Robert L. Heneman

MEASURING CUSTOMER SERVICE ORIENTATION USING A MEASURE OF INTERPERSONAL SKILLS: A PRELIMINARY TEST IN A PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANIZATION

Organizations are placing increased emphasis on identifying individuals with customer service orientation. In the present investigation we test whether interpersonal skills, as measured through Holland and Bairds (1968) Interpersonal Competence Scale, provides a narrow, yet valid, measure of customer service orientation. Data were collected from a sample of bus transit operators. Interpersonal skills was positively related to operator self-reported performance, but was not related to supervisor ratings or objective measures of performance. Implications for the study and use of broad versus narrowly defined personality constructs in organizational settings are discussed.

Contextual Determinants of Variable Pay Plan Design: A Proposed Research Framework

Abstract Increasingly, organizations are using variable pay plans to reward employees for the results that they achieve. Current discussion of variable pay focuses on variable pay plan design mechanics, with insufficient attention given to contextual variables that may affect variable pay plan design. We offer a preliminary framework for examining the contextual determinants of variable pay plan design. Components of the framework include characteristics of the environment, characteristics of the organization, and the organizations pay strategies. Propositions for future research are offered.

Performance-rating accuracy: A critical review

Abstract Models of performance-rating accuracy were reviewed and combined into an integrative framework. Components of this framework included the rater, ratee, context, training, and rating format. This framework was used to review the empirical studies on performance-rating accuracy. The implications of this review for performance-appraisal researchers and practitioners were then discussed.

Reward and Organizational Systems Alignment: An Expert System

When organizations design compensation programs, they often resort to implementing an offthe- shelf or “flavor of the month” design rather than tailoring their programs to fit their organizations’ specific needs. Because the most effective compensation programs align reward systems with business strategy, organizational structure and organizational culture, it makes sense to take the time and effort to customize reward programs. This article examines the different design choices that are appropriate for any combination of business strategy (defender or prospector), organizational structure (mechanistic or organic) and organizational culture (traditional or involvement). The article illustrates these combinations with case studies and recommendations for reward system design and implementation practices.

MANAGERS GENERATING MEANING FOR PAY: A TEST FOR REFLECTION THEORY

Purpose – The aim of this study is to find out whether managers can facilitate employee understanding of the pay system through a goal‐setting process. The paper draws from Thierrys largely untested Reflection Theory to study employee pay satisfaction.Design/methodology/approach – Based on the theory, it is posited that managerial goal setting improves employee pay satisfaction through increased employee knowledge and perceived meanings of pay. The hypotheses are tested with survey data from one municipal health care organization.Findings – The results of the study show that both knowledge and meanings of pay mediate the effects of goal setting on pay satisfaction. The paper finds support for the somewhat distinguishable roles of instrumental and symbolic meanings of pay. The regression analyses show that the former fully mediates the effect of pay level and the latter fully mediates the effect of goal setting on pay satisfaction. Even though the analyses do not provide evidence that common method varian...

The Changing Nature of Pay Systems and the Need for New Midrange Theories of Pay

Abstract Previous research suggests that new pay systems (e.g., variable pay and skill based pay) are related to improved employee and organizational performance. Less certain, however, is why these new forms of pay systems work and under what conditions they are likely to work. Current compensation theory does not provide sufficient explanation because it relies upon grand theories, main effects, and commonalities across pay plans. It is argued that the articles in this special issue will advance our understanding of why the new pay systems are effective because they provide research propositions helpful for the study of midrange theories, interaction effects, and differences across types of pay systems.

Job and Work Evaluation: A Literature Review.

Classification and job evaluation systems have come under attack in the public sector. A literature review was conducted to help public sector human resource professionals make informed decisions about whether or not to change or even abandon traditional classification and job evaluation systems for compensation purposes. It is concluded that traditional classification and job evaluation procedures continue to have relevance in public sector settings. However, current classification and job evaluation systems need to be broadened to adapt to the changing nature of work in public sector organizations. Recommendations to shift the focus from “job” to “work” evaluation are offered.

Compensation Practices in Small Entrepreneurial and High-Growth Companies in the United States and China

This article features a study that compares the extent to which U.S. pay practices are being used currently by small companies in China. Because of the high growth of small, fast-growth and entrepreneurial firms in China, small Chinese companies are compared with both small companies and fast-growth entrepreneurial firms in the United States. Results show that there are significant differences in pay practices in China when compared with firms in the United States. The article also discusses compensation issues for U.S. firms doing business with small Chinese companies.

Work Valuation Addresses Shortcomings of Both Job Evaluation and Market Pricing

concerning the role of job evaluation in compensation took place in 1991. In a special issue of Human Resource Management Review,1 Lawler, Mahoney and others debated the effectiveness of job versus person approaches to job evaluation. Much has changed since 1991. Jobs are less well defined and more dynamic. Work is organized in new ways, including teams and virtual organizations.2 Maybe the most important development has been the proliferation of new performance management and measurement systems, creating shorter lines of sight, timely feedback and information and clearer accountabilities. Given these changes in the nature of jobs and work, we are pleased to see a resurgence of interest in job evaluation as a focal point of discussion for the compensation profession. It has never been more important for organizations to ensure that compensation is distributed differentially and within budget. The pay opportunity is often defined and limited by formal pay structures— ranges, target awards and payment guidelines, for example. Such structures often reflect job size and job worth, which are determined by either job C o m p e n s a t i o n SALARY MANAGEMENT

Team pay for novice, intermediate, and advanced teams

There is no one best type of team pay plan. In order for team pay plans to be effective, they must be carefully matched to the development stage of the team. To further develop this argument, a three stage model of team pay is advanced (novice, intermediate, and advanced), and each stage is defined by several dimensions (strategic focus, individualism/collectivism, team composition, plan owner/developer, and autonomy). Furthermore, the dimensions used to differentiate between various types of team pay plans are articulated (measures, measurement levels, evaluators, and pay form). The general hypothesis advanced is that team effectiveness is better explained by the interaction of team development stage and type of pay plan, than by the main effect for type of team pay plan alone. A case study of a Fortune 500 company is used to illustrate the importance of different types of team pay at different stages of team development. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.