宽带薪酬体系中英文对照外文翻译文献
宽带薪酬文献综述
宽带薪酬文献综述摘要：随着企业市场化的走向不断加强，国内许多企业都处于薪酬体制的转型期。
公司战略的变化，扁平化组织结构的出现，相同职位员工业绩的显著差异等，众多因素都使宽带薪酬模式成为企业所关注的热点。
本文主要是在阅读了大量有关宽带薪酬的文献基础上，归纳总结了宽带薪酬的优势以及在实践运用中隐含的危机。
并就如何在合适的企业中导入这种薪酬模式，及其可能出现的问题做了相应的探讨。
关键词：宽带薪酬；绩效；综述Literature overview about the Broadband Compensation Abstract: As companies continue to strengthen the trend of the market, many domestic enterprises are in the pay system in transition. Changes in corporate strategy, the emergence of flat organizational structure, employee job performance of the same significant differences, a number of factors make broadband compensation model become the focus of attention. This article is read a lot of literature on broadband pay on the basis of sums up the advantages of broadband compensation as well as in practice in the use of hidden crisis. And businesses how import the appropriate pay model, and its potential problems to do the appropriate study.Keywords: broadband compensation; performance; overview一、宽带薪酬的定义宽带薪酬（Broadband Compensation），又被称为薪酬宽带，是一种新型的薪酬结构设计方式，它是对传统薪酬管理体系中带有大量等级层次的垂直型薪酬结构的一种改进或调整。
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。
薪酬管理外文文献翻译
The existence of an agency problem in a corporation due to the separation of ownership and control has been widely studied in literatures. This paper examines the effects of management compensation schemes on corporate investment decisions. This paper is significant because it helps to understand the relationship between them. This understandings allow the design of an optimal management compensation scheme to induce the manager to act towards the goals and best interests of the company. Grossman and Hart (1983) investigate the principal agency problem. Since the actions of the agent are unobservable and the first best course of actions can not be achieved, Grossman and Hart show that optimal management compensation scheme should be adopted to induce the manager to choose the second best course of actions. Besides management compensation schemes, other means to alleviate the agency problems are also explored. Fama and Jensen (1983) suggest two ways for reducing the agency problem: competitive market mechanisms and direct contractual provisions. Manne (1965) argues that a market mechanism such as the threat of a takeover provided by the market can be used for corporate control. "Ex-post settling up" by the managerial labour market can also discipline managers and induce them to pursue the interests of shareholders. Fama (1980) shows that if managerial labour markets function properly, and if the deviation of the firm's actual performance from stockholders' optimum is settled up in managers' compensation, then the agency cost will be fully borne by the agent (manager).The theoretical arguments of Jensen and Meckling (1976) and Haugen and Senbet (1981), and empirical evidence of Amihud andLev (1981), Walking and Long (1984), Agrawal and Mandelker (1985), andBenston (1985), among others, suggest that managers' holding of common stock and stock options have an important effect on managerial incentives. For example, Benston finds that changes in the value of managers' stock holdings are larger than their annual employment income. Agrawal and Mandelker find that executive security holdings have a role in reducing agency problems. This implies that the share holdings and stock options of the managers are likely to affect the corporate investment decisions. A typical management scheme consists of flat salary, bonus payment and stock options. However, the studies, so far, only provide links between the stock options and corporate investment decisions. There are few evidences that the compensation schemes may have impacts on the corporate investment decisions. This paper aims to provide a theoretical framework to study the effects of management compensation schemes on the corporate investment decisions. Assuming that the compensation schemes consist of flat salary, bonus payment, and stock options, I first examine the effects of alternative compensation schemeson corporate investment decisions under all-equity financing. Secondly, I examine the issue in a setting where a firm relies on debt financing. Briefly speaking, the findings are consistent with Amihud and Lev's results. Managers who have high shareholdings and rewarded by intensive profit sharing ratio tend to underinvest.However, the underinvestment problem can be mitigated by increasing the financial leverage. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section II presents the model. Section HI discusses the managerial incentives under all-equity financing. Section IV examines the managerial incentives under debt financing. Section V discusses the empirical implications and presents the conclusions of the study.I consider a three-date two-period model. At time t0, a firm is established and goes public. There are now two kinds of owners in the firm, namely, the controlling shareholder and the atomistic shareholders. The proceeds from initial public offering are invested in some risky assets which generate an intermediate earnings, I, at t,. At the beginning, the firm also decides its financial structure. A manager is also hired to operate the firm at this time. The manager is entitled to hold a fraction of the firm's common stocks and stock options, a (where 0<a<l), at the beginning of the first period. At time t,, the firm receives intermediate earnings, denoted by I, from the initial asset. At the same time, a new project investment is available to the firm. For simplicity, the model assumes that the firm needs all the intermediate earnings, I, to invest in the new project. If the project is accepted at t,, it produces a stochastic earnings Y in t2, such that Y={I+X, I-X}, with Prob[Y=I+X] = p and Prob[Y=I-X] = 1-p, respectively. The probability, p, is a uniform density function with an interval ranged from 0 to 1. Initially, the model also assumes that the net earnings, X, is less than initial investment, I. This assumption is reasonable since most of the investment can not earn a more than 100% rate of return. Later, this assumption is relaxed to investigate the effect of the extraordinarily profitable investment on the results. For simplicity, It is also assumed that there is no time value for the money and no dividend will be paid before t2. If the project is rejected at t,, the intermediate earnings, I, will be kept in the firm and its value at t2 will be equal to I. Effects of Management Compensation Schemes on Corporate Investment Decision Overinvestment versus UnderinvestmentA risk neutral investor should invest in a new project if it generates a positiexpected payoff. If the payoff is normally or symmetrically distributed, tinvestor should invest whenever the probability of making a positive earninggreater than 0.5. The minimum level of probability for making an investment the neutral investor is known as the cut-off probability. The project will generzero expected payoff at a cut-off probability. If the investor invests only in tprojects with the cut-off probability greater than 0.5, then the investor tendsinvest in the less risky projects and this is known as the underinvestment. Ifinvestor invests the projects with a cut-off probability less than 0.5, then tinvestor tends to invest in more risky projects and this is known as thoverinvestment. In the paper, it is assumed that the atomistic shareholders risk neutral, the manager and controlling shareholder are risk averse.It has been argued that risk-reduction activities are considered as managerial perquisites in the context of the agency cost model. Managers tend to engage in these risk-reduction activities to decrease their largely undiversifiable "employment risk" (Amihud and Lev 1981). The finding in this paper is consistent with Amihud and Lev's empirical result. Managers tend to underinvest when they have higher shareholdings and larger profit sharing percentage. This result is independent of the level of debt financing. Although the paper can not predict the manager's action when he has a large profit sharing percentage and the profit cashflow has high variance (X > I), it shows that the manager with high shareholding will underinvest in the project. This is inconsistent with the best interests of the atomistic shareholders. However, the underinvestment problem can be mitigated by increasing the financial leverage.The results and findings in this paper provides several testable hypotheses forfuture research. If the managers underinvest in the projects, the company willunderperform in long run. Thus the earnings can be used as a proxy forunderinvestment, and a negative relationship between earningsandmanagement shareholdings, stock options or profit sharing ratio is expected.As the underinvestment problem can be alleviated by increasing the financialleverage, a positive relationship between earnings and financial leverage isexpected.在一个公司由于所有权和控制权的分离的代理问题存在的文献中得到了广泛的研究。
有关薪酬体系的两篇外文原文跟翻译
关于薪水谈判的研究性别是个体因素，其做为谈判倾向的起薪，到目前为止，已经获得极大的关注。
许多实验室研究已证实,女性与男性相比，可能对回报的期望值低（卡拉汉-利维及麦斯，1979年；梅杰与科纳雷，1984年），而实际上产生这样的期望低工资也很有可能为女性（梅杰,旺德斯利斯, &麦克法林，1984年）。
这些结果的研究人员推测：女性与男性比更少为起薪谈判。
性别差异在谈判的可能性最近已经审查的范围内模拟招聘过程（卡曼＆海特尔，1994年）。
男性更有可能报告说，他们将从事哪些研究人员称之为“积极的谈判策略”，获得他们所需的工资水平，如拒绝提供初始工资和使用的谈判战略得到一个可接受的工资。
女性，另一方面，更可能预期使用“的传统战略”，如强调了相关的教育，并强调其动机如何努力工作。
除了采用不同的战术，实验室研究还表明，与男性相比，妇女可能会收到不太有利的谈判结果（金＆辛森，1994年）。
如果女性谈判技巧比较缺乏，通过工资谈判训练来降低男女之间的差异是很可能的。
在抽样的收到以内容为导向的谈判培训的工商管理硕士毕业生（例如学习了各种战术，可以以合理的薪金要求被雇佣），男性通过谈判得到的结果明显比女性更好。
然而，当自我管理培训（涉及制定目标，确定障碍，并制定计划，克服已查明的障碍）在以内容为导向的培训中被介绍，性别差异的对薪酬谈判的影响达到最低（史蒂文斯，诺维茨基，＆吉斯特，1993年）。
自我管理培训，有效地提高了妇女自觉控制局势，从而增加通过谈判提高其工资的可能性。
然而，由于史蒂文斯等人（1993）研究利用一个模拟的谈判任务，在何种程度上会讨价还价的妇女在现实世界的薪金谈判，不能进行评估，并围绕问题的成功妇女的努力，提高初始工资提供仍然没有答案。
虽然这些问题已收到超过较少注意性别方面的工资谈判，一些研究探索的影响结构性因素对谈判的策略和成果的一个实验室内的范围内。
例如，一个与他人有密切关系的电视广告的价格谈判的研究。
外文翻译--薪酬管理新概念的理解框架
中文3600字原文：外文出处International Foundation News外文作者Frank L.GiancolaA Framework for Understanding New Concepts in CompensationmanagementOver the past 25 years, several major new concepts in compensation management have reflected overly ambitious goals . Experts have disagreed about their basic premises, and the business world has had trouble accepting them. Examining the history of three such concepts-skill-based pay, broadbanding and total rewards -is worthwhile , for it reveals the challenges they present and helps define a pattern for how professionals deal with these and other new ideas in the profession . Skill -Based PayThe skill -based approach for determining base pay is based on an employee’s skills, rather than his or her current job. Leading thinkers in compensation management have supported this approach since the 1980s. According to compensation experts Patricia Zingheim and Jay Schuster it is the “next great thing in pay and benefits”. In an interview Edward Lawler called it “the compensation system of the future.”This approach shifts the focal point from the job to the person, with the goals of providing employees with greater incentives to improve skills and competencies and giving management a more versatile workforce. Generally, employees are paid to acquire higher skills in their own field or lateral ones in related fields. From a systems standpoint, job descriptions, job evaluation plans and job-based salary surveys are replaced by skill profiles, skill evaluation plans and skill-based salary surveys.The disappearance of the traditional job provides the primary rationale for this change. Today，employees are said to have variable and unstable work assignments , with roles that cannot be assigned a valid pay rate in traditional job evaluation plans . Contentious TenetsThe main tenets of skill-based pay (SBP) conflict with mainstream business thinking. The first tenet is that pay should be based only on skills, taking the value of an employee’s work to an organization out of the pay equation. In effect, SBP advocates are asking compensation professionals to set the same pay rate for employees, based on their skills, even though they might have substantially different duties and responsibilities and make substantially different contributions to a firm’s success. The omission of something of fundamental value to the firm makes the concept a hard sell with managers and employees. In recent years, compensation experts have affirmed the value of work as an essential part of the pay equation.The second tenet is the notion that pay should be based on how many skills employees have or how many jobs they potentially can do , not on the job they currently hold . Here again, SBP advocates make what many firms consider an unreasonable request. They introduce a controversial pay for potential concept that directly contradicts the pay for performance concept compensation professionals have diligently strived to establish. In recent years, emphasis has been on what employees actually accomplish on the job, rather than on static concepts relating to who they are, such as their management potential or length of service. Also, by asking firms to pay employees for a job that they might perform in the future, SBP is a practice few firms could afford. With these core beliefs, SBP has experienced an uphill battle for acceptance as the primary means to determine base pay.Questionable AssumptionThe SBP concept rests on a questionable assumption -that a job does not reflect the skills of the person required to do it. That makes job evaluation plans an inappropriate method for evaluating skills and setting pay rates. According to SBP advocates, skills must be valued by using market-based skill surveys. They overlook the fact that most point-factor job evaluation plans award the bulk of their points for the possession and application of knowledge, skills and abilities. On this point, Lawler has stated ,“In many cases , this ( skill-based pay ) will not produce dramatically different pay rates than are produced by paying for the nature of the job . After all, the skills that people have usually match reasonably well the jobs that they are doing.”Also overlooked is the fact that many occupations (e.g., accountant, electrician and actuary) do reflect the skills required to perform them; when salary surveys are conducted and employees are paid based on occupation titles and job summaries , skill requirements are being valued .Ambiguous DefinitionFew “new” ideas in compensation management represent a complete break from the prior ideas. Although SBP was billed as a new idea in compensation when introduced, it included old compensation practices, such as career ladders and generalist classifications.The result is that today，when companies are surveyed to see if they use SBP practices , those that use old SBP practices are counted among the firms that have signed on to the concept . This gives a false picture about the adoption of this “new”, way of paying employees and contr ibutes to varying descriptions of the concept’s level of acceptance.Competency-Based PayIn the 1990s, competency-based pay was introduced as a type of SBP plan for professional and managerial employees. It calls for base pay to be determined based on competencies instead of duties and responsibilities. Shortly after the concept was introduced, controversy arose as to what constitutes a legitimate competency. Today, there are many alternatives to choose from—core, organizational, behavioral and technical competencies. One compensation expert has asked for a governing body, similar to those in the accounting profession, to help sort out what the termcompetency actually means in the world of employee compensation.Changes in the economy and the nature of work—such as the rise of the contingent workforce and the disappearance of traditional jobs, which were predicted to result in a need for SBP—have not materialized. That and the lack of administrative support systems probably have contributed to the concept’s slow growth. Today, SBP is associated with blue-collar workers in manufacturing industries, which are in decline in the United States, while competency-based pay has had a greater impact on performance management than on base pay.Despite these issues and setbacks, prominent compensation experts continue to support the concept.BroadbandingOne of the most visible concepts in compensation management in the 1990s was broadbanding, which collapses many salary grades and ranges into fewer bands with broader salary spans. Its popularity was attributed in part to the 1990s trend to downsize organizations by reducing the number of hierarchical levels.When broadbanding was introduced, some thought leaders saw it as a new pay program for managing salaries and supporting organizational initiatives, such as eliminating bureaucracy and reducing costs.Others saw it as a “higher order of change” and a new way of managing human resources that would be a catalyst for organizational change and represent much more than a new way to reduce bureaucracy and costs.The concept was loosely defined, and companies were said to have welcomed the opportunity to adapt it to their unique needs. And some were given credit for adopting it, even though one cited plan had 13 bands, with multiple salary ranges within them, making it resemble a traditional salary administration plan.FlexibilityOne constant in the dialogue on broadbanding is that it provides the flexibility to accommodate change and to define job responsibilities more broadly. Proponents have dismissed traditional salary administration systems as being too structured, with too many rules.Execution IssuesEarly experience with broadbanding was not completely positive. Although these systems were supposed to reduce costs, managers had too much discretion to increase salaries within the bands. After several years, salaries had progressed to levels that could not be justified.“Second generation” banded systems gave less freedom for managers to determine salaries. These systems include more bands and specifically define salary ranges within the bands,making them resemble the traditional systems they were supposed to replace.Two compensation textbooks have reserved final judgment on the value of broadbanding. One sees it as a potential reprise of the type of salary administration “flexibility” that gave rise to the traditional plans. These plans were developed to reduce favoritism and inconsistencies that resulted from a lack of structure and controls that exist in broadbanding.Total RewardsIn the past decade, professional associations, major human resource consulting firms and compensation experts have advocated the total rewards approach to the development of a firm’s rewards strategy. Some billed it as more than a passing phase and possibly the greatest breakthrough in compensation since health care plans were combined with pay packages.The approach calls for HR professionals to consider all aspects of the work experience of value to people when developing a strategy to attract, retain and motivate employees .It extends the prior concept of total compensation, which encompassed only pay and benefit programs, and gives form to an idea described in a compensation textbook widely used in the 1970s.Thus, the idea is more novel than radical.In the early 2000s, after the intense competition for talent and the economy of the 1990s had cooled, employers sought ways to reduce costs and needed a strategy that places more emphasis on low-cost rewards and less on costly pay and benefit programs, such as stock options. Total rewards meets that need with its message that learning and development, recognition and other soft-dollar programs are as important as pay and benefits in satisfying employees. In addition, it provides a flexible and broad array of rewards that responds well to globalization, mergers and acquisitions, and other forces that increase workforce diversity.Execution IssuesThe launch of total rewards confirmed the axiom that new compensation programs typically are simple in concept, but complex in execution. When HR practitioners put the concept into practice, they encountered many stumbling blocks. That led two consultants to describe human resource professionals in late 2004 as “feeling confused or sensing chaos regarding total rewards.” A primary cause of the confusion was experts who used different names, definitions and models to describe it. Corrective actions were taken to address these issues, courses were developed on total rewards management and the basic concept was simplified.Still, compensation professionals are likely to use other terms to refer to it, with the labels for outdated reward strategies—compensation and benefits package and total compensation—being used about as frequently as the new term.ConclusionsIn sum, new concepts in compensation management have the following general profile:•Are novel, but not radically new•Are simple in concept, but complex in execution•Do not always have expert agreement on main tenets•Overlap with prior concepts, creating a misleading impression about their adoption•Result in major execution issues, largely because of conceptual confusion •Do not reach expected adoption figures•Have a place in the field, but not a dominant role.Given this pattern, compensation professionals are advised to examine newconcepts closely to see if the ideas are too broadly defined, reflect expert agreement,represent significant change and provide guidance on execution and best applications. In addition, practitioners should closely review usage surveys of new concepts to determine if a concept’s broad definition and historical roots have caused related prior practices to be counted as evidence of the new one’s acceptance. They also should seek information as to why organizations have turned down or stopped using a new concept. And, at the risk of appearing behind the times, they would bewell-advised to wait until the knowledge base on the concept has been fully developed before adopting it.Source: International Foundation News, 2009(5):p12-15.译文：薪酬管理新概念的理解框架法兰克·詹科拉在过去的25年里，几个主要的薪酬管理的新理念过于反映其雄心勃勃的目标。
薪酬管理体系中英文对照外文翻译文献
薪酬管理体系中英文对照外文翻译文献XXX people。
XXX enterprise management。
as it has a XXX attract。
retain。
and motivate employees。
particularly key talent。
As such。
it has XXX。
retain。
objective。
XXX on the design of salary XXX.2 The Importance of Salary System DesignThe design of a salary system is XXX's success。
An effective salary system can help attract and retain employees。
XXX。
XXX them to perform at their best。
In contrast。
a poorly designed salary system can lead to employee n and XXX。
which can XXX.To design an effective salary system。
XXX factors。
including the industry。
the enterprise's size and stage of development。
and the specific needs and goals of the XXX。
XXX.3 XXXXXX。
XXX incentives can help align the XXX with those of the enterprise and its shareholders。
XXX to perform at their best.When designing equity incentives。
薪酬管理英文文献翻译及参考文献英语论文
薪酬管理英文文献翻译及参考文献-英语论文薪酬管理英文文献翻译及参考文献目录1 薪酬管理的涵义及其影响因素 (1)1.1 薪酬与薪酬管理的内涵 (1)1.2 薪酬管理的影响因素 (1)2 薪酬的构成、性质、功能及与薪酬有关的激励理论 (3)2.1 薪酬的构成、性质和功能 (3)2.1.1 薪酬的构成 (3)2.1.2 薪酬的性质和功能 (4)2.2 与薪酬有关的激励理论 (5)2.2.1 需求层次理论 (6)2.2.2 期望理论 (6)3 南京DE阀门厂薪酬管理存在的问题及问题成因分析 (8)3.1 薪酬制度缺乏基于战略的思考 (8)3.2 薪酬结构不合理，与市场水平脱节 (8)4 南京DE阀门厂薪酬管理体系再设计 (10)4.1 南京DE阀门厂薪酬体系设计的思路 (10)4.2 一线生产人员质量计件薪酬制 (10)外文原文 (12)参考文献［1］刘听.薪酬福利管理.北京:对外经济贸易大学出版社，2003［2］李新建.企业雇员薪酬福利.北京:经济管理出版社，1999［3］杨东龙，杨文志等.如何设计人力政策和制度.北京:中国经济出版社，2001［4］湛新民，张帆.薪酬设计技巧.广洲:广东经济出版社，2002［5］王学力.企业薪酬设计与管理.广州:广东经济出版，2001［6］陈清泰，吴敬琏.可变薪酬体系原理与应用.北京:中国财政经济出版社，2001［7］刘雄，赵延.现代工资管理学.北京:北京经济学院出版社，1997［8］「美」托马斯•B•威尔逊著.薪酬一以薪酬战略撬动力企业变革.北京:中国社会科学出版社，2001［9］斯蒂芬•P•罗宾斯.组织行为学精要.北京:电子工业出版社，2002［10］江洪明.薪酬激励满意度的几点思考.人才开发，2000 (2)［11］米尔科维奇和纽曼.薪酬管理.第六版.北京:中国人民大学出版社，2002［12］孙剑平.薪酬管理.长春:吉林人民出版社，1999 (8)［13］杨东涛，朱武生.激励性薪酬体系设计.中国人力资源开发.2001 (7)［14］温立成，陈耀发，许多光.工资分配改革的实践与思考.甘肃经济日报.1999［15］程亮.整体薪酬回报.人力资源开发与管理.2004 (4): 46-48［16］顾慧慧，张文璋.引入股票期权制度，重塑长期激励机制.经济理论与经济管理.2000 (3): 21一25［17］Becker. G. Murphy, K and Tamura .R. "Human Capital. Ferility and EconomicGrowth,” Journal of Political Economy.1998. Vo1.98［18］Becker. Gary. "Investment in Human Capital: A Theoretical Analysis,”The Journal of Political Economy.Vol.70 (2)［19］Ashok . Gurta and Arvind Singhal. "Managing Human Resources for InnovationAnd Creativity,” Research-Technology Management.1998 (5)［20］Hash imoto ,Masamori. "Firm-Specific Human Capital as a Shared Investment，American Economic Review ,June 1981,71(3)，475-482-1258薪酬管理英文文献翻译及参考文献1 薪酬管理的涵义及其影响因素1.1 薪酬与薪酬管理的内涵薪酬 ( compensation)，是员工因向其所在组织提供劳动或劳务而获得的各种形式的酬劳或答谢，是组织支付给其员工的所有劳动报酬。
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。
- 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)。
宽带薪酬体系中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)翻译：宽带薪酬体系——薪酬模式的创新视野摘要：最近，有关“企业人力资源管理中的有效激励”的问题吸引了许多产业界和学术界的学者的关注。
本文介绍了一种全新的方法来解决上述问题——基于绩效评估的宽带薪酬体系。
本文通过分析宽带薪酬体系的优势和目前的应用情况，探讨了宽带薪酬体系的设计流程，并指出了引入这个新系统需要注意的问题。
关键词：宽带薪酬体系人力资源管理薪酬1、绪言随着市场经济的发展和经济全球化的冲击，我国企业面临着日益严峻的挑战。
在所有这些挑战，如何吸引和留住员工尤其是核心员工已经成为最重要的问题之一，吸引和留住人才的最有效的方法是公平和合理的薪酬系统。
然而，传统薪酬体系的目标是建立内部一致性的分配制度，为缺乏长远积极性的员工提供货币支持，但这并不能激起员工的积极性。
2、宽带薪酬体系的概念和应用2.1 宽带薪酬体系的概念宽带薪酬是一种新兴的薪酬设计制度，是适合现代企业组织结构扁平化和基于绩效的管理模式。
根据美国薪酬管理协会的定义，宽带薪酬体系是指调整薪酬结构的数量和变动范围，从而建立一个薪酬等级相对较少而薪酬变动幅度较宽的薪酬体系。
一般来说，在这新的薪酬体系中薪酬等级最大值与最小之间的变化率应不低于100%。
一个典型的宽带薪酬结构可能只有不超过4个的工资等级，但是每个薪酬等级里的变动率可能是200%甚至是300%，然而在传统薪酬结构中，这个变动率通常只有40%到50%。
宽带薪酬体系最重要的特征是将多个薪酬级别压缩成少量的几个级别，并将每个级别对应的薪酬范围拉大，从而形成一个新的薪酬管理系统及操作流程，保持有市场竞争力的薪酬机会的同时，允许薪酬管理的灵活性。
例如,在20世纪90年代之前,IBM使用的是24个等级的薪酬体系,之后,将它们合并成了10个跨度更广的工资等级。
2.2 宽带薪酬体系的优点在传统的薪酬体系中，员工的收入总是与他的行政地位或他在组织中的等级高低相匹配的，地位越高工资就越高。
但是在组织结构扁平化浪潮的影响下，企业中的等级大大减少，因此，职位等级和晋升的机会是有限的，传统的薪酬制度无法再发挥有效的激励作用。
与传统的薪酬管理模式相比，宽带薪酬体系具有以下优点：首先，宽带薪酬体系支持组织结构扁平化。
从20世纪90年代起，很多企业开始用扁平化的组织结构逐渐替代传统的金字塔式的组织结构。
组织结构扁平化降低企业中职位的数量，并降低相应的晋升机会，影响力加薪的概率，而宽带薪酬体系打破了传统薪酬制度维持和加强严格等级制度的情况，已经了这个问题。
其次，宽带薪酬体系可以引导员工重视提高个人技能和提高自身能力。
宽带薪酬体系可以削弱其地位的重要性，强调个人的作用，强调绩效的现状。
员工可以在没有升职的情况下获得一个大的薪水上升空间。
例如，一个优秀的技术工人有可能比一个刚上任的经理获得更高的薪水。
再次，部门经理参与员工的薪酬决策是宽带薪酬体系的另一个优势。
在传统的薪酬结构中，出来人力资源部门的经理，没有人有权利决定工资标准；然而宽带薪酬体系很大程度上是基于个人绩效的，部门经理可以给本部门下属员工的工资提出更多的建议。
甚至做出最后的决策。
最后，宽带薪酬体系可以提高企业的团队精神。
因为宽带薪酬可以客观地削弱员工个人歧视和心理失衡导致的职位的不同，它在一定程度上有助于企业的稳定。
这对提高公司整体盈利能力是很重要的。
2.3 宽带薪酬体系的应用目前，宽带薪酬作为薪酬管理领域的有效工具被广泛应用于欧美地区。
以通用电气公司为例，通用电气使用宽带薪酬已经10几年，现在只有4个工资等级，包含了从高管到普通员工的所有职员的工资。
在中国，随着宽带薪酬体系在中国网通，西门子，北人富士印刷机械有限公司等一些知名公司的应用，宽带薪酬体系作为一种新型的薪酬管理模式受到广泛的关注。
以北人富士公司为例，扩大在同等级由原来的4年级至10年级水平的工资与各等级的宽度为300%。
3 宽带薪酬体系的设计基于宽带薪酬的基本原理和它在各个业务领域的实践，特别是外国公司的成功案例，总结了一些在宽带薪酬体系设计中有效的、可操作的程序。
3.1 工作分析和岗位评估宽带薪酬体系设计的第一步是工作分析和岗位评估。
一般来说，工作分析的目的是记录职位要求和工作的执行；岗位评估是系统地确定一个工作在所有组织中相对价值的过程。
这两道程序可以使企业内部的只为彼此区分，并为岗位的薪酬设计提供依据。
3.2 确定宽带数在这一步里，应该确定全部岗位的宽带数量。
这一步的目的是定义每个宽带合理的，明确的工作范围，这是对于后面设计的基础步骤。
3.3 建立每个宽带的薪酬结构在每一个工作跨度里，应该根据不同工作岗位的特点和不同层次的员工需求，建立每一个职位的薪酬结构；对于具体的的工作，由于不同的职位分类，薪酬结构可以相应的变动。
作为高级管理人员，他们的工作对企业的盈利能力有着全局性的影响，因此应该加强绩效工资的比例；作为企业人力资本的核心，中层管理者在企业中起到了非常重要的纽带作用，他们的收入应该是固定的；同时使用计件工资制并拉大奖金差距，可能有助于提高生产线上的工人的工作效率。
3.4 建立薪酬评估体系最后一步是建立一个包含硬性指标、软性指标和指标权重的薪酬评估体系。
硬性指标是指容易量化的部门绩效和个人绩效；软性指标的评价内容通常涉及工作行为，工作态度，工作成就等，只要依靠的是定性分析，由于软性指标很难建立一个客观、公正的评价标准，所以软性指标不可避免的带有主观性和不确定性；尝试设计出各种方法和公式，将定性的标准定量化，从而提高评估的准确性，是解决上述问题的一个很好的措施。
同时，上述薪酬评估标准应该是对全体员工公开的。
4 宽带薪酬体系实施过程中应注意的问题虽然宽带薪酬制度近几年在欧美国家很流行，与传统薪酬管理模式相比有很多优点，但它并不是适合所有类型的企业。
在引入宽带薪酬制度的过程中，有几个问题是需要注意的。
第一，企业要使用宽带薪酬体系需要分析自己行业的特点和自身的条件。
企业使用宽带薪酬体系应该具备几个条件，比如说一个完美的人力资源管理系统、有效的沟通机制、以详细的数据为基础为实现宽带薪酬体系提供必要的技术条件等。
第二，公司的管理人员要想引入这一新的薪酬体系，应该对绩效评估和宽带薪酬体系之间的关系有一个清醒的认识。
宽带薪酬体系的关键评价指标就是员工对组织贡献的大小，建立绩效评估体系对实施宽带薪酬体系是非常重要的。
如果企业内部的绩效评估系统本身就存在问题，它既不能全面准确的评估员工的绩效，也不能体现他们的价值，宽带薪酬体系就无法很好的运行。
企业在确定是否实施宽带薪酬体系之前，应先评估现有的绩效评估体系。
第三，宽带薪酬体系的激励功能不是万能的，很明显，它的理论和方法存在一些局限性，它只强调横向激励而忽视了纵向激励，这是它的推广变得更加困难。
在传统的薪酬管理模式下，岗位是多种多样的，因此员工的晋升是很容易的，但在宽带薪酬管理模式下，员工可能终身都没有晋升的机会。
众所周知，升职是激励员工的一种非常有效的手段，因此，在使用宽带薪酬体系后，员工可能会因为只加薪不升职而情绪低落。
如何处理那些优秀员工的晋升问题，建立一个全面的薪酬观念将成为一个值得进一步研究的课题。
最后，基本工资是这个系统的关键点。
然而，业内对此并没有一个统一的标准，一般的做法是根据不同企业的大小，盈利能力和员工的能力设置的不同的标准。
5.结论总之，随着管理环境的变化，以人为本的管理理念被越来越多的企业所接受。
这种趋势要求传统的以雇主为核心的薪酬管理模式向新的以企业员工为核心的薪酬管理模式转变，这就需要建立一个全面的符合企业和个人利益的能产生最积极的影响的激励体系。
宽带薪酬体系是一种逐渐被引入的全新的薪酬管理模式，它广泛应用与外国企业并取得了巨大的成功。
在扁平化的组织结构中，基于个人和组织绩效的宽带薪酬体系强调增强企业的活力，提升企业的价值，促进企业的良好发展。
通过本文全面的分析，我们认识到薪酬改革是一个系统的过程，仅仅改革薪酬体系是远远不够的，还需要建立一个系统化的思维模式，并且要与其他人力资源政策相符，只有这样企业的薪酬体系才能变得越来越有效和合理。
对于国内企业，应该根据企业的实际条件来推行宽带薪酬体系，否则将会浪费企业的资源。
宽带薪酬体系的运用将会引发企业薪酬制度的革命是毫无疑问的。
原文：Broadband Salary System：An Innovative Sight of Salary ModeLU Shengying，JIA FangfangCollege of Science & Technology，North China Electric PowerUniversity, PR．ChinaAbstract：The problem of“the effective motivation in enterprise’s human resource management”has recently attracted the attention of many researchers from industry and academia．This paper introduced completely innovative way to solve the above problem—the broadband salary system which based on performance evaluation．By analyzing the advantages and present application of the broadband salary system，this thesis explores the design flow of the broadband salary system，and then pointed out the problems needing attention in introducing this new system．Keywords：the broadband salary system，human resource management, performance1 IntroductionAlong with the development of market economy and the impact of economic globalization．The challenges that the enterprises in our country face are increasingly severe．Among all those challenges，how to attract and keep employees especially core employees has become one of the most important questions．The most effective method to attract and retain the talents is a fair and rational salary system．However, the traditional salary system of which goal is to build an inner consistence allotment system and offer the currency support for the company staff that lack the long—term motivation．And could not stir up the enthusiasm of the employees．Therefore，developing an innovative mode of salary System which can encourage the staff to keep working with high—performancehas become an essential subject for enterprises．The broadband salary system．which is a new kind of salary management mode．can be the improvement or substituting of the traditional vertical salary system and combine the interest of both the employees and the business together．2 Concept and Application of the Broadband Salary System2．1 Concept of the broadband salary systemBroadband salary is a newly—arising salary design system which is fit for the modem firms’flat organization structure and the management pattern based on performance．According to the definition of the American Salary Management Society, broadband salary system means reforming the number and changing range of the salary structure，so as to establish a salary system which contains relatively less salary grades and wider salary changing ranges．Generally speaking，the change rate between the maximum value and the minimum value of the salary grades in this new system should be no less than 100％．A typical structure of broadband salary might have not more than four salary grades meanwhile the change rate in every salary grades may be 200 or even 300 In the traditional structure however．the change rate usually is only 40％to 50％．The most important feature of the broadband salary system is to condense a large number of salary grades into a smaller number of bands with wider spans，thus form a new salary administrative system and operation flow。