The Four Faces of Pay: An Investigation Into How Canadian Managers View Pay

Abstract

While over 300 major studies have looked at pay, an empirically derived model of managerial perceptions of pay is yet to emerge. This study attempts to answer the question: “what does pay mean to managers?” Based on three different samples of Canadian managers, the present paper outlines a four factor model of managerial perceptions of pay. It is suggested here that pay has multiple meanings to managers: pay is a symbol of success, it acts as a reinforcer and motivator, it reflects performance and, finally, it reduces anxiety. The paper suggests that two core dimensions may underlie managerial perceptions of pay: its capacity to produce and reduce tension and its focus on self and others. The implications of the present findings for theory and practice and how the present findings relate to past writings in the field are outlined.

Salary and Decision Making: Relationship Between Pay and Focus on Financial Profitability and Prosociality in an Organizational Context

“…For managers, pay is perceived as both a reinforcer (or motivator) and an indicator of performance (Das, 2002). Salary level is interpreted as information about one's worth to the organization (Gardner, Van Dyne, & Pierce, 2004; Kuvaas, 2006) and a symbol of one's success (Das, 2002).…”

“…For managers, pay is perceived as both a reinforcer (or motivator) and an indicator of performance (Das, 2002). Salary level is interpreted as information about one's worth to the organization (Gardner, Van Dyne, & Pierce, 2004; Kuvaas, 2006) and a symbol of one's success (Das, 2002). Where an employee is within his or her organization's horizontal wage‐dispersion scale—which is the dispersion within a single organizational level or core group (Cowherd & Levine, 1992)—indicates his or her value to the organization (Bishop, 1987), and consistently relates to actual performance (Jenkins et al., 1998).…”

Human resource practices, organizational commitment and intention to stay

“…For organizations, the high cost of recruitment and selection (Pfeffer, 1998), the lag and productivity loss during the assimilation period (Davies, 2001), the likely loss of business opportunity (McCallum, 1988;Walker, 2001), poor customer relationship (Clarke, 2001;Messmer, 2000), and hidden cost of loss productivity (Das, 2002) have subsequently highlighted the The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their beneficial and constructive comments.…”

Relationship Between Retention Factors and Affective Organisational Commitment Among Knowledge Workers in Malaysia

“…To survive in this present competitive business environment, it is important for organisations to retain their committed employees because of the high cost of recruitment and selection (Pfeffer 1998), the lag and productivity loss during the assimilation period (Davies 2001), the likely loss of business opportunity (Walker 2001), poor customer relationship (Clarke 2001;Messmer 2000), and hidden cost of loss productivity (Das 2002). According to Storey (1992), employers seek to treat employees as valued assets who can be a source of competitive advantage through their commitment, trust, adaptability and high quality skills and knowledge.…”