Contrast the essential differences between the best-fit and the best-practices compensation model. Which do you think is more suitable for Egyptian organizations?

The ‘‘best fit’’ approach promotes the concept that strategic HR should be inextricably linked to the formulation and implementation of strategic corporate and business objectives (Wilton, 2011). This means that the HR strategy is concerned with matching the employee’s role behaviour with the company‘s mission, values and goals. Wilton (2011) explains this by giving an example whereby if a company‘s business strategy is based on delivering a high quality service, then the HR strategies and policies need to focus on the quality of its employees. This would be achieved by rewarding attitudes and behaviour that match this approach. Boxall and Purcell (2008) support this idea by highlighting that companies may fail if they do not adapt to their environment. The best fit approach therefore aims to improve organisational performance by integrating all activities in such a

Alignment between HRM practices and organizational strategy establishes a coherent system for organizations. There has to be a "fit" between the human resource planning and organizational strategy, Internal fit aligns HR practices with strategic organizational objectives while external fit aligns HR practices with the external environment. The external fit exhibits a more precise fit between quality policy and assertive performance HRM practices (Youndt,

Marcovitch, S. G., Gold, A., Washington, J., Wasson, C., Krekewich, K., & Handley-Derry, M. (1997).

Cir. 1996); DeGuelle v. Camilli, 664 F.3d 192, 204 (7th Cir. 2011); Goren, 156 F.3d

Each of the three managerial strategies has different implications for how the reward and compensations should be designed. In the case of the Fit Stop, it is a close choice between human relations and high-involvement. However, I believe that a High-involvement managerial strategy would be the best choice to implement. This strategy makes a major effort to create jobs that are both interesting and challenging and

A well-articulated compensation philosophy drives organizational success by aligning pay and other rewards with business strategy. It provides the foundation for plan design and administration and anchors current and future plans to the company's culture and values (Kaplan, 2006, p.32). Recognizing and rewarding achievement is the cornerstone of the company A’s compensation philosophy. The mission of the company is to attract, select, place and promote all individuals based on their qualifications. The company believes that performance-based compensation helps attract, develop and retain talented professionals. In addition to base pay which based upon local market conditions and targeted to be above market, the company provides the following types of potential compensation to reward performance:

The key components to developing effective Reward Strategy is to ensure that there are clearly defined goals to meet business objectives, that the reward programme meets the needs of both the organisation and its employees, and to ensure that this is then supported by effective HR policies. In order to ensure these criteria are met there are a number of factors which influence how reward strategy is developed which include both internal factors within the organisation itself, as well as external factors outside the organisation.

Reward Management (RM) has been defined as the distribution of monetary and non-monetary rewards to employees in an effort to align the interests of the employees, the organisation, and its shareholders (O’Neil, 1998). In addition O’Neil (1998) also suggests that a RM system can serve the purpose of attracting prospective job applicants, retaining valuable employees, motivating employees, ensuring legal requirements relating to direct and indirect rewards are not violated, assisting the company in achieving human resource and business objectives, and ultimately assisting the organisation in obtaining a competitive advantage.

Recognizing and rewarding high-performance is a key recommendation for any approach when managing any merit pay program (HRIS 2012). Merit pay is a compensation system where base pay increases and is determined by an individual’s performance. Using a merit pay plan is a good way for an organization to reward high performance is one benefit when using merit pay programs. The first step in implementing or improving a merit pay program is to have a solid performance management program, and this is another way a merit pay program is beneficial. Merit pay is a way to be successful and effectively implement merit pay with a uplift in salaries, and this is a third way using a merit pay program is beneficial to an organization. There are some drawbacks when using merit pay programs, such as paying some employees more than others. If you pay high-performing workers more than low- performing employees, the high- performers may stay, causing the low- performers to complain or leave the organization. A second drawback in using merit pay program is that employees become less motivated if not paid to their satisfaction. For example, if employees feel they should be making more money for their performance, this causes them to have low self esteem, and want to find employment at other organization. The last drawback associated with

Although research generally confirms that pay-for-performance plans can influence greater outcomes, it is unclear how effective different pay plans are relative to each other (Park, 2012). Like most things in business, compensation is something that requires evaluation, study, assessment, strategy, modeling and integration.  Achieving a pay for performance culture does not happen without paying attention to the behaviors, activities, rewards and motivations that have to be linked and reinforced through a well engineered and successfully executed process.  Actually if that process does not tie rewards to shareholder financial objectives, employ the proper mix of compensation elements, result in meaningful dollars, embrace performance that employees can impact and are effectively communicated and reinforced, then the results it produces will likely fall short (Vision Link Advisory Group, 2013).

10.Cf. Megan R. Gunnar,W.Andrew Collins (1988) :p.94. 11.Cf. Patricia Noller,Victor J. Callan (1991) :p. 49 12. Cf. Clarence J. Mann,Klaus Götz (2006) :p.110 13 Raymond Montemayor (1983):quoted according to Morton, Alexander, & Altman (1976) :p.84 14 Cf. Daniel J. Canary,William R. Cupach,Susan J. Messman (1995) quoted according to Smetana

CRITICALLY COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE 'BEST FIT', 'BEST PRACTICE' AND 'RESOURCE-BASED VIEW', MODELS OF HRM STRATEGY AND EXPLAIN HOW EACH APPROACH IS ARGUED TO CONTRIBUTE TO IMPROVED ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE.

The best fit approach is also subject to sever criticism. Firstly, Boxall and Purcell (2003) criticizes that in a changing business environment companies and their strategies are subject to multiple alternating contingences and that it is merely possible to adjust entire HR systems to new challenges frequently. Secondly, as companies move through their life-cycle HR practices have to be aligned which leads to an alternating treatment of employees which can have a demotivating effect and show inconsistency in corporate culture (Boxall and Purcell 2003).

The integrative model of human resource SHRM includes elements of both the control-based and the resource-based SHRM. Desired outcome dictates the elements that will be employed. HR policies can employ elements of commitment, collaboration, traditional and paternal control as needed to support its business strategy. Commitment strategies seek and develop internal talents to meet skill needed. Employees are seen as business partners and competitive advantage agents. Traditional HR and collaborative HR strategies have elements of externally acquiring physical resource or skills. External recruiting in the case of traditional HR strategy and subcontracting and hiring of consultants as part of the collaborative strategy can be used to provide competitive advantages to firms. External talents while providing short term advantages can be a disadvantage in the long term due to cost and potential threat to the firm business. The paternalistic HR strategy provides rewards for employees who learn and follow the company prescriptive directive for success.

Hard HRM, on the other hand, stresses 'the quantitative, calculative and business-strategic aspects of managing the "headcount resource" in as "rational" a way as for any other factor of production', as associated with a utilitarian-instrumentalist approach (Storey 1992: 29; see also Legge 1995 b). Hard HRM focuses on the importance of 'strategic fit', where human resource policies and practices are closely linked to the strategic objectives of the organization (external fit), and are coherent among