工资制度中英文对照外文翻译文献.docx

1、工资制度中英文对照外文翻译文献工资制度中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)Management Style and FairPaymentTom HusbandThis article discusses the relationship between management style within a firm and the procedures used to determine internal wage and salary differentials. At a time when management styles are apparently becoming

2、less authoritarian and paternalistic in favour of greater worker participation there is obviously a danger of firms using payment techniques which are inappropriate to the current management/worker relationship. Some simple models of workers and organization are used to identify four broad styles of

3、 management. These styles are then related to the job evaluation and performance rating techniques in common use in British industry today. Some general conclusions are drawn concerning future trends in payment to suit management style.IntroductionProblems of internal pay structuring have always bee

4、n of keen interest to both managers and students of British industry. In recent years however the setting of rational and fair pay differentials has taken on a particular significance. Our social and managerial attitudes to criteria for reward are changing fast. The whole question of pay relativitie

5、s is now seen to be central to the establishment of a just industrial society. Within individual firms managers and employees are questioning the traditional approaches to work structuring and wage payment. There is a distinct move from both sides of industry towards a greater degree of employee con

6、sultation and participation in the running of the firm. This trend has brought with it fresh approaches to the analysis of work and the determination of equitable wage and salary differentials.A great many British companies have already applied themselves to solving the dynamic problems of work anal

7、ysis and reward. The majority are probably only now deciding how best to approach these same problems. It is fair to say that a great deal of confusion and even controversy surrounds the issues involved. In the last decade managers have been deluged with new techniques of pay administration.All of t

8、hese techniques are valid when applied under appropriate conditions. The dilemma which has faced managers is to know which of the techniques is relevant to the solution of their particular problems. There have been many sad cases of mismatch between technique and situation.Managers need an overall c

9、ompany strategy for work analysis and pay. The integration of techniques into a total package of wage and salary administration must reflect the management style employed in the company, as well as recognize the many constraints put on managerial control.Many companies are now facing up to situation

10、s where management styles are altering and technological and other influences are changing fast. The company pay strategy has to mirror these changes if it is to remain effective.Ideally the internal payment structure should reflect the organization structure (and hence the structure of responsibili

11、ty carried across job hierarchy). However there is no single ideal structure of organization and consequently there can be no single ideal structure of pay. Each firm has a range of needs which are met or partially met by the measures taken by management. We can begin the argument by examining the m

12、anagement styles associated with the needs of the employee/ manager relationships - the so-called psychological contract.Management Styles and the Psychological ContractObviously the management style used in fulfilling the psychological contract reflects the way in which managers in the company expe

13、ct employees to behave. Some managerial teams expect their employees to simply have what is known as a calculative involvement with the company. They are expected to do what is required by the goal-setters (the management team) and no more. The contract is fulfilled by paying sufficient wages or sal

14、aries to motivate the employees to meet the goals set by the managers. Many small family firms operate this management style and there are possibly a great many large companies too. It is convenient to label this type of management view of the organization as goal oriented. In the extreme such manag

15、ers might perceive only a single goal (profit ratio, market share, etc) without requiring the employees to have any identification or moral involvement with that goal. A totally different conceptual model of the organization allows for the achievement of a whole range of needs24 Personnel Review Vol

16、 4 Number 4 Autumn 1975by the organization. Managers who conceive of their companies in this fashion see the need for balancing the system of needs. Employees (and especially other, junior managers) are perceived as people whose actions should influence the entire organization not just their own dep

17、artment or subsystem of, for example, production control or purchasing or marketing, etc. The view held here is that it is no good to have nine tenths of the companys needs being met and the other tenth ignored. It is a systems approach and is a model which is apparent in the management philosophy o

18、f our larger and more progressive industrial companies.Between these two polar models of organization there is obviously scope for many other concepts. A pluralistic model, for example would allow for different constituent parts of the organization to have their own separate goals.The models that ma

19、nagers hold of men as distinct from the goals of the company are described in a massive literature of organizational psychology. It is possible in this area also to establish extreme, polar concepts. One extreme would be the assumption that man is a rational-economic animal. Because of this a manage

20、r holding such a view might use McGregors well-known Theory X approach to his subordinate. McGregor1 points out that rational-economic man assumptions imply that man is lazy by nature and is motivated primarily by financial incentives. The employee is seen to need direction and control so that he wi

21、ll work towards the organizations goals. He is seen to be unambitious and reluctant to take responsibility. The assumptions associated with Theory X are, of course, built into the foundations of the Classical organization theories. The employee, in short, is seen to react to his environment.The mode

22、l of man seen to be at the opposite from the reactive, Theory X man is McGregors Theory Y approach. Assumptions on which Theory Y are based include the fact that most men do not dislike work, they seek a challenge from the work environment and in fact welcome the opportunity to achieve a moral invol

23、vement with the organization. Under appropriate conditions the employee, says Theory Y, will seek out responsibility and is capable of imagination, ingenuity and creativity. There have been several attempts to classify the various models of man and organization, a notable example being the typology

24、developed by Etzioni2. For the purpose of this present discussion, however, the simple model constructed by Limerick3 to show the type of management style implied by managements assumptions about men and organization seems appropriate. The model takes the form of the matrix shown in Figure 1 below:R

25、eactive ManSelf-Active ManGoalOrganizationAuthoritarianManagementConsultativeManagementSystemOrganizationPaternalisticManagementParticipativeManagementFigure 1 The Limerick Matrix of Management StylesThe matrix suggests that if management holds Theory X (reactive man) assumptions and sees the organi

26、zation as being single goal orientated, the style implied is authoritarian. At the other extreme, should the assumptions be of Theory Y nature and the organization be seen as systems orientated, the model implies that the strategy is participative. It must be borne in mind, of course, that this clas

27、sification represents pure types of organization which probably do not exist as such in practice. It is meant to be a relative model which shows only the extreme assumptions and implied strategies. It is, however, very important to be able to put the problem ofdiffering styles into some perspective.

28、Equitable PaymentThe four styles of management proposed in the model can be considered with special reference to problems of equitable payment. Authoritarian management is typified by the proposals of the Classical management theorists (eg Fayol,Urwick, Gulick). The organization is managed along the

29、 universal principles of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling and the structure is pyramidal with great emphasis on line authority. There is rigid specialization and departmentalization. Participation by non-management in meeting the organizations goal is severely restricted.In paternali

30、stic management the systems needs of the organization must be met by those employees who are not seen to be reactive. Thus, for example, some large, sophisticated industrial organizations typically perceive themselves to have systems of needs, the non-managers and even junior management are seen as

31、reactive while the senior management team is often assumed to consist of self-active men. Here the senior managers assume that they have to meet their subordinates needs for them; say by providing preferential pension schemes and welfare benefits and cheap canteens, sometimes with little consultatio

32、n with the employees involved. A paternalistic organization is also typified by a pyramidal structure and an emphasis on line authority. Paternalism is improved over the authoritarian strategy in that employees are often allowed to present alternatives for action in non-task activities. Many British concerns are run on clearly paternalistic lines. There are several well-known, large organizations (typically the major employers in their respective communities) which adopt a cradle to grave, protective attitude to their employees. In the past such firms tended to discoura