|
几乎所有的公司需要一个战略设计为员工奖励系统,这可能包括四个领域——补偿、福利、识别,以及升值(贝尔& Frese,2008)。然而,在发展的过程中合适的奖励系统,该组织的员工通常会使两个错误,这是组织倾向于要么错过一个或多个元素中提到的,这些元素包含在奖励系统不适当设计。因此这将是有价值的。
. Introduction
2.1.3 Suitable rewards for employees
Nearly all the companies need a strategically designed rewarding system for the employees, which might be including the four areas – the compensations, benefits, recognition, as well as appreciation (Baer & Frese, 2008). However, in the process of developing suitable reward system for the employees, the organisation would usually make two mistakes, as mentioned in the research of Boselie et al. (2010), that are the organisations tend to either miss one or more elements mentioned in the above, or the elements that are included in the rewarding systems are not properly designed. Therefore, it would be valuable to discuss both the elements mentioned above as well as the preference of employees and managers for the rewards.
然而,研究的基础上,艾森伯格et al。(2009),“赢得”公司奖励制度应该关注两方面的员工活动,员工的表现(在工作或在自己的工作领域(如销售目标,销售人员),以及他们的行为(服从的组织规则,与他人合作,等等)。还研究的基础上,Beugelsdijk(2008),表现为员工可以很容易量化和衡量的,因为它可能会直接联系的某些目标,还有一些性能可能会以此来衡量这些目标的成就。
However, based on the research of Eisenberger et al. (2009), the “winning” company rewarding system should be focusing on two aspects of the employee activities – the employees’ performances (at work or on their own working areas such as sales targets for the sales person), as well as their behaviours (the obeying of organisational rules, collaboration with others, etc.). Also based on the research of Beugelsdijk (2008), the performance of the employees could be easily quantified and measured because it might be directly linked to certain targets, and the performance could be thereby measured by the achievements of those targets. As when it comes to the employees’ behaviours – Beugelsdijk (2008) considered, unless the employees are treated like prisoners with cameras on all corners of the organisation, the employees’ behaviours could not be easily measured. Just like highlighted by Edwards (2009), certain behaviours, such as the creativity of the employees shown the work, could be challenging for the company to reward them, because they were untraceable, and no clear measurable results could be seen in such behaviours, through which the company cannot make rewards specific and fair for the employees’ behaviours. Therefore, Hu and Bentler (2009) had mentioned two “self-asking questions” during their researches, that the employer should frequently ask themselves two questions including “what am I compensating my employees for?” as well as “what are the behaviours I want to reward?” (p.15), an example of the commuters as well as working time had been made by Hu and Bentler (2009) to further explain the thought, they mentioned that the employer should usually ask themselves about the question that, do I compensate employees for entering the door of his office earlier than the others whilst staying later than the others for hardworking, or do I compensate employees for the creative ideas offered at the monthly meeting that improved the entire businesses’ efficiencies? Under the above analysis, as mentioned by Lee et al.’s research (2009), in develop an effective reward system within the organisation, the managers need to identify the behaviours that are important or essential for the organisations, for example, for the customer-oriented companies, the employee behaviours of enhancing the relationships with customers could be more important for the company, whilst for the consulting firms, the employee behaviours of strengthening their professional knowledge are expected.
Besides of that, compensation could be referred as important as well in the company’s reward system (Marsden & Richardson, 2009; Pettigrew, 2010; Shalley, 2011). As mentioned by Marsden & Richardson (2009) when developing the reward system within the organisation, usually, and typically, it would be natural for the managers to think of the compensation strategies first. Marsden & Richardson (2009) referred the compensation as the “basic requirement” of employees, after all, no one would like, and be able to, work for free. But as mentioned by Shalley (2011), it would be more important for the HR managers to work out the compensation as an “incentive compensation plan” through which the compensation could be linked directly to the company goals or the benefits expected from the employees’ work. This point of view was supported by Pettigrew (2010) as well, who had mentioned the fact that if the HR managers do not take advantage of compensation in order of achieving the company goals, the compensation plan would not be suitable and acceptable for the employees, because other criteria might not be designed fairly and rationally in the eyes of the employees.
Benefits, on the other hand, could be considered as the other type of reward in a strategic reward system in the organisation, as mentioned by Cooper et al. (2009), benefits are usually concerned as important by employees, their decisions of being employed by the employer would be mostly decided on the “gap” between their expected benefits as well as the actual offered benefits by the organisation, Cooper et al. (2009) considered if the gap is small or even no gap between the two benefits, the employees would be expecting entering the organisation and work with a higher level of morale at the beginning, vice versa, if the gap is large, the employees might not be willing to enter the organisation or with lower morale and stableness. Also Dorenbosch et al. (2010) mentioned the fact that benefits, or the gap mentioned by Cooper et al. (2009), could also impact the turnover of the employees within the organisation, as in the organisations with higher level of benefits offered to the employees, the turnover would usually be smaller than the organisations who offer lower level of benefits, especially in the lower-level positions. On the other hand, Kaya’s research (2011) had involved the impact of competitors, who mentioned that the benefits offered by the organisation would be considered lower or worse by the employees when they are obvious lower than those of the competitors, and if this situation had occurred, the organisations would feel difficulties in attracting and retaining the employees, especially for those in the senior positions. After all, as concluded by Kaya (2011), it is the nature of human that they would find place that could offer them better treatments and more money to work.
In addition to the above mentioned compensation and benefits, the following two elements of rewards, the recognition as well as appreciation are considered easily neglected by the organisation during their practices (Baer & Frese, 2008; Boselie et al., 2010; Lepper et al., 2008; March, 2011; Preffer & Sutton, 2006). Recognition could be defined as the acknowledgement of the employees performances that is better than their peers in the specific job areas, activities, or attitudes that could be exemplified through the employees’ certain behaviours (Baer & Frese, 2008); whilst appreciation would focus more on the expression of gratitude by the employers to the employees who are working excellently well or have better loyalty, or some other behaviours that could be creating values for the organisation (ibid). Although there are more complicated ways for making recognition as well as appreciation among the employees, the simplest as well as most effective way would be direct expressions and statements for the employees’ performances and achievements that the organisations need their employees to work on harder (Boselie et al., 2010). For example, the senior managers could send a personal note or just stop by the employees’ desk to express their gratitude for the employees’ excellent performance or behaviours among the employees’ colleagues, and with making such judgements the other colleagues would know what kind of behaviours could be appraised and the employees being appraised could be positively motivated through the satisfaction of self-respect (Turner, 2008).
According to Lepper et al. (2008), organisation cannot diminish the importance of the recognition as well as appreciation as integral elements for a successful and effective strategic rewarding system within the organisation. Although not material, the two elements could enhance the employees performances from strengthening their relations with the employers and then raise the morale of employees at work (March, 2011). Although the two elements could rarely attract the employers’ attention in order of rewarding their employees, the actual costs for undertaking or adding the two elements of rewards for the company rewarding system were very low, this is because a basic concept – the employees do not know whether they are doing a good job and how good they have been achieved in their jobs, therefore they need their employers to tell them and make excellent performance appraised (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006).
Moreover, employee-centric point had been analyzed by different researchers, such as (Zeng, 2010), and Zhou (2008) within the Chinese enterprises. Through Zeng’s research (2010), the case companies in his research had been taken the rewards for employees as a way of motivating and retaining the employees, and also Zhou (2008) had considered that the Chinese enterprises are making rewards mostly monetary-based because they consider money shall be the best motivator among employees. However, from the employees’ aspect, as considered by Zhou (2008), more than the monetary rewards, psychological rewards shall be offered, so that the employees’ higher level of needs (based on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) could be satisfied. Therefore, it could be concluded that it is the differences of opinions between the enterprises and the employees towards rewards that make the gap between reward performance and preference within the organisation.#p#分页标题#e#
2.2 Reward Preferencehttp://www.ukassignment.org/uklunwen/
Based on the above mentioned background, identifying and making gap analysis based on the reward preference of employees as well as managers is also one of the objectives of the research, therefore it would be valuable for evaluating the recent literatures about the reward preference for the employees and for the managers.
There were actually heated arguments about whether the organisation should treat the employees and managers differently in terms of designing the rewarding and motivation strategies within the organisation, however, most of the scholars believed, based on the results of large amount of experiments, that the organisation should take the reward for employees and for managers differently (Aragon-Sanchez et al., 2008; Hennessey & Amabile, 2008; Corby et al., 2010; Guilford, 2010; Taylor, 2010; Yang et al., 2011). Among the recent literatures, there are either the researches about the rewards for employees in specific (Aragon-Sanchez et al., 2008; Corby et al., 2010; Taylor, 2010; Yang et al., 2011), or the researches about the rewards for the managers in specific (Kessler & Purcell, 2007; Laursen & Foss, 2008; Hennessey & Amabile, 2008; Guilford, 2010).
2.2.1 Reward preference for employees
The reward preference for employees, according to Taylor (2010) could be split into two different aspects – the employees working on repetitive and mechanic tasks, as well as the employees working on innovative tasks. Based on the research of Taylor (2010), the employees working on repetitive and mechanic tasks should be given rewards in a traditional way – with higher level of payments the employees could have higher level of productivities; for the innovative employees, in order to stimulate the employees’ innovation and creativity at work, they might need rewards not only from monetary, but also psychologically, such as the above mentioned appreciation. Also from the other perspective, employees doing different level of jobs might be expecting different rewards from the enterprises – employees are doing repetitive and mechanic tasks, such as the workers on the production line, might not expect higher than a fair income, but for the employees that are working on innovative tasks, such as the managers and engineers in the company, their expectation might be more because they believe they contributed more to the organisation.
What was considered by Yang et al. (2011) was similar to the Taylor’s consideration, and Yang et al. (2011) considered it is the most important thing for the organisation to offer different levels of rewards for employees with different work. Yang et al (2011) had made the example of the Wikipedia as well as Google Dictionary project. The two projects were started in nearly the same time with nearly the same idea – to create an online, editable, and professional encyclopaedia for the internet users. However, the differences of the two projects might be in the rewards for the employees – for Wikipedia, employees were working voluntarily and their rewards were mostly come from the head of Wikipedia project – according to the recall of the Wikipedia employees, the period of time they were working on constructing the Wikipedia was probably one of the most precious memories of them because from which they could feel continuous achievements, and improvements of themselves; for Google, the same as the other new product development team, there were large number of professional from various areas of academies, and they were given really higher-level of salaries for conducting and finishing the project, but after three years’ work, the project had to be halted temporarily because the senior managers considered it cost too much money without seeing good results . Through the example, Yang et al. (2011) had concluded that for the employees, money might be important but it was not always effective for promoting employees’ behaviours especially when in the case of employees’ innovation and creativities needed to be stimulated.
|
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
