ORGANIZATIONAL TRAINING
AND DEVELOPMENT

Engaging Environment
There should be a clear strategic goal designed by getting
input from the employees and is understood by all the
employees. The employees personal goals and the
organizational goal should be in accordance with each
other.
 How the employees perceive the new environment and
what they get out of this?
 There are different levels of authority and the decisions on
each level should be followed by the lower levels. The
information collected from different resources should be
dispensed within the whole organization by the HR
department.


Value:



What is important? An Employee Value
Proposition (EVP) can help to decide the important
things and where priorities are?
Distribute the funds according to the importance of
things and projects found in EVP and changes
should be made where needed.
By taking inputs from employees and knowing
what they think more important, select a best
performance environment according to their needs.

Communicating to employees:


Changes adopted without any input from employees
are difficult to adjust. Discussing changes is better
than just applying the changes.
Changes should be described and applied in
accordance to the employees’ job. They should be
made to understand their worth for company as well
as how can they take part for improvement.

Outcomes:


Use of right information at right time generates
positive outcomes. Use the cost versus retention
correlation. Input and feedback should be collected
from employees, managers and customers.
Company goals dictate the outcomes of investments.
If they are not in accordance with the company
goals, the goals should be reviewed. The errors
should be fixed and work should be improved..

Relationship with Employees:
The employees input should be recognized and
appreciated.
 Inspire and motivate the employees giving nonmonetary
benefits to them. Seasoned employees should also be made
to feel engaged and part of the organization.
 Share the working and performance of the organization to
employees, this would increase their morale and
motivation.
 Feedback and suggestion from employees will made them
to feel themselves as an important part of the organization
and this would help the organization in the situation.




Involve both (older and newer) employees in
process
Direct relationship between employee
participation and motivation
Successful merger

Proctor & Gamble/Gillette

Pay Equity Theory. The basis of the theory
are how the employees take their rewards
against their efforts and performance.



Pay Satisfaction
Pay Dissatisfaction
Pay Inequity

Internal Equity. comparing individual pay
versus other employees in both
companies with similar jobs



Evaluate pay of new and old employees to see equity
Comparing similar jobs between companies
Adjustments in salaries to ensure internal equity

External Equity. Assess individual pay
versus employees in other companies
with similar jobs



Evaluating pay of similar jobs in other companies
Avoid loss of experienced personnel to competitors
Individual Equity. Assesses individual
performance to pay

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs


Safety and Security
Herzberg’s Two Factors Theory


Hygiene
Motivational
 IntrinsicIN
rewards
are COMPAN
COMPENSATION SYSTEMS
OTHER
Zappos



generated by Supportive
culture.
High and professional
training supports “…higher
engagement”
Work in favor of and assist
the “Work-Life Balance”
Provide satisfaction to
employees and customers
 Every one takes initiative and plays
COMPENSATION SYSTEMS
IN OTHER
his/her part when the team is
COMPANIES
accountable for its actions.
WHOLE FOODS
 Peer store assessments and
MARKET
competition between peer makes


the performance better store wide
Giving partnership creates direct
relationship of performance to
results
Profit sharing motivates employees
to perform their work in a best way
and initiative to team work
COMPENSATION SYSTEMS FOR MERGER
“At the end, all of these factors contribute to the culture and
work environment created by company and developed over
time.” (Working Today: Understanding What Drives Employee
Engagement, 2003, p. 10).




Intrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation
Team development
Team independence and decisions in favor
of merger
Performance
Appraisal Methods
 Individual and team based
COMPENSATION
SYSTEMS FOR
MERGER


compensation plans
Appreciating the team
performance and favoring the
supportive suggestions and
ideas of workers
Balancing the individual
contributions to the team and
overall performance of the
team
Performance Based Reward 
System
and The Trustand
building
Compensation
performance
COMPENSATION
SYSTEMS FOR
MERGER



is managed individually and
entirely (Holistically).
Company’s core values are
supported by the recognition
and appreciation
The compensation system is
based on the individual’s
contribution to the core values
and mission and goals of the
organization
A holistic approach is used for
recognition of Compensations in
the organization
QUALITY
ENHANCING EMPLOYEE
INVOLVEMENT
 considered
as a better way to
CIRCLES


improve employees
involvement (Rafaeli, 1985)
Improved communication
Involvement of Management




Making use of employee knowledge and
experience (Richardson & Vandenberg, 2005)
Improves the overall performance of the
company
Improving employee motivation, which will
improve productivity
Information and knowledge sharing
throughout the organization




Quality of Work Life (QOWL)
Work-Life Balance (Penn Human Resources,
2007)
Support at home
Work Performance



Giving power to the employees
Benefits of empowerment of employees
Does Difference mean to the company?




Involving the employees in discussions regarding the
issues with products and within the company.
Employees are motivated and willing to share
information and knowledge. However, no relationship
between decision making and job satisfaction (Rice &
Schneider, 1994)
QOWL balances Work-Life
Empowerment is considered by employees as being on
the same level as management in decision-making
process, means giving more responsibility and authority
to employees.







Apostolou, A. (2000). Employee involvement. INNOREGIO: dissemination of innovation and
knowledge management techniques. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from
http://www.urenio.org/tools/en/employee_involvement.pdf
Barker, G. (2008). Employee engagement: Trade secrets. Personnel today. Retrieved from
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/10/17/47938/employee-engagementtrade-secrets.html
Managementstudyguide.com (2008). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation. Retrieved
from http://www.managementstudyguide.com/herzbergs-theory-motivation.htm
Mayhew, R. (2011). Examples of employee engagement strategies. Chron: Small
business. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-employeeengagement-strategies-11241.html
Pasha, A.T. (2010). Effects of merger on management: Case study of A bank. European
Journal of Economics, April 2010. Retrieved from
http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?sid=0d57d305-4f3f-4747-8832f7cf534d1bb5%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=120&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d
#db=bth&AN=50743646
Perschel, A. (2010). Work-life flow: How individuals, Zappos, and other innovative
companies achieve high engagement. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 29(5), 1730. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven Practices of Successful Organizations. California Management Review,
40(2), 96-124. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.







Quality circles. (2011). In Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed.. Retrieved from
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Op-Qu/Quality-Circles.html
Rafaeli, A. (1985). Quality circles and employee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 38(3), 603615. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from EBSCOhost.
Rice, E. M., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of teacher empowerment: An empirical
analysis of teacher involvement in decision making, 1980-1991. Journal of Educational
Administration, 32(1), 43-43. Retrieved August 26, 2011 from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/220425181?accountid=35812
Richardson, H. A., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2005). Integrating managerial perceptions and
transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26(5), 561-561-589. Retrieved August 26, 2011
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224883692?accountid=35812
University of Pennsylvania Division of Human Resources. (2007). Quality of work
life. University of Pennsylvania Division of Human Resources. Retrieved August 26, 2011
from http://www.hr.upenn.edu/quality/
Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement (2003). The 2003 Towers
Perrin Talent Report. Retrieved August 11, 2010, from www.towersperrin.com. 38.
Yi Hua, H., & Hai Ming, C. (2011). Strategic fit among business competitive strategy, human
resource strategy, and reward system. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 10(2), 11-32.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.