Perceived fairness of compensation and benefits report


Your employees come first. And if you treat your employees right, guess what? Your customers come back, and that makes your shareholders happy. Start with employees and the rest follows from that.
— Herb Kelleher

Other reports:


Methodological notes: 

  • Perceived fairness of compensation and benefits  is measured using a two-item scale developed by Mount & Bartlett (2002). The two items are:  “Compared to similar companies in my industry, I am paid fairly for the work I do,” and “Compared to similar companies in my industry, the benefits I receive at my company are fair.” 

  • Respondents’ agreement with each of the above statements is measured using a 5-point Likert scale with 5 indicating strong agreement and 1 indicating strong disagreementAll scales reported in the charts below correspond to this 5-point agreement scale, unless otherwise indicated.

  • Data is collected via field survey that take place in major transportation hubs in Macao as well as several residential areas. Respondents are selected following a systematic random sampling technique and interviews are conducted face-to-face with the help of a structured questionnaire. Interviews are conducted in either English or Chinese. Respondents are interviewed if they are permanent or non-permanent residents, or hold non-resident worker’s permit, and are employed full-time in Macao at the time of the survey. 

  • Total number of respondents for the 2012 survey wave was 525 and 1,046 for 2013. Description of the sample’s  characteristics can be found here.


Results

1.0  Overall perceived fairness of CAB

Overall, workers expressed relatively positive perception of fairness in the compensation and benefits received from their organizations, with mean agreement level at 3.39 (out of  a scale maximum of 5) in 2013 and 3.41 in 2012--statistically unchanged.

2.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by industry sector

Across different industry sectors, perceived fairness of CAB varied. Workers in public administration, travel-related sectors as well as hotels and resorts, for example, report generally higher perceived fairness than others such as those in the leisure, entertainment and creative as well as the food and beverage and casino/gaming sectors.

There also seems to be significant shifts in perceived fairness across just two years of survey data. In some sectors, perceived fairness was reported higher in 2013 than in 2012 but the opposite could be observed in other sectors. 

What the data seems to suggest is that perceived fairness of organizational compensation and benefits is a highly volatile and changeable observation by workers. This in turn suggests that organizations frequently update relative information covering compensation and benefits to dispel misconceptions.

(Note: the industry classification system in this chart follows that of the Census and Statistics Bureau of Macau or DSEC.)

3.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by monthly income

Not surprisingly, perceived fairness of compensation and benefits received significantly increases as monthly income received increases. The “floor” of perceived fairness is relatively set by those earning the lowest monthly income (i.e., less than MOP10,000 per month), for whom perceived fairness hovers around the 5-point scale mid-point of 3.0, observed in both the survey years 2012 and 2013.

4.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by level of educational attainment

There is also an observed correlation between level of educational attainment and perceived fairness of compensation and benefits received (together of course with the monthly income). Workers with higher levels of educational attainment report significantly higher perceived fairness. Interestingly, for workers with no formal education, and those with primary and middle school education, there is no significant difference in perceived fairness--workers having lower than high school education, therefore, tend to have the same perceived fairness levels. It might benefit organizations to distinguish CAB entitlements not solely in terms of work performance but in tandem with considerations for whether or not workers attain or have attained some form of education.

5.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by residency status

Non-resident workers tend to express the lowest levels of perceived compensation and benefits, followed next by non-permanent residents (though for this group, their opinion varied between 2012 and 2013) and permanent residents, who expressed the highest levels of perceived compensation and benefits.

6.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by marital status

There is no difference between workers who are married and workers who are single in terms of the way they perceive their compensation and benefits received as fair. Both groups of workers report generally favorable perceived fairness and this sentiment remained consistent in 2012 and 2013.

7.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by presence of children

There is no difference between workers who have children and workers who do not have children in terms of the way they perceive their compensation and benefits received as fair. Both groups of workers report generally favorable perceived fairness and this sentiment remained consistent in 2012 and 2013.

8.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by gender

There is no difference between male and female workers in terms of the way they perceive their compensation and benefits received as fair. Both groups of workers report generally favorable perceived fairness and this sentiment remained consistent in 2012 and 2013.

9.0 Perceived fairness of CAB by shift work duty

Despite higher work stress, lower levels of job satisfaction, and lower intent-to-stay (see other accompanying reports to this one), shift workers express little or no significant difference compared to non-shift workers in terms of the way they perceive their compensation and benefits received as fair. Both groups of workers report generally favorable perceived fairness and this sentiment remained consistent in 2012 and 2013.

End of report.