RWT1 Business Research Report
Business Research Report
Compensation Strategies for 2014
Assessment Code: RWT1
Student Name:
Student ID:
Date: 9/15/13
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Research Findings
Salaried/Hourly Compensation
Commission/Productivity-Based Compensation
Longevity Compensation
Recommendations 6
Conclusion 7
References 8
Executive Summary
This report reviews three different compensation strategies PepsiCo can develop and implement within all of our PepsiCo. Brands and businesses for our employees. Compensation is one of the most important and rewarding factors for our employees based on our organizational health survey conducted in 2011, so a thoughtful and thorough approach should be taken as we think about changing the way in which our companies reward our employees for the work they perform on a daily basis.
Salary and hourly compensations are easy and constant ways of paying the employees of our companies. Salary and hourly compensation can be a set wages employees will earn based on their job description. This wage will not change based on seniority or merit. The stability of this type of compensation system is appealing to employees as they are aware of how much income they will receive on a regular basis. Hourly based pay has very little room for opportunity of growth for the employees.
Commission/productivity based pay also known as performance based pay is a relatively common and popular approach to compensation where the employee is paid by the employer based on their job performance; this inspires them to do their best work on a daily basis and gives the employees control of how much they make to maximize their own income. With quality performance and high productivity, employers are able to increase profit and become more competitive.
Longevity Pay is the last recommendation of compensation we as a company can consider for our employees. Longevity Pay is compensation based on the employee 's length of service,
Compensation Strategies for 2014
Assessment Code: RWT1
Student Name:
Student ID:
Date: 9/15/13
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Research Findings
Salaried/Hourly Compensation
Commission/Productivity-Based Compensation
Longevity Compensation
Recommendations 6
Conclusion 7
References 8
Executive Summary
This report reviews three different compensation strategies PepsiCo can develop and implement within all of our PepsiCo. Brands and businesses for our employees. Compensation is one of the most important and rewarding factors for our employees based on our organizational health survey conducted in 2011, so a thoughtful and thorough approach should be taken as we think about changing the way in which our companies reward our employees for the work they perform on a daily basis.
Salary and hourly compensations are easy and constant ways of paying the employees of our companies. Salary and hourly compensation can be a set wages employees will earn based on their job description. This wage will not change based on seniority or merit. The stability of this type of compensation system is appealing to employees as they are aware of how much income they will receive on a regular basis. Hourly based pay has very little room for opportunity of growth for the employees.
Commission/productivity based pay also known as performance based pay is a relatively common and popular approach to compensation where the employee is paid by the employer based on their job performance; this inspires them to do their best work on a daily basis and gives the employees control of how much they make to maximize their own income. With quality performance and high productivity, employers are able to increase profit and become more competitive.
Longevity Pay is the last recommendation of compensation we as a company can consider for our employees. Longevity Pay is compensation based on the employee 's length of service,
References: Besedes, Tibor, Cary Deck, Sudipta Sarangi, and Mikhael Shor. "Decision-Making Strategies and Performance among seniors." Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81 (2012): 524– 533. Brown, Robert L., and Jianxun Liu. "The Shift to Defined Contribution Plans: Why It Did Not Happen in Canada?" North American Actuarial Journal, (July 2001): 65–77. CCH. "2009 COBRA Survey: Recession Takes Hold: More Were Eligible, Fewer Elected, Costs Stay High." Spencer 's Research Reports on Employee Benefits (CCH a Wolters Kluwer Company, June 2009): 329.6.-1-8. Clark, Robert, and Sylvester Schieber. "The Shifting Sands of Retirement Plans." World at Work Journal, (Fourth Quarter 2000): 6–14. Custer, William. "Health Reform: Examining the Alternatives." EBRI Issue Brief no. 147 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, March 1994). Davis, Steve. "Health Insurers, Employers Are Beginning To Embrace Defined-Contribution Model." Health Plan Week, (November 21, 2011). Milkovich, G. T. (1987). A strategic perspective on compensation management (CAHRS Working Paper #87-01). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/444 Kuok, K.L.M & Bell, B.S. (2005). Design, implementation, and evaluation of HR leadership development programs (CAHRS Working Paper #05-02). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/2 Gerhart, B., Minkoff, H.B. & Olsen, R.N. (1995). Employee Compensation: Theory, practice, and evidence (CAHRS Working paper #95-04). ). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/194