International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration - Vol. 4

By Jay M. Shafritz | Go to book overview

S

SALARY EQUITY . The perception among employees that salary or pay is equitable or fair. There are three types of equity: external, internal, and individual. From an employee's viewpoint, external equity is achieved when salary is perceived as equal to the market rate for similar positions in like organizations or governments. Internal equity is achieved when the worth of the position held by an employee is fair compared to the worth of other positions within the organization/government. Individual equity is achieved when levels of performance are rewarded fairly compared to the levels of performance of other employees. Although it is possible to conceptually separate these three types, in practice maintaining equity for one is likely to impact equity concerns for the other two.


Causes of Salary Inequity

If salary is viewed as inequitable, there are several possible causes. If external equity is not present, it may be that the government has adopted a policy that supports wages deliberately set below the market rate; or, alternatively, no market rate policy may exist. In addition, if salaries outside the government have not been surveyed recently, information concerning the market rate may be out of date. Even if up-to-date information has been collected, if pay structures and relevant pay policies for the surveyed organizations are different from those of the surveying government, it may be difficult to interpret the collected data so that the appropriate market rate may be clearly identified.

Even if organizations do identify an accurate market rate, a raise policy that would offer market adjustment raises to existing employees is rarely found. Salary surveys may result in pay range adjustments that favor higher salaries for new hires.

Traditionally, internal equity may become a concern if there is evidence of grade creep. This phenomenon is found when positions are reclassified to a higher pay range without sufficient changes in the nature of the duties and knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) to warrant such an action. When it happens for one position, gradually other employees who hold similar positions elsewhere in the government pressure their supervisors to approve similar upgrades.

Raise policy can contribute to internal inequity. It is often easier politically to approve cost of living allowances (COLAs) rather than provide raises that move the salary of an incumbent further up a pay range. Realizing that pay raises provided to existing employees often do not keep up with increases in market rate, governments tend to also provide the same percentage increases to pay range minimums and maximums as is given to COLAs. The relative position of incumbents' salaries on the pay range does not change.

The greatest potential threat to internal equity is a job evaluation system that is either biased or misused. In measuring a job factor such as job knowledge, if more weight is given to knowledge obtained from work experience rather than formal education, for example, then there may be a built-in bias to the worth allotted to a position. This issue is often raised by those claiming a gender bias in pay equity, since for many supervisory or management positions, males often have more experience and less formal education than women.

Similarly, the weight or importance of each factor is often determined by analyzing the existing wage structure for the government or organization. To the extent that there are biases or inaccuracies in the existing structure, then, the application of a given job evaluation system based upon these is likely to result in inequities.

Furthermore, even using a "bias-free" job evaluation system may still lead to inequity if it is misused. When using a point rating job evaluation system, governments may use inconsistent point spreads in allocating points to each pay range. Additionally, if the points awarded to various factors for each position are not reviewed within each job series (e.g., all secretarial positions) or department as well as for each pay range, the assigned pay range for positions at higher levels in an organization may be incorrect.

Individual equity concerns arise for two primary reasons. First, the manner in which performance is measured may be of low validity. The typical graphic rating performance evaluation system used in government, one which is applied uniformly to all positions, suffers from an overemphasis on personality traits. Also, such systems do not provide sufficient distinction between performance levels for many positions. Typically, employees are rated on a five-point scale from unsatisfactory to excellent, with over 90 percent receiving a satisfactory, above satisfactory, or excellent rating.

Second, there is often an inadequate relationship between levels of performance and the amount of reward received. In many cases, if the raises provided are only in terms of COLAs, there may be no relationship between pay raises and performance levels. Alternatively, if an employee receiving an excellent performance rating is given a raise that is only 0.5 percent higher than an employee who obtains a satisfactory performance rating, for example, individual inequity is likely to be perceived. Furthermore, if the total non-COLA raise package is small, then the total dollar difference allocated to each performance level may further aggravate individual equity problems.

-2019-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this book

This book has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this book

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration - Vol. 4
Table of contents

Table of contents

  • Editorial Board *
  • Title Page *
  • R 1901
  • S 2019
  • T 2205
  • U 2297
  • V 2325
  • W 2377
  • Z 2429
  • Index 2437
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen
/ 2504

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.