KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Endüstri Mühendisliği / 2019 / Cilt: 30 Sayı: 3

İŞ VE PERFORMANS DEĞERLEME ESASLI BIR MAAŞ MODELI

A WAGE SCHEME BASED ON JOB AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS

Emin Kahya0000-0001-9763-2714
Sayfa
187–203
Yayın Tarihi
2019-12-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Sonuçlar, iş performansının, ücret seviyesinin oluşmasında daha büyük etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmada, iş değerlemesi ve personelin görev ve bağlılık davranışlarını ölçmek için performans değerlemesi ve personel özelliklerinden oluşan bir maaş modeli sunulmuştur.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Personel maaşı iş skorundan elde edilmiş temel maaş ve 3 değişken ödül; (i) görev performansı ile elde edilmiş bir ödül, (ii) bağlamsal performansla ilgili bir ödül, (iii) eğitim, deneyim ve takım liderliği açısından kişisel özellikler için bir ek gelir, toplamıdır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Sonuçlar, iş performansının, ücret seviyesinin oluşmasında daha büyük etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:İş değerlemesi · görev performansı · davranışsal performans

Özet

Bu çalışmada, iş değerlemesi ve personelin görev ve bağlılık davranışlarını ölçmek için performans değerlemesi ve personel özelliklerinden oluşan bir maaş modeli sunulmuştur. Personel maaşı iş skorundan elde edilmiş temel maaş ve 3 değişken ödül; (i) görev performansı ile elde edilmiş bir ödül, (ii) bağlamsal performansla ilgili bir ödül, (iii) eğitim, deneyim ve takım liderliği açısından kişisel özellikler için bir ek gelir, toplamıdır. Her bir bileşen için iş bazlı bir skor elde eden ve bunu bir maaş seviyesi üreten bir model geliştirilmiştir, Temel gelir için, bir işletmede 49 mavi yakalı işin puanını belirlemek için iş değerlemesi yürütülmüştür. Yedi iş değerleme faktörü için personelin görev aktivitelerini nasıl başardığı görev performansı olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışanın bağlamsal performansını iş bazlı puana dönüştürmek için bir lineer fonksiyon geliştirilmiştir. Üç bileşen, bir ücret düzeyine ulaşabilmek için birleşik bir skora dönüştürülmüştür. Sistem bir dönem için orta ölçekli bir metal sanayi işletmesinde mavi yakalı işler için uygulanmıştır. Sonuçlar, iş performansının, ücret seviyesinin oluşmasında daha büyük etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.

Abstract

This paper presents a wage model consisted of job evaluation, performance evaluation to measure employee’s task and contextual behaviors, besides employee characteristics. Employee’s wage is a sum of a basic wage derived from a job score and three variable rewards including (i) a revision reward satisfied with task performance, (ii) a reward linked to contextual performance, and (iii) a merit wage increase for employee characteristics in terms of education degree, seniority and team leadership. An approach generating a job-linked score for each one component and producing a related wage grade are developed. For the basic wage, job evaluation is carried out to assess forty nine blue-collar jobs within a company. How an employee accomplishes the task activities for seven job evaluation factors is assessed as task performance. A linear function is developed to transform employee’s contextual performance to a job-linked score. These three components are integrated to a composite score to translate a wage level. The system is implemented in a middle sized manufacturing company for blue-collar jobs for a given period. The results indicate that the job point has significantly greater influence on a wage level.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kahya, E. (2019). İŞ VE PERFORMANS DEĞERLEME ESASLI BIR MAAŞ MODELI. Endüstri Mühendisliği, Cilt: 30 Sayı: 3, 187–203. https://ajindex.com/articles/1142480

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (53)

  1. Ahmed, N.U. (1989). An analytic technique to develop factor weights in job evaluation. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, 25(5), 1-6. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/8dcccde4940563868509b5a875ca7fdd/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=24292
  2. Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/255908
  3. Bender, A.F., & Pigeyre, F. (2016). Job evaluation and gender pay equity: a French example. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(4), 267-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2015-0062
  4. Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N.Schmitt and W.C. Borman (Eds), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pp. 71-98), New York, Jossey-Bass.
  5. Coleman, V.I., & Borman, W.C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00037-6
  6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., & Ferguson, R.O. (1955). Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Management Science, 1(1), 138-151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1.2.138
  7. Chen, L.F., & Jiang, W.D. (2011). Managerial job evaluation based on point-factor method and IAHP in enterprises. Soft Science, 11(4), 100-105. Retrieved from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-XUXI201104023.htm
  8. Conyon, M., Peck, S., & Read, L. (2001). Performance pay and corporate structure in UK firms. European Management Journal, 19(1), 73-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(00)00072-4
  9. Dağdeviren, M. Akay, D., & Kurt, M. (2004). İş değerlendirme sürecinde analitic hiyerarşi prosesi ve uygulaması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik - Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 100-105. Das, B., & Garcia-Diaz, A. (2001). Factor selection guidelines for job evaluation: A computerized statistical procedure. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 40, 259-272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(01)00028-6
  10. Dogan, A., Onder, E., & Demir, R. (2014). Assessment Turkish HR professionals on determining the importance of factors in point factor as a method of job evaluation. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(29), 1-13. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2541652
  11. England, P. (1999). The case for comparable worth. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39, 743-755. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(99)00026-5
  12. Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2014). Pay for (individual) performance: Issues, claims, evidence and the role of sorting effects. Human Resources Management Review, 24, 41-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.010
  13. Gupta, J.N.D., & Ahmed, N.U. (1988). A goal programming approach to job evaluation. Computers and Engineering, 14, 147-152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(88)90023-X
  14. Hahn, D.C., & Depboye, R.L. (1988). Effects of training and information on the accuracy and reliability of job evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 146-153. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.146
  15. Ismail, A., Razak, M.R.A., & Ibrahim, Z. (2016). Performance based pay management as a determinant of extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction. International Conference on Ethics of Business, Economics and Social Science, 104-114.
  16. Kahya, E. (2006a). Metal iş kolunda bir işletme için işdeğerleme sisteminin geliştirilmesi. Endüstri Mühendisliği, 17(4), 2-21. Retrieved from https://www.mmo.org.tr/sites/default/files/a9d121cd9c3a183_ek.pdf
  17. Kahya, E. (2006b). Revising the metal industry job evaluation system for blue-collar jobs. Compensation & Benefits Review, 38(6), 49-63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368706292541
  18. Kahya, E. (2018). A wage model consisted of job evaluation employee characteristics and job performance. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 24 (4), 720-729. Kareem, B., Oke, P.K., Atetedaye, A.F, & Lawal, A.S. (2011). Development of a point rating model for job-manpower evaluation in an organization. Journal of Applied Mathematics & Bioinformatics, 1(1), 195-206. Retrieved from http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JAMB/Vol%201_1_15.pdf
  19. Kutlu, A.C., Ekmekçioğlu, M., & Kahraman, C. (2013). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to point-factor method for job evaluation. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 25, 659-671. doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-120673
  20. Kutlu, A.C., Behret, H., & Kahraman, C. (2014). A fuzzy inference system for multiple criteria job evaluation using fuzzy AHP. Journal of Multiple-Volued Logic&Soft Computing, 23(1/2), 113-133.
  21. Metal Industry Job Grading Sysetm [Metal Sanayii İş Gruplandırma Sistemi] (1996), Türk Metal Sanayiciler Sendikası Yayını, Ankara.
  22. Morgeson, F.P., Campion, M.A., & Maertz, C.P. (2001). Understanding pay satisfaction: The limits of a compensation system implementation, Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1), 133-149. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007848007459
  23. Pittel, M. (1999). Recalibrating point factor job evaluation plans to reflect labor market pay levels. Workspan, 42, 29-33.
  24. Shibata, H. (2000). The transformation of the wage and performance appraisal system in a Japanese firm. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 294-313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/095851900339882
  25. Sandberg, P.K. (2017). Intertwining gender inequalities and gender-neutral legitimacy in job evaluation and performance-related pay. Gender, Work & Organization, 24(2), 156-170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12156
  26. Shunkun, Y., & Hong, T. (2011). Application of point method in job evaluation. IEEE Conference Publications of the International Conference on Management and Service Science (MASS), China, August 12-14.
  27. Sun X, & Luo N. (2013). Study on the effectiveness of point-factor job evaluation system in operation position. Communiciation in Information Science and Management Engineering, 3(3), 154-160.
  28. Van Scotter, J.R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00040-6
  29. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151
  30. Werner, J.M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 3-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00036-4
  31. Wilde E. (1992). A job evaluation case history. Work Study, 41(2), 6-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002663
  32. Young, M., & Selto, F. (1993). Implementing performance measures and new management and manufacturing practices in a just-in-time manufacturing environment. Journal of Management Accounting Research, (Fall), 300-326.
  33. Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/255908
  34. Bender, A.F., & Pigeyre, F. (2016). Job evaluation and gender pay equity: a French example. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(4), 267-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2015-0062
  35. Coleman, V.I., & Borman, W.C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00037-6
  36. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., & Ferguson, R.O. (1955). Optimal estimation of executive compensation by linear programming. Management Science, 1(1), 138-151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1.2.138
  37. Conyon, M., Peck, S., & Read, L. (2001). Performance pay and corporate structure in UK firms. European Management Journal, 19(1), 73-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(00)00072-4
  38. Dağdeviren, M. Akay, D., & Kurt, M. (2004). İş değerlendirme sürecinde analitic hiyerarşi prosesi ve uygulaması. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik - Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 100-105.
  39. Das, B., & Garcia-Diaz, A. (2001). Factor selection guidelines for job evaluation: A computerized statistical procedure. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 40, 259-272. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-8352(01)00028-6
  40. England, P. (1999). The case for comparable worth. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39, 743-755. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(99)00026-5
  41. Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2014). Pay for (individual) performance: Issues, claims, evidence and the role of sorting effects. Human Resources Management Review, 24, 41-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.08.010
  42. Gupta, J.N.D., & Ahmed, N.U. (1988). A goal programming approach to job evaluation. Computers and Engineering, 14, 147-152. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-8352(88)90023-X
  43. Hahn, D.C., & Depboye, R.L. (1988). Effects of training and information on the accuracy and reliability of job evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 146-153. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.146
  44. Kahya, E. (2006b). Revising the metal industry job evaluation system for blue-collar jobs. Compensation & Benefits Review, 38(6), 49-63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368706292541
  45. Kahya, E. (2018). A wage model consisted of job evaluation employee characteristics and job performance. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 24 (4), 720-729.
  46. Kutlu, A.C., Ekmekçioğlu, M., & Kahraman, C. (2013). A fuzzy multi-criteria approach to point-factor method for job evaluation. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 25, 659-671. doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-120673
  47. Morgeson, F.P., Campion, M.A., & Maertz, C.P. (2001). Understanding pay satisfaction: The limits of a compensation system implementation, Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1), 133-149. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007848007459
  48. Shibata, H. (2000). The transformation of the wage and performance appraisal system in a Japanese firm. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 294-313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/095851900339882
  49. Sandberg, P.K. (2017). Intertwining gender inequalities and gender-neutral legitimacy in job evaluation and performance-related pay. Gender, Work & Organization, 24(2), 156-170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12156
  50. Van Scotter, J.R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00040-6
  51. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216–226. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151
  52. Werner, J.M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 3-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00036-4
  53. Wilde E. (1992). A job evaluation case history. Work Study, 41(2), 6-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002663