There are several reasons an organi

组织使用利润共享的原因有很多。它可能会鼓励员工更像所有者一样思考，全面了解他们需要做什么以使组织更有效。他们更有可能合作，而不太可能专注于狭narrow的个人利益。此外，当组织遇到财务困难时，利润共享具有降低成本的实际优势。如果组织的利润很少或没有利润，则该激励薪酬很小或根本不存在，因此雇主可能无需过多依赖裁员来降低成本。<br><br>利润分享是否有助于组织更好地执行？证据尚不清楚。尽管研究支持利润分享付款与利润之间的联系，但研究人员质疑其中哪些会导致利润分享。25例如，福特，克莱斯勒和通用汽车在与美国汽车工人联合会的合同中也有类似的利润分享计划，但是支出并不总是相似的。一年之内，普通工人从福特公司获得4,000美元，从通用汽车公司获得550美元，从克莱斯勒公司获得8,000美元。因为计划是相似的，所以除了利润分享之外，福特和克莱斯勒必须比通用汽车更有利可图。如上例所示，支出差异不仅引发了计划有效性的问题，而且引发了关于公平性的问题。假设福特，克莱斯勒和通用汽车的工人有相似的工作，他们期望会收到类似的利润分享支票。在本例的年份中，除非通用汽车能够证明克莱斯勒的工人为赚大钱而付出了更多的努力，否则通用汽车的工人可能已经将他们的激励薪酬视为非常不公平的。员工也可能会认为，少量的利润分享支票是不公平的，因为他们几乎无法控制利润。如果向所有员工提供利润共享，但是大多数员工认为只有有关产品，价格和市场营销的管理决策会对利润产生重大影响，他们将得出结论，他们的行为与报酬之间几乎没有联系。在这种情况下，利润分享计划将对员工的行为影响很小。当员工不得不等待数月才能分配利润时，这个问题就更大了。

There are several reasons an organizations might use profit sharing. It may encourage employees to think more like owners, taking a broad view of what they need to do in order to make the organization more effective. They are more likely to cooperate and less likely to focus on narrow self-interest. Also, profit sharing has the practical advantage of costing less when the organization is experiencing financial difficulties. If the organization has little or no profit, this incentive pay is small or nonexistent, so employers may not need to rely as much on layoffs to reduce costs.<br><br>Does profit sharing help organizations perform better? The evidence is not yet clear. Although research supports a link between profit-sharing payments and profits, researchers have questioned which of these causes the other.25 For example, Ford, Chrysler, and GM have similar profit-sharing plans in their contracts with the United Auto Workers, but the payouts are not always similar. In one year, the average worker received $4,000 from Ford, $550 from GM, and $8,000 from Chrysler. Because the plans are similar, something other than the profit sharing must have made Ford and Chrysler more profitable than GM. Differences in payouts, as in the preceding example, raise questions not only about the effectiveness of the plans but about equity. Assuming that workers at Ford, Chrysler, and GM have similar jobs, they would expect to receive similar profit-sharing checks. In the year of this example, GM workers might have seen their incentive pay as being highly inequitable unless GM could show that Chrysler workers did more to earn their big checks. Employees also may feel that small profit-sharing checks are unfair because they have little control over profits. If profit sharing is offered to all employees but most employees think only management decisions about products, price, and marketing have much impact on profits, they will conclude that there is little connection between their actions and their rewards. In that case, profit-sharing plans will have little impact on employee behavior. This problem is even greater when employees have to wait months before profits are distributed. The time lag between high-performance behavior and financial rewards is simply too long to be motivating.

一个组织使用利润分享有几个原因。它可能会鼓励员工更像所有者一样思考，从更广泛的角度考虑他们需要做什么，以使组织更有效。他们更愿意合作，也不太可能只关注狭隘的私利。此外，当组织遇到财务困难时，利润分享具有成本更低的实际优势。如果企业利润很少或根本没有利润，那么这种激励性薪酬就很小或根本不存在，因此雇主可能不需要那么依赖裁员来降低成本。<br>利润分享有助于组织更好地运作吗？证据还不清楚。虽然研究支持利润分享支付和利润之间的联系，但研究人员质疑其中的哪一个导致了另一个。25例如，福特、克莱斯勒和通用汽车在与美国汽车工人联合会（United Auto Workers）签订的合同中有类似的利润分享计划，但这些支付并不总是相似的。在一年内，普通工人从福特得到4000美元，从通用得到550美元，从克莱斯勒得到8000美元。因为这些计划是相似的，所以除了利润分享之外，福特和克莱斯勒的利润肯定比通用更高。正如前一个例子所示，支出的差异不仅引起了对计划有效性的质疑，也引起了对股权的质疑。假设福特、克莱斯勒和通用的员工都有类似的工作，他们也会得到类似的利润分成支票。在这一年的例子中，通用汽车的员工可能会认为他们的激励性薪酬是非常不公平的，除非通用汽车能够证明克莱斯勒的员工为赚取巨额支票做了更多的工作。员工也可能会觉得小额利润分享支票不公平，因为他们对利润几乎没有控制权。如果向所有员工提供利润分享，但大多数员工认为只有有关产品、价格和营销的管理决策才对利润有很大影响，他们会得出结论，认为自己的行为与其报酬之间没有什么联系。在这种情况下，利润分享计划对员工行为的影响很小。当员工不得不等待数月才能分配利润时，这个问题就更严重了。高绩效行为和经济回报之间的时间差太长，根本无法激励员工。<br>