一个理解薪酬管理新概念的框架【外文翻译】.doc

《一个理解薪酬管理新概念的框架【外文翻译】.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《一个理解薪酬管理新概念的框架【外文翻译】.doc（7页珍藏版）》请在温州文客信息科技有限公司上搜索。

1、 外文翻译 原文 A Framework for Understanding New Concepts in Compensation management Material Source: Monthly benefits and compensation Auther: Frank L.Giancola Over the past 25 years, several major new concepts in compensation manage-ment have reflected overly ambitious goals. Experts have disagreed abou

2、t theirbasic premises,and the business world has had trouble accepting them.Examining the history of three such conceptsskill-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

3、 new ideas in the profession. Skill-Based Pay The skill-based approach for determining base pay is based on an employees 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 Zing

4、heim 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 an

5、d 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,sk

6、ill 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 pla

7、ns. Contentious Tenets The 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 pro

8、fessionals 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 second tenet is the notion that pay should be based on how many skills emplo

9、yees 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.The omission of something of fundamental value to the firm makes the concept a hard sell with managers and employees.In recent years,

10、 compensation experts have affirmed the value of work as an essential part of the pay equation. 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

11、 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 employ-ees for a job that they might perform in the future, SBP is a practice few firms could aff

12、ord. With these core beliefs, SBP has experienced an uphill battle for acceptance as the primary means to determine base pay. Questionable Assumption The 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 pla

13、ns 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 knowled

14、ge, 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.“ Al

15、so 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 Definition

16、 Few“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 su

17、rveyed 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 acceptance. Exec

18、ution Issues SBP 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 t

19、hat value skills have been developed to manage plans efficiently for large groups of employees. One 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

20、 managerial employees.Another result is that compensation professionals may attempt to implement SBP without the tools to do the job correctly. Concept Scaled Back The skill-based concept is less far reaching than originally proposed.In the 1980s, It was seen as a replacement for job evaluation plan

21、s, 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

22、with blue-collar employees in capital-intensive manufacturing industries, which tend to have highly customized plans. Competency-Based Pay In 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

23、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 f

24、or a governing body, similar to those in the accounting profession,to help sort out what the term competency actually means in the world of employee compensation. Conclusions In sum, new concepts in compensa-tion management have the following general profile: 1. Are novel, but not radically new. 2.

25、Are simple in concept, but complex in execution. 3. Do not always have expert agreement on main tenets. 4. Overlap with prior concepts, creating a misleading impression about their adoption. 5. Result in major execution issues, largely because of conceptual confusion. 6. Do not reach expected adopti

26、on figures. 7. Have a place in the field, but not a dominant role. Given 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 ap

27、plications.In addition,practitioners should closely review usage surveys of new concepts to determine if a concepts broad defi-nition 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 organization

28、s have turned down or stopped using a new concept.And,at the risk of ap-pearing 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 一个理解薪酬管理新概念的框架 资料来源：福利与薪酬月刊 作者 ： Frank L.Giancola 在过去 25 年中 ， 主要 的 几个 新概念在薪酬管理里

29、引起了过度的争议 。 专家们不同意他们的基本前提 ，而且 商业界 也 不愿 接受他们。 但 基于技能的薪酬概念，宽带 薪酬 和 总报酬这三个模式的历史是 值得研究的 。 因为 这不仅 揭示了他们目前面临 的挑战 而且 帮助专业人士 制定了一个 如何处理这些和其他行业新思路 的 模式 。 技能为基础的薪酬 技能基础确定基薪的方法 是 基于雇员的技能而不是他或她目前的工作 。 自80 年代以来在薪酬管理中 的先进 思想家都支持这种方法 。 据薪酬专家 Patricia Zingheim 和 Jay Schuster 所说， 它是 “ 下一个 关于 薪资和福利的 伟大 事情 ” Edward Law

30、ler 在接受采访时称这是对未来的补偿制度 。 这种从 工作到人的焦点转移方法，目的在于给 员工更大的激励措施 以 提高技能和能力，并 使得 劳动力管理 更加灵活 。 一般来说，雇员 以 在自己的领域或横向的相关领域的高技能 被支付薪酬。 从系统的角度来看 ，以 技能 介绍 ， 技能评价计划和技能为基础的薪酬调查 已经取代了以工作 说明 ， 工作 评价和工作计划为基础的薪金调 查。 传统的工作消失 是 这种变化 的 主要 原因 。如今，员工被告知 具有可变的，不稳定的工作任务 ， 就像是 在传统的工作评估计划 担演一个 不能分配 有效 工资标准的角色。 争议 原则 基于技能的薪酬的主要原则 冲

31、击着 经营思想的主流 。 第一个原则是， 应当以技能为基础给及支付， 以一个员工 对组织的 的工作价值 来设计 的薪酬 方式。实际上 基于技能的工资 是 专业人士主张所要求赔偿 要 根据 员工 的技能为 他们 设置相同的工资率，尽管他们 的 职责 和 责任可能有很大 的 不同， 而且 为 一个公司的成功做出的贡献 也 不同。公司对基本价值的忽视使得这个概念很难在管理人员和员工中间实 施。近几年， 薪酬专家已 将 它 确认作为一个 薪酬支付方式的 重要组成部分 。 第二个原则是，薪酬支付必须基于员工有多少技能或者 他们 有多少工作可以做，而不是他们目前持有多少工作。 这样一来 ， 许多企业 认为

32、 基于技能的工资主张 是一个 不合理的要求 。 他们提出一个有争议的 支付概念， 这直接违背了 薪酬专家 一直在努力争取建立 的政绩观。近几年，重点在于 了解员工实际完成的工作 ，而不是仅仅 关 于 他们是谁 这样的静态概念 ， 比 如他们的管理潜力或工龄 。 同时，要求公司支付员工 在未来可能 的工作表现，基于技能的 薪酬只有 几家公司 付诸了实践。 在这些核心理念中， 基 于技能的 薪酬为了确立作为支付 基本工资的主要手段而 经历了一场艰苦的斗争 。 可疑 假设 基于技能的工资概念建立在一个 可疑 的假设 上 因为 一个工作并不能反映人 被 要求 的 技能。这使得 对 评估和确定工资水平的

33、技能 的 工作评估计划 变成 不恰当的方法 ，根据基于技能的工资 的 主张， 技能的使用必须重视市场调查的基础技巧 。他们忽略了一个事实， 大多数点因素工作评估计划 授予那些 大部分 认 为拥有并运用 知识，技能和能 力的人 。在这一点上， Lawler 曾表示 “在许多情况下，技能基础的薪酬不会产生显着不同的工资率 而 是用于支付制作的工作性质 。 毕竟，人的技能，通常 可以匹配 相当不错的工作 。” 另一个被 忽视的事实是，许多职业的确反映执行这些要求的技能 。当薪金 调查的进行和员工的支付都 基于职业名称和工作总结 ， 技能要求 将会 被重视 。 模糊 定义 在薪酬管理中一些新的想法代表

34、了 从 以前的思想彻底决裂 出来。尽管基于技能的工资计费 作为补偿的新想法介绍 ， 它包括旧的补偿做法 ， 如职业阶梯和一般分类 。 其结果就是今天， 当公司调查以了解他们是否使用 基于技能的工资 的做法 ，那些使用旧的基于技能的工资的做法被这些公司算作已签约的概念。这给出了一个假象关于通过这个“新”的方式支付员工以 及有助于实现这一概念的接受程度不同的描述。 执行问题 基于技能的工资对那些对运用新概念有兴趣的从业者提出了严峻的问题。 要实施 一个技能为基础的计划，从业人员需要 查明，估价，认证和跟踪员工的技能的管理信息系统。尽管这些系统没有进行市场调查，那些有价值的技能已经成为大集团管理员工

35、的有效计划。 其中一个结果是，从业者可以运用 的 这个概念只适用于小团体的雇员，主要是那些工作很简单的以每小时和非豁免的受薪员工，而非专 业管理人员。另一个结果是薪酬 专业人员可能会尝试执行没有工具做正确的工作的基于技能的工资。 概念缩减 以技能 为基础的概念远远达不到最初的建议。在 20 世纪 80 年代，它被视为一以技能为基础的概念远远达不到最初的建议。在 20 世纪 80 年代，它被视为一个工作评估更换计划，影响大多数员工的基薪。今天，主张承认没有单一的薪酬制度为全体员工和这一个技能获得一次性奖金是一种有效的应用程序的概念提供了最佳答案。一位专家认为，这与蓝领员工申请在资本密集的制造业非

36、常的适合，更倾向于有高度定制计划 。 以 能力为基础的薪金 在 20 世纪 90 年代 ，对专业 管理 人员 实施以能力为基础的薪酬，被认为 是 一种基于技能的工资计划的类型。它要求以能力基础来确定相 应的支付，而不是义务和责任。这个概念被引入不久后，争议便 上升到 了什么是合法的竞争力。如今，有许多可供选择的替代品核心， 如 组织，行为和技术能力。 一位薪酬方面的专家申请了一个类似于那些在会计行业的理事会 ,来帮助解决员工胜任力薪酬实际上是什么 这一问题。 结论 总之， 新的薪酬管理概念，一般有以下特点： 1 新颖，但不 是全新的。 2 概念 很 简单，但在执行 上很复杂。 3 不是所有 有专家 都 同意主要原则。 4与以前的概念重叠，对于他们的采用形成一种误导的印象。 5主要是因为概念的混淆而导致重大的执行问题。 6没有达到 预期的通过数字。 7起到一定的作用，但 不是主导作用。 鉴于这种模式，薪酬专家应密切合作，研究新概念 想法 的定义 是否过于广泛，专家的 一致同意 ， 引起了重大变化并为执行提供了 指导 以及最好的应用程序。 从业者应密切审查新概念的使用情况调查，以确定一个概念是否有广泛的定义和历史根源，他们还应该寻求信息，找到组织为什么有拒绝或停止 使用的新概念，以及在以面的时代中出现的风险，在适应它前，他们有更 好的建议直到基础知识概念得到充分发展 。