Money Ethic Scale Part 2

1
Money Ethic Scale Part 2

2
Four Money Profiles

• Money Repeller (The Most --)
• Apathetic Money Handler
• Careless Money Admirer
• Achieving Money Worshiper (The Most )

3
(No Transcript)
4
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
  

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
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
  2.83 3.29
• 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

9
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 4.38
  3.81 4.27

10
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.

11
Achieving Money Worshiper

• High Income, Work Ethic, Pay Administration,
  Equity in Organization, and in Other
  Organizations,
• Low Intrinsic Job Satisfaction, Labor Market

12
Profiling--Money Repeller

• The Highest--Factor Evil
• The Lowest--Income, Work Experience, Age,
• The Lowest--PWE, Pay Administration
• Sour Grapes, Sour Losers

13
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.

14
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?

15
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

16
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

17
Implications-2

• Money is NOT a Motivator for everyone.
• Different approaches to Attract, Retain, and
  Motivate people
• P-E Fit

18
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)

19
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

20
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

21
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.

22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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 1.31
  1.95 1.90
• Students 1, Employees 2

26
Validation-Money Profiles

• Money Apathetic
  Careless Achieving Repeller
  Money Money Money
  Handler Admirer Worshiper
  _______________________________________________
• LOC-E 82.62 77.36
  95.00 94.10
• Persist 12.23 11.64
  11.95 12.77
• Involve 13.88 12.14
  16.63 16.57
• Compete 6.58 6.57
  7.58 8.17
• Avoid 6.35 5.00
  3.89 4.33
• Life 4.17 4.38
  3.81 4.27

27
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.

28
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.

29
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.

30
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 US9,260 (64.4)
• Tang, Tang, Luna-Arocas

31
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 Maslows Needs

32
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.

33
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
  

34
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

35
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

36
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

37
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

38
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.

39
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.

40
Classification Results

• 91.57of Original grouped cases correctly
  classified.

41
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.

42
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.

43
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)

44
Push and Pull

• Dissatisfaction may push the employee to look for
  alternative employment, whereas the perception of
  attractive alternative job opportunities may pull
  them 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).

45
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)

46
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)

47
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)

48
High MES
Low MES
Withdrawal Cognitions
Low
High
Intrinsic Job Satisfaction
49
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

50
High MES
Low MES
Turnover
High
Low
Intrinsic Job Satisfaction
51
Mediator

• x -----gt m -----gt y
  Antecedent Mediator
  Consequence Satisfaction Money Ethic
  Turnover
• 1. x ----gt m
• 2. x ----gt y
• 3. m ----gt y
• All are true, then, x on y must be less in 3 than
  in 2. (Baron Kenny, 1986)

52
Money Ethic as a Mediator

• 1. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction ----gt Money Ethic,
  t 2.919, p .005
• 2. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction --x--gt Turnover
• 3. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Money Ethic
  --x--gt Turnover
• Money Ethic is not a mediator between intrinsic
  job satisfaction and turnover.
• Money Ethic is not a mediator between withdrawal
  cognitions and turnover.

53
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 raters sex and
  money ethic endorsement The Matthew Effect
  revisited. Personality and Individual
  Differences.

54
The Matthew Effect

• Gabris and Mitchell (1988)Apostle Matthew in
  the bible (1312)
• 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).

55
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.

56
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).

57
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).

58
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 41.
• Aristotle favored a 51 ratio.

59
Pay Differential in 1970s

• Mahoney (1979)No. 1/No. 2 1.37 to 1.41
• No. 2/No. 3 1.21 to 1.23

60
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).

61
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.

62
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.

63
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 41 or 51 ratio.

64
Pay Differential

• USA 150
• Japan 15
• Europe 20
• Nelsen-Horchler (Industrial Week, 1990, 1991)

65
MethodOrganization Chart

• Hypothetical Organization Chart
• Mahoney (1969)
• C (CEO) A b L-1
• See Example (next slide)

66
Organization Chart
A
C
B
20,000
D
E
F
C (CEO) A b L-1
67
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.
• Womens allocations of money were not affected by
  their endorsement of the MES.

68
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 lt .05.

69
Pay Differential

• Taiwan, USA, UK
• Taiwan 78 ProfessionalsThe USA 137
  ProfessionalsThe UK 93 Professionals
• The 12-Item Money Ethic Scale

70
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

71
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).

72
Confucianism

• Mans 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).

73
Organization Chart
A
C
B
20,000
D
E
F
C (CEO) A b L-1
74
Results

• MANOVA F 2.78
• Taiwan USA UK A 35,526
  34,658 31,608 1gt2gt3C 19,754 19,326
  19,007D 15,421 14,742 13,920
  1gt2gt3E 15,280 14,698 13,768
  1gt2gt3F 15,473 14,663 13,673
  1gt2gt3.

75
Pay Differential

• MANOVA F 3.31
• Taiwan USA UK A/20000
  1.77 1.73 1.58 1gt2gt3C/20000
  .99 .97 .9520000/D 1.34
  1.40 1.49 1lt2lt320000/E 1.37
  1.41 1.51 1lt2lt320000/F 1.34
  1.41 1.43 1lt2lt3.

76
Pay Differential--PRC

• Tang, T. L. P., Luk, V., Chiu, R. K. (2000,
  CBR). Pay differentials in Peoples Republic of
  China An examination of internal equity and
  external competitiveness.

77
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.

78
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).

79
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

80
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

81
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).

82
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

83
Research Data

• 19-page survey mailed to 200 companies in PRC
• 104 Companies (return rate 52)
• Covering 56,390 employees

84
Benchmark Job

• 63 Benchmark jobs 4 Levels
• Managerial Staff (14 jobs)
• Supervisory/Technical Staff (21)
• General Staff (19)
• Operative Staff (19)

85
Region

• Beijing
• Shanghai
• Guangzhou
• Shenzhen and Zhuhai
• and Others

86
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)

87
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)

88
Company Size

• Less than 300 Employees (69)
• Between 300 to 1,000 (15)
• More than 1,000 (20)

89
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.

90
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

91
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.

92
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.

93
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

94
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

95
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

96
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

97
Top-Bottom Pay DifferentialAnnual Salary

• Pay Dif
  FAdministration 4.58 17.28Information Tech.
  3.41
• Accounting 2.36 2.85Marketing 1.90

98
Top-BottomService vs. Manufacturing

• A B
  Service Manuf.
  FAccounting Mgr/ 2.55 5.71
  6.5Entry University
• A/B .45

99
Starting Monthly SalaryUniversity/High Diploma

• Field Pay Dif.
  tEngineering 1.20 2.13 Sales 1.17
• Information Tech. 1.19 2.41Sales 1.17

100
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.