1、 1 外文翻译 原 文 Country-Compatible Incentive Design A Comparison of Employees Performance Reward Preferences in Germany and the USA Material Source: Economics Personnel Management Author: Marjaana Gunkel Keyword： Incentive mechanism， Employee satisfaction 4.2 Influence of Formal and Informal Institution
2、al Framework on the Performance Reward Preferences In the following the influence of formal and informal institutional frameworks on the six groups of incentives are discussed separately. At first the importance of each work related goal relating to the grouping are discussed. Then it is tested if H
3、ypothesis 1 applies to the grouping, that is, if the employees from the two sample countries find different rewards motivating. However, it is important to note that these explanations merely serve as groundwork for further research on the influences of institutional frameworks on performance reward
4、 preferences and other influences of formal and informal frameworks are certainly possible. 4.2.1Recognition The Recognition group also provides interesting results. When looking at the importance of recognition, differences between the countries cannot be found (p-value 0.53). Employees of the stud
5、y organization from Germany and the US find recognition as an important factor at work. An interesting difference between the two samples can however be seen in the “Employee of the Month“ reward. Whereas the US sample ranks this particular reward more often than expected as a motivator, the German
6、employees find the reward significantly non-motivating. Positive Feedback seems to be a motivating reward for employees from both samples. The weighted average rank for Positive Feedback is four for the German employees and five for the US employees as presented in Table 4-5. The “Employee of the Mo
7、nth“ reward has lower weighted average ranks. The US sample ranks the reward to be number nine motivator whereas the German employees only number 15 motivator, that is, the reward has the lowest possible rank in Germany. It is difficult to imagine reasons in the formal institutional framework that w
8、ould influence the demand for recognition; however, the informal framework does help to explain the results. The difference in the preference of the “Employee of the Month“ Rewards can be traced back to the fact that the United States is a more individualistic country than Germany as presented in 2
9、Table 4-8, 178 which leads to the demand for rewards that are focused on the individual. Also, as mentioned earlier the US is a society more focused on the visible signs of career success, 179 the achievement of status, 8 and performance, TM which can also be seen as a reason for their demand for re
10、cognition, such as the“Employee of the Month“ reward. 4.2.2 Fringe Benefits As Table 4-2 presents, the US employees find fringe benefits significantly more important (mean 1.82) than do the German employees (2.58). This might be explained by the difference in the employee and employer contribution o
11、n social insurances set by laws in the two countries. In Germany the employees are covered by an extensive health care as well as a governmental retirement plan. In addition they receive, compared to the US employees, a large amount of paid vacation days regulated by the law. Table 4-9 presents a sh
12、ort comparison of the legal requirements on social security contributions in Germany and the USA.The country comparison of the performance reward rankings present interesting resuits. The German employees of the study organization identify retirement plan payments significantly less often non-motiva
13、ting compared to the US employees than expected. It may pertain to the uncertainty about what the future will hold given the discussion of the reforms in Germany at the time the data was collected. The US sample, on the other hand, ranks retirement plans significantly non-motivating as presented in
14、Table 4-3. This result can be explained by the fact that the US sample is satisfied with their current fringe benefits, and therefore, do not find additional fringe benefits highly motivating. That makes sense due to the extensive offer of especially health care related benefits at the study organiz
15、ation in the US as described in Chapter 3.2.2. Also, as expected, due to the differences in annual vacation time, the German employees find additional days off significantly non-motivating compared to the US sample. As explained above the German institutional framework which provides the employees w
16、ith a large number of annual days off. Also in the study organization the differences in vacation days between organizations in the two countries are large. Where the US employees have at maximum 20 vacation days per a year the German sample starts with over 24 vacation days after their first year a
17、s discussed in Chapter 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. Again the informal institutional framework may provide some explanations to the differences between the countries. According to Schuler and Rogovsky (1998) masculine societies seem to be associated with less use of fringe benefits. 176 As discussed earlier and
18、 presented in Table 4-8, the culture in the United States is more feminine than the German culture and therefore might place higher importance on fringe benefits than does the German culture. This result also supports Hofstede (2001) finding, which states that women value security related items, suc
19、h as fringe benefits more than men do. 3 4.2.3 Training, Responsibilities and Use of Skills As presented by Table 4-2, the US employees of the study organization find training opportunities (mean 1.95) as well as the full use of skills and abilities at work (mean 1.88) significantly more important t
20、han do their German counterparts (means 2.41 and 2.22 respectively). The US sample, however, finds training to be significantly nonmotivating when compared to the German sample as presented in Table 4-3. Actually 22 percent of the US sample note training to be a non-motivator for them (see Table 4-
21、6). The German sample ranks greater responsibilities at work motivating (they noted greater responsibilities as significantly less non-motivating than expected). Interestinglyenough, their US counterparts find the same reward significantly nonmotivating; in other words, they would not put forth more
22、 effort if they were rewarded with additional tasks. In fact, 23 percent of the US sample finds Greater Responsibilities to be a non-motivating reward. The importance placed on training by the US sample might be explained by the formal institutional framework. Kaye (1998) and Casio (2003) highlight
23、the necessity of training to remain competitive in the selective US labor market given the massive downsizing, the loss of jobs to less costly foreign salary regions, and the weakening of the trade unions over the last 25 years in the US Perhaps, in this light the US workers see training and learnin
24、g as a necessary component in assuring the employment compared to the German workers who have not experienced these effects to the same extent. 182 The fact that the US sample finds training to be a non-motivating reward might be due to the fact that the US employees see training rather as an entitl
25、ement. They might expect their employer to offer training as a part of their work and do not see training as a reward. This is a particularly interesting finding of the study: What is seen as important factor at work is not necessarily considered to be a motivating performance reward. The results re
26、lated to the importance of training and the full use of abilities and skills at work do not support the findings of Sirota and Greenwood who find the reverse. 183 However, our results fit Hofstedes (2001) findings that countries with low individualism and high power distance place low importance on
27、training and the ability to use skills, is4 Therefore, also the informal institutional framework might be used to explain the results. US employees with low power distance and low collectivism (see Table 4- 8) find it important to be able to fully use their skills at work. According to Adler (2002)
28、the American society is focused on the ability to change and improve, Is5 which certainly seems to be related to learning and using skills.The fact that the German sample finds Greater Responsibilities a motivating reward might also be explained by the informal institutional framework. For the Germa
29、n employees greater responsibilities might be seen to be connected to an upward movement in an organizational hierarchy ladder. This might be seen as a motivating factor in the German society that is focused on hierarchy thinking, is6 For the US employees greater responsibilities might need to be ac
30、companied by some other reward in order to offset the additional effort required. 4 4.2.4 Work Environment The German employees of the study organization seem to place significantly less importance on the good relationship with their manager as well as the importance of physical working conditions t
31、han do their US counterparts. However, when looking at the performance reward preferences of the individuals, the German sample finds improvements in working conditions as a significantly motivating reward, whereas their US counterparts find the same reward significantly non-motivating.An explanatio
32、n of the fact that the German employees do not seem to be as concerned about sharing the decision making regarding working conditions is likely to be the codetermination entitlement right granted to German employees by the formal institutional framework. The employees in Germany have a right for co-
33、determination,which involves workers or union representatives in company decision-making process by giving them seats on company boards and works councils. Works councils act as intermediaries for decisions related to working conditions, administration of labor contracts etc. However, co-determinati
34、on is not voluntary in Germany, but set by law. The co-determination right of the German employees entitles them to take part in decisions about the firm in particular for matters like working conditions, as well as hiring and firing decisions within the firm.The fact the US employees of the study o
35、rganization find improvements in working conditions to be a significantly non-motivating reward compared to the German counterparts might be due to the fact that the existing working conditions as the company are viewed to be good. Another explanation for the finding might be the fact that also work
36、ing conditions are viewed as entitlements. That is, the employees expect the employer to offer good physical working conditions to them as part of the employment relationship. 译文 在德国和美国如何保留和激励员工 资料来源 ： Economics Personnel Management 作者： Marjaana Gunkel 关键词：激励机制，员工满意度 4.2 正式和非正式制度框架的奖励在以下方面的影响 在下文中分别
37、从 6 方面来讨论正式和非正式制度框架对激励机制的影响。首先对各项工作的重要性和相关目标进行分组讨论。然后是测试如果假设 1 适用于分组 ,也就是说 ,如果这两个国家的员工中找到不同的薪酬激励，然而 ,值得注意5 的是 ,这些解释仅仅作为基 础是为了更加容易的进一步说明绩效报酬的影响和其他正式与非正式结构的影响。 4.2.1 表彰 研究机构提供了一个有趣的结果。 当 他们研究表彰对员工激励机制 的重要性 时 ， 却找不到 各国之间的差异。 从 美国 和 德国 员工分析 研究 中 发现 表彰在工作中是 一个 十分 重要的因素。 在两个国家的员工的“月明星员工”表彰有 一个有趣的 差异。 然而在美
38、国表彰中这种表彰被视为激励员工工作的动力，德国员工把这种表彰作为是一种非激励因素。 从以上的正反两个例子 似乎 都是作为 激励员工的奖励 因素 。 “ 月明星雇员 ” 表彰有 较低的加权平均行列。 美国的奖励机制被视为九号激 励动力，然而 德国 却 只有 十五号激励动力 ，也就 意味着激励机制 在德国可能 成为 最低排名。 这个正式体制的框架是难以想象的 ，这将影响 着表彰的要求 ，然而 ， 一个 非正式 体制的 框架 却 有助于解释 表彰的效果 。 这种 “月明星员工”不同的激励机制 可 归因于 一个事实，即美国是一个比德国更 具个人主义的国家，研究中发现表彰要求 均侧重于个人。此外 ， 正
39、如前面 所 提到的美国 ，它 实现社会地位 一个很 明显 的特征就是 更加专注于事业的成功， 地位的提升， 一个称号 也可看作是 表彰需求的一个因素 ， 譬如 “ 月 明星员工 ” 的奖励 4.2.2 附加福利 附加福利对美国员工的影响比 德国员工的大。之所以有这样是因为不同的雇员和雇主对社会保险费用由这两个国家的法律的而定的。在德国的员工拥有一个广泛的医疗保健以及政府的退休金计划，此外他们可以得到相比美国员工更多的法律规定的带薪休假。在德国和美国法律的一个短板在于社会保障金。这个国家的绩效报酬的排名有一个有趣的结果。德国的雇员退休金计划于美国的雇员退休金计划相对比，美国的员工的缺少激励明显少
40、于预期。它可能涉及到在德国的改革时收集的数据对于未来下定论有不确定性。 另一方面，研究表明，缺少激励在退休计划中呈现显著。从这个结论中可以揭示这样的事实：员工对当前的福利是满意的，因此没有找多更多的附加福利激励机制。同样，正如预期的，由于不同的时间、德国的员工的附加休息日对员工激励的影响对于美国相比更加明显。根据德国的制度框架，他提供给他们员工大量的年休假。而且在研究机构中发现，这两个国家的假期存在很大的差异。在美国员工一年有最多 20 天的休假。德国员工一年有超过 24 天的休假，为什么存在这种差异？从这两个国家的非正式制6 度框架中可以找到这个解释。根据舒勒周期振荡和 Rogocsky(1
41、998)指出社会似乎很少使用附加福利，因为美国相对于德国文化更加的女性化。这个结果也支持霍夫斯泰德（ 2001）的发现，它指出美国女性价值安全相关的东西，比如附加福利比男性员工得到的多。 4.2.3 培训、岗位职责和技能的使用 德国的员工在工作中有较大的责任（他们指出更大的职责并不能对员工产生激励作用，反而会减少激励作用）。有趣的是美国研究发现，在同样回报的情况下，员工明显不受到激励。换句话说，如果他们得到额外任务的回报，他们不会把更多的精力放在这个任务上。事实上， 23%的美国员工指出，授予更大的责任不能产生 激励作用。员工培训的重点应该是它的形式制度框架。凯 (1998)和卡西欧 (200
42、3)强调培训的必要性是通过在美国劳动力市场有选择性的大量裁员从而留下竞争力的员工，以达到低成本的目的，而从国外的弱者公会组织在过去的25 年中，可以看到没过工人认为培训和学习是对就业的一种保证，相比较，德国工人的就业并没有受到培训和学习的影响。事实上，我们发现美国培训员工的原因可能是因为他们把它作为一种非激励因素的奖励，即美国员工将培训做为一种权利，没有将培训做为一种奖励研究表明：在工作中被认定重要的因素不一定被认定是一个激励绩效奖 励。这个结果关系到培训的重要性和才能与技能的充分利用，不支持这个结论的人找到了西洛塔和格林伍德。然而，我们的结论与霍夫斯泰德的 (2001)的观点相吻合，他发现国
43、家性质与文化差异对培训和技能的使用是不太重要的，因此，非正式制度框架页可能被用来解释这个结果。从美国员工的文化差距和低的集体主义中可以发现在工作中如何充分利用他们能力才是重点。据阿德勒 (2002)指出，美国社会关注的重点是改变和提高他们的工作能力，这当然与学习和使用技能是有关联的。 事实上，德国的员工有更大的责任心或许也是由于非正式制度框架的激励报酬的缘故。德国的员工将这些责任看作是升职的一个机会，这或许被视为是一种激励因素，因为他们以等级制度为焦点，相对于美国员工要是承担有更大的职责还需要给他们其他的奖励来弥补他们的额外付出。 4.2.4 工作环境 德国员工的学习型组织，在处理与他们经理的
44、关系时有重要的意义，德国员工的物理工作条件与美国员工的工作条件相比也是同样重要。然而 ,当你看绩效7 奖励的独特性时，德国员工发现工作环境的改善作为重要的激励报酬，然而美国员工也拥有同样显著的非激励因数。对于这个事实的一个解释：德国员工不看上去是那样的担心他们的工作条件， 可能是因为他们的工作条件是和企业主共同协商决定的，德国对于工厂的员工都有正式的制度框架，在德国，涉及劳工或公会代表在公司决策过程中，通过他们公司的董事会席位和工作委员会具有决定权。劳资联合委员会作为中间机构为员工的工作条件做决定给员工做相关的劳动合同管理。然而这在德国并不是自愿的，而是法律规定的。德国的企业在组织员工参与他们的工作条件的会议中具有决定权，包括公司的雇佣权和解雇权。事实上，美国员工的工作中发现非激励因素奖励比德国企业改善学习型组织条件显著，可能是由于这样的原因：在企业看来现有的工作条件是不错的 。对于这个发现的另一种解释为具有一个好的工作条件是一种权利。也就是说，员工都期待用人单位可以提供良好的工作条件。
