lawther 1989 on compensation control in states 3 6 06

8/7/2019 Lawther 1989 on Compensation Control in States 3 6 06

1/14

Compensation ControlMechanisms in theAmerican States

There are few studies which report on the personnel practices Inthe American states, A sULveyof state com pensation analysts in the Summer of 1987elicited informarion concerning the useofcornpensatlon controls instate government. Results indicate that with the-exception ofwageand salary surveys, data concerni ng com pensation controls is rarely collected. Ini tial analysisindicates that the role of the legislature and the existence of collective bargainingmay have animpact on the number of controls used.

ByWendell C. LawtherEarle C. TraynhamKenneth M. Jennings

Won dell C. Lewth ce Is O n As-soclate Prolessor In thl>D~p"1.ment of Publlc Adminislrollonat the Unlversuy of CentralFlorid a. He has publishedseveeat artkles ihthe area of per-sonnel edm Inlsh; 'a tion and ({IJ;n~munlty deve lopment po!l~y.More spodflc~lIy, his re""archareas lndude corrpeusnllon nd-mlntstranon, te~1validation andperformance evaluation.amlimja1

There are few studies which discuss compensation management inthe American states. What does exist are primarily descriptive reviews ofvarious aspects of state compensationsystetns. McConomy andCanschinietz (1983), in a survey of the American states, discovered thatthere are an increasing number of states employing a quantifiable jo bevaluation method. Information found in the annual editions of the Bookof the States also provides only cursory information about state practices.Roeder (1986) in the 1986-87edition, for example, reviews classification andcompensation plans, providing information on legal bases, the number ofclasses, and the date of the most recent overall compensation review. Thereis no literature which combines a descriptive reporting of state data with adiscussion of effective compensation programs or systems.

According to Davis (1983), an effective compensation systemfacilitates the response to and anticipation of changing conditions andsituations. In many ways, McElwan (1982) echoes this sentiment when hestates that compensation program effectivene s is dependent upon a com-mitment to continually changing the compensation program to meetwhatever challenges are present Hunt and Gray (l986) provide additionalinsight into how compensation management should be practiced. Theysuggest that maintaining compensation program effectiveness "...meansconstant review and analysis of the combination of tasks, the relationshipof jobs within the organization, and market conditions."

"Compensation controls" represent an important element in the"review and analysis" of the compensation program. According to Belcher(1974, P : 574), controls consist of three elements: 1) setting satisfactorystandards; 2) reviewing control data to determine the extent to which thestandards have been met; and 3) taking corrective action if required.Because the identification of standards and the collection of data is ofteninadequate, he further states, control in an organization is often "referredto in less formal terms such as 'administration' or 'maintenance'".

Public Personnel Management Vol. 18 NO.3 (Fell 1989) 325


2/14

Yet Fischer (1978) stresses that establishing controls constitutes cru-cialelemenrs of effectivecompensation management. The compensationmanager must recognize that substantive organizational costs are relatedto crganlzational structure and levels of staffing. The compensationmanager, thus, must be heavily committed to maintaining controls andsubsequent planning in Ught of:collected data.

An effective compensation manager must be flexible and open tochange, using control data to identify potential manpower problems, (i.e,those indicated because designated standards are flat met) and then alter-ing organizational conditions as .a result The choice of appropriate man-power control data to collect, analyze and ad upon depends on whatinformation the compensation analyst views as significant.

Controls can pertain to:o costs relevant to.the aequisitien, development and replacement ofemployees;o salary data furnished by market conditions; ando information relevant to the amount and distribution ofemployeesalaries.

The purposes of this article are to review several eornpensation con-trol measures and th eir usefulness and.report on a fmy state survey of stategovernment compensation management practices.

Sources and Types of comoensotron Con1rol

B u - r l ' , [ : C. Trapnharn, Jr . rs PJ"Pfes-sor"Qf ECOI"lOmlc5at the: Ilnlver-.ily < I . f (fiorl,o ~Ioripe. R.l1!t~i.\led his- a.A., M.,B,A.~ ,andPh.D. degeees f>m theUnlvee-siIy 0E 50 \ ' lt h Cerollne. ProfessorTray , , , I 1 O I D Is I.h. a~thor ofseveral at't.ic:t~5 and books enh um a n m i g ;: at la n , invO:llll1.mlnhuman capltal, laoor" relatlons.aqd ~oll{:.Ctiee bargai nlng , nne" ' S I , , , , . 1 manpower p O l . I < y _


3/14

Kerinetb M. [ennl ngs, Jr. IsproNs:;o , of MOIl"ge.m."t nn dIndustrial Relnt lons at theUl1iv.l'sH)' 01'NOlin Florida. H~n as s erv ed in a varie ty or laborre la tlo es a nd p er so nn ne l a ss tg n-menl. with Union Carbide Cor-pore tton. He received his B.A.["'111 Kno~ College..nd M.A.and Ph.D. degrees from theUniv~,.,;i ly of In1001$.Prof.;;.."J~.~nin8.s hns wrf uen severalbooks on d 3 1 11 < 1" ,d ~ a1 tn s w it hel1,p1uy~ dlsc:/p1i'ne, gril!\l~n;;:e:s.3( '1d i l l;b l teaUOL' l , personel pril.C-UC:C:iand publtc ~'Ot b~I('};alll-lng,

Wage and salary surveys represent the most significant compensa lioncontrol da.ta.

Information gleaned from this survey allows for compensation ad-ministrators to make recommendations concerning:o salary increases for the upcoming year;o grade adjustments for classes experiencing labor market shortages: ando clarifications of agency or government policy concerning its salaries in.relationship to those found in the market (I.e., whether the governmentwill adopt a lag. lead, Or lag-lead approach (Henderson, 1985)).Salary distribution data examines the distribution of employee

salaries along a salary range. Usually the distribution ismonitored in termsof quartiles, and/ot' a compa ratio, i.e., the ratio between the mean salaryactually paid in each range and the middle salary in the range. This datamustbe interpreted with great care, as a.given distribution is not necessarilypreferred over any other. The data merely indicate what is, not what shouldbe. Usually, distribution data must be analyzed along with other data.

A large percentage of employee salaries, e.g., 45%, in the lowest quartile,at' alternatively a compa ratio less than one, may indicate the following:o a high level of turnover among those recently hired;o a substandard workforce; orDan agtngworkforce wlth a high number of retirlng workers belngreplaced by newly hired employees.I f a large percentage of employee salaries are in the upper range, or alter-natively the campa ratio is greater than one, Itmay mean that:o there is very little turnover;o there may be few promotional opportunities for employees inaclass; ando . there have been recent layoffs with seniority the major desired criteria.

The appropriateness of any particular distribution or compa ratiodepends on management's objectives for the employeesinvoJved.

Examining annual earnings data can indicate the extent to whichthere i a significant difference between salary rate and earnings. Salaryrates attached to each raJlge comprise an internal wa:ge structure. Thisformally determined arrangement usually attempts to provide more com-pensation for those jobs considered more valuable to the organization orgovernment. The combination of base salary, overtime, and pension paymay Cause a rational rate structure to become "a jungle of earnings".

Compensation Control Mechanisms 327


4/14

Again, solving a problem related to earnings requires that otherinformation be reviewed. If subordinates are earning more that super-visors, perhaps the supervisor class is placed at an unrealistically low payrange. Inordinately high earnings for lower level positions may also reflecthigh levels of overtime, which may reflect several additional managementand/or personnel problems. High turnover and high vacancy rates, forexample, rnaynecessitate this overtime. It also maybe that overtime and/ orother supplements are being used to "correct" an internal wage structurethat has gotten out of step with the external wage structure. Such ad hocmeasures are seldom applied evenly or effectively throughout the or-ganization.

The "grade slippage" control indicator compares the percentage ofpositions in various classes over various periods of time. Table 1 providesan example of a grade slippage problem in a hypothetical clerical series.Withjn the last 5 years, there has been a shiftin the distribution of posi tionsfrom the lower end to the upper end.Several compensation related problems may be indicated by gradeslippage. Itmay he the result of continuous" grade creep" pressure (see, forexample, Shafritz,1973)! caused by lower than market salaries and/or thelack of viable monetary rewards for incumbents. It may also mean theexisting position classification system needs revision, as the internal wage

structure mayno longer be equitable. In some agencies, grade slippage maybe the result of high turnover, as supervisors attempt to consolidate posi-tions in order to retain valued employees.Table 1Hypothetical Configuration Indicating a Grade Slippage ProblemIn a Secretarial Series

Number 01 PositionsClass 1982 1987Secretary V 10 20Secretory IV 15 30Secretary III 20 25Secretary II 25 20Secretary I 30 5

Total, 100 100

328 Public Personnel M'anag.em ent Vol. 18 No.3 (Fall 1989)


5/14

Employee Related Costs: Acquisition, Developmentand ReplacementCompensation controls should include more than the collection ofdata directly relevant to salaries and benefits. Costs related to maintaining

an employee workforce are likely to influence other aspects of compensa-tion. These costs include those related to recruiting and training. In addi-tion, a closely related data set is that of turnover rates.

Consequences of turnover have been well documented. These include:01 costs, including separation, vacancy, training and replacement;01 disruption of performance; andO il decline of morale (Mobley, 1982).Although there maybe positive consequences ofturnover (Staw, 1981),the negative consequences are more easily measurable and often out-weigh the positive one_s.

As is the case with all compensation controls, turnover rates requirethe identification of adequate standards. Statewide or region wide rates forkey organizational/ governmental positions can be employed. In the ab-sence of such standards, the organization or government may decide tomonitor the extreme cases. As such turnover rates for both class and regionshould be calculated, especially if employment .isdistributed over a widegeographical region. Even though the overall turnover rate for a state maybe relatively low, for example, itmay be much higher :for the more ur-banized areas of the state.

Monitoring training costs may provide several benefits. It wouldseem.appropriatefor both a state agen cyan d th estate compensation systemto collect this data ..The purpose of doing so would be for different reasons.The agency may wish to examine training costs in light of other manage-ment related factors, such as subsequent employee performance/instruc-tional costs and class size.

For the compensation administrator, training costs may be monitoredin a more general sense, examining costs per incumbent for each class. Iftraining costs are rising for correction officers, for example, at a time whenthe turnover rate is also high for this class, serious compensation problemmay exist. The state may find itself spending a large amount on trainingcosts only to have the trained office leaving state employment for higherpaying positions in the private sector. Training costs, thus, can provide avalid indicator of overall compensation program effectiveness.



6/14

Methodology

The importance of monitoring recruiting costs is also best viewed incomparison with other compensation control data. First, < 1 1 . high turnoverrate is likely to coincide with high recruiting costs. Here the problem maybe a starting salary that is below similar positions in the labor market.Perhaps more important is the cost of vacancies, If recruiting costs arehighest because certain positions can not be filled, even though the turn-over rate is low, then a compensation problem is indicated,Employee Attitude Surveys Concerning Wage and Fringe Benefits

Attitudinal data collected from a sample of state employees mayprove valuable tor a number of reasons ..First.results may confirm or dispelanecdotal information concerning the acceptance of a certain aspect of thefringe benefit package and/ or a decision for change. Survey results indicat-ing a high degree of support for more state-supported day care services, forexample, may help to convince key legislators to support an expansion ofthis benefit.Second, it could help to fund a better "mix" of fringe benefits; if it isdiscovered, for example, that more comprehensive dental benefits wouldbe preferable to increased pension funding. Third, it aids compensationadministrators in. tdentlfying those aspects for which there is extremefeeling among state employees. Incumbents of some classes, for example,may be more happy with their salary levels that others. Overall, it mayimprove employee morale beca.use it does encourage employee feedback.

During its 1986-87 legislative session, the Florida State legislaturedirected the State University System to provide a study of the state'scompensation system.' Nine faculty members from four of the StateUniversities were chosen to participate in the study. To more fully providecompensation system alternatives for the State of Florida, personnelistsfrom the remaining. 49 states were contacted via telephone. Of those con-tacted, all of whom where b).the area of compensation I classification, 27were Division Directors, Bureau Chiefs or Section Heads, 14 were titledPersonnel Analysts/Supervisors, and 9 others were of indeterminate posi-tion within the state personnel function, These individuals answered avariety of questions dealing with the nature of the compensation system inhis Or her state, Including compensation policies, legislative role, nature ofcollective bargaining, salary structure data and compensation control data.Telephone conversations lasted 45 minutes to one and one half hours.Surveys were made during IW1e and July,1987.

330 Public Personnel Management Vol. 18 NO.3 (FcIl1989)


7/14

Table 2Compensation Controls inthe American statesstQte Recruiting Training Turnover' AHitude Annual Gr'ade SolaryCosts Costs Rafes Survey EOm,lngs: Slip DistribAL S S S N Y N NAK N N Y N N N NAZ S N y y N Y YAR N N Y N y y yCA N Y Y N N N NCO y Y y y y y NCT N y y S Y N ND E N N y N y y SFL N N Y S N N SGA N N Y S N Y YH I N N S N N Y Nl D y N y N N N NI L N N y N N N NIN N N Y N Y N NIA Y Y Y N N NkS N N N 5 N S SJ < Y N N Y N Y N yLA N N Y N Y N ~M E N Y Y S N Y YMOMA N N N N N N NM I I 'J N Y Y N Y NMN N N N N N Y NMS N N N N Y N NM T N N y N N N NMO Y Y Y N N N NNB N N y N N N NNV N N y N Y N NNH N N N N N N NNJ N N N N N N NNM I~ Y Y N Y N NN Y y N Y 5 Y y NNC Y Y y Y N NNO N N N N N y SOH N N y N Y Y NOK Y Y Y y N NOR I~ N N N N N SPA Y N Y N y y NIII N Y N Y N Y NSC N N Y Y Y Y YSO N N S N N S yTN Y y Y Y N N NT X N N Y N N N NUT N N N N N N NVT Y Y Y y N y NVA Y Y Y Y y N NWA N Y Y S Y y 'YWV N N N N N N NW I s S y y N N Nwi( y N y s N y yN= no V= yes 5= sorneftrn es, eceesteneuv, Infrequently, pertormed lor some 01 the staleagencies or classes



8/14

ResultsTable 2 provides a summary of the types of compensation controlmeasures used by the fifty state governments. As indicated in Table 2, theturnover rate is the only control, other than wage and salary surveys, thatis used by a majority ofthe states. Thirty-five states collect this data for theiremployee workforce on a continuing basis, while three additional statescollect it for some classes. The comparable figures for recruiting and train-ing costs show a much moreIimited interest. Oni y 15 sta tes collect recruiting cost da ta on aregu lar basis,with some data. collected in three additional states. For training costs,officials from 14 states reported the collection of this information, while twoadditional states review training cost data on a limited basis. Only eigh tstates collect all three types of data, while 10 states collect none.In the salary related compensation controls, 18 states reported cal-

culating annual earnings. Grade slippage is monitored in 18 states, withtwo additional states examining this information for selected classes. Salarydistribution data, including the calculation of campa ratio, is examined inonly nine states, plus three more states monitoring this information forsom e classes. Only one state collects data for all three controls, while 17states collect none.

Almost all states have some association with a wage and salarysurvey. This association takes one ofthree forms. A wage and salary surveymay be conducted by the Personn elDepartment or division therein, or maybe conducted by outside consultants. This survey collects data from localgovernment, private sector employers within the state, and often fromadjoining states. The survey can be comprehensive, or may focus only on1/ critical" classesforwhich the state maybe experlencing recruiting difficul-ties. The second form of association consists of participation in a survey inwhich data is collected in a regional (several state) area. In this case, stateemployment data is furnished to allow compari on with surroundingstates. Third, Bureau of Labor and/or privately funded wage and salarydata maybe examined by state compensation managers.

As reflected in Table 3,43 states conduct their own wage and salarysurvey, performed either with state compensation analysts or with the helpof an outside consultant.

At least 14 of these conduct a survey annually, with a few statesrequired by law to perform a compensation survey for all state positions.An additional six states conduct a survey every two years, with five morestates indicating a more infrequent time period. Twenty-nine states surveylocal and private employers within the state, as well as adjoining stategovern ments,

332 Public Personnel Management Vol. 18 No.3 (Fall 1989)


9/14

Characteristics of Wage and Salary Surveys in the American statesSlale survey T Im , e F la m e , Pallicipalion 'Primory PurposePerlormed In Larger Survey lor !he SurveyA l Y-S Closs Ann Personnel BoordAK y Ann ColiediveBorgAl y Two per Year Legislal ureA R Y leglslaj'ureCA y Ann GovelnorCO y AnnCT y Ann S ClassesOce all Collec!iveBargDE y Ann Com p I~eloteaF L Y Ann S Classes Govern:orGA y y Pe.rsonnel Off.HI Y Collec! lve BorgID Y Camp Re.lotedIL y Go'V,ernorIN Y Every 2 Yrs Com p RelatedIA y Rarely Collect ive BorgKS N v: 11 state con LegislatureK Y y legjslof'ureL A y Oce Civil ssrv CornrnM E y Every 5 vrs Other 1)010 Camp RelatedMDMA N y-t\.:1g1PositsMI y Other DoloMN y Y Collect ive BorgM S Y Camp RelatedM T NMO Y Ann S crossesN BN V Y Every 2 Yrs Y GovernorNH NNJ N Other DataNM N Y-15 stale conNY Y YNG YND Y Every 2Yrs Y Leglsla'i u reOH y Annuolly Comp RelatedOK y Annuqlly V-7 state conOR Y EverY'2 Yrs Collec tlve B.argPA Y Every 2 Yrs GovernorRI Y Comp Relet,ed.SC YSO N Y-13 state can Camp RelatedT N Y Ann Pers.onnel OffT X Y Every 2Yrs legislatureU T y A n n GovernorV I y Collective BorgV A y Ann S Clos.sesWA y legislatureWv y Ann SClasses Y-Reglon PeUionnel CommWI y Oce Other DataWY Y'(~yes. N~No Oee~Occosionally. S C-los,ses=Some,CI0$5e$"slole. con=sl'ole eensernum,Ar:m=onnually



10/14

Six states do not perform their own survey, instead relying uponparticipation ina several state consortium, or on survey data collected bythe federal government and other outside agencies, Data collected by thismethod is primarily from other states only. Ten additional states performtheir oWllsurveys and also participate ina larger multi-state survey.When asked questions regarding the purpose of the survey, respon-dents usually mentioned that the data furnished the basis of recommenda-tions to another state institution, or they identified a more compensationrelated reason, such as lito identify thedeg;ree ofsala:ry competitiveness.Compensation personnelists from eight states identified the state Iegisla-tureas the primary recipient of this data; for five states, the governor wasmentioned; in six states, the Civil Service System or Personnel Boardreceived the results, while in eight other states compensation reasons wereidentified. For eight additional states, collective bargaining was theprimary reason for data collection, with responses not avarlable from 14

states.On the surface, the data seems to indicate a decided lack of commit-ment to the usage of compensation controls in the American states. With

fewer than 40% of the states using any controls other than training rates orwage and salary survey data, itwould seem that effective compensationsystem management is not given a high priority in most states ..Although athorough explanation of the results can not be made w:iththe available data!i.nsightsinto possible reasons can be offered.

Much of the explanation maybe related to the role of the personnelfunction in a given state, and the concurrent role of the compensationmanager within that personnel function. In Texas, forexample, the person-nel fun ction is dearly decentralized, with much of the control over person-nel policies and rules delegated to state agenctes, In other states, theresponslbility and authority for the collection of compensation control data

Table 4The Influence ot Collective Bargaining on the Number of CompensationControls Used-Number of states

Number of Compensation Conhols*0-2 3-4 5-7

Heovy CB 8(44%) 1(6%)Light CB 11 (33%) 15(45%) 6(22%)";excluding wage and salary surveys

334 Public Personnel Management VoL 18 No.3 (Foil "989)


11/14

is divided among the centralized personnel agency and the line agencies.Several.states indicated, for example, that training and recruiting costs datais collected by agencies. Collective bargaining between state agencies andlabor organizations would appear to increase managerial commitment tocompensation controls. For example, management could use the results ofwage and sala.ry surveys to counter union claims for higher ages given jobclassifications. The results provided in Tahle 4, however, do not supportthis relationship.

States are categorized by the percentage coverage by unions in thecollective bargaining process, with 50% used as the dividing line betweenheavy involvement III collective bargaining or not. Excluding the wage andsalary survey, the data indicates a greater usage of compensation controlsamong those states without collective bargaining than for those which areheavily involved ..

Perhaps many state person nel represen tatives believe tha t unions willnot be influenced by management's control data. concerning wage costs.Unions are often interested in broader historical andlor parity considera-tions such as the proportion of the salary budget allotted for pay increasesin previous years, or the percentage increase currently given t o variousstate government employee classifications represented by other unions ..Table 5The Influence of Collective Bargaining and The Role of the Leg.isloture onthe Number of Compensation ControlsUsed-Number of States

Number of Compensation Controls02 34 5 -7

Heavy CBand ActiveLegis Role 9(82%), 1(9%) 1(9%) 11 statesH eovv C Band NoLegis Role 1(1


12/14

Further, management might violate legally required good faith bargainingefforts if they employ some wage controls (employee attitude surveys, forexample) that bypass the union's role as exclusive bargaining repre-sentative for state government employees.To further gain explanatory insights to why varying amounts ofcompensation control data are used across all states, the combined in-fluence of collective bargaining involvement and the legislative role insetting salary increases was examined. As shown in Table 5, the sevencompensation controls surveyed (excluding wage and salary surveys) weregrouped into three categories: 0-2, 3-4, and 5-7.For those 11states in which there is a heavy involvement in collectivebargaining. and in which the legislature does set pay increases, 9 states(82%) use only 0-2 compensation controls. In these cases,i tmay be that thecollection of such data by compensation managers would have little in-

fluence on the establishment of compensation levels. The role of the thesemanagers in determining key aspects of compensation policy may be quitelimited when compared to that of the unions and the legislature. For thoseseven states in which there Is heavily collective bargaining involvement,but the legislature does not set pay increases, six (86%) use 3-4 compensa-tion controls. Perhaps in these cases the role of the executive branch ofgovernment is much more signifj.cant in collective bargaining. and thereexists a significant reliance upon compensation managers for relevant data.In the absence of much (if any) collective bargaining, for the 26 statesin which the legislature plays a significant role in setting compensation, 19states (73%) employ 3-7 controls. Here the role of the compensationmanager is more likely to be that of an advisor to the legislature, makingrecommendations for changes in the compensation system.. Finally, in.the

five states with little or no collective bargaining and a limited legislativerole, four states use 0-2 compensation control data. Without the stronglegislative role that benefits from this data, compensation managers alsoplaya much more limited role. The low usage of compensation controlsalso mighr be due to the nature of each controL

I f a compensation management system decides to invest staff time andresources into collecting data for a given control, the criteria used tomake the adoption decision would include:o ease of setting the control standard;Dease ofidentiying the problem if the standard is exceeded;o accepta nee of possible solutions by other key actors; ando the likelihood a problem exists.

336 Public Personnel Management Vol. 18 No.3 (Fall 1989)


13/14

Conclusion

Turnover dab probably represents the best positive example of thesecharacteristics.ra situation that accounts for its high use, as this controlmechanism was found in more than three quarters of the states. One reasonwhy turnover data may be frequently collected is tha:tit may be relativelyeasy to identify the source ofa higher than usual rate ..The source of theproblem is often inadequate salaries, given a rapidly expanding marketdemand for a given skill.. Likewise, Identifying a solution and gatheringacceptance from key actors may also be relatively easy. Agency heads andother government officials have often experienced the effects 01' hightumover, i.e., red uced staff extra time devoted to recruitment, !raining newemployees, and so forth. It is not surprising that they are willing par-ticipants in the measurement implementation and consideration of thiscontrol mechanism. Temporarily reassigning a class with a high turnoverrate to a higher salary grade and or allowing htrmgsupervssors to hire at asalary rate above the usual one may prove to be an easy solution.

Grade slippage and salary distribution data, on the other hand, mayrequire additional consideration to dearly identify and solve the problem.Tfgrade slippage is occurring, a partial solution is to . bring salaries morelnto Iine with market rates. Bu t the problem may also lie in the classificationsystem, i . E the system has not been sensitive enough to changing tasks,duties and I or working conditions tor certain classes. Grade slippage mayalso indicate aneed Jar agency reorganization. This.solution to the problemlies outside the realm. of compensation management, and cooperation fromother actors who could be adversely affected by reorganization might beuncertain or lacking.

The contribution that compensation control data can make to effectivecompensation program management is invaluable. The results of the sur-vey indicate a lack of commitment among compensation managers in theAmerican states to collecting muchof this data. Although the specificreasons for data collection of a specific control type in a given insta nee maybe particular to a given state, the data does provide some patterns ofexplanation, The role of compensation management, as an integral part ofthe state personnel function, seems to vary extensively :in importancedepending upon the nature of collective bargaining and the role of thelegislature in setting compensation levels.

The complexity of the problems indicated by each control may alsowork against- the willingness of compensation managers to commit timeand resources to collect such data, If standardsare difficul t to identify, datacollection time consuming and problem solution unlikely, then the useful-ness of control dati' may be viewed as very limited.

compensctlon Control Mechanisms 337


14/14

Note

References

Further research can be accomplished in both the areas of theAmerican state compensation function and in the nature of compensationcontrols themselves. Factors such as the role of the executive branch, theviability of the collective bargaining process, and the influence of specialinterest groups needs to be examined in more detail In addition, as prac-tices associated with human resource planning and human resource infor-mation systems become more accepted and understood, the perception thatcompensation control data needs tobe collected is likely to expand as well.

1. The focus of the study was on the classified pay system, includ ing those posl lions for wh ichthe top pay is approximately $25,000 annually.

Belcher, D. Compensa ti on Adl ll il li stmtiOI l. Englewood Cliffs, N.].; Prentice Hall, 1974.Davls.]. "Keeping the Compensation Program Up to Date". 1983.Fischer, J . "Employee Com pensatlon Effectiveness". Best 's Review. June, 1978, 76-79.Henderson, R. Compen s al 'i on M lmngemen t. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing Company. 1985.Hunt, E . and G. Gray, "The. Management of Cornpensarion=-Part Two". Mitllngellumt World.V61.9, No.9, 1'986, 32-33.

McConomy, S. and ]. Ganschiniet7~ "Trends in Job Evaluation Practices of State PersonnelSystems: 1981 Survey Findings", Pub li c P e rs annd . Mmrageme ll l1 2 (Spring), 1983, 1]2,McElwan, J . , "Role of the Com pensa lion Manager". ] 982.Mobley, W. Emp loy ee Tumaver . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982.Roeder, R. "Developm en Is in State Adm inistra tion and Managern en t" , in the B oo k o f th e S Ja Les,1986-87, Lexrngton, KY: the Council of Slate Governments, 1986,,274297.Shafritz, J . Posi ti on Cia. ss ij 'i ca li c) IJ : A Beha v io ral A Jla ly sis fO T th e Public Service. New York, N,Y.:Praeger, 1973.Slaw, B. "The Consequences of Turnover", J C J I . ! m t i l o fOccupatiD lIa l Be l ll 1v ior , Vol.I, 1981, 253273.

338 PUblic Personnel Management Vol. 18 NO.3 (fall 1989)

lawther 1989 on compensation control in states 3 6 06

Documents