money ethic scale part 2
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Money Ethic Scale Part 2

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 100

Money Ethic Scale Part 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

Money Ethic Scale Part 2. Four Money Profiles. Money Repeller (The Most --) Apathetic Money Handler Careless Money Admirer Achieving Money Worshiper (The Most +). Four Money Profiles. Negative Indifferent Positive _____________________________________

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Money Ethic Scale Part 2' - andres


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
four money profiles
Four Money Profiles

Money Repeller (The Most --)

Apathetic Money Handler

Careless Money Admirer

Achieving Money Worshiper (The Most +)

four money profiles1
Four Money Profiles

Negative Indifferent Positive

_____________________________________

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper

82 50 62 117

26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62%

partitioning money profiles
Partitioning--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving

Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper ___________________________________

26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62% W

24.41% 9.57% 20.57% 45.45% US

30.39% 27.45% 15.69% 26.47% S

USA, Spain

interpretation money profiles
Interpretation--Money Profiles
  • Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
  • Success 1.77 1.96 3.53 (3.52)
  • Budget 3.84 3.75 (2.85) (4.29)
  • Motivator 3.60 (2.35) 3.72 (3.95)
  • Equity 3.04 3.62 3.34 (3.77)
  • Evil (3.01)2.34 2.99 2.77
validation money profiles
Validation--Money Profiles
  • Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
  • Age 39.38 42.12 40.49 46.49
  • Income 31,600 37,990 34,640 50,903
  • Experience 13.85 17.83 15.48 21.55
  • No. Jobs .93 .67* 1.15 1.33*
  • *p = .074
validation money profiles1
Validation-Money Profiles
  • Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
  • PWE 3.25 3.27 3.48 3.56
  • Intrinsic 4.19 4.35 4.00 4.22
  • Extrinsic 3.06 3.15 3.23 3.36
  • Pay 3.07 2.90 2.833.29
  • Benefits 3.23 3.22 3.13 3.45
  • Raise 2.79 2.56 2.68 2.82
  • Adm. 2.49 2.47 2.58 2.81
validation money profiles2
Validation-Money Profiles
  • Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________
  • Equity Comparison
  • Dept. 3.15 3.10 3.14 3.29
  • Org. 2.64 2.43 2.61 3.05
  • Other Org. 2.57 2.33 2.56 2.81
  • Market 2.49 2.35 2.67 2.71
  • Life 4.17 4.383.81 4.27
validation discriminant
Validation-Discriminant

1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Other Three Clusters.

2: Careless Money Admirers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers, Achieving Money Worshipers.

3: Money Repellers vs. Careless Money Admirers, Apathetic Money Handlers.

achieving money worshiper
Achieving Money Worshiper

High: Income, Work Ethic, Pay Administration, Equity in Organization, and in Other Organizations,

Low: Intrinsic Job Satisfaction, Labor Market

profiling money repeller
Profiling--Money Repeller

The Highest--Factor Evil

The Lowest--Income, Work Experience, Age,

The Lowest--PWE, Pay Administration

Sour Grapes, Sour Losers

apathetic money handler
Apathetic Money Handler

The Lowest--Factors Motivator and Evil

The Highest--Intrinsic, Life Satisfaction, Insufficient Justification Effect

The Lowest--Organization

Simplicity Movement (McNichol, 1998; Simple abundance, Your money or your life)

Simplify. Waste not, want not.

careless money admirer
Careless Money Admirer

The Lowest--Factor Budget

The Highest--Factor Success

The Lowest--Intrinsic, Pay, Life Satisfaction

Admirer Money, No Money, Not Happy. Money is a Motivator.

Pressure/Opportunity, Unethical Behavior?

achieving money worshiper1
Achieving Money Worshiper

The Highest-- Factors Success , Budget, Motivator, and Equity

The Highest--Income, Age, Experience, Work Ethic, Pay, Organization Equity

More Money in Industry, Happy Financially

implications 1
Implications-1

Four Money Profiles

Individual Differences

Demographic Variables

B = f (P x E)

Attitudes May Change Due to Age, Income, and the Socialization Process

implications 2
Implications-2

Money is NOT a Motivator for everyone.

Different approaches to Attract, Retain, and Motivate people

P-E Fit

money profiles macedonia
Money Profiles--Macedonia

Republic of Macedonia is situated

in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula

covers an area of 25,713 square kilometers

with a population of more than 2 million people.

Skopje is the capital with a population of 650,000.

Tang, Tillery, Lazarevski, & Luna-Arocas (2000)

macedonian sample
Macedonian Sample

1. Full-time sophomores at College of Management, Kiril and Methodi University (n = 30, return rate = 96.6%)

Live with their parents, not working

2. Small business owners and employees in large organizations (n = 60, return rate = 100%).

48 Males, 41 Females

measures
Measures

15-Item Money Ethic Scale

24-Item Locus of Control (Levenson, 1973)

The work and family orientation questionnaire (Helmreich & Spence, 1978): Work Persistence, Active Involvement, Competitiveness, Success Avoidance

partitioning macedonia order of money factors
Partitioning: MacedoniaOrder of Money Factors

ANOVAs

Evil F = 55.28***

Success F = 48.41***

Budget F = 28.81***

Motivator F = 24.77***

Equity F = 1.13

The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes.

four money profiles2
Four Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper

26 14 19 30

29.21% 15.73% 21.35% 33.71%

USA + Spain:

26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62%

partitioning money profiles1
Partitioning--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper

29.21% 15.73% 21.35% 33.71% W

53.57% 32.14% 3.57% 10.71% S

18.33% 6.67% 30.00% 45.00% E

S = Students, E = Employees

interpretation money profiles1
Interpretation--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Evil (14.77) 10.36 7.74 7.67

Success 7.19 (3.93 ) 9.16 (9.17)

Budget 13.00 12.43 (9.89) (17.10)

Motivator 8.15 (6.79) 9.68 (9.80)

Equity 11.84 11.43 11.11 11.13

validation money profiles3
Validation--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Age 26.31 24.71 29.53 33.07

Experience 14.64 13.50 9.28 12.30

Education 14.41 14.64 13.58 14.67

Status* 1.42 1.311.95 1.90

*Students =1, Employees =2

validation money profiles4
Validation-Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

LOC-E 82.62 77.3695.00 94.10

Persist 12.23 11.64 11.95 12.77

Involve 13.88 12.1416.63 16.57

Compete 6.58 6.57 7.58 8.17

Avoid 6.35 5.00 3.89 4.33

Life 4.17 4.383.814.27

validation discriminant1
Validation-Discriminant

1: Achieving Money Worshipers, Careless Money Admirers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers, Money Repellers.

2: Apathetic Money Handlers vs. Money Repellers.

3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers.

discriminant
Discriminant

Achieving Money Worshipers + Careless Money Admirers consider money as their Success and a Motivator and do not consider it as Evil than Apathetic Money Handlers + Money Repellers.

Achieving Money Worshipers Budget their money more carefully than Careless Money Admirers.

classification results
Classification Results

95.1% of Original grouped cases correctly classified.

82.7 of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.

In cross validation, each case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.

money profiles students the usa
Money Profiles--Students, the USA

Two Regional State Universities,

Military Base

N = 564, return rate = 72.9%

184 Males, 360 Females

441 Caucasian, 52 African-American, 6 Hispanic, 14 Asian, 3 American Indian

Job tenure = 26.14 months

Income = US$9,260 (64.4%)

Tang, Tang, & Luna-Arocas

measures1
Measures

30-Item Money Ethic Scale (Tang, 1992)

10-Item Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE) (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989)

20-Item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967).

13-Item, Modified Need Satisfaction Questionnaire (NSQ) (Porter, 1961, 1961). (Tang & West, 1997; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998)

Importance and Satisfaction of Maslow’s Needs

partitioning order of money factors
Partitioning: Order of Money Factors

ANOVAs

Good F = 377.97***

Respect F = 168.10***

Achievement F = 162.08***

Power F = 161.14***

Budget F = 37.45***

Evil F = 6.02***

The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes.

partitioning four money profiles
Partitioning--Four Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper

85 170 165 127

15.54% 31.08% 30.16% 23.22%

interpretation money profiles2
Interpretation--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Good 25.93 37.75 35.05 (41.57)

Respect 9.34 (8.26) 11.84 (14.80)

Achievement 8.89 (8.22) 10.75(14.74)

Power 10.61 12.46 14.48 (17.51)

Budget 8.86 11.37 (8.81) 11.09

Evil (16.08) 14.46 14.42 16.06

validation money profiles5
Validation--Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Age 23.33 23.91 23.19 23.24

Experience 28.29 19.11 31.75 29.92

Education 14.43 14.77 14.44 14.98

Income 6,432.38 9,192.48 9,433.13 11,071.17

validation money profiles6
Validation-Money Profiles

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

OBSE 33.71 40.43 38.39 40.81

PWE 13.08 15.00 14.48 16.11

MSQ-Int 39.39 44.05 43.01 46.23

MSQ-Ext 18.00 19.27 19.09 21.53

validation importance of needs
Validation-Importance of Needs

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Physiological 3.31 3.60 3.64 3.88

Safety 3.45 3.79 3.83 4.01

Social 3.69 4.01 3.93 3.96

Self-Esteem 3.39 3.88 3.77 4.07

Actual 3.51 4.12 3.88 4.12

validation satisfaction of needs
Validation-Satisfaction of Needs

Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________

Physiological 3.76(4.19)* 4.01 4.14

Safety 3.38(4.07)* 3.87 4.02

Social 3.24 3.70 3.74 (3.86)*

Self-Esteem 3.09 3.30 3.42 3.43

Actual 3.12 3.33 3.42 (3.57)*

Money attitudes are related to the satisfaction of lower- or higher-order needs.

validation discriminant2
Validation-Discriminant

1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Money Repellers.

2: Money Repellers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers.

3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers, Money Repellers.

classification results1
Classification Results

91.57of Original grouped cases correctly classified.

conclusion
Conclusion

We can consistently classify people into 4 clusters (Achieving Money Worshipers, Careless Money Admirers, Apathetic Money Handlers, and Money Repellers)

based on the Money Ethic Scale (30-item MES, or 15-item MES),

across several cultures (Macedonia, Spain, and USA).

Future research should test this Model in different occupations and cultures.

tang kim tang 2000
Tang, Kim, & Tang (2000)

Tang, T. L. P., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. H. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53 (2), 213-245.

money ethic and voluntary turnover
Money Ethic and Voluntary Turnover

Voluntary turnover: Higher wages/career opportunity (Campion, 1991).

Leavers receive 20% increase in pay.

Unemployment rate and financial requirements moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover (Gerhart, 1990)

push and pull
Push and Pull

Dissatisfaction may push the employee to look for alternative employment, whereas the perception of attractive alternative job opportunities may pullthem to consider alternative employment (March & Simon, 1958)

The more specific the intention measure and the closer the person is to actually quitting, the more trivial the prediction (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979, p. 508).

moderator
Moderator

Dependent variable y (withdraw cognitions, turnover) is a function of

x (intrinsic job satisfaction) and

z (Money Ethic). Moderator

The Interaction Effect is significant. (James & Brett, 1984)

money ethic satisfaction and turnover
Money Ethic, Satisfaction, and Turnover

Time 1: 40 Agencies (275 Employees, Mental Health & Mental Retardation) Data: 155 Employees (32 Agencies) Return Rate: 56.36%

Time 2: 112 Employees (18 months later) Data: 84 Employees, Return Rate: 75%

62 Stayers, 20 Leavers, 2 Fired (excluded)

withdrawal cognitions y hierarchical multiple regression
Withdrawal Cognitions (y)Hierarchical Multiple Regression

Status (Manager, Adm., Direct Care)

Perceived Alternative Employment Opportunity (PAEO)

Commitment*

MSQ-Ext*

MSQ-Int (A) (x)

Money Ethic (MES) (B) (z)

MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B) (x . z)

slide48

High MES

Low MES

Withdrawal

Cognitions

Low

High

Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

logistic regression
Logistic Regression

Status

PAEO

Commitment*

Withdrawal Cognitions (ns)

MSQ-Ext

MSQ-Int* (A)

MES* (B)

MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B)

Concordant = 80.8%

slide50

High MES

Low MES

Turnover

High

Low

Intrinsic Job Satisfaction

mediator
Mediator

x -----> m -----> y Antecedent Mediator Consequence Satisfaction Money Ethic Turnover

1. x ----> m

2. x ----> y

3. m ----> y

All are true, then, x on y must be less in 3 than in 2. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

money ethic as a mediator
Money Ethic as a Mediator

1. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction ----> Money Ethic, t = 2.919, p = .005

2. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction --x--> Turnover

3. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction + Money Ethic --x--> Turnover

Money Ethic is not a mediator between intrinsic job satisfaction and turnover.

Money Ethic is not a mediator between withdrawal cognitions and turnover.

the matthew effect the pay differential
The Matthew Effect &The Pay Differential

Tang (1996) Journal of Economic Psychology

Tang, T. L. P., Furnham, A., & Davis, G. M. T. W. (in press). A cross cultural comparison of pay differentials as a function of rater’s sex and money ethic endorsement: The Matthew Effect revisited. Personality and Individual Differences.

the matthew effect
The Matthew Effect

Gabris and Mitchell (1988):Apostle Matthew in the bible (13:12)

For to him who has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him who does not have, even that which he has shall be taken away (Matthew 13: 12).

the matthew effect1
The Matthew Effect

According to the Matthew Effect, merit increases are frequent and plentiful for good performers. But, poor to average performers suffer because money is taken from them to pay large merit increases to the good performers (p. 55). Heneman, Robert L. (1992). Merit pay.

sex and money
Sex and Money

Equity (Merit) Vs. Egalitarian (Equality)

Women rate social needs higher than do men (Lawler, 1971).

Males, white-collar employees, high performers, achievement-oriented employees and those who already work under a merit plan tend to favor merit pay (Heneman, 1992).

pay differential
Pay Differential

The pay differential, irrespective of job content or function, is defined as the salary at one level divided by the salary at the next lower level.

Pay differential is a reflection of the relative worth of these positions to the organization and is not related to the job incumbents (Mahoney, 1979; Simon, 1957).

pay differential in history
Pay Differential--In History

Plato sated in The Laws that society was strongest when the pay differential for income between the richest and the poorest was 4:1.

Aristotle favored a 5:1 ratio.

pay differential in 1970s
Pay Differential in 1970s

Mahoney (1979)No. 1/No. 2 = 1.37 to 1.41

No. 2/No. 3 = 1.21 to 1.23

pay differential in 1990s
Pay Differential in 1990s!

Hausman (1996): No. 1/No. 2

1991 1.701992 1.631993 1.771994 1.70 and

1995 1.93 (~ 2.00).

pay differential average ceo
Pay Differential (Average CEO)

Year CEO Worker ratio

1960 190,383 4,666 41

1970 548,787 6,933 79

1980 624,996 15,008 42

1992 3,842,247 24,411 157.

pay differential average ceo1
Pay Differential (Average CEO)

Year CEO Worker Ratio

1993 3,841,273 25,317 152

1994 2,880,975 26,388 109

1995 3,746,392 26,652 141

1996 5,781,300 27,662 209

1997 7,804,755 28,381 275.

pay differential highest paid ceo
Pay Differential (Highest Paid CEO)

Year Highest CEO Worker Ratio1991 58,999,000 18,462 3,1901992 127,000,000 24,411 5,203

1993 203,010,590 25,317 8,019

1994 25,928,000 26,388 9831995 65,580,000 26,652 2,4611996 102,449,000 27,662 3,7041997 230,725,000 28,381 8,130

1998 575,592,000 30,000 19,180 &

This is different from the 4:1 or 5:1 ratio.

pay differential1
Pay Differential

USA 150

Japan 15

Europe 20

Nelsen-Horchler (Industrial Week, 1990, 1991)

method organization chart
MethodOrganization Chart

Hypothetical Organization Chart

Mahoney (1969)

C (CEO) = A b L-1

See Example (next slide)

slide66

Organization Chart

A

C

B

20,000

D

E

F

C (CEO) = A b L-1

tang 1996
Tang (1996)

Men with high Money Ethic endorsement allocated significantly more money to the highest position and less money to the lowest position (creating a large pay differential) than did those with low MES.

Women’s allocations of money were not affected by their endorsement of the MES.

top bottom pay differentials
Top/Bottom Pay Differentials

Sex x Money: F (2, 157) = 3.04, p = .051

Sex Groups F-Employee F-Student M-Student

High MES 2.20 2.79 2.96*

Low MES 2.42 2.53 2.04* *p < .05.

pay differential2
Pay Differential

Taiwan, USA, UK

Taiwan: 78 ProfessionalsThe USA: 137 ProfessionalsThe UK: 93 Professionals

The 12-Item Money Ethic Scale

the matthew effect2
The Matthew Effect
  • Taiwan USA UK
  • Sex F M F M F M High 2.63 2.77 2.20 2.83 2.56 2.39 Low 2.05 2.07 2.35 2.38 2.71 2.15
  • The Whole Sample
  • Sex F M High MES 2.43 2.67* Low MES 2.36 2.18*
culture
Culture

Collectivist cultures value strong, cohesive in-groups (i.e., equality), whereas individualistic societies emphasize individual freedom and the immediate family (i.e., equity).

Individualism: USA (1), UK (3), Taiwan (44)

Masculinity: UK (9/10), USA (15), Taiwan (32/33). (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).

confucianism
Confucianism

Man’s interactions with his fellow humans (Rhody & Tang, 1995).

The junior partner owes the senior respect and obedience.

The senior owes the junior partner protection and consideration (Hofstede & Bond, 1988).

slide73

Organization Chart

A

C

B

20,000

D

E

F

C (CEO) = A b L-1

results
Results
  • MANOVA F = 2.78***
  • Taiwan USA UK A 35,526 34,658 31,608 1>2>3C 19,754 19,326 19,007D 15,421 14,742 13,920 1>2>3E 15,280 14,698 13,768 1>2>3F 15,473 14,663 13,673 1>2>3.
pay differential3
Pay Differential
  • MANOVA F = 3.31***
  • Taiwan USA UK A/20000 1.77 1.73 1.58 1>2>3C/20000 .99 .97 .9520000/D 1.34 1.40 1.49 1<2<320000/E 1.37 1.41 1.51 1<2<320000/F 1.34 1.41 1.43 1<2<3.
pay differential prc
Pay Differential--PRC

Tang, T. L. P., Luk, V., & Chiu, R. K. (2000, C&BR). Pay differentials in People’s Republic of China: An examination of internal equity and external competitiveness.

compa ratio
Compa Ratio

Compa ratio is usually defined as the ratio of actual pay to structure midpoint, or, the ratio of actual pay to competitive pay.

In this study, we compare pay differentials within organizational structure (vertical) and across organizations.

higher education
Higher Education

In 1950, 43% of high school students in the USA pursued higher education, 6% of Americans were college graduates.

In 1992, 66% of high school students went to college, and 21% of a larger American population had college degrees.

Some 17 million students are attending classes taught by 762,000 professors on 3,400 campuses in the US (Elfin, 1992; Tang & Chamberlain, 1997).

education and pay
Education and Pay

In 1963, College graduates 8.45/hr High School graduates 6.10/hr

Ratio = 8.45/6.10 = 1.39

In 1990, College graduates 10.25/hr High School graduates 6.82/hr

Ratio = 10.25/6.82 = 1.50

college tuition
College Tuition

Tang, T. L. P., Tang, D. S. H., & Tang, C. S. Y. (2000). College tuition and perceptions of quality: Private colleges and universities. Paper submitted for publication.

Academic reputation ranking is the most significant predictor of college tuition.

Investment

reputation
Reputation

Kent Tool, IH: If you are looking for the best people, one way to be sure of finding them is to let someone else do the screening for you (Friedrich, 1981, Time).

Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz (1995) studied 1,388 executives (9% Ivy League) and found that the predicted earning advantage for Ivy League graduates, over the course of a 20-year career, is more than $600,000 (p. 510).

method
Method

1998 China Pay Level Survey

Sponsored by the Hong Kong Industrial Relations Association and Wing Lung Bank International Institute for Business Development of Hong Kong Baptist University

research data
Research Data

19-page survey mailed to 200 companies in PRC

104 Companies (return rate = 52%)

Covering 56,390 employees

benchmark job
Benchmark Job

63 Benchmark jobs: 4 Levels

Managerial Staff (14 jobs)

Supervisory/Technical Staff (21)

General Staff (19)

Operative Staff (19)

region
Region

Beijing

Shanghai

Guangzhou

Shenzhen and Zhuhai

and Others

business sector
Business Sector

Retail, food and beverage, professional services, sales and marketing, property management, telecommunication, computer and electronics, electrical and machinery, metal, industrial materials, construction, and others.

Service (48) vs. Manufacturing (35)

mode of operation
Mode of Operation

State-owned (SOEs, n = 5) and

Privately-owned: Wholly-owned vs. Joint venture, cooperative venture, processing venture, representative office

Wholly-owned (14) vs. Venture (84)

company size
Company Size

Less than 300 Employees (69)

Between 300 to 1,000 (15)

More than 1,000 (20)

annual salary service vs manufacturing rmb
Annual Salary Service vs. Manufacturing (RMB)

A B Service Manuf. A/B

Accounting Mgr. 52,476 80,387 .65

QC Supervisor 39,528 26,798 1.47Engineer 37,540 28,273 1.33Security Guard 12,133 8,689 1.40

Average 1.21.

company size1
Company Size

A B C Small Median Large A/C B/C

Clerk 16,969 15,024 11,742 1.45 1.28Store 14,841 11,096 9,821 1.51 1.13

mode of operation1
Mode of Operation
  • A B Wholly Venture A/B
  • Sales Mgr 13,500 68,184 .20
  • Purchasing Mgr 84,499 53,068 1.59Accountant 42,871 31,786 1.35
  • Systems Analyst 30,144 43,463 .69
  • QC Technician 21,772 14,257 1.53
  • Average 1.07.
levels of education prc
Levels of Education PRC

Jr. Secondary 9 years of education

Sr. Secondary (HS) 12

Diploma (HS + 2) 14

High Diploma (3 yr.) 15

University 16.

starting monthly salary service vs manufacturing
Starting Monthly SalaryService vs. Manufacturing
  • Engineering A B Service Manuf. A/B
  • Jr. Secondary (9 yr.) 626 371 1.69Sr. Secondary (12) 947 686 1.38Diploma (14) 1,061 615 1.72University (16) 1,974 1,302 1.52
  • A 1974/626 = 3.15
  • B 1302/371 = 3.51 A/B = .90
starting monthly salary service vs manufacturing1
Starting Monthly SalaryService vs. Manufacturing
  • Sales A B Service Manuf. A/B
  • Jr. Secondary 707 307 2.30Sr. Secondary 997 725 1.38Diploma 1,077 765 1.41
  • A 1077/707 = 1.52
  • B 765/307 = 2.49 A/B = .61
starting monthly salary service vs manufacturing2
Starting Monthly SalaryService vs. Manufacturing
  • Marketing A B Service Manuf. A/B
  • Jr. Secondary (9) 633 307 2.06Sr. Secondary (12) 894 431 2.07Diploma (14) 970 560 1.73High Diploma (15) 1,419 993 1.43University (16) 1,947 1,153 1.69
  • A 1947/633 = 3.08
  • B 1153/307 = 3.76 A/B = .82
starting monthly salary service vs manufacturing3
Starting Monthly SalaryService vs. Manufacturing
  • Manufacturing A B Service Manuf. A/B
  • Jr. Secondary 610 364 1.68Diploma 918 567 1.62
  • A 918/610 = 1.50
  • B 567/364 = 1.56 A/B = .96
top bottom pay differential annual salary
Top-Bottom Pay DifferentialAnnual Salary
  • Pay Dif FAdministration 4.58 17.28Information Tech. 3.41
  • Accounting 2.36 2.85Marketing 1.90
top bottom service vs manufacturing
Top-BottomService vs. Manufacturing
  • A B Service Manuf. FAccounting Mgr/ 2.55 5.71 6.5*Entry University
  • A/B = .45
starting monthly salary university high diploma
Starting Monthly SalaryUniversity/High Diploma
  • Field Pay Dif. tEngineering 1.20 2.13* Sales 1.17
  • Information Tech. 1.19 2.41*Sales 1.17
conclusion1
Conclusion

There are significant pay differentials within organizations (internal equity) and across organizations (external competitiveness).

Organizations may have employed different strategic compensation policies due to the nature of their operation and environmental variables.

ad