Comparative Study Of Motivational Schemes Between Sinopec And Rosneft

This paper has been created with a single objective in mind, this is to find the differences of motivational schemes currently used between SINOPEC and ROSNEFT and the influence on the staff of the two companies.The contents are divided in four chapters. The first chapter is the introduction, in this chapter the research background, its significance and literature review is given. In the research significance it is important to make a case for the comparison of these two companies established in China and Russia. The comparison from a n employee?s perspective is used to make this case. China and Russia, when compared using its GDP end up in different level, although both are emerging economies, their market size cannot be compared as equals. Because of this reasons a comparison using international dollars(Int$) is used. International dollars are a hypothetical unit of currency calculated based on the purchasing power parity of household final consumption expenditure.The relevant information about what a motivational scheme is mentioned because it is important for the reader to grasp that the motivational schemes are of various kinds, and their definition can include even bizarre scenarios, but having this in mind will aid in understanding the use of the information given by SINOPEC and ROSNEFT about the motivational schemes used in their companies. There is a scarcity of public information about the inner workings of the companies Human Resources. This is expected because along with the needed information there will be some critical and even private information of the company. Remembering that part of the objective in this paper is to use information that has been made public, it is clear that more broad results are being given.In the second chapter, the information of SINOPEC has been introduced in details. SINOPEC is one of the largest company in China. As a state-owned company, SINOPEC holds a number of about 1 million workers. So the question is how to motivate these staff in a certain way to arouse their passion for work has a meaning not only for the staff, but also for the development of the company. The motivational schemes of SINOPEC has been presented in details and I have found that SINOPEC mainly uses salary, welfare promotion and recognition to motivate staff. Of all the motivational schemes, the effect of salary is the worst, because staff generally considered the salary is low, and it cannot motivate them well. At the same time, the salary of different position is different, which will cause the dissatisfaction of the staff. Compared to salary, welfare and other motivation methods can be accepted by the staff, and to some extent make the staff be passion with the work. In the interview, I also find that there are still some disadvantages in SINOPEC?s motivational schemes, such as imperfect performance appraisal and little chances of study and self-promotion.In the third chapter the information of ROSNEFT has been introduced in details. ROSNEFT is the largest oil company in Russia. Same like SINOPEC, ROSNEFT also uses motivational schemes to motivate the staff. By interviewing the staff in ROSNEFT, I investigated the effects of motivation methods in ROSNEFT on the staff and ROSNEFT itself. The results shows that the motivational schemes in ROSNEFT make no big difference with SINOPEC, and using salary, welfare, promotion and recognition as the main motivation methods. However, the welfare in ROSNEFT contains not only annul bonus and paid vacation, but a lso try to meet other needs of the staff, such as healthcare and free loan children education. These methods release the pressure from the life of the staff. In the survey, staff feel satisfaction with the welfare of ROSNEFT.On chapter four, the open recommendations are made to both SINOPEC and ROSNEFT HR motivational schemes area. After it was found out that the motivational schemes used in both companies are not a sizeable expense, it is clear that the continuity in improving the benefits given to the wo rkers as it has been done on both companies is important, but not only as a rise in salaries, but in any other motivational scheme that might be needed for different situation within the company. As shown with the labor laws, both countries are vast, and t hat is reflected that even in laws as minimum wage are not “one size fits all” kind of thing, an adjustment to local necessities is needed, because when the company is seen as a living organism, is easier to understand that its needs have natural variation s.The recommendations for future research are basically on finding support to be able to have the companies support, this is to grant access or provide with the information of the benefits provided in their company and access to at least a random sample of the workers in those different levels to gather their opinions about the current benefits and other relevant data.The conclusion for this work is that based on the available public data gathered from public sources, the expenses that derivate from the motivational schemes used by SINOPEC and ROSNEFT during the year 2013 are not a considerable expense for both companies being no greater than 2% of their total operation costs, therefore is usually relegated to the concept of “any other operating expenses”, and the turnover after taxes being around twice that amount during the year 2013. There effect of its cost is acceptable for both companies and is not being a burden in need of attention; from the perspective of Human resources leaves much room for improvement and there is proof that the founds to bring them to fruition exist.