PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10262948

Calculating merit increases: a structured approach.

Abstract

Determining the amount of salary increase appropriate for each employee poses a major dilemma for many human resources managers and/or compensation managers (not to mention the employee's supervisor). This task requires complying with the company's compensation philosophy, meeting market competition, and rewarding employees fairly and equitably. Authors William W. Seithel, vice president, personnel of the Midwest Stock Exchange, Inc., and Jeff S. Emans, director, employee compensation of the Kemper Group, describe a method for pinpointing a salary rate increase that is not only structured enough to move people through the salary range in accordance with a reward philosophy, but precise enough to provide a basis for projecting costs and flexible enough to meet the needs of various performance levels. The method entails the use of a structured matrix that spells out the target percentage raises for various levels of performance. By using both the matrix-which is constructed to meet the individual company's needs-and a guide chart provided by the authors, it is possible to calculate a specific percentage increase for each employee. The manager who uses this system will find that the matrix is a mechanism for control as well as a means for projecting costs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W W Seithel, J S Emans. Calculating merit increases: a structured approach.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10262948/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Do proficiency testing participants learn from their mistakes? Experience from the EXCEL throat culture module.

CONTEXT: Participation in proficiency testing is required under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. Although the primary purpose of this testing is evaluation of current laboratory performance, a major secondary benefit of such testing is postulated to be progressive improvement in laboratory performance over time as laboratories learn from their previous experiences and feedback. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a secondary result of proficiency testing is improvement over time of laboratory performance. DESIGN: The performance of participants in a large proficiency testing program (EXCEL), designed for clinic and office laboratories, on a specific problematic competence, the ability to differentiate group A streptococcus from group C streptococci, was monitored during a 6-year period (1996-2001) for changes in participant performance. INTERVENTIONS: With each testing cycle, feedback on performance relative to peers and an educational discussion analyzing performance and suggesting best practices was submitted to participants. RESULTS: Despite consistent feedback, there was no significant change in participant performance throughout the period studied. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, stable proficiency testing program, a significant throat culture competence, which demonstrated less than optimal performance, did not improve over time, suggesting that current utilization of proficiency testing results in laboratory improvement programs is suboptimal.

Employee Performance Appraisal↗