Pay Systems, Performance-Relate to Pay, Performance Related to Pay and Managerial Control - Literature review Example

Literature Review of Pay Strategy Table of Contents Literature Review 3 Pay Strategy 3 Employment Relationship 4 Human Resource Management 6 Pay Structures 8 Pay Systems 11 Performance-Relate to Pay (PRP) 13 Performance Relate To Pay and Managerial Control 16 Performance Management / Pay & Motivation 18 Conclusion 20 Literature Review Pay Strategy According to Fox & Lawson (2015), the term “pay strategy” refers to that particular concept based on which the best employees can be attracted, retained and even motivated enough to derive positive outcomes for the organisations with whom they are working. Prior to discussing about the term in details, the concept of reward management needs to be well averse of. Pay strategy is merely a part of vast topic of reward management. With respect to Lawler’s theory of reward strategy, Philip (2001) stated that reward strategy is the combination of the reward values of the organisations, processes and varied structural factors. The core values of reward in relation to various organisations can be reckoned as the policies based on which these are set for accomplishing desired objectives. Structural factors include the well-structured features of different strategies like appraisals for performances, whereas the process factor deals in the processes of communicating and implementing the strategies in varied operational sectors. In relation to the above stated context, Armstrong (2012) supported the fact that reward management does not mean adding a certain amount of value to the organisations, but it specifically denotes adding value to the people belonging to such organisations. Based on the observation made by Philip (2001), the organisations operating in this modern day context tend to motivate their personnel for attaining their respective business targets. It must be mentioned in this regard that the increase in work or responsibility must also result in augmenting the pay system for mounting the motivation level of the employees to work hard and likewise developing their overall performance. Arguably, Armstrong (2012) affirmed that societal relations has a greater impact on the efforts given by the employees towards improving their works as compared to that of money acting as a motivator for the same. Pay strategy mainly works for the assistance of the compensating plans that are often utilised by the organisations for easy going and maintaining efficiency in the procedure of goal achievement. In this context, Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ theory indicates the fact that the needs of every individual changes with the passage of time as well as with the achievement of one particular level starting from basic to self actualisation needs (Philip, 2001). Most of the older organisations that do not possess any such pay strategy till date are now deciding on introducing new pay strategies to be implemented for raising employees’ motivational level, which will eventually result into raising overall productivity. As observed by Philip (2001), money, as an individual financial factor, cannot act as a motivator owing to the reason of having limited power of motivating the individuals of an organisation. At certain times or situations, only money tends to act as a de-motivator for the individuals making them to feel that they are receiving much less than what they actually deserve (Philip, 2001). Employment Relationship With regards to the report published by International Labour Organization (2015), the concept of employment relationship can be cited as a legal bond persisting amid the employers and the employees of an organisation towards obtaining its objectives within a pre-determined time in return for a specific rate of payment or remuneration. However, on a further note, the report of International Labour Conference (2006) pointed out the fact that employment relationship creates a complementary relationship between the rights as well as the obligations of both the employers and the employees in order to maintain work friendly environment of the organisations. Thus, distinct sorts of relationships have evolved based on this specific notion with no connection to the parameters that were set by the same previously (International Labour Conference, 2006). In relation to the standpoints of Leat (n.d.), the concept of employment relationship can be examined based on the psychological background of an individual based on the factors concerning predominance of interests, values and ethics of both the employers and the employees. Apart from these, the other factors can be reckoned as degree of change in conflicts, commitment control, relevance and the process of labour control. Generally, the psychological aspects of employee relationship as assumed by Leat (n.d.) on legal grounds can be ascertained as fair as well as honest treatment of the employees, establishment of proper communication with the respective concerns or the authorities and responding to job security along with recognition of employee-value by the employers. With regards to the aforesaid context, an attempt has been made to relate three perspectives of employment relationship with pay that radical, pluralist and unitary. In accordance with the report published by CIPD (n.d.), unitary perspective mainly focuses on the whole organisation and its members as a team who have the aim of achieving a common objective in long term. The actual motive of HRM is ensuring mutual coordination of the manpower to perform a following task with unity, which is deemed to be regarded as the sole purpose of unitary management style. Here, the employees are satisfied with their respective positions in the business structure and are therefore give their best to perform intended organisational targets. In case of any conflict, they are always ready to admit that it had occurred because of them and not the management. Pluralistic is another important management style, which views the organisation as the combination of individuals with different characteristics. This perspective focuses on the utilisation of distinct sorts of skills, talents and knowledge that the individuals possess in order to create new advanced process of working for the organisations’ progress. In this style, the entire group of an individual within the organisations is given the full authority to participate in all kinds of jobs and also provide them with the suggestions whenever required (CIPD, n.d.). The third perspective of employee relationship, as per the journal published by Abbott (2006), is recognised to be radical approach, which is also acknowledged as the Marxism approach. This refers to the concept of management wherein conflicts mainly tend to occur based on class discrimination. The employee relationship is found to be the worst in this management style, as the employers as well as the employees tend to remain in conflict at certain situations. It is worth mentioning that the above discussed three perspectives can be related to pay system, as these are usually introduced within an organisation for motivating the personnel towards the accomplishment of the predetermined business targets and objectives (Abbott, 2006). Human Resource Management According to Milkovich & Boudreau (1997), human resource management (HRM) is regarded as the sequence of making integrated decisions that oversee employer-employee associations. In addition, as inferred by Mimts (n.d.), HRM is defined as the planning, controlling, directing as well as organising, advancing, incorporating and preserving manpower of an organisation towards attaining individual, organisational and social objectives within a set time. Specially mentioning, one of the decisive attributes of HRM is identifying and developing the employees’ entire performance based on the desired organisational objectives and structural values that aid designing appropriate methods for accomplishing the intended targets (Moodle, n.d.). The above discussed concepts of HRM with respect to pay strategy of an organisation can be clearly understood from soft along with hard models of HRM. These models are somewhat similar to that of Mc. Gregor’s theory X and Y, wherein the pay structure is decided based on various attributes of the human resource systems of an organisation. With consideration to the viewpoints of Shabnam (n.d.), the soft model of HRM generally focuses on considering employees’ viewpoint, whereas the hard model reflects emphasising organisational standpoint. The employers in case of soft model provide first priority to those who have been people working under them and then towards the organisation and the situation is completely vice-versa in case of the hard model (Shabnam, n.d.). In precise, hard model is found to be provided in those organisations that have strictness in their respective work environment and on the other hand, soft model is found in those organisations with a friendly work environment wherein human perspectives are taken into great consideration. The above mentioned models can be related to the aspects concerning employee motivation and pay strategy. It can be affirmed in this regard that when an appropriate pay strategy is framed based on the overall performance of the employees, then automatically the motivation level of the employees gets increased; thereby giving rise to the overall performance of the organisations. Therefore, by taking into concern the aforesaid attributes of hard and soft models associated with HRM, it can be rightly stated that such models have a unique correlation with employee motivation and also pay strategy by a considerable extent (Lawler, 2000). Pay Structures With regards to the report published by CIPD (n.d.), pay structure is regarded as the compilation of various fields of performance based on which a certain amount of payment of the employees within an organisation is determined. This is one kind of primary reward package for which an individual joins a particular concern. The framing of a pay structure is made for the completion of certain objectives like alignment of reward strategies of the organisations, encouragement of high performance levels of the personnel and ensuring justice and impartiality amongst them among others. The report of CIPD (n.d.) also affirmed that organisations having limited number of staff do not need to follow any specific pay structure as such, but once the number of employees crosses at least 200, then it certainly becomes much important to frame an appropriate pay structure in order to bring in motivation in the work environment. Justifiably, increment in pay scale with regards to performances will certainly encourage every individual to work efficiently for reaping varied significant benefits (CIPD, n.d.). As cited by Irwin (2002), in terms of individual criterion, there are mainly three pay structures namely base pay, total cash and total compensation. Different organisations make greater use of any of this type as per their conveniences. From a conceptual perspective, according to Irwin (2002), base pay is regarded as the process of paying the actual salary that an organisation offers to the selected individuals. On the other hand, total cash refers to the method of making payment of bonus along with the base pay amount to the people. Finally, total compensation is deemed to be regarded as that amount, which an employee receives after summing up the base amount, bonus, stock options and other fringe benefits. Notably, the aforesaid pay structures have their own advantages along with disadvantages that were identified and explained by Irwin (2002) in a simple way. In this regard, although base pay provides a hint of the payment criterion of the competitors’ firms, it fails to motivate the employees by the offering of incentives and other benefits to them for their performances. Total cash gives a deeper insight about the competitors’ tactics of managing their employees’ performance; but on the other hand, this method also keeps the workers away from earning long-term incentives. In this similar context, total compensation method is viewed to be advantageous in the form of providing the complete view about the respective financial conditions of the competitors’ firms, but its limitations like creating an unequal distribution of payment, which might in turn bring a feeling of dissatisfaction amongst the employees, cannot be ignored (Bruce, 2013). With regards to the viewpoints of Bruce (2013), apart from the above discussed pay structures, the others include Traditional Graded, Broadband, Step and Market based pay structures. These different pay structures have been elaborately discussed in the following. Traditional Graded Pay Structure This has an approximate range of between 20% - 50% with comparatively smaller progressions. Therefore, several pay grades are identified to remain under this field. In terms of its advantages, all jobs positioned in these grades are paid equally and its disadvantage can be reckoned as that the employees need to reach the peak of perfection in order to get promoted. Broadband Pay Structure This has a range between 80% - 120% and therefore a fewer pay grades remain under this category. The advantage is that a flexible sort of pay scale is seen in this structure and its illegitimate vision of structures and bands that lead to irregular payments can be reckoned as one of its disadvantages. Step Pay Structure This approximately ranges between 20 - 50% with smaller progression similar that of the traditional graded pay structure. However, in this case, the payments are divided into small steps. The benefit of this structure is that its predictable cost makes quite easy to keep a record of the payments, whereas it has a drawback of tenure based progress, reflecting the performances as a problem. Market Based Pay Structure This has an approximation of 30% - 70 % range with narrowed or lower levels and thus gets widen as it goes higher. Its midpoint progressions usually range between 15% - 25%. The advantage of this pay structure is that the required data is mainly taken from the objective markets and therefore retains flexibility and equality among the staff. The disadvantage of this pay structure is that data needs to be analysed frequently in order to stay updated (Bruce, 2013). In certain situations or cases, organisations may require introducing certain sorts of pay structures to fulfil their individual as well as group objectives. With this concern, one of such pay structures can be reckoned as pay range, wherein the pay ranges from the minimum to the maximum scale as per the reference, which has been taken as the market scale or sometimes at 100%. On the other hand, pay progression is regarded as the scale, which ranges from inexperienced to experience via developing stages with a reference of 100% (Bruce, 2013). Pay Systems In accordance with the report published by ACAS (n.d.), the term “pay system” refers to the process of rewarding the employees of an organisation in return to their efforts for providing quality services. It is also regarded as a framework, which helps the organisations to determine specific rewards and payment systems that need to be made for the employees individually with respect to their talents, skills, performance, efficiency, flexibility and various other related factors. It is worth mentioning that the different pay systems are fundamentally based on the performance of the employees. Therefore, it is much essential to determine the fact that the pay system is framed on a proper note so as to motivate every individual to work harder. Any kind of error in the formation of the pay structure might result in de-motivating the employees, which result into reducing their efficiency in work. According to the financial reports presented by BSP (2003), the pay system is regarded as one of the imperative financial as well as the strategic factors of an organisation that aid it to mitigate all kinds of risks that emerge during the conduct of operations and activities. There are generally three types of pay systems that the organisations of this modern world apply in their daily operations in order to reward the employees for making commendable performance. These systems along with their advantages as well as disadvantages have been discussed in detail hereunder. Time Based Pay According to Ledford (1989), this pay system i.e. time-based play is applicable for such organisations that make payments to their employees based on the hours worked. In most of the cases, the employees are not given any particular time-range for performing their operations and therefore are free to work as per their convenience with the consideration that they will be paid only for the time span they have worked. This system is beneficial in case of the individuals who have the urge and the interest to work even after the office hours for which they are paid substantially. The employees of these organisations feel motivated as they are paid for extra jobs done by them and so are always prepared to perform additional works on behalf of the organisations. In terms of advantages, it can be inferred that from the execution of this particular pay system, the organisations also reap several significant benefits in the form of getting their respective works done in least time and without having any delay. On the other hand, this system also possesses certain drawbacks that can be measured in the form of affecting the organisational funds and also making the procedure of regular calculation of each and every payment much harder (Ledford, 1989). Skill Based Pay As per the SRHM report presented by Ledford (1989), skill based pay is a process of rewarding the employees additionally for the competencies or the skills that they possess. They receive this benefit only after they showcase their hidden talents, skills and knowledge in their respective fields of work. This process is based on employee-perspective and not on respective job profiles. Although the system is implemented on a large scale, it is not properly understood and researched by all. One of the benefits of this system includes rise in the level of performance as well as the productivity level with less manpower and expenditure. The limitations of this process consist of deliverance of high salaries and/or wages and fixation of prices in jobs specifically in the case of no competition (Ledford, 1989). Pay By Result (PBR) Based on the understanding made by Lowe (2013), PBR is regarded as the mechanism based on which the employees get paid only for the services that they deliver to the end users for the organisations. It usually provides benefits to the firms in increasing their respective profitability along with productivity level. However, in terms of disadvantages, it can be affirmed that the application of this pay system will be a non-sensible idea to get applied in the real world of business, as no individuals will be attracted to join such concerns unless they are compelled to do so. This specific pay system is completely deceptive in nature, as there is no reason for accepting what an individual says and therefore tends to be useless in this competitive market (Lowe, 2013). Performance-Relate to Pay (PRP) As reported in The Economist (2009), performance-related pay i.e. PRP refers to the process of rewarding the employees based on their regular performance within an organisation. In this case, the basic pay is accompanied with the incentives as per employees’ performances. This has been conceptualised to motivate every individual within the organisations to give their best in exchange of a higher rate of reward package. This creates a close alignment between the individuals and the organisational goals. In accordance with the report of The Economist (2009), considering the norms of PRP, the pays remain fixed excluding the usual amounts of salary and therefore the final amounts of payments may vary based on the prevailing conditions. Notably, in private sector organisations specifically, wherein the opportunities of promotion is low, PRP plays the role of an extreme motivator, which allows the employees of such organisations to work based on their respective performances by earning extra pay along with their regular salary. The report of CIPD (2015) presented the fact that PRP can also be termed as merit- pay, since this pay is entirely based on the employees’ merit and developed its role as a link between the individuals as well the group performances along with their pay systems. From a theoretical perspective, it can be affirmed that PRP is usually a self- funding scheme from where the organisations can earn significant amount of profits and likewise provide extra pays to the personnel from the extra profit obtained. Therefore, the organisations do not require any extra fund for paying them in return for their performances. This scheme i.e. PRP has been opposed by reflecting Herzeberg’s motivational theory, which reflected that money, cannot work as a sole motivator, as job itself is deemed to be regarded as a true motivator for every individual (CIPD, 2015). With regards to the report of The Economist (2009), it can be apparently observed that the conception of PRP has achieved immense popularity during 1980s and 1990s. Specially mentioning, at a point of time, due to the bullish effect on the stock market, several employees in the managerial level had sought the opportunity to earn tremendously under this scheme for improvising their merit and performance while performing different tasks. There are certainly numerous benefits of this scheme i.e. PRP with certain limitations. In relation to the above stated context, as per the report of The Economist (2009), the drawbacks of PRP can be ascertained as the difficulty in designing a justified objective for separating individual efforts from that of the team ones, framing the rewards as per the pay system within a fixed period. Few other limitations of this scheme can be reckoned as lack of proper design, which might create an obstacle in the path of organisational development and generating a feeling of inferiority amid the low performing employees further de-motivating them to perform efficiently in future. The training and awareness programmes, if conducted within an organisation, may also reduce the chances for the employees to avail the pay as per this scheme (The Economist, 2009). According to Hays (1999), the scheme of PRP may be regarded as an innovative idea of motivating the employees to work harder, but this may not be applicable in all circumstances. This sort of schemes tends to increase competitiveness in the work to an unlimited extent, which might in turn reduce the quality of the job done. It might then prove a matter of great concern from the viewpoint of the organisations’ goodwill and reputation in the respective business markets wherein they operates. Even these kinds of rewards at certain times impose negative impact on the attitude and the performance of the employees specially those in the senior managerial level thereby spoiling the work environment of the organisations at large. This can be concluded by stating that the complete removal of this scheme of extra pay for the employees based on their payments will not be the correct option to undertake. However, these options, if utilised in a different way, might result in bringing out the real talent of the employees and also prove helpful in making the work environment people-friendly. This will provide the employees with the opportunity to identify their own values, thereby increasing the productivity of the organisations as a whole (Hays, 1999). Performance Relate To Pay and Managerial Control With regards to the viewpoints of Otley & Soin (2014), managerial control is referred to as a method in which the managers control and regulate the operations of the organisations to achieve their pre-determined goals within a specific time. Due to having variations in adopting decisions by the stakeholders, organisations possess different aims along with objectives need to apply different techniques to attain their desired targets. The short-term goals are taken into concern for keeping the operations of the organisations going, whereas the long term goals are duly considered for sustaining the business in long term (Otley & Soin, 2014). With respect to the ideas presented by Otley & Soin (2014), there should be specific differences in the pay of individual employees based on their respective positions in an organisational structural hierarchy. The lower level employees even after adding up there incentives and other extra pays must attain a pay lower than that of the basic pay of the managerial employees so as to keep certain differentiation in their ranks and designation. On the other hand, Homberg & Margit (2013) paid utmost focus on the fact that the concept of performance related to pay is applicable only in specific organisations depending on their managerial control. This managerial control is recognised to be a mix of three different controls that include output control, process control and input control, which have been discussed in detail in the following. Output Control This is used in such organisations that properly follow tasks of a definite pattern like waste management. Process Control This is possible only in those organisations where the norms are clearly understood and can be used in concerns doing similar jobs in a routine manner. The PRP measures must also be taken carefully in this process in order to make it beneficial from the employees end. If not utilised properly, then the employees might take advantage of the situation and tend to earn extra incomes on incorrect and illegal context. Input Control It is applicable in such organisations that are task oriented, complex and gradually changes their work patterns. Avoiding few exceptions, the PRP measures play a decisive part in raising the standards of the organisation as a whole by motivating the employees to perform better (Homberg & Margit, 2013). As noted by Gilman (1998), the need for developing overall performance of the employees depends on two sources that entail the practitioners/consultants of the management structure and the respective governments. These sources concentrate on maintaining the ethical procedures of the organisations to curb the side effects of recession. Most importantly, the sources focus on developing two important processes of the management of the organisations namely bargain based on efforts and bargain on the basis of process. Therefore, these aspects of managerial control have a great influence on the concept of performance related to pay in the form of developing the same from a long term perspective (Gilman, 1998). Performance Management / Pay & Motivation As explained in the report of Management Study Guide (2013), the term performance management is referred to as a complex, but broadly used method, which deals in performing varied business activities that enable the managers to manage the performances of the junior employees of an organisation. This continuous and cyclical process starts with the entry of employees into an organisation and ends only after their exit. This process keeps a track of individual performances of an employee and also the team as per the expectations of the organisations and being provided with rewards due to good performance (Management Study Guide, 2013). The interaction of the employers with their subordinates in varied stages of working procedures helps in the arousal of performance management with respect to the report published by USF (n.d.). These interactions are seen starting at the level of performance planning, wherein the expectations, strategies and the developmental goals are determined for the upcoming year. Next the employees interact with their superiors during the training periods, wherein they remain under the guidance of the experienced seniors and learn the operations of the organisations. They are then analysed regularly based on their respective daily performances and likewise provided the required knowledge to solve any sort of mistake and problem. Lastly, the employees are reviewed on an annual basis and are again given a chance to improve their performances (USF, n.d.). According to the research document of Rynes & et. al. (2004), pay and motivation is inter-related to each other, since every individual works in an organisation in return for the pay as fixed by such organisation. As per Herzberg’s theory, it must be mentioned that a job itself is the best motivator and not money/pay. However, arguably, in accordance with Maslow’s need hierarchy theory, it can be affirmed that behind the fulfilment of all the needs starting from the basic to self actualisation ones, money/pay plays a decisive part in motivating the employees to work efficiently. The research document stated above also states that individual pay systems like skill based pay, performance based pay, time based pay and result based pay motivate different categories of workers as per their individual needs and preferences. This change in pay systems gradually affects the mentality and the working styles of the employees by a certain level. This might create positive as well as negative impacts on their working patterns as well the living standards. The aforementioned change not only brings flexibility within the employees, but also helps them in coming out of their monotonous working procedures. On a certain note, as stated in the article of ACAS (n.d.), a fact should be always kept in mind while deciding the pay structure of the employees of a particular organisation that the distinctions based on the factors concerning sex, creed, race or culture must be vested upon. Equal pay must be maintained in all organisations regarding the mentioned categories or otherwise contradictory cases might seem to arise. On the other hand, in order to make the pay structure fruitful, certain aspects related to the needs and the circumstances of the organisations need to be duly considered that encompass monitoring, evaluating as well as revising and reassessing wherever necessary (ACAS, n.d.). Conclusion From the above analysis and discussion by the conduct of literature review, it can be ascertained as that pay systems act as a primary motivator for the individuals operating in any organisation. If an organisation does not offer a pay to its employees, then not a single applicant will be found for applying for a job. The initial stage of people opting for a job depends on the pay of the organisations. It is worth mentioning that a particular job itself works as a motivator for attracting, retaining and motivating efficient employees, but until and unless the people are promised for gaining a proper reward package, no one will get motivated enough to perform efficiently. It must be mentioned that rewarding the employees based on work and efficiency is a significant management tool, which must be utilised for attracting the employees to bring out their talents, skills, passion and knowledge in their respective jobs and tasks. In relation to the aforesaid context, it can be inferred that only pay cannot motivates an individual completely, therefore there should lay the presence of various other factors to encourage them and likewise develop their overall performance. The motivational factors that entail passion for the respective tasks, friendly environment, recognition, career growth, work structure, work culture, achievement, advancement and effective leadership among others can be correlated with the pay system in an organisation to influence the employees to work effectively for the fulfilment of the desired organisational objectives. Therefore, in conclusion, it can be stated that the pay strategy tends to act as the leader among all other motivating factors in the field work, which aids in enriching the effectiveness of the employees’ performance as per the desired level. References Abbott, K., 2006. A Review of Employment Relations Theories and Their Application. Problems and Perspectives in Management, pp. 190-196 Acas, No Date. Pay Systems. Media. [Online] Available at: http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/p/0/B02_1.pdf [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Armstrong, M., 2012. Armstrongs Handbook of Reward Management Practice Improving Performance through Reward. Replika Press Pvt Ltd. Bruce, S., 2013. The 4 Approaches to Pay Structure. Business & Legal Resources. [Online] Available at: http://compensationdailyadvisor.blr.com/2013/03/the-4-approaches-to-pay-structure/ [Accessed July 04, 2015]. BSP, 2003. What Is A Payment System? Financial, pp. 1-2. CIPD, 2014. Pay Structures. Factsheets, pp. 1-6. CIPD, 2015. Performance-Related Pay. Factsheets. [Online] Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/factsheets/performance-related-pay.aspx [Accessed July 04, 2015]. CIPD, No Date. Chapter 11: The Employee Relationship. Introduction [Online] Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E148D57B-4C8F-4108-B22E-75CE4C9D46C8/0/... [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Fox, J. & Lawson, B., 2015. Why Do We Need a Pay Strategy? HR People. [Online] Available at: http://hrpeople.monster.com/education/articles/96-why-do-we-need-a-pay-strategy [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Frey & et. al., 2013. Organizational Control Systems and Pay-for-Performance in the Public Service. Sage Journals, pp. 11. Gilman, M. W., 1998. Performance Related Pay In Practice: Organisation And Effect.  University of Warwick. Hays, 1999. Pros & Cons of Pay for Performance. Workforce. [Online] Available at: http://www.workforce.com/articles/pros-cons-of-pay-for-performance [Accessed July 04, 2015]. International Labour Conference, 2006. The Employment Relationship. International Labour Office Geneva, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3-6. International Labour Organisation, 2015. Employment Relationship. Labour-Law. [Online] Available at: http://www.ilo.org/ifpdial/areas-of-work/labour-law/WCMS_CON_TXT_IFPDIAL_EMPREL_EN/lang--en/index.htm [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Irwin, 2002. Designing Pay Level, Mix and Pay Structures. McGraw Hill Companies, pp. 13. Lawler, E., E., 2000. Pay Strategy: New Thinking for the New Millennium. Sage Publications. Leat, M., No Date. Employee Relations. Heriot-Watt University, pp. 1/2-1/5. Ledford, G. E., 1989. The Design of Skill Based Pay Plans. CEO Publications, pp.1-5. Lowe, T., 2013. Payment By Results – A Dangerous Idiocy That Makes Staff Tell Lies. The Guardian News. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/feb/01/payment-results-staff-fictions [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Management Study Guide, 2013. Performance Management - Meaning, System and Process. Library. [Online] Available at: http://www.managementstudyguide.com/performance-management.htm [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Milkovich, G. T. & Boudreau, J. W., 1997. Human Resource Management. Irwin. Mimts, No Date. Meaning, Nature, Scope and Significance of Human Resource Management. Faculty Notes, pp.4-12. Moodle, No Date. Human Resource Management Introduction. Mod Resource. [Online] Available at: https://moodle.unitec.ac.nz/pluginfile.php/124823/mod_resource/content/0/Human_Resource_management_introduction.pdf [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Otley, D. T. & Soin, K., 2014. Management Control Association. Palgrave Macmillan. Philip, L., 2001. Chapter 4 - Reward Management. Pearson Education. Rynes & et. al., 2004. The Importance Of Pay In Employee Motivation: Discrepancies Between What People Say And What They Do. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Shabnam, M. S., No Date. Models Of Human Resource Management. SHRM [Online] Available at: http://www.ocl.ac/docs/PGD/EDSML/docs/10/UNIT%2010-%20SESSION-%203%20Models%20of%20HRM.pdf [Accessed July 04, 2015]. Truss, C., 2003. Soft and Hard Models of Human Resource Management: A Reappraisal. Wiley Online Library. [Online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-6486.00042/abstract [Accessed July 04, 2015]. The Economist, 2009. Performance-Related Pay. Node. [Online] Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/14301231 [Accessed July 04, 2015]. USF, No Date. Overview of Performance Management. Human Resources, pp. 1-12. Read More