Does the Size of the Organization Affect Compensation Strategies? An Empirical Analysis

  • Nancy E. Day University of Missouri - Kansas City

Abstract

Little is known about how compensation strategies in sn1all businesses differ from those in large firms. Based on past research involving organizational characteristics and pay strategies, assumptions were initially made that small firms would exhibit more flexible, egalitarian and non-traditional pay strategies, serving to maximize pay-at-risk  and minimize pay levels to reduce the fixed costs of employment. Consequently, data on compensation policies were analyzed from 148 successful small and large businesses. Contrary to predictions, there were no differences between small and large organizations in pay level, pay structure, emphasis on market competitiveness or emphasis on paying for performance. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of their relevance to the small business decision maker.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aguinis, H. ( 1 995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21. I 141 -1 1 58.
Balkin, D.B., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. ( 1 984). Determinants of R&D compensation strategies in the high tech industry. Personnel Psychology, 37, 635-650.
Balkin, D.B., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1987). A contingency theory of compensation strategy. Strategic Management Jo11rnal, 8, 1 69-182.
Balkin, D.B., & Gomez-Mejia. L.R. (1990). Matching compensation and organizational strategies. Strategic Management Jo11rnal, 11, 153-169.
Doeringer, P.B., & Piore, M.J. ( 1 971). internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.
Emerson, S. ( 1 991). Job evaluation: A barrier to excel lence? Compensation and Benefits Review, 23, 39-51 .
Gerhart, B.. & Mi l kovich,G.T. ( 1990). Organizational differences in managerial compensatim and fi nancial performance. Academy of Managemel1f Journal, 33, 663-691 .
Gerhart, B., & Mi l kovich,G.T. (1992). Employee compensation. I n M.D. Dun nette and L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of lnd11strial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 481 -569). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. ( 1992). Structure and process of diversificat ion, compensationstrategy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 381-397.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., & Balk in, D.B. ( 1 992). Compensation, organizational strategy and firm performance. Cincinnati: South-Western Publish ing Co.
Lawler, E.E. ( 1 990). Strategic pay: Aligning organizational strategies and pay systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawler, E.E., & Jenki ns, G.D. (1 992). Strategic reward systems. I n M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology( p p. I 009-1 055} Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Miceli, M.P., Jung, I., Near, J.P., & Greenberger, D.B. (1991). Predictors and outcomes of reactions to pay-for-performance plans. Jo11rnal of Applied Psychology, 76, 508-521.
Milkovich, G.T., & Newman, J.M. (1996). Compensation (5'' ed.). Homewood, I L: I rwin. Pedhazur, E.J. ( 1 982). Multiple regression in behavioral research (2"' ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. ( 1 986). Self reports in organ izat ional research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Managemel1f , 12, 531-544.
Rumelt, R.P. (1974). Strategy, str11cture and economic performance. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
Schuster,J.R., & Zingheim, P.K. (1992). The new pay: Linking employee and organizational performance. New Yark: Lexington Books.
Published
1997-01-11
How to Cite
DAY, Nancy E.. Does the Size of the Organization Affect Compensation Strategies? An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Small Business Strategy, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 1, p. 83-96, jan. 1997. ISSN 2380-1751. Available at: <https://libjournals.mtsu.edu/index.php/jsbs/article/view/360>. Date accessed: 22 apr. 2019.
Section
Articles