外文翻譯--管理風(fēng)格和公正的工資制度

1、<p>　　管理風(fēng)格和公正的工資制度</p><p><b>　　約翰</b></p><p>　　:拉夫伯勒科技大學(xué)生產(chǎn)管理專業(yè)教授</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(shí)，當(dāng)管理制度明顯非

2、專制化，且更傾向于員工參與時(shí)，公司目前使用的對(duì)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危機(jī)。有時(shí)我們會(huì)采用一些簡(jiǎn)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(guó)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(píng)估和績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)。對(duì)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><b>　　論文簡(jiǎn)介：</b></p><p>　　英

3、國(guó)企業(yè)內(nèi)部的工資結(jié)果長(zhǎng)久以來一直是相關(guān)管理人員和大量學(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(bào)酬標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，社會(huì)意識(shí)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(duì)性問題目前已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)換未建立一個(gè)公正的工業(yè)社會(huì)。個(gè)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(gè)不同于以往的向員工和參與運(yùn)作產(chǎn)業(yè)的雙方咨詢的移動(dòng)產(chǎn)業(yè)正在建立。這一趨勢(shì)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(guó)多

4、家公司已經(jīng)制定了解決他們呢自己動(dòng)態(tài)工作問題分析和獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)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(shí)上，關(guān)于這個(gè)問題，一直存在這大量的混亂甚至是紛爭(zhēng)。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?yàn)?，大量令人無惋惜的解決方案與問題不符合

5、的案例已經(jīng)存在。</p><p>　　管理人員需要有一個(gè)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(duì)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)

6、部工資結(jié)構(gòu)應(yīng)該影響組織結(jié)構(gòu)模式（并且促進(jìn)工作結(jié)構(gòu)中的責(zé)任結(jié)構(gòu)）。然而，任何一個(gè)公司都沒有單一理想的組織結(jié)構(gòu)，因此，相對(duì)應(yīng)的，也就不會(huì)由單一理想的工資支付結(jié)構(gòu)。每一個(gè)公司都有一個(gè)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><b>　　管理風(fēng)格和心理契約</b></p>

7、;<p>　　很顯然,在管理風(fēng)格運(yùn)用在確保心理契約的方式,反映在公司員工管理者期望的行為。一些管理團(tuán)隊(duì)期望他們的員工只是有了所謂的“計(jì)算”參與公司。他們被期望那些由管理團(tuán)隊(duì)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(lì)員工而達(dá)到所定的目標(biāo)。許多小型家族企業(yè)都在實(shí)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(jiǎn)單的稱這種類型的管理的觀點(diǎn)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

8、只有一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的目標(biāo)(利潤(rùn)比例、市場(chǎng)占有率等)而不需要的員工有任何證明文件或“道德參與'這一目標(biāo)。</p><p>　　24人事評(píng)論第3期4號(hào)1975年秋天</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(duì)其他,初級(jí)管理人員)會(huì)被看成是人的行為將影響整個(gè)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(diǎn)

9、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(gè)“系統(tǒng)”的做法,是一個(gè)模型,該模型是很明顯的市場(chǎng)經(jīng)營(yíng)理念,我們更大的、更進(jìn)步的實(shí)業(yè)公司。</p><p>　　這兩個(gè)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?jiǎn)为?dú)的目標(biāo)。</p><p>　　對(duì)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(xiàn)的描述組織

10、心理學(xué)。這是可能的在這個(gè)地區(qū)也建立極端,極地的概念。一個(gè)極端會(huì)假設(shè)人是一種理性人。 因?yàn)檫@個(gè)經(jīng)理持有這種觀點(diǎn)可能會(huì)使用麥格雷戈有名的理論方法對(duì)下屬X。指出理性人討女人喜歡的男人的假設(shè)暗示人懶惰的動(dòng)機(jī)是主要是有自然和財(cái)務(wù)方面的好處。該員工需要指導(dǎo)和控制看到這樣,他會(huì)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(jiǎn)而言之,看到他的環(huán)境做出反應(yīng)。</p&g

11、t;<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(shí),大多數(shù)男人都不討厭的工作,他們會(huì)尋求一種挑戰(zhàn)的工作環(huán)境和事實(shí)上歡迎機(jī)會(huì)達(dá)到一種“道德”參與了這個(gè)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。</p><p>　　已經(jīng)有好幾次的分類和組織的各種型號(hào)的男人,一個(gè)著名的例子是Etzioni2類型學(xué)研制開發(fā)

12、的。為目的的,然而,現(xiàn)在的這個(gè)討論的簡(jiǎn)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appropria關(guān)于男人和組織</p><p>　　圖1：利默里克管理風(fēng)格矩陣 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(gè)目標(biāo)導(dǎo)向的組織，是獨(dú)裁的風(fēng)格暗示。在另一個(gè)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。我們必須牢記，當(dāng)然，這種分類代表純粹類型的組織可

13、能在實(shí)踐中不存在這樣。它意味著是一個(gè)相對(duì)的模式，只顯示了極端的假設(shè)和隱含的戰(zhàn)略。但它是非常重要的是能夠把問題 各自不同的一些觀點(diǎn)風(fēng)格。 </p><p>　　公平的工資結(jié)構(gòu)管理模型中的四個(gè)建議的風(fēng)格也算是特別提到了公平的付款問題。由威權(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(lì)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。非在滿

14、足組織的目標(biāo)管理的參與是受到嚴(yán)格限制。 在家長(zhǎng)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(jí)管理甚至被視為無功而高層管理團(tuán)隊(duì)往往假定包括自我活動(dòng)的男子。在這里，高級(jí)管理人員認(rèn)為他們必須滿足他們的下屬的需要;通過提供優(yōu)惠的退休金計(jì)劃和福利和廉價(jià)食堂，有時(shí)與所涉及的雇員很少協(xié)商，說。家長(zhǎng)式的組織是一個(gè)金字塔式的結(jié)構(gòu)也和一個(gè)重點(diǎn)線

15、為代表的權(quán)威。家長(zhǎng)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(dòng)的行動(dòng)方案。許多英國(guó)的關(guān)注顯然是家長(zhǎng)式線路上運(yùn)行。有幾個(gè)知名的，大型機(jī)構(gòu)（通常在各自社區(qū)的主要雇主），它采用一個(gè)'從搖籃到墳?zāi)?#39;，保護(hù)他們的員工態(tài)度。在過去這些企業(yè)往往以阻止工會(huì)代表認(rèn)為，該公司的工會(huì)或協(xié)會(huì)可以更好地滿足他們的工人們的需要。 在</p><p><b>　　參與和工資結(jié)構(gòu)</b><

16、;/p><p>　　似乎有走向更大的所有員工的參與在英國(guó)的公司管理的一些運(yùn)動(dòng)。一天的心情表明，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(zhǎng)式作風(fēng)。至少有一個(gè)大的英國(guó)公司已開發(fā)的軟件設(shè)計(jì)方案，這消除了對(duì)傳統(tǒng)。工人需要在團(tuán)隊(duì)的決定，為自己的工作職責(zé)分配，營(yíng)運(yùn)，轉(zhuǎn)移羅塔細(xì)節(jié)，假期安排的細(xì)節(jié)，等等。更重要的是工人參加，真正意義上的，以書面團(tuán)隊(duì)的工作描述和隨之而來的薪酬等級(jí)。顯然這個(gè)職務(wù)設(shè)計(jì)和組織思考型極大地影響

17、公司的工作和報(bào)酬理念。如果對(duì)有更大的參與明顯的趨勢(shì)繼續(xù)下去，因此我們可以期望看到一對(duì)工人的知識(shí)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(jiǎng)勵(lì)最重要的適當(dāng)形式。這顯然??是錯(cuò)誤的，這是一個(gè)公司，比方說，基本上家長(zhǎng)式安裝支付系統(tǒng)，為真正參與的有效性而定。然而，這并不奇怪。 如果真的是一對(duì)在英國(guó)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(qiáng)大移動(dòng)？管理者通常采用兩種類型的技術(shù) – 第一，工作評(píng)價(jià)，提供了基本

18、工資或薪金和，二，值得評(píng)級(jí)（或績(jī)效考核，或獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)制度）方面的工作價(jià)值排名提供員工個(gè)人獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)辦法努力和成就。 職位評(píng)估技術(shù)的產(chǎn)生一個(gè)單一，全公司支付結(jié)構(gòu)，似乎</p><p>　　在個(gè)人表現(xiàn)的最大重點(diǎn)似乎在于，依然在激勵(lì)計(jì)劃的地盤工人，付款。在正統(tǒng)的激勵(lì)機(jī)制在很大程度上取決于管理控制秒表的時(shí)間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。員工們傾向于被視為具有的'算計(jì)參與'前面提到的目標(biāo)為本的理念看到。在移動(dòng)從個(gè)人激勵(lì)制度，測(cè)量計(jì)日工

19、工人被看作是減少被動(dòng)反應(yīng)，更多的自我主動(dòng)。</p><p>　　26人事評(píng)論，第4卷第4期1975年秋季</p><p>　　他們咨詢了改進(jìn)方法和生產(chǎn)計(jì)劃的看法。在全廠獎(jiǎng)金計(jì)劃中（如斯坎倫或拉克計(jì)劃）雇員被認(rèn)為有道德的參與本公司的總目標(biāo)。為了實(shí)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(shí)上，它呼吁真正的參與。 因此，正統(tǒng)的計(jì)件工資系統(tǒng)往往趨向于

20、適應(yīng)一個(gè)最好的專制的管理風(fēng)格;測(cè)試計(jì)日工與協(xié)商的風(fēng)格;與參與工廠范圍的計(jì)劃。哪里適合的家長(zhǎng)式管理的公司？他們通常采用評(píng)級(jí)系統(tǒng)，評(píng)估價(jià)值（通過主管的評(píng)價(jià)）從公司規(guī)范，一般的質(zhì)量和工作主動(dòng)性，團(tuán)隊(duì)合作精神和計(jì)時(shí)數(shù)量來測(cè)試員工到底與公司有多適應(yīng)。</p><p>　　管理者的表現(xiàn)評(píng)價(jià)最近被認(rèn)為評(píng)價(jià)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(huì)是未來的可持續(xù)

21、發(fā)展提供條件。經(jīng)常有一些機(jī)械的問題與MBO的申請(qǐng)有關(guān)，但是他的前瞻性基礎(chǔ)相關(guān)的一些機(jī)械問肯定是正確的。</p><p>　　我們來看當(dāng)時(shí)的觀點(diǎn)，作為企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變經(jīng)營(yíng)方式，從專制/家長(zhǎng)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(gè)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(cuò)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(jī)械性的堅(jiān)持所謂正確的管理

22、風(fēng)格也是不正確的，因?yàn)槭昵暗膯T工的想法顯然是和今天的不一樣的。</p><p>　　如果對(duì)協(xié)商和參與的趨勢(shì)也聚集力量，我們可以期望看到的，在其實(shí)現(xiàn)的最大的混合型員工參與評(píng)價(jià)的可能性。我們也可以預(yù)見一個(gè)對(duì)公司的工資使用決定帶框架整合的獨(dú)立工作的家庭結(jié)構(gòu)的系統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)變。邁向測(cè)量計(jì)日工和全廠范圍的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)也應(yīng)該聚集力量的趨勢(shì)。主管可以期望其表現(xiàn)評(píng)價(jià)越來越接近MBO系統(tǒng)類型（盡管細(xì)節(jié)可能與目前的MBO的模式有所不同）。&l

23、t;/p><p>　　我們必須保證專制/家長(zhǎng)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(duì)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(duì)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(duì)于未來的趨勢(shì)，我們往往很難預(yù)見。因此，我們必須時(shí)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(gè)非常重要的問題，不容

24、忽視。</p><p><b>　　參考書目：</b></p><p>　　1 McGregor, D, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960.</p><p>　　2 Etzioni, A, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Org

25、anizations, Free Press, New York, 1961.</p><p>　　3 Limerick, D C, Dynamics of Decision-Making. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Strathclyde, 1970.</p><p>　　Management Style and FairPayment&

26、lt;/p><p>　　Tom Husband</p><p>　　Professor of Manufacturing Organizations,</p><p>　　Loughborough University of Technology</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p>&

27、lt;p>　　This article 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 becomi

28、ng less authoritarian 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

29、simple models of workers 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

30、students of British industry. 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 fas

31、t. The whole question 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 m

32、any British companies 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 t

33、hat a great deal of confusion 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

34、 valid when applied under 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 mismat

35、ch between technique 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 ref

36、lect the management style 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 alt

37、ering and technological 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 refle

38、ct the organization structure (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 o

39、f pay. Each firm has 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 re

40、lationshi</p><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 th

41、e company expect employees 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 goa

42、l-setters (the management 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

43、Number 4 Autumn 1975</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 m

44、anagers) are perceived 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 i

45、s that it is no good 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 o

46、ther concepts. A pluralistic 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 fro

47、m the goals of the company 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 '

48、;rational-economic' 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 assumption

49、s imply that man is lazy 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

50、 that most men do not 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 emp

51、loyee, says Theory Y, 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 organ

52、ization, a notable example 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 manageme

53、nt's assumptions 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&

54、gt;　　The matrix suggests 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 assump

55、tions be of Theory Y 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

56、 organization which probably do not exist as such in practice. It</p><p>　　differing styles into some perspective.</p><p>　　Equitable Payment</p><p>　　The four styles of management

57、proposed in the model can be considered with special reference to problems of equitable payment. Authoritarian management is typified by the proposals of the Classical management theorists (eg Fayol,Urwick, Gulick). The

58、organization is managed along the universal principles of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling and the structure is pyramidal with great emphasis on line authority. There is rigid specialization and departmen

59、talization. Participation by n</p><p>　　In paternalistic management the systems needs of the organization must be met by those employees who are not seen to be reactive. Thus, for example, some large, sophis

60、ticated industrial organizations typically perceive themselves to have 'systems' of needs, the non-managers and even junior management are seen as reactive while the senior management team is often assumed to con

61、sist of self-active men. Here the senior managers assume that they have to meet their subordinates' needs for them; say b</p><p>　　In a paternalistic company one would expect the pay level for shop floor

62、 and clerical workers to be relatively low, the employees being compensated by superior welfare benefits and greater job security in general. In an authoritarian firm the pay levels in the lower job grades could be expec

63、ted to be slightly higher (for the same economic and technological conditions) than in the paternalistic company. In fact, however, some of the larger well established paternalistic concerns often have a repu</p>

64、<p>　　A consultative management strategy implies that man is seen as self-active but requires to be directed so that his needs are integrated with the goal of the organization. The manager's functions are, as in

65、 the authoritarian strategy, to plan, organize, motivate and control but in this case the process is carried out in such a way that maximum autonomy for employees is allowed without endangering the goal of the organizati

66、on. The strategy implies a pyramidal structure with only a limited recognit</p><p>　　Participative management assumes that self-active man will make a responsible contribution to the achievement of the syste

67、m's needs. The manager's function is to act as a monitor of the system needs and to create conditions in which they can be met. This strategy implies a fluid, 'organic' structure and recognizes both forma

68、l, line authority and the authority of non-executives as a result of their personal expertise. Group work is encouraged and, in participating, employees are allowed to presen</p><p>　　In the consultative and

69、 participative strategies, then, employees are encouraged to view the organization 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-

70、level jobs. In short, one could expect an approach to an all-company job evaluated pay structure since employees are concerned more with the company as a whole compared with their counterparts in companies managed by the

71、 first two strategies outlined above.</p><p>　　Participation and Payment</p><p>　　There appears to be some movement towards greater involvement of all employees in the management of British firm

72、s. The mood of the day suggests that authoritarian management is fast becoming unacceptable to employees and that even paternalism is unwelcome.</p><p>　　At least one large British corporation has developed

73、work designs which eliminate the need for the traditional foreman.The workers operate in teams which decide, for themselves,on the allocation of work duties, shift rota details, holiday arrangement details and the like.

74、More importantly the workers participate, in the true sense, in writing the team's job description and consequent pay grade. Obviously this type of job design and organizational thinking greatly affects a company'

75、;s philosophy o</p><p>　　If there really is a strong move towards consultative and participative management styles across British industry what are the implications for payment techniques in the future? Mana

76、gers usually apply two types of technique - one, job evaluation, to provide a ranking of job value in terms of basic wages or salaries and, two, merit rating (or performance appraisal, or incentive systems) to provide a

77、means of rewarding individual employee effort and achievement.</p><p>　　Job evaluation techniques which yield a single, company-wide payment structure would seem to offer promise within participative firms.

78、Two fairly recent ideas fit the specification ideally. Elliott Jaques' widely discussed time span of discretion system developed in his famous Glacier Project suggests that all jobs at all levels within a firm can be

79、 evaluated and rewarded in terms of a single criterion. That criterion is the responsibility carried by the employee in his job and is measured in te</p><p>　　A second, and superficially similar proposal, co

80、mes from Paterson whose decision band technique of job evaluation and payment structure is currently being widely discussed. Paterson's sole criterion of job value is the hierarchical level of decision-making require

81、d by the job. The higher the decision level (policy-making as against routine, procedural decisions) the greater the responsibility implied and the higher the reward. The decision band method is applied to all jobs in th

82、e company and pr</p><p>　　The conventional methods of job evaluation can be applied in an autocratic or democratic fashion by management. The hybrid forms of job evaluation, developed by firms of consultants

83、,which tend to make use of the most relevant aspects of a number of separate schemes possibly hold the greatest promise for participative firms. By allowing as many employees as is feasible to participate in the ranking

84、and grading of jobs, management can develop a genuinely acceptable profile of the job values. The s</p><p>　　In payment for individual performance the greatest emphasis seems to lie, still, on incentive sche

85、mes for manual workers. In the orthodox incentive system management control depends heavily on stop watch time standards. Employees are inclined to be seen as having the 'calculative involvement' noted earlier in

86、 the goal oriented philosophy. In moving from an individual incentive system to measured daywork the workers are seen to be less reactive and more self-active.</p><p>　　26 Personnel Review Vol 4 Number 4 Aut

87、umn 1975</p><p>　　They are consulted with a view to improving methods and production planning. In the plant-wide bonus schemes (such as the Scanlon or the Rucker Plans) the employees are seen to have a '

88、moral involvement' with the company's total objectives. To achieve this degree of involvement often requires that the employees gain access to information which has been considered to be traditionally for managem

89、ent eyes only. It calls, in fact, for true participation.</p><p>　　Thus the orthodox piecework systems tend to fit best with an authoritarian management style; measured daywork with a consultative style; pla

90、nt wide schemes with participation. Where do the paternalistic companies fit? Typically they employ merit rating systems which assess (through the supervisor's rating) how well the employee matches the company norms

91、in terms, typically, of quality and quantity of work, initiative, team spirit and timekeeping. </p><p>　　The appraisal of managers' performances has recently been seen to be appropriately tackled by the

92、Management-by- Objectives approach. This calls for a considerable degree of participation or at least consultation in agreeing with a subordinate manager what constitutes realistic future targets for him to achieve. On t

93、he face of it this type of approach appears to have continuing promise for the future. There are some mechanical problems often associated with applying MBO but its participative for</p><p>　　We come to the

94、view then that as firms change their management styles from authoritarian/paternalistic to consultative/ participative they must review the nature of their payment strategies. Hopefully the management style will match th

95、e mood of the firm's employees and, in turn, be reflected in the determination of an equitable payment structure. It is obviously wrong to apply techniques, however sophisticated, which will call for a management sty

96、le which does not exist in the company. Equally i</p><p>　　If the trend towards consultation and participation does gather force we can expect to see job evaluation in terms of the hybrid type with maximum e

97、mployee participation in its implementation. We can also expect a move towards a single company-wide payment structure using a system such as Paterson's decision band framework to integrate the separate job family st

98、ructures. The trend towards measured daywork and plant-wide incentives should also gather force. Executives can expect to have their per</p><p>　　We must not be too sure however that there will be a rush awa

99、y from authoritarian/paternalistic styles. People in industry, as in all walks of life, are resistant to change. The managers who are most important in making participative payment strategies operational are those in the

100、 middle levels. Unfortunately, many such managers do not or cannot accept the validity of worker participation and would, consequently, be unable to apply the newer schemes successfully. However it is difficult to see t&