本日口譯文章：加薪是最佳的鼓勵員工的方法嗎?
給員工高薪是最佳的鼓勵方法嗎?
固然是。人們盼望本身的事情能獲得待遇。
然則薪酬對付造詣卓著企業來講有多主要呢?成果大概其實不如你想象的那樣主要。
很多研討都試圖找到薪酬辦法與績效之間的明白接洽，但多半都以失敗了結。在《從優良到卓著》(Good to Great)中，吉姆·科林斯(Jim Collins)稱，他的研討小組“發明治理層薪酬與企業從優良走向卓著的進程沒有體系性接洽。”
比方，沒有證據註解從優良走向卓著的企業對獎金或股票期權的運用更普遍。並且，科林斯還發明，引導企業從優良走向卓著的治理職員現實獲得的現金薪酬總額略低於對比企業中職位相稱的人。
普費弗(Pfeffer)和薩頓(Sutton)剖析了試圖經由過程供給薪酬鼓勵進步績效的多半辦法，並得出一個相似的結論：
“現實上，險些沒有證據註解任何種類的股權鼓勵──包含股票期權──可以或許進步構造績效。一篇對220多項研討的文獻綜述得出結論，股權對財政績效沒有同等性影響。”另外一篇由美國國度經濟研討局(National Bureau of Economic Research)揭櫫的關於治理層薪酬研討的大型研討與文獻綜述稱，多半旨在調和治理層好處與股東好處的薪酬計劃都失敗了。”
這並非說人們對財政鼓勵無動於中。他們明顯會對財政鼓勵做出反響。比方，當你依據發賣職員的發賣額向他們付出提成時，他們的發賣額老是比你只付給他們牢固人為時多。一樣的事理也實用於按件計酬的單個手產業者。
《華爾街日報》記者奧爾巴克(Jon Auerbach)在一篇報導中經由過程1998年易安信公司(EMC Corp)中一名叫查特溫(John Chatwin)的傾銷員的閱歷，揭露了薪酬鼓勵大概帶來的鼓勵情況。其時，易安信公司對發賣職員付出的薪酬總額中，約65%是提成，並且對發賣職員能拿到的提成不設上限。
這個故事就從曾是大學曲棍球隊隊員的查特溫提及，他總擔憂本身達不到當季的發賣目的。為了確保不產生這類情形，他開端冒死事情，在接親戚加入他兒子的受洗典禮時還在給客戶打手機，還在一次家庭烤肉會餐時半途分開去和客戶談買賣。“我大概其實不聰慧”，查特溫告知奧爾巴克，“然則我心懷盼望，我斗誌興旺。”
但題目是，現在的多半事情都和查特溫的事情分歧，他的事情事跡重要取決於小我盡力，權衡起來也很輕易。而現在的事情平日須要團隊互助。勝利對小我盡力的依附下降了，而權衡小我盡力縱然有大概，也變得加倍龐雜。在這類情形下，依據事跡付出薪酬常常顯得不公正而隨便，成果反而會消除員工的踴躍性，而不是鼓勵他們。負面情感大概會惡化，員工會尋求小我事跡而不是團隊勝利，從而糟蹋大把時光和精神。
歸根結柢，當事跡可以公正權衡且重要取決於小我盡力時，鼓勵性薪酬是一項有用的對象。然則當事跡權衡的主觀性很高，且事情是由團隊完成時(這恰是現今事情情況中的廣泛情形)鼓勵性薪酬的有用性將會下降。
【參考譯文】
When motivating employees, does pay matter?
Of course it does. People expect to be paid for their work.
But how important is pay to achieving organizational greatness? It turns out, not as important as you might think.
Numerous studies have attempted to find a clear link between pay practices and performance, but have largely failed. In Good to Great, Jim Collins said his team 'found no systematic pattern linking executive compensation to the process of going from good to great.'
There was no indication, for instance, that bonuses or stock options were more widely used by the good-to-great companies. Moreover, Collins found that the executives who lead the good-to-great transition actually received slightly less total cash compensation than their counterparts at comparison companies.
Pfeffer and Sutton come to a similar conclusion about most efforts to boost performance by creating pay incentives:
'There is, in fact, little evidence that equity incentives of any kind, including stock options, enhance organizational performance. One review of more than 220 studies concluded that equity ownership had no consistent effect on financial performance. Another massive study and review of research on executive compensation published by the National Bureau of Economic Research reported that most schemes designed to align managerial and shareholder interests failed to do so.'
It's not that people don't respond to financial incentives. They clearly do. When you pay salespeople commissions based on their sales, for instance, they will always sell more than when you simply pay them a flat salary. The same goes for an individual crafts person who gets paid on a per piece basis.
The Journal's Jon Auerbach captured the kind of supercharged environment that pay incentives can create in a profile of a salesman for EMC Corp. named John Chatwin in 1998. At the time, the company paid salespeople about 65% of their total pay in commissions, and put no cap on the commissions they could earn.
The story begins with Chatwin, an ex college hockey player, fearing he won't make his sales target for the quarter. To ensure that doesn't happen, he shifts into overdrive, calling clients while ferrying relatives to his son's christening, and breaking away from a family barbecue to contact a customer about a deal. 'I may not be brilliant,' Chatwin told Auerbach, 'but I'm hungry, I'm scrappy.'
The problem, however, is that most jobs today aren't like Chatwin's, where performance depends largely on individual effort and can be easily measured. Today's jobs generally involve team work. Success is less due to an individual's effort, and measurement of individual effort becomes more complex, if not impossible. In these situations, pay for performance can often seem unfair and arbitrary, and the result can demotivate, rather than motivate, employees. Resentment can fester, and significant time and energy can be wasted by people trying to get personal credit rather than working for team success.
The bottom line is this: Incentive pay is an effective tool in situations where performance can be fairly measured and where it is based largely on individual effort. But it is less effective in situations - common in today's workplace - where the measurements are highly subjective and the work is done by teams.
市場價：HK$ 110
