Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A study into the relationship between rewards, job satisfaction and performance
26 April 2012
Page 2 of 22
Executive Summary
The historical idea that job satisfaction is related to job performance dates back to the early days of industrial psychology. The British are the second most dissatisfied employees in Europe, though Britain has not been marked by Europes lowest industrial performance figures. The aim of this study was to review the relationship between financial and non-financial rewards, job satisfaction and job performance. This study rejects there is a direct job satisfaction-performance relationship. It is plausible that financial rewards alone will not increase job performance, though research taking place in a developing economic environment with possible concerns of economic stability finds that financial rewards alone do increase performance under such circumstances. It is plausible that financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy, including non-financial rewards, though not accepted on the basis of the research being reviewed for this study.
Page 3 of 22
Page 4 of 22
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Report aim ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Research methodology ......................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Report structure ................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Job satisfaction and job performance......................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Satisfaction and employee engagement ............................................................................................. 10 2.2 Job performance ................................................................................................................................ 12 3. Financial vs non-financial rewards............................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Financial rewards ............................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Non-financial rewards ........................................................................................................................ 14 4. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................. 16 5. Concluding remarks and recommendations ............................................................................................. 19 References................................................................................................................................................... 20
Page 5 of 22
Table 2.1: Estimated Effect Sizes for the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship .......................................... 10 Table 3.1: Financial and non-financial rewards ............................................................................................. 13
Page 6 of 22
1. Introduction
This studys subject matter is: financial rewards alone will not increase job performance and satisfaction .1 The idea that job satisfaction is related to job performance dates back to the early days of Industrial Psychology (Kornhauser and Sharp 1932, as stated in Wright 2006). Psychology Professor Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi (1991) asserts: An organization whose employees are happy is more productive, has a higher morale, and has a lower turnover. Kay (1996) and Lumesse (2011) state the British are the second most dissatisfied employees in Europe, though Britain hasnt been marked by Europes lowest industrial performance figures. Do happier employees ensure increased job performance? Smith (2011) presents mixed research results analyzing employee happiness and actual economic performance. Zeynep (2012) states that happy employees result in increased retail sales.2
1.2 Hypotheses
Based on the above aim, this report will test the following hypotheses: H1: H2: H3: There is a direct relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Financial rewards alone will not increase job performance. Financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy, including nonfinancial rewards.
1 2
Incentives and rewards are seen as one and the same construct and named rewards throughout the report.
Zeyneps article (2012) is mostly anecdotal in nature and only takes into account a very limited number of US retailers.
Page 7 of 22
Page 8 of 22
Figure 2.1: Possible relationships between Job Satisfaction (JS) and Job Performance (JP)
Numerous researchers studied each of these proposed relationships, though this did not result in consensus on which explanation is most valid across all settings or circumstances. Most findings point to the conclusion that the job satisfaction-performance relationship is weak at best. Jones (2006) analyzed various meta-analyses, presented in Table 2.1, and came to the same conclusion that there is a positive though very weak job satisfaction-performance relationship. The relationship seems to be an illusory correlation, being a perceived relationship between two variables that we logically or intuitively think should interrelate, but, in fact, do not (Chapman and Chapman 1969).
Page 9 of 22
Table 2.1: Estimated Effect Sizes for the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship (Jones 2006)
It has to be noted that researches finding strong correlations were based on small research samples.
Page 10 of 22
Employee engagement goes beyond satisfaction, moving from the emotional - satisfaction with the job - to the behavioural and output related - performance on the job. The biggest difference between job
satisfaction and employee engagement is the purpose with which it is defined. Employee engagement is by definition employee behaviour demonstrating high levels of employee involvement, commitment, and loyalty. Main engagement drivers focus on those factors shown by research to be specifically related to job performance. (Blacksmith and Harter 2011, Harter et. al. 2009, Mars 2012)
Research (Buckingham and Coffman 1999, Blacksmith and Harter 2011, and Crabtree 2004) shows that the working population can be divided into three categories: 1. People who are engaged (committed, involved, satisfied, loyal, productive); 2. Those who are not engaged (just putting in time); 3. People who are actively disengaged (unhappy, spreading discontent). 29% of the working population is fully engaged. The rest of the population is either not engaged (52%) or actively disengaged (19%).
This report does not focus on how to engage employees; the focus is on whether engagement impacts job performance. It is interesting to note that in the above research, productivity was seen as partly defining engagement, ie. engaged employees are committed, satisfied, loyal and productive.
Page 11 of 22
The research found that the correlation is partly due to common causes of both constructs and these common causes are related to drivers to engagement as displayed in Figure 2.2. Output performance measures are industry and sector-specific.
Page 12 of 22
6 7
Rewards can be part of multiple categories, ie. a company car is partly a financial reward as well as manipulatable. Partly financial rewards are those that either replace an expense the employee would have had for his work otherwise, eg. a company car, or an expense the employee could have made otherwise, eg. gym pass or holiday trip, and the money can now be used differently. Clothing allowance can be both purely or partly financial, depending upon the representation aspect of the employees position.
Page 13 of 22
Nigerian flour mills. Hafiza et. al. (2011) comes to the same findings when researching non-governmental organizations in Pakistan. Performance-related pay (prp) is seen as a good indicator of the importance of financial rewards. Thompsons 1993 study as discussed in Matthewman et. al. (2009), Kohn (1993) and Pfeffer (1998), shows that employees do not find prp-schemes motivational, irrespective of their performance ratings. Money in itself is not regarded as a strong motivator. Herzberg et. al. (1956) claim: while the lack of it may cause dissatisfaction, money does not result in lasting satisfaction. And Pfeffer (1998) rightfully states: People do work for money but they work even more for meaning in their lives.
The financial fiarness principle has not been defined, but the study states that pay should be in line with profits made by the organization and wage differentials between high and low income earners should be within reason , Ajila and Abiola (2004). The non-financial rewards tested in this study are job autonomy, recognition, appreciation and level of challenge of tasks. HPWOs are characterized by at hierarchy structures, job rotation, self-responsible teams, multi-tasking, a greater involvement of lower-level employees in decisionmaking, the replacement of vertical by horizontal communication channels, and complementary HRM practice s that give employees the ap propriate incentives to participate in decision-making through the use of alternative payment schemes and increased employer provided training., Bauer (2004).
9 10
Page 14 of 22
performance outcome measures.11 In its seventh edition, the study incorporates 26 countries, though most research on which it is based still focuses on North-America.12 The study concludes that employee engagement relates to each of the nine performance outcomes (cf. Paragraph 2.2) and correlations are consistent across different organizations, with a 0.48 true score correlation between employee engagement and performance. The study further concludes that organizations in the top half on employee engagement double their chances of performance outcome related success compared to those in the bottom half.
11
The overall study involved 955,905 independent employee responses to surveys and 32,394 independent business/work units in 152 organizations, with an average of 30 employees per unit and 213 business/work units per organization. One hundred ninety -nine (199) research studies were conducted across the 152 organizations., Harter et. al., 2009
The meta-analysis includes data from 26 countries. The coverage of research studies now includes business units in Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Thailand), Australia, New Zealand, Europe (Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Greece), former communist countries (Russia, Hungary, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Poland), Latin America (Brazil, Mexico), the Middle E ast (United Arab Emirates), and North America (Canada and the United States). , Harter et. al., 2009
12
Page 15 of 22
4. Conclusions
The British are Europes second most dissatisfied employees, though the UK has not been marked by Europes lowest industrial performance. Companies feel pay is not the only motivator; communication and open management are mentioned as other motivators, but the impact of these on job performance is not proven.
H1:
Industrial psychology and some recent studies find an average to strong correlation between job satisfaction and performance. Though other studies and meta-analysis conclude that the relationship is not as strong, not necessarily direct and related correlation is partly due to common causes of both constructs and/or other moderating variables and wider constructs like employee engagement influencing the relationship. Hypothesis 1 on the direct job satisfaction-performance relationship is not accepted.
Based on the reviewed research, a possible relationship between the constructs is presented in Figure 4.1, though further research is needed to prove these relationships.
Page 16 of 22
H2:
Pay represents a very important factor in the employee-employer relationship. For the employer it represents a considerable part of operating expenses and affects staff recruitment and retention. For the employee it is vital to maintaining a standard of living and is seen as a value measure of his/her services or performance. Wages are also important to the government because it impacts economic elements like employment, inflation and development in general.
Studies find a moderate to strong correlation between financial rewards and job performance. The same studies also find other non-financial constructs strongly correlating to job performance, however they do not answer whether these are moderating variables towards financial rewards and its relationship with job performance. Other research finds that money in itself is not a strong motivator; People do work for money but they work even more for meaning in their lives (Pfeffer 1998). Hypothesis 2 on financial rewards alone not increasing job performance is plausible, though not accepted.
Research comes to contradictory conclusions, which might be related to the wider economic environment and stability under which research took place. Financial rewards alone seem to increase job performance in countries in which the economic system is still in development.
Page 17 of 22
H3:
Financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy, including non-financial rewards.
Studies often explain the correlation of variables towards job performance; though seldom present conclusions on the relationships between these variables correlating with job performance. Research shows that a mix of rewards has a positive impact on job performance; though it is not clear what would the best mix of rewards and what the impact is of non-financial rewards on financial rewards. Hypothesis 3 on financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy, including non-financial rewards, is plausible though not accepted on the basis of the research being reviewed for this study. A possible relationship between rewards as drivers of engagement and performance is presented in Figure 4.3, though further research would be needed to prove these relationships.
Page 18 of 22
Researchers have been investigating the relationships between financial and non-financial rewards, job satisfaction and job performance; though most have not analyzed how financial and non-financial rewards interlink and influence one another and moderate the rewards-performance relationship. Further research is needed to prove how various reward packages influence job performance in differing economic environments.
Page 19 of 22
References
AJILA, CHRIS, ABIOLA, AWONUSI, 2004. Influence Of Rewards On Workers Performance In An Organization, [online] KRE Journal for Social Sciences, Vol. 8. (1), pp. 7-12, Kamla-Raj Enterprises (KRE). Available from: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-08-0-000-000-2004-Web/JSS-08-1001-084-2004-Abst-PDF/JSS-08-1-007-012-2004-Ajila/JSS-08-1-007-012-2004-Ajila.pdf [accessed 12 April 2012] AKANBI, PAUL AYOBAMI, 2011. Influence Of Extrinsic And Intrinsic Motivation On Employees Performance. [online] Ajayi Crowther University. Nigeria. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/ public/english/iira/documents/congresses/regional/lagos2011/3rdparallel/session3b/motivationworker. pdf [accessed 13 April 2012] ARNOLD, J., et al. 2010. Work Psychology. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall BLACKSMITH, NIKKI, HARTER, JIM, 2011. Majority Of American Workers Not Engaged In Their Jobs [online]. Gallup Management Journal. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/ 150383/MajorityAmerican-Workers-Not-Engaged-Jobs.aspx [accessed 24 March 2012] BUCKINGHAM, MARCUS, COFFMAN, CURT, 1999. First, Break All The Rules: What The World's Greatest Managers Do Differently. 1ST Edition, Simon & Schuster Trade CAMPBELL, J. P., 1990. Modelling The Performance Prediction Problem In Industrial And Organizational Psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687732). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press CAMPBELL, J. P., MCCLOY, R. A., OPPLER, S. H., SAGER, C. E., 1993. A theory of performance. In E. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 3570). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass CHAPMAN, L. J., CHAPMAN, J. P., 1969. Illusory Correlation As An Obstacle To The Use Of Valid Psychodiagnostic Signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Issue 74, pp. 271 280; COOK, ALLISON LAURA, 2008. Job Satisfaction And Job Performance: Is the Relationship Spurious? Master of Science in Psychology Thesis CRABTREE, STEVE, 2004. Getting Personal In The Workspace Are Negative Relationships Squelching Productivity In Your Company? [online]. Gallup Management Journal. Available from:
Page 20 of 22
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, MIHALY, 1991. Flow: The Psychology Of Optimal Experience. 1st Edition, Harper Perennial
DANISH, RIZWAN, QAISER, USMAN, ALI, 2010. Impact Of Reward And Recognition On Job Satisfaction And Motivation: An Empirical Study From Pakistan. [online] CCSE International Journal on Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 2010. Available from:
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/4061/4221 [accessed 14 April 2012] HAFIZA, N. S., et. al. 2011. Relationship Between Rewards And Employees Motivation In The Non -Profit Organizations Of Pakistan. [online] Business Intelligence Journal, July 2011, Vol. 4, No. 2. Available from: http://www.saycocorporativo.com/saycoUK/BIJ/journal/Vol4No2/ Article_11.pdf [accessed 14 April 2012] HARTER, JAMES K., et. al. 2009. Q12 Meta-analysis: The Relationship Between Engagement At Work And Organizational Outcomes. Gallup Inc. HERZBERG, FREDERICK, MAUSNER, BERNARD, BLOCH-SNYDERMAN, BARBARA, 1956. The Motivation To Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. HULME, VIRGINIA A., 2006. What Distinguishes The Best From The Rest. China Business Review, Vol. 32 2 JEUNG, CHANG-WOOK, 2011. The Concept Of Employee Engagement: A Comprehensive Review From A Positive Organizational Behaviour Perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, Issue 24(2), pp. 49 69 JONES, MICHELLE D., 2006. Which Is A Better Predictor Of Job Performance: Job Satisfaction Or Life Satisfaction? Institute of Behavioural and Applied Management (IBAM), Providence College KAY, HELEN, 1996. Motivation Blues. Human Resources Journal, No. 26, pp. 39, 41-42 KOHN, ALFIE, 1994. Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work. Harvard Business Review, September October, pp. 1-7 LUMESSE, 2011. Global Workplace Survey June 2011. [online] Insight Paper, Lumesse talent management. Available from: http://www.lumesse.com/knowledge-centre/insight-library?pid=12123 [accessed 16 April 2012] MATTHEWMAN, LISA, ROSE, AMANDA, HETHERINGTON, ANGELA, 2009. Work Psychology: An Introduction To Human Behaviour In The Workplace. Oxford University Press, New York MARS, STEVE, 2012. The Essence Of Engagement. White Paper, Questar, Eagan Minnesota
Page 21 of 22
NIMALATHASAN, BALASUNDARAM, BRABETE, VALERIU, 2010. Job Satisfaction And Employees Work Performance: A Case Study Of Peoples Bank In Jaffna Peninsula, Sri Lanka. [online] University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka in collaboration with University of Craiova, Romania. Available from:
http://www.mnmk.ro/documents/2010special/5SriLankaBrabeteFFF.pdf [accessed 9 April 2012] PFEFFER, JEFFREY 1998. Six Dangerous Myths About Pay: Many Managers Have Bought Into Expensive Fictions About Compensation. Have you? Harvard Business Review, May June, pp. 42 - 51 RYAN, RICHARD M., EDWARD, DECI L., 2000. Self-Determination Theory And Facilitation Of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, And Well-Being. [online] American Psychologist Association, Issue 55, pp. 6878. Available from: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/ documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf [accessed 28 March 2012] SCHMIDT, FRANK L., et. al., 1993. Employee Engagement, Satisfaction And Business-Unit Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis, Gallup Inc. SMITH, JACQUELYN, 2011. The Companies Doing The Most To Make Their Employees Happier [online]. Forbes.com. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/ 2011/08/29/the-companiesdoing-the-most-to-make-their-employees-happier/ [accessed 24 March 2012] WRIGHT, T. A., 2006. The Emergence Of Job Satisfaction In Organizational Behaviour: A Historical Overview Of The Dawn Of Job Attitude Research. Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 Iss: 3, pp. 262 277 WRIGHT, T. A., CROPANZANO, R., 2000. Psychological Well-Being And Job Satisfaction As Predictors Of Job Performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Issue 5, pp. 84 94; ZEYNEP, TON, 2012. Why Good Jobs Are Good For Retailers [online]. Harvard Business Review magazine January February 2012. Available from: http://hbr.org/2012/01/why-good-jobs-are-goodfor-retailers/ar/1 [accessed 25 March 2012].
Page 22 of 22