外文翻譯---管理風(fēng)格和公正的薪資制度

1、<p>　　齊 齊 哈 爾 大 學(xué)</p><p><b>　　外 文 及 翻 譯</b></p><p>　　題 目： 杭州中浙黃金公司薪酬管理存在問題及對策</p><p>　　學(xué) 院： 經(jīng) 濟 與 管 理 學(xué) 院 </p><p>　

2、　專 業(yè) 班 級： 工 管 0 8 1 </p><p>　　學(xué) 生 姓 名： 曲 冰 冰 </p><p>　　指 導(dǎo) 教 師： 邵 仲 巖 </p><p>　　成 績：

3、 </p><p><b>　　摘 要</b></p><p>　　本文主要涉及在固定范圍內(nèi)公司的管理風(fēng)格和確定內(nèi)部工資差別的程序的關(guān)系。有時，當(dāng)管理制度明顯非專制化，且更傾向于員工參與時，公司目前使用的對日常管理(人員)的不恰當(dāng)?shù)闹Ц蛾P(guān)系將帶給公司極大的</p><p>　　危機。有

4、時我們會采用一些簡單的員工和管理人員的關(guān)系模式來鑒定四種大概的管理風(fēng)格。今天，在英國的工業(yè)生產(chǎn)中，這些風(fēng)格常被使用于日常的職業(yè)評估和績效評價。對于未來的工資和管理風(fēng)格關(guān)系的走向我得出了一些結(jié)論。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵字：管理風(fēng)格；績效評價；工資結(jié)構(gòu)</p><p>　　管理風(fēng)格和公正的薪資制度</p><p>　　英國企業(yè)內(nèi)部的工資制度長久以來一直是相關(guān)管理人員

5、和大量學(xué)生興趣的所在。近年來，設(shè)置公平合理的內(nèi)部工資管理制度被賦予了極大的意義。關(guān)于報酬標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，社會意識和管理層面的態(tài)度一直在迅速的改變。關(guān)于工資的相對性問題目前已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)換未建立一個公正的工業(yè)社會。個體企業(yè)內(nèi)部管理人員和員工卻在質(zhì)疑傳統(tǒng)的工作結(jié)構(gòu)構(gòu)建和工資制度。一個不同于以往的向員工和參與運作產(chǎn)業(yè)的雙方咨詢的移動產(chǎn)業(yè)正在建立。這一趨勢也帶來了分析和判定的工作薪金和福利的公平的差別的新方法。英國多家公司已經(jīng)制定了解決他們自己動態(tài)工作問題分析和

6、獎勵的辦法?，F(xiàn)在，大部分的公司都在思考如何解決這些雷同卻重要的問題。事實上，關(guān)于這個問題，一直存在這大量的混亂甚至是紛爭。在過去的幾十年里，公司管理一直致力于新的繳納行政。</p><p>　　在一定的條件下所有這些技術(shù)都是有效可行的。當(dāng)然，管理人員應(yīng)當(dāng)首先熟悉自己所面臨的問題，已找到合適有效地解決自身存在的問題的有效手段。因為，大量令人惋惜的解決方案與問題不符合的案例已經(jīng)存在。</p><p

7、>　　管理人員需要有一個全局性的公司工作管理分析和工資支付的觀念。公司管理風(fēng)格和工資支付方式不需要在一定條件下高度整合，并且放寬管理制度的約束條件。</p><p>　　許多公司正在面臨管理風(fēng)格的迅速改變以及其他影響因素的巨變。針對該種情況，公司的工資支付策略也必須隨之改變來保持其工資制度的有效性。</p><p>　　理想情況下，內(nèi)部工資結(jié)構(gòu)應(yīng)該影響組織結(jié)構(gòu)模式（并且促進工作結(jié)構(gòu)中

8、的責(zé)任結(jié)構(gòu)）。然而，任何一個公司都沒有單一理想的組織結(jié)構(gòu)，因此，相對應(yīng)的，也就不會由單一理想的工資支付結(jié)構(gòu)。每一個公司都有一個滿足了或是在管理措施內(nèi)部分滿足了的需求范圍。我們的可以從通過檢查檢查管理方式與雇員和管理人員的需要的關(guān)系，即所謂的“心理契約”來開始我們的討論。</p><p>　　一、管理風(fēng)格和心理契約</p><p>　　很顯然,在管理風(fēng)格運用在確保心理契約的方式,反映在公司員

9、工管理者期望的行為。一些管理團隊期望他們的員工只是有了所謂的“計算”參與公司。他們被期望那些由goal-setters(管理團隊)所設(shè)定的事情,其它的一切免談。經(jīng)理通過履行合同支付足夠的工資或薪水去激勵員工而達到所定的目標(biāo)。許多小型家族企業(yè)都在實行這一管理和操作模式，當(dāng)然許多大公司也一樣。我們可以簡單的稱這種類型的管理的觀點為目標(biāo)導(dǎo)向型管理模式。在這樣的管理模式下，管理人員可能感覺只有一個簡單的目標(biāo)(利潤比例、市場占有率等)而不需要的員

10、工有任何證明文件或“道德參與'這一目標(biāo)。</p><p>　　通過該組織，他們的公司管理人員以這種方式看到系統(tǒng)需求平衡的必要性。員工(特別是對其他初級管理人員)會被看成是人的行為將影響整個組織不只是他們自己的部門或子系統(tǒng),例如,生產(chǎn)控制或采購或銷售等。在這里舉行的觀點是,這不是好的,有十分之九的公司的需要得到滿足和其他十忽略。這是一個“系統(tǒng)”的做法,是一個模型,該模型是很明顯的市場經(jīng)營理念,我們更大的、更

11、進步的實業(yè)公司。</p><p>　　這兩個極性的模型范圍組織之間,顯然存在許多其他的概念。這是一種多元的模型,例如將允許不同組成部分的組織,以有自己單獨的目標(biāo)。</p><p>　　對于該模型的,管理人員持有截然不同公司的目標(biāo)是在大量的文獻的描述組織心理學(xué)。這是可能的在這個地區(qū)也建立極端,極地的概念。一個極端會假設(shè)人是一個“理性經(jīng)濟人“。 因為這個經(jīng)理持有這種觀點可能會使用麥格雷戈有名的

12、理論方法對下屬X。指出“理性經(jīng)濟人”討女人喜歡的男人的假設(shè)暗示人懶惰的動機是主要是由自然和財務(wù)方面的好處。該員工需要指導(dǎo)和控制看到這樣,他會努力向該組織的目標(biāo)。他可以看到有雄心壯志的和不愿意承擔(dān)責(zé)任。有關(guān)的假設(shè)條件都是與理論X,當(dāng)然,建成的根基、古典組織理論。該員工,簡而言之,看到他的環(huán)境做出反應(yīng)。</p><p>　　人見過的模型,是與從反應(yīng)體系中,人是麥格雷戈的X理論Y理論的方法。假設(shè)Y理論基礎(chǔ)包括這一事實,

13、大多數(shù)男人都不討厭的工作,他們會尋求一種挑戰(zhàn)的工作環(huán)境和事實上歡迎機會達到一種“道德”參與了這個組織。在適當(dāng)?shù)臈l件下,該員工說,Y理論,將尋找的責(zé)任,并且能夠想象、聰明才智和創(chuàng)造力。已經(jīng)有好幾次的分類和組織的各種型號的男人,一個著名的例子是類型學(xué)研制開發(fā)的。為目的的,然而,現(xiàn)在的這個討論的簡單模型,構(gòu)造了Limerick3類型的管理風(fēng)格暗示了管理的假設(shè)似乎關(guān)于男人和組織</p><p>　　圖1：利默里克管理風(fēng)格

14、矩陣 </p><p>　　矩陣建議，如果持有X理論管理（反應(yīng)的人）的假設(shè)，并認(rèn)為是一個目標(biāo)導(dǎo)向的組織，是獨裁的風(fēng)格暗示。在另一個極端，如果是Y理論假設(shè)的性質(zhì)和組織被看作是系統(tǒng)導(dǎo)向，模型意味著這一戰(zhàn)略是參與。</p><p><b>　　二、公平的工資結(jié)構(gòu)</b></p><p>　　管理模型中的四個建議的風(fēng)格也算是特別提到了公平的付款問題。由

15、威權(quán)管理是典型的古典管理理論學(xué)家的建議（如法約爾，Uric，古利克）。該組織是沿規(guī)劃管理的普遍原則，組織，激勵和控制，結(jié)構(gòu)與金字塔線管理局的高度重視。有嚴(yán)格的專業(yè)化，部門化標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 在家長式管理系統(tǒng)的需求必須由那些誰不認(rèn)為是反應(yīng)員工滿足該組織。因此，例如，一些大型，精密工業(yè)組織通常認(rèn)為自己有'系統(tǒng)'的需要，非管理人員和初級管理甚至被視為無功而高層管理團隊往往假定包括自我活動的人。在這里，高級管理人員認(rèn)為他們必須滿足

16、他們的下屬的需要;通過提供優(yōu)惠的退休金計劃和福利和廉價食堂，有時與所涉及的雇員很少協(xié)商。家長式的組織是一個金字塔式的結(jié)構(gòu)也和一個重點線為代表的權(quán)威。家長制是改善了專制戰(zhàn)略，員工往往是允許目前在非工作活動的行動方案。許多英國的關(guān)注顯然是家長式線路上運行。有幾個知名的大型機構(gòu)（通常在各自社區(qū)的主要雇主），它采用一個'從搖籃到墳?zāi)?#39;，保護他們的員工態(tài)度。在過去這些企業(yè)往往以阻止工會代表認(rèn)為，該公司的工會或協(xié)會可以更好地滿足他們

17、的工人們的需要。 在家長式的公司人會想到為車間和文書人員的薪酬水平是相對較低，雇員補</p><p><b>　　三、參與和工資結(jié)構(gòu)</b></p><p>　　似乎有走向更大的所有員工的參與在英國的公司管理的一些運動。調(diào)查表明，專制管理正迅速成為員工和不能接受的，甚至是不受歡迎的家長式作風(fēng)。至少有一個大的英國公司已開發(fā)的軟件設(shè)計方案，這消除了對傳統(tǒng)觀念的理解

18、。工人需要在團隊的決定，為自己的工作職責(zé)分配，營運，轉(zhuǎn)移羅塔細節(jié)，假期安排的細節(jié)，等等。更重要的是工人參加，真正意義上的，以書面團隊的工作描述和隨之而來的薪酬等級。顯然這個職務(wù)設(shè)計和組織思考型極大地影響公司的工作和報酬理念。如果對有更大的參與明顯的趨勢繼續(xù)下去，因此我們可以期望看到一對工人的知識的權(quán)威更大的重視。該公司的管理風(fēng)格顯然是在決定使用的分析工作和獎勵最重要的適當(dāng)形式。這顯然??是錯誤的，這是一個公司，比方說，基本上家長式安裝支

19、付系統(tǒng)，為真正參與的有效性而定。然而，這并不奇怪。</p><p>　　如果真的是一對在英國的工業(yè)咨詢和參與的管理風(fēng)格是什么在影響未來支付技術(shù)的強大移動？管理者通常采用兩種類型的技術(shù) – 第一，工作評價，提供了基本工資或薪金和。第二，值得評級（或績效考核，或獎勵制度）方面的工作價值排名提供員工個人獎勵辦法努力和成就。</p><p>　　職位評估技術(shù)的產(chǎn)生一個單一，全公司支付結(jié)構(gòu)，幾乎參與

20、企業(yè)提供力所能及的承諾。最近兩個相當(dāng)理想的想法符合規(guī)范。埃利奧特賈奎斯，廣泛討論了在他的著名冰川系統(tǒng)項目開發(fā)時間跨度決定表明，在公司內(nèi)部各層次的工作進行評估，并可以在一個單一的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)計算獎勵。這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是由他工作的雇員進行的責(zé)任，并在他的時間來衡量，就迫不及待地找到，如果他的任務(wù)或??決定是有效的。越長的時間跨度越大，責(zé)任和更高的報酬。此外賈奎斯發(fā)現(xiàn)，當(dāng)時間跨度值對相應(yīng)的策劃，認(rèn)為公平的工資或工資分配一個特定的存在。因此，他可以分析的時間跨

21、度機制方面在公司所有工作和生產(chǎn)結(jié)構(gòu)，涉及支付，在一個圖中，勞動者報酬和打字員GTO的復(fù)制，對于銷售經(jīng)理兼董事總經(jīng)理。時間跨度的辦法至今仍沒有得到廣泛實施工作評估的目的（盡管這是一個公認(rèn)的，有價值的方法在其他領(lǐng)域，如管理發(fā)展）。是否有可能成為更受歡迎？如果在管理風(fēng)格的趨勢更多的參與是必須肯定的答案是否定的。由于評價標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（時間跨度）和工資分配是如此明確界定和規(guī)定，是非常困難的員工可以看到如何參與其實施。雇員被迫接受了公司最了解'（家

22、長作風(fēng)暗示）或該公司有權(quán)強制執(zhí)行其選擇的系統(tǒng)（專制暗示）。一秒鐘，表面上類似</p><p>　　傳統(tǒng)的工作評估方法可用于在一個專制或民主的管理方式。工作評價的混合形式，由顧問，這往往使一個單獨的計劃數(shù)的最相關(guān)的方面利用開發(fā)公司可能參與公司舉辦的最大的承諾。通過讓盡可能多的雇員參與是可行的，在排名和等級的工作，管理可以開發(fā)一個真正的職業(yè)價值觀可以接受的輪廓。與傳統(tǒng)的和混合的障礙是，他們計劃為獨立工作的家庭提供不同

23、的支付結(jié)構(gòu)。一個樂隊，如決策方法體系，然后需要編織成一個全公司的整個組件的薪資結(jié)。</p><p>　　在個人表現(xiàn)的最大重點似乎在于，依然在激勵計劃的地盤工人，付款。在正統(tǒng)的激勵機制在很大程度上取決于管理控制秒表的時間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。員工們傾向于被視為具有的'算計參與'前面提到的目標(biāo)為本的理念看到。在移動從個人激勵制度，測量計日工工人被看作是減少被動反應(yīng)，更多的自我主動。他們咨詢了改進方法和生產(chǎn)計劃的看法。

24、在全廠獎金計劃中（如斯坎倫或拉克計劃）雇員被認(rèn)為有道德的參與本公司的總目標(biāo)。為了實現(xiàn)這種程度上參，往往要求員工獲取資料，這些資料在傳統(tǒng)意義里只能被管理者所擁有。事實上，它呼吁真正的參與。</p><p>　　因此，正統(tǒng)的計件工資系統(tǒng)往往趨向于適應(yīng)一個最好的專制的管理風(fēng)格;測試計日工與協(xié)商的風(fēng)格;與參與工廠范圍的計劃。哪里適合的家長式管理的公司？他們通常采用評級系統(tǒng)，評估價值（通過主管的評價）從公司規(guī)范，一般的質(zhì)量

25、和工作主動性，團隊合作精神和計時數(shù)量來測試員工到底與公司有多適應(yīng)。</p><p>　　管理者的表現(xiàn)評價最近被認(rèn)為評價管理系統(tǒng)最有效的辦法。這就要求管理人員在相當(dāng)程度下至少是在與下屬討論的情況下得出將來的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)。而這一局面將會是未來的可持續(xù)發(fā)展提供條件。經(jīng)常有一些機械的問題與MBO的申請有關(guān)，但是他的前瞻性基礎(chǔ)相關(guān)的一些機械問肯定是正確的。</p><p>　　我們來看當(dāng)時的觀點，作為企

26、業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變經(jīng)營方式，從專制/家長式到協(xié)商/參與制，他們必須審查其工資制度的戰(zhàn)略性質(zhì)。希望管理方式將符合該公司的員工情緒，反過來，是在一個公平的工資結(jié)構(gòu)的決心體現(xiàn)。顯然，只專注于技術(shù)是錯誤的，公司走向成熟，這將要求的專制的管理風(fēng)格不復(fù)存在。同樣，機械性的堅持所謂正確的管理風(fēng)格也是不正確的，因為十年前的員工的想法顯然是和今天的不一樣的。</p><p>　　如果對協(xié)商和參與的趨勢也聚集力量，我們可以期望看到的，在其實現(xiàn)的

27、最大的混合型員工參與評價的可能性。我們也可以預(yù)見一個對公司的工資使用決定帶框架整合的獨立工作的家庭結(jié)構(gòu)的系統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)變。邁向測量計日工和全廠范圍的獎勵也應(yīng)該聚集力量的趨勢。主管可以期望其表現(xiàn)評價越來越接近MBO系統(tǒng)類型（盡管細節(jié)可能與目前的MBO的模式有所不同）。</p><p>　　我們必須保證專制/家長式作風(fēng)的迅速改革。企業(yè)人，應(yīng)當(dāng)向各行各業(yè)的人一樣，對于改革應(yīng)當(dāng)是習(xí)以為常的。那些確定管理戰(zhàn)略和工資支付方式的管

28、理人員往往是中層管理階層。不幸的是，很多處于該階層的管理人員對于員工參與生產(chǎn)資料的占有是持疑惑或者是否定的態(tài)度，這就讓許多的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)夭折。然而，對于未來的趨勢，我們往往很難預(yù)見。因此，我們必須時刻為未來準(zhǔn)備著，并且罷工制改革也劃入其行列。這是一個非常重要的問題，不容忽視。</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　This articl

29、e discusses the relationship between management style within a firm and the procedures used to determine internal wage and salary differentials. At a time when management styles are apparently becoming less authoritarian

30、 and paternalistic in favour of greater worker participation there is obviously a danger of firms using payment techniques which are inappropriate to the current management/worker relationship. Some simple models of work

31、ers and organization are used to identify four br</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　Problems of internal pay structuring have always been of keen interest to both managers and students of British i

32、ndustry. In recent years however the setting of rational and fair pay differentials has taken on a particular significance. Our social and managerial attitudes to criteria for reward are changing fast. The whole question

33、 of pay relativities is now seen to be central to the establishment of a just industrial society. Within individual firms managers and employees are questioning the tr</p><p>　　A great many British companies

34、 have already applied themselves to solving the dynamic problems of work analysis and reward. The majority are probably only now deciding how best to approach these same problems. It is fair to say that a great deal of c

35、onfusion and even controversy surrounds the issues involved. In the last decade managers have been deluged with new techniques of pay administration.</p><p>　　All of these techniques are valid when applied u

36、nder appropriate conditions. The dilemma which has faced managers is to know which of the techniques is relevant to the solution of their particular problems. There have been many sad cases of mismatch between technique

37、and situation.</p><p>　　Managers need an overall company strategy for work analysis and pay. The integration of techniques into a total package of wage and salary administration must reflect the management s

38、tyle employed in the company, as well as recognize the many constraints put on managerial control.</p><p>　　Many companies are now facing up to situations where management styles are altering and technologic

39、al and other influences are changing fast. The company pay strategy has to mirror these changes if it is to remain effective.</p><p>　　Ideally the internal payment structure should reflect the organization s

40、tructure (and hence the structure of responsibility carried across job hierarchy). However there is no single ideal structure of organization and consequently there can be no single ideal structure of pay. Each firm has

41、a range of needs which are met or partially met by the measures taken by management. We can begin the argument by examining the management styles associated with the needs of the employee/ manager relationshi</p>

42、<p>　　Management Styles and the Psychological Contract</p><p>　　Obviously the management style used in fulfilling the psychological contract reflects the way in which managers in the company expect empl

43、oyees to behave. Some managerial teams expect their employees to simply have what is known as a 'calculative' involvement with the company. They are expected to do what is required by the goal-setters (the manage

44、ment team) and no more. The contract is fulfilled by paying sufficient wages or salaries to motivate the employees to meet the goals set by the manage</p><p>　　24 Personnel Review Vol 4 Number 4 Autumn 1975&

45、lt;/p><p>　　by the organization. Managers who conceive of their companies in this fashion see the need for balancing the 'system' of needs. Employees (and especially other, junior managers) are perceive

46、d as people whose actions should influence the entire organization not just their own department or subsystem of, for example, production control or purchasing or marketing, etc. The view held here is that it is no good

47、to have nine tenths of the company's needs being met and the other tenth ignored. It is a </p><p>　　Between these two polar models of organization there is obviously scope for many other concepts. A plur

48、alistic model, for example would allow for different constituent parts of the organization to have their own separate goals.</p><p>　　The models that managers hold of men as distinct from the goals of the co

49、mpany are described in a massive literature of organizational psychology. It is possible in this area also to establish extreme, polar concepts. One extreme would be the assumption that man is a 'rational-economic

50、9; animal. Because of this a manager holding such a view might use McGregor's well-known Theory X approach to his subordinate. McGregor1 points out that 'rational-economic' man assumptions imply that man is l

51、azy by </p><p>　　The model of man seen to be at the opposite from the reactive, Theory X man is McGregor's Theory Y approach. Assumptions on which Theory Y are based include the fact that most men do not

52、 dislike work, they seek a challenge from the work environment and in fact welcome the opportunity to achieve a 'moral' involvement with the organization. Under appropriate conditions the employee, says Theory Y,

53、 will seek out responsibility and is capable of imagination, ingenuity and creativity. </p><p>　　There have been several attempts to classify the various models of man and organization, a notable ex

54、ample being the typology developed by Etzioni2. For the purpose of this present discussion, however, the simple model constructed by Limerick3 to show the type of management style implied by management's assumptions

55、about men and organization seems appropriate. The model takes the form of the matrix shown in Figure 1 below:</p><p>　　Figure 1 The Limerick Matrix of Management Styles</p><p>　　The matrix sugge

56、sts that if management holds Theory X (reactive man) assumptions and sees the organization as being single goal orientated, the style implied is authoritarian. At the other extreme, should the assumptions be of Theory Y

57、nature and the organization be seen as systems orientated, the model implies that the strategy is participative. It must be borne in mind, of course, that this classification represents pure types of organization which p

58、robably do not exist as such in practice. It</p><p>　　Equitable Payment</p><p>　　The four styles of management proposed in the model can be considered with special reference to problems of equit

59、able payment. Authoritarian management is typified by the proposals of the Classical management theorists (eg Fayol,Urwick, Gulick). The organization is managed along the universal principles of planning, organizing, mot

60、ivating and controlling and the structure is pyramidal with great emphasis on line authority. There is rigid specialization and departmentalization. Participation by n</p><p>　　In paternalistic management th

61、e systems needs of the organization must be met by those employees who are not seen to be reactive. Thus, for example, some large, sophisticated industrial organizations typically perceive themselves to have 'systems

62、' of needs, the non-managers and even junior management are seen as reactive while the senior management team is often assumed to consist of self-active men. Here the senior managers assume that they have to meet the

63、ir subordinates' needs for them; say b</p><p>　　In a paternalistic company one would expect the pay level for shop floor and clerical workers to be relatively low, the employees being compensated by supe

64、rior welfare benefits and greater job security in general. In an authoritarian firm the pay levels in the lower job grades could be expected to be slightly higher (for the same economic and technological conditions) than

65、 in the paternalistic company. In fact, however, some of the larger well established paternalistic concerns often have a repu</p><p>　　A consultative management strategy implies that man is seen as self-acti

66、ve but requires to be directed so that his needs are integrated with the goal of the organization. The manager's functions are, as in the authoritarian strategy, to plan, organize, motivate and control but in this ca

67、se the process is carried out in such a way that maximum autonomy for employees is allowed without endangering the goal of the organization. The strategy implies a pyramidal structure with only a limited recognit</p&g

68、t;<p>　　Participative management assumes that self-active man will make a responsible contribution to the achievement of the system's needs. The manager's function is to act as a monitor of the system need

69、s and to create conditions in which they can be met. This strategy implies a fluid, 'organic' structure and recognizes both formal, line authority and the authority of non-executives as a result of their personal

70、 expertise. Group work is encouraged and, in participating, employees are allowed to presen</p><p>　　In the consultative and participative strategies, then, employees are encouraged to view the organization

71、as a unitary system. Because of this, one would expect to find the pay of low level jobs being compared, formally, to that of the higher-level jobs. In short, one could expect an approach to an all-company job evaluated

72、pay structure since employees are concerned more with the company as a whole compared with their counterparts in companies managed by the first two strategies outlined above.</p><p>　　Participation and Payme

73、nt</p><p>　　There appears to be some movement towards greater involvement of all employees in the management of British firms. The mood of the day suggests that authoritarian management is fast becoming unac

74、ceptable to employees and that even paternalism is unwelcome.</p><p>　　At least one large British corporation has developed work designs which eliminate the need for the traditional foreman.The workers opera

75、te in teams which decide, for themselves,on the allocation of work duties, shift rota details, holiday arrangement details and the like. More importantly the workers participate, in the true sense, in writing the team

76、9;s job description and consequent pay grade. Obviously this type of job design and organizational thinking greatly affects a company's philosophy o</p><p>　　If there really is a strong move towards cons

77、ultative and participative management styles across British industry what are the implications for payment techniques in the future? Managers usually apply two types of technique - one, job evaluation, to provide a ranki

78、ng of job value in terms of basic wages or salaries and, two, merit rating (or performance appraisal, or incentive systems) to provide a means of rewarding individual employee effort and achievement.</p><p>

79、　　Job evaluation techniques which yield a single, company-wide payment structure would seem to offer promise within participative firms. Two fairly recent ideas fit the specification ideally. Elliott Jaques' widely d

80、iscussed time span of discretion system developed in his famous Glacier Project suggests that all jobs at all levels within a firm can be evaluated and rewarded in terms of a single criterion. That criterion is the respo

81、nsibility carried by the employee in his job and is measured in te</p><p>　　A second, and superficially similar proposal, comes from Paterson whose decision band technique of job evaluation and payment struc

82、ture is currently being widely discussed. Paterson's sole criterion of job value is the hierarchical level of decision-making required by the job. The higher the decision level (policy-making as against routine, proc

83、edural decisions) the greater the responsibility implied and the higher the reward. The decision band method is applied to all jobs in the company and pr</p><p>　　The conventional methods of job evaluation c

84、an be applied in an autocratic or democratic fashion by management. The hybrid forms of job evaluation, developed by firms of consultants,which tend to make use of the most relevant aspects of a number of separate scheme

85、s possibly hold the greatest promise for participative firms. By allowing as many employees as is feasible to participate in the ranking and grading of jobs, management can develop a genuinely acceptable profile of the j

86、ob values. The s</p><p>　　In payment for individual performance the greatest emphasis seems to lie, still, on incentive schemes for manual workers. In the orthodox incentive system management control depends

87、 heavily on stop watch time standards. Employees are inclined to be seen as having the 'calculative involvement' noted earlier in the goal oriented philosophy. In moving from an individual incentive system to mea

88、sured daywork the workers are seen to be less reactive and more self-active.</p><p>　　26 Personnel Review Vol 4 Number 4 Autumn 1975</p><p>　　They are consulted with a view to improving methods

89、and production planning. In the plant-wide bonus schemes (such as the Scanlon or the Rucker Plans) the employees are seen to have a 'moral involvement' with the company's total objectives. To achieve this deg

90、ree of involvement often requires that the employees gain access to information which has been considered to be traditionally for management eyes only. It calls, in fact, for true participation.</p><p>　　Thu

91、s the orthodox piecework systems tend to fit best with an authoritarian management style; measured daywork with a consultative style; plant wide schemes with participation. Where do the paternalistic companies fit? Typic

92、ally they employ merit rating systems which assess (through the supervisor's rating) how well the employee matches the company norms in terms, typically, of quality and quantity of work, initiative, team spirit and t

93、imekeeping. </p><p>　　The appraisal of managers' performances has recently been seen to be appropriately tackled by the Management-by- Objectives approach. This calls for a considerable degree of partici

94、pation or at least consultation in agreeing with a subordinate manager what constitutes realistic future targets for him to achieve. On the face of it this type of approach appears to have continuing promise for the futu

95、re. There are some mechanical problems often associated with applying MBO but its participative for</p><p>　　We come to the view then that as firms change their management styles from authoritarian/paternali

96、stic to consultative/ participative they must review the nature of their payment strategies. Hopefully the management style will match the mood of the firm's employees and, in turn, be reflected in the determination

97、of an equitable payment structure. It is obviously wrong to apply techniques, however sophisticated, which will call for a management style which does not exist in the company. Equally i</p><p>　　If the tren

98、d towards consultation and participation does gather force we can expect to see job evaluation in terms of the hybrid type with maximum employee participation in its implementation. We can also expect a move towards a si

99、ngle company-wide payment structure using a system such as Paterson's decision band framework to integrate the separate job family structures. The trend towards measured daywork and plant-wide incentives should also