Ijbmt Dec 12

International J ournal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No.
12
ISSN: 2249-9962 December|2012 www.ijbmt.com Page | 1

The Effect of Rewards towards Job Performance among
Chemical-Based Employees

MohdFitriMansor, Lecturer
SaidahNafisahBorhannuddin, Student
BibiNorainiMohd Yusuf, Lecturer

Abstract
This study investigates the effect of rewards towards job performance among employees in Chemical-based
industries in Malaysia.A research model was developed based on the theories of both intrinsic and extrinsic
rewards to indicate the relationships between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards towards job performance. The dual
objectives of the study are to determine the relationships between intrinsic rewards towards job performance and
to examine the relationships between extrinsic rewards and job performance among employees in chemical-
based industries. This study adopts the quantitative approach method involving random sampling of feedbacks
from 127 employees in chemical-based industries in Malaysia. The hypotheses stated have been analyzed and
tested and the results revealed that both the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards fully supported both hypotheses,
whilst the most influential rewards booster for higher job performance of the employees in chemical-based
industries is intrinsic rewards.

Keywords: Rewards, Job Performance, Intrinsic Rewards, Extrinsic Rewards, Motivation

1. Introduction
In any competitive business environment, both locally and globally, it is common for companies to offer
employees attractive, lucrative and competitive remuneration packages. These are directly linked or inter-related
to improving individuals job competency, retaining high achievers and finally achieving the organizational
performances and goals. An attractive remuneration package has been a norm of any employment contract. The
International J ournal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No. 12

appraisal and rewards systems for employees are now closely linked to the performance measurement indicators
of the companies. If such reward does not commensurate with their job performance, this can lead to low
motivation and high attrition, finally affecting service delivery (Nabiha, Thum and Sardana, 2012).
Remuneration and rewards are very important to ensure that adequate benefits and rewards packages can
significantly increase the motivation of an individual to increase their work performance. Rewards system have
traditionally been designed to attract and retain productive employees as well as to motivate them to increase
their effort and output towards achieving the organizationals goals (Phillips and Fox 2003; Bergmann and
Scarpello, 2001).

Rewards management is now one of the strapping features that organizations use to attract and retain its most
valuable and worthy assets, the employees. This includes both financial and non-financial rewards. Direct
compensation (financial) comes in the form of wages, salaries, incentives, bonuses, commissions and so on.
Indirect compensation or non-financial benefits include features such as paid vacation, annual leave entitlement,
medical and hospitalization benefits, employer provident fund (EPF) contribution and etc. Productivity and
efficiency are important performance indicators in any organization. In order to increase the productivity,
members in the organization must perform well in their job. Job performances are relatively higher if the
workers are fully motivated. Thus, rewards may affect job performance and workers motivation level.

Different level of people may be influenced by different types of rewards. The organization should identify the
types of rewards affecting job performance the most and not to be left out, the level of workers motivation is
also highly affected by the rewards system.Generally, a reward is given in return for good work or in
recognition of merit or for performance of a service rendered. Rewards can either be intrinsic, extrinsic or both.
Intrinsic reward is directly related to the work itself as the individual enjoys the reward as a result of completing
the task successfully or reaching his goals. It is also known as psychological rewards as it covers the
opportunity to use ones ability, a sense of challenge and achievement, receiving appreciation and being treated
in a caring and considerate manner. Extrinsic reward encompass those factors that are external to the task of the
job, such as promotion, working environment, benefits and security. Extrinsic rewards and resource investment
have been seen as necessary tools to motivate employees creativity, especially in formalised tasks (Zhou,
Zhang and Montoro-Sanchez, 2011; Amabile et al., 1986). The study arises because there are a number of
workers who have not performed well in their job as they perceived that they must receive higher rewards than
the companys offer. When workers have this kind of perception, they feel lazy to work and would solely
depend on the monthly salary basis that the company pays them every month. Demotivated employees can be
ineffective to the organizations and can lead to lower production level (Dewhurst et al. 2010). Therefore, this
study undertakes to examine the following questions:
Does an intrinsic reward have a relationship towards job performance?
Does an extrinsic reward have a relationship towards job performance?
What are the most important factors that influence workers job performance?

The main objective of this study is to identify the effect of rewards, whether intrinsic or extrinsic, towards job
performance in any organization. In a nutshell, the objectives of this study are three-folds as follows:-
To determine the relationship between intrinsic rewards and job performance.
To determine the relationship between extrinsic rewards and job performance.
To identify what are the most effective types of rewards that may boost workers performance.

2. Literature Reviews
2.1 Employees Performance and Motivation Theories
Good remuneration packages have been proven over the years to be one of the policies that organizations adopt
to increase their workers performance and thereby increasing the organizations productivity. Considering the
present global economic trends, most employers have realized the fact that for their organization to compete
favorably, the performance of their employees goes a long way in determining the success of the organization.
On the other hand, performance of employees in any organization is vital, not only for the growth of the
organization, but also for the growth of the employees career.

An organization must fully understand their workers job capability by identifying those who are considered as
outstanding, with those that need additional training or those who do not contribute towards the efficiency and
welfare of the company. Performance of the employees can thus be assessed at several levels of employment,
such as personal decision relating to promotion, job rotation, job enrichment and etc. Such assessment is based
on objective and systematic criteria in some way which includes factors relevant to the persons ability to
perform the job. Careful evaluation of an employees performance can uncover weaknesses in a specific job
skill, lack of knowledge or areas lacking in motivation.Taylor (1911) proposed an idea that workers may be

fully motivated by pay as he studied on those workers who were paid according to the numbers of production
they produced based on piece-rate pay. He concluded that workers may produce higher number of productions
to gain more pay. However, his conclusion was not well accepted by certain quarters of workers as they tend to
get bored with the task required to be carried out, repetitively.

Professor Elton Mayo (1880-1949) then came out with his theory that motivated workers do not depend solely
on the pay. They could be motivated if their social needs are being considered too. He conducted an experiment
at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Cicero, Illinois, by examining the productivity levels and the
factorys working conditions. Elton Mayo started these experiments by examining the physical and
environmental influences of the workplace, later moving on to the psychological aspects and finally coming out
with four (4) general conclusions, as follows :-

Behavior and sentiments are closely related,
Group influences significantly affect individual behavior,
Group standards establish individual workers output,
Money is less a factor in determining output than are group standards, group sentiments, and security
(martin and jenkins 2008).

Later, Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) came out with his hierarchy of needs. According to Maslows hierarchy of
needs, there are five (5) stages of needs desired by people. The lower level is called Psychology which lists all
the basic needs. The next subsequent levels are called Security, followed by Belonging, then Self-Esteem
and finally the highest level is called Self-Actualization. All factors are arranged is a hierarchy manner. When
the lower level needs have been fulfilled and satisfied, people are now more motivated, by an opportunity, to
achieve the next higher satisfied level. Shah, K. and Shah, P.J (2007) believed that an individual moves up the
hierarchy, when a need is substantially realized, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (1943)

However, there are still few criticisms to Maslows hierarchy table because there are still no adequate empirical
verification to support Maslows theory and framework. Nevertheless, Maslows theory is still applicable in
certain areas, where the main strength of this theory relies on the recognition and identification of individuals
needs for the purpose of motivating behavior (Bowditch et al., 1997).

2.2 Rewards
Rewards are given to motivate employees in ensuring full commitment to their work. Rewards can either be
Intrinsic or Extrinsic (McCormick and Tiffin 1979). Individual rewards are very much a part of the
understanding of motivation. Subjects who received individual incentives have been known to perform better
that those who did not receive any or received less. An intrinsic reward isdefined as acts of doing an activity

for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequence (Ryan and Deci, 2000). It fulfills
employees intrinsic factors or motivators, thus motivating him. Examples include by giving challenging task,
getting involved in decision making process, giving a higher rank in hierarchy etc. All these rewards do not
require any increased in salary but the employee is still being motivated, feeling a sense of satisfaction of being
given the opportunity of working at a higher management rank. Research has suggested that job satisfaction of
an employee is greatly affected by the reward. An intrinsically motivated individual will be committed to his
work to the extent to which the job inherently contains tasks that are rewarding to him or her (Ajila, 1997).
According to the self-determination theory, individuals with high intrinsic motivation exhibit high levels of
confidence (Haines III, Saba, Choquette 2008; Ryan and Deci, 2000). Intrinsically motivated individuals are
therefore likely to perceive the above issues as not being difficulties, but rather as challenges (Haines III, Saba,
Choquette 2008). According to Thomas (2009), the following are descriptions of the four (4) intrinsic rewards
and how the workers view them:-
Sense of meaningfulness. This reward involves the meaningfulness or importance of the purpose you are
trying to fulfill. You feel that you have an opportunity to accomplish something of monetary or non-
monetary value and something that matters in the larger scheme of things. You feel that you are on a path
that is worth your time and energy, giving you a strong sense of purpose or direction.
Sense of choice. You feel free to choose how to accomplish your work, how to use your best judgment to
select those work activities that make the most sense to you and how to perform them in ways that are
appropriate. You feel ownership of your work, believing in the approach you are taking and finally feeling
responsible for making it work.
Sense of competence. You feel that you are handling your work activities well that your performance of
these activities meets or exceeds your personal standards, and that you are doing good, high-quality work.
You feel a sense of satisfaction, pride, or even artistry in how well you handle these activities.
Sense of progress. You are encouraged that your efforts are really accomplishing something. You feel that
your work is on track and moving in the right direction. You see convincing signs ahead that things are
working out well, giving you the confidence in the choices you have already made now and in the future.

Rewards may come in the forms of either monetary or non-monetary. Monetary reward is to compensate
associates for excellent job performance through money and incentives, including profit sharing, project
bonuses, stock options and warrants, scheduled bonuses, and additional paid vacation time. Non-monetary
reward is to compensate associates for excellent job performance through providing opportunities, such as
flexible working hours, training, pleasant working and business environment. Prior to this, Taylor (1911) stated
that, an employee will be fully motivated if the employer pays reward (monetary) for the work done. Fredericks
idea which emphasized on monetary reward has been rejected by Professor Elton Mayo. Professor Elton Mayo
(1880-1949) came out with his Hawthorn Effect, which stated that, in order to motivate workers, employers
have to consider the other needs of the workers.

Therefore, the intrinsic rewards towards job performance can be hypothesized as:-
H
1
: Intrinsic rewards have a positive relationship towards job performance.

2.3 Extrinsic Rewards
Extrinsic rewards are defined as those remuneration factors that are external to the job such as pay, work
condition, security, benefits, promotion contract of services and work environment. It also refers to the core
organizational reality, as equitable rewards distribution does drive employees morale. Thripp (2008) found that,
intrinsic value is far more reliable than extrinsic value, because its self-reliant, independent and free of the
influence of others. In a related study, Kulkarni (1983) compared both the intrinsic and extrinsic factors in
measurement of job performance among 80 white-collared employees. He found out that the intrinsic factors
outweighed the extrinsic factors in job satisfaction. Examples of extrinsic rewards include bonuses, raises, paid
vacations and promotions. Some additional strategies that some businesses find effective in determining job
satisfaction are profit sharing, tuition reimbursement and paid or unpaid leave to pursue further education.

Extrinsic rewards drive employees morale and the rewards distribution has always loomed large in corporations
particularly in tune with performance appraisals in present eras of globalization (Datta 2012, Appelbaum et al.,
2011). As labour accounts for more than 50 per cent of the total costs of doing business, a strategic management
of human capital assets becomes imperative (Datta 2012, Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall, 1988).Giving a
reward has become a parcel of organizational policies as it has been proven to increase workers performance
and thereby increasing the organizations productivity. An extrinsic reward in fact fulfillsemployees extrinsic
factors or hygiene factors, invariably discouraging him from thinking of leaving the company. They are called
extrinsic because they are external to the work itself and other people control their size and whether or not these
are granted.


In contrast, intrinsic rewards are psychological compensation that employees get from undertaking meaningful
work and performing it well. Examples include; pay rise, bonuses, paid leaves, annual recreational plans etc.
Bounds et al. (1995) defined intrinsic motivation as the process of being motivated, which is based on the
satisfaction derived from the behavior itself, whereas extrinsic motivation suggests that our behavior is designed
to please others rather than ourselves to get certain rewards. Extrinsic rewards played a dominant role in earlier
years, when work was generally more routine and bureaucratic, and when complying with rules and procedures
were paramount. Bounds et al. (1995) described that, in one of the deficiencies theory, managers thought that all
kinds of behavior are motivated by extrinsic rewards. Figures 2 below illustrate the differences between intrinsic
and extrinsic rewards.

Figure 2: Differences between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (Bounds et al. 1995)

Khalizani, Hanisah and Loke (2011) commented the relationships between rewards, motivation and job
satisfaction of employees, which are strategically important to the organizations successes, as the organizations
accepted internal firm resources as source of competitive advantages. Rewards are based, typically, on three (3)
performance measurement as follows :
Individual (soft) measurement of performance,
Team (hard) measurement of results, and
Organization ratios such as return on equity or roe (belout, dolan and saba, 2001).

According to Ajila (1997), performance of workers has become important due to the increasing concern on
human resources and personnel expert about the level of output obtained from workers due to poor
remunerations. Therefore, the intrinsic rewards towards job performance can be hypothesized as:-
H
2
: Extrinsic rewards have a positive relationship towards job performance.

3. Methodology
Based on the literatures review, most scholars and previous researchers have stated that workers job
performance is relatively related with the rewards offered. Thus, the theoretical framework of the study can be
proposed as Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Proposed Theoretical framework

Intrinsic Reward
Extrinsic Reward
Job Performance

The main aim of our study is to investigate the relationships between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards towards job
performance, hence categorized as a correlation study. The population of the study involved feedbacks taken
from 150 employees in chemical-based industries in Malaysia. A simple random sampling technique was
applied, which allowed equal representation and selection of samples. The subjects were drawn randomly from
the different departments for sampling. Selection of the subjects was done randomly by choosing 150
respondents from managerial or senior positions and above. The selections of subjects were also made randomly
from a wide spectrum of factors such as gender, background and equally from every sections and departments.

Such random sampling technique has raised numerous challenges in the development of data gathering, scaling,
transferring concepts and ideas across languages, attaining reliability, response equivalence, developing
sampling design, planning data-collection timing and other issues (Cavusgil, Deligonul, Griffift, 2008;
Albaum& Peterson, 1984; Boddewyn, 1981; Douglas & Craig, 1983; Green & White, 1976; Mintu, Calantone,
&Gassenheimer, 1994; Mullen, 1995; Myers, Calantone, Page, & Taylor, 2000; Sekaran, 1983;Shenkar, 2001;
Singh, 1995; Steenkamp& Baumgartner, 1998).

4. Measurements
The questionaires offered several open statements that requires each respondent to rate each statement given by
circling the numbers given as 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, which represented Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral, Agree, or Strongly Agree respectively. This type of measurement is known as five-point Likerts
scale. The three (3) basic properties of Likerts scale are sensitivity, reliability and validity. Likerts scale was
chosen as it is easier to use and fully understand by the researcher and the respondent. In addition, the coding as
well as the interpretation is much easier as compared to VAS scale (Hasson and Arnetz, 2005).

4.1 Intrinsic Rewards
Intrinsic rewards section required a respondent to rate the questions offered regarding their acceptance in
intrinsic rewards. Those questions offered were adapted and modified from previous researchers, such as
Rehmanet. al (2010), and J. J Taljaard (2003). Respondent need to rate the open statements ranging from 1 for
Strongly Disagree to 5 for Strongly Agree. Examples of questions offered included I have a good deal of
freedom in the performance of my daily task and I make most work decision without consulting with my
superior first.

4.2 Extrinsic Rewards
The questions in extrinsic rewards section required respondent to rate their satisfaction levels by circling a given
number ranging from 1 for Strongly Disagree to 5 for Strongly Agree. Again, those question offered in
this section were adapted and modified from previous researchers such as Rehmanet. al (2010and J. J Taljaard
(2003). Examples of questions offered were I found that my supervisor as perceived, supportive and helpful in
job matters and My colleagues are supportive and helpful.

4.3 Job Performance
Questions in job performance section were also adapted and modified from previous researchers conducted by
Rehmanet. al (2010), and J. J Taljaard (2003). This section also required respondent to rate the open statements
by circling a number 1 for Strongly Disagree to 5 for Strongly Agree. Examples of questions offered in
this section included Performance standards in my organization are clear and easily understand and The
performance standards in my organization are reasonable.

5. Results
A total of 150 questionnaires were distributed randomly to the respondents. However, only 127 questionnaires
were collected back, which accounted for 85% of total questionnaires distributed. The questionnaires were
found to be satisfactorily completed by the respondents and subsequently the data were analysed using a
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 software.

5.1 Demographic Profile - Observations
Gender. There were more male (63%) than female (37%) respondents.
Group Age. A total of 51 respondents (40.2%) were aged between 26-35 years old, 45 respondents (35.4%)
were aged between 36-45 years old, 18 respondents (14.2%) were aged between 18-25 years old and
finally only 13 respondents (10.2%) were between 46-55 years old. None of them were 56 years old and
above.
Educational Background. 54 respondents (42.5%) came from high school level of education, followed by
40 respondents (31.5%) from degree level. There were 23 respondents (18.1%) who had diplomas from

various field of study, 6 respondents (4.7%) possessed masters or doctorial background of study and the
remaining 4 respondents (3.1%) came from other technical background in various field of study.
Marital Status. A total of 90 respondents (70.9%) were married, with 36 respondents (28.3%) being single
and 1 respondent (0.6%) was a divorcee.
Length of Services. 55 respondents (43.3%) has been working in this company for within 2-5 years
category, with 26 respondents each (20.5%) having been working here for within 6-9 years and above
10 years categories, respectively. Lastly only 20 respondents (15.7%) have been in this company for less
than 1 year.

5.2 Reliability Analysis
A Reliability Analysis was used to measure the accuracy of the data collected, to ensure that all items used in
each variable were free from errors and thus, providing consistent results. Cronbachs alpha is the measurement.
There are different reports about the acceptable values of alpha, ranging from 0.70 to 0.95. Table 1 below shows
the Cronbach alpha and items of each dependent variable, namely job performance, while intrinsic rewards and
extrinsic rewards, are independent variables. The Cronbachs coefficients alpha values for all factors that ranges
from 0.666 to 0.798 indicated good inter-items consistency for each factor. Cronbach alpha was 0.798, 0.666
and 0.747 for Job Performance, Intrinsic Rewards and Extrinsic Rewards respectively. The reliability of
Intrinsic Rewards value is slightly poor as compared to the other two variables. However, Hinton et
al. (2004) have suggested four cut-off points for reliability, which includes excellent reliability (0.90 and above),
high reliability (0.70-0.90), moderate reliability (0.50-0.70) and low reliability (0.50 and below).

Table 1: Results of Reliability Test
Variables Number of Items Items Dropped Cronbach Alpha Indicator
Job Performance 8 - .798 High Reliability
Intrinsic Rewards 8 - .666 Moderate Reliability
Extrinsic Rewards 8 - .747 High Reliability

5.3 Correlation Analysis
Table 2 below, shows the results of correlation coefficient analysis conducted. The table indicates a good
relation within the variables. The Intrinsic Rewards and Extrinsic Rewards strongly correlate with the Job
Performance with values of 0.585 and 0.582 respectively and approaching the 1.00 value. The value of
Pearsons correlation (r) also shows the positive in value, thus indicating a positive correlation. As a result of the
Pearsons correlation being positive, it is concluded that, when the intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards
increase, the job performances of workers also increase.

Table 2: Correlation Coefficient Analysis
Variables Intrinsic Rewards Extrinsic Rewards Job Performance
Intrinsic Rewards
Pearson Correlation 1 .246
**
.585
**

Sig. (1-tailed) .003 .000
N 127 127 127
Extrinsic Rewards
Pearson Correlation .246
**
1 .582
**

Sig. (1-tailed) .003 .000
N 127 127 127
Job Performance
Pearson Correlation .585
**
.582
**
1
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000
N 127 127 127
**.
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

5.4 Regression Analysis
Based on the results displayed in Table 3 below, the variation of employees job performance is 54.6% affected
by intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards. The remaining 45.4% is affected by other factors. This shows an
average good outcome where only two (2) factors were used in this study to measure job performance.The value
of beta present the positive rates of change by dependent variables (0.470 and 0.466) with both independent
variables were found to have a positive and highly significant correlation (0.000 and 0.000 < 0.005).

Hypothesis 1 stated that there is a significant relationship between intrinsic rewards and job performance. Since
the significant relation is 0.000 which is less than 0.005, thus, this hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 2 stated
that there is significant relationship between extrinsic and job performance and by referring to the significant
relation of 0.000 being less than 0.005, thus this hypothesis was also accepted.


Table 3: Results of Regression Analysis on Job Performance
Unstandardized Coefficient Standardized Coefficient
Beta
Std.
Error
Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 0.125 0.248 0.442 0.660
Intrinsic Rewards 0.521 0.069 0.470 7.530 0.000
Extrinsic Rewards 0.450 0.060 0.466 7.472 0.000

In summary, based on the analysis of the two hypotheses carried out above, the results are tabulated in Table 4
below:-

Table 4: Results of Hypothesis Testing
No. of
Hypothesis
Statement of Hypothesis Results
H1
There is a significant relationship between intrinsic and
employees job performance.
Accepted
H2
There is a significant relationship between extrinsic and
employees job performance.
Accepted

6. Discussion and Conclusion
The dual objectives of this study are to determine the relationships between intrinsic rewards and extrinsic
rewards on job performance, as well as to identify the most effective types of rewards that may boost workers
performance. Based on the above findings, firstly, there is a positive relationship between both intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards towards job performance and secondly, the most influential rewards booster job performance
of the employees in the chemical-based industries is intrinsic rewards.The findings also revealed that the study
outcome has significant influence between intrinsic rewards towards job performance. Therefore, the study
supported H
1,
which examined the relationship between intrinsic rewards and employee job performance. It
showed that intrinsic rewards motivate workers to increase their job performances. These results are in line with
previous researches conducted by Khalizani, Hanisah and Loke(2011) and Ryan and Deci (2000). Intrinsic
reward is related to the work itself as the individual enjoys the reward as a result of completing the task
successfully or reaching his goals. It also known as psychological rewards as it covered the opportunity to use
ones ability, a sense of challenge and achievement, receiving appreciation and being treated in a caring and
considerate manner. These rewards are said to be coherent with individuals self-developing, satisfying with
their own right and enjoying their autonomy (Deci et al., 2006).

Meanwhile, H
2
was to examine the relationships between extrinsic rewards and employees job performance,
which was also found to be supported or accepted. These results showed that the individual enjoyed the payment
given, security and the environment in the workplace including their relationship among employees and at the
same time may enhance their performances. These are the basic needs in any normal working condition as they
need to fulfill the other needs as mentioned in Maslows hierarchy of needs. When an individuals basic needs
are fulfilled, there is always the tendency for the individuals needs to raise up to another level to achieve their
aims in life. This study is also in line with previous researches conducted by Khalizani, Hanisah and Loke
(2011), Ryan and Deci (2000), Rehman et al. (2010) and finally Ajila (1997). Summarily, when an employer
offers better extrinsic rewards, the employee will increase their motivation level and improve his job
performances.By having 127 respondents that represent 85% from the total sample and conducted in real work
place, the present study found that both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards positively related to increase employees
job performance with 0.000 significant for both. However, to be found that intrinsic rewards highly affected
employees job performances.

R square = 0.546
Durbin-Watson = 1.859
F = 74.651
Sig. F = 0.000

MohdFitriMansor*
Lecturer
Universiti Malaysia Perlis
(UniMAP)
School of Business Innovation and
Technopreneurship,
UniversitiMalayisa Perlis
SaidahNafisahBintiBorhannuddin
Student
Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP)
Technopreneurship,
BibiNorainiMohd Yusuf
Lecturer
Universiti Malaysia Perlis
(UniMAP)
Technopreneurship,
(UniMAP),
References
A.K. Siti-Nabiha, W.Y. Thum, G.D. Sardana, (2012),"A case study of service desk's performance measurementsystem", International
Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 22 Iss: 2 pp. 103 118.
AdnaneBelout, Shimon L. Dolan, Tania Saba, (2001),"Trends and emerging practices in human resourcemanagement - The Canadian
scene", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 Iss: 3 pp. 207 215.
Bolman, Lee G. and Deal, Terrence E. (1997) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, Second Edition, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA. ISBN: 0-7879-0821-5.
Bounds, Gregory M., Dobbins, Gregory H., Fowler, Oscar L. (1995) Management: A Total Quality Perspective, South-Western
College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio. ISBN: 0-538-84344-6.
Bowditch, James L., Buono, Anthony F (1997) A primer on Organization Behavior, John Wiley & Son, Inc., United States. ISBN: 0-
471-16006-7.
Jibowo, A.A. 1977. Effect of motivators and hygiene factors on job performance among extension workers in the former Western
State of Nigeria.The Quarterly Journal of Administration, 12 (1): 45-54.
Kulkarni, P. 1983. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. New Delhi: McCoy Hill.
Larry Phillips, Mark A. Fox, (2003),"Compensation strategy in transnational corporations", ManagementDecision, Vol. 41 Iss: 5 pp.
465 476.
Latham, G.P. and Ernst, C.T. (2006), Keys to Motivating Tomorrows Workforce Human Resource Management Review, 16/2006,
pp. 181-198
McCormick and J. Tifflin. 1979. Industrial Psychology; New York: George, Allen and Unwin.
McCullagh, Penny. (2005) Sport and Exercise Psychology Lecture.Cal State University East Bay. 10/27.
PratimDatta, (2012),"An applied organizational rewards distribution system", Management Decision, Vol. 50Iss: 3 pp. 479 501
Richard S. Allen, Ralph H. Kilmann, (2001),"The role of the reward system for a total quality management based strategy", Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 2 pp. 110 131.
S. Tamer Cavusgil, Z. SeydaDeligonul, David A. Griffith, (2008),"Rigor in international businessresearch: A review and
methodological recommendations", Jean J. Boddewyn, in (ed.) International Business Scholarship: AIB Fellows on the First 50 Years
and Beyond (Research in Global Strategic Management, Volume 14), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 229 246.
Victor Y. Haines III, Tania Saba, EvelyneChoquette, (2008),"Intrinsic motivation for an internationalassignment", International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29 Iss: 5 pp. 443 461
Yu Zhou, Yingying Zhang, ngelesMontoro-Snchez, (2011),"Utilitarianism or romanticism: the effect ofrewards on employees'
innovative behaviour", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 Iss: 1 pp. 81 98.

Website
Abraham Maslow, New Word Encyclopedia (1970)
[Online]Available:http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Abraham_Maslow (January 7, 2012).
Chris Ajila and AwonusiAbiola (2004), Influence of Rewards on Workers Performance in an Organization, JSS-08-1-007-012-2004.
ISSN: 0971-8923. [Online]Available: http://www.krepublishers.com(January 13, 2012).
Dan Hasson and Bengt B. Arnetz 2005, Validation and Findings Comparing VAS vs. Likert Scales for Psychosocial Measurements,
International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 2005; 8:178-192, [Online]Available:
http://www.aahperd.org/aahe/publications/iejhe/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=38864(February 10, 2012).
Dewhurst, M., Guthridge, M., Mohr, E., 2010. Motivating people: getting beyond money, Business Source Complete,
[Online]Available: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Motivating_people_Getting_beyond_money_2460(February 15, 2012).
Edward L. Deci., Maarten Vansteenkiste, and Willy Lens (2006), Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in Self Determination
Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation, Education Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. ISSN: 00461520.
[Online]Available:http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org(February 18, 2012).
Elton Mayo, F.J. Roethlisberger and Willian J. Dickson, Hawthorn Effect: Definition and Explanation| Theory of Productivity of
Workers. [Online]Available:http://management.thinkahead.net.in(May 10, 2012).
Frederick Winslow Taylor (1911), Historical Perspective on Productivity Improvement. [Online]Available:http://www.accel-
team.com(June 15, 2012).
Herzbergs MotivationHygiene Theory (Two Factor Theory).
[Online]Available:http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/ob/motivation/herzberg/(August 7, 2012).
Jackson, T. (1995), Cross-cultural Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. [Online]Available:
Jacob Johannes Taljaard (2003), Improving Job Performance by Using Non-Monetary Reward System to Motivate Low-Skilled
Workers in the Automotive Component Industry. [Online]Available:http://www.nmmu.ac.za(August 15, 2012).
Journal of Business Management Vol. 6(2), pp. 595-607, doi: 10.5897/AJBM11.2077, ISSN 1993-8233. Retrieved from
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM(July 14, 2012).
Kenneth Thomas (2009), The four intrinsic rewards that drive employee engagement,
[Online]Available:,http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/the-workplace/the-four-intrinsic-rewards-that-drive-employee-
engagement, (July 20, 2012).

Khalizani Khalid, Hanisah Mat Salim and Siew-PhaikLoke (2011), The Impact of Rewards and Motivation on Job Satisfaction in
Water Utility Industry, International Conference and Financial Management and Economics, vol.11.
[Online]Available:http://www.ipedr.com(September 15, 2012).
Muhammedzia Ur Rehman, Muhammad Riaz Khan, Ziauddin and Javed Ali Lashari (June, 2010), Effect of job rewards on job
satisfaction, moderating role of age differences: An Empirical Evidence from Pakistan, African Journal of Business Management Vol.
4(6), 1131-1139. ISSN: 1993-8233. [Online]Available:http://www.academicjournals.org/AJBM(September 20, 2012).
Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci (2000), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Class Definitions and New Directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
[Online]Available:http://www.ideealibrary.com(September 28, 2012).
Richard X. Thripp (2008), Intrinsic Vs Extrinsic Value. [Online]Available:http://richardxthripp.thripp.com/2008/07/intrinsic-vs-
extrinsic-value/(October 1, 2012).
Shah, K. and Shah, P.J. (2007).Theories of Motivation.[Online]Available:http://www.laynetworks.com/Theories-of-
Motivation.html(October 12, 2012).

Tables and Figures

Figure 1: Maslows Hierarchy of Needs (1943)

Figure 2: Differences between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (Bounds et al. 1995)


Figure 3: Proposed Theoretical framework

Table 1: Results of Reliability Test
Variables Number of Items Items Dropped Cronbach Alpha Indicator
Job Performance 8 - .798 High Reliability
Intrinsic Rewards 8 - .666 Moderate Reliability
Extrinsic Rewards 8 - .747 High Reliability

Table 3: Results of Regression Analysis on Job Performance
Unstandardized Coefficient Standardized Coefficient
Beta
Std.
Error
Beta T Sig.
1 (Constant) 0.125 0.248 0.442 0.660
Intrinsic Rewards 0.521 0.069 0.470 7.530 0.000
Extrinsic Rewards 0.450 0.060 0.466 7.472 0.000

Table 4: Results of Hypothesis Testing

No. of
Hypothesis
Statement of Hypothesis Results
H1
There is a significant relationship between intrinsic and employees job
performance.
Accepted
H2
There is a significant relationship between extrinsic and employees job
performance.
Accepted

R square = 0.546
Durbin-Watson = 1.859
F = 74.651
Sig. F = 0.000
Intrinsic Reward
Extrinsic Reward
Job Performance

Ijbmt Dec 12

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ijbmt Dec 12

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International J ournal of Business and Management Tomorrow Vol. 2 No.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi