Question:
Your line manager has asked for a written report on the future of reward management. He has indicated that he believes that the reward strategy of the business should meet the environment in which the business operates.
Please produce a written report citing any references which either backs up or denies this thought. Please use no more than 1500 wordsand use any real-life examples of business cases which support your answer.
All submissions should be in the region of 1,000 – 1,500 words and references should be added in the Harvard Referencing Format. There is a Harvard Referencing tutorial in the Resources Area which outlines the formatting required.
Solution:
High performing organisations manage their reward practices in ways that enable them to predict accurately what innovations are likely to work best and to ensure that what they are doing now delivers the expected results. They try their best to avoid what Kerr (1995) referred to as ‘the folly of rewarding A while hoping for B’. Such organisations adopt an evidence‐based management approach. They appreciate that reward management is not just a soft ‘art’ and that scientific and evidence‐based methodologies are now used increasingly in general management and can readily be applied in the reward field. But despite the very obvious costs of pay budgets, incentive and benefits plans, the spread of sophisticated HR information systems and shared service centres, the widespread adoption of balanced scorecards and near‐ universal pay benchmarking, many organisations seem to have little concrete evidence to evaluate or justify their reward practices.
Heneman (2002) comments that the evaluation of the effectiveness of a strategic reward system is often overlooked, but it is an indispensable final step in the process of implementing a compensation program. Indeed, assessing the effectiveness of any procedure is just as important, if not more so, than its design and execution. And because it is often complicated to evaluate the effectiveness of a reward programme in terms of financial performance, so‐called ‘soft factors’ such as employee behavioural reactions to the programme are sometimes an acceptable replacement.
Scott et al. (2006a) suggest a six-step approach:
1) set goals and objectives,
2) identify evaluation criteria,
3) select an evaluation methodology,
4) collect and analyse data,
5) interpret findings, and
6) develop and implement programme improvement strategies. The report summarized below illustrate in different settings how organisations are wrestling with issues concerning the development, implementation and ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Please contact us to receive guidance and support on this assessment based on your level of expectations and organisation of work