that are critical to its survival and success. Strategies take advantage of the opportunities and manage the threats in the external environment by marshalling internal resources in some coherent, consistent direction (Dyer, 1985). In from a strategic perspective, organizations and markets are more appropriate units of analysis for understanding changes in international compensation and rewards. The strategic thinking from differences between countries to differences within countries so using internal alignment as medium are unrealistic. Compensation and reward systems are designed to help create and motivate a workforce with the values and capabilities necessary to achieve an organization’s unique goals and objectives rather than being designed to meet the national values exhibited by a work force (Bloom, Matt and Milkovich, 1998). Morishima’s (1995) study of Japanese companies’ HR strategies reports differences in compensation approaches associated with organization profitability, size, degree of unionization, capital-labour ratio, and exposure to global competitive forces. For example, Japanese companies operating in protected domestic markets are more likely to use the more traditional nenko system2 than those competing in global and less protected market which reported using more performance and ability-based schemes (Morishima, 1992, 1995; Sano, 1993). Other study related to strategic conditions by Lee, Scarpello, and Rockman (1995) found that factors such as labour market conditions, customer and supplier relations, economic conditions and technology accounted for differences in compensation strategies among Korean chaebols. Pearce, Branyiczki, & Bakacsi’s (1994) study of compensation systems in Hungarian and US companies suggests that political, economic, and institutional forces, rather than national cultures, explain differences in compensation practices. Effective international compensation systems might be those that match internal contingencies for example fit the organization’s goals and culture first and then respond to external forces within the constraints of strategic alignment (Bloom, Matt and Milkovich, 1998).
战略投资组合模型表明，薪酬体系“适合”的概念可能是一个混乱的构建过程。一般来说，战略是指一个组织的总体、长期方向，对其生存和成功至关重要。战略利用机会，通过在一些连贯一致的方向上调动内部资源来管理外部环境中的威胁。从战略角度来看，组织和市场是了解国际薪酬和回报变化的更合适的分析单位。从国与国之间的差异到国与国内部的差异，以内部结盟为媒介的战略思维是不现实的。薪酬和奖励制度旨在帮助创造和激励具有实现组织独特目标所需价值观和能力的劳动力，而不是旨在满足劳动力所表现出的国家价值观。Morishima对日本公司人力资源战略的研究报告了与组织盈利能力、规模、工会化程度、资本劳动比和全球竞争力相关的薪酬方法的差异。例如，在受保护的国内市场运营的日本公司更有可能使用更传统的nenko系统2，而在全球和受保护程度较低的市场竞争的公司则报告使用了更多基于性能和能力的方案。Lee、Scarpello和Rockman的其他与战略条件有关的研究发现，劳动力市场条件、客户和供应商关系、经济条件和技术等因素是韩国财阀薪酬策略差异的原因。Pearce，Branyiczki和Bakacsi对匈牙利和美国公司薪酬制度的研究表明，解释薪酬实践差异的是政治、经济和制度力量，而不是民族文化。有效的国际薪酬体系可能是那些与内部突发事件相匹配的体系，例如，首先符合组织的目标和文化，然后在战略一致的约束下对外部力量做出反应。
Yeung and Wong (1990) assert that organizational goals, political forces, labor market conditions, and demographic factors explain differences in pay and other HRM systems in Japan and the People’s Republic of China. Recent surveys in Central European countries such as Slovenia and Slovakia also report differences in the use of variable performance based pay schemes, allowances and services, and even in the ratios of top managing directors’ salaries to the average workforce (Bajzikova, 1996; Zupan, 1995). Although the recent evidence does not suggest national boundaries (national pay systems) can be ignored or overlooked, it does suggest that sufficient discretion for individual organizations exists within these national systems to allow organizations to adopt compensation and reward systems to align them with the organization’s business strategies.
Yeung和Wong断言，组织目标、政治力量、劳动力市场条件和人口因素解释了日本和中华人民共和国薪酬和其他人力资源管理系统的差异。最近在斯洛文尼亚和斯洛伐克等中欧国家进行的调查也报告了在使用基于绩效的可变薪酬计划、津贴和服务方面的差异，甚至在最高管理董事的工资与平均劳动力的比率方面的差异。尽管最近的证据并不表明国家边界（国家薪酬制度）可以被忽视或忽视，但它确实表明，在这些国家制度中，个别组织有足够的自由裁量权，允许组织采用薪酬和奖励制度，使其与组织的商业战略相一致。
The importance of a strategic perspective on compensation rests on three fundamental tenets. The first is that compensation poli
