“What Should We Pay for?”
This slogan expresses two ideas that are basic to compensation administration in the United States. The first is that work, in the form of the job, should be the major criterion for determining proper wage differentials within organization. The second is that fairness or equity is the major goal to be achieved by compensation administration. Both of these ideas are being called into question today by new ideas in compensation administration and pressures on organizations.
KeywordsWage Rate Market Rate Maturity Curve Wage Structure Incentive Plan
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Belcher, D.W. and Atchison, T.J. Compensation Administration, 2nd Ed., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1987.Google Scholar
- Belcher, D.W. and Atchison, T.J., “Compensation for Work” in Dubin, R. Handbook of Work, Organization, and Society, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1976, Pp. 567–611.Google Scholar
- Hamner, C.W. “How to Ruin Motivation with Pay” Compensation Review, Third Quarter 1975, Pp. 88-98.Google Scholar
- Jenkins, G.D. and Gupta, N. “The Payoffs of Paying for Knowledge,” Labor-Management Cooperation Brief, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor-Management Relations and Cooperative Programs, 1985.Google Scholar
- Lawler, E.E. “What’s Wrong with Point-Factor Job Evaluation” Compensation and Benefits Review, March–April 1986, Pp. 38-45.Google Scholar
- Lawler, E.E, Pay and Organizational Effectiveness, Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar
- Meyer, H.H., “The Pay-for-Performance Dilemma,” Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1975, pp. 71-8.Google Scholar
- O’Dell, C People, Performance, and Pay, American Productivity Center, Houston, Texas, 1986.Google Scholar
- Schuler, R.S. “Human Resource Management Choices and Organizational Strategy” in Readings in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 3rd Ed., St. Paul, West Publishing, 1988.Google Scholar