Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

SAGE Journal User Guide

Article 1

Swiercz, P. M., & Icenogle, M. (1990). Incentive pay in the public sector: A discriminant analysis of professional employee responses. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(1–2), 71–83.

Topics in this article:

• This study examines an incentive pay system designed for professional employees in the public sector. During a 2-year trial period, 73.6% of the subjects reached production goals and earned the maximum pay (10% above base). Despite the employees' ability to attain maximum earnings, only a slight majority expressed a desire for continuation of the incentive pay program.
• Examination of survey responses indicates that those earning the maximum were the least likely to favor continuation of the program. This study uses multiple discriminant analysis to identify respondent characteristics exerting the greatest influence on their acceptance of this incentive pay system. Implications for designing pay-for-performance plans for professionals are discussed.

Questions from this article:

1. Do you believe that the effectiveness of incentive pay programs will differ across genders, age, or job levels? Why or why not?
2. Why do you believe of those earning the maximum, only a slight majority were most likely to favor continuation of the program?
3. Would the current study produce different results if it were conducted with employees in the private sector? Why or why not?

 

Article 2

Johnson, S. T. (1996). One firm's approach to team incentive pay. Compensation & Benefits Review, 28(5), 47–50.

Topics in this article:

• A prominent New England jewelry manufacturer decided to grow its business by developing a more flexible, broadly skilled, and committed workforce. The company had 12 pay grades and a fixed hourly rate for each employee.
• This article explains how the company achieved its desired outcomes by adopting a continuous process improvement program.

Questions from this article:

1. How should team incentive pay systems differ from individual incentive pay systems?
2. Do you agree with the pool of pay plan design features and performance measures identified on Page 48 of the article? What other measures would be appropriate to add to make the human resource management system optimal?
3. Will the award distribution criteria chosen on Page 50 of the article be effective long term? Why or why not? What are some ways to improve the award distribution criteria? Are continuous improvement programs effective long term in organizations? Why or why not?

 

Article 3

Cole, N. D., & Flint, D. H. (2005). Opportunity knocks: Perceptions of fairness in employee benefits. Compensation & Benefits Review, 37(2), 55–62.

Topics in this article:

• This article considers potential conflicts between the principles of equity, equality. and need in perceptions of fairness regarding employee benefits (based on self-interest bias) and makes specific predictions regarding perceptions of distributive justice in specific benefit plans. It includes predictions regarding perceptions of procedural justice.
• A survey of 497 employees in seven Canadian organizations tested the predictions. Findings indicate that need is still an important criterion for assessing distributive justice in employee benefits, although the survey also found evidence of self-interest bias. Perceptions of procedural justice were found to be significantly higher in plans with extensive communication and employee participation in plan design.

Questions from this article:

1. How should the various elements of equity and justice be applied to develop a compensation plan that is fair to all employees?
2. What are some ways the human resource management department can communicate the organization’s compensation plans so employees see them as fair to all?
3. How can strategic human resource management be applied to compensation plans to maximize the employees’ potential?

 

Article 4

Mulvaney, M. A. (2014). Leave programs/time off and work-stress family employee benefits programs, organizational commitment, and self-efficacy among municipal employees. Public Personnel Management, 43(4), 459–489.

Topics in this article:

• The purpose of this study was to examine the role between family-friendly employee benefits programs (FFEBPs) and organizational commitment and employee motivation (self-efficacy) among a sector of municipal employees.
• Local government professionals—347 of them—completed an online survey that was used to measure the variables of interest. Results found significant mean differences of employees’ job self-efficacy and organizational commitment levels between agencies with work–family stress management FFEBPs and agencies without these programs.

Questions from this article:

1. Discuss all the factors that might explain the significant mean differences of employees’ job self-efficacy and organizational commitment levels between agencies with work–family stress management FFEBPs and agencies without these programs.
2. Would the results of family-friendly employee benefits programs (FFEBPs) and organizational commitment and employee motivation (self-efficacy) among a sector of employees differ if it was applied to different group of employees? Explain.