This study examines how employee participation in the job evaluation process during a compensation system implementation affects pay satisfaction. The researchers hypothesize that implementing a participatively developed compensation system will increase pay satisfaction based on prior literature showing procedural fairness and participation influence outcomes. A quasi-experimental field study was conducted at a manufacturing firm to longitudinally and between-group compare the effects of participation on pay satisfaction during implementation of a new compensation system.
As an integral part of management control system (MCS), performance measurement systems (PMS) influence manager's behavior towards enhancing his/her performance through the assessment of the performance in performance evaluation process.
Merkl-Davies, Doris M., Brennan, Niamh M. and McLeay, Stuart J. [2011] Impres...Prof Niamh M. Brennan
Purpose – Prior accounting research views impression management predominantly though the lens of economics. Drawing on social psychology research, we provide a complementary perspective on corporate annual narrative reporting as characterised by conditions of ‘ex post accountability’ (Aerts, 2005, p. 497). These give rise to (i) impression management resulting from the managerial anticipation of the feedback effects of information and/or to (ii) managerial sense-making by means of the retrospective framing of organisational outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – We use a content analysis approach pioneered by psychology research (Newman et al., 2003) which is based on the psychological dimension of word use to investigate the chairmen’s statements of 93 UK listed companies.
Findings – Results suggest that firms do not use chairmen’s statements to create an impression at variance with an overall reading of the annual report. We find that negative organisational outcomes prompt managers to engage in retrospective sense-making, rather than to present a public image of organisational performance inconsistent with the view internally held by management (self-presentational dissimulation). Further, managers of large firms use chairmen’s statements to portray an accurate (i.e., consistent with an overall reading of the annual report), albeit favourable, image of the firm and of organisational outcomes (i.e., impression management by means of enhancement).
Research limitations – The content analysis approach adopted in the study analyses words out of context.
Practical implications – Corporate annual reporting may not only be understood from a behavioural perspective involving managers responding to objectively determined stimuli inherent in the accountability framework, but also from a symbolic interaction perspective which involves managers retrospectively making sense of organisational outcomes and events.
Originality/value – Our approach allows us to investigate three complementary scenarios of managerial corporate annual reporting behaviour: (i) self-presentational dissimulation, (ii) impression management by means of enhancement, and (iii) retrospective sense-making.
As an integral part of management control system (MCS), performance measurement systems (PMS) influence manager's behavior towards enhancing his/her performance through the assessment of the performance in performance evaluation process.
Merkl-Davies, Doris M., Brennan, Niamh M. and McLeay, Stuart J. [2011] Impres...Prof Niamh M. Brennan
Purpose – Prior accounting research views impression management predominantly though the lens of economics. Drawing on social psychology research, we provide a complementary perspective on corporate annual narrative reporting as characterised by conditions of ‘ex post accountability’ (Aerts, 2005, p. 497). These give rise to (i) impression management resulting from the managerial anticipation of the feedback effects of information and/or to (ii) managerial sense-making by means of the retrospective framing of organisational outcomes.
Design/methodology/approach – We use a content analysis approach pioneered by psychology research (Newman et al., 2003) which is based on the psychological dimension of word use to investigate the chairmen’s statements of 93 UK listed companies.
Findings – Results suggest that firms do not use chairmen’s statements to create an impression at variance with an overall reading of the annual report. We find that negative organisational outcomes prompt managers to engage in retrospective sense-making, rather than to present a public image of organisational performance inconsistent with the view internally held by management (self-presentational dissimulation). Further, managers of large firms use chairmen’s statements to portray an accurate (i.e., consistent with an overall reading of the annual report), albeit favourable, image of the firm and of organisational outcomes (i.e., impression management by means of enhancement).
Research limitations – The content analysis approach adopted in the study analyses words out of context.
Practical implications – Corporate annual reporting may not only be understood from a behavioural perspective involving managers responding to objectively determined stimuli inherent in the accountability framework, but also from a symbolic interaction perspective which involves managers retrospectively making sense of organisational outcomes and events.
Originality/value – Our approach allows us to investigate three complementary scenarios of managerial corporate annual reporting behaviour: (i) self-presentational dissimulation, (ii) impression management by means of enhancement, and (iii) retrospective sense-making.
“Study of relationship between employees’ commitment, job satisfaction, job safety, job autonomy and employees’ turnover intention in a Construction Industry”
Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and Scienceinventy
Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and Science is published by the group of young academic and industrial researchers with 12 Issues per year. It is an online as well as print version open access journal that provides rapid publication (monthly) of articles in all areas of the subject such as: civil, mechanical, chemical, electronic and computer engineering as well as production and information technology. The Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence. Papers will be published by rapid process within 20 days after acceptance and peer review process takes only 7 days. All articles published in Research Inventy will be peer-reviewed.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Business and Management. IJBMI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Business and Management, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
“Study of relationship between employees’ commitment, job satisfaction, job safety, job autonomy and employees’ turnover intention in a Construction Industry”
Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and Scienceinventy
Research Inventy : International Journal of Engineering and Science is published by the group of young academic and industrial researchers with 12 Issues per year. It is an online as well as print version open access journal that provides rapid publication (monthly) of articles in all areas of the subject such as: civil, mechanical, chemical, electronic and computer engineering as well as production and information technology. The Journal welcomes the submission of manuscripts that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence. Papers will be published by rapid process within 20 days after acceptance and peer review process takes only 7 days. All articles published in Research Inventy will be peer-reviewed.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Business and Management. IJBMI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Business and Management, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
Government restores exemptions to boost infrastructural projectsTaxmann
With affirmation on the economic development of the country as against the global slowdown, the Hon'ble Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley presented its third Union Budget for 2016-17.
Leonard Souza presents this look at Flex's amazing built-in visual effects and filters, which are probably one of the primary reasons to use the framework over other RIA platforms. As it turns out they are relatively easy to create. This presentation - given at 360|Flex in September 2010 - dives into the drawing API, the base effect/filter classes and Pixel Bender. You’ll learn how to build them from the ground up in a way that is reusable for yourself and other interaction designers.
The objective of this Lecture and Research Update is to examine th.docxarnoldmeredith47041
The objective of this Lecture and Research Update is to examine the controversy surrounding pay-for-performance plans. One school of thought argues that extrinsic rewards decrease intrinsic motivation. Therefore, making rewards contingent on performance is ultimately detrimental to the organization. On the other hand, proponents of performance-based pay assert that it is a valuable management tool used to direct employee effort and motivate higher performance. The conceptual grounding of each perspective is described in more detail below.
Opponents of Performance-Based Pay
The primary criticism of pay-for-performance programs is based on Cognitive Evaluation Theory, which asserts that extrinsic rewards decrease intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Simply stated, individuals need autonomy and self-determination. To the extent that performance-contingent rewards are perceived as externally “controlling” one’s behavior, intrinsic motivation (the internal satisfaction one would normally feel in performing the same task) is predicted to decrease.
This theory was supported in early experiments with school children. One group of children was rewarded for how well they performed a given task (a game) and then was given free time in which they could continue to perform that task (but without the possibility of earning a reward). When the incentive was no longer available, children in this group spent less free time at the task than the group of children who had not received any type of performance-based reward.
Taking the argument against performance-based pay even further, Pfeffer (1998) contends that merit pay, a form of individual pay-for-performance, “has been shown to undermine teamwork, encourage employees to focus on the short-term, and lead people to link compensation to political skills and ingratiating personalities rather than to performance” (p. 115). In other words, individual performance-based pay can stimulate an unhealthy degree of competition and reduce cooperation among workers. Advocates of Total Quality Management, therefore, have discouraged the use of such plans (Deming, 1986).
Furthermore, Kohn (1993) argues that performance-based pay actually undermines the very processes leading to higher performance that it was intended to enhance. The notion that managers should motivate their workers by identifying what is important to them and offering it in exchange for some desired behavior (Milkovich & Newman, 2004, p. 261) amounts to a “bribe” that will ultimately backfire.
The shortcomings of extrinsic reward systems within organizations were recently summarized by Spitzer (1996):
Excessive dependence on monetary rewards
Lack of an “appreciation effect”
Entitlement effects
Undesirable behaviors being sometimes rewarded
Too long a delay between performance and rewards
Too many one-size-fits-all rewards
Short-term impact
The continued use of de-motivating practices that often accompany performance-based pay. (pp. 46-50).
Analysis of Performance Appraisal Systems on Employee Job Productivity in Pub...inventionjournals
Universities appraisal system is meant to enhance the performance of employees by integrating an individual’s goal with those of the organization. Despite the Universities Management having an appraisal system, performance in public universities in the country remains relatively poor. The purpose of the study was to analyze performance appraisal systems on employee job productivity in public universities. The main objective of the study was to determine the effect of self-assessment on the performance of employees in Public Universities. The research study was carried out in four universities namely Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Maseno, Moi and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology. Data collection instruments used was mainly questionnaire. Both content and construct reliability was carried out through engagement of experts in preparing the questionnaire. Piloting was done in Laikipia University College, though the results were not used in the study. To ensure that the instrument is reliable, a Cronbach’s Alpha of Coefficient of 0.876, was attained, which is far way above the recommended 0.7 in social sciences. The study employed descriptive survey research design. The target population consisted of 11,296 employees and 4 Registrars in charge of Administration. Purposive sampling was used to select the four universities and four registrars. Data analysis was done using the statistical Package for Social Science (Version 20). Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in data analysis. The results were presented in form of tables, charts and cross tabulations. From the findings, self-assessment was an important section in performance appraisal as it contributed to improvement in employee job productivity. The findings will contribute to the pool of knowledge in the field of Human Resource Management and will form the basis of reference by interested parties in future. The management of public universities will use the findings of this study to guide them in performance management. Furthermore, the findings will be a source of reference for academicians who intend to carry out studies in relation to the subject of performance appraisal systems.
The Implication of Financial Compensation and Performance Appraisal System to...inventionjournals
The purpose of this study is to analyze and prove the influence of the system of financial compensation and performance appraisal on job satisfaction and job motivation and its implications on the performance of employee. The research type is explanatory research. The research population is all employees of PT Pupuk Kalimantan Timur. The sample in this research is 140 employees. The sampling technique is ladder population of proportional with amount of population in every stratum. The data is analyzed by using the approach of Smart Partial Least Square (SmartPLS). The research result indicates that financial compensation has an effect on job satisfaction. Financial compensation does not have an effect on job motivation. Performance appraisal system of employee has an effect on job satisfaction. Performance appraisal system of employee has an effect on job motivation. Financial compensation does not have an effect on employee performance. Performance appraisal system of employee does not have an effect on employee performance. Job satisfaction has an effect on job motivation of employee. Job satisfaction does not have an effect on employee performance. Motivation has an effect on employee performance. Performance appraisal system of employee is stronger in influencing employee performance than financial compensation. Performance appraisal system of employee that is applied by PT Pupuk Kalimantan Timur can change the job climate in the company.
This paper investigates the links between a number of subjective measures of worker wellbeing and within establishment wage dispersion. These may be linked either because wage dispersion influences the way in which individuals perceive their own relative and prospective income or because they are concerned about fairness in general. The analysis is based on a data set where the Quality of Work Survey is matched with register-based information on individuals and establishments. The results show that there is no significant overall association. Some significant relationships, however, can be found if the method of pay is assumed to be performance pay that is based on individual or group performance. The results also suggest that the question as to whether wages are public knowledge can be of importance.
Reward System and Level of Staff Satisfaction among NonAcademic Staff of Sele...AJHSSR Journal
In any profit-oriented workplace, job relationship is seen as a trade procedure where workers
give inputs in terms of skills and expertise for the different rewards, compensations and incentives from their
employer which go far in deciding their satisfaction, performance and productivity. This study sought to
examine the level of staff satisfaction with the reward system implemented by three (3) selected tertiary
institutions in Enugu State, Nigeria. Survey design was adopted for this study. The population of the study was
1122 staff drawn from the non-academic staff of the selected higher institutions in Enugu State, Nigeria. A
sample size of 415 was obtained using Taro Yamane‟s (1964) formula for finite population. Four hundred and
fifteen (415) questionnaires were used to collect data from respondents who were non-academic staff members,
after being validated by experts in academia and human resources management. Burley‟s proportional
allocation was used to calculate proportionate sample size. Out of 415 copies administered, three hundred and
one (301) copies were returned and used for the analysis. Data were collected through primary and secondary
sources. Cronbach‟s Alpha was used to test for the reliability of the instrument, an Alpha of 0.79 was obtained
thus confirming the reliability of the instrument. The hypotheses formulated were tested using Z test. Findings
from the study revealed that the level of staff satisfaction with the reward system implemented by the tertiary
institutions is low (computed z-value of 24.385 against 1.645 and significance of 0.000) (z = 24.385> at p<
0.05) during the period studied. Based on the finding, the study concludes that the reward system implemented
have a very strong correlation with the satisfaction of non-academic staff in the institutions of higher learning
studied. In the light of the forgoing therefore, it was recommended that the reward systems implemented by the
institutions should be consistent with staff needs and relevant to the personal life of the employee. Also, the
reward system implemented should be reviewed at various levels to earn the employees‟ commitment and
satisfaction.
As a business owner in Delaware, staying on top of your tax obligations is paramount, especially with the annual deadline for Delaware Franchise Tax looming on March 1. One such obligation is the annual Delaware Franchise Tax, which serves as a crucial requirement for maintaining your company’s legal standing within the state. While the prospect of handling tax matters may seem daunting, rest assured that the process can be straightforward with the right guidance. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll walk you through the steps of filing your Delaware Franchise Tax and provide insights to help you navigate the process effectively.
Personal Brand Statement:
As an Army veteran dedicated to lifelong learning, I bring a disciplined, strategic mindset to my pursuits. I am constantly expanding my knowledge to innovate and lead effectively. My journey is driven by a commitment to excellence, and to make a meaningful impact in the world.
Falcon stands out as a top-tier P2P Invoice Discounting platform in India, bridging esteemed blue-chip companies and eager investors. Our goal is to transform the investment landscape in India by establishing a comprehensive destination for borrowers and investors with diverse profiles and needs, all while minimizing risk. What sets Falcon apart is the elimination of intermediaries such as commercial banks and depository institutions, allowing investors to enjoy higher yields.
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
Explore our most comprehensive guide on lookback analysis at SafePaaS, covering access governance and how it can transform modern ERP audits. Browse now!
Memorandum Of Association Constitution of Company.pptseri bangash
www.seribangash.com
A Memorandum of Association (MOA) is a legal document that outlines the fundamental principles and objectives upon which a company operates. It serves as the company's charter or constitution and defines the scope of its activities. Here's a detailed note on the MOA:
Contents of Memorandum of Association:
Name Clause: This clause states the name of the company, which should end with words like "Limited" or "Ltd." for a public limited company and "Private Limited" or "Pvt. Ltd." for a private limited company.
https://seribangash.com/article-of-association-is-legal-doc-of-company/
Registered Office Clause: It specifies the location where the company's registered office is situated. This office is where all official communications and notices are sent.
Objective Clause: This clause delineates the main objectives for which the company is formed. It's important to define these objectives clearly, as the company cannot undertake activities beyond those mentioned in this clause.
www.seribangash.com
Liability Clause: It outlines the extent of liability of the company's members. In the case of companies limited by shares, the liability of members is limited to the amount unpaid on their shares. For companies limited by guarantee, members' liability is limited to the amount they undertake to contribute if the company is wound up.
https://seribangash.com/promotors-is-person-conceived-formation-company/
Capital Clause: This clause specifies the authorized capital of the company, i.e., the maximum amount of share capital the company is authorized to issue. It also mentions the division of this capital into shares and their respective nominal value.
Association Clause: It simply states that the subscribers wish to form a company and agree to become members of it, in accordance with the terms of the MOA.
Importance of Memorandum of Association:
Legal Requirement: The MOA is a legal requirement for the formation of a company. It must be filed with the Registrar of Companies during the incorporation process.
Constitutional Document: It serves as the company's constitutional document, defining its scope, powers, and limitations.
Protection of Members: It protects the interests of the company's members by clearly defining the objectives and limiting their liability.
External Communication: It provides clarity to external parties, such as investors, creditors, and regulatory authorities, regarding the company's objectives and powers.
https://seribangash.com/difference-public-and-private-company-law/
Binding Authority: The company and its members are bound by the provisions of the MOA. Any action taken beyond its scope may be considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the company and therefore void.
Amendment of MOA:
While the MOA lays down the company's fundamental principles, it is not entirely immutable. It can be amended, but only under specific circumstances and in compliance with legal procedures. Amendments typically require shareholder
[Note: This is a partial preview. To download this presentation, visit:
https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations]
Sustainability has become an increasingly critical topic as the world recognizes the need to protect our planet and its resources for future generations. Sustainability means meeting our current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It involves long-term planning and consideration of the consequences of our actions. The goal is to create strategies that ensure the long-term viability of People, Planet, and Profit.
Leading companies such as Nike, Toyota, and Siemens are prioritizing sustainable innovation in their business models, setting an example for others to follow. In this Sustainability training presentation, you will learn key concepts, principles, and practices of sustainability applicable across industries. This training aims to create awareness and educate employees, senior executives, consultants, and other key stakeholders, including investors, policymakers, and supply chain partners, on the importance and implementation of sustainability.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Develop a comprehensive understanding of the fundamental principles and concepts that form the foundation of sustainability within corporate environments.
2. Explore the sustainability implementation model, focusing on effective measures and reporting strategies to track and communicate sustainability efforts.
3. Identify and define best practices and critical success factors essential for achieving sustainability goals within organizations.
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Key Concepts of Sustainability
2. Principles and Practices of Sustainability
3. Measures and Reporting in Sustainability
4. Sustainability Implementation & Best Practices
To download the complete presentation, visit: https://www.oeconsulting.com.sg/training-presentations
Buy Verified PayPal Account | Buy Google 5 Star Reviewsusawebmarket
Buy Verified PayPal Account
Looking to buy verified PayPal accounts? Discover 7 expert tips for safely purchasing a verified PayPal account in 2024. Ensure security and reliability for your transactions.
PayPal Services Features-
🟢 Email Access
🟢 Bank Added
🟢 Card Verified
🟢 Full SSN Provided
🟢 Phone Number Access
🟢 Driving License Copy
🟢 Fasted Delivery
Client Satisfaction is Our First priority. Our services is very appropriate to buy. We assume that the first-rate way to purchase our offerings is to order on the website. If you have any worry in our cooperation usually You can order us on Skype or Telegram.
24/7 Hours Reply/Please Contact
usawebmarketEmail: support@usawebmarket.com
Skype: usawebmarket
Telegram: @usawebmarket
WhatsApp: +1(218) 203-5951
USA WEB MARKET is the Best Verified PayPal, Payoneer, Cash App, Skrill, Neteller, Stripe Account and SEO, SMM Service provider.100%Satisfection granted.100% replacement Granted.
Skye Residences | Extended Stay Residences Near Toronto Airportmarketingjdass
Experience unparalleled EXTENDED STAY and comfort at Skye Residences located just minutes from Toronto Airport. Discover sophisticated accommodations tailored for discerning travelers.
Website Link :
https://skyeresidences.com/
https://skyeresidences.com/about-us/
https://skyeresidences.com/gallery/
https://skyeresidences.com/rooms/
https://skyeresidences.com/near-by-attractions/
https://skyeresidences.com/commute/
https://skyeresidences.com/contact/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-and-balcony/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-accessible/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-king-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-accessible/
#Skye Residences Etobicoke, #Skye Residences Near Toronto Airport, #Skye Residences Toronto, #Skye Hotel Toronto, #Skye Hotel Near Toronto Airport, #Hotel Near Toronto Airport, #Near Toronto Airport Accommodation, #Suites Near Toronto Airport, #Etobicoke Suites Near Airport, #Hotel Near Toronto Pearson International Airport, #Toronto Airport Suite Rentals, #Pearson Airport Hotel Suites
Taurus Zodiac Sign_ Personality Traits and Sign Dates.pptxmy Pandit
Explore the world of the Taurus zodiac sign. Learn about their stability, determination, and appreciation for beauty. Discover how Taureans' grounded nature and hardworking mindset define their unique personality.
Premium MEAN Stack Development Solutions for Modern BusinessesSynapseIndia
Stay ahead of the curve with our premium MEAN Stack Development Solutions. Our expert developers utilize MongoDB, Express.js, AngularJS, and Node.js to create modern and responsive web applications. Trust us for cutting-edge solutions that drive your business growth and success.
Know more: https://www.synapseindia.com/technology/mean-stack-development-company.html
RMD24 | Debunking the non-endemic revenue myth Marvin Vacquier Droop | First ...BBPMedia1
Marvin neemt je in deze presentatie mee in de voordelen van non-endemic advertising op retail media netwerken. Hij brengt ook de uitdagingen in beeld die de markt op dit moment heeft op het gebied van retail media voor niet-leveranciers.
Retail media wordt gezien als het nieuwe advertising-medium en ook mediabureaus richten massaal retail media-afdelingen op. Merken die niet in de betreffende winkel liggen staan ook nog niet in de rij om op de retail media netwerken te adverteren. Marvin belicht de uitdagingen die er zijn om echt aansluiting te vinden op die markt van non-endemic advertising.
Enterprise Excellence is Inclusive Excellence.pdfKaiNexus
Enterprise excellence and inclusive excellence are closely linked, and real-world challenges have shown that both are essential to the success of any organization. To achieve enterprise excellence, organizations must focus on improving their operations and processes while creating an inclusive environment that engages everyone. In this interactive session, the facilitator will highlight commonly established business practices and how they limit our ability to engage everyone every day. More importantly, though, participants will likely gain increased awareness of what we can do differently to maximize enterprise excellence through deliberate inclusion.
What is Enterprise Excellence?
Enterprise Excellence is a holistic approach that's aimed at achieving world-class performance across all aspects of the organization.
What might I learn?
A way to engage all in creating Inclusive Excellence. Lessons from the US military and their parallels to the story of Harry Potter. How belt systems and CI teams can destroy inclusive practices. How leadership language invites people to the party. There are three things leaders can do to engage everyone every day: maximizing psychological safety to create environments where folks learn, contribute, and challenge the status quo.
Who might benefit? Anyone and everyone leading folks from the shop floor to top floor.
Dr. William Harvey is a seasoned Operations Leader with extensive experience in chemical processing, manufacturing, and operations management. At Michelman, he currently oversees multiple sites, leading teams in strategic planning and coaching/practicing continuous improvement. William is set to start his eighth year of teaching at the University of Cincinnati where he teaches marketing, finance, and management. William holds various certifications in change management, quality, leadership, operational excellence, team building, and DiSC, among others.
Improving profitability for small businessBen Wann
In this comprehensive presentation, we will explore strategies and practical tips for enhancing profitability in small businesses. Tailored to meet the unique challenges faced by small enterprises, this session covers various aspects that directly impact the bottom line. Attendees will learn how to optimize operational efficiency, manage expenses, and increase revenue through innovative marketing and customer engagement techniques.
1. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Vol. 16, No. 1, Fall 2001
UNDERSTANDING PAY SATISFACTION:
THE LIMITS OF A COMPENSATION
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
Frederick P. Morgeson
Michigan State University
Michael A. Campion
Purdue University
Carl P. Maertz
Mississippi State University
ABSTRACT: Although a common organizational intervention, research investi-
gating the impact of compensation system implementation on employee out-
comes is limited. As one type of intervention, job evaluation usually includes
substantial employee participation in order to improve employee pay satisfac-
tion. This assumption, however, is rarely validated. To address this weakness,
the present study examines, in a quasi-experimental field study at a manufac-
turing firm (N = 168), the extent to which participation in the job evaluation
process during a compensation system implementation influences pay satisfac-
tion. Both longitudinal and between-group comparisons failed to show a partici-
pation effect on pay satisfaction, casting doubt on the organizational develop-
ment benefits of this common intervention.
KEY WORDS: Pay satisfaction; compensation; job evaluation; organizational
development.
Interventions aimed at altering employee satisfaction with compen-
sation systems take many forms. In particular, job evaluation has be-
come a popular method for determining organizational compensation
levels (McCormick, 1979; Milkovich & Newman, 1993). The goal of this
Address correspondence to Frederick P. Morgeson, Department of Management, Michi-
gan State University, N475 North Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122.
133
0889-3268/01/0900-0133$19.50/0 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
2. 134 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
procedure is to develop an internally consistent job hierarchy in order to
achieve a pay structure acceptable to both management and labor (Ger-
hart & Milkovich, 1992; Milkovich & Newman, 1993). One of the most
common methods of conducting job evaluation involves determining a set
of compensable factors, numerically scaling them, assigning weights in
terms of their relative importance, and then applying them to a set of
jobs based on a job analysis (Doverspike, Carlisi, Barrett, & Alexander,
1983). This process has been termed the point method of job evaluation
(Milkovich & Newman, 1993).
A key, but often implicit, goal of this method is to enhance employee
perceptions of pay satisfaction and pay fairness. However, we could find
no empirical studies documenting this effect in the research literature.
To address this deficiency, the present study examines, in a quasi-experi-
mental field study, the extent to which participation in the job evalua-
tion process during a compensation system implementation influences
pay satisfaction. To provide an understanding of why participation may
influence pay satisfaction, we briefly review the job evaluation and fair-
ness and participation literatures.
JOB EVALUATION
Job evaluation is a “generic term for a set of procedures that attempt
to measure the organizational value or worth of a job for the purpose of
scientifically establishing wage and salary rates” (Doverspike, Carlisi,
Barrett, & Alexander, 1983, p. 476). While others define job evaluation in
slightly different ways, all focus on systematic procedures that establish
differences among jobs for the purpose of determining pay (e.g., Hahn &
Dipboye, 1988; Hornsby, Smith, & Gupta, 1994; McCormick, 1979; Mil-
kovich & Cogill, 1984; Schwab, 1985).
In addition to providing a measure of organizational worth, job eval-
uation is also designed to gain agreement about a wage structure (Mil-
kovich & Cogill, 1984). That is, another focus of job evaluation is to “ra-
tionalize and gain acceptability” for the manner in which wages are
distributed (Munson, 1963, p. 60). One key index of the acceptability of
a job evaluation system is pay satisfaction. As Carey (1977) notes, “if pay
is to satisfy employees—and that is what salary administration is all
about—then each pay rate must be established with at least some con-
sideration for the views of the people in and around the job” (p. 32). As
an outcome of the job evaluation process, however, pay satisfaction has
long been neglected in organizational research, with most of the recent
attention focused on pay satisfaction dimensionality and not its determi-
nants (e.g., Judge & Welbourne, 1994). Few studies have examined pay
satisfaction as a result of pay intervention and change programs (Hene-
3. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 135
man, 1985). This gap in the literature is unfortunate since understand-
ing the determinants of pay satisfaction may lead to improved compensa-
tion system design and implementation (Gerhart & Milkovich, 1992).
FAIRNESS AND PARTICIPATION
Because compensation decisions are particularly salient and impor-
tant to employees, the process by which they are made is likely to influ-
ence employee satisfaction. A number of different strategies have been
developed to minimize the negative consequences that often accompany
hierarchical decision making. One class of techniques utilize participa-
tive decision making where employees become involved by participating
in the decision making process (Neuman, Edwards, & Raju, 1989). The
psychological dynamics that underlie these interventions can be under-
stood within a procedural justice framework. This perspective focuses on
the procedures or processes used to make decisions and their relative
fairness (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Greenberg, 1987, 1990a). It thus
concerns how decisions are made. While different criteria of procedural
justice have been discussed (see Greenberg, 1990a, for an overview), all
conceptualizations include aspects of participation and involvement.
These two elements are critical to perceptions of fairness, particularly
when allocation decisions are made (Barrett-Howard & Tyler, 1986).
The potential importance of procedural fairness for compensation
systems was noted by Folger and Greenberg (1985), although they fo-
cused only on systems that either provide information (open pay sys-
tems) or choice (cafeteria-style benefit plans). That is, they did not dis-
cuss instances where individuals were actually involved in the process
of changing a compensation system. Milkovich and Newman (1993), how-
ever, suggest that the manner in which a pay decision is made may be
as important as the actual decision. Support for this comes from research
showing that perceptions of procedural justice contribute significantly to
pay satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). It appears that the opportu-
nity to express one’s opinion, regardless of actual influence over the deci-
sions made, enhances perceptions of procedural justice (Tyler, Rasin-
ski, & Spodick, 1985), and involvement in the process seems to satisfy
the desire to have one’s opinion considered. As a result, including impor-
tant stakeholders in the job evaluation process may increase perceptions
of fairness and pay satisfaction because it allows them to have a voice in
the design of the pay plan, even if they ultimately have little direct con-
trol over the final pay levels assigned.
Two studies have investigated process-related issues in the context
of implementing pay plans. While they do not directly relate to job evalu-
ation, they are important for the present research because they show
4. 136 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
how process involvement can influence pay plan outcomes. In one study,
Lawler and Hackman (1969) examined the effectiveness of participa-
tively developed pay incentive programs. Compared to groups who had
the incentive plan imposed, those who participated had improved atten-
dance. Lawler and Hackman concluded “that participation in the devel-
opment and implementation of a plan may have more of an impact on
the effectiveness of a plan than the mechanics of the plan itself” (1969,
p. 470). In another study, Jenkins and Lawler (1981) examined how par-
ticipating in the design of a pay system influences employee reactions.
They found that participation in pay system design resulted in signifi-
cantly greater pay satisfaction. These studies highlight the importance
of employee participation and involvement in the compensation system
design process and how this influences compensation outcomes.
THE PRESENT STUDY
This review highlights weaknesses in the job evaluation literature
and defines the methodological approaches and hypotheses adopted in
the present study. First, there is a lack of research investigating the
basic question of how implementing a compensation system influences
pay satisfaction. As noted earlier, the fairness and participation litera-
tures suggest that employee involvement is essential when making pay
decisions because it helps employees understand the process by which
pay decisions were reached. The present research investigates this issue
via a quasi-experimental field study and leads to the first hypothesis:
H1: Implementing a participatively developed compensation system
will increase pay satisfaction.
The second methodological approach used in the present study is a
non-equivalent dependent variables design (Cook & Campbell, 1979).
That is, pay satisfaction is not typically considered a unitary construct.
Instead, pay satisfaction can be subdivided into four dimensions (Hene-
man & Schwab, 1985), (1) satisfaction with pay level, (2) satisfaction
with raises, (3) satisfaction with structure and administration, and (4)
satisfaction with benefits. It seems likely that a job evaluation will differ-
entially influence these dimensions of pay satisfaction, thus resulting in
differential predictions:
H2: Satisfaction with pay structure and administration will in-
crease following a job evaluation implementation, while satis-
faction with benefits will be unaffected. Satisfaction with pay
5. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 137
level and raises may increase slightly because they may be sec-
ondary benefits of having a job evaluation system.
Third, few studies have examined how the level of involvement or
participation in the job evaluation process influences the acceptability of
a new compensation system. The present study examines this issue by
comparing the pay satisfaction of employees who had varying degrees of
participation in the job evaluation process (e.g., participated in the job
analysis, completed surveys, reviewed materials, and so on), leading to
the final hypothesis.
H3: As employees have greater participation in the pay plan imple-
mentation, they will experience commensurate increases in
their satisfaction with pay.
METHOD
Setting and Intervention Methodology
The present study was conducted while implementing a new pay
plan for exempt (salaried) jobs at a medium-sized manufacturing com-
pany based in the midwest. This organization was founded approxi-
mately ten years prior to the present intervention. It began with only
ten employees and has grown to its current size of over 1000 employees
in exempt and nonexempt jobs. During this period of rapid growth, em-
ployees were compensated in a somewhat haphazard manner as no crite-
ria was ever developed to determine pay levels and no compensation
structure was ever established. As the company became larger, this lack
of a compensation structure became more problematic, resulting in con-
cerns over internal pay equity. It was at this point that the authors were
contacted to help the organization design a compensation structure for
exempt jobs. As we will detail, this new structure focused on internal pay
equity through the identification and rating of a series of participatively
developed compensable factors.
To better understand how this job evaluation operates as an organi-
zational development (OD) intervention, it is useful to integrate the cur-
rent intervention into the broader OD literature. Morgeson, Aiman-
Smith, and Campion (1997) have recently summarized a number of these
models and outlined a meta-view of OD implementation theories. In
short, there exist a number of stages or steps in any organizational de-
velopment implementation which includes discontent, diagnosis, data
feedback and goal establishment, planning and implementation, evalua-
tion and feedback, and stabilization. The present intervention is dis-
6. 138 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
cussed in the context of the framework outlined in Figure 1 and reviewed
below.
Discontent. The discontent stage is concerned with problem identifica-
tion and recognition (Lippitt, Watson, & Westley, 1958) as well as the
establishment of a relationship with a change agent (Beer, 1980). After
we were contacted by the organization and a working relationship was
established, the first step was to create a compensation committee. This
committee was composed of nine senior managers (mostly vice presi-
dents) and functioned both as an oversight group that reviewed and ap-
proved the project as well as a working group that made judgments
about job worth.
Diagnosis. The diagnosis stage involves the collection of accurate and
valid information (Argyris, 1970) which provides an understanding of
issues and problems that exist within the organization (Cummings &
Srivastva, 1977). This began with a survey of all employees, which mea-
sured satisfaction with the existing compensation system, knowledge of
the compensation system, as well as obtaining employee input about
what they considered to be the most important compensable factors. This
information was then used by the compensation committee to identify
and select the final set of compensable factors. Following this, all exempt
employees received a job factors survey, which asked for a written de-
scription of their job on each of the compensable factors. Then, a ran-
domly selected sample of incumbents were interviewed by one of the au-
thors to gather more specific detail on the job as necessary. This resulted
in over 100 interviews.
Data Feedback and Goal Establishment. The data feedback and goal es-
tablishment stage involves sharing the collected information (Beer,
1980), identifying the systems to target for change (Beckhard, 1969), and
developing goals and strategies to address the problem (Lippitt et al.,
1958). Since the present intervention was focused on altering the com-
pensation system, this stage primarily involved developing the pay struc-
ture and providing feedback on the progress of the implementation.
Based on the surveys and interviews, job descriptions were written and
provided to incumbents and supervisors for their approval. All incum-
bents were included in the job description approval phase, regardless of
whether or not they were involved in the interview or completed a job
factors survey.
Next, anchored rating scales were developed by the authors to opti-
mally distinguish among the range of jobs in this company. These scales
were then independently rated by each author, which was followed by a
meeting to discuss all differences to a consensus rating. The compensa-
tion committee then reviewed and revised the ratings. The committee
7. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 139
Figure 1
Implementation Methodology
Note. Boxes in bold indicate steps where employees participated and were involved in
the implementation process.
8. 140 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
also weighted the compensable factors in terms of their importance to
the overall work of the jobs via a Delphi technique (Delbecq, Van de
Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). This data formed the basis for developing the
pay structure. Based on this job evaluation rating process, as well as a
consideration of the existing pay rates, a pay structure was determined
by defining six pay grade levels. Since one important purpose of a job
evaluation is to improve employee knowledge of the pay system, a pre-
sentation was given by the human resource manager to all employees
through a series of group meetings. It described the purpose of the proj-
ect, the steps taken, the final pay structure, and how the information
was to be used.
Planning and Implementation. The planning and implementation stage
involves first establishing specific details of the change effort (Beer,
1980) and then implementing the change (Beckhard & Harris, 1977).
Aspects of the planning process occurred throughout the preceding
stages, which included selecting and rating the compensable factors as
well as developing the pay structure. Once the pay structure was estab-
lished, the specific details of the implementation were determined. Fol-
lowing this, the new compensation system was implemented.
Evaluation and Feedback. The evaluation and feedback stage involves
evaluating the success of the change effort (Blake & Mouton, 1968) as
well as providing feedback about the effect of the change. Three months
following implementation and one year after the initial employee survey,
a second pay satisfaction survey was administered. This measured the
satisfaction with the new compensation system and provided, via write
in comments, employees the opportunity to provide feedback to manage-
ment about the new compensation system.
Stabilization. The stabilization stage concerns maintaining change over
time (Morgeson et al., 1997). Thus, it involves the change agent leaving
the organization (Lippitt et al., 1958) and putting in structures to main-
tain the change (Beckhard & Harris, 1977). This was accomplished in
the present research by integrating the new pay structure into existing
human resource systems through the preparation of a policy manual out-
lining policies and procedures for routine compensation decisions.
Sample
The employees (Pretest N = 135; Posttest N = 122) who participated
in this project held a wide variety of exempt jobs (e.g., purchasing agent,
engineer, network specialist, manager) from a range of departments
(e.g., manufacturing, industrial engineering, sales). A smaller group
(Pretest N = 33; Posttest N = 44) of employees in nonexempt, salaried
9. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 141
jobs (mostly in clerical and administrative positions) who did not partici-
pate in the job evaluation and did not have their compensation system
altered were included as a comparison group. Statistical power was 88%
to detect a medium effect size (d = .50; p < .05, one-tailed) and XX% to
detect a small effect size (d = .XX; p < .05, one-tailed; Cohen, 1988). Re-
sponse rates were 69%, 62%, 80%, and 88% for pretest exempt, posttest
exempt, pretest nonexempt, and posttest nonexempt samples, respec-
tively.
Measures
The dependent measures of this study were the four dimensions of
pay satisfaction taken from the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ;
Heneman & Schwab, 1985). This instrument has demonstrated adequate
reliability and dimensionality (Heneman & Schwab, 1985; Judge & Wel-
bourne, 1994). Respondents indicated their degree of satisfaction with
various aspects of pay on a 5-point “very satisfied” (5) to “very dissatis-
fied” (1) scale. The PSQ consists of a three-item satisfaction with pay
level scale (α = .83; e.g., “My current salary”), a four-item satisfaction
with raises scale (α = .78; e.g., “My most recent increase”), a six-item
satisfaction with structure and administration scale (α = .85; e.g., “The
company’s pay structure”), and a four-item satisfaction with benefits
scale (α = .94; e.g., “My benefits package”).
Procedure
When completing the first employee survey, both exempt and nonex-
empt groups anonymously completed the PSQ. This is hereafter referred
to as the pretest data collection period. Three months following program
implementation, all exempt and nonexempt employees again anony-
mously completed the PSQ. This is hereafter referred to as the posttest
data collection period. At the posttest, exempt employees also indicated
on a 2-point scale (1 = “no,” 2 = “yes”) whether they had: (1) completed
the first employee survey, (2) completed the job factors survey, (3) partic-
ipated in a job analysis interview, (4) reviewed the written job descrip-
tion, or (5) attended the presentation which outlined the new compensa-
tion structure. Thus, these questions measured the extent to which the
individual had been involved in each of the steps detailed (in bold) in
Figure 1. These items were summed and form the level of participation
scale (α = .73). At posttest, all employees also indicated their depart-
ment, the number of months since their last pay increase, the amount of
their last pay increase (in %), and the grade level of their job in the
new compensation system. These were used as control variables in the
correlational analyses.
10. 142 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Thus, the present study is a 2 × 2 factorial design, with one factor
indicating the timing of the measurement (pretest or posttest), and the
other factor indicating the treatment (with employees in exempt jobs
comprising the treatment group, and employees in nonexempt jobs com-
prising the control group).
RESULTS
Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and intercorrela-
tions among the study variables for all respondents at both the pretest
and posttest. All satisfaction measures were moderately intercorrelated
(r’s from .27 to .68). Both satisfaction with pay level and satisfaction
with structure and administration were negatively correlated with the
number of months since last increase, while positively correlated with
the grade level of the job. Grade level was positively related to the per-
centage of last increase.
Table 2 contains the means, standard deviations, and number of re-
spondents separated by time and treatment. The analyses of variance
are presented in Table 3. Contrary to our first hypothesis, levels of pay
satisfaction did not increase following the implementation of a compen-
sation system. Contrary to our second hypothesis, there were no signifi-
cant interaction effects. This was the case both for the pay scale pre-
dicted to show the strongest effect (i.e., satisfaction with pay structure
and administration), as well as for the other three pay satisfaction
scales. To control for the potentially biasing influence of individuals who
did not participate in the pretest but completed the posttest (e.g., those
who are new hires), additional analyses were conducted excluding indi-
viduals who did not complete the first pay satisfaction survey. No differ-
ences were found.
Supplemental regression analyses were also conducted in an at-
tempt to control for the influence of level of participation, months since
last increase, percent of last increase, and departmental affiliation on
satisfaction scores. Since these control variables were not available for
the pretest data, the group pretest mean on the dependent variables was
subtracted from individual posttest satisfaction scores. This forms the
dependent variable in the first regression analysis. The control variables
were then entered as a block (where departmental affiliation was
dummy coded). The residual value from this first regression analysis was
saved and used as the dependent variable in the second regression anal-
ysis, where treatment condition was the predictor. Again, no differences
were found between control and treatment groups.
Finally, level of participation in the job evaluation project did not
correlate significantly with any of the pay satisfaction scales (H3; Table
11. Table 1
F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ
Correlation Matrix
Pretest Posttest
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD
1. Treatmenta .14 −.02 −.12 −.12 −.05 −.05
2. Satisfaction with Pay Level 2.88 .89 .14 .68** .48** .27** .05 −.19* .09 .27* 2.85 .85
3. Satisfaction with Raises 3.17 .85 −.12 .58** .53** .38** .07 −.15 .11 .17 3.02 .84
4. Satisfaction with Structure &
Administration 2.71 .82 −.09 .56** .41** .37** −.06 −.21** .02 .23* 2.72 .82
5. Satisfaction with Benefits 3.44 .87 −.13 .37** .33** .30** −.09 .03 −.02 .08 3.45 .88
6. Level of Participationb −.01 .10 .03 1.81 .27
7. Months Since Last Increase .06 .11 7.15 4.64
8. Percentage of Last Increase .39** .05 .02
9. Grade Levelc,d 3.49 .92
Note. Pretest correlations are below the diagonal; posttest correlations are above the diagonal. Sample sizes range from: 168–161 for
pretest sample, 166–134 for posttest sample.
a
1 = nonexempt, 2 = exempt. bExempt jobs only (N = 122–109). cExempt jobs only (N = 78–72). dGrade level ranges from 1 (lowest) to
6 (highest).
*p < .05, **p < .01, two-tailed.
143
12. 144 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Sample Size for Treatment and Control Groups
at Pretest and Posttest on Satisfaction Measures
Pretest Posttest
Satisfaction
with: Control Treatment Control Treatment
Pay Level
M 2.63 2.95 2.65 2.93
SD .83 .89 .93 .81
N 33 135 44 122
Raises
M3.36 3.12 3.05 3.01
SD .78 .86 .90 .82
N 32 129 41 121
Structure &
Administration
M 2.86 2.68 2.88 2.66
SD .80 .82 .73 .84
N 33 130 43 119
Benefits
M3.67 3.39 3.63 3.39
SD .79 .88 .82 .89
N 33 135 44 122
1). This was true of both the five item scale as well as each individual
participation item. Because the number of months since last increase
and grade level of the job were correlated with satisfaction with struc-
ture and administration, they were partialed out of the correlation be-
tween level of participation and that satisfaction measure. Since the per-
centage of last increase was uncorrelated, there was no need to use it
as a control variable. Even with these controls, however, there was no
relationship between level of participation and satisfaction with struc-
ture and administration (pr = − .08).
DISCUSSION
Overall, our results fail to support the hypothesized relationships.
Neither the pay plan implementation nor the degree of participation in
the process had an effect on the satisfaction measures. This was the case
for the pay satisfaction scale relating to structure and administration,
as well as for the other three scales. This lack of effects is somewhat
puzzling given the presumed value of job evaluation for enhancing pay
13. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 145
Table 3
Analysis of Variance for the Effect of Time and Treatment Status on
Satisfaction Measures
Source df MS F
Satisfaction with Pay Level
Timea 1 .01 .01
Treatmentb 1 5.14 6.89**
Time × Treatment 1 .03 .04
Explained 3 1.75 2.35
Residual 330 .75
Satisfaction with Raises
Timea 1 1.84 2.61
Treatmentb 1 1.02 1.44
Time × Treatment 1 .56 .79
Explained 3 1.09 1.54
Residual 319 .71
Satisfaction with Structure & Administration
Timea 1 .00 .01
Treatmentb 1 2.41 3.62
Time × Treatment 1 .02 .03
Explained 3 .81 1.22
Residual 321 .66
Satisfaction with Benefits
Timea 1 .01 .01
Treatmentb 1 3.94 5.21*
Time × Treatment 1 .02 .02
Explained 3 1.32 1.74
Residual 330 .76
a
1 = pretest, 2 = posttest. b1= nonexempt, 2 = exempt.
*p < .05, **p < .01, two-tailed.
satisfaction. There are, however, a number of sample, study design, and
measurement considerations which may have limited our ability to find
an effect. They are reviewed below, followed by implications for research
and practice.
Limitations
In job analysis interviews and write-in comments, some employees
complained that they were compensated at below-market rates. The job
evaluation, however, focused solely on internal pay equity (i.e., pay levels
relative to other jobs in the same organization) and not on external pay
equity (i.e., pay levels relative to similar jobs in other organizations). It
may be that when external pay equity is highly salient, no amount of
internal equity will result in increased pay satisfaction. Similarly, partic-
14. 146 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
ipation may not matter if there are great concerns about external equity.
In short, internal pay equity may be a necessary, but not sufficient, con-
dition for pay satisfaction.
These findings suggest that the relationships among procedural jus-
tice, distributive justice, and pay satisfaction are more complex than pre-
vious acknowledged and thus have implications for future research.
While some have suggested that low outcomes will be judged fair if pro-
cedures are fair (e.g., Greenberg, 1987), others have suggested that “it is
entirely possible . . . that when outcome favorability is low in an absolute
sense, procedural justice will have little buffering effect” (Brockner &
Wiesenfeld, 1996, p. 206). Thus, procedural justice may operate within
limits of distributive justice. If distributive justice is too low, procedural
justice may not matter.
Another limitation is that the research design was a quasi-experi-
ment rather than a true experiment. We had a comparison group, not a
control group. That is, only employees in exempt jobs received the treat-
ment and only employees in nonexempt jobs were in the comparison
group. While the pre-post design helps mitigate this concern somewhat
since it takes prior levels of pay satisfaction into account, these groups
may differ in unknown ways that weaken our ability to draw clear com-
parisons. Relatedly, despite the fact that their jobs were not included in
the job evaluation study, the employees in nonexempt jobs may have felt
they participated in the design of the pay plan because they completed
the satisfaction surveys along with the exempt employees and attended
the same follow-up meeting that presented the pay plan. If the nonex-
empt employees felt as though they had participated in the project, their
pay satisfaction would have been inflated compared to a true control
group. This concern is lessened, however, by the fact that the employees
in nonexempt jobs did not show any meaningful change from pretest to
posttest.
There were also limitations from a measurement perspective. First,
there was low variance on the level of participation measure, both at
the item and scale levels. That is, most exempt employees who returned
surveys participated in all phases of the job evaluation process. While
this should have increased our chances of finding mean differences on
the satisfaction measures between pre and posttest, it attenuates any
correlation between level of participation and pay satisfaction. Second,
there was a large amount of missing data on the satisfaction with struc-
ture and administration items (up to 40%). Although supplemental anal-
yses suggest that nonrespondents were not significantly different on the
measures included in the study, this may indicate that many employees
did not fully understand the pay system. If so, this might explain why
their pay satisfaction did not increase.
15. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 147
Implications for Research and Practice
Should additional research obtain similar findings, it appears there
are a number of implications for research and practice. With respect to
research, this study illustrates the importance of using more rigorous
designs so we can begin to critically examine the effects of organizational
interventions. Other researchers (e.g., Eden, 1985; Terpstra, 1981) have
suggested that as the methodological rigor of the study increases, the
likelihood of finding significant positive results decreases. Thus, the pos-
itive effects of a job evaluation might have been incorrectly presumed in
the present context had a rigorous study not been conducted. Such a
strategy in future studies will allow researchers to better understand
the nature of intervention dynamics and outcomes.
The results obtained in the present study raise a number of issues
which deserve further research attention. For example, does participa-
tion influence pay satisfaction at all, or is its influence mediated by other
variables? To what extent does participation in the job evaluation pro-
cess lead to perceptions of procedural justice? What is the relative contri-
bution of internal versus external equity considerations? Is the level of
organizational trust important for perceptions of procedural justice (see
Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996) and satisfaction outcomes?
Integrating the job evaluation process with the OD implementation
literature yields practical insight as well. For example, in examining our
implementation methodology (Figure 1) it is clear there were many op-
portunities for participation and involvement. It is also true, however,
that employees could have participated in many other ways as well. That
is, employees could have been involved on the compensation committee,
in determining compensable factors, and in the development of the pay
structure. Before concluding that participation in a job evaluation has
no positive effects, future compensation implementation efforts should
attempt to foster increased participation in each of the six stages out-
lined as a means of increasing perceptions of participation and proce-
dural justice. For example, future efforts might spend more time commu-
nicating to employees, such as highlighting the level of employee
participation and emphasizing procedural fairness (see Greenberg,
1990b).
Three final points deserve mention. First, evaluation is the key to
improving OD as a science. Thus, the use of rigorous designs informs
theory and practice. Second, OD learns tremendously from null findings.
That is, it allows us to critically examine our fundamental assumptions
and increase our knowledge of the underlying processes that occur dur-
ing organizational interventions. Third, publishing null findings from
well conducted studies is critical to the accuracy of meta-analyses (e.g.,
16. 148 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Neuman, Edwards, & Raju, 1989) and narrative reviews of the future.
Without these publications, an inaccurate and inappropriate perspective
will exist concerning OD interventions.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation
decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addi-
son-Wesley.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1977). Organizational transitions: Managing complex
change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA:
Goodyear Publishing.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1968). Corporate excellence through grid organization devel-
opment. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reac-
tions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 120, 189–208.
Carey, J. F. (1977). Participative job evaluation. Compensation Review, 9 (4), 29–38.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for
field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cummings, T. G., & Srivastva, S. (1977). Management of work: A socio-technical systems
approach. Kent, OH: Comparative Administration Research Institute.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program
planning. Glencoe, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Doverspike, D., Carlisi, A. M., Barrett, G. V., & Alexander, R. A. (1983). Generalizability
analysis of a point-method job evaluation instrument. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68, 476–483.
Eden, D. (1985). Team development: A true field experiment at three levels of rigor. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 70, 94–100.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel
systems. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human
resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reac-
tions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.
Gerhart, B., & Milkovich, G. T. (1992). Employee compensation: Research and practice. In
M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 481–569). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the
means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55–61.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16, 399–432.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational
justice. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 12, pp. 111–157), JAI Press.
Hahn, D. C., & Dipboye, R. L. (1988). Effects of training and information on the accuracy
and reliability of job evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 146–153.
Heneman, H. G. (1985). Pay satisfaction. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research
17. F. P. MORGESON, M. A. CAMPION, AND C. P. MAERTZ 149
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 115–139). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Heneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature
and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 129–141.
Hornsby, J. S., Smith, B. N., & Gupta, J. N. D. (1994). The impact of decision-making
methodology on job evaluation outcomes: A look at three consensus approaches.
Group & Organization Management, 19, 112–128.
Jenkins, G. D., & Lawler, E. E. (1981). Impact of employee participation in pay plan devel-
opment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 111–128.
Judge, T. A., & Welbourne, T. M. (1994). A confirmatory investigation of the dimensionality
of the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 461–466.
Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1969). Impact of employee participation in the develop-
ment of pay incentive plans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 467–471.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
McCormick, E. J. (1979). Job analysis: Methods and applications. New York: AMACOM.
Milkovich, G. T., & Cogill, C. J. (1984). Measurement as an issue in analysis and evaluation
of jobs. In M. L. Rock (Ed.), Handbook of wage and salary administration (2nd ed., pp.
10/1–10/14). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (1993). Compensation (4th ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Morgeson, F. P., Aiman-Smith, L. D., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Implementing work teams:
Recommendations from organizational behavior and development theories. In M. Bey-
erlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work
teams: Issues in the implementation of work teams (Vol. 4, pp. 1–44). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Munson, F. (1963). Four fallacies for wage and salary administration. Personnel, 40 (4),
57–64.
Neuman, G. A., Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1989). Organizational development interven-
tions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Personnel
Psychology, 42, 461–489.
Schwab, D. P. (1985). Job evaluation research and research needs. In H. I. Hartmann (Ed.),
Comparable worth: New directions for research (pp. 37–52). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Terpstra, D. E. (1981). Relationship between methodological rigor and reported outcomes
in organization development evaluation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,
541–543.
Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K. A., & Spodick, N. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with
leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48, 72–81.