AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF INCENTIVE MANAGEMENT OF A MINING COMPANY // BSU bulletin. Economy and Management. - 2016. №1. . - С. 3-14.

AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF INCENTIVE MANAGEMENT OF A MINING COMPANY

UDK: 622:338.2

The goal of the study was to investigate incentive systems of a state owned mining company operating in Mongolia. The company’s current incentive system was devel- oped during the centralized planning economic era of Mongolia and fallen behind the modern human resource practice. The present incentive system of the company was in- vestigated and a possibility of introducing a performance based incentive system that complements the mining company’s competitive advantage was sought. The study in- volved sample survey, secondary data analysis and interviews with representatives of different levels of the organization. The results of the survey and interviews revealed that the current incentive system was a non-performance based one. The company allo- cated incentives from the consolidated remuneration fund on the basis of labor partici- pation factor in production lines. Moreover, the corporate policy on increasing basic salary and decreasing incentives resulted in de-motivation of the employees. The study concluded that an application of key performance indicators (KPIs) and merit based evaluation system is necessary for the company. To address the existing challenges in the corporate human resource evaluation, the team developed a tailor-made evaluation sheet that is robust to the company’s characteristics. The empirical study provided an opportunity to address unique human resource management challenges in the mining business. The originality of the study was a development of the evaluation sheet which is robust to the state-owned mining company and the methodology of incentive systems. The new system enabled the company not only review human resource management is- sues, but also strategic planning matters.

incentive management, performance based compensation and incentives, Key Performance Indicator (KPI), human resource management

1. Yehuda, B., and Harel., G.,‖ Multi-source performance appraisal : An Empirical and Methodological Note‖ Public Administration Quarterly, 1993, Vol.17, No.1, pp96-111

2. Keaveny., TJ., and McGann ., A.F.,‖ Performance Appraisal Format: Role Clarity and Evaluation Criteria ― Research in Higher Education, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1980), pp.225-232

3. Herrold, K. (1986). «Performance Appraisal,» in J.J. Famularo (ed.). Handbook of Modern Personnel Administration, McGraw-Hill.

4. Milkovich, G.T. and J.W. Boudreau (1988). Personnel /Human Resource Manage- ment 5th ed. Plano TX Business Pub.

5. Kanter, R. M. (1987).‖From status to contribution: Some organizational implications of the changing basis for pay‖Personnel, 64(1), 12-37.

6. O’Dell, C. A.,andMcAdams, J. (1987). People, performance, and pay. Houston, TX: AmericanProductivity Center.

7. Sayeed and P. V. Bhide (2003) ―Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: An EmpiricalAssessment‖ Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39, No. 2 pp. 166-182

8. Murphy, K.R. and J.N. (1991) Cleveland. Performance Appraisal Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

9. Heneman, H.G.,et al (1984). Personnel/Human Resource Management, 4th ed. Homewood. IL: Irwin

10. Field, H.S. and Q.H. Holley (1977). «Subordinate Characteristics, Supervisors

Rating and Decisions to Discuss Appraisal Results.» Academy of Management Journal 20 (June), 315-321.

11. Miner, J.B. and M.G. Miner (1985). ―Personnel and Industrial Relations‖ A Ma- nagerial Approach NY McMillan.

12. Kawaguchi Shinichiro, Management by Objectives (English) published by Asian Productivity Organization, 2002

13. Kawaguchi Shinichiro, Performance Management (English) published by Asian Productivity Organization, 2002