Compensation I believe that Keith was entirely justified in insisting that the job, not the person, be evaluated. If a company has established protocol, then that protocol should be followed. The receptionist in question has a boss who is in charge of evaluating her performance on a regular basis; the committee would likely be overstepping its boundaries if they had decided to evaluate a single person, rather than the position they were intended to evaluate. Keith would likely be justified in reminding the other committee members of their responsibilities and duties regarding the committee's purpose.

Initially, Keith was bothered by the possibility of a confrontation at the meeting with certain committee members. It would therefore behoove Keith to approach the situation with care and consideration, while maintaining a sense of balance and humbleness. One thing that Keith does not want to do is approach the other members of the committee with an arrogant attitude that could cause more friction. As one recent study determined, "people who are humble do not act superior to others, which runs counter to arrogant behavior" (Johnson, Silverman, Shyamsunder, Swee, Rodopman, Cho, Bauer, 2010, pp. 409). Bob had already set a negative tone to the meeting by interrupting Keith, and Rita was obviously in cahoots with Bob. Keith, by maintaining a sense of humility, would likely circumvent their shared attitude from the very beginning. The Johnson et al. study states that "it is easy to form mental caricatures of employees who exaggerate their own qualities and worth, while belittling their colleagues" (p. 405). No one enjoys that type of attitude, especially in the workplace.

Whether Keith approaches it humbly or not, is not the real question though. The situation is one in which Keith should take control and set the parameters.

The committee's job is to set rates of pay for specific...

Establishing a set scale communicates to all the employees a sense of stability as well as an incentive for improved work skills and behaviors. Those employees who wish to attain additional dollars need only work smarter, and harder. Employees would also have the opportunities to change their job description by attaining the necessary new skills to take on new duties and responsibilities; knowing what it takes to do so is all part of the motivation for the employees (including how much money they could earn). Of course, much of my thinking regarding fixed wages is based on how I personally believe, not science or studies.
As one recent study found "issues of data availability and quality have limited the development of wage theory in general and sociological refinements of it in particular" (Zhang, Smith, 2010, p. 375) and that is true regarding my thoughts on this subject as well. However, a case can be made that each job in a company can be quantified by the qualitative importance placed on the job. The perception that one job is more important -- and therefore should be compensated accordingly -- is one that changes through time. A sales person may earn additional dollars by bringing in additional business, but a receptionist is stuck with answering phones, getting coffee, and meeting and caring for clients as they come through the front door. Geneva may be excellent at her work, in fact she may be the best there has ever been, but that still does not mean that the job is worth more compensation.

3) If Geneva is earning the maximum dollars allocated to the specific job at which she is working, then she seems to have a choice; stay with the job at the current pay scale, or…