11
Choosing a Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical May 4, 2010 APH Manufacturing Executive Board Meeting for 2011

Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

Choosing a Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical

May 4, 2010

APH ManufacturingExecutive Board Meeting for 2011

Page 2: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

What is a compensation structure?

• An internal pay structure can be defined by – Number of levels of work– Pay differentials between the levels– Criteria or basis used to determine those levels and

differentials in pay

Page 3: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

What a strategic compensation structure needs?

• Needs to supports organization strategy• Needs to supports work flow

– Work flow – process by which goods and services are delivered to the customer

• Needs to reinforce desired behaviors– Ex: Intuit Indians

Page 4: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical
Page 5: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

5 Considerations in Developing Strategy

• Objectives• Internal alignment• External alignment• Employee contributions• Management

Page 6: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

Microsoft Bristol Myers Squibb

Obj

ectiv

esIn

tern

al

Alig

nmen

tEx

tern

alEm

ploy

ee

Cont

ributi

onM

gmt

• Support the business objectives

• Support recruiting, motivation, and retention of MS-caliber talent

• Preserve MS core values

• Support business mission and goals

• Develop global leaders at every level

• Reinforce team-based culture

• Reduce costs, increase productivity

• Integral part of MS culture• Support MS performance driven culture• Business/technology-based organization design structure

• Flexibility for development and growth• Reflect responsibilities, required competencies, and business impact

• Lead in total comp

• Lag in base pay

• Lead in bonuses, stock

• Bonuses and options based on individual performance

• Open, transparent communications• Centralized administration• Software supported

• Compare favorably to high-performing competitor

• Cash between the 50th and 75th percentile

• Support high performance, leadership culture

• Team-based increases

• Options align employee and shareholder interest

• Tailor to business and team results

• Performance and leadership feedback –everyone is a leader• Administrative ease

Page 7: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

Importance of Compensation Strategy

Mission, Vision, Core Beliefs, &

Business StrategyCompensation Performance

Page 8: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

Hierarchical vs. Egalitarian

Hierarchical Egalitarian

Level Many Fewer

Pay Differential Large Small

Criteria Person or Job Person or Job

Supports: Work Organization Fairness Behaviors

Close Fit (Banding)Individual PerformersPerformanceOpportunities for PromotionIndividual ContributorsRecognition of Differences

Loose Fit (Banding)TeamsEqual TreatmentCooperationShare Knowledge FreelyCross Training in Jobs

Page 9: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

Best Compensation StructureFor APH Manufacturing the Egalitarian

compensation structure would be best!

Page 10: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical

1) Gomez-Mejia, L.R., & Balkin, D.B. (1992b). The determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (5), 921-955.

2) Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Welbourne, T.M., & Wiseman, R.M. (2000). The role of risk sharing and risk taking under Gainsharing. The Academy of Management Review, 25 (3), 492-507.

3) Lawler, E.E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new-economy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

4) Milkovich, G.T., & Newman, J.M. (2008). Compensation. Boston: Irwin McGraw Hill.

5) Olson, C.A., Schwab, D.P., and Rau, B.L. (2000). The effects of local market conditions on two pay-setting systems in the federal sector. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53 (2), 272-294.

Resources

Page 11: Strategic Compensation Structure: Egalitarian v. Hierarchical