外文翻譯--薪酬管理新概念的理解框架

1、<p><b>　　中文3600字</b></p><p><b>　　原文：</b></p><p>　　外文出處 International Foundation News </p><p>　　外文作者 Frank L.Giancol

2、a </p><p>　　A Framework for Understanding New Concepts in Compensation management</p><p>　　Over the past 25 years, several major new concepts in compensation management have reflec

3、ted overly ambitious goals . Experts have disagreed about their basic premises, and the business world has had trouble accepting them. Examining the history of three such concepts-skill-based pay, broadbanding and total

4、rewards -is worthwhile , for it reveals the challenges they present and helps define a pattern for how professionals deal with these and other new ideas in the profession .</p><p>　　Skill -Based Pay</p>

5、;<p>　　The skill -based approach for determining base pay is based on an employee’s skills, rather than his or her current job. Leading thinkers in compensation management have supported this approach since the 19

6、80s. According to compensation experts Patricia Zingheim and Jay Schuster it is the “next great thing in pay and benefits”. In an interview Edward Lawler called it “the compensation system of the future.”</p><

7、p>　　This approach shifts the focal point from the job to the person, with the goals of providing employees with greater incentives to improve skills and competencies and giving management a more versatile workforce. G

8、enerally, employees are paid to acquire higher skills in their own field or lateral ones in related fields. From a systems standpoint, job descriptions, job evaluation plans and job-based salary surveys are replaced by s

9、kill profiles, skill evaluation plans and skill-based salary survey</p><p>　　The disappearance of the traditional job provides the primary rationale for this change. Today， employees are said to have variabl

10、e and unstable work assignments , with roles that cannot be assigned a valid pay rate in traditional job evaluation plans .</p><p>　　Contentious Tenets</p><p>　　The main tenets of skill-based pa

11、y (SBP) conflict with mainstream business thinking. The first tenet is that pay should be based only on skills, taking the value of an employee’s work to an organization out of the pay equation. In effect, SBP advocates

12、are asking compensation professionals to set the same pay rate for employees, based on their skills, even though they might have substantially different duties and responsibilities and make substantially different contri

13、butions to a firm’s success</p><p>　　The second tenet is the notion that pay should be based on how many skills employees have or how many jobs they potentially can do , not on the job they currently hold .

14、Here again, SBP advocates make what many firms consider an unreasonable request. They introduce a controversial pay for potential concept that directly contradicts the pay for performance concept compensation professiona

15、ls have diligently strived to establish. In recent years, emphasis has been on what employees actually accompl</p><p>　　Questionable Assumption </p><p>　　The SBP concept rests on a questionable

16、assumption -that a job does not reflect the skills of the person required to do it. That makes job evaluation plans an inappropriate method for evaluating skills and setting pay rates. According to SBP advocates, skills

17、must be valued by using market-based skill surveys. They overlook the fact that most point-factor job evaluation plans award the bulk of their points for the possession and application of knowledge, skills and abilities.

18、 On this point, Lawl</p><p>　　Also overlooked is the fact that many occupations (e.g., accountant, electrician and actuary) do reflect the skills required to perform them; when salary surveys are conducted a

19、nd employees are paid based on occupation titles and job summaries , skill requirements are being valued .</p><p>　　Ambiguous Definition</p><p>　　Few “new” ideas in compensation management repre

20、sent a complete break from the prior ideas. Although SBP was billed as a new idea in compensation when introduced, it included old compensation practices, such as career ladders and generalist classifications.</p>

21、<p>　　The result is that today，when companies are surveyed to see if they use SBP practices , those that use old SBP practices are counted among the firms that have signed on to the concept . This gives a false pic

22、ture about the adoption of this “new”, way of paying employees and contributes to varying descriptions of the concept’s level of acceptance.</p><p>　　Competency-Based Pay</p><p>　　In the 1990s,

23、competency-based pay was introduced as a type of SBP plan for professional and managerial employees. It calls for base pay to be determined based on competencies instead of duties and responsibilities. Shortly after the

24、concept was introduced, controversy arose as to what constitutes a legitimate competency. Today, there are many alternatives to choose from—core, organizational, behavioral and technical competencies. One compensation ex

25、pert has asked for a governing body, similar t</p><p>　　Changes in the economy and the nature of work—such as the rise of the contingent workforce and the disappearance of traditional jobs, which were predic

26、ted to result in a need for SBP—have not materialized. That and the lack of administrative support systems probably have contributed to the concept’s slow growth. Today, SBP is associated with blue-collar workers in manu

27、facturing industries, which are in decline in the United States, while competency-based pay has had a greater impact on performan</p><p>　　Despite these issues and setbacks, prominent compensation experts co

28、ntinue to support the concept.</p><p>　　Broadbanding</p><p>　　One of the most visible concepts in compensation management in the 1990s was broadbanding, which collapses many salary grades and ra

29、nges into fewer bands with broader salary spans. Its popularity was attributed in part to the 1990s trend to downsize organizations by reducing the number of hierarchical levels.</p><p>　　When broadbanding w

30、as introduced, some thought leaders saw it as a new pay program for managing salaries and supporting organizational initiatives, such as eliminating bureaucracy and reducing costs.Others saw it as a “higher order of chan

31、ge” and a new way of managing human resources that would be a catalyst for organizational change and represent much more than a new way to reduce bureaucracy and costs.</p><p>　　The concept was loosely defin

32、ed, and companies were said to have welcomed the opportunity to adapt it to their unique needs. And some were given credit for adopting it, even though one cited plan had 13 bands, with multiple salary ranges within them

33、, making it resemble a traditional salary administration plan.</p><p>　　Flexibility</p><p>　　One constant in the dialogue on broadbanding is that it provides the flexibility to accommodate chang

34、e and to define job responsibilities more broadly. Proponents have dismissed traditional salary administration systems as being too structured, with too many rules.</p><p>　　Execution Issues</p><p

35、>　　Early experience with broadbanding was not completely positive. Although these systems were supposed to reduce costs, managers had too much discretion to increase salaries within the bands. After several years, sal

36、aries had progressed to levels that could not be justified.</p><p>　　“Second generation” banded systems gave less freedom for managers to determine salaries. These systems include more bands and specifically

37、 define salary ranges within the bands,making them resemble the traditional systems they were supposed to replace.</p><p>　　Two compensation textbooks have reserved final judgment on the value of broadbandin

38、g. One sees it as a potential reprise of the type of salary administration “flexibility” that gave rise to the traditional plans. These plans were developed to reduce favoritism and inconsistencies that resulted from a l

39、ack of structure and controls that exist in broadbanding.</p><p>　　Total Rewards</p><p>　　In the past decade, professional associations, major human resource consulting firms and compensation ex

40、perts have advocated the total rewards approach to the development of a firm’s rewards strategy. Some billed it as more than a passing phase and possibly the greatest breakthrough in compensation since health care plans

41、were combined with pay packages.</p><p>　　The approach calls for HR professionals to consider all aspects of the work experience of value to people when developing a strategy to attract, retain and motivate

42、employees .It extends the prior concept of total compensation, which encompassed only pay and benefit programs, and gives form to an idea described in a compensation textbook widely used in the 1970s.Thus, the idea is mo

43、re novel than radical.</p><p>　　In the early 2000s, after the intense competition for talent and the economy of the 1990s had cooled, employers sought ways to reduce costs and needed a strategy that places m

44、ore emphasis on low-cost rewards and less on costly pay and benefit programs, such as stock options. Total rewards meets that need with its message that learning and development, recognition and other soft-dollar program

45、s are as important as pay and benefits in satisfying employees. In addition, it provides a flexible and b</p><p>　　Execution Issues</p><p>　　The launch of total rewards confirmed the axiom that

46、new compensation programs typically are simple in concept, but complex in execution. When HR practitioners put the concept into practice, they encountered many stumbling blocks. That led two consultants to describe human

47、 resource professionals in late 2004 as “feeling confused or sensing chaos regarding total rewards.” A primary cause of the confusion was experts who used different names, definitions and models to describe it. Correctiv

48、e actio</p><p>　　Still, compensation professionals are likely to use other terms to refer to it, with the labels for outdated reward strategies—compensation and benefits package and total compensation—being

49、 used about as frequently as the new term.</p><p>　　Conclusions</p><p>　　In sum, new concepts in compensation management have the following general profile:</p><p>　　? Are novel, b

50、ut not radically new</p><p>　　? Are simple in concept, but complex in execution</p><p>　　? Do not always have expert agreement on main tenets</p><p>　　? Overlap with prior concep

51、ts, creating a misleading impression about their adoption</p><p>　　? Result in major execution issues, largely because of conceptual confusion</p><p>　　? Do not reach expected adoption figures

52、</p><p>　　? Have a place in the field, but not a dominant role.</p><p>　　Given this pattern, compensation professionals are advised to examine new concepts closely to see if the ideas are too b

53、roadly defined, reflect expert agreement,represent significant change and provide guidance on execution and best applications. In addition, practitioners should closely review usage surveys of new concepts to determine i

54、f a concept’s broad definition and historical roots have caused related prior practices to be counted as evidence of the new one’s acceptance. They also should </p><p>　　Source: International Foundation News

55、, 2009(5):p12-15.</p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><p>　　薪酬管理新概念的理解框架</p><p><b>　　法蘭克·詹科拉</b></p><p>　　在過去的25年里，幾個主要的薪酬管理的新理念過于反映其雄心勃勃的目標。專家們不認同他們的基本

56、前提，商界也很難以接受這些概念。研究分析技能薪酬、寬帶薪酬和整體薪酬這三個概念的歷史是非常有用的，因為它揭示了他們面臨的挑戰(zhàn)并且為如何處理這些和其他行業(yè)的新思想界定了一個模式。</p><p><b>　　技能薪酬體系</b></p><p>　　技能薪酬的基本工資的確定方法是基于雇員的技能，而不是他或她目前的工作。從20世紀80年代以來領(lǐng)先的思想家就支持這種薪酬管理

57、方法。按薪酬專家帕特里夏和杰伊舒斯特說法，這是“下一個美妙的報酬和福利”。 在一次采訪中愛德華勞勒稱它是“未來的薪酬制度?！?lt;/p><p>　　這種方法將焦點從工作本身轉(zhuǎn)移到人上, 為了更有效地激勵員工提高技能并使得對勞動力的管理更具多變性。一般來說，員工的薪水取決于他們?yōu)榱嗽谧约旱念I(lǐng)域或其他相關(guān)領(lǐng)域里獲得較高的技能。從系統(tǒng)的觀點來看，工作說明、工作評價計劃和基于工作的薪酬調(diào)查被技能概況，技能鑒定計劃和技能型工

58、資調(diào)查取而代之。</p><p>　　傳統(tǒng)工作的消失為這種變化提供了主要依據(jù)。今天，據(jù)說員工接受了多樣的和不穩(wěn)定的工作任務(wù)，且在傳統(tǒng)評價計劃當中對配置有效工資率沒有作用。</p><p><b>　　有爭議的原則</b></p><p>　　主要的技能薪酬原則與主流商業(yè)思維的沖突。第一個原則是這種工資應(yīng)僅僅基于技能,而員工為組織工作的價值與薪酬

59、的計算毫無關(guān)系。事實上，SBP運動倡導(dǎo)者要求薪酬管理人員根據(jù)員工的技能給他們同樣的工資標準，即使他們可能完全不符合職責(zé),或者為公司的成功提供不同的服務(wù)。公司基本價值的一些漏洞使得這種觀念很難被管理者與員工所接受。近年來,補償專家認定工作的價值是工資支付方程的重要組成部分。</p><p>　　第二個原則是，薪酬的確定是基于員工他們掌握了多少技能或是多少工作他們有潛力去做，而不是他們現(xiàn)在的崗位。在這里,技能薪酬倡導(dǎo)

60、者把許多公司考慮不合理的要求。他們引入一個有爭議的潛在的薪酬概念，這個概念直接違背了一些專業(yè)人員一直努力建立的績效薪酬觀念。近年來, 重點是了解員工在工作中真實表現(xiàn)，而不是有關(guān)他們是誰的一些靜態(tài)的概念如他們管理的潛力的或工齡。同時,通過詢問企業(yè)向員工支付的工資,他們可能在未來執(zhí)行,技能薪酬是幾家實踐的公司能負擔的。有了這些核心信仰，技能薪酬經(jīng)歷了一場艱苦的戰(zhàn)斗，為了以驗收為主要手段來確定基本工資。</p><p>

61、;<b>　　可疑的假設(shè)</b></p><p>　　技能薪酬概念是基于一種可疑的假設(shè)——一份工作不反映該人的技能應(yīng)該需要做的。那使工作評估方案為評估技能和設(shè)定工資率提供了一個不恰當?shù)姆椒ā８鶕?jù)技能薪酬倡導(dǎo)者主張,技能必須通過市場技能調(diào)查來加以重視。他們忽視一個事實,那就是多數(shù)點因素工作評價計劃給予了他們大量的觀點,為占有和應(yīng)用的知識,技能和能力。在這一點上，勞勒曾表示,“在很多情況下,這個

62、(技能薪酬)不會與以崗位為基礎(chǔ)的薪酬產(chǎn)生迥然不同的工資支付水平。畢竟,人們的技能與他們正在做的工作通常都非常的匹配?！?lt;/p><p>　　同時也忽略了一個事實是,許多職業(yè)(例如會計、電工、精算)確實反映它們的執(zhí)行過程所需的技能;當進行工資調(diào)查時，發(fā)現(xiàn)員工的工資是基于職業(yè)頭銜和工作總結(jié)，技能需求正在被重視。</p><p><b>　　歧義的定義</b></p&

63、gt;<p>　　一些薪酬管理領(lǐng)域中的“新”理念代表一個徹底從舊理念擺脫出來的完整的想法。雖然技能薪酬引入時被認為是薪酬領(lǐng)域中的新理念,但這也包括一些老薪酬管理實踐，比如職業(yè)階梯和多樣化的分類。</p><p>　　結(jié)果是,今天當公司被調(diào)查看看他們是否使用技能薪酬管理,那些使用舊技能薪酬管理公司的確定是在那些已經(jīng)同意這個概念的公司范圍里。這給一個虛假的關(guān)于這個“新”理念的可行性，薪酬支付的方法以及有

64、助于分類描述這個概念的接受程度的假象。</p><p><b>　　能力薪酬體系</b></p><p>　　在20世紀90年代,為了技術(shù)型和管理型員工，能力薪酬作為技能薪酬體系的一種類型引進。它要求基本工資決定要基于能力,而不是義務(wù)和責(zé)任。這個概念被引入不久，就引起了爭議，爭議內(nèi)容主要是關(guān)于什么才是一種合理和符合工作要求的能力。今天,有很多可以選擇的能力，如綜合、組

65、織、行為和技術(shù)能力。一位薪酬專家已要求一家類似在會計專業(yè)方面的管理機構(gòu),來幫助解決何謂能力的問題，實際上意味著,在世界上的雇員薪酬。</p><p>　　作為專業(yè)人士一直掙扎于術(shù)語的意思,按能力支付工資的形式更多的使用在績效管理中(41%接受調(diào)查的公司)，而不是使用在基本工資確定上(14%接受調(diào)查的公司),這個發(fā)展技能薪酬的倡導(dǎo)者沒有預(yù)測到。</p><p>　　經(jīng)濟形勢和工資性質(zhì)的變化，

66、諸如員工隊伍的提升和傳統(tǒng)工作的消失，這被認為將導(dǎo)致對技能薪酬體系的需求。今天，以上的變化和行政支持系統(tǒng)的缺乏可能已經(jīng)助長這一概念緩慢發(fā)展，技能薪酬與制造行業(yè)中藍領(lǐng)工人聯(lián)系在一起，這一現(xiàn)象出現(xiàn)在美國經(jīng)濟衰退時期,以能力為基礎(chǔ)的薪酬支付形式在績效管理中比以基本工資支付薪酬形式更具有影響力。</p><p>　　盡管有這些問題與挫折,著名的薪酬管理專家繼續(xù)支持這個概念。</p><p><

67、b>　　寬帶薪酬</b></p><p>　　二十世紀九十年代的一個在薪酬管理方面最顯著的觀念是寬帶薪酬，寬帶薪酬使得原先的許多薪酬等級和分類轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)楦俚膶挾群透鼜V的薪水跨度。</p><p>　　當寬帶薪酬被引進的時候，一些人認為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者把它看成一種新的薪酬管理和支持組織積極性的方式，比如消除組織官僚主義，減少組織開銷。還有一些人視它為“更有序的轉(zhuǎn)變”和一種人力資源管理的

68、新方式，就好比是組織變革的催化劑，代表了一種不僅僅在減少組織官僚主義和花費方面的新方式。</p><p>　　這個概念被廣泛的定義，據(jù)說公司已經(jīng)歡迎這種機會去迎合他們的各自需求。一些公司甚至貸款去采用它，雖然一個被引用的計劃有13等級，在它中間有多重的薪酬變動，使其像一個傳統(tǒng)的薪酬管理計劃一樣。</p><p><b>　　靈活性</b></p><

69、;p>　　一個對寬頻的一致意見是它為協(xié)調(diào)變化提供了靈活性，和更加寬泛的定義工作職責(zé)。支持者們已經(jīng)摒棄了在構(gòu)造時需要太多規(guī)則的傳統(tǒng)的薪酬管理系統(tǒng)制度。</p><p><b>　　執(zhí)行問題</b></p><p>　　早期的寬帶薪酬管理經(jīng)驗并不都是完全積極的，雖然這種系統(tǒng)被期望可以減少花費，但是經(jīng)理們在寬帶薪酬里增加薪水時顯得太過謹慎。一些年以后，薪水已經(jīng)發(fā)展成了

70、不能調(diào)整的水平。</p><p>　　第二代寬帶薪酬系統(tǒng)，對于經(jīng)理人決定薪水來說給予了更少的自由。這些系統(tǒng)包括更多的帶層，特別在帶層中定義了薪水的變動。使寬帶薪酬系統(tǒng)更像被期望它們要去替代的傳統(tǒng)薪酬體系。</p><p>　　兩個關(guān)于報酬的教科書保留了人們關(guān)于寬帶薪酬價值的最終評判，人們把它看成是一種潛在重復(fù)類型，給傳統(tǒng)的薪酬管理增加了一定的靈活性。這些計劃被用來減少存在于寬帶中因缺少結(jié)構(gòu)

71、和控制而導(dǎo)致的偏袒和不一致。</p><p><b>　　整體薪酬</b></p><p>　　在過去的十年中，專業(yè)協(xié)會、主要的人力資源咨詢公司和薪酬專家都提倡用整體薪酬的方式來發(fā)展一個公司的薪酬戰(zhàn)略。有些人說這不僅僅是個過渡階段，更可能是薪酬方面的重大突破，自從醫(yī)療保健計劃與薪酬相結(jié)合。</p><p>　　該方法要求人力資源專業(yè)人士考慮人的

72、價值在工作經(jīng)驗中的各個方面，當開發(fā)一個戰(zhàn)略來吸引、挽留和激勵員工。它擴展了以前整體薪酬的概念，它不僅包含工資和福利計劃，給出一種薪酬形式，這種形式在20世紀70年代被廣泛使用在薪酬教科書中。因此，這個想法是較激進的。</p><p>　　早在二十一世紀初，對人才的激烈競爭和20世紀90年代經(jīng)濟的降溫之后，雇主積極探索各種途徑來降低成本，需要一個更加強調(diào)低成本高回報和能減少薪酬和福利待遇方面支出的戰(zhàn)略，比如是股票期

73、權(quán)計劃。整體薪酬認為對學(xué)習(xí)和發(fā)展自身的一些信息需要，認同該薪酬戰(zhàn)略和其他軟美元的方案在滿足員工方面與薪酬和福利同樣重要。此外，它提供了一個靈活而廣泛的獎勵計劃，很好地響應(yīng)全球化、合并和收購以及其他因素來增加員工的多樣性。</p><p><b>　　執(zhí)行問題</b></p><p>　　整體薪酬的推出進一步證實了這個定理，那就是新的薪酬方案在理論上是非常的簡單易懂，但

74、在執(zhí)行上是相當?shù)膹?fù)雜。當人力資源從業(yè)者把這個概念付諸實踐時，他們遇到了許多障礙。這導(dǎo)致兩名顧問在2004年底說人力資源專家也“感覺困惑或混亂對整體薪酬?！备杏X混亂的首要原因是專家使用不同的名稱、定義和模型來描述整體薪酬。必須采取了糾正行為來解決這些問題，對一些關(guān)于整體薪酬管理和基本概念的課程開發(fā)進行了簡化。</p><p>　　然而，薪酬專家可能使用其他的條款來引用，與過時獎勵的策略——薪酬、福利計劃和整體薪酬正

75、在頻繁的使用這些新條款。</p><p><b>　　總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　總的來說，新觀念在薪酬管理中存在以下一般情形：</p><p>　　有新穎性，但不是徹底新的</p><p>　　觀念上單一性，執(zhí)行上復(fù)雜性</p><p>　　在主要的原理上并不總是得到專家的認可</p

76、><p>　　跟先前的觀念有重合的一面，在運用的時候存在令人誤解的地方</p><p>　　由于觀念上的混亂，導(dǎo)致主要的執(zhí)行上的問題</p><p>　　沒有達到期望的運用的效果</p><p>　　在領(lǐng)域中有一定的位置，但是不是主要支配地位</p><p>　　給了這樣一個模型，薪酬管理員們被建議去檢查新的觀念，更近距離