Discuss specific outcomes in the pay model an organization could impact through the use of quality of work-life (QWL) programs.

need replies/feedback to the 4 posts below. DUE tonight. .Asap if possible. Thanks.  about 4-5 sentences for each feedback would be great.



Describe the relationship between an organization’s business strategy and its pay systems. Demonstrate an understanding of a pay model.

I think the relationship between an organization business strategy and its pay period system are based on the position and the performance. Compensation and benefits are designed to attract, as well as motivate, and retain employees.  This is one reason organization set the pay hoping it will attract the employee to perform a good job and when that good job is done they will earn bonuses and this is what keeps the employee motivated and long term.

Discuss a goal or objective of your current organization. What aspect of the company’s compensation system aligns with this goal/objective?

I am going to use my previous employer since I am still in training with my current employer. They provided us bonuses at the end of the year, but throughout the year we were able to learn extra money on our checks as well as monthly gifts in drawing. OnStar gives Flat screen TVs, laptops, iPhones, kindles, Dre Beats, Xbox, PS4, cash, vacation, gift cards etc… Maintaining the goal is the only thing you had to do to be enter in the drawing. I have won 2 flat screen TV’s in the same and lots of cash and gift cards.

Discuss specific outcomes in the pay model an organization could impact through the use of quality of work-life (QWL) programs.  What do you think is the most important outcome resulting from these programs?  How can an organization formally evaluate whether a QWL program has been effective?

Benefits such as PTO, UTO, FMLA, sick leave, insurance protection, and retirement programs are all things that help protect employees with their job. These benefits allow them to concentrate on their self or their love ones without their job being in jeopardy.


“In classifying or differentiating jobs for pay purposes, no on single factor carries greater significance than the knowledge and skills required of the jobholder” (Martocchio, 2011). In most organizations employers will pay the new coming employees on their credentials and experience. Other forms of compensations or rewards for hard work, further education and other self-improvement can include bonuses or raises.

I believe that every business should adjust pay according to the experience and education one has. Some workers will go above and beyond to educate themselves to be the best they can be at their job and others will do the bare minimum to keep their job. There should be a pay difference in these people. Rewarding these people with higher pay shows them their hard work is appreciated and will result in higher production in the work environment.

The whole debate over job descriptions can be very tricky. On the one hand, I can see why a highly detailed and specific description could keep an employee from doing any extra work. They would feel confined by their list of specific tasks and would feel it unnecessary to perform any job duties that were not included in that list. In my opinion this would create tension between employees or divisions any time a new problem arises and no one is sure who is the responsible party. On the other hand, an unspecified job description could leave some confusion as well. If an entire organization is made up of employees with completely generic descriptions of their roles and responsibilities, it leaves a lot of room for people to say, “well it is not my job.” There has to be a middle ground where people understand exactly what is expected of them, but also realize that that job description can be altered over time with new responsibilities added as needed. Personally, I favor a more detailed description over a broader one, but that is because I prefer to know exactly what I am doing and when it needs to be done. A broad job description leaves  a lot of room for interpretation and that is how people tend to have problems communicating their vision.
According to Henderson (2006), an advantage of generic job descriptions is that they define the work of a large number of employees into what could be called class descriptions.  These descriptions identify the major tasks to be performed by the majority of the employees.  This allows managers to be flexible when assigning tasks.  This helps avoid the “that’s not in my job description” excuse given when employees only want to do tasks listed in their job description.  A disadvantage of the broad or generic job description is that a detailed job analysis for what each worker is not accomplished leading to misunderstandings and distrust.

On the other hand, a specific and narrow job description clearly lets employees know what they are expected to perform. This helps them “buy into” their jobs like a contract because their duties and responsibilities are clearly defined.  This definitive document of expectations creates a mutually trustworthy relationship between the employee and the supervisor.  A disadvantage of a narrow job description is that it must be rewritten or revised if new duties are assigned or if the job changes.  This can include having to increase the employee’s pay or classification.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page: