【正文】 獨(dú)立工作的家庭提供不同的支付結(jié)構(gòu)。一個(gè)樂隊(duì)，如決策方法體系，然后需要編織成一個(gè)全公司的整個(gè)組件的薪資結(jié)。 在個(gè)人表現(xiàn)的最大重點(diǎn)似乎在于，依然在激勵(lì)計(jì)劃的地盤工人，付款。在正統(tǒng)的激勵(lì)機(jī)制在很大程度上取決于管理控制秒表的時(shí)間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。員工們傾向于被視為具有的 39。算計(jì)參與 39。前面提到的 目標(biāo)為本的理念看到。在移動(dòng)從個(gè)人激勵(lì)制度，測(cè)量計(jì)日工工人被看作是減少被動(dòng)反應(yīng)，更多的自我主動(dòng) 。 他們咨詢了改進(jìn)方法和生產(chǎn)計(jì)劃的看法。在全廠獎(jiǎng)金計(jì)劃中（如斯坎倫或拉克計(jì)劃）雇員被認(rèn)為有道德的參與本公司的總目標(biāo)。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)這種程度上參，往往要求員工獲取資料，這些資料在傳統(tǒng)意義里只能被管理者所擁有。事實(shí)上，它呼吁真正的參與。 因此，正統(tǒng)的計(jì)件工資系統(tǒng)往往趨向于適應(yīng)一個(gè)最好的專制的管理風(fēng)格 。測(cè)試計(jì)日工與協(xié)商的風(fēng)格 。與參與工廠范圍的計(jì)劃。哪里適合的家長(zhǎng)式管理的公司？他們通常采用評(píng)級(jí)系統(tǒng)，評(píng)估價(jià)值（通過主管的評(píng)價(jià)）從公司規(guī) 范，一般的質(zhì)量和工作主動(dòng)性，團(tuán)隊(duì)合作精神和計(jì)時(shí)數(shù)量來測(cè)試員工到底與公司有多適應(yīng)。 管理者的表現(xiàn)評(píng)價(jià)最近被認(rèn)為評(píng)價(jià)管理系統(tǒng)最有效的辦法。這就要求管理人員在相當(dāng)程度下至少是在與下屬討論的情況下得出將來的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)。而這一局面將會(huì)是未來的可持續(xù)發(fā)展提供條件。經(jīng)常有一些機(jī)械的問題與 MBO 的申請(qǐng)有關(guān)，但是他的前瞻性基礎(chǔ)相關(guān)的一些機(jī)械問肯定是正確的。 我們來看當(dāng)時(shí)的觀點(diǎn)，作為企業(yè)轉(zhuǎn)變經(jīng)營(yíng)方式，從專制 /家長(zhǎng)式到協(xié)商 /參與制，他們必須審查其工資制度的戰(zhàn)略性質(zhì)。希望管理方式將符合該公司的員工情緒，反過來，是在一個(gè)公平的工資結(jié)構(gòu) 的決心體現(xiàn)。顯然，只專注于技術(shù)是錯(cuò)誤的，公司走向成熟，這將要求的專制的管理風(fēng)格不復(fù)存在。同樣，機(jī)械性的堅(jiān)持所謂正確的管理風(fēng)格也是不正確的，因?yàn)槭昵暗膯T工的想法顯然是和今天的不一樣的。 齊齊哈爾大學(xué)畢業(yè)論文 7 如果對(duì)協(xié)商和參與的趨勢(shì)也聚集力量，我們可以期望看到的，在其實(shí)現(xiàn)的最大的混合型員工參與評(píng)價(jià)的可能性。我們也可以預(yù)見一個(gè)對(duì)公司的工資使用決定帶框架整合的獨(dú)立工作的家庭結(jié)構(gòu)的系統(tǒng)結(jié)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)變。邁向測(cè)量計(jì)日工和全廠范圍的獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)也應(yīng)該聚集力量的趨勢(shì)。主管可以期望其表現(xiàn)評(píng)價(jià)越來越接近 MBO 系統(tǒng)類型（盡管細(xì)節(jié)可能與目前的MBO 的模式有所不同）。 我們必須保證專制 /家長(zhǎng)式作風(fēng)的迅速改革。企業(yè)人，應(yīng)當(dāng)向各行各業(yè)的人一樣，對(duì)于改革應(yīng)當(dāng)是習(xí)以為常的。那些確定管理戰(zhàn)略和工資支付方式的管理人員往往是中層管理階層。不幸的是，很多處于該階層的管理人員對(duì)于員工參與生產(chǎn)資料的占有是持疑惑或者是否定的態(tài)度，這就讓許多的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)夭折。然而，對(duì)于未來的趨勢(shì)，我們往往很難預(yù)見。因此，我們必須時(shí)刻為未來準(zhǔn)備著，并且罷工制改革也劃入其行列。這是一個(gè)非常重要的問題，不容忽視。 齊齊哈爾大學(xué)畢業(yè)論文 8 Abstract This 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 being 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 mon use in British industry today. Some general conclusions are drawn concerning future trends in payment to suit management style. Introduction Problems 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 and managerial 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 a nd wage payment. There is a distinct 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 panies 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 pany 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 pany, as well as recognize the many constraints put on managerial control. Many panies are now facing up to situations where management styles are altering and technological and other influences are changing fast. The pany 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 齊齊哈爾大學(xué)畢業(yè)論文 9 the structure of responsibility carried across job hierarchy). However there is no single ideal structure of organization and consequently there can be no single 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 socalled 39。psychological contract39。. Management Styles and the Psychological Contract Obviously the management style used in fulfilling the psychological contract reflects the way in which managers in the pany expect employees to behave. Some managerial teams expect their employees to simply have what is known as a 39。calculative39。 involvement with the pany. They are expected to do what is required by the goalsetters (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 panies too. It is convenient to label this type of management view of the organization as 39。goal oriented39。. 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 39。moral involvement39。 with that goal. A totally different conceptual model of the organization allows for the achievement of a whole range of needs 24 Personnel Review Vol 4 Number 4 Autumn 1975 by the organization. Managers who conceive of their panies in this fashion see the need for balancing the 39。system39。 of needs. Employe