Impact on compensation policies in modern organisations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Description
Impact on compensation policies
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Managers have historically concentrated on the relation between rewards and behaviour with a view of explaining individual action. Compensation has been regarded as the motivation identified for motivating employees and the reward for the ineffectiveness of the job.

Remuneration suitably plays an enormous task in most behavioural wage theory associated with the manufacturing procedure (Judge, 2009). In the new age, a large number of studies examining motivation (comprising wage as an aspect) has been carried out by organizational behaviour professionals and social scientists.

Such streams of research, far from wage theories, have generated an enormous literature, both experiential and theoretical. The motivational literature not only supports but also discredits some aspects of the various behavioural wage theories. The first component of this paper provides a description of the four major behavioural wage theories.

These theories are; need-fulfilment, expectancy, reinforcement, and justice theories. The second section of the paper explains how such theories might influence reward guidelines in contemporary organizations. The paper concludes by giving a summary of the key aspects discussed.

Description

In understanding what kinds of wage frameworks are most likely to be adequate and how the efficiency of such theories differs based on eventuality aspects like enterprise approach, socio-economic factors, competition, and staff features, there should be an excellent model, or framework.

To examine repercussions, we should understand that effectiveness is an intricate idea that could comprise at least, costs, production, creativity, quality, monetary, and behavioural measures.

Additionally, the comparative significance of such measures will differ across enterprises and organizational departments (Wong & Campion, 2007).

At the basic degree of examination, models have been utilized in showing how wage strategies can be utilized in motivating, directing, and controlling staff behaviour. This section briefly describes four such frameworks utilized in motivating employees.

Need-fulfilment theory

Maslow (1954) emphasized that people’s major motivation is self-realization. Maslow generated a pecking order of needs whereby the purpose of mankind is to effectively attain the low-level needs of physical wants (i.e., food and water) and security (housing, safety from physiological damage) prior to attaining the higher-level needs of loving relations (self-belonging), status (esteem, appreciation), and lastly self-realization.

Organization, Maslow (1954) recommended, struggled in meeting the lower-level desires of its employees since employees with self-reverence displayed higher degrees of motivation as far as organizational goals are concerned.

Reinforcement theory

Reinforcement premise states that any feedback supported by an incentive is more likely to happen again in the future. The inference for reward administration is that superior staff performance followed by an economic incentive will make future superior performance more likely.

Similarly, superior work not accompanied by an incentive will make high performance less likely in the future. Reinforcement premise stresses the significance of an individual really receiving the reward (Cahuc & Zylberberg, 2004).

Expectancy theory

Expectancy premise proposes that motivation is a multiplicative component of three basic concepts: expectation, instrumentality, and valence. Similar to reinforcement premise, expectancy premise (Deci et al., 2005) concentrates on the relationship between wages and behaviours (instrumentality views), even though it focuses on anticipated (instead of experienced) wages (i.e., rewards).

Motivation is in addition a utility of two additional aspects: expectancy, the anticipated relationship between hard work and performance, and valence, the anticipated worth of results (e.g., reward). Wage frameworks vary based on their influence on such motivational elements.

Generally speaking, a wage system differs most in its influence on instrumentality: the expected relationship between reward and behaviours, as well known as in the compensation world “line of sight.”

Basically, valence of reward results ought to remain the same in the various reward frameworks. Expectancy view frequently has more to do with work plan and education than wage frameworks (Valadez & Antony, 2002).

In addition, the expectancy framework proposes that fulfilment is best thought as an outcome of high performance instead of as an origin of performance (Woodman & Griffin, 2004). Generally speaking, fulfilment does impact enthusiasm in certain ways.

For example, when it is thought to originate from the organization’s compensation policy, it can cause fulfilment since it reinforces employees’ beliefs regarding the effects of high performance. In many ways, this theory is an unrepresentatively easy declaration of the conditions that have to be in place if wage is to motivate hard work.

It is unrepresentative since it proposes all a company has to do is match remuneration and other often treasured rewards with achievable degrees of performance (Judge, 2009). In fact, this is not the key thing organizations have to do, as is obvious based on the literature on reward for wage policies, it can be complex in accomplishing.

Justice theory

Justice premise proposes that an employee perception on what he or she contributes to the organization, what he or she gets as reward, and how his or her returns-contribution margin matches that of other employees in the organization, determine how justified he or she perceives his or her work relations to be (Valadez & Antony, 2002).

A perception of injustice is anticipated to cause staff to take actions with a view of restoring justice. Unfortunately, a few of these actions (e.g., resigning or being uncooperative) may be detrimental to the organization (Wong & Campion, 2007).

Impact on compensation policies

No company in the contemporary business world can boost of high performance unless all employees are dedicated to the company’s goals and work as efficient group members. It is no longer beneficial to have an employee who comes to commit tirelessly each day and performs his task independently.

An individual now has to work like an entrepreneur while participating in a team, and has to offer his value. However, he in addition wants to be part of an effective organization which offers an excellent pay and the chance for growth and protected employment (Judge, 2009).

In the last twenty years, an organization obtained the loyalty of its workers through providing secure employment. However, numerous organizations have reacted to competition through scaling down, transformation and redefining and therefore generated an unsecure organizational environment. An expanding number of workers thus feel that they are casualties of unfulfilled pledges.

A major challenge confronting modern organizations comprises sustaining employee dedication based on the existing enterprise climate.

Such organizations can gain through creating fresh “work contracts”. In modern work station, an employee faces more uncertainty in his day to day operations and reduced employment protection (Vroom & Jago, 2007).

Without guarantee of constant engagement, employees have now widened their job anticipations in other organizations.

For example, workers anticipate any organization to show its loyalty in terms of working situations, access to education and career growth, availability of a secure workplace and a balanced organization and workers’ loyalties outside the work station (Cahuc & Zylberberg, 2004).

Organizations are confronted with increasing rivalry and as the organizations plan for emerging compensation policies, one of the core aspects of survival is promoting and improving the organizations capability of using human resources efficiently.

According to Bandura (2009), employee behaviour necessary for high performance comprises (1) joining and staying in the company, (2) performing exact task obligations, and (3) engaging in creative and impulsive task that stretches beyond job stipulations.

The engagement of qualified employees is therefore crucial, but of even higher importance is the company’s capability of adopting a good compensation policy (Deci et al., 2005).

Thus the need for organizations to understand the idea of compensation policies – what they are, how they operate, and most significantly, which behaviour is demonstrated by an employee dedication to the organization.

Conventionally, the behavioural wage models illustrated above have been utilized in understanding how utilizing wage to identify employee contributions can impact the perceptions and behaviours of existing workers, while wage amount and allowances have been perceived as an avenue of influencing so-called participant behaviours: a decision on whether to enter or stay in the company.

However, there is rising appreciation that personal wage systems may in addition have a consequence on the performance of a company’s employees (Valadez & Antony, 2002). For instance, it is likely that organizations that match wage with performance may draw more qualified people than organizations that do not match the two. There may be similar effects in terms of employee retention.

Simplifying this further, possibly an organization that relate wage to employee work is more likely to draw distinctive kinds of workers, whereas an organization focusing more on group reward is more likely to draw a lot of team-based workers.

Even though there is no tangible proof of such assertion, it has been noted that various wage frameworks draw various employees based on their values and character (Moscarini & Thomsson, 2007). The outcome is that the nature of reward policies requires to be keenly linked to the human resource and organization policy.

Moving from the individualistic evaluation to corporate state and enterprise unit, there is a theory of what compensation and business unit policies match best together. Stages in the production phase (Vroom & Jago, 2007) and the level and nature of diversification (Judge, 2009) have been considered to be key aspects in the nature of compensation policies (Winter & Petrosko, 2007).

Briefly, an organization (or possibly more accurately, organization departments) may undergo expansion, repairs, and stagnation phases, each of which demands for a diverse pay policy.

For instance, during the expansion phase, it was suggested that there be significant pay-at-risk with a view of providing high upward incomes capability (e.g., utilizing stock plan) for spurring creativity, development, and risk-appetite, together with less invariable costs (basic wage plus benefits) for preserving funds for investment.

During the repairs and stagnation phases, there would be little stress on pay-at-risk (except possibly for more temporary concentrated policies), and more money preserved for basic wage and benefits (Wong & Campion, 2007).

The significance of a self-realized individual to a company is debatable. Wright (2008) emphasized that even though such workers may develop a creative idea and behaviour within the company, such innovative idea and behaviour may generate crisis within an extremely structured company and be harmful to the company’s goals.

The compensation policy of a company can aid in reinforcing and in defining the company’s policy. Frequently this characteristic of compensation frameworks is not totally implemented in the organizational structure.

Consequently, the behavioural wage theories’ impact on the design of a compensation policy is not intentional. This does not suggest, however, that the wage theories’ influence on compensation policy is automatically low.

In fact, the four wage theories discussed in section 1 will aid in defining the rank and the level to which an employee cooperates with workers from other sections and with any employee from within his or her workplace. In addition, it will firmly dictate the type of compensation policy utilized in the modern organizations (Woodman & Griffin, 2004).

Conclusion

In conclusion, need-fulfilment, expectancy, justice, and reinforcement premises all are founded on the basis that behaviour-compensation elements can align behaviours.

However, need-fulfilment premise is of specific worth to study variable wage due to its focus on the uncertainty-compensation balance, a concern that requires manipulation when taking into account variable wage strategies, which can cause substantial risk.

Justice premise is as well incredibly significant since it can be utilized in simply all compensation decisions, as impartiality is constantly an important issue.

Modern organizations cannot boost of high performance unless all employees are dedicated to the company’s goals and work as efficient group members. It is no longer beneficial to have an employee who comes to commit tirelessly each day and performs his task independently. An individual now has to work like an entrepreneur while participating in a team, and has to offer his value.

The behavioural wage models illustrated above have been utilized in understanding how utilizing wage to identify employee contributions can impact the perceptions and behaviours of existing workers, while wage amount and allowances have been perceived as an avenue of influencing participant behaviours.

References

Bandura, A. (2009). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Cahuc, P., & Zylberberg, A. (2004). Labour economics. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (2005). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletins, 126(6), 627-668.

Judge, S. R. (2009). Organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harpers & Row.

Moscarini, G., & Thomsson, K. (2007). Occupational and job mobility in the US. The Scandanavian Journal of Economics, 109(4), 807-836.

Valadez, J. & Antony, J. (2002). Exploring the satisfaction of part-time college faculty in the United States. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 41-56.

Vroom, V. & Jago, G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American Psychologist, 26(1), 17-24.

Winter, P. & Petrosko, J. (2007). Using economic incentives to recruit community college faculty: Effects of starting salary and healthcare benefits plan. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(2), 19-35.

Wong, C. & Campion, M. (2007). Development and test of a task level model of motivation job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 825–837.

Woodman, R. & Griffin, R. (2004). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

Wright, P. (2008). Monetary incentives and task experience as determinants of spontaneous goal setting, strategy development, and performance. Human Performance, 3(1), 237–258.

Click Here To Order Now!