企业员工福利外文翻译文献
工资制度中英文对照外文翻译文献
工资制度中英文对照外文翻译文献工资制度中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)Management Style and FairPaymentTom HusbandThis article discusses the relationship between management style within a firm and the procedures used to determine internal wage and salary differentials. At a time when management styles are apparently becoming less authoritarian and paternalistic in favour of greater worker participation there is obviously a danger of firms using payment techniques which are inappropriate to the current management/worker relationship. Some simple models of workers and organization are used to identify four broad styles of management. These styles are then related to the job evaluation and performance rating techniques in common use in British industry today. Some general conclusions are drawn concerning future trends in payment to suit management style.IntroductionProblems of internal pay structuring have always been of keen interest to both managers and students of British industry. In recent years however the setting of rational and fair pay differentials has taken on a particular significance. Our social andmanagerial attitudes to criteria for reward are changing fast. The whole question of pay relativities is now seen to be central to the establishment of a just industrial society. Within individual firms managers and employees are questioning the traditional approaches to work structuring and wage payment. There is adistinct move from both sides of industry towards a greater degree of employee consultation and participation in the running of the firm. This trend has brought with it fresh approaches to the analysis of work and the determination of equitable wage and salary differentials.A great many British companies have already applied themselves to solving the dynamic problems of work analysis and reward. The majority are probably only now deciding how best to approach these same problems. It is fair to say that a great deal of confusion and even controversy surrounds the issues involved. In the last decade managers have been deluged with new techniques of pay administration.All of these techniques are valid when applied under appropriate conditions. The dilemma which has faced managers is to know which of the techniques is relevant to the solution of their particular problems. There have been many sad cases of mismatch between technique and situation.Managers need an overall company strategy for work analysis and pay. The integration of techniques into a total package of wage and salary administration must reflect the management style employed in the company, as well as recognize the many constraints put on managerial control.Many companies are now facing up to situations where management styles are altering and technological and other influences are changing fast. The company pay strategy has to mirror these changes if it is to remain effective.Ideally the internal payment structure should reflect the organization structure (and hence the structure of responsibility carried across job hierarchy). However there is no single ideal structure of organization and consequently there can be nosingle ideal structure of pay. Each firm has a range of needs which are met or partially met by the measures taken by management. We can begin the argument by examining the management styles associated with the needs of the employee/ manager relationships - the so-called 'psychological contract'.Management Styles and the Psychological ContractObviously the management style used in fulfilling the psychological contract reflects the way in which managers in the company expect employees to behave. Some managerial teams expect their employees to simply have what is known as a 'calculative' involvement with the company. They are expected to do what is required by the goal-setters (the management team) and no more. The contract is fulfilled by paying sufficient wages or salaries to motivate the employees to meet the goals set by the managers. Many small family firms operate this management style and there are possibly a great many large companies too. It is convenient to label this type of management view of the organization as 'goal oriented'. In the extreme such managers might perceive only a single goal (profit ratio, market share, etc) without requiring the employees to have any identification or 'moral involvement' with that goal. A totallydifferent conceptual model of the organization allows for the achievement of a whole range of needs24 Personnel Review Vol 4 Number 4 Autumn 1975by the organization. Managers who conceive of their companies in this fashion see the need for balancing the 'system' of needs. Employees (and especially other, junior managers) are perceived as people whose actions should influence the entire organization not just their own department or subsystem of, for example, production control or purchasing or marketing, etc. Theview held here is that it is no good to have nine tenths of the company's needs being met and the other tenth ignored. It is a 'systems' approach and is a model which is apparent in the management philosophy of our larger and more progressive industrial companies.Between these two polar models of organization there is obviously scope for many other concepts. A pluralistic model, for example would allow for different constituent parts of the organization to have their own separate goals.The models that managers hold of men as distinct from the goals of the company are described in a massive literature of organizational psychology. It is possible in this area also to establish extreme, polar concepts. One extreme would be the assumption that man is a 'rational-economic' animal. Because of this a manager holding such a view might use McGregor's well-known Theory X approach to his subordinate. McGregor1 points out that 'rational-economic' man assumptions imply that man is lazy by nature and is motivated primarily by financial incentives. The employee is seen to need direction and control so that he will work towards the organization's goals. He is seen to be unambitious and reluctant to take responsibility. The assumptions associated with Theory X are, of course, built into the foundations of the Classical organization theories. The employee, in short, is seen to react to his environment.The model of man seen to be at the opposite from the reactive, Theory X man is McGregor's Theory Y approach. Assumptions on which Theory Y are based include the fact that most men do not dislike work, they seek a challenge from the work environment and in fact welcome the opportunity to achieve a 'moral' involvement with the organization. Underappropriate conditions the employee, says Theory Y, will seek out responsibility and is capable of imagination, ingenuity and creativity.There have been several attempts to classify the various models of man and organization, a notable example being the typology developed by Etzioni2. For the purpose of this present discussion, however, the simple model constructed by Limerick3 to show the type of management style implied by management's assumptions about men and organization seems appropriate. The model takes the form of the matrix shown in Figure 1 below: Reactive Man Self-Active ManGoal Organization AuthoritarianManagementConsultativeManagementSystem Organization PaternalisticManagementParticipativeManagementFigure 1 The Limerick Matrix of Management StylesThe matrix suggests that if management holds Theory X (reactive man) assumptions and sees the organization as being single goal orientated, the style implied is authoritarian. At the other extreme, should the assumptions be of Theory Y nature and the organization be seen as systems orientated, the model implies that the strategy is participative. It must be borne in mind, of course, that this classification represents pure types of organization which probably do not exist as such in practice. It is meant to be a relative model which shows only the extreme assumptions and implied strategies. It is, however, veryimportant to be able to put the problem of differing styles into some perspective.Equitable PaymentThe four styles of management proposed in the model can be considered with special reference to problems of equitable payment. Authoritarian management is typified by the proposals of the Classical management theorists (eg Fayol,Urwick, Gulick). The organization is managed along the universal principles of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling and the structure is pyramidal with great emphasis on line authority. There is rigid specialization and departmentalization. Participation by non-management in meeting the organization's goal is severely restricted.In paternalistic management the systems needs of the organization must be met by those employees who are not seen to be reactive. Thus, for example, some large, sophisticated industrial organizations typically perceive themselves to have 'systems' of needs, the non-managers and even junior management are seen as reactive while the senior management team is often assumed to consist of self-active men. Here the senior managers assume that they have to meet their subordinates' needs for them; say by providing preferential pension schemes and welfare benefits and cheap canteens, sometimes with little consultation with the employees involved.A paternalistic organization is also typified by a pyramidal structure and an emphasis on line authority. Paternalism is improved over the authoritarian strategy in that employees are often allowed to present alternatives for action in non-task activities. Many British concerns are run on clearly paternalistic lines. There are several well-known, large organizations (typicallythe major employers in their respective communities) which adopt a 'cradle to grave', protective attitude to their employees. In the past such firms tended to discourage trade union representation believing that a company union or association could better meet the needs of their workpeople.In a paternalistic company one would expect the pay level for shop floor and clerical workers to be relatively low, the employees being compensated by superiorwelfare benefits and greater job security in general. In an authoritarian firm the pay levels in the lower job grades could be expected to be slightly higher (for the same economic and technological conditions) than in the paternalistic company. In fact, however, some of the larger well established paternalistic concerns often have a reputation for paying basic wages and salaries above the norm.A consultative management strategy implies that man is seen as self-active but requires to be directed so that his needs are integrated with the goal of the organization. The manager's functions are, as in the authoritarian strategy, to plan, organize, motivate and control but in this case the process is carried out in such a way that maximum autonomy for employees is allowed without endangering the goal of the organization. The strategy implies a pyramidal structure with only a limited recognition of the non-managers' right to be heard. Participation is allowed to the extent that employees can present alternatives for action in task activities. The style of management is man-to-man but the strategy is also characterized by the use of joint consultative conferences and the like.Participative management assumes that self-active man will make a responsible contribution to the achievement of thesystem's needs. The manager's function is to act as a monitor of the system needs and to create conditions in which they can be met. This strategy implies a fluid, 'organic' structure and recognizes both formal, line authority and the authority of non-executives as a result of their personal expertise. Group work is encouraged and, in participating, employees are allowed to present and evaluate alternative courses of action.In the consultative and participative strategies, then, employees are encouraged to view the organization as a unitary system. Because of this, one would expect to find the pay of low level jobs being compared, formally, to that of the higher-level jobs. In short, one could expect an approach to an all-company job evaluated pay structure since employees are concerned more with the company as a whole compared with their counterparts in companies managed by the first two strategies outlined above. Participation and PaymentThere appears to be some movement towards greater involvement of all employees in the management of British firms. The mood of the day suggests that authoritarian management is fast becoming unacceptable to employees and that even paternalism is unwelcome.At least one large British corporation has developed work designs which eliminate the need for the traditional foreman.The workers operate in teams which decide, for themselves,on the allocation of work duties, shift rota details, holiday arrangement details and the like. More importantly the workers participate, in the true sense, in writing the team's job description and consequent pay grade. Obviously this type of job design and organizational thinking greatly affects a company's philosophy of work and reward. If the apparent trend towards greaterparticipation continues we can therefore expect to see a greater emphasis on the workers' 'knowledge' authority. The managerial style used by a company is clearly important in deciding the most appropriate forms of work analysis and reward. It is obviously wrong for a companywhich is, say, essentially paternalistic to install pay systems which depend on true participation for their effectiveness. Yet this is not at all unusual.If there really is a strong move towards consultative and participative management styles across British industry what are the implications for payment techniques in the future? Managers usually apply two types of technique - one, job evaluation, to provide a ranking of job value in terms of basic wages or salaries and, two, merit rating (or performance appraisal, or incentive systems) to provide a means of rewarding individual employee effort and achievement.Job evaluation techniques which yield a single, company-wide payment structure would seem to offer promise within participative firms. Two fairly recent ideas fit the specification ideally. Elliott Jaques' widely discussed time span of discretion system developed in his famous Glacier Project suggests that all jobs at all levels within a firm can be evaluated and rewarded in terms of a single criterion. That criterion is the responsibility carried by the employee in his job and is measured in terms of the time he has to wait to find if his tasks or decisions have been effective. The longer the time span the greater the responsibility and the higher the reward. In addition Jaques has found that when time span values are plotted against the corresponding 'felt fair' wages or salaries a specific distribution exists. Thus he can analyse all jobs in the company in terms of the time spanmechanism and produce a payment structure which relates, on one graph, the pay of the labourer and copy typist gto that for the sales manager and managing director. The time span approach has not so far been widely implemented for job evaluation purposes (although it is a well recognized and valuable approach in other areas such as management development). Is it likely to become more popular? If the trend in management style is towards more participation the answer must surely be no. Because the evaluation criterion (time span) and the pay distribution are so well defined and specified it is extremely difficult to see how employees can participate in its implementation. Employees are forced to accept that the company 'knows best' (paternalism implied) or that the company has the right to enforce the system of its choice (autocracy implied).A second, and superficially similar proposal, comes from Paterson whose decision band technique of job evaluation and payment structure is currently being widely discussed. Paterson's sole criterion of job value is the hierarchical level of decision-making required by the job. The higher the decision level (policy-making as against routine, procedural decisions) the greater the responsibility implied and the higher the reward. The decision band method is applied to all jobs in the company and provides a specific shape of payroll distribution. (When wages and salaries for the jobs are plotted on a log scale against their decision levels a straight line should be achieved. Paterson argues that this exponential relationship is a necessity for internal payment equity.) Again, as in Jaques' proposals, there appears to be too much predetermination to allow for much employee participation in applying the scheme. However Paterson is muchless rigid in his approach and accepts that certain job factors have to be bargained and paid for in addition to the payment levels established by decision band grading. The fact that Paterson's method is now in use in several British firms and is about to be applied to all jobs within the Danish civil service implies its acceptability. The method probably will be used considerably in future since, although the decision level framework is inflexible, the analysis of jobs emphasizes the 'knowledge' authority of the employee to a very considerable extent. In short the system puts high value on information and advice for decisionmaking as well as the decision-making itself. It must be said however that, in itself, the decision band approach is unlikely to be widely applied as a job evaluation technique within craft union job families. The great attraction of the method is the provision of a payment structure and evaluation framework which can be used as a valuable guide in bargaining and consultation situations.The conventional methods of job evaluation can be applied in an autocratic or democratic fashion by management. The hybrid forms of job evaluation, developed by firms of consultants,which tend to make use of the most relevant aspects of a number of separate schemes possibly hold the greatest promise for participative firms. By allowing as many employees as is feasible to participate in the ranking and grading of jobs, management can develop a genuinely acceptable profile of the job values. The snag with conventional and hybrid schemes is that they provide separate payment structures for separate job families. A system such as the decision band method is then required to knit the component pay structures into a company-wide whole.In payment for individual performance the greatest emphasis seems to lie, still, on incentive schemes for manual workers. In the orthodox incentive system management control depends heavily on stop watch time standards. Employees are inclined to be seen as having the 'calculative involvement' noted earlier in the goal oriented philosophy. In moving from an individual incentive system to measured daywork the workers are seen to be less reactive and more self-active.26 Personnel Review Vol 4 Number 4 Autumn 1975They are consulted with a view to improving methods and production planning. In the plant-wide bonus schemes (such as the Scanlon or the Rucker Plans) the employees are seen to have a 'moral involvement' with the company's total objectives. To achieve this degree of involvement often requires that the employees gain access to information which has been considered to be traditionally for management eyes only. It calls, in fact, for true participation.Thus the orthodox piecework systems tend to fit best with an authoritarian management style; measured daywork with a consultative style; plant wide schemes with participation. Where do the paternalistic companies fit? Typically they employ merit rating systems which assess (through the supervisor's rating) how well the employee matches the company norms in terms, typically, of quality and quantity of work, initiative, team spirit and timekeeping.The appraisal of managers' performances has recently been seen to be appropriately tackled by the Management-by- Objectives approach. This calls for a considerable degree of participation or at least consultation in agreeing with a subordinate manager what constitutes realistic future targets forhim to achieve. On the face of it this type of approach appears to have continuing promise for the future. There are some mechanical problems often associated with applying MBO but its participative forward-looking basis is surely appropriate.We come to the view then that as firms change their management styles from authoritarian/paternalistic to consultative/ participative they must review the nature of their payment strategies. Hopefully the management style will match the mood of the firm's employees and, in turn, be reflected in the determination of an equitable payment structure. It is obviously wrong to apply techniques, however sophisticated, which will call for a management style which does not exist in the company. Equally it is just as wrong to persevere with techniques which were right for the management style and the mood of the employees ten years ago but inappropriate today.If the trend towards consultation and participation does gather force we can expect to see job evaluation in terms of the hybrid type with maximum employee participation in its implementation. We can also expect a move towards a single company-wide payment structure using a system such as Paterson's decision band framework to integrate the separate job family structures. The trend towards measured daywork and plant-wide incentives should also gather force. Executives can expect to have their performances appraised more and more by an MBO type of system (although the details may vary from the current MBO models).We must not be too sure however that there will be a rush away from authoritarian/paternalistic styles. People in industry, as in all walks of life, are resistant to change. The managers who are most important in making participative payment strategiesoperational are those in the middle levels. Unfortunately, many such managers do not or cannot accept the validity of worker participation and would, consequently, be unable to apply the newer schemes successfully. However it is difficult to see the trend being resisted in the long run. We should be ready for it and plan payment strategies accordingly. It is too important an issue to ignore.管理风格和公正的工资制度约翰本文主要涉及在固定范围内公司的管理风格和确定内部工资差别的程序的关系。
企业薪酬体系设计外文文献翻译中文字数3000多字
文献信息：Prasetya A.Enterprises salary system design and performance evaluation [J] Economic crisis, health systems and health in Europe，2015,5（2）：103-112.原文Enterprises salary system design and performance evaluationPrasetya AAbstractAny effective way of management must rely on a basis: people, all the staff of enterprises. Compensation system as an important aspect of enterprise management system, for an enterprise to attract, retain and motivate employees have a significant impact, attract, retain and motivate key talent, has become the core of the enterprise recognized goal. The compensation system design is not only an effective way to realize the core objective, is also an important content of modern enterprise development.Keywords: salary system and equity incentive, senior executives, design1 IntroductionHuman capital to the enterprise wealth maximization, the greatest degree of retaining key talent, attract potential talent, the basic principals and successful is perfect competitive compensation system. With the concept of human capital is more and more people Heart, attract, retain and motivate key talent, has become the core of enterprise determine target, compensation system for enterprises An important aspect of the system, to attract talents play an important role. Compensation system design is an effective way to reality is the core objective, but also an important content of the development of the enterprise to modernization, so the height weight by enterprises Depending on the.2 Literature reviewEarly in the traditional compensation phase, the employers always minimize workers to cut costs as much as possible, and through this method make the Labor of workers have to work harder in order to get paid enough to make a living. William. First, Quesnay’s minimum wage theory is that wages and other commodities, there is a natural value, namely maintain staff minimum standard of living life informationvalue, the minimum wage for workers does not depend on the enterprise or the employer's subjective desire, but the result of the competition in the market. The classical economists Muller believed that certain conditions, the total capital in the enterprise salary depends on the labor force and for the purchase of labor relationship between capital and other capital; For the payment of capital wage fund is difficult to change in the short term. Wages fund quantity depends on two factors: one is a worker, directly or indirectly, in the production of products and services production efficiency; the other one is in the process of production of these goods directly or indirectly employ labor quantity. With the development of era, the simple forms of employment have already can't satisfy the demand of the workers, so some interests to share views was put forward to motivate workers.On this basis, the Gantt invented the "complete tasks rewarded" system to perfect the incentive measures. Represented by American economist Becker’s theory of human capital school of thought argues that human capital is determined by the human capital investment, is present in the human body to the content of knowledge, skills, etc. Martin Weizmann share of economic theory that wages should be linked to corporate profits. Increase in profits, employee wages fund, increased profits, and employee wages fund. Between enterprises and employees is the key of the labor contract is not in a fixed wage of how many, but in the division of labor both sides share proportion. In modern compensation phase, the contents of the compensation has been changed, increased a lot of different compensation models, and more and more pay attention to employee's personal feelings and development, employees can even according to individual condition choose different salary portfolio model. Employees can be paid off on surface of the material and spiritual.3 Pay system overviewIn the past the traditional pay system, usually are business owners value orientation as the guide to carry on the design. With the continuous development of the overall market environment, in the modern enterprise management concept has also changed. They are aware of the established compensation system should adapt to the employee benefit as a starting point, the self-interest pursuit and employeedemand together, to establish a set of enterprises and employees to maximize the interests of the two-way, so as to achieve win-win situation. Since the 90 s, the western developed economies in the enterprise owners and managers try to change the traditional form of compensation, relocation compensation system, the importance of also constantly try to innovate salary system of design and diversification.Performance pay system is established in accordance with the enterprise organization structure based on the results of the individual or team performance appraisal for salary distribution system. Total compensation is generally associated with individual or team performance. Now the enterprise model is used to combine individual performance and team performance. At the same time will be long term incentive and short-term incentive flexible model. In this kind of pay structure, contains a variety of forms of performance pay.Skill-based pay system on the basis of employees' skill determine employee wages level, and to the improvement of skills as their employees progress criteria. The compensation model can encourage employees to continuously learn new knowledge, to keep up with The Times, is the industry leader, when technology and equipment upgrades to the fastest response time to complete the change, and is helpful to form the learning corporate culture. If for flat organization structure, management jobs and opportunities for advancement are less, the compensation system can be very skillful professionals to make up for in terms of compensation. But with technical compensation system with the problem is that the enterprise needs to pay for a large number of staff training, and if the participants of the training is not all to use knowledge in actual production, enterprises will not be able to obtain benefits, resulting in wasted costs.Total compensation is the unity of the material reward and spiritual reward. Among them, external compensation including all in monetary form of economic compensation, internal compensation includes not to substantial form of economic compensation, more focused on the return of spirit. John’s Lipoma at the end of last century proposed the compensation design, customization and diversity is more representative of the overall package. He should show that the basic wage, additionalsalary, salary welfare, work supplies allowance, bonus, promotion and development opportunities, psychological income, life quality, and individual factors that ten compensation factors into consideration, the formation of compensation system, the design method is different from the past traditional salary structure, is the biggest different compensation system design approach from the owner as the center to the worker as the center, employees can choose a suitable for their own pay combination, is no longer a passive receiver. In this compensation mode, economic compensation and the economical compensation together, paying equal attention to material and spiritual.4 The implementation of the compensation system designSalary survey is the key in the compensation system design. It is not only the necessary to understand the enterprise existing compensation system, is also the basis of compensation system design again. Salary survey should be real in-depth internal employee survey, as far as possible let employees at all levels give true feelings, make compensation system designers understand the staff for the specific demands of overall compensation. In had certain understanding of the current salary system and problems, will determine the compensation system on that basis to the general principles of design. Compensation system and the determination of design general principle also should according to the specific conditions of different enterprise itself to specific design. At the same time, according to the general principle to determine the scope of the staff at the level of compensation.Enterprise in selecting the most suitable for their own compensation system, the following sections are often the most concern, such as the division of different levels and at the same level of position within the sort, the post assessment results and with the duty staff due to personal quality differences between how to determine the pay difference. Enterprise in selecting the most suitable for their own compensation system, the following sections are often the most concern, such as the division of different levels and at the same level of position within the sort, the post assessment results and with the duty staff due to personal quality differences between how to determine the pay difference.Enterprise operators and management personnel representing the highest quality, at the same time they also foreign representative enterprise image, and holds the enterprise the way forward. They tend to have certain matter accumulation, more the pursuit of spiritual satisfaction and the realization of self-worth. For management personnel shall be designed to be scientific and reasonable compensation system, comprehensive consideration, not only give reasonable compensation in terms of material, at the same time to consider their spiritual pursuit.General manager's daily work mainly are transactional, administrative work, but is not directly concerned with the production related, so during the design compensation system will post wage and performance wage together, thus the personal salary combined with enterprise business objectives. To general managers to take a wider range of incentives, such as the annual performance review top employees equity incentives, encourage managers over fulfilled the goal, and form a competitive atmosphere of the company culture, drive the enterprise vitality. Increase the general manager’s shareholding proportion.For the use of EV A on the sales staff, can draw lessons from Tula bank ever take method, the sales staff to set up a commission system based on EV A. Each sales staff receives a salary, in addition to qualification to get bonuses, the bonus amount depends on the "added value" has created. So that the program works: the company will be the added value of products are listed out, after distribution after the full cost of the product. The finance department monthly compiled a list of each product and added value of the net sales report. Each sales staff receives a copy of the report, as well as the use of the added value of the net total details of its own performance in the same format of monthly report. Further to deduct from the added value of net pay, perks and other fees and should share part of the management fee. After adjusting for these report line represents the added value.5 ConclusionIn the modern enterprises increasingly competitive today, talents become the key factor of enterprise long-term development more and more Business owners. And how to retain existing talent, and recruit more people of insight to join together createenterprise Interest, become the compulsory subject of enterprise owners and management, and improve the compensation system is retaining talents and attracting talents essential link.译文企业薪酬体系设计与绩效评估Prasetya A摘要任何一种行之有效的管理方式的运用都必须依赖于一个基础：人，企业的所有员工。
员工奖金制度外文翻译文献
文献信息：文献标题：Effects of staff bonus systems on safety behaviors（员工奖金制度对安全行为的影响）国外作者：M.Mattson，I.Torbiörn，J.Hellgren文献出处：《Human Resource Management Review》,2013,24(1):17-30 字数统计：英文2461单词，13345字符；中文4221汉字外文文献：Effects of staff bonus systems on safety behaviors Abstract Bonus systems are a common means in trying to motivate employees to perform well. However, there is still disagreement regarding the effects of bonus systems. Some theories even suggest that such systems could cause an increase in risk-behavior. This makes further research regarding bonus systems warranted, especially when applied in high-risk organizations. This study aims to explore potential effects on safety-related behavior associated with bonus systems currently used at Swedish nuclear power plants. Fifteen semi-structured interviews with employees were performed based on an eclectically composed framework from motivational and organizational theories. Results do not indicate any negative effects on safety-related behaviors, but rather that safety behaviors may be promoted insofar as bonus rewards are linked to performance goals concerning safety. Differences in bonus system design appeared to affect behavioral outcomes. The comparative and qualitative approach of this study contributes valuable information by highlighting the types of factors that may serve to stimulate greater incentive for employees to engage in safe behavior.Keywords: Bonus; Pay system; Incentive; Motivation; Nuclear power plant; Safety1.IntroductionA large proportion of companies around the world are presently making use of monetary incentives in the form of so-called bonus systems in order to motivate employees to perform better (Patton, 1972). However, there are still disagreements regarding the real effect of bonuses on motivation and performance (Pfeffer, 1997). While a few studies have found indications of increased motivation and improved performance due to monetary incentives such as bonuses under some conditions (e.g. Engellandt & Riphahn, 2011; Kahn & Sherer, 1990), there are also studies showing no or even negative effects of incentive systems.Workplace accidents are increasingly common and one of the biggest issues facing employers today is the safety of their employees. Organizational practices that promote safety are vital for organizations in general and high-risk organizations in particular. As a consequence, many high-risk organizations use bonus systems that are more or less directed towards achieving safety through improved safety-related performance among its employees. However, empirical research is scant regarding the effects of these systems and the results from the little research that has been conducted are mixed as well. Some evidence suggests that bonus systems that reward safety behavior could result in a decreased accident frequency (Goodrum & Gangwar, 2004). However, other research suggests that bonus systems designed to reward employees for working injury-free over a set period of time could be detrimental due to underreporting of accidents as a result of fear among the workforce of losing their bonus. This could result in continuing problems and risks that may otherwise have been attended to (Cooper, 2001; Miozza & Wyld, 2002).Given the ambiguous empirical evidence of the effects of bonus systems, organizations making use of these kinds of systems take an imminent risk of obtaining unintended, and even undesirable, effects. This could be especially harmful to certain kinds of organizations, such as those dealing with operations involving high risks. Several reviews indicate that bonuses could be particularly detrimental to performance when the task is intrinsically interesting enough and when the task is complex enough that flexible thinking is needed (e.g. McGraw, 1978). Consideringthe complexity and high technology characterizing the environment in many high reliability organizations (HRO's), these findings implicate that bonus systems could potentially pose a threat to safety. This may be especially relevant when confronted with an accident situation where complexity and ambiguity are particularly evident. More research is therefore warranted regarding which factors involved in bonus systems that are perceived as motivating by the employees and in extension, that promote safety-related behaviors.The aim of the present field study was to find out whether bonus systems could compromise safety in nuclear power plants and other high-risk organizations. The main question concerned the potential effects on motivation and safety-related behavior that could be associated with the use of bonus systems by identifying factors that could possibly affect safety via changes in behavior. The data used in the study comes from in-depth interviews with employees at three Swedish nuclear power plants where employee bonus systems are currently applied. The systems applied at the three plants have considerable differences in design, which enabled a tentative comparative analysis of the perceived motivational effects due to these differences.The study also innovates by adopting a qualitative approach using a theoretical analysis and in-depth interviews in investigating potential behavioral effects. To date, qualitative approaches such as in the present study are unusual when it comes to examination of monetary rewards and safety. The more frequently used quantitative studies in the field offer valuable information about relations between different factors, such as between the application of bonus systems and particular safety outcomes, but they do not provide us with any deeper understanding of the underlying causes of those relations. The qualitative and comparative nature of this study could contribute by reducing the gap between research and practice in the application of bonus systems in high-risk organizations. This could be achieved through the offering of valuable information in this regard by highlighting the types of factors and goals that may serve to stimulate greater incentive for employees to avoid risk and engage in safe behavior.2.Methods2.1.Elaboration of a theoretical frameworkAs part of the design of our study, one aim was to first establish which role monetary rewards in general might play according to a broader spectrum of theories. Hence, an elaboration of theories on motivation, organizational perspectives and previous research regarding safety-related bonus systems was performed. The intent with such an eclectic approach was to produce a theoretical frame of reference through the generation of different themes that were considered to be relevant for the functioning of bonus systems and, more specifically, safety behaviors. The theoretical models selected to provide the themes for the study were those that could in some way be related to the effects from monetary rewards, and none of them were therefore given overall precedence. The emerging themes were then used as a platform, both for the interviews with the employees at the power plants and for the subsequent interpretation of the data obtained from the interviews and from the mapping of the bonus systems (see Fig. 1).2.2.An eclectic framework for exploring potential effects of bonus systemsVarious types of theories on the assumed effects of rewards on motivation, performance and safety have been brought together with the purpose of forming a broad and eclectic theoretical framework for the present study. Table 1 shows a variety of aspects of possible relevance for the effects of bonus systems as such aspects are derived from theories or empirical evidence. As the various motivational and organizational theories referred to in the table are basic and well known they are not described in the text but samples of general references are given in Table 1. Based on the aspects listed in Table 1, seven major key themes were identified and used as a platform and guide for both the interviews and the analysis of data. Table 2 shows the overriding themes and the types of theories from which they were extracted.2.3.SettingThe study was carried out at all three presently active Swedish nuclear power plants. All three plants had approximately 1000–1500 employees each and were about the same physical size (3–4 reactors each). They had similar hierarchical structures in which the service and support staffs worked directly under the CEO's. Each reactor encompassed a discrete production unit that was comprised of several subgroups (e.g., operator shift teams, maintenance teams). Today, the plants are all incorporated companies.Table 3 shows the percentages of maximum bonus for plants A–C contingent upon economic vs. quality goals, corporate vs. plant goals, and group vs. individual goals. Bonus goals related to production and economic results varied between 25 and 50% among the plants. The remaining portions of maximum bonuses were based on quality goals. The nature of these goals differed to some extent among the three systems but mainly focused on competence and process development as well as safety-related issues. All of the three bonus systems applied to all permanently employed staff members (except the plant managing director and vice president). Anybonus was paid retrospectively on a yearly basis. At plants A and B, the potentialbonus was limited to a maximum amount of 20,000 Swedish crowns (SEK) annually per person. At plant C, the quality goals also included certain individual goals. These goals were separate from those concerning regular work tasks and often focused on behaviors regarding safety awareness. The maximum potential bonus at plant C was limited to a certain percentage (10–30%) of the individual's yearly salary, which differed among staff categories (with higher percentages applying to higher positions).The goals to be used in the systems were decided by the managing director after consultation with executives and operational managers. Generally, other employees were not able to influence the selection of goals, except possibly through the unions. However, at plant C, individual goals were set, and even evaluated, through a collaboration of the individual and his or her immediate supervisor. In this case, the individual part of the bonus was based on the manager's final evaluation of whether the criteria were fulfilled, on a scale between 0–110%. Otherwise, the goals, criteria, and estimated rewards of the bonus system were communicated continuously, for example, through the internal website. In some cases a method using balanced scorecards was used in the system. Scorecards of this kind generally apply to strategic and measurable goals that can be either of a financial or of a qualitative (e.g. learning in the organization) character. The bonus system had had these designs for about two to four years at the time of the present investigation. The specific goals of the systems are, however, revised yearly and the size of the bonuses often varies from one year to another. Employees usually end up earning some bonus, but they rarely receive their full potential bonus.As can be seen in Table 3, the three systems differed in the extent to which they emphasized goal achievement at the corporate, plant, and individual levels. At plant A, all of the goals were set at the corporate and plant levels and were thus the same for all employees. The system at plant B holds, besides a major share of bonuses related to plant level results, also a share (15%) set at a lower, group level. At plant C, as much as 40% of the maximum bonus was related to individual goals, but nothing to goals defined at group level.In Table 3, each bonus system has been given a denotation or keyword indicatingto what degree they emphasize collective or individual goals. The keyword does not mention the systems' design on the economic-quality goal dimension, but is only intended to facilitate the further reading by offering a short denotation of one of the main characteristics of each system.2.4.SampleFive employees from each of the three nuclear power plants (A, B, and C) were selected to participate in the study. To obtain this sample, one of the interviewees at each plant was first selected as a contact person for the study, based on advice from the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, the public authority in charge of controlling the nuclear plants. The contact persons in turn proposed four additional employees at their plant for participation. The contact persons had been prompted to select employees who could have varied views and experiences of the systems and who represented different functions and positions in the organization. Four of the participants were middle level managers, four were lower level managers (operational) and seven were workers. Of the workers, five worked in production shift teams (e.g. control room personnel) and two worked with maintenance. None of the participants were top-level managers, such as CEO or vice president. The final sample consisted of two women and thirteen men, which corresponds fairly well to the general proportion within the plants. The age range of the participants was 32–63 years.3.ConclusionsDrawing on general theories of motivation, our study presents a useful framework for examining the possible effects that bonus systems may have on employee motivation and safety behavior. Applying this approach as reflected in our interview guide and in the data obtained, nothing was found to indicate that thesystems under study should negatively affect safety behaviors, for example, in terms of increased risk taking or underreporting. All three systems seemed to have problems achieving any significant effects on behaviors. They all lacked in incentive intensity and motivational effects due to different problems within their design. To the degree that the systems at all influenced safety behaviors, the effects appear to be positive and directly mediated by the bonus goals being related to safety issues and also indirectly mediated by the pronounced safety concerns framing the systems. All three systems also appeared to have some positive effects on the respondents' general work motivation, due to the system's role in clarifying priorities, creating a sense of participation, and bringing about appreciation and recognition for those involved. The results indicate that group or team based goals seem to be a good middle way of avoiding unsafe competition and feelings of unfairness but still creating a clear link between behavior and reward. However, in order to achieve positive effects, the results imply that it is essential to set goals aimed at realistic quality improvements (such as safety issues) instead of economic achievements and to create feelings of participation among the employees. Clear information and feedback, a design that is perceived as fair and the avoidance of goal conflicts also seems to be of great importance in order to create incentives for safe behaviors.The results of the present study can have practical implications in a number of ways. Bonus systems of different kinds are today a popular means of trying to achieve corporate goals. The possible negative impact that a badly designed system could have on factors such as safety should be of critical interest not only for power plants, but also for HRO's in general. Although the results from the present study do not indicate that the systems posed any significant risks to safety, it cannot be presumed that such bonus systems may not do so in other HRO's. Such a risk could arise even if many of the bonus goals were to relate directly to safety concerns, as was the case at the studied plants. Still, the results indicating that the three systems and their motivational effects were perceived in clearly distinct ways by the employees at the three nuclear power plants due to their differences, underline the importance of system design in preventing negative effects on safety.中文译文：员工奖金制度对安全行为的影响摘要奖金制度是一个试图激励员工来更好地完成工作的常见的手段。
外文翻译--员工福利与公共政策
外文文献翻译译文原文：Employee Benefits and Public PolicyRichard W. HumphreysINTRODUCTIONAn important issue in the field of employee responsibilities and rights is whether these matters are best dealt with by national policy (as in the cases of collective bargaining and social security),subnational determination (as in the cases of private health care insurance and pensions), or a combination of the two. In the United States, the variety of public and private approaches to arrangements for employee responsibilities and rights calls for their careful scrutiny to determine if the resulting "system" is (1) adequate for conserving human resources in an economic sense and (2) equitable in terms of sharing in the returns to production.The thesis of this article is that national goals regarding privately sponsored retirement and group insurance programs have not been met and are not likely to be met with the institutional apparatus currently in use. It is suggested that when revenue legislation, regulatory legislation, and minimum standards legislation is considered, the inescapable conclusion is that universal provision of employment-based retirement and group insurance benefits is a national goal. An obvious measure of the failure to attain this goal is the number of members of the labor force who are not covered by privately sponsored retirement and group insurance benefits, after three-quarters of a century of legislative encouragement. A less obvious but nonetheless equally informing measure is the extent to which members of the labor force who are covered by privately sponsored benefit programs are exposed to the loss and/or reduction of and termination of those benefits throughout their working careers.This examination of national employee benefits goals is occasioned by the evidence that our capacity to achieve further private sector benefits coverage throughtax expenditures and regulatory legislation has been exhausted, by the evidence that virtually all of labor force growth will occur in sectors that rarely sponsor employee benefit programs, and by the growing recognition that there is an approaching crisis with respect to the financing of privately sponsored health care benefits. OVERVIEWEmployee benefits account for a substantial and growing portion of compensation. Depending on what is counted and how it is counted they range in value from approximately one-fifth to two-fifths of compensation. The most recent figures available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Bureau of National Affairs, 1989) indicate that benefits account for 27.3% of total compensation for all workers in private industry. This figure varies depending upon which industrial sector is under consideration, and upon occupation, location, and union status.Benefits for workers in goods-producing industries accounted for 30.8% of compensation, with the figure for service workers equaling 23.2%. While compensation costs for white-collar workers exceeded the cost for blue-collar Workers, benefits for the latter (30.9% of compensation) accounted for a larger portion of compensation than for the former (25.8% of compensation). Benefits for workers located in the Northeast, as well as total earnings, were the highest, while those in the South were the lowest. Benefits for union workers accounted for 33.6% of compensation in contrast with 25.6% for nonunion workers.The Bureau of Labor Statistics calculations encompass paid nonworking time, premium pay, group insurance, retirement and savings plans, and legally required benefits. Some calculations exclude legally required benefits. When this is done, benefits as a portion of compensation account for approximately one-fifth of the total. Then, too, the Bureau calculates benefits as a portion of total compensation where direct compensation is equated with hours paid rather than hours worked. If benefits are expressed as the difference between total compensation and compensation for hours worked, then benefits as a portion of compensation rise to approximately two-fifths of the total. The latter procedure serves as the relatively common basis for determining the cost of benefits at the bargaining table.Regardless of how the portion of compensation accounted for by benefits is determined it is the portion accounted for by group insurance, including health care insurance and retirement plans, that is the focus here. This is the case because it is the risk-sharing and deferred income programs constituting the elements of indirect compensation that are the subject of public policy from the perspective of both federally authorized tax expenditures and federal regulation. There are, for instance, no federal regulations governing paid nonworking time and there is no tax expenditure. Compensation for paid vacations, paid holidays, and paid rest periods appears in the pay check and it is subject to current taxation. This is also true of various forms of penalty and premium pay such as reporting pay, call-back pay, call-in pay, overtime pay, pay for holidays worked, and shift differential. Compensation for these purposes also appears in the pay check, is subject to current taxation, and is not subject to federal regulation with the possible exception that under the Fair Labor Standards Act nonexempt employees must be paid one-and-one-half times their normal rate of pay when they work over 40 hours per week.In contrast with the benefits that are incorporated as a portion of direct compensation there is, for benefits taking the form of indirect compensation, a substantial federal presence in the form of tax expenditures and regulation. The magnitude of this presence is emphasized by a Congressional Budget Office finding that the tax expenditure for private pensions was $60 billion in 1988 and represented the single largest tax avoidance item in the individual income tax structure (Mitchell, 1985). According to Representative Dan Rostenkowski there is an additional tax expenditure for health care benefits ranging between $30 and $40 billion (Pension World,July 1989).A $100-billion-dollar annual tax expenditure constitutes clear and convincing evidence of Congressional support for employment-based retirement and health care benefits. This is not a policy of recent origin. Tax expenditures in support of private pensions date back to passage of the Federal Income Tax Act in 1913. Under the provisions of that legislation, employers could treat pension liabilities accruing in the current tax year as an ordinary business expense. However, the income from pensiontrusts was subject to taxation and employees were taxed during their active service on the amount contributed for their benefit and during their retired years on pension payments. There was no tax exemption for employer payments to fund past service benefits.Under these provisions employees were taxed on employer contributions for benefits they might never receive and employers were allowed to deduct contributions from gross income while remaining free to amend or terminate the plan at any time and divert the funds for other--i.e., nonbenefit-uses.PROBLEMS WITH OUR PRIV ATE BENEFIT SYSTEM IN TERMS OF MEETING THE NEED TO INSURE RISKSIt is a unique feature of our private benefit system that only those who voluntarily sponsor employee benefit programs are subject to regulation. Employers who fail to do so are not concerned about the plethora of regulatory legislation that has sprung out of Congressional attempts to prevent distortion of public policy. If you do not sponsor a welfare plan you do not have to concern yourself with satisfying Section 89 (Internal Revenue Code) nondiscrimination rules. If you do not sponsor health insurance you do not need to tell terminating employees that they are entitled to purchase coverage for 18 months at 102% of the sponsor's cost for such coverage. If you do not sponsor a defined benefit pension you do not have to worry about maintaining your funding standard account, you do not have to pay a premium ranging from $16 to $50 per employee to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, and you do not have to worry about exposing your firm to a liability equal to 30% of net worth in the event of plan termination. While these regulations are presumably required, there are many benefits administrators who argue that they discourage the behavior public policy intends to encourage.The content of our revenue and regulatory legislation also calls attention to another unique feature of our private benefit system. It emphasizes the fact that you must be an employee of a firm that sponsors a retirement program and a group insurance program. When employment is interrupted or a plan is terminated, coverage is interrupted.In the case of pensions this characteristic is of profound significance because attainment of adequate retirement income is contingent upon continuity of coverage. It takes a lifetime of covered employment to earn a benefit replacing a reasonable portion of preretirement income. To illustrate, given a formula that provides for a benefit equal to 1.5% of the highest three out of the last five years of earnings (preceding retirement) times years of service, it would take almost 45 years of uninterrupted employment to replace two-thirds of preretirement income and thirty-three-and-one-third years to achieve a 50% replacement ratio. It is not necessary to know how many or how few workers have such employment histories to recognize that a system that is characterized by such a requirement is a system that compromises the future of all participants at its worst and impedes the attainment of efficient labor markets at its best.It could be argued that the need for uninterrupted coverage over an extended period of time has been addressed by the most recently adopted minimum vesting standards. Under ERISA's original provisions, plans were permitted to adopt one of three vesting standards, viz., full vesting after 10 years of service (the so-called "cliff vesting" arrangement), graded vesting beginning at 25% after 5 years of service with the rate increasing 5% annually during the next five years and 10% for each year thereafter, and vesting that takes both age and service into consideration. Under the latter provision, employees whose age and service add up to 45 must be 50% vested. Beginning in 1989 only two vesting standards will be available. Cliff vesting remains an option with the length of service to achieve 100% vesting reduced from 10 years to 5 years. Graded vesting also remains an option with the rate of vesting accelerated (20% after three years of service increasing by 20% each year thereafter until 100% is attained after seven years of coverage). The "rule of 45" alternative is no longer permitted.While it is true that employees who terminate after having met the length-of-service requirement of one or the other of the minimum vesting standards will retain title to all or a portion of the benefits they have earned, it remains true that employees who terminate before completing their fifth or third year of employmentwill forfeit their benefit entitlement. Those years, then, are permanently eliminated from their future benefit calculations. There is, therefore, in spite of the improvement in minimum vesting standards, the possibility, if not the probability, that significant numbers of employees covered by private pensions will fail to meet the eligibility tests, particularly during their younger employed years when turnover rates are apt to be high. Even those who terminate after having met the minimum vesting standards are not "made whole." When an employee terminates employment with vested benefits, the benefits are frozen at the level effective as of the date of termination. When that employee reaches his or her normal retirement age he or she will become entitled to the benefit payable when termination occurred, not when retirement occurs. Even given a modest rate of inflation, the purchasing power of that vested benefit will have been seriously eroded. For an employee who vests at age 30 where the annual inflation rate is 3%, the real benefit will have been eroded, when retirement occurs, to 36% of its value at the time of termination. The comparable figure for an employee who vests at age 40 is 48%, and for the employee vesting at age 50, it is 64%.These calculations do not consider the fact that where an earnings and service formula is employed the earnings upon which the benefit calculation is based will be those that were current at time of termination, not at time of retirement. This raises the possibility that even though an employee's combined or accumulated vested years of service may total 35 or 40 years and even though the accrued benefit under each plan may have been based on 1.5% of final average earnings, the replacement ratio for earnings at the date of retirement may fall far short of 50%--60%.There is yet another characteristic of our private pension system, which, especially in recent years, has posed a serious threat to the benefit security of employees covered by defined benefit plans. Over half of the employees covered by private pension plans are covered by defined benefit plans. These plans provide the participant with the assurance that a specified benefit will be paid upon satisfaction of eligibility requirements and impose responsibility for funding and financing the benefit upon the plan sponsor. The plan sponsor funds the benefit based on actuarial estimates. It is possible, if certain assumptions are accepted, for a defined benefitpension plan to be underfunded or over-funded at various intervals. Since the early 1980s some 1700 companies have terminated over-funded pension plans covering about 2 million participants and recovered $19.7 billion in assets. On the surface participants were not adversely affected because all plan liabilities must be funded before a sponsor may terminate a plan and withdraw so-called excess assets. But the U.S. Department of Labor estimates that workers covered by terminated plans receive only 55% of what they would have received had the plan been maintained. For younger workers the loss is extremely large. A 3G-year-old worker is estimated to lose 96% of his or her benefits under a final average earnings plan. For a 45-year-old the loss is estimated to be 73%. These losses are attributable to the fact that when a pension plan is terminated the benefits payable are fixed at the level in effect at the time of termination. Thus, in the case of a formula providing employees with a benefit equal to 2% of their average earnings during the highest three out of the last five years of employment times years of service, the earnings figure and the years-of- service figure entered into the formula will be what was in effect at time of termination and not at the time of retirement. Obviously, the benefit payable at time of retirement for those years will be from somewhat to substantially below what it would have been had the plan been maintained.（节选）Employee Benefits and Public Policy. Employee Responsibilities andRights Journal,2005:P199-210.一、翻译文章译文：员工福利与公共政策Richard W. Humphreys简介在员工职责和权力领域中一个重要的问题是这些事件是否被最好地处理了，通过国家政策（就像在劳资双方代表进行的谈判和社会保障的情况下），地区决定（像个人健康保险和养老金这种情况），或者是以上两者的的结合。
公司薪酬管理探讨外文文献译文及原文
本科毕业设计（论文）外文参考文献译文及原文学院经济管理学院专业管理年级班别学号学生姓名指导教师年月日Contents外文文献译文 (1)外文文献原文 (7)薪酬管理在企业的现代化体制建设中有着非常重要的地位，一般我们认为薪酬管理要达到三个目的：第一、能够保证员工的正常的生活，也就是基本生活的需要；第二、能够提高员工的工作积极性，也就是激励效果；第三保证企业的利润的增长，也就是利润的可持续增长性。
现在企业的薪酬管理，应该说第一个目的一般都能够达到，只要你的要求不是十分的高的话，我认为现在企业都能达到这个目的。
但是企业的薪酬体制要完成更高的目标就要有周密的计划。
我们知道企业的激励措施主要有三种：薪酬激励、感情激励、制度留人。
感情激励主要是指员工的工作环境、同事之间的关系以及上下级之间的关系等等，在具体的操作过程中可谓是"因企而异"，你可以通过加大和员工之间的对话，提高员工在企业管理过程中的参与程度等来完成这个项目。
制度留人，主要是指在企业发展的过程中，企业对员工的职位的升迁的政策，如果企业能够完成前两项，而不给员工足够的升迁机会的话，员工的积极性一样会下降。
现在我们来看第一项：薪酬激励。
薪酬管理是一种看似简单、但是操作起来具有很大难度的体系。
它可以简单的归纳成给员工涨工资。
我们在现实中经常会遇到这样的情况，就是给员工涨了工资，但是到了最后它还是"跳槽"了，这就是薪酬激励政策的失败。
企业在执行这项政策的过程中，要考虑的问题很多，主要有以下两点：员工的心理期望值、员工的心理平衡感。
1、员工的心理期望值在薪酬体系管理过程中，我们发现不同员工的心理要求是不同的，一个中层干部可能需要1000元能调动他的工作积极性，但是到了一个具体的员工身上可能只要200元就可以完成同样的效果了。
所以如果你给了一个管理人员500元或者给了一个工人50元就起不到激励的效果，如果你给了他们2000元、400元，就是对企业资源的一种浪费，加大了企业的经营成本。
企业薪酬体系设计外文文献翻译中文字数3000多字
企业薪酬体系设计外文文献翻译中文字数3000多字The success of any management strategy is dependent on the people who make up an XXX any enterprise。
and the XXX。
It is essential for an XXX can attract。
retain。
and motivate employees。
XXX enterprises。
and the design of a n system is not only an effective way to XXX on the design and performance XXX'ssalary system。
with a particular XXX.2 The Importance of a Well-Designed Salary SystemA well-designed salary system XXX。
It can help attract and retain top talent。
XXX。
and increase productivity。
Moreover。
a salary system that is XXX。
it XXX to design a salary system that aligns with their business objectives and values。
while also meeting the XXX.3 XXXEquity incentives are an essential component of a well-designed salary system。
especially for XXX incentives。
such as stock ns and restricted stock units。
企业薪酬管理 外文文献翻译
文献出处：Khan R I, Aslam H D, Lodhi I. Compensation Management: A strategic conduit towards achieving employee retention and Job Satisfaction in Banking Sector of Pakistan[J]. International journal of human resource studies, 2011, 1(1): 89-97.翻译后中文字数：5814第一部分为译文，第二部分为原文。
默认格式：中文五号宋体，英文五号Times New Roma，行间距1.5倍。
薪酬管理：巴基斯坦银行部门实现留住员工和工作满意度的战略渠道摘要：薪酬管理是人力资源管理的一个重要方面，本文探讨了薪酬管理的概念以及对巴基斯坦银行业的员工工作满意度和忠诚度的影响，旨在为巴基斯坦银行部门的薪酬管理工作增添一些建议。
本文采用案例研究的手段，探讨了巴基斯坦银行薪酬政策的满意度主要影响因素、问题和挑战。
本研究采用问卷调查和深度访谈的方法，对案例研究型银行的450名员工进行了抽样调查，形成数据并进行分析。
研究揭示了员工从财务奖励到非财务奖励的变化趋势。
除了银行留住员工的各种成功因素之外，结果显示，工作超负荷、缺乏切实可行的培训方法和以资历为导向的奖励计划，是一些需要政府立即关注的主要问题。
关键词：薪酬，奖励和福利，银行，激励，满意度。
1.引言人力资源是任何机构最宝贵的资产，是一个工作场所的基石。
他们开展日常业务，包括客户交易，管理现金流，决策，下属的咨询，以及包括机构的许多其他重要职能。
美国实业家亨利·福特指出人力资源的重要性，他说：“抢我的生意，烧了我的房子，但给我我想要的人，我将再次建立属于我的业务。
”毫无疑问，这些员工能够以艰苦的工作和决心而机构起来，如果他们的需求没有得到确定和满足，他们也可以领导一个机构走向衰落。
员工福利设施与工作满意度外文文献翻译
文献信息文献标题：Employee Welfare Facilities and Job Satisfaction（员工福利设施与工作满意度）文献作者及出处：Farah S A.Employee Welfare Facilities and Job Satisfaction[J].Researchacies International Journal of Business and Management Studies,2018,2(1):1-13.字数统计：英文3075单词，17008字符；中文4896汉字外文文献Employee Welfare Facilities and Job Satisfaction Abstract Employee welfare is an important phenomenon in any organization today. However, many organizations do not provide welfare measures that are basic for the day to day well-being of their employees. With this regard, employees face challenges in executing their jobs efficiently and effectively. This study sought to establish the effect of employee welfare facilities on employee job satisfaction at Koya's perfumery works. Specifically, this research will seek to establish various welfare facilities available at Koyas group of companies and to understand the extent of employee awareness with respect to facilities provided. Also, this research will assess the perception of an employee on the welfare facilities provided and analyze the impact of the welfare facilities provided to employee satisfaction. This research used descriptive research design and a sample size of 100 employees was selected for this study. This research found out that the employees were aware of the welfare facilities provided Koya’s group of companies. They also satisfied with the provision of basic welfare facilities provided and indicated that those facilities were relevant to the employee needs. Majority of the employees were satisfied with their working conditions and well-maintained welfare facilities. However, a majority of the employees were mainly concerned about the quality of welfare facilities provided. Awareness of the employees regarding the availability of the welfare facilities isabove average. In conclusion, the study found out that the management has taken laudable steps in ensuring prioritization of their employees’ welfare.Keywords: Employee Welfare Facilities, Employee Job Satisfaction.INTRODUCTIONEmployees' welfare is a comprehensive terminology that encompasses services, benefits, and facilities provided by the management to their workers. Employee welfare can be viewed as the efforts undertaken to uplift standards of living of workers. The welfare activities in the organization should be administratively viable and development based to ensure that the employee work in a healthy and comfortable workplace (Ramya, Bhavani, & Lakshmi, 2016). Therefore, proper coordination, integration, and harmony should be upheld in all the activities related to the welfare of workers. Employers should, therefore, understand that provision of welfare facilities is a matter of social obligation (Patro, 2012). This paper seeks to understand the extent to which the employee's welfare is taken care of, the facilities provided for the wellbeing of the employees, the general awareness of the workers in relation to the welfare facilities provided and their overall satisfaction level of the employees regarding the welfare facilities provided. Also, this paper will seek to assess the adherence to the basic regulations and provisions in setting up and maintaining the facilities provided for the employees.This study will help ventilate various important and pertinent issues related to the welfare of the employees by seeking to answer questions that are pertinent to the employee welfare and job satisfaction such availability of the welfare facilities in the organization, the employees’ awareness level of such facilities, what are the perception of the employee towards welfare facilities and the effect of these awareness facilities on their performances and satisfaction. Moreover, this study will seek to understand if the labor welfare activities are management oriented or not. That is if the management is taking clear initiatives at every level to ensure that workers welfare are taken care of and assess if the employee's voices on are listened to or if they substitute their welfare with wages or monetary incentives.This study was conducted Koya’s Perfumery Works a business organization that located at M.S Palya main road, Vidyaranyapura Post, Bangalore. The company was established in 1970 by Mr. Ahmed Kutty and deals with high-quality perfumes that meet international standards. The company easily penetrated into the market because of the difference it brought in terms of quality, standards, price, and approachable employees.LITERATURE REVIEWStiff competition as a result of globalization and ever-changing business environments has resulted in many organizations experiencing high staff turnovers which are costly for the organizations that lose a once committed employee to the competing organization. These organizations have to incur a lot of expenses in selection and recruitment process to fill the gap of the employee who left the organization (Ravi & Raja, 2016). Majority of organizations across the globe are taking drastic measures to retain their employees because the human resource is the most precious resource that if well utilized can increase the organizational productivity. However, employee expectations are dynamic, and they keep changing from day to day, and several organizations are constantly searching for efficient staff by providing good welfare measures (Ramya, Bhavani, & Lakshmi, 2016).International Labor Organization (ILO), defines workers welfare as services, and amenities availed by the organization to facilitate the employee accomplish their task is a healthy manner. Availing welfare facilities to employees to perform their duties improves the employee's self-esteem and inspiration which in turn improves job satisfaction (Patro, 2012). Welfare schemes can either be constitutional or non-constitutional. Constitutional welfare schemes are those services and amenities that organization are obliged to avail to the employees by law while non-constitutional welfare schemes are those services and amenities which the organization willingly provides to her employees. Non-constitutional welfare schemes vary from one organization to another (Ramya, Bhavani, & Lakshmi, 2016).According to the study that was done by Pawar, (2013) on the effectiveness ofthe employee welfare measures in the steel industry, it was observed that the rate of the comfort of an employee in the organization is determined by the type of welfare facilities provided by the organization. It was also observed that the employee’s rate of awareness was very satisfactory (70%) and therefore employees are aware of the type and extent of welfare facilities they require (Pawar, 2013). It was also observed that despite the high rate of awareness, most employees were found to be very unhappy with basic welfare facilities provided. Some of the facilities include sanitary and drinking water, restrooms, and grievances handling mechanisms and exiting work culture at the organization. However, employees indicated that non-statutory welfare is not handled as per their expectations (Pawar, 2013).Tiwari, (2014) also observed that the employee welfare measures provided in the organization have a direct impact on the productivity and general performance of the employees. It also promotes healthy industrial relations within the organization (Ravi & Raja, 2016). Those organizations that take care the welfare of the employees have experienced higher retention levels while those organization that did not take employees welfare seriously have experienced lower employee retention levels. Tiwari, (2014) indicated that the even if the welfare facilities provided by the organization are good and commendable. Such organizations should always strive to better the facilities to meet the ever-changing needs of the employees. This is to make sure there is efficiency and effectiveness can be enhanced and ensured at all times to achieve the set goals. Organizations with longer working hours should provide recreational facilities to enhance the morale of the employees and bring some enjoyment to the continuous work over long hours. This will reduce stress among the employees. In his analysis Tiwari, (2014) noted that the medical facilities provided should be complete to reduce the rate of absconding duty which in turn costs organizations a lot of losses.Balaji, (2009) indicated that motivation is an important factor which drives employees to their various actions and activities. Motivation is the actual process that accumulates influences to achieve some specific goal (Tiwari, 2014; Ravi & Raja, 2016). Given that the world has become very dynamic and unpredictable, the highlymotivated employees achieve better than their counterparts who are less motivated. Motivating employees is a good strategy to achieve organizational goals. The study by Balaji, (2009) related the incentives, welfare programs and other rewards provided by the organization and motivation of the employees. It was observed that if employees become less productive and satisfied with less provision and availability of welfare measures. Also, the study indicated that there is a positive correlation between productivity and variables of job satisfaction. This means that if there is a slight change in welfare provision, then there will be a corresponding change in productivity and satisfaction.METHODOLOGYThis study sampled 100 employees from a total population of 840 employees at Koya Perfumery Works. The sample size is above 10% of the total population; therefore, it can represent the total population (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2003). The study involved the collection of quantitative data which was collected with the help of the questionnaire which was self-administered by the researcher. Data that was collected was cleaned, analyzed and interpreted using various statistical tools. It was tabulated against the number of respondents and percentages favoring them.FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONAvailability of the General Welfare FacilitiesWhen the study of Koya Perfumery Works was asked on whether the company provided the welfare facilities, 84% of the respondents indicated that the company provided the welfare facilities while 16% indicated the company did not provide the welfare facilities. This is clear that the majority of the respondents are aware of the welfare facilities provided by Koya Perfumery Works and therefore this can be interpreted that welfare services exist in the organization. Table 1 and Figure 1 provide a summary of the findings.Table 1: Provision of welfare facilitiesFigure 1: Provision of welfare facilitiesAvailability of Recreational FacilitiesWhen employees of Koya Perfumery Works were asked as to whether the organization provides recreational facilities, 80% of the respondents indicated that Koya Perfumery Works provides recreational facilities, 15% were not aware of such facilities in the organization while 5 percent indicated that the recreation facilities do not exist at Koya Perfumery Works. Therefore it is clear that the organization provides recreation facilities to the employees. The summary of this finding is indicated in table 2 and figure 2 below.Table 2: provision of recreational facilitiesFigure 2: provision of recreational facilitiesSalary Satisfaction LevelsWhen the respondents were enquired about their satisfaction level on their salaries, only 5% confirmed they were highly satisfied with their package, 19% indicated that they were satisfied while more than half at 51% said they are neutral about their salary. However, 21% indicated that they are dissatisfied while 4% indicated that they are highly dissatisfied.Table 3: Satisfaction on salariesFigure 3: Satisfaction on salariesFrom table 3 and figure 3 above, it is clear that more than half of all the respondents were not ready to disclose their satisfaction level (51%). They indicated that they are neutral about the question asked. Close to a quarter confirmed that they are satisfied with their package and another quarter said they are dissatisfied with their pay. It can be observed that satisfaction and dissatisfaction on salary on extreme ends are almost equal 24% and 25% for satisfied and dissatisfaction respectively.Satisfaction Level on Training FacilitiesWhen the employees were asked about the satisfaction level on training facilities, 18% of the respondents indicated that the training facilities are very good while and 23% indicated that the facilities are good. 16% and 2% have demonstrated their dissatisfaction by rating it poor and very poor respectively while 41% remained neutral on their level of satisfaction on the training facilities. The summary if the response is shown in table 4 and figure 4 below.Table 4: satisfaction level in training facilitiesFigure 4: Satisfaction level of training facilitiesFrom table 4 and figure 4 above, it can be observed that the organization's training facilities look rather above average as most of the respondent's answers lie to the left of the graph or at the Centre. That is cumulative, 82% of the respondents have rated the training facilities to be on average or above average. This can be interpreted as not having any issues with the training programs in the company. Contrary to this are 18% who disapproved their counterparts by saying the facilities are belowaverage and hence showed dissatisfaction.Satisfaction Level on Provision of Clean Drinking Water FacilitiesThe satisfaction level of respondents on drinking water provision is 24% who are highly satisfied, 37% satisfied, 30% neutral, 8% dissatisfied and 1% highly dissatisfied.Table 5: Provision of clean drinking water facilitiesFigure 5: Provision of clean drinking water facilitiesIn general, it seems more than a half of all respondents are satisfied with drinking water facilities. 61% of the respondents supports this. This means the provision of clean drinking is satisfactory. However, 9% have refuted this by saying they are dissatisfied.Satisfaction Level of Sanitary FacilitiesWhen the respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction on sanitary facilities provided in the organization, 20% were highly satisfied, 44% were satisfied, and 16% said they are neutral. 14% said they are dissatisfied and 6% noted their highdissatisfaction.Table 6: Satisfaction on sanitary facilitiesFigure 6: Satisfaction with sanitary facilitiesThe above chart shows the satisfaction levels of sanitary facilities provided in the organization. It is important to point out that more than two-thirds of the respondents have clarified that they belong to either highly satisfied or satisfied category with the sanitary facilities. 20% of the respondents are not happy with what is going on in relation to sanitary facilities provision, while 16% have no issues at all given that they said they are neutral. From this information, I can deduce that majority of the respondents are happy with sanitary facilities available and how they are managed.Satisfaction Level on Safety MeasuresWhen the respondents were asked about the satisfaction level the safety measures put in place, 21% replied they are highly satisfied while 43% said they are satisfied. On the other hand, a meager 1% said they are highly dissatisfied, and another 7% confirmed their dissatisfaction. 28% of all the respondents clarified that they are neutral on the subject.Table 7: Satisfaction with safety measuresFigure 7: satisfaction with safety measuresThe diagram shows that close to two-thirds of the respondents are satisfied with the safety measures put in place by the organization. This shows the company is trying its best to make sure their workers are safe from any danger. Cumulatively, more than 90% of the employees have no issues relating to the company's safety measures if the neutral respondents are assumed to have no issues. It is important to point out that few of the respondents (8%) are dissatisfied with safety measures.Overall General Welfare Facilities Satisfaction LevelWhen the statement “my job gives me overall motivation and satisfaction” was posed to the respondents, 18% strongly agreed while 61% agreed. 11% neither agreed nor disagreed, 7% said they disagree and 3% strongly disagreed.Table 8: General welfare satisfactionFigure 8: General welfare satisfactionThe graph above shows how respondents are satisfied and motivated with the overall welfare measures put in place by the organization. From the graph it is clear that majority of the respondents are satisfied, that is (79%). 11% of them neither agreed nor disagreed. This means employees are happy and contented with the welfare facilities provided. This is very commendable for the organization as it will have a positive bearing on the overall productivity of the organization. However, 10% said they are not satisfied with the welfare facilities provided. Though this is a small number comparatively, they cannot be ignored as their welfare should be looked into.CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSEmployee welfare in any organization is an important factor that should be considered by the top management to make sure employees feel part of the organization. Many organizations have not put much emphasis on the need to provide quality and relevant welfare services to their employees. This has made many of the workers to get demoralized. The demotivated workforce will eventually have a direct bearing on the company's production capacity and hence limit its ability to effectively compete in the market. This also increases chances of skilled and knowledgeableemployees departing the company for a competitor that emphasis on the employee's welfare. This effectively reduces the competitive advantage which may, in the long run, leads to the collapse of the venture. In regard of the above, this study was done at Koya's perfumery works and dwells on the level of welfare facilities provision, how the employees perceive the provided facilities and the level of satisfaction of these employees that arises from these services. The company has tried its level best to make sure that it has taken care of its employee's welfare. It has functional welfare committee that periodically looks into the needs and requirements of the workers. As the study indicates, the majority of the employees have confirmed that welfare services the company meets the needs and requirements of the workers which is a commendable effort by the management.The management of Koya's Perfumery Works has tried its best to appease its employees about the provision of welfare facilities. However, the company should make its feedback mechanisms more effective and efficient to reduce the period of getting feedback; the management should revisit its policies on providing bonus so that it meets the satisfaction level of employees. Also, Koya's Perfumery Works needs to further improve its way of handling training strategies so that it meets the needs and requirements of the employees and consider the educational level of the workers in addition to experience regarding the policies on employee promotion and pay increment to retain more skilled employees. Further, the organization needs to be more liberal on its leave policies as it may bring frustrations to the workers.中文译文员工福利设施与工作满意度摘要员工福利是当今任何组织中的一个重要现象。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
企业员工福利外文翻译文献(文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)译文：西方企业员工福利满意度研究述评摘要：近年来，西方企业管理学界越来越重视员X-福利满意度理论研究，因为员工的福利满意度会直接影响他们的工作态度、工作行为与企业经营管理工作的效果。
本文概述了西方企业员工福利满意度理论研究的现状，并根据组织公平理论和双因素理论，探讨福利管理决策公平与不同类型的福利对员工满意度的影响，最后为我国企业加强福利管理工作提出了若干建议。
关键词：福利；满意度；组织公平；双因素理论一、企业福利政策的发展趋势福利是员工薪酬的一个重要组成部分。
近年来，越来越多的企业为员工提供良好的福利待遇，以便吸引、激励并留住优秀员工。
企业的福利政策出现了以下发展趋势：(1)福利在员工薪酬组合中的比重增大，企业支付的福利费用大幅增加。
(2)员工也必须承担部分福利费用。
企业以往为员工免费提供所有福利。
目前，许多员工必须承担部分医疗保险、养老保险费用。
(3)企业的福利制度越来越复杂，福利形式越来越多样化，管理人员需要花费更多的时间与精力来从事员工福利制度设计与管理工作。
许多企业在制定与实施福利制度时较少考虑员工的反应。
例如，有些企业为了降低福利费用，采用灵活的福利制度，或将部分福利管理工作外包给其他公司，而不考虑员工是否满意。
许多欧美学者认为，企业管理人员在制定与实施福利制度时必须考虑员工的反应。
他们的实证研究表明，员工对福利的满意度会直接影响企业福利制度的效果。
二、员工福利满意度理论研究概述20世纪60年代以来，西方企业管理学界对员工薪酬理论进行了大量的研究。
然而，企业管理学者却较少研究员工福利理论。
在现有文献中，欧美学者主要从福利的激励作用、员工对福利计划的理解和偏好、福利与员工薪酬满意度的关系、员工的福利满意度等方面研究员工福利理论。
美国学者威盛顿(Barton I。
．Weathington)和坦切克(I。
ois E．Tetrick)指出，企业管理学界在员工福利这个领域的研究成果存在以下不足：(1)许多学者实际上是研究员工的薪酬满意度或工作满意度，而不是研究员工的福利；(2)大多数学者只研究福利对员工的影响，却忽视各类福利对员工工作态度和工作行为的影响；(3)企业管理理论研究人员主要从企业的角度来研究福利制度，却很少考虑员工对福利的态度。
近年来，西方企业管理学界逐渐加强了对员工福利满意度的研究。
I．员工福利满意度的计量1985年，美国学者赫尼曼(Herbert G．Heneman)和希沃布(Donald P．Schwab)编制了一个由18个计量项目组成的“员工薪酬满意度”量表(pay satisfaction questionnaire，简称PSQ)。
他们采用以下四个项目来计量员工的“福利满意度”：(1)员工对整套福利的满意度；(2)员工对企业支付的福利费用数额的满意度；(3)员工对福利价值的满意度；(4)员工对福利类别的满意度。
许多欧美企业管理学者在实证研究中把员工的福利满意度作为薪酬满意度的一个组成成分，采用PSQ量表计量员工的福利满意度。
现在，许多欧美学者对员工的福利满意度进行更深入的研究。
不少学者认为员工福利满意度是一个多维概念。
美国学者戴恩霍(Carol Danehower)与勒斯特(John A．I．ust)指出，员工的福利满意度应包括员工对企业支付的福利费用与企业为他们提供的整套福利的质量的满意度。
他们设计了一个由11个项目组成的员工福利满意度量表(benefit satisfaction ques—tionnaire，简称BSQ)，从上述两个方面来计量员工的福利满意度。
他们的一系列实证研究支持员工的福利满意度是一个二维概念的结论。
然而，他们也发现BSQ量表中的某些项目不能很好地计量员工对福利质量的满意度。
因此，他们对BSQ量表进行了适当的修改，又增加了两个项目，并于1995年对美国某大学的2 815位员工进行了问卷调查。
他们的数据分析结果表明，新的BSQ量表中的13个项目分别属于员工对福利质量的满意度、对福利费用的满意度、对福利信息的满意度三个维度。
他们根据数据分析结果，指出员工的福利满意度是一个复杂的多维概念。
但是，加拿大学者特兰布雷(Michel Tremblay)等人的实证研究结果并不支持戴恩霍和勒斯特的观点。
他们发现，员工的福利满意度是一个单维概念。
美国学者米塞利(Marcia P．Miceli)和雷恩(Matthew C．Lane)把员工福利满意度分为两类：一类是员工对福利水平的满意度，它受员工感觉中“应该得到”与“实际得到”的福利之差的影响；另一类是员工对福利制度的满意度。
这种满意度不仅受到员工对企业“应该实施”和“实际实施”的福利制度的看法的影响，而且受到员工个人偏好、企业福利制度灵活性、福利管理程序、管理人员和员工之间的沟通的影响。
此外，有些欧美学者根据企业为员工提供的福利项目来研究员工对某类福利的满意度，如员工对医疗保险、养老金的满意度。
“总之，迄今为止，欧美企业管理学界对员工福利满意度的组成成分及其计量方法尚未达成共识。
2．员工福利满意度对员工工作态度与行为的影响许多欧美学者的实证研究结果表明，员工福利满意度会直接影响他们的工作态度和工作行为。
员工对自己享受到的福利感到满意，会增强他们的工作满意度、企业归属感和对管理人员的信任感，并且降低他们的离职意向。
三、福利决策公平对福利满意度的影响欧美学者从不同的角度研究员工福利满意度的影响因素。
有些学者主要研究员工的个人特征、心理特征对员工福利满意度的影响，另一些学者主要研究公平对员工福利满意度的影响。
他们的实证研究结果表明，福利决策公平是影响员工福利满意度的重要因素。
根据组织公平理论，福利管理公平包括结果公平、程序公平和交往公平。
1．福利管理工作中的结果公平员工从企业享受的福利水平通常是影响他们福利满意度的重要因素。
根据美国学者亚当斯(Stacy Adams)的公平理论，员工会对自己与他人的得失之比进行比较，判断分配结果的公平性。
“得”指企业为员工提供的各种福利，包括医疗保险、养老保险、失业保险和假期等；“失”指员工在工作中投入的各种资源，包括自己的工作经历、受教育水平和技能等。
员工会对自己和参照对象享受的福利进行比较。
参照对象包括同事或其他企业同类员工的福利、自己过去的福利、自己需要或希望得到的福利等。
员工比较的结果会直接影响他们对福利水平的满意度。
如果员工认为自己的得失之比低于参照对象．就会感到不满；反之，他们就更可能会对企业的福利分配结果感到满意。
员工的个人特征、工作环境、享受的福利水平不同，他们判断结果公平的标准也可能不同。
2．福利管理工作中的程序公平福利管理工作中的程序公平主要指企业福利决策过程是否公平。
许多欧美学者的研究成果表明，员工参与企业决策过程，可增强他们的公平感与满意度。
如果员工有机会表达自己对企业福利制度的看法，参与企业福利制度的制定与实施过程，就会显著提高他们对福利水平和福利制度的满意度。
加拿大学者车布雷等人对加拿大企业员工的福利满意度进行了两次实证研究。
他们发现，与结果公平相比，程序公平对员工的福利满意度产生更大的影响。
3．福利管理工作中的交往公平福利管理工作中的交往公平是指管理人员在福利管理工作中与一般员工交往的公平性。
员工通常不必经管理人员审批，就可按照他们的工种、工龄、级别，或根据聘任合同获得大部分福利。
然而，他们必须得到管理人员的同意，才可享受另一些福利。
例如，管理人员对员工的休假时问、病假、事假、补休等福利拥有直接的决定权。
因此，在福利管理工作中，管理人员对待员工的态度和方式也会影响员工对福利的满意度。
交往公平包括：(1)人际交往公平，指管理人员在制定与实施福利制度的过程中尊重员工、关心员工的利益；(2)信息公平，指管理人员向员工传递有关福利制度的信息，解释福利分配的过程与结果。
管理人员与员工之间的沟通是影响员工福利满意度的重要因素。
_2]员工认为管理人员与自己的交往比较公平，就会对企业的福利水平和福利制度感到比较满意。
四、员工看重的福利形式对其福利满意度的影响员工对各类福利的重视程度和偏好程度不同。
因此，企业提供的各类福利对员工的福利满意度会产生不同的影响。
美国学者布劳(Gary Blau)等认为，员工福利满意度包括员工对基本福利的满意度和员工对职业发展型福利的满意度。
基本福利包括假期、病假、事假、工伤保险、医疗保险、人寿保险、退休计划等满足员工安全、生活保障等基本需要的福利。
职业发展型福利指企业满足员工提高就业能力、工作技能等需要的福利，包括企业为员工提供继续学习、在职培训机会，资助员工学费，灵活安排员工工作和学习时间，根据员工获得的学历证书和学位证书来奖励员工等。
布劳等人指出，随着员工职业观念的变化，员工越来越重视职业发展型福利。
根据传统的职业观念，企业为员工提供工作保障和员工有权获得的各种福利，换取员工的忠诚，并负责员工的职业发展管理工作。
20世纪80年代以来，在许多企业里，“多变的职业”观念逐渐取代了传统的职业观念。
根据多变的职业观念，员工负责自己的职业发展管理工作，员工保持良好的工作业绩，才能继续就业，企业的责任是为员工提供更多职业发展机会。
美国波士顿大学管理学院教授霍尔(Donglsa T．Hall)指出，21世纪员工的职业是多变的职业。
员工不断地提高自己的工作能力，才能提高自己的任职能力，增大自己的就职可能性。
因此，许多员工越来越重视“职业发展型”福利项目，希望企业为自己提供更多的职业发展机会。
根据美国学者赫茨伯格(Frederick Herzberg)的双因素理论，企业缺乏保健因素，会引起员工的不满，但保健因素并不能调动员工的工作积极性。
激励因素能增强员工工作满意度，调动员工的工作积极性。
布劳等人认为，基本福利是保健因素，职业发展型福利是激励因素。
企业为员工提供基本福利，有助于稳定员工队伍，防止员工“跳槽”；企业为员工提供职业发展型福利，才能增强员工对企业的归属感。
布劳等人的实证研究结果表明，员工通常更重视基本福利，员工对基本福利的满意度可增强他们对福利的总体满意度，降低他们的离职意向；员工对职业发展型福利的满意度会增强他们对企业的情感性归属感。
不同的员工有可能会重视不同的福利。
例如，专业人员可能更重视职业发展型福利。
他们更可能认为这类福利可表明企业关心员工的职业发展前途。
美国学者威盛顿和坦切克的实证研究结果也支持这个观点。
他们指出，大多数员工认为自己有权得到某些基本福利。
企业提供这些福利，并不一定能提高员工的满意程度，但企业不提供这些福利，可能会引起员工不满。
除员工实际使用的福利之外，员工有权享受的福利也会影响员工的满意度。
例如，许多员工可能不会使用企业提供的工伤保险。