外文翻译--用新概念来理解薪酬管理的框架

外文翻译-用新概念来理解薪酬管理的框架 本科毕业论文设计外文原文外文出处 BenefitsCompensationDigestVol46No9September2009 外文作者 FrankLGiancola 原文AFrameworkforUnderstandingNewConceptsinCompensation ManagemenSeptember 2009 Vol 46 No 9The author looks at the history of skill-based pay broadbanding and total rewardsthree major concepts in compensation management that have developed over the last quarter century The reasons they have failed to catch on as well as experts expected provide in-sight into how professionals deal with new ideas in the professionOver 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 conceptsskill-based pay broadbanding and total rewardsis worthwhile for it reveals the challenges they present and helps define a pattern for how profes-sionals deal with these and other new ideas in the professionSkill-Based PayThe skill-based approach for deter-mining base pay is based on an employ-ees skills rather than his or her current job Leading thinkers in compensation management have supported this ap-proach since the 1980s According to compensation experts Patricia Zingheim and Jay Schuster it is the next great thingin pay and benefits In an interview Edward Lawler called it the compensationsystem of the futureThis approach shifts the focal point from the job to the person with the goals of providing employees with greater in-centives 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 surveysThe 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 plansContentious 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 employees 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 firms 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 equationThe 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 affordWith these core beliefs SBP has experienced an uphill battle for acceptance as the primary means to determine base payQuestionable AssumptionThe SBP concept rests on a questionable assumptionthat a job does not reflect the skills of the person required to do it That makes job evaluation plans an nappropriate method for valuating 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 ell the jobs that they are doingAlso overlooked is the fact that many ccupations eg 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 valuedAmbiguous 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 classificationsThe 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 contributes to varying descriptions of the concepts level of acceptanceExecution IssuesSBP presents formidable problems for practitioners who have an interest in applying the concept To install a skill-based plan practitioners need management information systems for identifying valuing certifying and tracking employee skills Neither these systems nor market surveys that value skills have been developed to manage plans efficiently for large groups of employeesOne result is that practitioners are able to apply the concept only for small groups of employees mostly hourly and nonexempt salaried employees whose jobs are uncomplicated rather than professional and managerial employees Another result is that compensation professionals may attempt to implement SBP without the tools to do the job correctlyConcept Scaled BackThe skill-based concept is less far reaching than originally proposed In the 1980s it was seen as a replacement for job evaluation plans affecting base pay for most employees Today advocates admit that no single pay system provides the best answer for all employees and that a one-time bonus payment for skill acquisition is a valid application of the concept One expert believes that it is particularly well suited for applications with blue-collar employees in capital-intensive manufacturing industries which tend to have highly customized plansCompetency-Based PayIn the 1990s competency-based pay was introduced as a type of SBP plan for professional and managerial employeesIt 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 fromcore 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 wha the term competency actually means inthe world of employee compensationAs professionals have struggled with the terms meaning pay-for-competencies has experienced greater use in performance management 41 of surveyed firms than in base pay determination 14 of firms a development SBP advocates did not predictChanges in the economy and the nature of worksuch as the rise of the contingent workforce and the disappearance of traditional jobs which were predicted to result in a need for SBPhave not materialized That and the lack of administrative support systems probably have contributed to the concepts 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 payDespite these issues and setbacks prominent compensation experts continue to support the conceptBroadbandingOne 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 levelsWhen 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 costsOthers 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 planFlexibilityOne 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 rulesExecution 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 bandsmaking them resemble the traditional systems they were supposed to replaceTwo 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 broadbandingPrevalenceFor these reasons and because of a renewed interest in cost containment broadbanding may not have lived up to its billing as the future of compensation management In 2003 a survey of 1226 compensation professionals found that 9 used broadbanding and only 2 of line managers made the decision to assign grades to jobs one of the hallmarks of broadbandingIn 2008 a compensation survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting found that 21 of firms use the conceptdown from 26 in 2002 Broadbanding usually appeals to fast-moving organizations that experience continual changeand there is a tendency for companies to develop unique plansTotal 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 firms 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 packagesThe 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 employeesIt 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 1970sThus the idea is more novel than radicalIn 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 optionsTotal 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 diversityExecution 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 itCorrective actions were taken to address these issues courses were developed on total rewards management and the basic concept was simplifiedStill compensation professionals are likely to use other terms to refer to it with the labels for outdated reward strategiescompensation and benefits package and total compensationbeing used about as frequently as the new termToo Broadly DefinedA major contributor to the confusion and chaos seems to be the definition of the term Initially practitioners were advised to consider as a reward all that an employee values in the employment relationshiprather than including only those that would have real meaning to employees and represent a coherent and manageable strategyIn 2006 the concept was simplified to reflect practitioners experiences in an influential total rewards model used by the association of compensation professionals WorldatWork Two complex elementswork design and organizational factors such as challenging work and strong executive leadershipwere removed from the organizations original 2000 list of key rewardsThese elements are hard to implement and are important in producing an engaged workforceIn addition to having fewer total rewards elements to deal with firms are given credit for total rewards by taking one-dimensional actions such as by of-fering a thank you from the boss rather than a substantial recognition program or by offering a telecommuting program rather than a culture that embraces worklife balanceToday total rewards is a much less demanding concept than the original described by WorldatWork and experts do not always agree on the list of total rewards Mercer Human Resources uses a total rewards model similar to the 2006 WorldatWork model but is in a minority Five other HR consultants use the complex model introduced by WorldatWork in 2000PrevalenceAs with other new concepts it is difficult to quantify the adoption of the total rewards strategy since many of the itemsthat demonstrate usebeyond the standard group of pay and benefit programsexisted in many companies before the concept was formally introduced For example before the concept became popular career development programs were in place in many companies as part of the overall HR strategyThere is a very mixed usage picture for the total rewards strategy in the field based on surveys such as these Buck Consultants 2007 survey of 138 organizations representing a diverse industry and organization profile found that 11 have a total rewards strategy Watson Wyatts 2005 survey of 265 US organizations with at least 1000 employees representing various industries and regions found that 70 have a total rewards strategyWhile it is too soon to tell what effect total rewards will ultimately have on compensation practices it already has accomplished two goalsshifting attention to soft-dollar HR programs and making more practitioners aware of the value of the full spectrum of rewardsConclusionsIn 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 roleGiven this pattern compensation professionals are advised to examine new concepts 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 concepts broad definition and historical roots have caused related prior practices to be counted as evidence of the new ones 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 be well-advised to wait until the knowledge base on the concept has been fully developed before adopting it 译文用新概念来理解薪酬管理的框架作者看技能报酬宽带薪酬及总回报的历史三个主要的概念在薪酬管理上发展已经超过四分之一世纪他们没能明白的原因是专家预计眼前提供专业人士在职业上如何处理新想法在过去的25年里在薪酬管理上几个主要的新概念反映了求成的目标专家们不同意他们的基本前提商界接受他们有困难研究3个概念的历史技能报酬宽带薪酬及总回报背景-是值得的因为它揭示了他们呈现的挑战帮助定义一个模式专业人士如何处理这些和职业中的其他新思想技能型支付决定技能型基本工资是基于雇员的能力而不是他或她目前的工作从1980年开始在薪酬管理上领先的思想家就支持这种方法按照补偿专家Patricia Zingheim和 Jay Schuster说的 报酬和福利是下一个美好的事在一次采访中Edward Lawler称其为未来的补偿系统这种方法焦点转移到该做的事情目标是提供员工更多的激励提高技能并给管理更和谐的劳动力一般来说员工得到薪水就需要在自己的领域或相关领域获得较高的技能从系统的观点来看工作职责工作评价计划和基于工作的工资调查是技能侧面技能鉴定计划和基于技术的工资调查传统工作的消失提供了这种变化的基本原则今天员工说有变量和不稳定的工作任务不能在传统的工作评价的计划指定一个有效的支付比率有争议的原则主要的原则SBP薪水 技能 冲突与主流商业思维第一个原则是工资应仅仅基于技巧 以价值的职员的工作的来衡量一个组织工资方程事实上SBP运动倡导者的要求根据他们的技能给以专业人士同样的工资标准即使他们可能为公司的成功贡献完全不同的职责 管理者和员工容易遗漏基本价值的东西近年来专家认为补偿工资相等是工作的价值的重要组成部分第二我们的观念宗旨是这样的待遇的高低时要通过员工有多少技能或他们的潜力所能做的多少来定的而不是在他们目前持有的工作量 在这里SBP倡导者把许多公司不合理的要求在考虑专业人员努力建立起一个有争议的支付潜在工资的概念薪酬和绩效概念补偿近年来重点对员工实际上完成的工作而不是静态概念有关他们是谁如管理潜在的或服务年限为准同时通过问企业支付职工工作他们可能执行在未来SBP是一个实践的几家公司能负担的这些核心信仰SBP经历了一场艰苦的战斗承诺为主要手段以确定基数缴纳可疑的假设SBP概念的基于一种可疑的假设这一份工作不反映人所需要做的技能使工作评价计划一个合适的方法和背景工资偶技能根据SBP倡导者他们忽视一个事实那就是多数观点因素评估方案奖大部分工作的分数为业和应用的知识技能和能力技巧是必须被利用市场技能调查在这一点上Lawler已经说在很多情况下这个 技能型工资 不会产生迥然不同的工资支付比生产这个工作的本质毕竟人们往往合理地搭配他们做的事通过这个技能也忽视的是这一事实就是许多职业例如会计电工精算确实反映它们的执行过程所需的技能当工资调查进行工资是以员工职业头衔和工作技能需求而得到重视的模稜两可的定义一些新理念在薪酬管理代表一个完整的休息和前的想法虽然SBP被认为是予补偿新主意的了这包括老补偿技术在职业梯子和多样化的分类结果是当公司正在调查看看他们使用SBP实践那些用旧SBP算在实践的企业已经同意这个概念这给了虚假的画大约采用有助描述不同新的员工工资和概念的接受程度操作问题SBP提出了强大的问题有兴趣的执业应用的概念安装技能型计划练习者亦需要管理信息系统以寻找重证明和跟踪员工技能没有这些系统和市场调查价值技巧已经发展到管理计划的有效大型团体的雇员结果之一是从业人员能够将这一概念仅为员工的小群体其中大部分是每小时和非免除受薪员工不复杂的工作而不是专业的和管理的员工另一个结果是补偿专业人员试图执行SBP没有工具做的工作正确减少概念概念的技能比原来少深远的方法在80年代把那看作是评估方案替代工作影响基本工资对大多数员工今天提倡承认没有一种单一的支付系统提供最佳答案为所有员工的一次性奖金支付技能习得一个有效的应用的概念一位专家相信它是特别适合蓝领员工的应用与资本密集型制造业常会有高度定制的计划人力资源支付在20世纪90年代介绍了工资是人力资源计划的一种SBP专业的和管理的员工它呼吁基本工资决定的而不是以胜任能力义务和责任介绍了概念后不久争议所包含的内容来划分合法的能力今天有不少替代选择核心组织行为和技术能力一补专家已要求管理机构像会计行业帮助解决那术语能力实际上意味着在世界上的雇员补偿作为专业人士一直挣扎于术语的意思支付能力经历了更多地使用在绩效管理 41接受调查的公司 比基本工资的决心 14的公司 发展SBP支持者没有预测经济形势的变化和工作性质如上升队伍劳动力和传统工作的消失这被认为将导致需要SBP没有出现和缺乏行政支持系统可能导致这一概念的经济增长缓慢今天SBP蓝领工人有关制造行业是在下降的在美国虽然有了更大的时候报酬也在人力资源管理性能影响比在基本工资尽管有这些问题与挫折突出的补偿专家继续支持这个概念宽带薪酬最明显的一个概念在薪酬管理90年代许多崩溃broadbanding确定工资和范围上有广阔的工资成不多横跨 部分原因是流行趋势至90年代精简组织层级数量的减少介绍了broadbanding时有些人以为领导们认为它作为一种新的支付工资和管理程序支持组织措施如消除官僚主义和降低了成本别人把这看作一个更高层次的改变一种新的方式来管理人力资源将会是一个催化剂对变革及代表远远超过了一种新的方法来减少官僚主义和成本这个概念就是松散定义公司被认为欢迎机会使它适应他们不同的需要获得荣誉有些则采用它即使你引用的计划已经13的乐队在多的薪水范围都能使它像传统薪酬管理计划的灵活性有一个不变的对话中broadbanding是提供了灵活的适应变化和定义的工作职责更广阔的领域上支持者把传统薪酬管理系统太结构有太多的规则操作问题早期的经历与broadbanding还没有完全积极的虽然这些系统是为了降低成本经理有太多的自由裁量权在增加工资杆子几年以后工资已经进展升高可能是不正当的第二代带状系统不自由了经理决定薪水这些系统包括更多的乐队和详细的定义的薪水范围在乐队让他们看起来像传统的系统是用来替代二种补偿的课本是保留最终的判断broadbanding的价值人把它看作是一个潜在的演出的类型的弹性工资管理引起的传统的计划这些计划被开发来减少偏袒和矛盾导致缺乏结构和控制程序它存在于broadbanding