New and Improved Rewards at Work - Research Proposal Example

?Insert Management of employees goes beyond the provision of fair remunerations and perks. Instead, the same calls for the democratisation of the workplace, the safeguarding of employees’ welfare and innovation in human resources management. The need to follow this multipronged approach is underpinned by the fact that managing the best talent and skills in an organisation demands the acknowledgement and retaining of key elements such as culture, the environment, retention, attraction and motivation. Innovative intervention in managing human resources in turn has its underpinnings in organisational culture borrowing from human culture which is constantly evolving. This means that the issuance of fair remunerations and perks cannot suffice to pacify the interests and ideals of employees. 1. Determining How Innovations in Employee Benefits Can Improve the Overall Competitive Compensation Strategy of the Organisation There are several ways by which employee benefits can be used to improve the overall competitive compensation strategy of an organisation. One of the ways through which this feat can be achieved is by integrating the innovations to employee reward systems. This means that the degree to which the innovations are accessible to employees should be commensurate to the rank of an individual employee. In turn, the attainment of higher ranks should be predicated upon merit (the consistent and remarkable attainment of performance target, possession of academic credentials, experience and other relevant qualities and skills). This is to the effect that only those in the executive or managerial ranks are the ones who should be entitled to: bringing pets to work; an unlimited supply of the Internet and a less controlled napping policy. This will provide the rest of the junior staff with the challenge to work even harder to attain higher positions, so that they can enjoy these privileges. Again, in respect to the above measure, these very innovations in employee benefits are to be provided to the junior and auxiliary staffs, so as to serve as incentives to greater commitment and dedication. In particular, the junior staff can be provided with Internet supply (this can be limited to lunch breaks and post-office time i.e. 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM), personal finances, controlled napping policy and sports and office betting pools. This will give the junior staff a reason to work harder, seeing that the entire junior staff will be seeing the organisation they work for as being totally committed toward enhancing their physical, psychosocial and economic welfare. Indeed, the provision of these innovations to the junior staff will have stripped them of any excuses or reason for sustaining performance gap. Corrigan and Ryan propose that the same incentives are also to be provided to the auxiliary staff. Particularly, these provisions can include a controlled Internet supply (i.e. from 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM and from 5:00 PM to 8:00 AM), personal finances and sports and office betting pools. The personal finance incentives being offered to the auxiliary staff should be commensurate with: that which the junior staff enjoys; and an individual’s contribution to that kitty. It may also not be necessary to provide the auxiliary staff with controlled napping hours, since the duties and responsibilities that fall within this sphere is less mental. Instead, the auxiliary staff may not be compelled to stick by the official work hours to leave the office. Thus, a member of the auxiliary staff may leave the work station anytime past 3:00 PM, provided all duties have been dispensed. The auxiliary staff may also use the sports and betting pools but may not bring pets to work (Corrigan and Ryan, 98). A critical look at the proposal above shows that although these same incentives are to be also experienced by the managerial staff, the junior and the auxiliary staff, yet the degree of their accessibility wanes hierarchically, downwards. For instance, while the executive staff can bring their pet to work, the junior and auxiliary staff may not. The latter may not also enjoy napping policy, which is a preserve of the junior and the managerial staff. This is not to merely institute or entrench classicism in the organisation, but to inject the organisation with logistical and economic order. Allowing all members of the staff the right to bring their pets to the workplace and controlled napping allowance may for instance cause logistical and financial problems to the firm. According to Lower, Petty and Thompson, the merit of using the aforementioned innovations (bringing pets to work; unlimited supply of the Internet and a less controlled napping policy) is that it takes away from the highly formal nature of an office setting. This enables the entire staff to: work with relative ease; nurture a team spirit within an intra-organisational setting; and find staying in the office longer when extending working hours easier and more tenable. The tenable aspect of a longer office stay and work hour is underscored by the fact that the organisation will have taken proper steps to strengthen the psychosocial and financial welfare of employees (Lower, Petty and Thompson, 26 & Landsberg, 12). 2. Explaining How Innovative Benefits Could Be Tied To Specific Jobs First, the innovative benefits (bringing pets to work; unlimited supply of the Internet and a less controlled napping policy) can be extended to the entire organisation, but hierarchically. This is to the effect that accessibility to these innovations is to increase upwards (as one goes up the organisation’s hierarchy). In turn, accessing higher ranking offices is to take place by merit. This means that educational background and academic achievements, experience, strong interpersonal skills and other qualities have to be factored when considering employees for promotion. Tying these innovative benefits to specific jobs will still be a reality since the organisation will be following a bureaucratic model of management, meaning that functions, duties, responsibilities, privileges and authority assigned to employees will be office-specific and these offices will in turn be placed in a hierarchy of authority and bound by fixed rules. Thus, assigning these innovative benefits is to be distributed hierarchically since the higher one goes hierarchically, the more sensitive office functions become. One readily agrees with Oscar when he contends that planning (marketing, financial and human resources management), strategising and creation and designing of brands are to take place in the managerial or executive wing of the organisation. Closely working with the executive organ of the firm are supervisors who also work closely with the junior staff, to ensure that the organisation’s goals, vision and objectives are met. This means that supervisors are to also undertake work which is mentally taxing, and thereby necessitating supervisors’ need for a measured napping time (Oscar, 47, 48). The assigning of these innovations to the organisation hierarchically is to serve several purposes. One, this approach is bound to support the organisation’s logistical arrangements. Providing all employees the right to carry their pets to the workstation is likely to disturb the harmony and hygiene that should characterise the working environment. Secondly, since the assigning of controlled napping policy to the junior staff is to be limited to those that junior employees report to, yet (they) are not part of the managerial staff. The managerial staff is also to enjoy this privilege. This incentive is to be limited to the highest rank of the junior staff and the managerial sector owing to the strenuous mental work and planning that accompany their duties. The rest of the junior staff and the auxiliary staff are to be kept away from this incentive since their work is guided and therefore less mentally strenuous. This is to ensure that the work flow is not affected by the controlled napping system, while allowing those involved in mentally tasking jobs the time to rejuvenate their mind and thinking capacities. 3. Critiquing the Effectiveness of Equity-Based Rewards Systems versus Those with More Creative Approaches According to Greenblatt, creative approaches seem more susceptible to being misunderstood by the personnel as encouraging segregation and classicism within an organisation. This is because; creative approaches contain elements (such as bringing pets to work, unlimited supply of the Internet and a less controlled napping policy and extending the provision of sports and betting tools and personal finances) which cannot be equally distributed across all job scales or job groups. For instance, to keep the operations of the organisation running, it is important that the auxiliary staff and a section of the junior staff are not absolutely extended the unlimited supply of the Internet and a less controlled napping policy) (Greenblatt, 51). The case above is true because of the need to rein in indiscipline and misplaced priorities at the workstation. Not all will be able to resist the urge to use online social forums such as Facebook, in the face of unlimited supply of the Internet, on one hand. On the other hand, while the acknowledgement of this reality is important and should be incorporated in the distribution of the creative approaches to organisational motivation, members of the auxiliary and junior staff are likely to be left feeling less appreciated. This is because, since the firm is bureaucratic, the managerial staff is likely to enjoy all the elements of the innovative incentives to motivation due to the higher degree of job specialisation and a greater extent of job experience and self-accountability. When compared to creative approaches, equity-based rewards systems seem more effective in motivating employees. This is because equity-based rewards systems are geared towards having members of the staff to think like the owners of the firm. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the fact that equity-based rewards systems have their shortcomings too. It is questionable if employees indeed want to think like the owners of the organisation, as is proposed. Again, it is highly unlikely that the organisation will wholly appreciate the reality of members of the staff thinking like the owners of the firm. This is because such level of thinking may either prompt employees to start their own firms, or to want to take part in key decision making. It is nearly hypocritical to state the desire to want employees thinking like owners of an organisation, while the same employees are locked out of important decision making efforts and forums. In the same wavelength, it is interesting that whenever proponents and users of equity-based rewards systems persuade employees to think like owners of an investment, the need to be cost-conscious remains paramount. However, while the need to be cost-effective and think like the owner of the firm is extolled, the actual company owners: take a monthly salary of 200,000 dollars; take a week off, easily; spend ten thousands of dollars in decision making plans; and buy office ware at a very exorbitant rate. The import of this is that not even some organisation’s actual owners think like the owners of the firm, and as such, it is laughable to tell employees to think like one (Lowery, 26 & Pfau and Kay, 7). 4. Discussing the Key Elements of Integrating Innovation into a Traditional Total Rewards Program The key elements that are to be observed when integrating innovation into a traditional total rewards program are culture, the environment, retention, attraction and motivation. The environment refers to the cluster of observable psychosocial and physical behaviours that prevail in the workplace and is the actual manifestation of an organisational culture. Introducing innovative incentives into an organisation helps set the tone of the workplace. Since these elements of the environment are observable, they can be manipulated, so that there is a balance between internal and external environment. For instance, while one of the innovative incentives is being allowed to carry pets to the workplace, there may be a serious need to control this provision so as to ensure that the external environment (hygiene and general orderliness) is not interfered with (Rutzick, 36). There is also the aspect of attraction which entails drawing the right talent and skills which are necessary for the achievement of the organisational success. Thus, supplying access to the Internet, sports and betting pools and financial welfare programmes is likely to serve as a highly potent attracter. There is also retention, which is the ability of an organisation to keep valued talents and skills, for as long as they remain mutually beneficial to the organisation. Innovative incentives can help employees stay longer in a firm, especially when competitors in the market negate factoring both total rewards systems and innovations. There is also organisational culture which comprises collective behaviour and attitudes which influence the manner in which individuals in an organisation behave, how the organisation runs. The provision of innovative services such as financial, sports and betting pools is important in motivating employees and also strengthening a friendlier and communal culture at the workplace. 5. Recommending a Process That Optimises an Employee-Based Suggestion Program to Continually Refresh the Total Rewards of the Organization One of the most effective and impressive model that can be used to optimise an employee-based total rewards systems is the exchange relationship. In this model, both the employee and the employer provide. On one hand, the employer provides total rewards which are valuable to the employees. On the other hand, an employee provides his time, effort, talent and desired results to the organisation. This model is both symbiotic and employee-centred. Works Cited Corrigan, Karen & Ryan, Robert. “New Reimbursement Models Reward Clinical Excellence.” Healthcare Financial Management, 58.11 (2004), 98. Print   Greenblatt, Alan. “Merit Pay Moves Forward.” Human Resource Planning, 20.4 (2007), 51. Print  Landsberg, Richard. “How to Make Pay for Performance Pay Off.” Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 63.6 (2009), 12.  Print   Lowery, Christopher. “Key Trends of the total Rewards System in the 21st Century.” Benefits Quarterly, 38.6 (2006), 64-70. Print Lowery, Christopher, Petty, M. M. & Thompson, James. “Assessing the Merit of Merit Pay: Employee Reactions to Performance-Based Pay.” Human Resource Planning, 19. 1 (1996), 26.  Print Oscar, Buds. Flexible Rewards from Strategic Rewards Perspective. Benefits Quarterly, 44.1 (2012), 40-49. Print Pfau, Bruce & Kay, Ira. “The Five Key Elements of a Total Rewards and Accountability Orientation.” Benefits Quarterly, 18. 3 (2002), 7. Print Rutzick, Karen. “Building a Better Carrot.” Benefits Quarterly, 39.6 (2007), 36.  Print Read More