The Development of Human Resources and Sound Management of Economic Factors - Statistics Project Example

 When adopting an effective rewards philosophy for how the organization will remunerate its workforce for their input in the company, the organization needs to first determine the appropriate balance between short and long term compensation and variable versus guaranteed compensation. Pivotal to the rewards philosophy is the manner in and extent to which pay will be lined to different forms of performance. Different organizations have different ways of treating this issue; however, the organization should be able to pinpoint numerous performance objectives it requires its workforce to meet, as well as the financial result that will be attained in the event that the results are fulfilled. This projection is translatable into a high shareholder value figure, and with this figure in mind, performance based compensation tactic endeavors to respond to the question of how much of the increased shareholder value can be shared, the form such sharing should take and with whom it should be done (Powell, 2003). In essence, pay for performance programs refer to strategy of compensation in which the workforce is paid on the basis of productivity contrary to the number of hours spent doing the job or at a standard salary. Pay for performance programs are primarily applicable in fields, for instance, sales where workers typically rely on bonuses and commissions as the basis of their income. Although this often results in minimalistic senses of financial security for the employee, the program is also quite effective in terms of providing advantages for both employers and employees. The effectiveness of pay for performance programs is tied to the advantages posed by the programs. Firstly, pay for performance programs provide unlimited compensation since the plan often gives rise to situations where the employee may be in a greater position to secure a substantive income. Talented workers such as salespersons who work strictly on the basis of commission may be in a position to earn more than salaried individuals since such people are paid on the basis of their sales volumes (Powell, 2003). The pay for performance programs ensure that, depending on the compensation structure, as well as the level of effort exerted, employees’ income can be as high as six-figure amounts. On the part of the company, the pay for performance plans ensure that the organization does not pay high set salary amounts to individuals whose performance and productivity at work is minimal or even nonexistent. This ensures that the organization pays for input rather than sheer effort. In addition, the pay for performance module enhances motivation amongst employees since the opportunity presented for the workforce to earn substantial incomes often results in increased motivation. Because pay for performance programs require employees to be compensated on the basis of their personal performances, the employees may be additionally likely to work exceptionally and for long periods in order to attain their personal income goals. Increased income for employees in the pay for performance program translates to increased revenue for the company through increased sales volumes. Furthermore, the contemporary remuneration program also enhances flexibility. Employees who are remunerated on the basis of their performance are essentially judged based on their results instead of other subjective methods, ultimately enhancing flexibility. For instance, company salespeople typically make their own appointments and create their own schedules. As a consequence, such people will be evaluated not on the basis of the amount of time they spend working or the methods they utilize to attain sales, but rather based on the volumes of their sales. Moreover, pay for performance programs also increase productivity (Powell, 2003). From the employer’s perspective, productivity is likely to increase as a result of the workers’ desires to attain high income levels. The result is often enhanced productivity from workers, thereby reducing the organization’s labor costs while simultaneously transferring financial risks from the organization to the employee. As a consequence, the organization enjoys extensive financial benefits from its adoption of the pay for performance plans. For instance, the reduction of labor costs implies that the organization will have spare funds, which it can invest in other revenue producing initiatives marketing and research and development. Companies typically desire to retain their personnel and ensure minimal employee turnover ratios from one financial year to another. Through the pay for performance plans, performers who earn high incomes are often profoundly happy with their earnings, as well as the entire work environment. Such performers are exceptionally likely to stay and work in the organization rather than opt to explore available alternatives. Furthermore, such employees are also able to attain high standards of reverence and prestige in the organization as a result of their attainments. This essentially means that pay for performance programs allow a company to create cohesive environments of team pride, thereby fostering teamwork and overall productivity in terms of volumes and quality. Organizations that make use of pay for performance programs for employee remuneration also attain positive views from stakeholders within the industry. Since the organization is present in more than one country, this positive reputation ensures that the company’s position within the minds of its customers, as well as in the entire international community, remains positive. This makes the company a desirable work place for the workforce available in countries in which the company conducts business (Powell, 2003). One of the most prominent benefits of pay for performance programs lies in their capacities to enhance employee motivation in terms of working collaboratively in order to attain common goals. The remuneration plans make use of bonus money as a prominent motivating factor for workers to go over and beyond what is typically required of them. In the pay for performance system, the company only releases bonus money to employees when certain departmental or company-wide goals are fulfilled, paying close attention to production and quality. As a consequence, an employer is able to recognize groups of employees who perform exceptionally well without needing to spend more funds on compensation than the company’s current budget allows (Powell, 2003). Therefore, since the organization conducts business in more than one country, the pay for performance programs is easy indicators that company managers can use to determine groups of employees who deserve bonus compensation. Key Trends and Challenges ahead for the Singaporean and Australian Markets The Australian and Singaporean markets are some of the most open globally, resulting in high levels of trade, foreign labor and foreign direct investment inflows. For instance, in Singapore by the year 2010, citizens made up only 63.6% of the population while foreigners formed 34.7% of the entire labor force. The high level of foreign labor ratio is also evident in the Australian market. Such high ratios of foreign labor reflect the existence of buoyant labor demand, a lack of xenophobia, as well as labor protectionism and limited domestic labor supply following rapid declines in total fertility rates. Foreign labor is critical for a number of reasons; to the growth of the population, mitigate population-wide ageing, ensure growth in the GDP and per capita GDP, act as a buffer to cyclical unemployment, reduce shortages in labor skills and supply and contain the costs of wages to sustain international competitiveness (Powell, 2003). However, both the Australian and Singaporean markets’ heavy dependent on foreign labor causes substantial delays with regard to economic restructuring, engenders a syndrome among households of the importance of foreign labor and adversely affects the productivity and performance the labor market. However, the foreign labor policy in place in Singapore and Australia is typically dual track since it allows for unrestricted inflow of valuable foreign talents, as well as managed inflow of lowly skilled labor through the utilization of work permits, dependency ceilings, skills and education criteria and worker levies. Therefore, going forward, both Australia and Singapore need to limit their dependence on foreign labor in order to enhance growth in terms of productivity. In addition, the governments of both countries need to reduce such dependence since the countries are constrained in terms of physical space, as well as citizen concerns regarding crowding in public and recreational spaces, jobs and public services. Enhanced regional and international cooperation is required to curtail the cross-border tensions and conflicts that arise from the cross-border interchange of labor into the Australian and Singaporean markets. Through the countries’ policies, which emphasize, among others, the development of human resources, sound management of economic factors and economic efficiency and openness, both countries continue to attain robust economic growth (Powell, 2003). For instance, by the year 2010, Singapore’s per capita GDP had surpassed that of Japan. Other notable trends in the countries include minimal degrees of xenophobia within the social, economic and political domains. With regard to the economic situation, both Singapore and Australia have some of the greatest trade oriented, as well as foreign direct investment penetrations rates globally. Therefore, the countries’ laws on foreign investment and businesses do not impose discriminatory treatment to foreigners. Foreigners account for a significant proportion of Singapore and Australia’s labor force; both governments’ open policies and overall open mindedness of the citizens reflects the countries’ immigrant histories and their roles as global hubs for transportation. Immigration has been a significant part of Singapore and Australia’s labor demographic history and continues to shape the outlook of the labor market in both countries. This shapes both countries’ acceptance towards substantial immigration witnessed in the past and at present. On the other hand, the increasing dependence on foreign labor reflects high labor demand and reducing labor supply from the domestic labor pool as a result of reducing fertility rates (Powell, 2003). The increasing trend characterized by a downward trend in total fertility rates and the overall effect of this trend on the countries’ labor forces is among the most pertinent factors, which should push government aggressiveness to enhance foreign labor inflows to increase the nations’ populations. Some of the most notable trends peculiar to the Australian labor market include notable declines in employment rates in conventional commodity-based industries such as fishing, agriculture, mining and forestry. In both Singapore and Australia, there continues to be a marked increase in the share of employed people in service-based industries such as restaurants and cafes. As a consequence, part-time employment increased rather substantially in the last two decades compared to full-time employment. However, in the recent past, full-time employment has increased substantially. This is indicative of the tightening of the countries’ labor markets since labor usage in most fields, particularly skilled areas, is almost at its optimal capacity. Additionally, there is a marked growth in the rate of casual employment both in Australia and Singapore. Causal laborers are essentially employees not entitled to sick leave or paid holiday and those who do not have expectations regarding ongoing employment. In addition, casual workers are those for whom all commitments with the employer encompass a distinctively separate employment contract. It is vital to realize it is not often the case that casual laborers have short term employment associations with their employers (Powell, 2003). Casual workers, however, often work in lowly skilled occupations such as sales. Typically, the number of causal workers reduces with increase in skill level in a certain occupation. Although the Australian and Singaporean governments praise themselves for their former low levels of underemployment, the challenge of underemployment that ensues from the increasing casualization, as well as the part time makeup of employment is one of the most critical issues to consider in emerging employment trends. The rate of underemployment is essentially the number of workers who are underemployed as a proportion of the entire labor force. Underemployed individuals comprise of part time workers who desire and are often available to work for additional hours, as well as full time employees who work part time hours in the week for economic or involuntary reasons. In Australia, for instance, in 2003, there were approximately 567, 400 underemployed workers. This underemployment rate was significantly higher among female workers (7.4%) than men whose percentile of underemployment stood at 4.1%. This phenomenon is primarily attributable to the substantially higher proportion of women who make up a massive proportion of the part time employment bracket. It is vital that the governments of these countries take into consideration the net sum of underemployment and unemployment since these forces determine the rate of labor force underutilization. In the future, without government intervention, the rate of labor force underutilization is likely to rise, particularly within the female labor force pool thereby reflecting increased underemployment rates (Powell, 2003). In order to curtail this problem in the future, the counties’ governments need to establish effective employment stimulation strategies such as allowing for workers to work for additional hours. The governments can also institute measures and policies that enhance women employment, thereby reducing their rate of underemployment. For instance, demanding equal gender representation in company employees’ ratios. Benefits and Difficulties of Individual Project Work When working on a project or assignment, a person can opt to work individually or in a group. Since both models present an array of challenges and benefits, I preferred to work individually rather than in a group. One of the most prominent benefits of working on the project alone is it enhances confidence since the individual is able to make decisions individually and does not share success with others, as in the case in group work. Working individually makes people exceptionally independent since they have to solve their own project by themselves and do not rely on others (Powell, 2003). When people work alone, the manner they conduct their projects, the methods they use and the way they present the information collected depends on which strategies the individuals decide are the most effective. This process provides the individual not only substantive experience, but also enhances confidence in individual decision making in the future. Admittedly, group work has immense benefits, which include the ability to finish a project within a shorter time frame. However, although working on a project individual can use a longer period, this method allows for complete autonomy, particularly in terms of consulting and decision making. While in group dynamic, all team members must agree on the methodology used for project completion, which often results in disagreements over the course to adopt in project completion, working as an individual does not prsent these huddles. This is because the individual is his or her own data collector, analyst, compiler and data reporter, which makes it astonishingly easy to start working on the project immediately. In addition, working on a project individually allows people to manage their time effectively. In group work, some people may slack behind thereby dragging the entire project team behind since other members will have to do work that was assigned to the individual who slacked in his or her duties. Working individually also presents the opportunity for a person to work at any time that is best for them since they do not need to depend on other people for agreement on the time to work (Powell, 2003). When working alone, a person can schedule his or her work including the timetable and follow a strict plan, which, in turn, saves on time. Evidently, not all people prefer to work in the morning, afternoon or evening. As individuals, every person in a group has his or her own favorite work time when they attain optimal effectiveness. However, within a group, the majority always wins; thereby the majority can decide the most appropriate work time even if it does not conform to an individual’s preferences. Consequently, while working individually, a person can decide whether to work only in the afternoon, evening or morning, depending on the time they are most productive. Working individually is also quite effective for introverted people who have complexes about themselves, particularly with regard to working with others in groups (Powell, 2003). Such people often feel excluded from group discussions since they are largely unable to communicate coherently within groups. As a consequence, introverts often remain unproductive within groups, and this ultimately reduces the effectiveness of group work. Working individually enables such people attain their full potential and productivity. Reference Powell, M. (2003). Economic restructuring and human resource development. Halldale: Ashgate Publishing Limited Read More