UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 13.11 Free with a free account
Paying for Work: Understanding Compensation and Total Rewards
Principles of Management · Chapter 13: Human Resource ManagementSection 13.11 · lesson 93 of 11713 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: When Workers Unite: The Role of Collective Bargaining →← Measuring Performance: Appraisals and the 360-Degree Feedback ApproachNext lesson: When Workers Unite: The Role of Collective Bargaining →
In this lesson
Understanding compensation and total rewards.
- Distinguish the 3 components of total compensation
- Explain how a pay structure is built and administered
- Separate pay equity from internal equity
- Describe 6 incentive plans and their failure modes
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,784 words). Read along, or search it.
Human Resource Management
Paying for Work
What does it actually mean to be paid for work? The answer is much more than a salary. This section covers compensation, and the wider idea of total rewards. We'll break total compensation into three components. We'll see why three pay objectives routinely conflict, and how job evaluation and market data address them. We'll build a pay structure, with grades, ranges, and deliberate overlap, and see how it's administered. We'll separate pay equity from internal equity, along with two pay gaps that are often confused. We'll compare six incentive plans, each with its own line of sight and failure mode. And we'll see a commission plan that raised sales volume, while damaging client relationships.
Total Compensation
3 Components, Not Just a Paycheck
Start with what compensation actually includes. Total compensation breaks down into three components. This builds on the intrinsic and extrinsic distinction from Subchapter eleven point eight, rather than restating it. The first is direct financial compensation. That includes base pay, the fixed, recurring wage or salary. It also includes variable pay, compensation tied to performance. We'll develop that fully later on. The second is indirect compensation, meaning benefits. Health coverage, retirement contributions, paid leave, and similar provisions. The third is non-financial compensation. The work itself, and recognition. Those are the intrinsic rewards Subchapter eleven point eight already covered in depth. Why decompose it at all? Because an employee receives the whole package, not just the number on a paycheck.
3 Objectives in Conflict
Fair, Compared With What?
A compensation system balances three objectives, and they routinely conflict with one another. Internal equity asks whether pay is fair relative to other roles within the same organization. External competitiveness asks whether pay is fair relative to the outside market, for comparable roles. Individual equity asks whether pay is fair relative to a specific person's own contribution. A worked example makes the conflict concrete. Take a highly specialized technical role. The external market may pay considerably more for it, than for a role of comparable internal scope and responsibility. Paying what the market requires attracts and retains that specialist. But colleagues in structurally similar roles don't command the same external premium. Internal equity takes the strain. No formula resolves this tension cleanly. Every compensation system makes an implicit choice about how much weight each objective receives.
Internal Equity
Job Evaluation: 3 Methods
Internal equity is established through job evaluation, using one of several methods. Ranking simply orders jobs from most to least valuable, relative to each other. Classification sorts jobs into predefined grade levels, based on a general description of each grade. The point factor method breaks a job down into compensable factors. Skill, effort, responsibility, working conditions, and similar dimensions. Each job is scored against every factor, and the weighted scores are summed into a total point value. That total determines the job's place in the resulting structure. Here's the crucial observation. The choice and weighting of the factors is itself a value judgment. Suppose supervisory responsibility gets heavy weight, and working conditions get little. That's not a neutral technical calculation. It's a decision about what the organization actually values. And it decides which jobs rank above others, before a single job has been individually scored.
External Competitiveness
A Market Rate Is a Distribution
External competitiveness is established through market data, meaning pay information from comparable organizations and roles. One caution is worth stating directly. A market rate is a distribution, not a single number. Comparable organizations pay a genuine range for comparable work. Treat a reported figure as one precise, correct value, and that range disappears from view. Against that distribution, an organization chooses a positioning strategy. It can lead the market, paying above the typical rate to attract and retain talent aggressively. It can match the market, paying at the typical rate. Or it can lag the market, paying below the typical rate. A lagging organization often compensates with stronger non-financial rewards. Or it accepts a correspondingly narrower talent pool.
Figure 13.11.1
A 3-Grade Pay Structure
A pay structure organizes roles into grades. Each grade has a range, defined by a minimum, a midpoint, and a maximum. The midpoint is the market anchor, the point the range is actually built around. It's typically set to match the organization's chosen positioning strategy. Figure thirteen point eleven point one shows a three-grade structure, with illustrative figures. Grade five runs from seventy-five thousand to one hundred five thousand dollars, with a midpoint of ninety thousand. Grade six runs from ninety thousand to one hundred twenty-six thousand, with a midpoint of one hundred eight thousand. Grade seven runs from one hundred eight thousand to one hundred fifty-two thousand, with its midpoint at one hundred thirty thousand. So grade five's maximum sits well above grade six's minimum. That's range overlap, a normal, deliberate feature. It lets an experienced person in a lower grade earn more, than a newer person in the grade just above her. That reflects genuine differences in experience and demonstrated contribution. Two employees are placed in the structure. Devi, in grade six, sits below her grade's midpoint. Owen, in grade seven, sits above his. That difference in position within the range is something pay administration must account for.
Pay Administration
Placement, Increases, and the Ceiling
Administering a pay structure requires several recurring decisions. The first is placement. Where does a new hire start within her grade's range? It depends on her experience, and on market conditions at the time of hire. It's not automatically the midpoint. The second is allocating increases, which distributes a limited raise budget across a team. It's typically weighted toward performance and position in the range together. That's where Devi and Owen's positions matter. The third decision concerns the range maximum. An employee who has reached her grade's ceiling can't keep receiving ordinary base-pay increases within that grade. That holds regardless of continued strong performance. So further reward is typically redirected, toward variable pay, a promotion to a higher grade, or another mechanism. A related problem is pay compression, the narrowing gap between experienced employees and newer hires. It can also narrow the gap between employees and their own supervisors. Its most common cause is a rising market. As external rates climb, new hires come in at higher starting pay, while existing pay rises slowly through annual increases. Gradually, the gap between someone with years of demonstrated experience and someone who just started compresses.
Pay Equity
A Distinct Question, and 2 Different Gaps
Pay equity asks whether pay differs systematically by a protected characteristic, such as sex. That's a genuinely distinct question from internal equity. Internal equity concerns fairness across different roles. Pay equity concerns fairness within comparable roles, across protected groups. It connects to the legal framework from Subchapter thirteen point eight. It also connects to equity theory's perception mechanism, from Subchapter eleven point four. But it has its own method of analysis. Two figures need to be kept precisely apart. The unadjusted gap compares average pay across groups, with no control for role, tenure, experience, or other legitimate factors. It answers whether average pay differs across groups overall, for whatever reason. The adjusted gap compares pay after controlling for those legitimate factors. It answers a narrower question. Does pay differ once legitimate differences in role and experience are accounted for? Neither figure substitutes for the other. Citing one, while implying it answers the other's question, is a common and consequential error.
Benefits and Incentives
Benefit Categories, and Line of Sight
Benefits fall into categories, and the key line runs between legally required and voluntary benefits. Legally required benefits vary by jurisdiction. They typically include contributions toward programs such as unemployment insurance and workers' compensation. Voluntary benefits are offered at an organization's own discretion. They typically include health coverage, retirement contributions, and paid leave beyond any legally mandated minimum. No dollar figures are attached to these categories here. Any such figure would date almost immediately. Now to variable pay. Several incentive plan types reward performance in different ways. Each has a characteristic line of sight. That's how clearly someone can see the link between her own effort and the reward. Each also has a characteristic failure mode. Those failure modes connect directly to the goal distortion covered in Subchapter eleven point seven.
Table 13.11.1
Incentive Plans That Reward Individuals
Table thirteen point eleven point one sets out six plan types. The first three reward individuals. Merit increases reward the individual through ongoing base pay. Their line of sight is moderate, because the reward is delayed, and diluted across a full year. So their failure mode is a weak connection between any single action and the reward. An individual bonus is a one-time individual reward. With a well-designed metric, its line of sight is strong. Its failure mode is rewarding the measured target, at the expense of unmeasured work. Commission rewards individual sales volume or value. Its line of sight is very strong, direct and immediate. And its failure mode is rewarding volume over relationship quality, or long-term value. Notice the pattern. A stronger line of sight focuses effort more sharply, but only on what's measured.
Table 13.11.1, Continued
Incentive Plans That Reward Groups
The remaining three plans reward groups. Team incentives reward team-level results. The line of sight is moderate, diluted across team members. The failure mode is free-riding, by members who contribute less than the reward implies. Gainsharing rewards efficiency gains at the team or unit level. Its line of sight is moderate, tied to a specific, shared measure. Its failure mode is gains attributed to factors outside the team's actual control. Profit sharing rewards organization-wide profit. Its line of sight is weak, because individual effort is barely visible in the outcome. So there's little perceived connection between daily effort and the eventual reward. One discipline guards against all of these. It's the stress test from Subchapter eleven point seven. Before a plan takes effect, ask how it could be met in a way the organization wouldn't want. That surfaces the unmeasured-work and goal-distortion risks in this table, while there's still time to adjust the design.
Case Vignette
A Sales Incentive Raises Volume and Damages Relationships
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. A fictional business services firm introduced an aggressive commission structure for its sales team. It rewarded closed deal volume, directly and immediately, hoping to accelerate growth in a competitive market. Deal volume rose sharply within the first quarter, exactly as intended. Within two quarters, though, account managers reported rising client dissatisfaction, and early cancellations. They traced it back to sales representatives, working under the commission's strong, immediate line of sight. Reps had begun closing deals with clients whose actual needs didn't match what was sold. They captured the commission, and moved on to the next prospect. The plan did exactly what a strong line of sight predictably does. It focused effort on the measured target, deal volume. It pulled effort away from unmeasured work: genuine client fit, and the relationship quality behind renewal and reputation. A stress test before launch would likely have surfaced this exact risk, before it showed up as lost clients. Next, Subchapter thirteen point twelve closes the chapter with collective bargaining, where employment terms are jointly determined.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Paying for Work: Understanding Compensation and Total Rewards
What are the components of total compensation?
What is the point factor method of job evaluation?
What is line of sight in incentive pay plans?
What is the difference between an adjusted and an unadjusted pay gap?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →