be important factors when employees evaluate the fairness of their compensation. If someone does twice the work, distributive justice principles would argue that the person deserves more compensation, perhaps even twice the pay. In turn, distributivejustice evaluations influence attitudes like pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, and the employee’s intentions to stay or leave their organization (Greenberg and Cropanzano, 2001; Milkovich and Newman, 2005; Rousseau, 1995)There are other important standards of fairness that influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). Employees also are concerned about the fairness of the processes used to set and administer compensation. Research indicates that these procedural fairness concerns matter more to employees than distributive justice concerns (Brockneret al., 1997). This research indicates that the way compensation is allocated may be more important to employees than how much compensation they get .Fair procedures are those that are consistent, free from bias, accurate, correctable, participative, and ethical (Greenberg and Cropanzano, 2001). Procedural fairness judgments appear to have a strong impact on whether employees view their managers and their organization as trustworthy, whether they feel that their organization values them as a person, and whether they believe their employment exchange is simply an economic transaction or a trust-based relationship involving mutuality (Folger and Cropanzano,1998; Rousseau, 1995). We know, for example, that people will accept and even be satisfied with decreases in their pay if those decreases were determined in a just manner (Turillo et al., 2002). People use their perceptions of procedural justice to determine whether they have value, standing, and dignity within the organization.Employees want to know that they are valued as people, not just as means to an end (Brockner et al., 1998). Fair compensation practices are likely to signal that the organization cares for its employees and wishes to treat them well (Rhoades and Eisen berger, 2002). Fair compensation systems may also help foster mutual trust between the employee and the organization (Brockner et al., 1997) which is a critical component of high-performance work relationships (Pfeffer, 2000).Another important category of fairness judgments are those called interactional justice which are concerned with interpersonal treatment, especially the treatment people receive by those who set and carry out organizational policies and procedures. Often overlooked in the compensation literature is how compensation decisions areactually delivered to employees.Evaluations of interpersonal fairness have a significant impact on whether employees believe their employment exchange is a simple economic transaction or a relationship built on trust and mutuality (Greenberg and Cropanzano, 2001). This topic has received almost no research attention, yet anecdotal evidence indicates that people are very concerned about the interpersonal treatment that accompanies decisions about their compensation and rewards. Given that existing research indicates that interactional justice concerns,like procedural fairness, matter more to employees than distributive justice concerns, it is likely that whether or not employees find compensation systems fair and satisfying is significantly impacted by their perceptions of interactional justice.Fair compensation systems may also be important signals of the values, morals, and virtues upon which the organization operates (Folger and Cropanzano,1998; Turillo et al., 2002).Values are conceptions about desirable ways of behaving and desirable goals or end states (Verplanken and Holland, 2002).Whether by conscious intent or through the way core values effect decision makers’ choices,the design of compensation systems is likely to reflect the underlying ideology about people and employment that is held by the organizations’ senior decision makers.Fair pay systems are likely to be viewed as a reflection of noble organizational values. Fairness not only ensures things are right, it ensures that the causal explanations behind the way things work are morally acceptable and ethical (Cropanzano et al., 2001a). For example, research on differences in pay levels within organizations indicates that paying top performers more than average performers makes sense unless those differences become too large.When they do, both individual and team performance are likely to suffer (Bloom, 1999). One explanation for this effect is that people find those differences not only unfair, but immoral. Complaints that the salaries of CEOs have become exorbitant, wrong, or unethical have increased recently (Lavelle, 2002). Statements like these suggest that the fairness of compensation systems may have deontological implications.Because compensation systems are such a dominant feature of modern businesses and organizations, a wider audience is expressing concerns about the fairness of pay practices, at least in the U.S. (Lavelle, 2002).People seem to expect organizations to do what is ‘‘right’’ and not just what is practical, feasible, or profitable(Cropanzano et al., 2001a).Meara (2001: 222) writes that, ‘‘understanding the character of an org anization can be enhanced if it is explicit about the mores,moral traditions, and the virtues that characterize it or that it hopes will characterize it.The general public needs to know an organization’s standards and what they can expect from it. Compan ies also need to understand the mores, moral traditions, and virtues of those they employ and those they hope to serve or have as customers. Simply put, our goals determine what virtues we aspire to promote and in turn these virtues determine the organizational climate in which we live and work.’’ At least in the U.S., compensation systems are often viewed as powerful symbols of the mores, moral traditions, and values espoused by an organization because they are one important way that organizations enact those morals and values (Lavelle, 2002). Some organizations are clear about this link. Southwest Airlines, for example, is clear that its use of profit sharing is meant to signal that it values all employees, strong team work, and a spirit of unity and camaraderie (Gittell, 2003). Organizations like the SAS Institute offer a variety of rewards which are purportedly intended to help employees not only balance work and non-work life, but also to communicate to employees that the organization values them as human beings and respects their needs to live a full and meaningful life (Fishman, 1999). But it is rare to see an organization explicitly address how its reward systems is meant to reflect and support the its underlying culture and values. Research is silent on these issues.There are no published studies in the management sciences on how an organization’s core values are reflected in its compensation systems. Likewise, there has been no work on the fidelity of the signal compensation systems send about an org anization’s ethics, morals, and core values. Researchers have yet to study the degree to which employees and outsiders notice and rely on those signals and how effective any such signal is for communicating core values. Given the powerful influence that organizational culture has on individual attitudes and behaviors, this is a gap that researchers need to fill.ConclusionMeara (2001: 223) urges us to not, ‘‘forget … either in research or practice that the view of the least powerful may in the end be the most important view in building just organizations and in doing research about how to build them. Those who do not have the power to distribute the burdens and benefits, and have probably had to bear more of the former and have enjoyed less of the latter, should never be far from our theorizing, empirical inquiry, or practice. They look to the organization to be virtuous and to honor their individual contributions and uniqueness, not just to compare them to others or evaluate their worth.’’ Compensation systems are almost always set and administered by the most powerful members of an organization – its senior decision makers – and imposed upon the least powerful which also constitute the bulk of the human resources an organization relies on for its survival and success. Meara reminds us that people expect more from their organizations than economic rationality or meeting minimal standards for appropriate conduct. People aspire to be a part of organizations that they see as just, moral, even virtuous (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg and Cropanzano, 2001). Compensation systems can be both powerful determinants and important reflections of organizational values and ethics. Research strongly indicates that people inside and outside of organizations are concerned about matters of fairness in compensation systems even when they have no direct implications for their own pay and rewards (Turillo et al., 2002). The time seems ripe for compensation researchers to begin addressing these important issues.Source：Business Ethics.2004(52): P149-151.译文：薪酬系统理论薪酬是与员工建立关系的组织的一个组成部分。

文献信息：文献标题：EMPLOYEE PREFERENCES FOR PAY SYSTEM CRITERIA: A PAY SYSTEM SURVEY（员工对薪酬体系标准的偏好:薪酬体系的调查）国外作者：Christine H.Schuldes文献出处：Ph.D.Capella University,2006(4):144-198字数统计：英文2297单词，12728字符；中文4159汉字外文文献：EMPLOYEE PREFERENCES FOR PAY SYSTEMCRITERIA: A PAY SYSTEM SURVEYBackground of the ProblemAs the 21st Century progresses, the highly competitive environment in which organizations operate and recent events, such as the failures and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, have caused numerous companies to downsize, lay-off employees, or reduce employee compensation, including GE, IBM, Citicorp, AT&T, Kodak, Goodyear, Exxon, Xerox, TRW, and GM (Bateman & Snell, 2004; Lawler, 2005). As a result, retaining the best employees and recruiting people with the greatest potential are vital to the success and survival of the organization (Lawler, 2003 & 2005). Reward systems can serve the strategic purpose of attracting, motivating, and retaining people; yet, a complex set of factors is used to determine an empl oyee’s compensation (Bateman & Snell, 2004).The earliest forms of rewards for productivity were food, shelter, and protection, all of which are vital to survival. Yet, the origination of monetary systems caused pay to become the most common form of reward and money has become the medium of exchange for all commodities. The use of economic incentives to motivate people has been a common practice in many societies and has generated a myriad of speculationand a plethora of research (Milkovich & Newman, 2005).Considered to be the father of scientific management, Frederick Taylor is credited with popularizing the use of money as a motivational work tool over a century ago (Bateman & Snell, 2004). Numerous theories that are relevant to the use of economic incentives to motivate workers are rooted in Taylor’s scientific management, including Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, Skinner’s Reinforcement Theory, and Adams’Equity Theory (Lawler, 2000).In addition, there is an abundance of research studies that have focused on performance-based pay, of which the most famous are the Hawthorne Studies. Edward E. Lawler furthered the evolution of economic motivation theory when he proposed that employees perform at higher levels when their pay is related to performance (1966 & 1971) and conducted studies to demonstrate that employees perform at higher levels when pay is related to performance (Cammann & Lawler, 1973).It has been during the past four decades that pay satisfaction has become an intensive area of inquiry. Early pay satisfaction research focused on the antecedents of pay satisfaction, and this focus resulted in several theoretical models of pay satisfaction (e.g., Lawler, 1971). The development of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) by Heneman & Schwab (1985) led to considerable interest in the measurement of pay satisfaction, and research on the PSQ-dominated pay satisfaction research from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s (Carraher & Buckley, 1996; Judge, 1993; Judge & Welbourne, 1994; Mulvey, Miceli, & Near, 1992; Orpen & Bonnici, 1987).Further evidence has indicated that pay dissatisfaction is related to reduced levels of performance (e.g., Bretz & Thomas, 1992), as well as to a number of indicators of withdrawal, such as lateness (Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Singer, 1997), turnover and turnover intentions (Sturman, Trevor, Boudreau, & Gerhart, 2003), absence (Weiner, 1980), and theft (Greenberg, 1993). As Heneman & Judge (2000) concluded, "Research has unequivocally shown that pay dissatisfaction can have important and undesirable impacts on numerous employee outcomes," (p. 85).To minimize turnover, retain the most highly skilled employees, and improveemployees’contributions to the organization, it is important that employers understand how best to pay their employees in order to optimally satisfy and motivate them (Lawler, 2003 & 2005). Since a good worker will define what he or she is worth and will go where he or she will get paid that amount, management can set up the pay system to attract the best workers and cause those workers to be highly motivated as well as highly productive (Sturman, Cheramie, & Cashen, 2005).An important aspect of designing a successful pay system is determining the appropriate criteria to use. I n 1997, Aminu Mamman studied Australian industry by conducting research that explored employees’attitudes toward some of the key criteria that usually determines pay. For his sampling frame, Mamman’s(1997) research proved conclusively that an employee’s choice of pay criteria is a function of factors such as education and age. In 1999, James Mirabella expanded on Mamman’s research by studying American employees, and his research confirmed Mamman’s conclusions outside the boundaries of Australia.This research study proposes to further investigate the choice of pay criteria by American employees in the 21st century, especially considering changes in workers’attitudes resulting from events since the turn of the century. Since the year 2000, numerous events, such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the bankruptcy of numerous large corporations, lay-offs, and downsizing have caused conditions in the business environment to become more and more unstable (Bateman & Snell, 2004). These unstable and highly dynamic conditions have resulted in numerous corporations seeking the most optimal way to operate, including how to appropriately compensate employees while minimizing costs (Lawler, 2003 & 2005). If employers want to optimally satisfy and motivate employees with a pay system, managers need to understand the attitudes and preferences of employees regarding the criteria used to determined pay systems.Statement of the ProblemNumerous previous studies have researched the relationship between various pay systems and the relative impact on pay satisfaction or overall employee satisfaction(Currall, Towler, Judge, & Kohn, 2005). Empirical research studies have demonstrated that many people prefer to use performance as a basis for rewarding others (Dyer, Schwab, & Theriault, 1976; Fossum & Fitch, 1985; Heneman, 1984; Heneman & Judge, 2000). Other researchers demonstrated that the preference to have pay contingent on performance is affected by several factors, including employee ability (Farh, Griffeth & Balkin, 1991; Sturman et al, 2005), age (Mamman, 1997; Mirabella, 1999), education (Mamman, 1997; Mirabella, 1999), and tenure (Dyer & Theriault, 1976; Dyer, Schwab & Theriault, 1976; Schwab & Wallace, 1974). Many factors have been analyzed to assess their influence on pay satisfaction, including quality of job performance (Lawler, 1966), gender (Lawler, 1971), skill level and training (Mamman, 1990), job responsibility (Mamman, 1990), mental effort and physical effort (Mamman, 1990).Despite the overwhelming research on pay systems, one area that has generated limited research has been employees’preferences for the criteria used in these pay systems. I n a study conducted in Australia, Aminu Mamman (1997) explored the similarities and differences in employees’attitudes toward some of the key criteria that usually determine pay. In 1999, James Mirabella confirmed Mamman’s conclusions regarding employees’preferences for pay criteria and concluded that American and Australian workers had similar attitudes toward pay system determinants. Yet, these results might not hold true for American workers since the turn of the 21st Century as a result of numerous events, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist activities, increased unemployment, and companies relying more heavily on consultants than full-time employees. All of these events have created an increased sense of uncertainty in employees and instability in the business environment (Bateman & Snell, 2004; Caudron, 2002). Therefore, it important for managers to employee people that enhance the firms opportunities for achieving competitive advantage, and a key to recruiting and retaining good employees is to design the most appropriate pay plan (Sturman et al., 2005).Recent Events Significantly Influencing EmployeesSince the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers, there has been a shift in attitudes and behaviors of workers across America (Kondrasuk, 2004). The events of 9/11 resulted in numerous factors that have increased the stress level of American workers (Leonard, 2002). The increased level of stress experienced by workers and the understanding that there is potential for acts of terrorism in the future have caused a paradigm shift in the attitudes of employees (Kondrasuk, 2004; Leonard, 2002). In fact, workers have demonstrated a higher level of work force commitment since the attacks (Caudron, 2002). This shift in employees’ attitudes may include changes in their choice of criteria used in pay systems.In the 1990s, it was commonplace for workers to take new positions with different organizations on a frequent basis, simply for increased pay and/or benefits (Bateman & Snell, 2004; Lawler, 2001; Robbins, 2004). Since the events of 9/11, this trend has decreased and employees are more committed to their job and the organization (Caudron, 2002; Kondrasuk, 2004). “Now,54 percent of workers say they would remain with organizations even if offered a similar job with slightly higher pay elsewhere,”(Caudron, 2002, p. 26). The concept of remaining with an organization rather than jumping from one job to another is a large shift in the mindset of employees (Kondrasuk, 2004).Changes in the mindset of employees may be manifold and could include the criteria that are used in determining their pay. Human resources (HR) managers must be prepared to deal with these post-9/11 attitudes of employees regarding compensation and performance (Lincoln, 2002). Thus, continued investigation into employee preferences for pay system determinants is a necessity in order to provide much needed information to HR managers.UnemploymentAnother factor that has also altered the attitudes and behaviors of employees is unemployment, resulting from companies going bankrupt, downsizing, or replacing full-time employees with consultants (Bateman & Snell, 2004; Lawler, 2003). From the year 2000 to the middle of 2005, the unemployment rate increased 2% (NationalBureau of Labor, 2005). Starting in 1999, numerous corporations have declared bankruptcy, and an increased number of organizational restructuring efforts have been oriented around downsizing or hiring consultants rather than full-time employees (Lawler, 2003 & 2005).These kinds of corporate actions have adversely affected numerous people directly and indirectly (Lawler, 2005). Those directly affected have lost their jobs and those indirectly affected may exhibit survivor’s syndrome. Survivor’s syndrome occurs as a result of employees struggling with heavier workloads, wondering if they will loose their jobs, trying to figure out how to survive, losing commitment to the company and faith in their bosses, and becoming narrow-minded, self- absorbed, and risk-adverse (Bateman & Snell, 2004).All these changes within the work place have created a sense of fear and uncertainty in employees that may result in them viewing compensation in a greatly different way (Milkovich & Newman, 2005). Furthermore, this shift in employee attitudes since the year 2000 may play an important role in the choice of pay criteria preferred by workers, and is the focus of this study.Preferences for Pay SystemsSome studies focused on the choice of pay comparisons (Goodman, 1974), while others focused on the threshold of a meaningful pay increase (Krefting & Mahoney, 1977) or pay system administration (Dyer & Theriault, 1976; Lawler, 1971), and a few even focused on the criteria upon which recipients prefer to be paid (Dyer et al., 1976; Mamman, 1997; Mirablla, 1999). Several studies have shown that even though performance has been shown to have the largest impact on pay satisfaction, it was recognized that a number of non-performance related factors also influence pay satisfaction (Fossum & Fitch, 1985). After decades of research, experts continue to underscore the importance of linking pay systems to meeting organizational objectives (Lawler, 2000 & 2004; Milkovich & Newman, 2005).Researchers have found that employees prefer their pay to be determined first and foremost by performance, but this preference is contingent on many factors(Lawler, 1995 & 2000). Highly skilled employees tend to prefer performance-based pay more than low-skilled employees (Lawler 1995). Additionally, there are many negative side effects of individualized pay-for- performance plans (Cox, 2000). These negative effects include restricting output due to perceptions of possible social rejection by peers and of possible layoffs due to running out of work (Bateman & Snell, 2004; Farr, 1976). Lawler (1973) demonstrated that group incentive plans generally avoid these side effects and may do a better job of tying rewards to performance.Finally, employees' preferences for pay system determinants will be influenced by equity theory, such that satisfaction with the pay system will be determined by a comparison with the compensation received by others (Milkovich & Newman, 2005; Sweeney & McFarlin, 2005). Equity theory implies that satisfaction with pay is contingent on employees’ perceptions regarding the fairness of their compensation in comparison to their role/position in the organization and that of others in the organization (Lawler, 2000). Therefore, choice of pay systems by employees is dependent on their preferences for the criteria used to determine pay and their perceptions of the pay system. The pay determinants preferred by various employees will vary with their backgrounds (Mamman, 1997; Milkovich & Newman, 2005), and this fact needs to be incorporated into pay systems.Conclusions on Pay System ChoicesUtilizing a voluntary choice of pay plans binds employees to their choices and results in a commitment to the organization (Currall et al., 2005; Lawler, 2003). Student subjects selected reward schemes based on their prior performance, even though none of the subjects were paid on performance (Chow, 1983). As many studies have shown, allowing individuals to choose their pay plans probably will increase the likelihood that they attain the goals that are needed to get the pay (Lawler, 2000 & 2003).Taken in its entirety, research indicates that individuals will follow Vroom’s expectancy theory and maximize expected rewards by rationally choosing amongalternatives (Vroom, 1964). Furthermore, when faced with a decision to choose among different reward plans, it is anticipated that individuals will choose the alternative that yields maximum expected rewards or minimum expected costs (House et al., 1974). Thus, employees with high self-perceived ability levels would be expected to prefer plans that distribute rewards based on performance, while employees with low self-perceived ability would be expected to choose time-based reward plans (Cox, 2000; Farh et.al., 1991; Robbins, 2004).中文译文：员工对薪酬体系标准的偏好:薪酬体系的调查问题产生的背景随着二十一世纪的发展，组织面临着充满激烈竞争的环境，以及最近发生的一些事件，如的失败，911恐吓袭击，使许多公司减小规模、裁员，或者减少员工补贴。

薪酬管理课文献翻译方法样本为了检验我们的假设，我们收集了2000年财富500强的公司CEO的薪酬数据。

这个数据来源于COMPUSTAT的服务，这个服务通过公司委托编辑薪酬数据。

公司的会计和金融数据也来自于COMPUSTAT的数据文件。

我们剔除了样本中在2000年被任命的CEO，因为他们的薪酬可能还不是一个年度数据，并且2000年被任命的外来CEO薪酬数据中可能包含以前的奖金。

我们对内外部CEO薪酬的系统差异感兴趣，剔除这些数据是与我们的研究相一致的。

我们的处理最终得到了321家公司的可用数据，用于分析。

度量独立变量。

COMPUSTAT的数据提供了通过不同方式支付给CEO的薪酬数量（基本工资、奖金、股票弃权、有限制的股票授予、长期激励计划等）。

对于薪酬水平的度量，我们用全部支付方式的总数来衡量。

以期权为基础的薪酬通过Black Scholes的模型估算出价值。

为减少回归模型中的异方差，我们对数值进行了对数变换。

薪酬组合中度量方式的不同需要引起更大的重视，以往的研究采取了不同的度量方式。

一个通常的方式是度量奖金与基本工资的比例（如Gerhart & Milkovich, 1990; Werner & Tosi, 1995）。

其他人用奖金与总薪酬的比例（如Anderson, Banker, & Ravindran,2000; Gomez-Mejia et al., 1987）和长期激励与总薪酬的比例（如Westphal 1999; Westphal & Zajac, 1995; 1997）来度量。

一些人关注个人激励方式（如奖金、股票期权）的相对重要性，另一些则关注全部激励的相对重要性。

虽然几乎所有的实证研究都用代理理论建构理论框架，度量方式却有所不同。

总的来说，以往的研究没有展开讨论薪酬组合度量的有效性，一些研究甚至没有提出讨论。

事实上代理理论并没有告知在度量薪酬组合时，个人激励和总激励哪个应该做分子，基本工资和总薪酬哪个应该做分母，因此并不清楚这些不同的度量方式是怎样不同地描述CEO的薪酬组合的。

在高绩效公司的薪酬政策和竞争战略【外文翻译】外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文原文:Congruence Between Pay Policy and Competitive Strategy inHigh-Performing Firms.Montemayor, Edilberto F.Based on existing strategic compensation theory, this study examines seven theoretical propositions concerning the link between business-level competitive strategy and pay policy. Canonical discriminant analysis of 261 responses to a national survey show that high-performing firms whose strategy is dominated by Cost Leadership, Innovation, or Differentiation tactics adopt different pay policies. Further analysis shows that inferior firm performance is associated with the lack oat between pay policy and business strategy. These findings support the need for a contingency approach in the design of pay policy.The idea that pay policies have strategic impact has become a major theme within the compensation literature since the mid- 1980s. Notable volumes concerned with compensation strategy include Lawler's Strategic Pay (1991), Schuster and Zingheim's The New Pay (1992), and Gomez-Mejia and Balkin's Compensation, Organizational Strategy, and Firm Performance (1992). This strategic perspective on compensation is based on the fact that organizations differ in pay policies and the belief that matchingpay policies to business strategy results in higher organizational performance (Milkovich, 1988).Except for the work by David Balkin and Luis Gomez-Mejia (Balkin & Gomez-Mejia, 1987; 1990; and Gomez-Mejia, 1992), the strategic impact of pay policy has received little empirical attention. Building on the executive compensation literature, Balkin and Gomez-Mejia have published a series of analyses dealing with the relationship between pay policy and organizational diversification or lifecycle stages.However, the portion of strategic compensation theory that addresses the link between pay policy and business-level competitive strategies has not been tested. Such theory appears in the work of Carroll (1987), Miles and Snow (1984), Miller (1986), Schuler and Jackson (1987), and Tichy, Fombrum and Devanna (1982).The present study adds to the empirical base for strategic compensation theory by examining which pay policies have a positive relationship with firm performance for different business strategies. Because pay policies are clearly under management control and are the most visible elements of an organization's motivation and reward system, the results of this investigation will help management develop coherent pay systems that support business strategy. In addition, this study makes two methodological contributions. First, it demonstrates a procedure for evaluating contingency models through the joint analysis of organizational strategy, pay policy and performance. Second, this study shows an approach for measuring compensation policy in terms of"hard" objective indices, instead of the perceptual data typically used in the past research.Analytical Framework and HypothesesStrategic compensation theory is a contingency theory (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992). Its fundamental premise is that matching pay policy and business strategy impacts firm performance (Milkovich, 1988). That is, high-performing firms adopt pay policies congruent with their strategy and deviations from strategically-indicated pay policies have a negative effect on organizational performance. This is not an academic argument only. Leading compensation professionals consider that their most important challenge is to align compensation systems and business strategy (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1990; McNally, 1992).In order to test such a contingency view, it is necessary to establish which compensation policies have strategic significance, how can organizations be classified into dominant strategic types, and the different sets of compensation policies that support each type of competitive strategy.The Performance Impact of Matching Pay Policy and Business Strategy This research concentrates importantly on high-performing firms because the pay policies that fit a particular strategy will be most evident among high-performing firms. According to the contingency perspective in strategic compensation theory, a good match between an organization's strategy and all its systems (will result in superior performance (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992). That is, all high-performingorganizations should have strategy and pay policies that match each other. On the other hand, not all lesser-performing organizations will suffer from a mismatch between strategy and pay policy. Lesser performance may be the consequence of a poor match between strategy and systems other than compensation. For this reason, a major portion of the analyses reported ahead examines the difference in pay policies between high-performing organizations that pursue different business strategies. Other strategy researchers have also focused on the subset of high-performing organizations in their samples (Thomas, Litschert & Ramaswamy, 1991; Venkatram, 1990).Leading strategic compensation scholars propose an organization's performance will suffer when its pay policies deviate from thosepolicies which ideally fit the organization's strategy (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992). s In addition, strategy scholars recommend the use of multiple approaches when studying the performance impact of matching strategy and organizational systems (Venkatraman, 1990). For these reasons, this study will also examine the correlation between deviations fromstrategically-indicated pay policies and organizational performance. Because firm performance depends on many factors besides compensation,it is expected that such deviations will have a negative, although modest, correlation with performance. Nonetheless, finding that deviations from strategically-indicated pay policies correlate withperformance would provide additional support for the contingency view in strategic compensation theory.Compensation Policies with Strategic SignificanceThis study considers the five aspects of pay policy more frequently mentioned in strategic compensation theory: (1) compensation philosophy;(2) external competitiveness; (3) incentive-base mix; (4) individual (merit) pay increases; and (5) pay administration.Compensation Philosophy. This study measures organizational pay philosophy in terms of the importance assigned to three kinds of objectives: (a) labor cost control, (b) employee attraction and retention, and (c) employee motivation. The compensation system has strategic impact through its effect on these three areas which represent the traditional goals for pay policy design. As explained ahead, an organization's business strategy will determine the relative importance of these three kinds of objectives. Moreover, the pay policies that support different objectives may conflict with each other. Consequently, strategic compensation requires a philosophy, based on the importance of these objectives, to provide direction and purpose to specific pay policies (Lawler, 1991).External Competitiveness. This policy area refers to the level ofpay an organization offers relative to that of its competitors. It has a critical impact on attraction/retention and labor cost objectives. The higher the pay level, the better the organization's ability to acquire a competent workforce. Clearly, increasing the pay level raises totallabor costs. However, raising the pay level may lead to improved labor costs per unit. An emerging view in labor economics, known as efficiency wage theory, contends that paying above market levels can promote employee motivation that would offset any increment in labor costs (Holzer, 1990).Incentive-Base Mix. This policy relates to the distinction between incentive (variable) and base (fixed) pay. It has strategic implications. Increasing the portion of pay that is variable has been advocated as an effective mechanism for linking employee rewards and business performance (see for example Mitchell, Lewin & Lawler, 1991). Besides a clear fit with motivation objectives, a high incentive-to-base pay ratio makes some labor costs variable and may help to attractand retain hard-working; risk-taking employees.Individual (Merit) Pay Increases. Policies dealing with increases to individual base pay have a direct impact on employees and, consequently, have strategic implications (Milkovich & Broderick, 1991). Merit pay, a highly debated policy, represents the most prevalent system for deciding individual pay increases. Surveys find that 80 percent of private sector employers, most state governments, and about one-half of the local governments have merit pay plans (Heneman, 1992). Organizations differin policies concerning the size of merit raises. This study will examine the average and range of merit raises awarded. Organizations may also differ in employee eligibility for merit pay. To measure the scope of merit pay, this study will examine the extent to which nonexemptemployees participate in merit pay plans. Typically most or all exempt (professional and managerial) employees participate in merit pay plans. However, organizations differ in the extent to which nonexempt (operations and administrative support) employees participate in merit pay plans.Pay Administration. This study will examine policies concerning "openness" (the amount of information provided to employees) and "participation" (the degree to which employees may question or challenge pay decisions). These policies are generally accepted as havingstrategic importance because of their effect on employee satisfaction and acceptance of pay decisions (Milkovich & Broderick, 1991; Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992).Classifying Organizations by Business StrategyBusiness-level strategy, the initiatives by which organizations seek a competitive advantage, determines the kind of employee contributions and, therefore, the human resource and compensation policies that organizations require to succeed (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Miles & Snow, 1984). Unfortunately, business-level strategy has received minimal attention in strategic compensation research. In the only published research including business-level strategic variables, Balkin and Gomez-Mejia (1990) focus on growth and maintenance strategies.In contrast, strategic compensation theory is based on Porter'sand/or Miles and Snow's typologies. This study merges the two typologies based on conceptual and empirical considerations. Porter'sclassification distinguishes cost-oriented from differentiation-oriented strategies. However, Porter's typology neglects those organizations competing through intense product or market development (Miller, 1986; Walker & Ruekert, 1987). On the other hand, Miles and Snow's typology distinguishes between Defenders operating in stable product and market domains, Prospectors that constantly seek to develop new markets or products, and an intermediate type called Analyzers. Unfortunately,Miles and Snow's typology minimizes the differences between Defendersthat compete through low cost and those competing by setting themselves apart from their competition.Moreover, Segev (1989) applied multidimensional scaling to 31 variables describing environment, strategic content, strategic decision-making process, and organizational characteristics to show the two typologies can be synthesized along a "proactiveness" dimension. Segev's results suggest the three types of business-level strategy used in this study: Cost Leadership (Defenders or Analyzers); Differentiation (Defenders or Analyzers); and Innovation (Prospectors).As discussed in the next section, this synthetic classificationallows integrating the theory that deals with the kink between compensation policy and competitive strategy.Compensation Policies That Support Different Business StrategiesDifferent organization, human resources and compensation systemswill support each of the three types of business strategy discussed here. Miller (1986) theorizes that firms pursuing a Cost Leadership strategyrequire mechanistic, bureaucratic structures geared to maximize efficiency, while firms pursuing an Innovation strategy require organic structures that foster communication and collaboration among employeesin different departments. In a similar vein, Arthur (1994) studied non-integrated steel mills, finding a Cost Leadership strategy is best supported by "control" human resource systems which are conservative and focus on improving efficiency through formalized rules and procedures while a Differentiation strategy is best supported by "commitment" human resource systems which seek to link employee and organizational goals. Finally, Gomez-Mejia and Balkin (1992) report that a Cost Leadership (Defender) strategy should be supported with "algorithmic" compensation systems whose features include heavy reliance on base pay with minimal incentives and bureaucratic administration of pay policy. These authors add that an Innovation (Prospector) strategy should be supported with "experiential" compensation systems whose features include substantial incentives and open, decentralized administration.The preceding ideas coupled with existing strategic compensation theory --contained in the work by Carroll (1987), Miles and Snow (1984), Miller (1986), Schuler and Jackson (1987), and Tichy et al.(1982)--suggest the following theoretical propositions:P1: The pay philosophy of Cost Leaders will emphasize "labor cost" objectives more than the philosophy of Differentiators or Innovators.Cost Leaders emphasize stable job assignments and traditional management practices. These firms are characterized by tight costcontrols, overhead minimization, and require employees to contribute repetitive, predictable behavior with very little risk taking (Miller, 1986; Schuler & Jackson, 1987).P2: Innovators will have a pay philosophy that places more emphasis on "attraction/retention" objectives than Cost Leaders or Differentiators.Innovators need to orchestrate the contributions of externally-trained specialists with diverse' expertise (Miller, 1986). Therefore, Innovators rely heavily on external staffing and need to ensure external competitiveness for a diversity of skills (Miles & Snow, 1984).P3: The pay philosophy of Differentiators will emphasize "motivation" objectives more than the philosophy of Cost Leaders or Innovators.Organizations pursuing a differentiation strategy need to stressgoal-setting and achievements based on organization-wide criteria (Miller, 1986). Compared with Cost Leaders, Differentiators require a higher degree of employee cooperation and commitment to organizational goals such as quality and customer service (Schuler & Jackson, 1987).P4: With respect to pay level, Cost Leaders will be more likely to lag their labor market competitors and Innovators will be more likely to lead their labor market competitors.Because of their emphasis on cost containment, Cost Leaders are expected to take a more conservative stance in labor markets. Arthur (1994) reports that Cost Leaders offer significantly lower wages thanDifferentiators. In contrast, because of the need to acquire talent, several authors concur in hypothesizing that Innovators should lead the market in their pay level (Carroll, 1987; Miles & Snow, 1984; Schuler & Jackson, 1987).P5: Differentiators (and perhaps Cost Leaders) will have a higher incentive-to-base ratio than Innovators.资料来源:Journal of Management 1996(1):P189译文:在高绩效公司的薪酬政策和竞争战略蒙特马约尔，埃迪尔韦托基于现有的战略补偿理论，这项研究，探讨有关企业之间的七个级别的竞争策略和薪酬政策连结理论命题。

外文文献翻译来源出处作者：Lambe r tS期刊：EuropeanManagementJournal；第2卷，第1期，pp:31-39，2016原文Theresearchofenterprisescompensationsystemdesign LambertS AbstractMany e nt e rp ri s e sinearlyinfancy,andisnotver y focusonthec om pensati on systemofenter prisemanagement,inthemeantime,businessownersandemployees together,tofocusonbusine ssimprovement,andimproveenterpriseprofitabilityis beneficialtostableaspectofthecompany, butfewforpersonalinterestsofthegainandloss.Withtheconstantdevelopmentofthecompany 'sbusiness,toenhance c or pora teprofit a bil i ty,injusti c egra dua lly i nc r e a sesoft he int e rna l empl o yees a bout pay.Toanalyzethemaincauseofthisphenomenon,theresultisalevelofcompensationm anagementdidnotkeeppacewiththedevelopmentoftheenterprise,improveemployeeturnoverr ateleadstogood,itwillseriouslyrestrictthehealthydevelopmentoftheenterprise.K eywords:Salarysyste m;Hum an r es ou r ces;Analysi s1IntroductionAtpresent,theroleofhumanresourcesinenterpriseshasbeenraisedtothe heightofthestrategi c.Insomeenterprisehumanresourcesmanagementdepartmentsaremadebytheoriginalauxili aryfunctionaldepartments,tobecometheenterprisestrategicsectors.Buttheenterprisetodisc overtalents,cultivatingtalentsandtalentto theenterprisetocreatevalue,butneedtohaveasetofsci entificcompensationsystem toprotect.Nowadayscompensationmanagementhasbecomethe corecontentof enterprisehumanresourcesmanagement,hasbeencloselyrelatedwiththeenterpris ehumanresourcesdevelopmentstrategymanagementelements.Reasonableand effectivecompe nsationsystemcannotonlyeffectivelystimulatestaff'sworkenthusiasmandinitiative,alsocan attractandretaintalentedstafftostayintheenterprise.Thefocusofmodernenterprisemanagementemphasison"people"asthe centerofenter prisemanagement,enterprisetoestablishreasonableandeffective compensationsystemcanim provethestaff'sworkenthusiasmandfundamentallytoe n s urethat t h e enterpriseh um anr e sourc e s advant a ge,a ndthenintoforeignenterprisescorecompetitiveness.Thisshowsthatthecompen sationsystemisan importantpartofenterprisedevelopment.Scientificandreasonablesalarysyste mcan fullymobilizeenthusiasmandcreativityofemployees,improvetheoverall competitivene ssofenterprises,andpromoteenterpriserapid,healthyandsustainabled e ve lopm e nt.Researchan dd is c ussesthepro ble msexis t i ng inthecompe n sationsystemandfaults,atthesametimeusingth ecompensationtheoryknowledge,combinedwiththecharacteristicsoftheenterprisemanageme ntandstrategic developmentdirectionforimprovingscheme,andcompensationsystemoptim izationdesign.2Liter at ure rev iewThestudyofcompensationmainlyfromthemacropointofview,focusonwhatdistribution,not involvedintheenterprisespecificcompensationproblemtobe solvedishowto,andmanagementis tosolvetheproblemofcompensationfromtheAngleofthemicroinmanagement,researchonco mpensationsystemoftheearliest c an b etra c ed b ac k tothe r obotsciencem a nagementtheo r y".O nthecont ra r y,le compensationfromtheperspectiveofhumanresourcemanagementresearch,andt hecompensationsystemdesignisdividedintofivesteps:salarysurvey,jobevaluation,determineth ecompensationlevel,levelpricingandtodeterminethefrequencyofpay.Intheabovefivesteps,j obevaluationandjobevaluationisanimportantworkincompensationsystemdesign,sotheres earchoncompensation,manyscholarshave focusedonthejobevaluation,likegriffinHagenputsf orwardthehierarchical classification,mindray,lotbasispointsmethodwasproposed,ArthurYa ngalignment methodwasproposed,thefundamental,putsforwardthefactorscomparisonmethoda ndsoon.However,asthechangeofTheTimes,thestudyofcompensationhasnot onlystayedontheatt entiontoimprovetheproductionefficiencyofenterprises,butbeginningthestudyofcompensat iononpromotingthedevelopmentofenterprises.So,inEdLawler,1971book"compensationandenterprisedevelopment",willpaylinked withenterpri sedevelopmentareputforward.Inrecentyears,withthechangeof businessenvironment,ontheb asisofpost,postandinternalbalanceoftheoldc o m pensat i on s yste m cannota da pttot hede velopm ent o ft hee nterp ri s e needs.So,thenewcompensationsystemneedstoemphasizetheconnection betweenthe employeesandthecompany'sperformance,toensurethatthecompensationofeach ele ment:thebasepay,variablepayandindirectsalaryfortheperformanceofthe workofenterprise.I naddition,compensationoftheroleisalsofarmorethanjuststayi ne nha nces t hee n terpri s etheprod uctyieldandqualityof t ra di tionalp e rformanc e function.Itcanalsobuildtheenterpriseculture,f ormingacommunityofinterests withemployees,strengthencustomerservice,andestablishthew orkteamandthe implementationofthestrategicshiftandsoon.Japaneseenterprisesalaryincentivesystemofannualworkisprimarilyalifetime e mploy me nt,na m e ly sen i oritysa l arymodel.L ife t i meemploym e nt s ystemo f annua lworkhasthefollow ingtwocharacteristics:oneisbelongtoakindofloanrelationshipsbetweencompaniesandemploye es.Beforetheageof40staffwilltryto lowerthesalaryoftheemployeeintheenterprise,sothesalary increaserateisfarlowerthanthegrowthoflaborproductivity,inasense,thatis,enterprisesinthe e mpl o ye e s'wage s.But onceyourea c hacerta in age,b eca u seem p loyee s afte r the laborofthebesty earsofsuchasafterage50,incontrasttothepreviouswagegrowthisfarhigherthanthelaborproducti vity,thenyoucancalculateasenterprisesinthe employeebeforetheageof50lent.ItisinJapanesec ompaniesemployeesproportionofpostwagesveryfew,butallkindsofthehumanizationofsub sidiesandbenefitsalot.Inrecentyears,theJapaneseenterprisesalaryincentivemodeappearedi nthenew change,plex salaryincentivemodeistheenterpriseaccordingtothestaffofallkindsof differencessuchas:leng thofservice,identity,education,etc,tomakedifferentcompensationmode.Positionsalarypatternb ydegree,ability,performance,andpost salaryoffourparts,thismodelrealizedbasedontheperfor manceofit,namelybasicsalaryplusperformancepay,thismodelistoenjoytheadvantagesofthe annualsalaryofemployeesformaximumplaytotheenthusiasmandeffortstoachievethe establishedobj ectives.3Theconceptandclassificationofcompensation3.1Theconceptofc om pensa t ionCompensationandthenameoftheconceptwithTheTimeschangeandthe developmentof societyandthedeepeningofenterprisemanagement,andconstantly getrich.Apay,isreferstotheor ganizationtoitsemployees,includingtheir implementationperformance,effort,time,andinsuc haspectsasknowledge,skills,e xperi e nceand c reation,enterpri s espayt h ecorresponding re ward orrecogni t ion.Itreferstotheemployeesforemployedvariousformsofeconomicincomeandta ngible servicesandbenefits.Thenatureofthecompensationisafairdealorexchange relations,isstaf ftoitsplaceunitassignmentoftherighttousetheirlabororservicestogetpaid.3.2Thecl a s s i fi ca t ionofthe c ompe ns ationFromtheperspectiveoftheoverallaccessmethodofcompensation,compensationcanbedivi dedintotwotypes:theeconomyandtheeconomy.Economy compensationreferstotheenterprise sintheformofdirectorindirectmonetarypay staff’s.Givingdirectformsincludefixedsalary,bo nusandallowance,etc.Indirectly p aidmai nly forvari ous formsofbenefits,suchasallki nds ofme dic a ltreatme nt,endowmentinsurance,itison-the-joblearning,paidvacation,etc.Theeconomicalcompensationbyenterpriseculture,workenviron mentandhonorbringsakindof spiritualrewardemployees,likechallengingandcompetitivewo rkandthesenseofmissionandsenseofaccomplishment,corporatereputationtothepromotion ofthepositionoftheemployee'ssocialimageandetc.,theeconomiccompensation,don't needto increasewhatcurrencycost,butcangiveemployeesbringspiritual achievementandhonor,tosom eextenttheeconomycompensationcanmotivate staff'sworkenthusiasm.Sotheeconomiccomp ensationisveryimportant,becausemoneyandmaterialcan'treplaceawithtrust,happy,meaningful, organizational environmentfilledwithopportunities,alsocan'tmeettheneedsofpeopletoreali zeselfvalue,sothematerialcan'tdefectsshallbythespiritofbenefitstomakeupfor.Whentheorganiccombinationofeconomiccompensationandeconomical compensationsupple menteachother,willbemultipliedcompensationfunction.But sincethenon-economiccompensationhasnofixedstandard,implementthedifficultyi sbigge r,n ee dt ohavehig h e rlevelsofma n agement.4Relatedtheories4.1IncentivetheoryWithenterprisemanagementespeciallytopayattentiontoandin-depthresearch onenterprisehumanresources,themorepeoplefeelthereasonablecompensationsy st e m for em pl oyeesofinc e ntiveeffe c t i sveryobvious,be c ausei t c a nimpr ove thestaff'sworking enthusiasm,improveworkenthusiasmandworkefficiency,atthe sametime,duetothereasonabl ecompensation,peopleindailylife,lifesafety,social recognition,selfdevelopmentandotherrequ irementsaresatisfied.Scientificandreasonablecompensationsystemanditsmanagementme chanismandtheincentiveis abe nignint er actionbetweentheprocess.D ur ingthistimethes t artin gpointof analysisandresearchofthecompensationsystemfromthedemandoftheenterprisestaffpe rspective,thisispreciselyandrelationshipsofenterprisehumanresources management,compens ationmanagementarecloselylinked.Sotheincentivetheoryisthefoundationofthecompensati onmanagementtheory.Motivationistopayoneof t hem os timportant func t i ons of many f unctio ns.Ince nt ive t heorynowa r emainly representedbyAmericanbehavioralscientistmallow’s h iera rchyofneeds,American psychologisthedualfactorstheory,Buddhalongexpectancytheory,equit ytheoryof Adams.4.2Thetrendofdevelopment(1)ThecomprehensivecompensationsystemPayisnotapureformofcurrency,italsoincludesspiritualincentives,suchas superiorworking conditions,goodworkingenvironment,trainingopportunities,promotionandsoon,andlaypart icularstressonanyonepartywillcreateadeviationcompensationmanagement.Manyenterprisesfo rmentalcompensationignoredfora longtime,andtheimplementationofthespiritualcompensat ionlacksasystemofperfectsystem.(2)BroadbandpaystructureBroadbandsalarystructureisinlinewithorganizationalflattening,thiskindof paystructur etoreducewagelevel,cancrossbetweenwageandvariousjobgrade.B roke t he t radi t io na l pa ys t ruct u r emaintainedbyhierar c hy,ishe l pful f orent e r pri s e stoguideemployeeswillfocusfrompromo tionorsalarylevelofpromotiontothe personaldevelopmentandtheimprovementofability.Tradit ional,equivalent exchangeasthecoreoftheemployeecompensationmanagementschemeisbei ng``people-oriented"humanized,toemployeeparticipationandpotentialdevelopmentast hegoa l ofthemana gementplan.Th e di f fere nc eisc om pensation de sign.Thedifferentiationofcompensationdesi gnismadebythecompensationofdifferentiation.译文企业薪酬体系设计研究LambertS摘要许多企业在初期的起步阶段,并不是很专注于企业的薪酬体系管理,在此期间,企业主与员工共同奋斗,把重点放在业务改进、提升企业的盈利水平等有利于公司稳定的方面,反而对个人利益的得失考虑的很少。

中文3600字原文：外文出处International Foundation News外文作者Frank L.GiancolaA Framework for Understanding New Concepts in CompensationmanagementOver the past 25 years, several major new concepts in compensation management have reflected overly ambitious goals . Experts have disagreed about their basic premises, and the business world has had trouble accepting them. Examining the history of three such concepts-skill-based pay, broadbanding and total rewards -is worthwhile , for it reveals the challenges they present and helps define a pattern for how professionals deal with these and other new ideas in the profession . Skill -Based PayThe skill -based approach for determining base pay is based on an employee’s skills, rather than his or her current job. Leading thinkers in compensation management have supported this approach since the 1980s. According to compensation experts Patricia Zingheim and Jay Schuster it is the “next great thing in pay and benefits”. In an interview Edward Lawler called it “the compensation system of the future.”This approach shifts the focal point from the job to the person, with the goals of providing employees with greater incentives to improve skills and competencies and giving management a more versatile workforce. Generally, employees are paid to acquire higher skills in their own field or lateral ones in related fields. From a systems standpoint, job descriptions, job evaluation plans and job-based salary surveys are replaced by skill profiles, skill evaluation plans and skill-based salary surveys.The disappearance of the traditional job provides the primary rationale for this change. Today，employees are said to have variable and unstable work assignments , with roles that cannot be assigned a valid pay rate in traditional job evaluation plans . Contentious TenetsThe main tenets of skill-based pay (SBP) conflict with mainstream business thinking. The first tenet is that pay should be based only on skills, taking the value of an employee’s work to an organization out of the pay equation. In effect, SBP advocates are asking compensation professionals to set the same pay rate for employees, based on their skills, even though they might have substantially different duties and responsibilities and make substantially different contributions to a firm’s success. The omission of something of fundamental value to the firm makes the concept a hard sell with managers and employees. In recent years, compensation experts have affirmed the value of work as an essential part of the pay equation.The second tenet is the notion that pay should be based on how many skills employees have or how many jobs they potentially can do , not on the job they currently hold . Here again, SBP advocates make what many firms consider an unreasonable request. They introduce a controversial pay for potential concept that directly contradicts the pay for performance concept compensation professionals have diligently strived to establish. In recent years, emphasis has been on what employees actually accomplish on the job, rather than on static concepts relating to who they are, such as their management potential or length of service. Also, by asking firms to pay employees for a job that they might perform in the future, SBP is a practice few firms could afford. With these core beliefs, SBP has experienced an uphill battle for acceptance as the primary means to determine base pay.Questionable AssumptionThe SBP concept rests on a questionable assumption -that a job does not reflect the skills of the person required to do it. That makes job evaluation plans an inappropriate method for evaluating skills and setting pay rates. According to SBP advocates, skills must be valued by using market-based skill surveys. They overlook the fact that most point-factor job evaluation plans award the bulk of their points for the possession and application of knowledge, skills and abilities. On this point, Lawler has stated ,“In many cases , this ( skill-based pay ) will not produce dramatically different pay rates than are produced by paying for the nature of the job . After all, the skills that people have usually match reasonably well the jobs that they are doing.”Also overlooked is the fact that many occupations (e.g., accountant, electrician and actuary) do reflect the skills required to perform them; when salary surveys are conducted and employees are paid based on occupation titles and job summaries , skill requirements are being valued .Ambiguous DefinitionFew “new” ideas in compensation management represent a complete break from the prior ideas. Although SBP was billed as a new idea in compensation when introduced, it included old compensation practices, such as career ladders and generalist classifications.The result is that today，when companies are surveyed to see if they use SBP practices , those that use old SBP practices are counted among the firms that have signed on to the concept . This gives a false picture about the adoption of this “new”, way of paying employees and contr ibutes to varying descriptions of the concept’s level of acceptance.Competency-Based PayIn the 1990s, competency-based pay was introduced as a type of SBP plan for professional and managerial employees. It calls for base pay to be determined based on competencies instead of duties and responsibilities. Shortly after the concept was introduced, controversy arose as to what constitutes a legitimate competency. Today, there are many alternatives to choose from—core, organizational, behavioral and technical competencies. One compensation expert has asked for a governing body, similar to those in the accounting profession, to help sort out what the termcompetency actually means in the world of employee compensation.Changes in the economy and the nature of work—such as the rise of the contingent workforce and the disappearance of traditional jobs, which were predicted to result in a need for SBP—have not materialized. That and the lack of administrative support systems probably have contributed to the concept’s slow growth. Today, SBP is associated with blue-collar workers in manufacturing industries, which are in decline in the United States, while competency-based pay has had a greater impact on performance management than on base pay.Despite these issues and setbacks, prominent compensation experts continue to support the concept.BroadbandingOne of the most visible concepts in compensation management in the 1990s was broadbanding, which collapses many salary grades and ranges into fewer bands with broader salary spans. Its popularity was attributed in part to the 1990s trend to downsize organizations by reducing the number of hierarchical levels.When broadbanding was introduced, some thought leaders saw it as a new pay program for managing salaries and supporting organizational initiatives, such as eliminating bureaucracy and reducing costs.Others saw it as a “higher order of change” and a new way of managing human resources that would be a catalyst for organizational change and represent much more than a new way to reduce bureaucracy and costs.The concept was loosely defined, and companies were said to have welcomed the opportunity to adapt it to their unique needs. And some were given credit for adopting it, even though one cited plan had 13 bands, with multiple salary ranges within them, making it resemble a traditional salary administration plan.FlexibilityOne constant in the dialogue on broadbanding is that it provides the flexibility to accommodate change and to define job responsibilities more broadly. Proponents have dismissed traditional salary administration systems as being too structured, with too many rules.Execution IssuesEarly experience with broadbanding was not completely positive. Although these systems were supposed to reduce costs, managers had too much discretion to increase salaries within the bands. After several years, salaries had progressed to levels that could not be justified.“Second generation” banded systems gave less freedom for managers to determine salaries. These systems include more bands and specifically define salary ranges within the bands,making them resemble the traditional systems they were supposed to replace.Two compensation textbooks have reserved final judgment on the value of broadbanding. One sees it as a potential reprise of the type of salary administration “flexibility” that gave rise to the traditional plans. These plans were developed to reduce favoritism and inconsistencies that resulted from a lack of structure and controls that exist in broadbanding.Total RewardsIn the past decade, professional associations, major human resource consulting firms and compensation experts have advocated the total rewards approach to the development of a firm’s rewards strategy. Some billed it as more than a passing phase and possibly the greatest breakthrough in compensation since health care plans were combined with pay packages.The approach calls for HR professionals to consider all aspects of the work experience of value to people when developing a strategy to attract, retain and motivate employees .It extends the prior concept of total compensation, which encompassed only pay and benefit programs, and gives form to an idea described in a compensation textbook widely used in the 1970s.Thus, the idea is more novel than radical.In the early 2000s, after the intense competition for talent and the economy of the 1990s had cooled, employers sought ways to reduce costs and needed a strategy that places more emphasis on low-cost rewards and less on costly pay and benefit programs, such as stock options. Total rewards meets that need with its message that learning and development, recognition and other soft-dollar programs are as important as pay and benefits in satisfying employees. In addition, it provides a flexible and broad array of rewards that responds well to globalization, mergers and acquisitions, and other forces that increase workforce diversity.Execution IssuesThe launch of total rewards confirmed the axiom that new compensation programs typically are simple in concept, but complex in execution. When HR practitioners put the concept into practice, they encountered many stumbling blocks. That led two consultants to describe human resource professionals in late 2004 as “feeling confused or sensing chaos regarding total rewards.” A primary cause of the confusion was experts who used different names, definitions and models to describe it. Corrective actions were taken to address these issues, courses were developed on total rewards management and the basic concept was simplified.Still, compensation professionals are likely to use other terms to refer to it, with the labels for outdated reward strategies—compensation and benefits package and total compensation—being used about as frequently as the new term.ConclusionsIn sum, new concepts in compensation management have the following general profile:•Are novel, but not radically new•Are simple in concept, but complex in execution•Do not always have expert agreement on main tenets•Overlap with prior concepts, creating a misleading impression about their adoption•Result in major execution issues, largely because of conceptual confusion •Do not reach expected adoption figures•Have a place in the field, but not a dominant role.Given this pattern, compensation professionals are advised to examine newconcepts closely to see if the ideas are too broadly defined, reflect expert agreement,represent significant change and provide guidance on execution and best applications. In addition, practitioners should closely review usage surveys of new concepts to determine if a concept’s broad definition and historical roots have caused related prior practices to be counted as evidence of the new one’s acceptance. They also should seek information as to why organizations have turned down or stopped using a new concept. And, at the risk of appearing behind the times, they would bewell-advised to wait until the knowledge base on the concept has been fully developed before adopting it.Source: International Foundation News, 2009(5):p12-15.译文：薪酬管理新概念的理解框架法兰克·詹科拉在过去的25年里，几个主要的薪酬管理的新理念过于反映其雄心勃勃的目标。

毕业论文材料：英文文献及译文课题名称：薪酬体系专业工商管理学生姓名班级 B 工商 072学号指导教师专业系主任完成日期二零一一年三月The Changing Pattern of Pay and BenefitsTudor, Thomas R, Trumble, Robert R Journal of Compensation & Benefits/May/2008Today, many companies still base their reward systems on the 1950s compensation model made popular during the brief period when U.S. companies dominated the world. With todays increasingly competitive environment, however, companies must look more closely at the cost-benefit of rewards, instead of just using them in an attempt to reduce employee dissatisfaction. Companies must provide short-term motivation and encourage employees to develop long-term skills that will aid the company. Most importantly, companies must also attract and retain high performers, instead of alienating them with pay systems that give everyone pay increases without regard to levels of performance. For example, such new compensation approaches may include skill-based pay, gainsharing plans, and flexible benefits systems.Traditional compensation approaches are still often modeled on the centralization-based organizational model, in which decisions were made at the top and management rigidly defined tasks. However, with global competition becoming an increasingly prominent issue, companies need reward systems that match their movement to decentralized structures. Larger numbers of companies are also becoming very aware that they cannot just pass additional compensation costs onto future customers. Today, our pay systems must move in step with the participative-management trend by becoming more flexible instead of remaining fixed. This adjustment involves many factors including shorter product life cycles, a need to be more flexible, a need for workers to continually gain additional skills, and for them to think more on the job.In today's most successful companies, employee rewards and benefits are increasingly incorporated into an organization's strategic planning. Why? The rationale is that employee compensation has a substantial impact on the long-term financial position of a firm. Compensation structures should consider an organization's strategic requirements and should match organizational goals. Compensation strategic planning should involve:consideration of the internal and external environment; and creation of an organization's compensation statement, compensation goals, and the development of compensation policies.Today, one strategic compensation trend is the use of pay incentives instead of the traditional, annual “everybody gets” pay increase. The rationale is to control costs and to more closely tie performance to compensation. We can group the changing pattern of compensation into two general areas: Pay Method Trends and Benefits Trends. Human Resources managers should familiarize themselves with these changing trends and determine the plan that is most suitable for their organization.PAY METHOD TRENDSThere are a number of pay methods available for use by employers, including general pay increases, cost-of-living increases, merit pay, bonuses, skill-based pay, competence-based pay, CEO compensation, gainsharing, and various types of incentive pay.General Pay IncreaseA general pay increase is a pay increase given to everyone in a company. It can be a lump-sum payment, but it is more likely to be a percentage increase in base salary. The employer's rationale for the pay increase may have been the result of a market survey, job evaluation, or just a profitable year. The trend, however, is for general increases to decline as pay-for-performance systems become increasingly dominant. In addition, giving everyone the same raise sometimes decreases morale because high-performing employees see poor performers getting the same reward.Cost-of-Living IncreaseCost-of-living increases are general pay increases triggered by a rise in an inflation-sensitive index, such as the consumer price index or the producer price index. As with general pay increases, the use of cost-of-living pay increases is decreasing among companies. The rationale for this decrease is that with lower inflation (thus little change in prices), incomes are more stable and the need for inflation adjustments is not as great as it was in the past. In addition, collective bargaining agreements are now less likely to include provisions for cost-of-living increases, so nonunion firms are not under as much pressure to provide them in an attempt to match union-negotiated compensation. Their decline can also be attributed to the fact that employers are moving away from pay systems that are nonperformance related.Merit PayMerit pay is another generic term in which pay incentives are given for overall job performance.² Some problems frequently encounter ed with merit pay plans include:∙the use of subjective criteria when measuring employee performance;∙ a lack of uniform standards for rating individual employees;∙differences among managers in how to make individual ratings.Merit pay was the first attempt by firms to create a pay-for-performance system. However, due to employer (and employee) dissatisfaction with merit pay plans, the trend is to eliminate them and instead use pay-for-performance plans that are more objective (such as bonus plans), and that use specific performance measuring criteria that aid in the performance appraisal process.³ This trend includes both the private and public sectors, because the merit pay system in the federal sector has also been inadequate.BonusA bonus is a generic term involving a type of pay-for-performance plan. Managers can give a bonus for individual or group performance, and for meeting objectives such as MBO (management by objectives). Researchers and practitioners have given these plans high marks for motivating employees, for creating loyalty, and for meeting performance objectives. In addition, bonuses reduce the turnover of high-performing employees and increase the turnover of low performers, who do not get bonuses. If the bonus system is well-designed, they also create internal equity. As such, bonus systems (pay-for-performance) are the current trend in compensation.Skill-Based PaySkill-based pay emphasizes a company's desire to increase the skills and knowledge of its workforce. It may involve classes, voluntary job rotation, or tests. Its benefits are many, including having trained people available to do a job if someone is absent. Skill-based pay also works well with quality circles because:∙it provides employees with a better understanding of the jobs their coworkers perform;∙it reduces resistance to restructuring or other needed changes;∙it leads to a more flexibleworkforce that can better adapt to new technologies or processes; and it encourages a learning environment.It does, however, require a large investment in training which can be expensive.Competence-Based PayCompetence-based pay (the grid system) is very new and does vary from plan-to-plan. The idea is not only to reward employees for how well they do a job, but for how they do the job. For example, a competence-based pay plan can be used to persuade workers to use the computers that are sitting on their desks, or to adapt to other changes that come along. Therationale behind a competence-based pay plan is to keep employee skills current.CEO CompensationThe compensation of CEOs (and other top executives) has also been changing, and now includes more pay incentives—such as stock options—to better link performance with compensation. Plans linking executive pay with performance may include stock options, cash bonuses, phantom stock, or deferred compensation, all of which are ways of making top management more accountable for company performance. Today, performance considerations are a larger part of executive compensation. The Securities and Exchange Commission also requires corporations to explain the rationale behind their executive compensation programs to shareholders.GainsharingGainsharing is a pay-for-performance plan in which “gains” are shared with employees for improvements in profitability or productivity.Gainsharing plans are designed to create a partnership with employees so that both management and labor are working toward the same goals and that both groups are benefiting from the results. Gainsharing is a growing trend, and it fits well with other trends, such as participatory management, worker empowerment, and teamwork. It is also being used in many service businesses, such as banking and insurance. Gainsharing encourages employee involvement and acceptance of change, and aligns employee goals with company goals.Five Types of Pay IncentivesWhile all pay incentives can be generically coined as “gainsharing,” we will briefly mention five types:1.ESOPs. Employee Stock Ownership Plans allow the sharing of gainsthrough dividends and any increase in the value of company stock. ESOPs do create ownership in the company for employees that may result inadditional motivation, but they do not necessarily have a participative-management component.2.Profit-Sharing Plans. Profit-sharing plans allow employees to sharein the revenue they helped generate. This sharing can be either deferred or immediate. Some observers argue that associating rewards and performance is difficult if managers only give rewards annually, and that perhaps employees should not share in the profits because they do not share in the risks. However, companies such as Lincoln Electric and Ford feel that profit sharing is a strong inducement to increase performance. The current rate of growth of these plans is significant.For best motivational results, companies should use a system that is based on some criteria that employees understand, instead of just an arbitrary amount. The advantage of profitsharing plans is that employers do not have to pay a large sum of money if the profit target is not met.3.Scanlon Plans. Scanlon plans allow employees to share in any savingsin labor cost (using a ratio) that is due to their increased performance.The rationale for ScanIon plans is to help employees identify with and participate in the company. Employees participating in such plans may have access to suggestion programs, brainstorming sessions, or committees to solve production problems. The employer and the employees then share in the savings that result.4.Rucker Plans. Rucker plans allow employees to share in any improvementin the ratio of employee costs to the valued added in manufacturing.This is the most complex gainsharing plan, because it deals with four variables: labor costs, sales value of production (changes in equipment, or work methods, for example), purchases of outside services such as subcontracting, or utilities, and purchases of outside materials, involving “inventory, theft, and so on”. Rucker plans are designed to give employees a stake in areas such as reducinglabor costs, using raw materials, and outsourcing decisions. As such, everyone shares in the savings.5.Improshare Plans. Improshare plans allow employees to share inproductivity gains that occur because of their efforts.[sup5] Following the Improshare approach, managers give bonuses when the actual hours for a specific amount of productivity are less than the standard that they created using a formula. The savings are split between the company and the workers, in a ratio such as 50⁄50. CHANGES IN BENEFIT PLANSChanges in benefit plans have occurred as a result of efforts to keep up with trends, to contain costs, and to meet government regulations. Employees often view benefits as an entitlement, and their cost—which has steadily increased—now averages 36 percent of total wages. The trend is to get the most out of benefits, while keeping costs down. For example, employers do not want to pay for any overlap of coverage, or to pay too much for coverage. As their costs continue to go up, employers are now starting to question how much employees value their benefits. For example: ∙Do they support recruitment, motivate, and retain good employees?∙Do they support the strategic mission of the firm?∙Do proposed benefits support the company's retention goals and the demographics of potential recruits?∙Do they support the company culture or the culture the company now wants to promote? A movement now exists among employers for measuring benefit results and continuously evaluating benefits. A focus on Total Quality Management makes the internal employee the customer of HR depar tments who have the product of “benefits.”HR departments want to satisfy the customer, but are also benchmarking and quantifying each benefit. The strategic trend is to design benefits to make it easier to realize the corporate mission and to enhance the value of the benefits offered. Anothermajor trend is offering flexible benefits where employees make benefit decisions to fit their lifestyles.401(k) PlansToday, 401 (k) plans are popular retirement vehicles because contributions are made on before-tax basis and investment earnings are tax deferred. They also address the trend of more mobile employees, who do not stay with a company for their entire working lives. With 401 (k) plans, employee accounts can be transferred to another company's plan or to an Individual Retirement Account. A company can also establish 401(k) plans without providing for employer matching contributions, so the only employer cost is for plan administration.Managed Care PlansManaged care plans, such as Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), are a growing benefit trend away from traditional medical insurance. These plans often include preventive maintenance features that attempt to treat illnesses earlier to avoid higher costs. Although they have disadvantages, they are designed to save benefit expenses. And, due to the of rising cost of health care, companies can no longer afford to write a blank check to cover their employees' health care costs. So, they are requiring employees to pick up a portion of these costs by shifting more of the premium burden to employees, and⁄or increasing deductibles.Prepaid Legal ServicesPrepaid legal services are new plans in which legal expenses are paid before the services are used. The growing number of lawsuits in this country has sparked demand for this type of benefit. A company may offer this benefit if it wants to protect its employees from the threat of litigation, so that their minds are on their work. Or, it may offer this benefit to keep up with its competitors who are offering such plans. At this point, it is too early to tell how popular prepaid legal servicesplans will be in the future, though it is possible that they will be offered as a flexible benefit option.Dependent-Care AssistanceDependent-care assistance is also a new benefit whose popularity is growing. Companies are beginning to recognize that in todays economy, both parents often work and that many workers are raising children in single-parent households. This benefit can help attract employees and reduce turnover because parents do not like to make changes if their child-care provider satisfies them. In addition to caring for children, many employees are responsible for the care of elderly parents or other relatives. Eldercare is a benefit that addresses this need, and allows employees to stay focused on work instead of worrying about their parents. Dependent care assistance is likely to be increasingly offered as an option in flexible benefit plans.Wellness ProgramsWellness programs are designed to reduce sick-leave and medical expenses. These programs may include exercise, nutrition, stress reduction classes, as well as smoking and substance abuse help. Why the popularity of wellness and counseling programs? Studies show that lifestyle and diet impact illness, and that counseling programs can help curtail other higher cost benefit usage.In linking benefits to a corporate strategy plan, employers want to: ∙help employees to lower their health costs;∙reduce turnover of good employees; and∙increase productivity.A company's HR department can perform audits to make sure that a wellness program is a valued added benefit.Flexible Benefit PlansFlexible benefit plans are increasing in number because the needs of workers are more diverse today. The rationale behind these plans is toincrease employee satisfaction, reduce turnover, and decrease expenses to employers. Flexible benefit plans can also help employees realize the value of their benefits. The cost to administer these plans may be higher than with standard benefit provision, but flexible benefit plans can save money by not providing a specific benefit to an employee who does not want it. Flexible benefit plans support workplace diversity and changing employee demographics by allowing employers to offer a variety of benefits to their workers.Frequently included in flexible benefit plans are salary reduction features that enable employees to divert pretax dollars into nontaxable benefit choices. If an employer needs to reduce costs because of low profits one year, it can lessen its contribution to benefits, but still allow employees to direct where they want their benefit dollars to go, instead of making across-the-board cuts in coverage.Flexible benefit plans also put a price on benefits, which helps makes employees aware of their actual cost—a fact often taken for granted. Flexible benefit plans help to equalize benefits provision because one employee may want a child-care benefit, but an older employee may want more life insurance coverage. These plans tend to have a positive impact on employees and are more cost-effective to employers.Flexible benefit plans also:∙reduce the entitlement mentality that has become associated •with the provision of many benefits;∙better associate benefits with direct compensation; and∙fit well with the trend of more employee involvement in company decision-making.Outplacement Benefit PlansOutplacement benefits plans provide support for terminated employees, and in turn show the remaining employees that the company is trying to be fair. Such plans may include office space, resume writing assistance,and employment counseling, among other benefits. These plans are designed to reduce termination litigation and to help maintain the morale of remaining employees.外文翻译：工资和福利的变化模式都铎，托马斯R，特朗布尔，罗伯特《薪酬与福利杂志》现在,很多公司还在以1950年代的补偿模型作为他们报酬系统的基础,这一模型曾经流行于美国公司称雄世界的短暂时期.然而现在随着行业环境竞争的愈加激烈，公司必须更加关注报酬的成本效益分析，而不是仅仅试图使用它来减小雇员的不满。

Enterprise salary reward managementSalary the overall function of function and management of human resource that reward is consistent also for is can attract and encourage the human resource needed by enterprise from labor economy angle speak salary reward have three great merits can: guarantee function, courage function and regulation function .Referring to the angle of management function the salary with reasonable establishment reward management system is every problem that enterprise needs solve. In recent years ,as enterprise manages, mechanism change and establish modern enterprise system step by step needs, the built in wages degree of assignment system of enterprise the self who changes enterprise into gradually from government behavior .Therefore how to meet market needs establish with modern enterprise system appearance the supplement salary ,that suits enterprise self development reward management system and distribution scheme, high limit land development enterprise human resource can become every important program of current Chinese enterprise.Salary the substance that rewarded, it is that enterprise, for employee, is the contribution done by enterprise that function and purpose salary reward , include realization Jig effect, the corresponding repayment and that effort ,tine ,knowledge ,ability ,experience and creation pay that paid out or thank . Essentially , it is a kind of fair distribution principle that exchanges or trades and has embodied socialist market economy. And according to contribution distribution for implicit the meaning of the exchange of equal value of intrinsic, have reflected the law of value of the market of labor force.Salary the overall function of function and management of human resource that reward is consistent, it is also to be to attract and encourage the human resource needed by enterprise. Say from labor economy angle , salary reward have three great merits can: guarantee function, courage function and regulation function. Referring to the angle of the management of human resource salary reward should embody and play mainly its encourage function.The existent problem of the traditional wages degree of assignment system is internal to lack fair sense, the external income degree of assignment system that lacks the traditional state-owned enterprise of competition ability major special Zhen is implement planned instruction and policy regulation ,wages management system from in the restriction that gets planned economy , employee Ian can reality play will not often arouse the notice of people ,so ,the distribution of wages is major to wait according to standing, educational background, title and administrative rank , and overlook as every employee does, work analysis, do not more consider the discrepancy of working post and the contribution of employee.For realizing enterprise goal fully .It is very fair that this kind of system look, but actually is for working value negate, is hard to embody trunk the good dry difference of bad, horizontal difference in degree, its recruit do not enter person also reserve do not live person ,is internal to lack fair sense ,is external to lack competition ability.Salary reward is the contribution that enterprise does for employee for enterprise, include realization Jig effect, the time ,knowledge ,ability ,experience and creation pay that paid out are corresponding as paying to repay or thank ,are a kind of fair distribution principle that exchanges or trades and has embodied socialist market economy essentially, and according to contribution for implicit the meaning of the exchange of equal value of intrinsic, have reflected the law of value of the market of labor force.On knowledge with the mistake district in operation pass, the function understanding thatrewarded for salary on pass frequently in quite ,notice salary only the function of health protection that rewards, and have overlooked salary reward encourage function. No matter going to work, do not perform duty from time to time , have to enterprise to make contribution ,”go to work to take money “have become perfectly justified; Bonus in considerable level on have lost the meaning of award, become regular additional wages. What enterprise employee accumulates for a long period is that inertia and safe sense make salary reward and have lost, should be some to encourage function . Though along with enterprise, being thorough as reforming, the manager of human resource also begins to explore new method on salary rewards system, but when designing distribution scheme often lack for modern salary reward the knowledge of theoretical and design method , make scheme deviate from the law of value of the market of labor force.Now, in the wages system of state-owned enterprise and the most of domestic joint stock companies, do not consider that outside and internal balance of distribution are balanced . The management of human resource replace labor personnel management not the simple displacement of noun, it signifies that from thought and theory , the method of arriving is basic as utilizing to change .Thus each manager must meet the development of socioeconomic culture; system accepts new management thought , theory and method ,sets up the brand-new management concept of human resource.Design salary scientifically to reward the distribution scheme Japanese economic friendship association of central section encourage condition for the first big small and medium sized business to third production department carry out investigation ,show as a result . In initiating vigor factor wages the only row position of 8th ,and in weakening vigor factor ,wages row is in the first place .It is been wages high that this explains and can not initiate vigor ,and wages low definite reduction ,vigor ,therefore the difference in degree of pay for promote employee enthusiasm aspect influence great. Now a lot of western companies in salary reward aspect the experience of having explored some successes , share for example profit , profit share ,stock option ,employee holds share that plan(EOSP), is balanced to tally to block ,key Jig effect index and group team spirit ,and when establishing salary to reward policy ,have considered the relation of short period ,mid-team and long-team pay fully ,and design for special talent “special salary reward scheme “,purpose is to make salary reward distribution scheme with encourage machine made, arouse creativity and the working enthusiasm of employee group team fully.Reward salary to fit into market economic category manage will salary reward fit into market economic category mange ,from the distribution mechanism , three distribution management big aspects and degree of assignment system , carry out bold innovation . The degree innovation of assignment system is basic , distribution machine made innovation is crucial ,management innovation is basic.Establish in order to press Lao distribution is main part. According to the salary the distribution of factor of production reward distribution structure establishment press Lao distribution with press factor of production distribution combination get up salary reward the degree of assignment system ,it is the inevitable requirement of the development of socialist market economy, therefore modern enterprise salary reward distribution with press factor of production the basic general layout distribution . Part is the income degree of assignment system in the low in cost ,part is in tax Hour the degree of essential factor of assignment system of low in profit, make salary reward the technical ,knowledge capital profit of distribution scheme design and employee labor income and employee appearance suit .Lead into market distribution mechanism , make the market and price of labor force, establish the price system of labor force of different post ,post and related enterprise ,regard it as the basic salary of enterprise inside to reward San shine standard, with the fully embodiment value of labor force ,guide the reasonably floating and optimization disposition of labor force.Consider both enterprise benefit ,establish the high benefit capital of senior engineer, the distribution idea of low being it low wages press Lao distribution must be the benefit distribution that created according to labor, if a product that worker offers (service) the needs that can not satisfy society ,that Me him can not get the labor pay that reflects with market price ,therefore must consider both the economic benefits of enterprise .According to employee working ability and accomplishment, pull open distribution gap reasonably ,hang pay and contribution ability finger working complete level , through the goal reached or the effect realized ,the latent ability that reflects and has denotes knowledge with ability synthesize to grasp level as well as experience accumulation level . Salary the role that rewards for is will encourage employee all abilities of having self play, but these abilities must be level and the knowledge of place post first needs . Work accomplishment work Jig the size of effect , from the difference in ability can difference .Therefore the pay that worker gets should not be also identical . It is for enterprise ,what is beneficial to it really is that the actual labor accomplishment of worker ,therefore contribute big have to serve move should get higher pay. Establishment the salary “found on people “reward the system Japanese Hamburg shop of McDonalds number ; When they pass birthday, can send person to send last fresh flower . American chain hospital company in salary reward payment in much a extra bonus –“have oxygen sport challenge plan “,employee must reach every month minimum standard as jog 30miles , play wall ball for 15 hours above etc, can be just qualified bonus. Haier in salary reward the system design of payment aspect is difference “the horse in 1000 the competitive platform ”it is not same to put up and have built , “a s ordinary employee carries out”, “3works coexist , development conversion “-excellent worker , qualified worker and trial worker , enter factory worker all recently have certain probation period , expire acceptable turn for qualified worker ,otherwise, excellent worker turns probably because of working fault, is qualified worker or trial worker .It is 4 level development checks that according to excellent middle-level administrator ,what Haier carry out is taking regularly check result as basis , it is “give you’re a ship ,advance or retreat to float Sheen lean self “ to design for the base salary of brainpower ,according to the commission of economics benefits that new product gets in the market , get salary to reward.It is identical that the effect of leading work depends on the campaign in subordinate mainly , but each subordinate does not let in the aspects such as ability and wishes .Therefore leader must so implement different leading way as subordinate is going to analyze and find out discrepancy carefully, then can get the leading effect of the best . It is also such to reward systematic design for salad rye, employee demand has discrepancy , different employee or same employee in not at the same time wait demand possible difference .For low wages crowd , the role of bonus is very important ; For taking in higher crowd especially knowledge share is with management cadre , promote post ,respect personality , appointment title and encouragement the freely degree etc, of innovation and with bad environment staff ,the possibilities such as labor protection , labor condition and post , respect personality , appointment title and encouragement the freely degree etc. Of innovation and work look more important .For being engage in , it is heavy , dangerous. The physical labor with bad environment staff , the possibilities such as labor protection , laborcondition and post subsidy are effective .Therefore to make salary reward system to develop larger effect , first want the needs for employee have ample understanding . If leader wants to make encouraging level for subordinate reach the biggest demand that melts and melts and must value them , knows the variation of demand and makes positive reaction , embody really found on people thought.企业薪酬管理薪酬管理的功能和人力资源管理的功能总体来说是一致的。