Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13


International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503


Achieving task and extra-task-related behaviors: A case of gender and

position differences in the perceived role of rewards in the hotel industry
Flora F.T. Chianga,, Thomas A. Birtchb
Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1RX, UK


The study drew on a sample (n 284) from the hotel industry in Hong Kong to advance our understanding about the perceived
effectiveness of various reward instruments in achieving specic task and extra-task performance behaviors. We found that the perceived
motivating value of a reward varied according to its type. Non-nancial rewards, for example, were found to play a prominent role in
achieving extra-task performance dimensions. Employee characteristics also affected the perceived performance implications of various
rewards. Nevertheless, caution must be exercised when interpreting the results, as other factors may also inuence rewardperformance
relationships, thus paving the way for future research.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rewards; Employee task and extra-task performance; Hotel industry

1. Introduction on the achievement of a range of task and extra-task-

related behaviors, then it is essential for organizations to
Hospitality organizations recognize more than ever determine more precisely which rewards give rise to
before that in order to achieve and sustain competitive different manifestations of employee performance.
advantage, they must arouse not only task-related compe- Considerable attention has been afforded to the role that
tencies (e.g. occupational knowledge) from their employees rewards play in supporting organizational (Rajagopalan,
but also a broad range of extra-task-related capabilities, 1997) and human resources strategy (Gerhart and
such as going beyond the normal call of duty for Milkovich, 1990). A variety of different facets of the
customers, cooperating with co-workers, being proactive, reward and performance relationship have also been
showing dedication, and taking the initiative to solve examined, including taxonomy of reward (Chiang and
problems (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). These extra- Birtch, 2005), pay for performance (Deckop et al., 1999),
task behaviors, often referred to as organizational citizen- xed versus variable pay (Montemayor, 1996), reward
ship (Bateman and Organ, 1983) or pro-social behavior allocation criteria (Janssen, 2001), and the transferability
(Brief and Motowidlo, 1986), are thought to contribute to of reward practices (Chiang and Birtch, 2007). Yet, in spite
the organizational, social, and psychological environments of the attention devoted to reward and the fact that
essential to accomplishing organizational goals (Smith researchers (e.g. Gerhart and Milkovich, 1990; Lawler,
et al., 1983). Rewards are considered the primary means 2000) have acknowledged the importance of aligning
by which organizations elicit and reinforce desired beha- rewards with employee behavior and organizational
vior (Lawler, 2000). If organizational success relies heavily performance requirements, little is understood about how
employees perceive rewardperformance linkages, in parti-
Corresponding author. Department of Management, Hong Kong
cular the role that rewards play in achieving specic
Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong. Tel.: +852 3411 5214;
behaviors (Boyd and Salamin, 2001; Rajagopalan, 1997).
fax: +852 3411 5583.
E-mail addresses: fchiang@hkbu.edu.hk (F.F.T. Chiang), Earlier research restricts our understanding in several
ttab2@eng.cam.ac.uk (T.A. Birtch). ways. First, prior research emphasizes rm as the level of

0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
492 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

analysis. In doing so, it ignores the perspective of the found considerable divergence between employees and
employee. Effective reward management entails an in- managers in terms of their service and performance
timate understanding of employee values and preferences perceptions. It has also been acknowledged that managers
(Zingheim and Schuster, 1995). Since employees are the often misunderstand what motivates their employees
direct beneciaries of rewards, their perceptions and (Zacarelli, 1985). Non-managerial positions in the hotel
reactions to different rewards are critical to our under- industry have been characterized by their inadequate pay,
standing of the rewardperformance relationship. Second, low job security, overwork (Karatepe and Sokmen, 2006),
where studies do exist (e.g. Dewald, 2003; Lynn, 2003), and excessive turnover (Pizam and Thornburg, 2000).
these tend to focus on nancial rewards (e.g. tips). Non- Hence, position-based differences in perceptions and
nancial rewards (e.g. recognition, training and develop- preferences may also inuence the rewardperformance
ment, job interest, and time-off), which have become relationship.
increasingly prevalent today are by and large being The above gaps in our understanding not only severely
overlooked. restrict the ability of rms to ensure congruence between
Third, earlier work also lacks a systematic empirical rewards and performance dimensions but also inhibit
investigation of the performance implications of specic further knowledge building in this important area of
reward instruments. A reward found to be effective in organizational studies. An examination of the role that
achieving one performance imperative may not necessarily rewards play in motivating and facilitating the develop-
be successful at motivating another desired behavior ment of desirable behaviors is therefore warranted.
(Komaki, 2003). The effectiveness of a homogeneous The purposes of this study were two-fold. First, we
one-size-ts-all approach to reward (i.e. assuming that a attempted to explore the perceived motivating values of
reward is universally effective at motivating all types of different nancial and non-nancial rewards. More speci-
behavior) is therefore subject to question. It is unlikely cally, we aimed to determine which rewards from an array
to be able to respond to the wide range of perform- of alternatives were more effective in motivating and
ance demands, task and extra-task related, expected of achieving specic task and extra-task performance dimen-
employees. sions. Second, we attempted to examine potential gender
Lastly, in a recent review of hospitality journals and position differences in the perceived performance
(Lucas and Deery, 2004), human-resource-related topics implications of various rewards. To these ends, we begin by
(e.g. general HRM, employee sourcing, development and briey delineating reward and employee performance.
relations) gured prominent on the research agenda. Following the development of our hypotheses and a brief
However, attention to reward management issues and overview of the methods employed, we present the relevant
how human capital advantage can be achieved through analyses and ndings. Directions for future research are
eliciting and rewarding employee behaviors that provide also suggested.
value was scant (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). According to
Pfeffer (1994), employees are the main source of compe- 2. Literature review
titive advantage. Moreover, little attention was afforded to
the potential inuence that employment trends in the hotel 2.1. Reward and performance dimensions
industry have on the rewardperformance relationship, in
particular the inux of women into the workforce and the Reward is a broad construct that has been said to
growth in professional management. For example, tradi- represent anything that an employee may value that an
tionally hotels have been characterized as male-dominated employer is willing to offer in exchange for the employees
environments (Ng and Pine, 2003) in which management contribution (Henderson, 2003). A reward infrastructure
has a masculine ethic/bias (Li and Leung, 2001). Some is typically comprised of a variety of nancial and
evidence even suggests that females have been subjected to non-nancial instruments. Direct (e.g. basic pay), indirect
discriminatory personnel and pay practices (Brownell, (e.g. benets), xed (e.g. salary) and/or variable
1994; Sparrowe and Iverson, 1999). With an increasing (e.g. bonus/incentives) rewards are nancial in nature
number of females entering the industry (Ng and Pine, (Armstrong and Murlis, 2004). Non-nancial rewards are
2003), it is imperative that hotels better understand the also tangible rewards provided and controlled by a rm,
potential gender differences that may arise in terms of although they do not necessarily benet employees in a
preferences and perceptions towards rewards in order to monetary sense. Examples include recognition, promotion,
ensure that the value-added contribution of different power and responsibility, and training and development.
employee groups is maximized (Iverson, 2000; Ng and Given the labor-intensive nature of the hospitality industry
Pine, 2003). and the rising pressure to control costs, non-nancial
Similarly, service delivery is said to involve the interac- rewards are being used increasingly to motivate employee
tion between three constituentsemployees, managers and performance.
customers (Susskind et al., 2000). An accurate under- Employee performance is also a multidimensional
standing of what motivates employees versus managers is construct (Viswesvaran, 2001). It has been dened in terms
therefore critical to customer satisfaction. Ross (1995) of individual characteristics (Barrick and Mount, 1991),
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503 493

competencies (Agut et al., 2003), behaviors (Hunt, 1996), to instill team-spirit, enhance cooperation among organi-
and outcomes (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984). Performance zational members, and create exibility (Bartol and
dimensions have also been said to vary according to job, Srivastava, 2002).
position, organization and industry (Brown et al., 1993). Organizations can also utilize a variety of non-nancial
For example, certain performance dimensions, such as the rewards to achieve desired performance behaviors. Train-
ability to satisfy customers and provide a high level of ing and development (T&D), for example, can be used for
service quality, are particularly important performance knowledge/skill acquisition and development, teamwork,
criteria in service-based organizations (Akbaba, 2006) quality improvement, innovation, and productivity
relative to other industries, such as manufacturing, where (Mak and Akhtar, 2003; Schneider et al., 2003). T&D
production costs and efciency are afforded higher priority programs are often employed to develop different compe-
(Slack et al., 1998). tencies (Agut et al., 2003), enabling employees to function
Hospitality organizations operate in a dynamic and more effectively, reduce costly mistakes in performing their
highly competitive environment. To differentiate them- tasks, and enhance job content innovation (Johnson et al.,
selves from their rivals, they are continuously grappling 1986). Opportunities for career growth are also thought to
with ways to develop distinct competencies and capabilities increase employee motivation and have been shown to be
in such performance domains as employee skills, quality, positively correlated with organizational performance
creativity, innovation, team-working, exibility, and (Delery and Doty, 1996). Others, such as promotion and
customer satisfaction (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Coff, recognition (praise), are believed to enhance self-esteem.
1997). Customer satisfaction, service orientation, and They have been found to foster a sense of competence
service quality are considered to be the three main pillars (Bartol and Srivastava, 2002), act as positive reinforcers
of differentiation and competitive advantage (Kim et al., (e.g. recognition for a job well done), and provide powerful
2003; Pizam and Ellis, 1999) and are thought to be intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
signicantly inuenced by the behaviors and performance The above suggests that nancial and non-nancial
of employees (Schneider and Brown, 1993). According to a rewards produce differential effects and when used
number of researchers (e.g. Bettencourt and Brown, 1997; effectively can realize a wide range of performance
Lee et al., 2006), achieving these strategic priorities dimensions (Lawler, 2000). As theoretical and empirical
involves excelling in several important domains: extra-role research highlights, there is a need to link rewards to
service, role-prescribed customer service, and cooperation. certain behavioral areas. The effectiveness of a reward is
Others (e.g. Akbaba, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 1988) meaningful only when it is interpreted in light of its
suggest service components are critical, such as reliability, outcome. Since rewards differ in the way that they affect
responsiveness, empathy, assurance, courtesy and compe- employee behavior, it is important to determine which
tence, communication, customer understanding, accuracy types of rewards are perceived as most effective by
and speed of service, and personalization. For the services employees for satisfying specic task and extra-task-related
industry, performance dimensions have been classied as dimensions of performance.
either task or extra-task (i.e. relational, process, and
outcome) behaviors (Levesque and McDougall, 1996; 2.3. Hypotheses
Parasuraman et al., 1991).
Financial rewards represent the foundation of any
2.2. The reward-performance relationship reward system and provide the instrumental means by
which various human needs are satised either directly or
There is considerable debate surrounding which rewards, indirectly. Financial rewards are signicant not only in
nancial and non-nancial, are more effective at inuen- terms of their instrumental value as a medium of exchange,
cing employee behavior (Deci et al., 1999). The utility and but are also a highly tangible means of recognizing an
incentive values of reward are embedded in a variety of individuals worth, improving self-esteem, and symbolizing
theoretical underpinnings. According to the agency per- status and achievement (Armstrong, 1996). In other words,
spective, nancial rewards, such as variable pay, can be they serve both instrumental (monetary incentives) and
used by an employer to align employees interests with symbolic (recognition) motivational properties (Stajkovic
those of the organization (Eisenhardt, 1989). Expectancy and Luthans, 2001). Unlike nancial rewards, non-
theory also asserts that employee behavior can be directed nancial rewards do not normally provide employees with
through the establishment of a visible link between reward a direct or instant material benet, although in some
and performance (Lawler and Jenkins, 1992). Because of instances, promotion or T&D may signal upcoming
their different nature, rewards can produce differential nancial returns (e.g. pay rise). Cognitively, the anticipa-
impacts on employee behavior. Individual incentives tion of a better career future or further investment in ones
rewards, for instance, are thought to foster a performance development may in turn have a motivating impact on
culture and promote exibility, dynamism, entrepreneurial employee behavior.
spirit and careful allocation of resources (Kessler Since nancial rewards are more universal (Bartol and
and Purcell, 1992, p. 21). Team-based rewards are believed Srivastava, 2002), direct and visible (Montemayor, 1996),
494 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

easier to measure and compare, and can be used more H2b. The perceived motivational effect of nancial
exibly (Stredwick, 2000), individuals tend to perceive rewards on various task and extra-task performance
them as having higher instrumental and incentive value dimensions should be greater for non-managerial than
(Porter and Lawler, 1968) and consequently as being worth managerial employees.
extra effort (Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001). Hence,
3. Methodology
H1. The perceived motivational effect of nancial rewards
on various task and extra-task performance dimensions 3.1. Procedure and sample
should be greater than that of non-nancial rewards.
Data collection was based on both qualitative and
Employee characteristics, such as gender (female versus quantitative methods. A qualitative approach was essential
male) and position (managerial versus non-managerial) are to conrming the types of rewards and performance
also thought to shape reward perceptions and preferences dimensions identied in the literature with organizations.
(Mamman et al., 1996). The relative importance that This process involved interviewing senior managers,
individuals with different characteristics attach to nancial human resource and compensation professionals, and
and non-nancial rewards, for example, money, power, front-line and back ofce staff in hotels and was intended
training, or benets, ultimately affects their motivational to gain a broader understanding of current reward and
potential and effectiveness. performance management practices. The qualitative phase
In terms of gender, men and women are thought to differ was also instrumental to ensuring reliability, validity, and
greatly in their work-related values and reward expecta- comparability of the constructs used.
tions (Iverson, 2000; Jackson et al., 1992) and performance Measures extracted from the literature and conrmed
behaviors (Chiu and Tsai, 2006). The belief that a job is during the qualitative phase were then used to develop a self-
psychologically more central to men than women suggests administered questionnaire. Prior to distributing the ques-
that task-related rewards, such as promotion, power and tionnaire, a pilot test was conducted to ensure that the
responsibility, and job interest, are more important to male instrument would be fully understood by respondents.
employees. Females, on the other hand, are thought to Following some ne-tuning, questionnaires were distributed
place greater value on social interaction, work quality, to participants via the heads of various functions, including
work environment, and workfamily balance (Jackson human resources, food and beverage, front ofce, house-
et al., 1992). That is, rewards such as time-off and keeping, sales and marketing, engineering, public relations,
recognition should be valued more. Empirical evidence and accounting/nance. All job categories in participating
conrms that compared with females, males are more hotels were represented to minimize sample bias.
assertive and task-oriented than relationship-oriented The sampling procedure yielded 284 valid responses
(Eagly et al., 1995). Moreover, as females tend to be less from seven hotels of comparable size and scope (mainly
individualistic and competitive in their work environments 4- and 5-star) located in Hong Kong, representing a
(Subich et al., 1989), team-based bonuses are likely to be response rate of 36 percent. In general, respondents were of
preferred more. Thus, Chinese ethnic origin, represented managerial and non-
managerial levels of the hierarchy, and tended to have been
H2a. The perceived motivational effect of nancial employed with the same organization for an average of
rewards on various task and extra-task performance 5 years. A demographic prole of respondents is provided
dimensions should be greater for male than female in Table 1.
3.2. Measures
Position-related differences are also thought to exist.
Motivation literature (Maslow, 1954) suggests that em- The 10 rewards and 12 performance dimensions included
ployees at different levels in the organizational hierarchy in the survey were consistent with the extant literature
are driven by different needs. Employees at senior ranks (Bateman et al., 2002; Milkovich and Newman, 2005;
(i.e. managerial) tend to be motivated more by higher- Viswesvaran, 2001). The former included both nancial
order needs (intrinsic rewards). By contrast, for those at (i.e. basic salary, individual bonus/tips, team-based bonus)
lower levels in the hierarchy (i.e. non-managerial employ- and non-nancial rewards (i.e. recognition, promotion,
ees), nancial and security rewards are considered more time-off, job security, power/responsibility, training and
important. Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985) development, and job interest) commonly used in the
asserts that status identity is an important variable industry. The latter encompassed accuracy of work,
associated with work effort and reward outcomes. In- knowledge, customer-related services, personal grooming,
dividuals classify themselves into multiple hierarchically teamwork, creativity, problem solving, communication
organized social categories (Stryker, 1968). In turn, identity skills, effort, honesty, supervision, and ability to generate
salience motivates attitudes and behaviors in support of the prots/sales. These performance dimensions were extracted
identity and work role (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Thus, from Levesque and McDougalls (1996) and Parasuraman
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503 495

Table 1 Table 2
Characteristics of survey respondents (n 284) Perceived reward-performance linkages

% Performance dimensions Rank Mean s.d.

Gender Task
Female 70 Competency/knowledge
Male 30 Basic salary increase 1 3.74 1.18
Individual bonus/tips 2 3.68 1.14
Age Promotion opportunities 3 3.67 1.01
1824 48 Training and development 4 3.61 1.24
2534 25 Job interest 5 3.58 1.16
3544 16 Recognition awards 6 3.44 1.08
4554 9 Team bonus/incentives 7 3.30 1.12
455 2 Responsibility/power 8 3.26 1.07
Job security 9 2.95 1.10
Position Time-off 10 2.46 1.18
Non-managerial 72
Managerial 28 Extra-task
Accuracy of work
Department Basic salary increase 1 3.94 1.08
Accounting/nance 4 Individual bonus/tips 2 3.91 1.13
Engineering 5 Promotion opportunities 3 3.70 1.02
F and B 28 Recognition awards 4 3.57 1.04
Front ofce 25 Team bonus/incentives 5 3.55 1.10
Housekeeping 20 Training and development 6 3.42 1.27
Human resources 4 Job interest 7 3.34 1.23
Purchasing 3 Responsibility/power 8 3.18 1.08
Time-off 9 2.51 1.24
Public relations 3
Job security 10 2.94 1.09
Sales and marketing 8
Customer-related services
Secondary or below 37
Basic salary increase 1 4.39 0.84
Diploma 18 Individual bonus/tips 2 4.28 1.00
Professional/degree 44 Recognition awards 3 3.76 0.92
4 Master 1 Promotion opportunities 4 3.75 0.89
Job interest 5 3.67 1.26
Team bonus/incentives 6 3.51 1.02
Responsibility/power 7 3.18 1.04
et al.s (1991) classication: task and extra-task (i.e. Training and development 8 3.16 1.22
relational, process, and outcome) behaviors. The above Job security 9 3.03 1.07
Time-off 10 2.61 1.25
reward and performance constructs are considered to be
the most relevant and important to the service industry Personal grooming
Basic salary increase 1 3.72 1.24
(Bettencourt and Brown, 1997; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Individual bonus/tips 2 3.56 1.34
Using multi-dimensional constructs for reward and Recognition awards 3 3.51 1.11
performance helps to identify more precisely where specic Team bonus 4 3.16 1.24
differences in the rewardperformance relationships lie. To Promotion opportunities 5 3.22 1.14
Time-off 6 2.34 1.19
measure the various rewardperformance relationships, Job security 7 2.72 1.05
respondents were asked to select rewards from the 10 cate- Responsibility/power 8 2.69 1.10
gories and rate them in order of importance (from 1 to 5) Training and development 9 2.79 1.19
according to their perceived effectiveness for achieving Job interest 10 3.25 1.26
each of the task and extra-task performance dimensions. Teamwork
Team bonus/incentives 1 3.68 1.28
Promotion opportunities 2 3.42 1.08
4. Findings
Job interest 3 3.41 1.20
Basic salary increase 4 3.40 1.28
Mean scores, rank results, and a summary of the ndings Recognition awards 5 3.39 1.16
for perceived reward effectiveness in accordance with the Individual bonus/tips 6 3.31 1.25
Responsibility/power 7 3.16 1.11
task and extra-task-related performance dimensions are Job security 8 3.01 1.07
provided in Table 2. Training and development 9 2.99 1.23
Time-off 10 2.49 1.16
4.1. Financial versus non-financial rewards and task and Process
extra-task performance dimensions Innovative and creativity
Promotion opportunities 1 3.99 1.32
Recognition awards 2 3.71 1.06
Hypothesis (H1) was tested by comparing the perceived
effectiveness of different reward instruments affecting each
496 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

Table 2 (continued ) Table 2 (continued )

Performance dimensions Rank Mean s.d. Performance dimensions Rank Mean s.d.

Basic salary increase 3 3.68 1.23 Outcome

Individual bonus/tips 4 3.58 1.28 Generate prots
Job interest 5 3.51 1.23 Basic salary increase 1 4.25 0.99
Team bonus/incentives 6 3.30 1.17 Individual bonus/tips 2 4.16 1.11
Responsibility/power 7 3.29 1.15 Promotion opportunities 3 3.85 1.08
Training and development 8 3.24 1.18 Team bonus/incentives 4 3.81 1.15
Job security 9 2.77 1.11 Recognition awards 5 3.69 1.19
Time-off 10 2.34 1.16 Job interest 6 3.42 1.27
Responsibility 7 3.33 1.13
Problem solving Training and development 8 3.20 1.32
Promotion opportunities 1 3.60 1.17 Job security 9 3.11 1.18
Basic salary increase 2 3.58 1.19 Time-off 10 2.74 1.32
Recognition awards 3 3.55 1.10
Individual bonus/tips 4 3.53 1.18 Notes: (1) The higher the score, the higher the perceived rewardperfor-
Responsibility/power 5 3.52 1.14 mance linkages. (2) *po.05; **po.01; ***po.001 (two-tailed).
Job interest 6 3.37 1.30
Training and development 7 3.34 1.35
Team bonus/incentives 8 3.26 1.16
Job security 9 2.99 1.10
Time-off 10 2.48 1.23
of the performance dimensions (Table 2). Overall, a
Communication stronger link was apparent between nancial rewards and
Basic salary increase 1 3.45 1.18 various performance dimensions. In particular, basic salary
Promotion opportunities 2 3.41 1.06
Individual bonus/tips 3 3.40 1.20
increase and individual bonus/tips were considered the
Recognition awards 4 3.38 1.05 most important. In terms of non-nancial rewards,
Job interest 5 3.35 1.27 promotion was perceived as the most effective overall,
Training and development 6 3.24 1.32 followed by recognition and job interest. Job security and
Team bonus/incentives 7 3.24 1.12
Responsibility 8 3.21 1.10 time-off were considered the least motivational of the non-
Job security 9 2.89 1.02 nancial types. The results also revealed that certain
Time-off 10 2.29 1.19 rewards were effective for achieving a broader range of
Honesty behaviors than others. For example, basic salary increase
Promotion opportunities 1 3.64 1.54 and individual bonus/incentives were perceived as effective
Recognition awards 2 3.57 1.17 for achieving a wide range of performance dimensions. By
Basic salary increase 3 3.53 1.31
Individual bonus/Tips 4 3.49 1.28
contrast, the effectiveness of team-based incentives was
Job interest 5 3.29 1.32 limited to teamwork and extra work effort whereas
Responsibility 6 3.21 1.12 promotion was associated more with performance dimen-
Team bonus/incentives 7 3.16 1.23 sions, such as innovation and creativity, problem solving,
Job security 8 3.04 1.16
Training and development 9 2.91 1.35 honesty, and the ability to act independently.
Time-off 10 2.31 1.21 As the data illustrates, the impact of nancial rewards on
Act independently
various performance dimensions was more widespread.
Promotion opportunities 1 3.66 1.06 That is, nancial reward instruments tended to have a
Basic salary increase 2 3.64 1.26 stronger and more universal appeal to respondents in
Responsibility 3 3.54 1.15 comparison to non-nancial rewards. The latter were
Individual bonus/Tips 4 3.49 1.25
Job interest 5 3.38 1.26
found to be relatively less inuential and conned
Training and development 6 3.35 1.21 to a more narrow range of performance dimensions
Recognition awards 7 3.34 1.18 (see Table 2). These results support Hypothesis (H1) that
Team bonus/incentives 8 3.16 1.19 the perceived motivational effects of nancial rewards on
Job security 9 3.05 1.08
Time-off 10 2.40 1.19 various task and extra-task performance dimensions are
greater than that of non-nancial rewards.
Work extra hard
Basic salary increase 1 4.24 0.99
Individual bonus/tips 2 4.19 1.03 4.2. Gender and position differences
Promotion opportunities 3 3.97 1.02
Team bonus/Incentives 4 3.76 1.15 A second aim of this study was to examine how reward-
Recognition awards 5 3.72 1.16
Job interest 6 3.69 1.32
performance perceptions varied according to gender and
Responsibility 7 3.29 1.20 position. To examine for potential gender and position
Job security 8 3.11 1.16 effects on specic rewardperformance relationships, a
Training and development 9 3.10 1.31 series of t-tests and analysis of variance were performed
Time-off 10 2.89 1.35
(see Table 3). Contrary to that hypothesized, female
employees were found to possess a higher nancial reward
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503 497

Table 3
Means, standard deviations, and univariate Fs results for rewardperformance linkages by gender and position

Rewards Gender Position

Male Female Manager Non-Manager

Mean Mean F Mean Mean F

Basic salary increase

Customer-related services 4.34 4.40 0.28 4.15 4.44 5.18*
Personal grooming 3.51 3.79 2.93 3.59 3.74 0.16
Accuracy of work 3.83 3.97 1.03 3.54 4.03 8.99**
Innovative and Creativity 3.60 3.70 0.36 3.69 3.66 0.03
Competency 3.51 3.83 4.23 3.70 3.76 0.09
Teamwork 3.39 3.40 0.01 3.11 3.49 3.84
Prot solving 3.48 3.61 0.74 3.27 3.65 4.44*
Communication 3.20 3.54 4.68* 3.08 3.52 6.00*
Honesty 3.45 3.54 0.27 3.12 3.60 5.82*
Act independency 3.75 3.59 0.97 3.42 3.67 1.58
Generate prots 4.05 4.32 4.40* 4.46 4.21 2.79
Work extra hard 4.00 4.32 6.15* 4.42 4.21 2.14
Individual bonus/tips
Customer-related services 4.10 4.35 3.75 4.07 4.31 2.48
Personal grooming 3.37 3.63 2.28 3.37 3.57 0.99
Accuracy of work 3.60 4.02 8.17** 3.31 4.03 18.18***
Innovative and creativity 3.48 3.61 0.60 3.35 3.60 1.71
Competency 3.51 3.74 2.28 3.48 3.72 1.95
Teamwork 3.32 3.29 0.02 2.93 3.39 6.15*
Prot solving 3.53 3.52 0.00 3.31 3.59 2.46
Communication 3.25 3.44 1.50 3.19 3.43 1.68
Honesty 3.40 3.51 0.39 3.19 3.53 2.97
Act independency 3.45 3.48 0.04 3.31 3.50 1.03
Generate prots 4.10 4.17 0.24 4.46 4.09 4.83*
Work extra hard 3.92 4.28 7.05** 4.35 4.16 1.44
Team bonus/incentives
Customer-related services 3.66 3.47 2.01 3.44 3.49 0.09
Personal grooming 3.22 3.14 0.24 3.26 3.13 0.45
Accuracy of work 3.70 3.51 1.73 3.42 3.55 0.60
Innovative and creativity 3.18 3.34 1.17 3.50 3.23 2.35
Competency 3.17 3.36 1.72 3.30 3.28 0.01
Teamwork 3.49 3.78 3.03 3.52 3.72 1.12
Prot solving 3.30 3.26 0.06 3.27 3.23 0.04
Communication 3.27 3.24 0.05 3.27 3.23 0.06
Honesty 3.23 3.14 0.26 3.04 3.17 0.48
Act independency 3.22 3.13 0.35 3.04 3.18 0.60
Generate prots 3.68 3.86 1.43 4.31 3.70 12.43***
Work extra hard 3.78 3.75 0.03 4.19 3.66 9.81**
Customer-related services 2.63 2.60 0.04 2.22 2.72 7.14**
Personal grooming 2.39 2.32 0.20 2.04 2.39 4.01*
Accuracy of work 2.50 2.52 0.02 2.08 2.63 8.35**
Innovative and creativity 2.20 2.39 1.60 2.08 2.37 2.82
Competency 2.44 2.47 0.05 2.04 2.57 9.00**
Teamwork 2.49 2.49 0.00 2.19 2.58 5.19*
Prot solving 2.22 2.58 4.83* 1.85 2.60 17.37***
Communication 2.15 2.35 1.65 1.81 2.38 10.36**
Honesty 2.22 2.35 0.64 1.77 2.41 12.99***
Act independency 2.20 2.49 3.39 2.00 2.50 7.65**
Generate prots 2.58 2.81 1.79 2.73 2.75 0.01
Work extra hard 2.70 2.98 2.44 2.85 2.90 0.07
Job security
Customer-related services 2.98 3.06 0.36 3.41 2.95 8.17**
Personal grooming 2.71 2.72 0.01 2.93 2.64 3.26
Accuracy of work 2.95 2.95 0.00 3.12 2.89 1.73
Innovative and creativity 2.65 2.83 1.48 2.88 2.73 0.82
498 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

Table 3 (continued )

Rewards Gender Position

Male Female Manager Non-Manager

Mean Mean F Mean Mean F

Competency 2.80 3.02 2.25 3.19 2.89 3.07

Teamwork 3.00 3.02 0.02 3.30 2.94 4.86*
Prot solving 2.88 3.05 1.46 3.19 2.94 2.31
Communication 2.75 2.94 1.97 3.00 2.86 0.75
Honesty 3.05 3.03 0.02 3.08 3.01 0.15
Act independency 3.10 3.03 0.24 3.08 3.04 0.06
Generate prots 3.02 3.14 0.55 3.81 2.95 24.22***
Work extra hard 2.93 3.19 3.04 3.58 3.02 10.27**
Customer-related services 3.59 3.81 3.76 3.78 3.75 0.04
Personal grooming 3.20 3.21 0.01 3.26 3.19 0.17
Accuracy of work 3.63 3.71 0.40 3.58 3.69 0.50
Innovative and creativity 3.50 4.17 1.37 3.73 4.03 0.19
Competency 3.61 3.68 0.26 3.63 3.68 0.09
Teamwork 3.32 3.44 0.81 3.52 3.38 0.73
Prot solving 3.35 3.69 4.87* 3.38 3.64 2.07
Communication 3.08 3.54 11.31** 3.50 3.41 0.28
Honesty 3.30 3.76 0.95 3.42 3.34 0.20
Act independency 3.63 3.66 0.05 3.81 3.61 1.43
Generate prots 3.68 3.91 2.68 4.27 3.73 10.76**
Work extra hard 3.73 4.06 6.34* 4.27 3.90 5.51*
Responsibility and power
Customer-related services 3.33 3.12 2.24 3.37 3.14 2.21
Personal grooming 2.68 2.68 0.00 2.78 2.63 0.79
Accuracy of work 3.13 3.19 0.18 3.27 3.14 0.57
Innovative and creativity 3.05 3.38 4.73* 3.42 3.25 1.00
Competency 3.42 3.19 2.72 3.07 3.27 1.53
Teamwork 3.15 3.15 0.00 3.19 3.15 0.06
Prot solving 3.44 3.55 0.56 3.81 3.46 4.10*
Communication 3.18 3.21 0.06 3.04 3.22 1.37
Honesty 3.15 3.22 0.21 3.15 3.25 0.28
Act independency 3.46 3.57 0.46 3.65 3.54 0.45
Generate prots 3.33 3.32 0.00 3.96 3.18 21.67***
Work extra hard 3.31 3.27 0.05 3.65 3.19 6.31*
Recognition awards
Customer-related services 3.78 3.74 0.11 3.85 3.71 0.98
Personal grooming 3.34 3.57 2.51 3.59 3.48 0.43
Accuracy of work 3.50 3.59 0.43 3.50 3.59 0.31
Innovative and creativity 3.33 3.58 3.23 3.92 3.42 9.74**
Competency 3.37 3.45 0.40 3.93 3.32 14.73***
Teamwork 3.27 3.43 1.11 3.93 3.24 16.14***
Prot solving 3.60 3.52 0.31 3.73 3.51 1.70
Communication 3.15 3.45 4.87* 3.62 3.32 3.48
Honesty 3.28 3.40 0.63 3.50 3.34 0.75
Act independency 3.35 3.31 0.06 3.58 3.27 2.80
Generate prots 3.58 3.73 0.94 4.19 3.59 11.79**
Work extra hard 3.52 3.79 2.98 4.19 3.61 11.04**
Training and development
Customer-related services 3.00 3.21 1.68 3.70 3.00 15.06***
Personal grooming 2.75 2.80 0.09 3.15 2.66 7.44**
Accuracy of work 3.23 3.49 2.32 3.58 3.35 1.33
Innovative and creativity 3.18 3.25 0.22 3.38 3.18 1.24
Competency 3.50 3.65 0.79 3.44 3.65 1.14
Teamwork 2.83 3.03 1.62 3.07 2.95 0.49
Prot solving 3.44 3.29 0.65 3.35 3.32 0.01
Communication 3.10 3.28 1.06 3.35 3.18 0.66
Honesty 2.85 2.92 0.17 3.08 2.83 1.48
Act independency 3.33 3.34 0.00 3.31 3.35 0.04
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503 499

Table 3 (continued )

Rewards Gender Position

Male Female Manager Non-Manager

Mean Mean F Mean Mean F

Generate prots 3.28 3.15 0.55 4.00 3.02 25.11***

Work extra hard 3.03 3.11 0.24 3.62 2.97 10.70**
Job interest
Customer-related services 3.65 3.66 0.00 4.07 3.55 7.67**
Personal grooming 3.35 3.19 0.90 3.44 3.16 2.18
Accuracy of work 3.41 3.29 0.54 3.69 3.23 6.22*
Innovative and creativity 3.64 3.44 1.43 3.69 3.44 1.82
Competency 3.80 3.47 4.54* 3.67 3.53 0.63
Teamwork 3.30 3.44 0.81 3.58 3.34 1.65
Prot solving 3.46 3.32 0.67 3.38 3.35 0.03
Communication 3.15 3.41 2.39 3.54 3.31 1.37
Honesty 3.18 3.31 0.57 3.08 3.33 1.51
Act independency 3.49 3.32 1.04 3.42 3.37 0.09
Generate prots 3.46 3.38 0.21 3.85 3.31 7.69**
Work extra hard 3.47 3.76 2.58 3.92 3.62 2.13

Notes: (1) The higher the score, the higher the perceived rewardperformance linkages. (2) *po.05; **po.01; ***po.001 (two-tailed).

orientation than male respondents. For example, they perceived a stronger link between non-nancial rewards
attached more value to basic salary increase and individual and various performance behaviors versus their non-
bonus/tips than their male counterparts. By comparison, managerial counterparts who valued nancial rewards
male respondents perceived job interest and team-based more.
bonus as relatively more important to motivating their
behaviors. No signicant differences in relation to other 5. Discussion
rewardperformance relationships were apparent. Thus,
the results refute Hypothesis H2a that the motivational This study set out to examine two critical aspects of the
effects of nancial rewards on various performance rewardperformance relationship yet to be sufciently
dimensions will be higher for male than female employees. addressed by prior research. First, we set out to examine
For Hypothesis (H2b), the present research found whether certain types of rewards are more appropriate than
signicant position-related differences in terms of the others at achieving particular task and extra-task perfor-
performance implications of certain reward instruments mance dimensions. Second, we explored the possibility that
(see Table 3). For example, the perceived motivational the perceived performance implications of a range of
effects of non-nancial rewards (i.e. job interest, recogni- reward instruments may vary according to gender and
tion, responsibility and power, promotion, and training position.
and development opportunities) on various performance
dimensions were much higher for managerial than non- 5.1. Findings
managerial respondents. On the contrary, non-managerial
employees considered basic salary increase, individual As hypothesized, the ndings demonstrate that nancial
bonus, and time-off as being more important. Overall, rewards do indeed possess the greatest effects on perfor-
the relationships between non-nancial rewards and mance overall. The ndings also conrm that rewards
performance were perceived as being stronger by manage- possess differential performance implications. In particu-
rial employees and nancial reward and performance lar, nancial rewards, such as basic salary increase and
linkages were considered stronger by non-managerial individual-based bonuses/tips, were viewed to provide
employees. Therefore, Hypothesis H2b, that the perceived signicant motivational potential, especially for realizing
motivational effects of nancial rewards on various task task-, relational-, and outcome-performance dimensions.
and extra-task performance dimensions will be greater for Interestingly, in addition to nancial rewards, non-
non-managerial than managerial employees, is supported. nancial rewards were also perceived as important to the
To summarize, both gender and position affected attainment of various performance dimensions. Promotion
rewardperformance perceptions. Female employees were and recognition, for example, were considered highly
found to possess a somewhat higher orientation toward effective for inuencing behaviors such as innovation,
nancial rewards and male employees viewed job interest problem solving, honesty, and acting independently. This
as being relatively more important. Managerial employees tells us that non-nancial rewards also play an important
500 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

role in an organizations overall reward infrastructure. to non-managerial in comparison to managerial employees.

They may be effective at inuencing behavior that is more For managerial employees, non-nancial rewards, espe-
discretionary in nature, process-oriented, or which relies cially those of intrinsic nature, appeared to have a stronger
primarily upon employee effort and initiative as opposed to effect on various performance dimensions. In general,
ability or situational factors (Organ, 1990). This is quite managers were more concerned with job-related rewards,
different from task-related performance, which is often tied such as interest in the job, responsibility and power. These
more directly to nancial rewards (e.g. commission, tips). ndings support the notion that employees higher up the
Nevertheless, certain non-nancial rewards, such as job organizational hierarchy are more intrinsically-oriented,
security and time-off, were considered the least motiva- whereas lower level employees are more instrumentally-
tional of all. This may in part reect a commonly held oriented. As our results demonstrated, the relationships
belief that benets (e.g. time-off) are merely entitlements between basic salary increase, tips, and time-off and
(Armstrong and Murlis, 2004) and hence, offer little various performance dimensions were stronger for
incentive in the way of motivating different dimensions of non-managerial employees. By contrast, the linkages
performance. between job interest, recognition, responsibility, and
Moreover, certain rewards (e.g. individual bonus, basic training and development opportunities and performance
salary increase, promotion) appeared to be more univer- were stronger for managerial employees. Interpreting these
sally effective while others (e.g. team-based bonus, results in light of needs theory (e.g. Maslow, 1954),
recognition, T&D) were found to be more performance- managerial employees are more likely to be motivated by
specic. For example, the perceived relationships between higher-order needs, i.e. self-growth and esteem/recognition,
intrinsic rewards (i.e. promotional opportunities, recogni- whereas non-managerial employees are motivated more by
tion, and job interest) and extra-role behavioral dimensions lower-order needs, i.e. basic salary increase and time-off.
(e.g. innovation and creativity, problem solving, team- Since managers and non-managers perceive the perfor-
work) were strong. In comparison, T&D was perceived as mance implications of rewards quite differently, it is risky
effective only for inuencing task-related performance. For for organizations to use a homogenous approach when
extra-task performance dimensions, its inuence was rewarding employees at different levels in the organiza-
considered weak. In general, the impact of nancial tional hierarchy. Therefore, position-related differences
rewards on performance dimensions tended to be more were much more apparent than those associated with
universal in comparison to the more performance-specic gender.
non-nancial rewards.
Another interesting nding was that individual bonuses/ 5.2. Implications
incentives (team bonuses/incentives) had a greater and
more widespread (weaker and limited) appeal to respon- The present study offers some important implications for
dents. This is an interesting nding because according to theory and practice. As the agency view holds, rewards
prior research (Hofstede, 2001), individual-based incentives play a signicant role in aligning the interests of employees
should be less acceptable in a collectivist culture, such as with those of the organization. We extend this perspective
HK, since they are thought to cause detrimental effects to by demonstrating that, in addition to nancial rewards,
group harmony and the cohesion of work groups. The non-nancial rewards may be benecial to the achievement
overwhelmingly strong (weak) perceptual link found for of different dimensions of employee performance. More
individual (versus team) incentivesperformance may specically, we suggest that nancial rewards have
stem from conditional factors other than culture, such as signicant performance implications for task behaviors,
the perception about the strength and clarity of the link whereas a mix of nancial and non-nancial rewards is
between individual (versus team) performance and reward benecial to the achievement of extra-task behaviors. In
(Porter and Lawler, 1968) or distributive justice (Sweeney this sense, corporate citizenship and pro-social behavior
and McFarlin, 1993). can be enhanced through the use of non-nancial rewards
Gender and position comparisons revealed both simila- as well. In terms of lessons for practice, our ndings imply
rities and differences in terms of the perceived reward that organizations cannot over-generalize the perceived
performance linkages (H2a2b). Overall, gender motivational strength and effectiveness of a reward and
differences were not pronounced. For example, both apply it uniformly to all situations. Rather, it is vital for
female and male employees were quite similar in the way companies to monitor employee perceptions of and
they perceived the relationships between non-nancial reactions to different rewards to ensure that they stimulate
rewards and the performance dimensions. There were the desired behavior. To enhance the motivational impact
some exceptions, however. Opposite to that hypothesized, of a reward, organizations must therefore understand the
female employees tended to exhibit a higher nancial perceived performance implications of the reward instru-
orientation than their male counterparts, who perceived a ment. For hotels, this may include utilizing a range of non-
stronger job interestperformance relationship. nancial rewards to achieve extra-task behaviors, such as
In terms of position, signicant differences emerged. As going beyond the call of duty when serving customers and
hypothesized, nancial rewards possessed a broad appeal providing spontaneous exceptional service, and other
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503 501

forms of organizational citizenship or pro-social behaviors performance priorities, improve resource efciency, and
essential to accomplishing organizational goals. enhance customer service quality.

5.3. Limitations References

There are several important caveats to this study that Agut, S., Grau, R., Peiro, J.M., 2003. Competency needs among mana-
deserve attention. A number of additional factors that gers from Spanish hotels and restaurants and their training
might inuence the rewardperformance relationship (e.g. demands. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (3),
organizational characteristics and economic conditions) 281295.
Akbaba, A., 2006. Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: a study
should be considered in future work. For example, in a business hotel in Turkey. International Journal of Hospitality
employees working for smaller-sized hotels may not be Management 25 (2), 123.
motivated by promotion. Similarly, during times of Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.J., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent.
economic recession (e.g. downsizing), employees may be Strategic Management Journal 14, 3346.
more concerned about job security. The results may also Armstrong, M., 1996. Reward Management. Kogan Page, London.
Armstrong, M., Murlis, H., 2004. Reward Management: A Handbook of
reect the characteristics of an industry. The manufactur- Remuneration Strategy and Practice, fth ed. Kogan Page, London.
ing industry is likely to have a very different set of Ashforth, B.E., Mael, F., 1989. Social identity theory and the organiza-
performance goals than the service orientation found in the tion. Academy of Management Review 14, 2039.
hotel industry. Since public sector organizations are not Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1991. The big ve personality dimensions
and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44,
prot-oriented, their performance objectives and in turn
employees values may be quite different. Thus, although Bartol, K., Srivastava, A., 2002. Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role
our ndings provide some valuable insights into the of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organiza-
performance implications of a variety of reward instru- tional Studies 9, 6477.
ments, they may not be generalizable to other types of Bateman, T.S., Organ, D.W., 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier:
industries and sectors. Understanding the inuence of such the relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy
of Management Journal 26, 587595.
factors may reveal additional insights into the reward Bateman, T.S., ONeill, H., Kenworthy-U Ren, A., 2002. A hierarchical
performance relationship. taxonomy of top managers goals. Journal of Applied Psychology 87,
6. Conclusion Bernardin, H.J., Beatty, R.W., 1984. Performance Appraisal: Assessing
Human Behavior at Work. Kent, Boston.
Bettencourt, L.A., Brown, S.W., 1997. Contact employees: relationships
The present study advances our understanding about the among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service
effectiveness of various reward instruments in achieving behaviors. Journal of Retailing 73 (1), 3961.
task and extra-task performance behaviors on several Borman, W.C., Motowidlo, S.J., 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to
fronts. First, we found that the perceived motivating values include elements of contextual performance. In: Schmitt, N., Borman,
W.C. (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San
of different types of rewards, both nancial and non-
Francisco, pp. 7198.
nancial, were different. In this sense, certain rewards were Boxall, P., Purcell, J., 2003. Strategy and Human Resource Management.
found to be more appropriate than others at achieving a Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
range of different performance dimensions. Second, we Boyd, B.K., Salamin, A., 2001. Strategic reward systems: a contingency
found that characteristics, such as gender and position, model of pay system design. Strategic Management Journal 22,
affected the perceived performance implications of various 777792.
Brief, A.P., Motowidlo, S.J., 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors.
rewards. Other characteristics and contextual factors also Academy of Management Review 11, 710725.
warrant attention. Third, this research extends earlier Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A., Peter, J.P., 1993. Improving the measure-
theoretical perspectives, such as agency and expectancy, ment of service quality. Journal of Retailing 69, 127138.
by demonstrating that non-nancial rewards can play a Brownell, J., 1994. Women in hospitality management: general managers
perceptions of factors related to career development. International
fundamental role in an organizations reward infrastruc-
Journal of Hospitality Management 13, 101117.
ture. Fourth, we offer some important implications to Chiang, F., Birtch, T.A., 2005. A taxonomy of reward preference:
practice. As this research conrms, rewards produce examining country differences. Journal of International Management
differential effects on different performance behaviors 11, 357375.
whether they be task or extra-task in nature. This nding Chiang, F., Birtch, T.A., 2007. The transferability of management
has especially important implications to the hotel industry practices: examining cross-national differences in reward preferences.
Human Relations 60 (9), 12931330.
where it has become a business imperative that scarce Chiu, S.F., Tsai, M.C., 2006. Relationships among burnout, job
rewards are more effectively aligned with strategic prio- involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of
rities, such as excellence in service. An intimate under- Psychology 140, 517530.
standing of employee perceptions towards the Coff, R.W., 1997. Human assets and management dilemmas: coping with
rewardperformance relationship is therefore required if hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 22 (2), 374402.
work behavior is to be inuenced. By doing so, organiza- Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The what and why of goal pursuits:
tions can better utilize rewards not only to satisfy employee human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
needs but also to simultaneously achieve employee Inquiry 11, 227268.
502 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., 1999. A meta-analytic review of Lucas, R., Deery, M., 2004. Signicant developments and emerging issues
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic in human resource management. International Journal of Hospitality
motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125, 627668. Management 23, 459472.
Deckop, J.R., Mangel, R., Cirka, C.C., 1999. Getting more than you pay Lynn, M., 2003. Restaurant tips and service quality: a weak relationship
for: organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance or just weak measurement. International Journal of Hospitality
plans. Academy of Management Journal 42, 420428. Management 22 (3), 321325.
Delery, J.E., Doty, D.H., 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human Mak, K.M., Akhtar, S., 2003. Human resource management practices,
resource management: tests of universalistic, contingency and cong- strategic orientations, and company performance: a correlation study
urational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal of publicly listed companies. Journal of American Academy of
39, 802835. Business 2 (2), 510515.
Dewald, B., 2003. Tipping in Hong Kong restaurants. International Mamman, A., Sulaiman, M., Fadel, A., 1996. Attitudes to pay systems: an
Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (3), 307319. exploratory study within and across cultures. The International
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J., Makhijani, M.G., 1995. Gender and the Journal of Human Resource Management 7 (1), 101121.
effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 117, Maslow, A.H., 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New
125145. York.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review. Milkovich, G.T., Newman, M.J., 2005. Compensation, eighth ed.
Academy of Management Review 14 (1), 5774. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Gerhart, B., Milkovich, G.T., 1990. Organizational differences in Montemayor, E.F., 1996. Congruence between pay policy and competitive
managerial compensation and nancial performance. Academy of strategy in high-performing rms. Journal of Management 22 (6),
Management Journal 33, 663691. 889908.
Henderson, R.I., 2003. Compensation Management in a Knowledge- Ng, C.W., Pine, R., 2003. Women and men in hotel management in Hong
based World, ninth ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kong: perceptions of gender and career development issues. Interna-
Hofstede, G., 2001. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Beha- tional Journal of Hospitality Management 22, 85102.
viors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, second ed. Sage, Organ, D.W., 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
Thousand Oaks, CA. behavior. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in
Hunt, S.T., 1996. Generic work behavior: an investigation into the Organizational behavior, vol. 12. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 4372.
dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychol- Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a
ogy 49, 5183. multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
Iverson, K., 2000. The paradox of the contented female manager: an quality. Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 1240.
empirical investigation of gender differences in pay expectation in the Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., 1991. Understanding
hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management customer expectations of service. Sloan Management Review 39,
19, 3351. 3948.
Jackson, L.A., Gardner, P.D., Sullivan, L.A., 1992. Explaining gender Pfeffer, J., 1994. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the
differences in self-pay expectations: social comparison standards Power of the Work Force. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
and perceptions of fair pay. Journal of Applied Psychology 77, Pizam, A., Ellis, T., 1999. Customer satisfaction and its measurement in
651663. hospitality enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
Janssen, O., 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear tality Management 11 (7), 326339.
relationships between job demands, and job performance and job Pizam, A., Thornburg, S.W., 2000. Absenteeism and voluntary turnover in
satisfaction. Journal of Management Journal 44, 10391050. Central Florida hotels: a pilot study. International Journal of
Johnson, R.A., Neelankavil, J.P., Jadhav, A., 1986. Developing the Hospitality Management 19, 211217.
executive resource. Business Horizon 29 (6), 2933. Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance.
Karatepe, O.M., Sokmen, A., 2006. The effects of work role and family Irwin Inc., Homewood.
role variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline Rajagopalan, N., 1997. Strategic orientations, incentive plan adoptions,
employees. Tourism Management 27, 255268. and rm performance: evidence from electric utility rms. Strategic
Kim, H.J., McCahon, C., Miller, J., 2003. Service orientation for contact Management Journal 18, 761785.
employees in Korean casual-dining restaurants. International Journal Ross, G.F., 1995. Managementemployee divergences among hospitality
of Hospitality Management 22, 6783. industry employee service quality ideals. International Journal of
Kessler, I., Purcell, J., 1992. Performance related pay: objectives and Hospitality Management 14, 1124.
applications. Human Resource Management Journal 2, 1633. Schneider, B., Brown, D.E., 1993. The service organization: human
Komaki, J.L., 2003. Reinforcement theory at work: enhancing and resource management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics 21,
explaining what employees do. In: Porter, L.W., Bigley, G.A., Steers, 3952.
R.M. (Eds.), Motivation and Work Behavior. McGraw-Hill, Schneider, B., Hayes, S.C., Lim, B.C., Raver, J.L., Godfrey, E.G., Huang,
New York, pp. 95111. M., Nishii, L.H., Ziegert, J.C., 2003. The human side of strategy:
Lawler, E.E., 2000. Rewarding Excellence: Pay Strategies for the employee experiences of strategic alignment in a service organization.
New Economy. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Organizational Dynamics 32, 122141.
Lawler, E.E., Jenkins, G.D., 1992. Strategic reward systems. In: Dunnette, Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A., Johnston, R., 1998.
M., Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Operations Management. Pitman, London.
Psychology, vol. 2. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., Near, J.P., 1983. Organizational citizenship
pp. 10091055. behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology
Lee, Y.K., Nam, J.H., Park, D.H., Lee, K.A., 2006. What factors 68, 653663.
inuence customer-oriented prosocial behavior of customer-contact Sparrowe, R.T., Iverson, K.M., 1999. Cracks in the glass ceiling? An
employees? Journal of Services Marketing 20, 251264. empirical study of gender differences in income in the hospitality
Levesque, T., McDougall, G., 1996. Determinants of customer satisfac- industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23, 420.
tion in retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 14 (7), Stajkovic, A.D., Luthans, F., 2001. Differential effects of incentive
1220. motivators on work performance. Academy of Management Journal
Li, L., Leung, R.W., 2001. Female managers in Asian hotels: prole and 44 (3), 580590.
career challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Stredwick, J., 2000. Aligning rewards to organisational goalsa multi-
Management 13 (4), 189196. nationals experience. European Business Review 12 (1), 917.
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503 503

Stryker, S., 1968. Identity salience and role performance: the relevance of Tajfel, H., Turner, H.C., 1985. The social identity theory of intergroup
symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage behavior. In: Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of
and The Family 30, 558564. Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, pp. 724.
Subich, L.M., Barrett, G.V., Doverspike, D., Alexander, R.A., 1989. The Viswesvaran, C., 2001. Assessment of individual job performance: a
effects of sex-role-related factors on occupational choice and salary. review of the past century and a look ahead. In: Anderson, N., Ones,
In: Michael, R.T., Hartmann, H.I., Farrell, B.O. (Eds.), Pay Equity: D.S., Sinangil, H.K., Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial,
Empirical Inquiries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. Sage Publications,
Susskind, A.M., Borchgrevink, C.P., Kacmar, K.M., Brymer, R.A., 2000. Beverley Hills, CA.
Customer service employees behavioral intentions and attitudes: an Zacarelli, H.E., 1985. Is the hospitality-foodservice industry turning its
examination of construct validity and a path model. International employees onor off? The manager makes the decision. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 19, 5377. Journal of Hospitality Management, 123124.
Sweeney, P.D., McFarlin, D.B., 1993. Workers evaluations of the ends and Zingheim, P.K., Schuster, J.R., 1995. Moving one notch north: executing
the means: an examination of four models of distributive and procedural the transition to new pay. Compensation and Benets Review 27,
justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55, 2340. 3339.