Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Reward systems & legal issues
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Reward systems & legal issues

1,987

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,987
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
72
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Reward Systems and Legal Issues Overview • Reward Systems • Legal Issues Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 2. Reward Systems: Overview • Traditional and Contingent Pay (CP) Plans – Reasons for Introducing CP Plans – Possible Problems Associated with CP – Selecting a CP Plan • Putting Pay in Context • Pay Structures Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 3. Traditional Pay • Salary and salary increases are based on – Position – Seniority Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 4. Contingent Pay (CP) • Salary and salary increases are based on – Job performance • Also called: Pay for Performance • If not added to base pay, called: – Variable pay Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 5. Reasons for Introducing CP • Performance management is more effective when rewards are tied to results • CP Plans force organizations to: – Clearly define effective performance – Determine what factors are necessary • CP plans help to recruit and retain top performers • CP plans project good corporate image Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 6. CP plans help improve motivation when: • Employees see clear link between their efforts and resulting performance (Expectancy) • Employees see clear link between their performance level and rewards received (Instrumentality) • Employees value the rewards available (Valence) motivation = expectancy x instrumentality x valence Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 7. Possible Problems Associated with CP • • • • • • Poor performance management system Rewarding counterproductive behavior Insignificant rewards The reward becomes the driver Extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation Disproportionately large rewards for executives Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 8. Selecting a CP Plan: Issues to consider A. Culture of organization B. Strategic direction of organization Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 9. A. Culture of organization: Types of organizations • Traditional – Top-down decision making – Vertical communication – Jobs that are clearly defined • Involvement – Shared decision making – Lateral communications – Loosely defined roles Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 10. CP systems for different organizational cultures: • Traditional organizations – Piece rate – Sales commissions – Group incentives • Involvement organizations – Profit sharing – Skill-based pay Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 11. B: CP Plans to enhance Strategic Directions: • Employee development – Skill based pay • Customer service – Competency based pay – Gainsharing • Overall Profit – Executive pay – Profit or stock sharing Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 • Productivity – Individual • Piece rate • Sales commissions – Group • Gainsharing • Group incentives • Teamwork – Team sales commissions – Gainsharing – Competency based pay Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 12. Putting Pay in Context A reward increases the chance that • Specific behaviors and results will be repeated, or • Employee will engage in new behavior and produce better results Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 13. Rewards can include: • Pay • Recognition – Public – Private – Status • Time Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 • • • • • Trust & Respect Challenge Responsibility Freedom Relationships Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 14. How to Make Rewards Work • Define and measure performance first and then allocate rewards • Only use rewards that are available • Make sure all employees are eligible • Rewards should be both – Financial – Non-financial (continued) Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 15. How to Make Rewards Work (continued) • Rewards should be: – – – – Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Visible Contingent Timely Reversible Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 16. Pay Structures • Job Evaluation • Broad-banding Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 17. Pay structures An organization’s pay structure  Classifies jobs Into categories Based on their relative worth  Is designed by job evaluation methods Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 18. Job evaluation • Method of data collection – Determine the worth of various jobs to – Create a pay structure • Consideration of – KSAs required for each job – Value of job for organization – How much other organizations pay Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 19. Types of job evaluation methods: • Ranking • Classification • Point Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 20. Job evaluation methods: Ranking • Create job descriptions • Compare job descriptions • Rank jobs Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 21. Advantages of using Ranking method • Requires little time • Minimal effort needed for administration Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 22. Disadvantages of using Ranking method • Criteria for ranking may not be clear: • Distances between each rank may not be equal Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 23. Job evaluation methods: Classification • A series of classes or grades are created • Each job is placed within a job class Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 24. Advantages of using Classification method • Jobs can be quickly slotted into structure • Employees accept method because it seems valid Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 25. Disadvantages of using Classification method • Requires extensive time and effort for administration • Differences between classification levels may not be equal Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 26. Job evaluation methods: Point method • Identify compensable factors (job characteristics) • Scale factors (e.g. on a scale of 1 – 5) • Assign a weight to each factor so the sum of the weights for all factors = 100% Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 27. Advantages of using Point method • Establish worth of each job relative to all other jobs within organization • Comprehensive measurement of relative worth of each job in organization • Easy to rank jobs when total points are known for each job Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 28. Disadvantages of using Point method • Requires extensive administrative – Time – Effort Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 29. Does job evaluation method matter? – Fairness – Evaluators • Impartial • Objective Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 30. Compensation surveys • Information on – Base pay – All other types of compensation • Conducted in-house or by consultants, such as: www.salary.com or www.haypaynet.com Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 31. Broad-banding: Pay structure collapses job classes into fewer categories Advantages: • • • • • Provides flexibility in rewarding people Reflects changes in organization structure Provides better base for rewarding growth in competence Gives more responsibility for pay decisions to managers Provides better basis for rewarding career progression Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 32. Reward Systems: Summary • Traditional and Contingent Pay (CP) Plans – Reasons for Introducing CP Plans – Possible Problems Associated with CP – Selecting a CP Plan • Putting Pay in Context • Pay Structures Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 33. Legal Issues: Overview • Performance Management and the Law • Some Legal Principles Affecting PM • Laws Affecting PM Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 34. Performance Management and the Law • Performance management systems are legally sound, if they are fair: – Procedures are standardized – Same procedures are used with all employees Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 35. Some Legal Principles Affecting PM: Overview • • • • • • Employment-at-will Negligence Defamation Misrepresentation Adverse Impact Illegal Discrimination Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 36. Employment-at-will • Employment relationship can be ended at any time by – Employer – Employee • Exceptions – Implied contract – Possible violation of legal rights Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 37. Negligence • If organization documents describe a system and • It is Not implemented as described, • Employee can challenge evaluation, charging negligence Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 38. Defamation • Disclosure of performance information that is – Untrue and – Unfavorable Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 39. Misrepresentation • Disclosure of performance information that is – Untrue and – Favorable Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 40. Adverse Impact / Unintentional Discrimination • PM system has unintentional impact on a protected class • Organization must demonstrate: – Specific KSA is a business requirement for the job – All affected employees are evaluated in the same way • Organization should review ongoing performance score data by protected class to implement corrective action as necessary Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 41. Illegal Discrimination or Disparate Treatment • Raters assign different scores to employees based on factors that are NOT related to performance • Employees receive different treatment as result of such ratings • Employees can claim they were intentionally and illegally treated differently due to their status Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 42. Employee claim of illegal discrimination: • Direct evidence of discrimination, or • Evidence regarding the following: – Membership in protected class – Adverse employment decision – Performance level deserved reward/different treatment – How others were treated (not in protected class) Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 43. Employer response to claim of illegal discrimination • Legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for action • Related to performance • Note: Good performance management system and subsequent performance-related decision, used consistently with all employees, provides defense Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 44. Laws Affecting PM: During past few decades, several countries have passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on: •Race or Ethnicity •Sex •Religion •National Origin •Age •Disability status •Sexual orientation Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 45. Laws in the United Kingdom: • • • • • Equal Pay Act of 1970 Race Relations Act of 1976 Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 • Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 46. Laws in the United States of America • Equal Pay Act of 1963 • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (as amended in 1986) • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 47. Characteristics of Legally Sound PM Systems • Organization: – The system is formally explained and communicated to all employees – The system includes a formal appeals process – Procedures are standardized and uniform for all employees within a job group – The system includes procedures to detect potentially discriminatory effects or biases and abuses in the system Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 48. Characteristics of Legally Sound PM Systems • Management – Supervisors are provided with formal training and information on how to manage the performance of their employees – Performance information is gathered from multiple, diverse, and unbiased raters – The system includes thorough and consistent documentation including specific examples of performance based on firsthand knowledge Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 49. Characteristics of Legally Sound PM Systems • Employees – Performance dimensions and standards are: • Clearly defined and explained to the employee, • Job-related, and • Within the control of the employee – Employees are given • Timely information on performance deficiencies and • Opportunities to correct them – Employees are given a voice in the review process and treated with courtesy and civility throughout the process Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
  • 50. Legal Issues: Summary • Performance Management and the Law • Some Legal Principles Affecting PM • Laws Affecting PM Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006 Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver

×