COMPENSATION

 

Job satisfaction includes challenging work, interesting job assignments, equitable rewards, competent supervision, and rewarding careers. The quality of work life and psychological rewards from employment are very important. It is doubtful, however, whether many of us would continue working were it not for the money we earn.
Employees desire compensation systems that they perceive as being fair and commensurate with their skills and expecta­tions. Pay, therefore, is a major consideration in HRM because it provides employees with a tangible reward for their services, as well as a source of recognition and livelihood.
Em­ployee compensation includes all forms of pay and rewards received by employees for the performance of their jobs. Direct compensation encompasses employee wages and salaries, incentives, bonuses, and commissions. Indirect compensation comprises the many benefits supplied by employers, and nonfinancial compensation includes em­ployee recognition programs, rewarding jobs, and flexible work hours to accommodate personal needs.
Both HR professionals and scholars agree that the way compensation is allocated among employees sends a message what management believes is important and the types of activities it encourages. For an employer, the payroll constitutes a sizable operating cost. In manufacturing firms compensation is seldom as low as 20 per­cent of total expenditures, and in service enterprises it often exceeds 80 percent.
A sound compensation program is essential so that pay can serve to motivate employee production sufficiently to keep labor costs at an acceptable level. The management of a compensation program, job evaluation systems, and pay structures for determining compensation payments is covered here. Included will be a discussion of fed­eral regulations that affect wage and salary rates. Employee benefits that are part of the total compensation package are discussed later.

The Compensation Program

A significant interaction occurs between compensation management and the other functions of the HR program. For example, in the recruitment of new em­ployees, the rate of pay for jobs can increase or limit the supply of applicants. Many fast-food restaurants, traditionally low-wage employers, have needed to raise their starting wages to attract a sufficient number of job applicants to meet staffing requirements. If rates of pay are high, creating a large applicant pool, then organizations may choose to raise their selection standards and hire better-qualified employees. This in turn can reduce employer training costs.
When em­ployees perform at exceptional levels, their performance appraisals may justify an increased pay rate. For these reasons and others, an organization should develop a formal HR program to manage employee compensation. This program should establish its intended objectives, the policies for determining compensation payments, and the methods by which the payments will be disbursed. Included as part of the program should be the communication of information concerning wages and benefits to employees.

 

Compensation Objectives and Policies

Compensation objectives should facilitate the effective utilization and manage­ment of an organization’s human resources, while also contributing to the overall objectives of the organization. A compensation program, therefore, must be tai­lored to the needs of an organization and its employees.
It is not uncommon for organizations to establish very specific goals for their compensation program. Formalized compensation goals serve as guidelines for managers to ensure that wage and benefit policies achieve their intended pur­pose. The more common goals of compensation policy include:

1.  To reward employees’ past performance
2.  To remain competitive in the labor market
3.  To maintain salary equity among employees
4.  To motivate employees’ future performance
5.  To maintain the budget
6.  To attract new employees
7.  To reduce unnecessary turnover

To achieve these goals, policies must be established to guide management in making decisions. Formal statements of compensation policies typically include the following:

1.  The rate of pay within the organization and whether it is to be above, below, or at the prevailing community rate
2.  The ability of the pay program to gain employee acceptance while motivating employees to perform to the best of their abilities
3.  The pay level at which employees may be recruited and the pay differential between new and more senior employees
4.  The intervals at which pay raises are to be granted and the extent to which merit and/or seniority will influence the raises

• The pay levels needed to facilitate the achievement of a sound financial position in relation to the products or services offered

Policies must be established very early in the process of compensation management.

 

The Pay-for-Performance Standard

To raise productivity and lower labor costs in today’s competitive economic en­vironment, organizations are increasingly setting compensation objectives based on a pay-for-performance standard. It is agreed that managers must tie at least some reward to employee effort and performance. Without this standard, moti­vation to perform with greater effort will be low, resulting in higher wage costs to the organization.

Pay-for-performance standard
Standard by which managers tie compensation
to employee effort and performance

The term “pay-for-performance” refers to a wide range of compensation op­tions, including merit pay, cash bonuses, incentive pay, and various gainsharing plans. Each of these compensa­tion systems seeks to differentiate between the pay of average and outstanding performers. Interestingly, productivity studies show that employees will increase their output by 15 to 25 percent when an organization installs a pay-for-performance program.
Unfortunately, designing a sound pay-for-performance system is not easy. Considerations must be given to how employee performance will be measured, the monies to be allocated for compensation increases, which employees to cover, the payout method, and the periods when payments will be made. A criti­cal issue concerns the size of the monetary increase and its perceived value to employees.
The American Compensation Association reports that annual salary budgets have only risen between 5 and 5.4 percent since 1987. These percent­ages only slightly exceed yearly increases in the cost of living. While differences exist as to how large a wage or salary increase must be before it is perceived as meaningful, a pay-for-performance program will lack its full potential when pay increases only approximate rises in the cost of living.

 

The Motivating Value of Compensation

Pay constitutes a quantitative measure of an employee’s relative worth. For most employees, pay has a direct bearing not only on their standard of living, but also on the status and recognition they may be able to achieve both on and off the job. Since pay represents a reward received in exchange for an employee’s contri­butions, it is essential that the pay be “equitable” in terms of those contributions. It is essential also that an employee’s pay be “equitable” in terms of what other employees are receiving for their contributions.

 

Pay Equity

Equity can be defined as anything of value earned through the investment of something of value. Fairness is achieved when the return on equity is equivalent to the investment made. For employees, pay equity is achieved when the compensation received is equal to the value of the work performed.

Pay equity
An employee’s perception that
compensation received is equal to the
value of the work performed

Internal equity is especially important in an organization where “teamwork” is critical to success. In environments that requires a cross-section of skills and talents and interdisciplinary teamwork, coworkers need confidence in themselves and their colleagues. An important part of creating an environment in which teamwork is effective, is a pay policy that reflects the true value of work to the overall organization, and helps all members of the team respect one another’s contribution and role.
Not only must pay be equitable, it must also be “perceived” as such by employees. Research clearly demonstrates that employees’ perceptions of pay equity, or inequity, can have dramatic effects on their motivation for both work behav­ior and productivity. Managers must therefore develop pay practices that are both internally and externally equitable.
Employees must believe that wage rates for jobs within the organization approximate the job’s worth to the organization. Also, the employer’s wage rates must correspond closely to prevailing market rates for the employee’s occupation. These two goals can sometimes be in conflict.

 

Pay Expectancy

The expectancy theory of motivation predicts that one’s level of motivation de­pends on the attractiveness of the reward sought. The theory holds that employees should exert greater work effort if they have rea­son to expect that it will result in a reward that is valued. To motivate this ef­fort, the value of any monetary reward should be attractive. Employees also must believe that good performance is valued by their employer and will result in their receiving the expected reward.
The chart below illustrates the relationship between pay-for-performance and the expectancy theory of motivation. The model predicts that high effort will lead to high performance (expectancy), and high performance in turn will lead to monetary rewards that are appreciated (valued). Since pay-for-performance leads to a feeling of pay satisfaction, this feeling should reinforce one’s high level of effort.

(insert figure 10-1)

Thus, how employees view compensation can be an important factor in de­termining the motivational value of compensation. Furthermore, the effective communication of pay information together with an organizational environment that elicits employee trust in management can contribute to employees having more accurate perceptions of their pay. The perceptions employees develop con­cerning their pay are influenced by the accuracy of their knowledge and under­standing of the compensation program.

Pay Secrecy

Misperceptions by employees concerning the equity of their pay and its relation­ship to performance can be created by secrecy about the pay that others receive. There is reason to believe that secrecy can generate distrust in the compensation system, reduce employee motivation, and inhibit organizational effectiveness. Yet pay secrecy seems to be an accepted practice in many organizations in both the private and the public sector.
Managers may justify secrecy on the grounds that most employees prefer to have their own pay kept secret. Probably one of the reasons for pay secrecy that managers may be unwilling to admit is that it gives them greater freedom in compensation management, since pay decisions are not disclosed and there is no need to justify or defend them. Employees who are not supposed to know what others are being paid have no objective base for pursuing grievances about their own pay.
Secrecy also serves to cover up inequities existing within the pay structure. Furthermore, secrecy surrounding compensation decisions may lead employees to believe that there is no direct relationship between pay and performance.

 

The Bases for Compensation

Work performed in most private, public, and not-for-profit organizations has tra­ditionally been compensated on an hourly basis. It is referred to as hourly or day work, in contrast to piecework, in which employees are paid according to the number of units they produce. Hourly work, however, is far more prevalent than piecework as a basis for compensating employees.

Hourly or day work
Work paid on an
hourly basis

Piecework
Work paid according to
the number of units produced

Employees compensated on an hourly basis are classified as hourly employees, or wage earners. Those whose compensation is computed on the basis of weekly, biweekly, or monthly pay periods are classified as salaried employees. Hourly em­ployees are normally paid only for the time they work. Salaried employees, by contrast, are generally paid the same for each pay period, even though they occa­sionally may work more hours or fewer than the regular number of hours in a pe­riod. They also usually receive certain benefits not provided to hourly employees.
Another basis for compensation centers on whether employees are classified as either nonexempt or exempt under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Nonexempt employees are covered by the act and must be paid at a rate of 1½ times their regular pay rate for time worked in excess of forty hours in their workweek. Employees not covered by the overtime provision of the FLSA are classified as exempt employees. Managers and supervi­sors as well as a large number of white-collar employees are in the exempt cate­gory.

Nonexempt employees
Employees covered by the
overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act

Exempt employees
Employees not covered by the
overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act

 

 

Components of the Wage Mix

A combination of external and internal factors can influence, directly or indi­rectly, the rates at which employees are paid. Through their interaction these factors constitute the wage mix, as shown below.

(insert Figure 10-2: Factors Affecting the Wage Mix)

 

External Factors

The major external factors that influence wage rates include labor market condi­tions, area wage rates, cost of living, legal requirements, and collective bargain­ing if the employer is unionized.

 

Labor Market Conditions

The labor market reflects the forces of supply and demand for qualified labor within an area. These forces help to influence the wage rates required to recruit or retain competent employees. It must be recognized, however, that counter-forces can reduce the full impact of supply and demand on the labor market. The economic power of unions, for example, may prevent employers from lowering wage rates even when unemployment is high among union members. Govern­ment regulations also may prevent an employer from paying at a market rate less than an established minimum.

 

Area Wage Rates

A formal wage structure should provide rates that are in line with those being paid by other employers for comparable jobs within the area. Data pertaining to area wage rates may be obtained from local wage surveys. Wage-survey data may be obtained from a variety of sources, often available on the Internet, including the American Management Association, Administrative Management Society, U.S. Depart­ment of Labor, and Federal Reserve Banks.
Data from area wage surveys can be used to prevent the rates for certain jobs from drifting too far above or below those of other employers in the region. When rates rise above existing area levels, an employer’s labor costs may become excessive. Conversely, if they drop too far below area levels, it may be difficult to recruit and retain competent personnel. Wage-survey data must also take into account indirect wages paid in the form of benefits.

 

Cost of Living

Because of inflation, compensation rates have had to be adjusted upward periodically to help employees maintain their purchasing power. This can be achieved through escalator clauses found in various labor agreements. These clauses provide for quarterly cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) in wages based on changes in the consumer price index (CPI). The CPI is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed “market basket” of goods and services.

Escalator clauses

Clauses in labor agreements that provide for

quarterly cost-of-living adjustments in wages, basing the
adjustments upon changes in the consumer price index

Consumer price index (CPI)

Measure of the average change

in prices over time in a fixed “market
basket” of goods and services

The CPI is largely used to set wages. The index is based on prices of food, clothing, shelter, and fuels; transportation fares; charges for medical services; and prices of other goods and services that people buy for day-to-day living. The Bureau of Labor Statistics collects price information on a monthly basis and cal­culates the CPI for the nation as a whole and various U.S. city averages. Separate indexes are also published by size of city and by region of the country. Employers in a number of communities monitor changes in the CPI as a basis for compensation decisions.

 

Collective Bargaining

One of the primary functions of a labor union is to bargain collectively over conditions of employment, the most important of which is compensation. The union’s goal in each new agreement is to achieve increases in real wages--wage increases larger than the increase in the CPI--thereby improving the purchasing power and standard of living of its members. This goal includes gaining wage settlements that equal if not exceed the pattern established by other unions within the area.

Real wages
Wage increases larger than rises in the
consumer price index; that is, the
real earning power of wages

            The agreements negotiated by unions tend to establish rate patterns within the labor market. As a result, wages are generally higher in areas where orga­nized labor is strong. To recruit and retain competent personnel and avoid unionization, nonunion employers must either meet or exceed these rates. The “union scale” also becomes the prevailing rate that all employers must pay for work performed under government contract. The impact of collective bargaining therefore extends beyond that segment of the labor force that is unionized.

 

Internal Factors

The internal factors that influence wage rates are the employer's compensation policy, the worth of a job, an employee's relative worth in meeting job require­ments, and an employer's ability to pay.

 

Employer’s Compensation Policy

The compensation objectives of two organiza­tions can be quite different. One might strive to be an industry pay leader, while another seeks to be wage-competitive by paying employees at the seventy-fifth percentile of their competitors’ wages. Both employers strive to promote a compensation policy that is fair and competitive.
All employers will establish nu­merous compensation objectives that affect the pay employees receive. As a minimum, both large and small employers should set pay policies reflecting:

• the internal wage relationship among jobs and skill levels.
• the external competition or an employer’s pay position relative to what competitors are paying.
• a policy of rewarding employee performance.
• administration decisions concerning elements of the pay system such as overtime premiums, payment periods, short-term or long-term incentives.

 

Worth of a Job

Organizations without a formal compensation program generally base the worth of jobs on the subjective opinions of people familiar with the jobs. In such in­stances, pay rates may be influenced heavily by the labor market or, in the case of unionized employers, by collective bargaining.
Organizations with formal compensation programs, however, are more likely to rely on a system of job eva1uation to aid in rate determination. Even when rates are subject to collective bar­gaining, job evaluation can assist the organization in maintaining some degree of control over its wage structure.
The use of job evaluation is widespread in both the public and the private sector. The jobs covered most frequently by job evaluation comprise clerical, technical, and various blue-collar groups, whereas those jobs covered least frequently are managerial and top-executive positions.

 

Employee’s Relative Worth

It is common practice in some industries, notably construction, for unions to negotiate a single rate for jobs in a particular occupation. This egalitarian practice is based on the argument that employees who possess the same qualifications should receive the same rate of pay. Furthermore, the itinerant nature of work in the construction industry usually prevents the accumulation of employment seniority on which pay differentials might be based. Even so, it is not uncommon for employers in the trades to seek to retain their most competent employees by paying them more than the union scale.
In industrial and office jobs, differences in employee performance can be recognized and rewarded through promotion and with various incentive systems. Superior performance can be rewarded by granting merit raises on the basis of steps within a rate range established for a job class.
If merit raises are to have their intended value, however, they must be determined by an effective performance appraisal system that differentiates between those employees who deserve the raises and those who do not. This system, moreover, must provide a visible and credible relationship between performance and any raises received. Unfortunately, too many so-called merit systems provide for raises to be granted auto­matically. As a result, employees tend to be rewarded more for merely being present than for being productive on the job.

 

Employer’s Ability to Pay

In the public sector, the amount of pay and benefits employees can receive is lim­ited by the funds budgeted for this purpose and by the willingness of taxpayers to provide them. In the private sector, pay levels are limited by profits and other fi­nancial resources available to employers. Thus an organization's ability to pay is determined in part by the productivity of its employees.
Increased productivity is a result not only of their performance, but also of the amount of capital the orga­nization has invested in labor-saving equipment. Generally, increases in capital investment reduce the number of employees required to perform the work and in­crease an employer's ability to provide higher pay for those it employs.
Economic conditions and competition faced by employers can also signifi­cantly affect the rates they are able to pay. Competition and recessions can force prices down and reduce the income from which compensation payments are derived. In such situations, employers have little choice but to reduce wages and/or lay off employees, or, even worse, to go out of business.

Job Evaluation Systems

One important component of the wage mix is the worth of the job. Organizations formally determine the value of jobs through the pro­cess of job evaluation. Job evaluation is the systematic process of determining the relative worth of jobs in order to establish which jobs should be paid more than others within the organization. Job evaluation helps to establish internal equity between various jobs.

Job evaluation
Systematic process of determining the relative worth
of jobs in order to establish which jobs should be paid
more than others within an organization

The relative worth of a job may be determined by compar­ing it with others within the organization or by comparing it with a scale that has been constructed for this purpose. Each method of comparison, furthermore, may be made on the basis of the jobs as a whole or on the basis of the parts that constitute the jobs.
Four methods of comparison are listed below. They provide the basis for the principal systems of job evaluation. Regardless of the methodology used, it is important to remember that all job evaluation methods require varying degrees of managerial judgment.

• Job Ranking Systems
• Job Classification Systems
• Point Systems
• Factor Comparison Systems

 

Job Ranking System

 

The simplest and oldest system of job evaluation is the job ranking system, which arrays jobs on the basis of their relative worth. One technique used to rank jobs consists of having the raters arrange cards listing the duties and re­sponsibilities of each job in order of the importance of the jobs. Job ranking can be done by a single individual knowledgeable of all jobs or by a committee composed of management and employee representatives.

Job ranking system
Simplest and oldest system of job
evaluation by which jobs are arrayed on
the basis of their relative worth

After jobs are evaluated, wage rates can be as­signed to them through use of the salary survey discussed later in the chapter.
The basic weakness of the job ranking system is that it does not provide a very refined measure of each job's worth. Since the comparisons are normally made on the basis of the job as a whole, it is quite easy for one or more of the factors of a job to bias the ranking given to a job, particularly if the job is com­plex. This drawback can be partially eliminated by having the raters--prior to the evaluation process--agree on one or two important factors with which to evaluate jobs and the weights to be assigned these factors.
Another disadvantage of the job ranking system is that the final ranking of jobs merely indicates the relative importance of the jobs, not the differences in the degree of importance that may exist between jobs. A final limitation of the job ranking method is that it can only be used with a small number. of jobs, probably no more than fifteen. Its simplicity, however, makes it ideal for use by smaller employers.

 

Job Classification System

In the job classification system, jobs are classified and grouped according to a se­ries of predetermined “grades.” Successive grades require increasing amounts of job responsibility, skill, knowledge, ability, or other factors selected to compare jobs. For example, Grade GS-1 from the U.S. federal government grade descriptions reads as follows:

GS-1 includes those classes of positions the duties of which are to perform, under immediate supervision, with little or no latitude for the exercise of independent judgment (A) the simplest routine work in office, business, or fiscal operations; or (B) elementary work of a subordinate technical character in a professional, scientific, or technical field.

Job classification system

System of job evaluation by which jobs are

classified and grouped according to a series
of predetermined wage grades

The descriptions of each of the job classes constitute the scale against which the specifications for the various jobs are compared. Managers then evaluate jobs by comparing job descriptions with the different wage grades in or­der to “slot” the job into the appropriate grade. While this system has the advan­tage of simplicity, it is less precise than the point and factor comparison systems (discussed in the next sections) because the job is evaluated as a whole.
The fed­eral civil service job classification system is probably the best-known system of this type. The job classification system is widely used by municipal and state governments.

 

Point System

The point system is a quantitative job evaluation procedure that determines a job’s relative value by calculating the total points assigned to it. It has been suc­cessfully used by high-visibility organizations such as Digital Equipment Com­pany, TRW, Johnson Wax Company, Boeing, TransAmerica, and many other public and private organizations, both large and small.

Point system
Quantitative job evaluation procedure
that determines the relative value of a job
by the total points assigned to it

Although point systems are rather complicated to establish, once in place they are relatively simple to understand and use. The principal advantage of the point system is that it pro­vides a more refined basis for making judgments than either the ranking or clas­sification systems and thereby can produce results that are more valid and less easy to manipulate.
The point system permits jobs to be evaluated quantitatively on the basis of factors or elements--commonly called compensable factors--that constitute the job. The skills, efforts, responsibilities, and working conditions that a job usually entails are the more common major compensable factors that serve to rank one job as more or less important than another.
The number of compensable factors an organization uses depends on the nature of the organization and the jobs to be evaluated. Once selected, compensable factors will be assigned weights accord­ing to their relative importance to the organization. For example, if responsibility is considered extremely important to the organization, it could be assigned a weight of 40 percent. Next, each factor will be divided into a number of degrees. Degrees represent different levels of difficulty associated with each factor.
The point system requires the use of a point manual. The point manual is a handbook that contains a description of the compensable factors and the degrees to which these factors may exist within the jobs. A manual also will indicate--usually by means of a table--the number of points allocated to each factor and to each of the degrees into which these fac­tors are divided. The point value assigned to a job represents the sum of the nu­merical degree values of each compensable factor that the job possesses.

(insert Highlights in HRM 3)

 

Developing a Point Manual

A variety of point manuals have been developed by organizations, trade associa­tions, and management consultants. An organization that seeks to use one of these existing manuals should make certain that the manual is suited to its par­ticular jobs and conditions of operation. If necessary, the organization should modify the manual or develop its own to suit its needs.
The job factors that are illustrated in represent those covered by the American Association of Industrial Management point manual. Each of the factors listed in this manual has been divided into five degrees. The number of degrees into which the factors in a manual are to be divided, however, can be greater or smaller than this number, depending on the relative weight as­signed to each factor and the ease with which the individual degrees can be de­fined or distinguished.
After the job factors in the point manual have been divided into degrees, a statement must be prepared defining each of these degrees, as well as each factor as a whole. The definitions should be concise and yet distinguish the factors and each of their degrees. These definitions represent another portion of the point manual used by the American Association of Industrial Management to describe each of the degrees for the job knowledge factor. These descriptions en­able those conducting a job evaluation to determine the degree to which the fac­tors exist in each job being evaluated.

(insert Highlights in HRM 4)

The final step in developing a point manual is to determine the number of points to be assigned to each factor and to each degree within these factors. Al­though the total number of points is arbitrary, 500points is often the maximum.

 

Using the Point Manual

Job evaluation under the point system is accomplished by comparing the job de­scriptions and job specifications, factor by factor, against the various factor-degree descriptions contained in the manual. Each factor within the job being evaluated is then assigned the number of points specified in the manual. When the points for each factor have been determined from the manual, the total point value for the job as a whole can be calculated. The relative worth of the job is then determined from the total points that have been assigned to that job.

 

Factor Comparison System

The factor comparison system, like the point system, permits the job evaluation process to be accomplished on a factor-by-factor basis. It differs from the point system, however, in that the compensable factors of the jobs to be evaluated are compared against the compensable factors of key jobs within the organization that serve as the job evaluation scale. Thus, instead of beginning with an estab­lished point scale, the factor comparison system requires a “scale” to be developed as part of the job evaluation process.

Factor comparison system
Job evaluation system that permits the evaluation
process to be accomplished on a factor-by-factor
basis by developing a factor comparison scale

 

Developing a Factor Comparison Scale

There are four basic steps in developing and using a factor comparison scale: (1) selecting and ranking “key” jobs, (2) allocating wage rates for “key jobs” across compensable factors, (3) setting up the factor comparison scale, and (4) evaluat­ing nonkey jobs.

Step 1.  Select and rank key jobs on the basis of compensable factors. Key jobs can be defined as those jobs that are important for wage-setting purposes and are widely known in the labor market. Key jobs have the following characteristics:

1.  They are important to employees and the organization.
2.  They vary in terms of job requirements.
3.  They have relatively stable job content.
4.  They are used in salary surveys for wage determination.

(Insert Figure 10-5: Ranking Key Jobs by Compensable Factors)

        Key jobs are normally ranked against five factors—skill, mental effort, physical effort, responsibility, and working conditions. It is normal for the ranking of each key job to be different because of the different requirements of jobs. The ranking of three key jobs is shown although usually fifteen to twenty key jobs will constitute a factor comparison scale.

Step 2.  Next, determine the proportion of the current wage being paid on a key job to each of the factors composing the job. Thus the proportion of a key job’s wage rate allocated to the skill factor will depend on the importance of skill in comparison with mental effort, physical effort, responsibility, and working con­ditions. It is important that the factor rankings in step 1 be consistent with the wage-apportionment rankings in step 2. The table below illustrates how the rate for three key jobs has been allocated according to the relative importance of the ba­sic factors that make up these jobs.

(insert figure 10-6)

Step 3.  After the wages for each key job have been apportioned across the factors, the data are displayed on a factor comparison scale, which is shown below. The location of the key jobs on the scale and the compensable factors for these jobs provide the benchmarks against which other jobs are evaluated.

(insert figure 10-7)

Step 4. We are now ready to compare the nonkey jobs against the key jobs in the columns. As an example of how the scale is used, let’s assume that the job of screw machine operator is to be evaluated through the use of the factor comparison scale. By comparing the skill factor for screw machine opera­tor with the skill factors of the key jobs on the table, it is decided that the skill demand of the job places it about halfway between those of storekeeper and punch press operator. The job is therefore placed at the $5.55 point on the scale. The same procedure is used to place the job at the appropriate point on the scale for the remaining factors.

 

Using the Factor Comparison Scale                                                                                            

The evaluated worth of the jobs added to the scale is computed by adding up the money values for each factor as determined by where the job has been placed of the scale for each factor. Thus the evaluated worth of the screw machine operator at $9.72 would be determined by totaling the monetary value for each factor as follows:

                            Skill                                   $5.55
Mental effort                       1.35
Physical effort                     0.82
Responsibility                     0.60
Working conditions             1.40
$9.72

 

Job Evaluation for Management Positions
 
Because management positions are more difficult to evaluate and involve certain demands not found in jobs at the lower levels, some organizations do not attempt to include them in their job evaluation programs. Those employers that do evaluate these positions, however, may extend their regular system of evaluation to include such positions, or they may develop a separate evaluation system for management positions.
Several systems have been developed especially for the evaluation of execu­tive, managerial, and professional positions. One of the better known is the Hay profile method, developed by Edward N. Hay. The three broad factors that constitute the evaluation in the “profile” include knowledge (or know-how), mental activity (or problem solving), and accountability.

Hay profile method

Job evaluation technique using three

factors—knowledge, mental activity, and
accountability—to evaluate executive and managerial positions

The Hay method uses only three factors because it is assumed that these factors represent the most impor­tant aspects of all executive and managerial positions. The profile for each posi­tion is developed by determining the percentage value to be assigned to each of the three factors. Jobs are then ranked on the basis of each factor, and point values that make up the profile are assigned to each job on the basis of the percentage-value level at which the job is ranked.

 

The Compensation Structure

Job evaluation systems provide for internal equity and serve as the basis for wage-rate determination. They do not in themselves determine the wage rate. The evaluated worth of each job in terms of its rank, class, points, or monetary worth must be converted into an hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly wage rate. The compensation tool used to help set wages is the wage and salary survey.

 

Wage and Salary Surveys

The wage and salary survey is a survey of the wages paid by employers in an or­ganization’s relevant labor market--local, regional, or national, depending on the job. The labor market is frequently defined as that area from which employ­ers obtain certain types of workers. The labor market for office personnel would be local, whereas the labor market for engineers would be national.

Wage and salary survey

Survey of the wages paid to employees of

other employers in the surveying organization’s
relevant labor market

It is the wage and salary survey that permits an organization to maintain external equity, that is, to pay its employees wages equivalent to the wages similar employees earn in other establishments. Although surveys are primarily conducted to gather com­petitive wage data, they can also collect information on employee benefits or or­ganizational pay practices (e.g., overtime rates or shift differentials).

 

Collecting Survey Data

While many organizations conduct their own wage and salary surveys, a variety of “preconducted” pay surveys are available to satisfy the requirements of most public and not-for-profit or private employers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the major publisher of wage and salary data, putting out three major sur­veys: area wage surveys, industry wage surveys, and the National Survey of Pro­fessional, Administrative, Technical, and Clerical Pay (PATC).
The BLS also publishes the Employee Benefits Survey and the Employment Cost Index (ECI), which reports changes in employee compensation costs. Employers use the ECI as a cross-check on other compensation surveys and to track geographical differ­entials for various nonexempt jobs.
Many states conduct surveys on either a municipal or county basis and make them available to employers. Besides these government surveys, trade groups such as the Dallas Personnel Association, the Administrative Management Society, the Society for Human Resource Management, the American Management As­sociation, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and the Financial Ex­ecutive Institute conduct special surveys tailored to their members' needs.
Employers with global operations can purchase international surveys through large consulting firms. The overseas compensation survey offered by TPF&C re­ports on the payment practices in twenty countries. While all of these third-party surveys provide certain benefits to their users, they also have various limitations. Two problems with all published surveys are that (1) they are not al­ways compatible with the user's jobs and (2) the user cannot specify what spe­cific data to collect. To overcome these problems, organizations may collect their own compensation data. There is a hefty cost for many of these survey results. The government surveys are on the internet free. Some surveys are also on the WWW.

 

Employer-Initiated Surveys

Employers wishing to conduct their own wage and salary survey must first select the jobs to be used in the survey and identify the organizations with whom they actually compete for employees. Since it is not feasible to survey all the jobs in an organization, normally only key jobs are used.
The survey of key jobs will usu­ally be sent to ten or fifteen organizations that represent a valid sample of other employers likely to compete for the employees of the surveying organization. A diversity of organizations should be selected--large and small, public and pri­vate, new and established, and union and nonunion--since each classification of employer is likely to pay different wage rates for surveyed jobs.
After the key jobs and the employers to be surveyed have been identified, the surveying organization must decide what information to gather on wages, benefit types, and pay policies. For example, when requesting pay data, it is im­portant to specify whether hourly, daily, or weekly pay figures are needed.
In ad­dition, those conducting surveys must state if the wage data are needed for new hires or for senior employees. Precisely defining the compensation data needed will greatly increase the accuracy of the information received and the number of purposes for which it can be used. Once the survey data are tabulated, the com­pensation structure can be completed.

 

The Wage Curve

The relationship between the relative worth of jobs and their wage rates can be represented by means of a wage curve. This curve may indicate the rates cur­rently paid for jobs within an organization, the new rates resulting from job evaluation, or the rates for similar jobs currently being paid by other organiza­tions within the labor market.

Wage curve

Curve in a scattergram representing

the relationship between relative
worth of jobs and wage rates

A curve may be constructed graphically by preparing a scattergram consisting of a series of dots that represent the current wage rates. As shown below, a freehand curve is then drawn through the cluster of dots in such a manner as to leave approximately an equal number of dots above and below the curve. The wage curve can be relatively straight or curved. This curve can then be used to determine the relationship between the value of a job and its wage rate at any given point on the line.

 

(Insert Figure 10-8: Freehand Wage Curve – increase the left scale by $10 everywhere)

 

Pay Grades

From an administrative standpoint, it is generally preferable to group jobs into pay grades and to pay all jobs within a particular grade the same rate or rate range. When the classification system of job evaluation is used, jobs are grouped into grades as part of the evaluation process. When the point and factor com­parison systems are used, however, pay grades must be established at selected in­tervals that represent either the point or the evaluated monetary value of these jobs. The graph below illustrates a series of pay grades designated along the horizontal axis at fifty-point intervals.

Pay grades
Groups of jobs within a particular
class that are paid the same
rate or rate range

Insert figure 10-9 here

The grades within a wage structure may vary in number. The number is de­termined by such factors as the slope of the wage curve, the number and distribu­tion of the jobs within the structure, and the organization’s wage administration and promotion policies. The number utilized should be sufficient to permit diffi­culty levels to be distinguished, but not so great as to make the distinction be­tween two adjoining grades insignificant.

 

Rate Ranges

Although a single rate may be created for each pay grade, it is more common to provide a range of rates for each pay grade. The rate ranges may be the same for each grade or proportionately greater for each successive grade, as shown below. Rate ranges constructed on the lat­ter basis provide a greater incentive for employees to accept a promotion to a job in a higher grade.

(Insert Figure 10-10: Wage Structure with Increasing Rate Ranges – Very important table to scan-in at this point.)

Rate ranges generally are divided into a series of steps that permit employees to receive increases up to the maximum rate for the range on the basis of merit or seniority or a combination of the two. Most salary structures provide for the ranges of adjoining pay grades to overlap. The purpose of the overlap is to permit an employee with experience to earn as much as or more than a person with less experience in the next-higher job classification.

 

Classification of Jobs

The final step in setting up a wage structure is to determine the appropriate pay grade into which each job should be placed on the basis of its evaluated worth. Traditionally, this worth is determined on the basis of job requirements without regard to the performance of the person in that job. Under this system, the per­formance of those who exceed the requirements of a job may be acknowledged by merit increases within the grade range or by promotion to a job in the next-higher pay grade.

Governmental Regulation of Compensation

Compensation management, like the other areas of HRM, is subject to government regulations. A majority of states and countries have minimum wage laws or wage boards that fix minimum wage rates on an industry-by-industry basis. Most governments also regulate hours of work and overtime payments.

Significant Compensation Issues

As with other HR activities, compensation management operates in a dynamic environment. For example, as managers strive to reward employees in a fair man­ner, they must consider controls over labor costs, legal issues regarding male and female wage payments, and internal pay equity concerns. Each of these concern is highlighted in three important compensation issues: equal pay for comparable worth, wage-rate compression, and two-tier wage systems.

 

The Issue of Equal Pay for Comparable Worth

One of the most important gender issues in compensation is equal pay for compa­rable worth. The issue stems from the fact that jobs performed predominantly by women are paid less than those performed by men. This practice results in what critics term institutionalized sex discrimination, causing women to receive less pay for jobs that may be different from but comparable in worth to those performed by men.
The issue of comparable worth goes beyond providing equal pay for jobs that involve the same duties for women as for men. It is not concerned with whether a female secretary should receive the same pay as a male secretary. Rather, the argument for comparable worth is that jobs held by women are not compensated the same as those held by men, even though both job types may contribute equally to organizational success.

Comparable worth

The concept that male and female

jobs that are dissimilar, but equal in terms
of value or worth to the employer, should
be paid the same

 

Problem of Measuring Comparability

Advocates of comparable worth argue that the difference in wage rates for pre­dominantly male and female occupations rests in the undervaluing of traditional female occupations. To remedy this situation, they propose that wages should be equal for jobs that are “somehow” equivalent in total worth or compensation to the organization. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on a comparable worth standard by which to evaluate jobs, nor is there agreement on the ability of present job evaluation techniques to remedy the problem.
The argument over comparable worth is likely to remain an important HR issue for many years to come. Unanswered questions such as the following will serve to keep the issue alive:

 

1.    If comparable worth is adopted, who will determine the worth of jobs, and by what means?
2.    How much would comparable worth cost employers?
3.    Would comparable worth reduce the wage gap between men and women caused by labor market supply-and-demand forces?
4.    Would comparable worth reduce the number of employment opportunities for women?

 

The Issue of Wage-Rate Compression

The primary purpose of the pay differentials between the wage classes is to provide an incentive for employees to prepare for and accept more-demanding jobs. Unfor­tunately, this incentive is being significantly reduced by wage-rate compres­sion--the reduction of differences between job classes. Wage-rate compression IS largely an internal pay-equity concern. The problem occurs when employees per­ceive that there is too narrow a difference between their compensation and that of colleagues in lower-rated jobs.

Wage-rate compression
Compression of differentials between
job classes, particularly the differential between
hourly workers and their managers

HR professionals acknowledge that wage-rate compression is a widespread organizational problem affecting diverse occupational groups: white-collar and blue-collar workers, technical and professional employees, and managerial per­sonnel. It can cause low employee morale, leading to issues of reduced employee performance, higher absenteeism and turnover, and even delinquent behavior such as employee theft.  
There is no single cause of wage-rate compression. For example, it can occur when unions negotiate across-the-board increases for hourly employees but managerial personnel are not granted corresponding wage differentials. Such increases can result in part from COLAs provided for in labor agreements.
Other inequities have resulted from the scarcity of applicants in computers, engineer­ing, and other professional and technical fields. Job applicants in these fields frequently have been offered starting salaries not far below those paid to employees with considerable experience and seniority. Wage-rate compression often occurs when organizations grant pay adjustments for lower-rated jobs without providing commensurate adjustments for occupations at the top of the job hierarchy.
Identifying wage-rate compression and its causes is far simpler than im­plementing organizational policies to alleviate its effect. Organizations wishing to minimize the problem may incorporate the following ideas into their pay policies:

1.    Give larger compensation increases to more-senior employees.
2.    Emphasize pay-for-performance and reward merit-worthy employees.
3.    Limit the hiring of new applicants seeking exorbitant salaries.
4.    Design the pay structure to allow a wide spread between hourly and supervisory jobs or between new hires and senior employees.
5.    Provide equity adjustments for selected employees hardest hit by pay compression.

 

The Issue of Two-Tier Wage Systems

Many organizations affected by deregulation, foreign competition, and aggressive nonunionized competi­tors implement two-tier wage systems as a means of lowering their labor costs. A two-tier wage system is a compensation plan that pays newly hired em­ployees less than present employees performing the same or similar jobs. With some two-tier wage systems, new employees may receive reduced benefit packages. Two-tier wage systems are popular in the airline, aero­space, trucking, retail food, copper, and automobile industries.

Two-tier wage system

Wage system where newly hired employees

performing the same jobs as senior employees
receive lower rates of pay

There are two basic types of two-tier wage sys­tems. In a permanent system, the wages of new hires, “B-scalers,” never merge with the wages of senior em­ployees. In a temporary system, B-scale wages will eventually catch up to A-scale wages after a specified period of time. For example, employees on the B-scale at American Airlines achieve pay parity with senior employees after ten years of service.
Unfortunately, lower-paid employees can have feelings of pay inequity when working under either of these wage systems. There is a perceived lack of fairness when new hires and senior employees perform the same job but receive different wages. Feelings of inequity can, in turn, lead to low levels of job commitment, work attendance problems, reduced productiv­ity, and employee resentment.
Whether two-tier wage systems will continue as a method of labor cost con­trol seems uncertain. Recent reports show that employers are phasing out these programs because of high employee turnover and morale problems. Therefore the gap in employee wages caused by these pay plans will likely decline. If this trend continues, employers are likely to implement other cost-cutting pay strate­gies such as incentive pay plans.

Summary

Establishing compensation programs requires both large and small organizations to consider specific goals- -employee retention, compensation distribution, and adherence to a budget, for instance. Compensation must reward employees for past efforts (pay-for-performance) while serving to motivate employees’ future performance. Internal and external equity of the pay program affects employees' concepts of fairness. Organizations must balance each of these concerns while still remaining competitive. The ability to attract qualified employees while controlling labor costs are major factors in allowing organizations to remain viable in the domestic or international markets.
The basis on which compensation payments are determined, and the way they are administered, can significantly affect employee productivity and the achievement of organizational goals. External factors influencing wage rates in­clude labor market conditions, area wage rates, cost of living, legal requirement and the outcomes of collective bargaining. Internal influences include the em­ployer's compensation policy, the worth of the job, performance of the employee and the employer’s ability to pay.
Organizations use one of four basic job evaluation techniques to determine the relative worth of jobs. The job ranking system arranges jobs in numerical order on the basis of the importance of the job’s duties and responsibilities to the organization. The job classification system slots jobs into preestablished grades. Higher-rated grades will require more responsibilities, working conditions, and job duties. The point system of job evaluation uses a point scheme based upon the compensable job factors of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The more of a compensable factor a job possesses, the more points are assigned to it. Jobs with higher accumulated points are considered more valuable to the organization. The factor comparison system evaluates jobs on a factor-by-factor basis against key jobs in the organization.
Wage surveys determine the external equity of jobs. Data obtained from surveys will facilitate establishing the organization’s wage policy while ensuring that the employer does not pay more, or less, than needed for jobs in the relevant labor market.     
The wage structure is composed of the wage curve, pay grades, and rate ranges. The wage curve depicts graphically the pay rates assigned to jobs within each pay grade. Pay grades represent the grouping of similar jobs 6n the basis of their relative worth. Each pay grade will include a rate range. Rate ranges will have a midpoint and minimum and maximum pay rates for all jobs in the pay grade.
The concept of comparable worth seeks to overcome the fact that jobs held by women are compensated at a lower rate than those performed by men. This happens even though both types of jobs may contribute equally to organizational productivity. Wage-rate compression largely affects managerial and senior em­ployees as the pay given to new employees or the wage increases gained through union agreements erode the pay differences between these groups. Employers wishing to lower labor costs will establish two-tier systems, paying junior and se­nior employees performing the same job from separate pay schedules.

KEY TERMS
Comparable worth Consumer price index (CPI) Escalator clauses Exempt employees Factor comparison system Hay profile method Hourly or day work Job classification system Job evaluation Job ranking system Nonexempt employees	Pay equity Pay-for-performance standard Pay grades Piecework Point system Real wages Skill-based pay Two-tier wage system Wage and salary survey Wage curve Wage-rate compression