ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

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
a
Department of Management, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong
b
Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1RX, UK

Abstract

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-

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

0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.08.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
employee. Effective reward management entails an in-
timate understanding of employee values and preferences
(Zingheim and Schuster, 1995). Since employees are the
direct beneciaries of rewards, their perceptions and
reactions to different rewards are critical to our under-
standing of the rewardperformance relationship. Second,
where studies do exist (e.g. Dewald, 2003; Lynn, 2003),
these tend to focus on nancial rewards (e.g. tips). Non-
nancial rewards (e.g. recognition, training and develop-
ment, job interest, and time-off), which have become
increasingly prevalent today are by and large being
overlooked.
Third, earlier work also lacks a systematic empirical
investigation of the performance implications of specic
reward instruments. A reward found to be effective in
achieving one performance imperative may not necessarily
be successful at motivating another desired behavior
(Komaki, 2003). The effectiveness of a homogeneous
one-size-ts-all approach to reward (i.e. assuming that a
reward is universally effective at motivating all types of
behavior) is therefore subject to question. It is unlikely
to be able to respond to the wide range of perform-
ance demands, task and extra-task related, expected of
employees.
Lastly, in a recent review of hospitality journals
(Lucas and Deery, 2004), human-resource-related topics
(e.g. general HRM, employee sourcing, development and
relations) gured prominent on the research agenda.
However, attention to reward management issues and
how human capital advantage can be achieved through
eliciting and rewarding employee behaviors that provide
value was scant (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). According to
Pfeffer (1994), employees are the main source of compe-
titive advantage. Moreover, little attention was afforded to
the potential inuence that employment trends in the hotel
industry have on the rewardperformance relationship, in
particular the inux of women into the workforce and the
growth in professional management. For example, tradi-
tionally hotels have been characterized as male-dominated
environments (Ng and Pine, 2003) in which management
has a masculine ethic/bias (Li and Leung, 2001). Some
evidence even suggests that females have been subjected to
discriminatory personnel and pay practices (Brownell,
1994; Sparrowe and Iverson, 1999). With an increasing
number of females entering the industry (Ng and Pine,
2003), it is imperative that hotels better understand the
potential gender differences that may arise in terms of
preferences and perceptions towards rewards in order to
ensure that the value-added contribution of different
employee groups is maximized (Iverson, 2000; Ng and
Pine, 2003).
Similarly, service delivery is said to involve the interac-
tion between three constituentsemployees, managers and
customers (Susskind et al., 2000). An accurate under-
standing of what motivates employees versus managers is
therefore critical to customer satisfaction. Ross (1995)
found considerable divergence between employees and
managers in terms of their service and performance
perceptions. It has also been acknowledged that managers
often misunderstand what motivates their employees
(Zacarelli, 1985). Non-managerial positions in the hotel
industry have been characterized by their inadequate pay,
low job security, overwork (Karatepe and Sokmen, 2006),
and excessive turnover (Pizam and Thornburg, 2000).
Hence, position-based differences in perceptions and
preferences may also inuence the rewardperformance
relationship.
The above gaps in our understanding not only severely
restrict the ability of rms to ensure congruence between
rewards and performance dimensions but also inhibit
further knowledge building in this important area of
organizational studies. An examination of the role that
rewards play in motivating and facilitating the develop-
ment of desirable behaviors is therefore warranted.
The purposes of this study were two-fold. First, we
attempted to explore the perceived motivating values of
different nancial and non-nancial rewards. More speci-
cally, we aimed to determine which rewards from an array
of alternatives were more effective in motivating and
achieving specic task and extra-task performance dimen-
sions. Second, we attempted to examine potential gender
and position differences in the perceived performance
implications of various rewards. To these ends, we begin by
briey delineating reward and employee performance.
Following the development of our hypotheses and a brief
overview of the methods employed, we present the relevant
analyses and ndings. Directions for future research are
also suggested.
2. Literature review
2.1. Reward and performance dimensions
Reward is a broad construct that has been said to
represent anything that an employee may value that an
employer is willing to offer in exchange for the employees
contribution (Henderson, 2003). A reward infrastructure
is typically comprised of a variety of nancial and
non-nancial instruments. Direct (e.g. basic pay), indirect
(e.g. benets), xed (e.g. salary) and/or variable
(e.g. bonus/incentives) rewards are nancial in nature
(Armstrong and Murlis, 2004). Non-nancial rewards are
also tangible rewards provided and controlled by a rm,
although they do not necessarily benet employees in a
monetary sense. Examples include recognition, promotion,
power and responsibility, and training and development.
Given the labor-intensive nature of the hospitality industry
and the rising pressure to control costs, non-nancial
rewards are being used increasingly to motivate employee
performance.
Employee performance is also a multidimensional
construct (Viswesvaran, 2001). It has been dened in terms
of individual characteristics (Barrick and Mount, 1991),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503
competencies (Agut et al., 2003), behaviors (Hunt, 1996),
and outcomes (Bernardin and Beatty, 1984). Performance
dimensions have also been said to vary according to job,
position, organization and industry (Brown et al., 1993).
For example, certain performance dimensions, such as the
ability to satisfy customers and provide a high level of
service quality, are particularly important performance
criteria in service-based organizations (Akbaba, 2006)
relative to other industries, such as manufacturing, where
production costs and efciency are afforded higher priority
(Slack et al., 1998).
Hospitality organizations operate in a dynamic and
highly competitive environment. To differentiate them-
selves from their rivals, they are continuously grappling
with ways to develop distinct competencies and capabilities
in such performance domains as employee skills, quality,
creativity, innovation, team-working, exibility, and
customer satisfaction (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Coff,
1997). Customer satisfaction, service orientation, and
service quality are considered to be the three main pillars
of differentiation and competitive advantage (Kim et al.,
2003; Pizam and Ellis, 1999) and are thought to be
signicantly inuenced by the behaviors and performance
of employees (Schneider and Brown, 1993). According to a
number of researchers (e.g. Bettencourt and Brown, 1997;
Lee et al., 2006), achieving these strategic priorities
involves excelling in several important domains: extra-role
service, role-prescribed customer service, and cooperation.
Others (e.g. Akbaba, 2006; Parasuraman et al., 1988)
suggest service components are critical, such as reliability,
responsiveness, empathy, assurance, courtesy and compe-
tence, communication, customer understanding, accuracy
and speed of service, and personalization. For the services
industry, performance dimensions have been classied as
either task or extra-task (i.e. relational, process, and
outcome) behaviors (Levesque and McDougall, 1996;
Parasuraman et al., 1991).
2.2. The reward-performance relationship
There is considerable debate surrounding which rewards,
nancial and non-nancial, are more effective at inuen-
cing employee behavior (Deci et al., 1999). The utility and
incentive values of reward are embedded in a variety of
theoretical underpinnings. According to the agency per-
spective, nancial rewards, such as variable pay, can be
used by an employer to align employees interests with
those of the organization (Eisenhardt, 1989). Expectancy
theory also asserts that employee behavior can be directed
through the establishment of a visible link between reward
and performance (Lawler and Jenkins, 1992). Because of
their different nature, rewards can produce differential
impacts on employee behavior. Individual incentives
rewards, for instance, are thought to foster a performance
culture and promote exibility, dynamism, entrepreneurial
spirit and careful allocation of resources (Kessler
and Purcell, 1992, p. 21). Team-based rewards are believed
493
to instill team-spirit, enhance cooperation among organi-
zational members, and create exibility (Bartol and
Srivastava, 2002).
Organizations can also utilize a variety of non-nancial
rewards to achieve desired performance behaviors. Train-
ing and development (T&D), for example, can be used for
knowledge/skill acquisition and development, teamwork,
quality improvement, innovation, and productivity
(Mak and Akhtar, 2003; Schneider et al., 2003). T&D
programs are often employed to develop different compe-
tencies (Agut et al., 2003), enabling employees to function
more effectively, reduce costly mistakes in performing their
tasks, and enhance job content innovation (Johnson et al.,
1986). Opportunities for career growth are also thought to
increase employee motivation and have been shown to be
positively correlated with organizational performance
(Delery and Doty, 1996). Others, such as promotion and
recognition (praise), are believed to enhance self-esteem.
They have been found to foster a sense of competence
(Bartol and Srivastava, 2002), act as positive reinforcers
(e.g. recognition for a job well done), and provide powerful
intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
The above suggests that nancial and non-nancial
rewards produce differential effects and when used
effectively can realize a wide range of performance
dimensions (Lawler, 2000). As theoretical and empirical
research highlights, there is a need to link rewards to
certain behavioral areas. The effectiveness of a reward is
meaningful only when it is interpreted in light of its
outcome. Since rewards differ in the way that they affect
employee behavior, it is important to determine which
types of rewards are perceived as most effective by
employees for satisfying specic task and extra-task-related
dimensions of performance.
2.3. Hypotheses
Financial rewards represent the foundation of any
reward system and provide the instrumental means by
which various human needs are satised either directly or
indirectly. Financial rewards are signicant not only in
terms of their instrumental value as a medium of exchange,
but are also a highly tangible means of recognizing an
individuals worth, improving self-esteem, and symbolizing
status and achievement (Armstrong, 1996). In other words,
they serve both instrumental (monetary incentives) and
symbolic (recognition) motivational properties (Stajkovic
and Luthans, 2001). Unlike nancial rewards, non-
nancial rewards do not normally provide employees with
a direct or instant material benet, although in some
instances, promotion or T&D may signal upcoming
nancial returns (e.g. pay rise). Cognitively, the anticipa-
tion of a better career future or further investment in ones
development may in turn have a motivating impact on
employee behavior.
Since nancial rewards are more universal (Bartol and
Srivastava, 2002), direct and visible (Montemayor, 1996),
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
exibly (Stredwick, 2000), individuals tend to perceive
them as having higher instrumental and incentive value
(Porter and Lawler, 1968) and consequently as being worth
extra effort (Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001). Hence,
H1. The perceived motivational effect of nancial rewards
on various task and extra-task performance dimensions
should be greater than that of non-nancial rewards.
Employee characteristics, such as gender (female versus
male) and position (managerial versus non-managerial) are
also thought to shape reward perceptions and preferences
(Mamman et al., 1996). The relative importance that
individuals with different characteristics attach to nancial
and non-nancial rewards, for example, money, power,
training, or benets, ultimately affects their motivational
potential and effectiveness.
In terms of gender, men and women are thought to differ
greatly in their work-related values and reward expecta-
tions (Iverson, 2000; Jackson et al., 1992) and performance
behaviors (Chiu and Tsai, 2006). The belief that a job is
psychologically more central to men than women suggests
that task-related rewards, such as promotion, power and
responsibility, and job interest, are more important to male
employees. Females, on the other hand, are thought to
place greater value on social interaction, work quality,
work environment, and workfamily balance (Jackson
et al., 1992). That is, rewards such as time-off and
recognition should be valued more. Empirical evidence
conrms that compared with females, males are more
assertive and task-oriented than relationship-oriented
(Eagly et al., 1995). Moreover, as females tend to be less
individualistic and competitive in their work environments
(Subich et al., 1989), team-based bonuses are likely to be
preferred more. Thus,
H2a. The perceived motivational effect of nancial
rewards on various task and extra-task performance
dimensions should be greater for male than female
employees.
Position-related differences are also thought to exist.
Motivation literature (Maslow, 1954) suggests that em-
ployees at different levels in the organizational hierarchy
are driven by different needs. Employees at senior ranks
(i.e. managerial) tend to be motivated more by higher-
order needs (intrinsic rewards). By contrast, for those at
lower levels in the hierarchy (i.e. non-managerial employ-
ees), nancial and security rewards are considered more
important. Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985)
asserts that status identity is an important variable
associated with work effort and reward outcomes. In-
dividuals classify themselves into multiple hierarchically
organized social categories (Stryker, 1968). In turn, identity
salience motivates attitudes and behaviors in support of the
identity and work role (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Thus,
H2b. The perceived motivational effect of nancial
rewards on various task and extra-task performance
dimensions should be greater for non-managerial than
managerial employees.
3. Methodology
3.1. Procedure and sample
Data collection was based on both qualitative and
quantitative methods. A qualitative approach was essential
to conrming the types of rewards and performance
dimensions identied in the literature with organizations.
This process involved interviewing senior managers,
human resource and compensation professionals, and
front-line and back ofce staff in hotels and was intended
to gain a broader understanding of current reward and
performance management practices. The qualitative phase
was also instrumental to ensuring reliability, validity, and
comparability of the constructs used.
Measures extracted from the literature and conrmed
during the qualitative phase were then used to develop a self-
administered questionnaire. Prior to distributing the ques-
tionnaire, a pilot test was conducted to ensure that the
instrument would be fully understood by respondents.
Following some ne-tuning, questionnaires were distributed
to participants via the heads of various functions, including
human resources, food and beverage, front ofce, house-
keeping, sales and marketing, engineering, public relations,
and accounting/nance. All job categories in participating
hotels were represented to minimize sample bias.
The sampling procedure yielded 284 valid responses
from seven hotels of comparable size and scope (mainly
4- and 5-star) located in Hong Kong, representing a
response rate of 36 percent. In general, respondents were of
Chinese ethnic origin, represented managerial and non-
managerial levels of the hierarchy, and tended to have been
employed with the same organization for an average of
5 years. A demographic prole of respondents is provided
in Table 1.
3.2. Measures
The 10 rewards and 12 performance dimensions included
in the survey were consistent with the extant literature
(Bateman et al., 2002; Milkovich and Newman, 2005;
Viswesvaran, 2001). The former included both nancial
(i.e. basic salary, individual bonus/tips, team-based bonus)
and non-nancial rewards (i.e. recognition, promotion,
time-off, job security, power/responsibility, training and
development, and job interest) commonly used in the
industry. The latter encompassed accuracy of work,
knowledge, customer-related services, personal grooming,
teamwork, creativity, problem solving, communication
skills, effort, honesty, supervision, and ability to generate
prots/sales. These performance dimensions were extracted
from Levesque and McDougalls (1996) and Parasuraman
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
Relational
Education
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 )
Performance dimensions
Basic salary increase
Individual bonus/tips
Job interest
Team bonus/incentives
Responsibility/power
Training and development
Job security
Time-off
Problem solving
Promotion opportunities
Basic salary increase
Recognition awards
Individual bonus/tips
Responsibility/power
Job interest
Training and development
Team bonus/incentives
Job security
Time-off
Communication
Basic salary increase
Promotion opportunities
Individual bonus/tips
Recognition awards
Job interest
Training and development
Team bonus/incentives
Responsibility
Job security
Time-off
Honesty
Promotion opportunities
Recognition awards
Basic salary increase
Individual bonus/Tips
Job interest
Responsibility
Team bonus/incentives
Job security
Training and development
Time-off
Act independently
Promotion opportunities
Basic salary increase
Responsibility
Individual bonus/Tips
Job interest
Training and development
Recognition awards
Team bonus/incentives
Job security
Time-off
Work extra hard
Basic salary increase
Individual bonus/tips
Promotion opportunities
Team bonus/Incentives
Recognition awards
Job interest
Responsibility
Job security
Training and development
Time-off
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2 (continued )
Rank Mean s.d. Performance dimensions Rank Mean s.d.
3 3.68 1.23 Outcome
4 3.58 1.28 Generate prots
5 3.51 1.23 Basic salary increase 1 4.25 0.99
6 3.30 1.17 Individual bonus/tips 2 4.16 1.11
7 3.29 1.15 Promotion opportunities 3 3.85 1.08
8 3.24 1.18 Team bonus/incentives 4 3.81 1.15
9 2.77 1.11 Recognition awards 5 3.69 1.19
10 2.34 1.16 Job interest 6 3.42 1.27
Responsibility 7 3.33 1.13
Training and development 8 3.20 1.32
1 3.60 1.17 Job security 9 3.11 1.18
2 3.58 1.19 Time-off 10 2.74 1.32
3 3.55 1.10
4 3.53 1.18 Notes: (1) The higher the score, the higher the perceived rewardperfor-
5 3.52 1.14 mance linkages. (2) *po.05; **po.01; ***po.001 (two-tailed).
6 3.37 1.30
7 3.34 1.35
8 3.26 1.16
9 2.99 1.10
10 2.48 1.23
of the performance dimensions (Table 2). Overall, a
stronger link was apparent between nancial rewards and
1 3.45 1.18 various performance dimensions. In particular, basic salary
2 3.41 1.06
3 3.40 1.20
increase and individual bonus/tips were considered the
4 3.38 1.05 most important. In terms of non-nancial rewards,
5 3.35 1.27 promotion was perceived as the most effective overall,
6 3.24 1.32 followed by recognition and job interest. Job security and
7 3.24 1.12
8 3.21 1.10 time-off were considered the least motivational of the non-
9 2.89 1.02 nancial types. The results also revealed that certain
10 2.29 1.19 rewards were effective for achieving a broader range of
behaviors than others. For example, basic salary increase
1 3.64 1.54 and individual bonus/incentives were perceived as effective
2 3.57 1.17 for achieving a wide range of performance dimensions. By
3 3.53 1.31
4 3.49 1.28
contrast, the effectiveness of team-based incentives was
5 3.29 1.32 limited to teamwork and extra work effort whereas
6 3.21 1.12 promotion was associated more with performance dimen-
7 3.16 1.23 sions, such as innovation and creativity, problem solving,
8 3.04 1.16
9 2.91 1.35 honesty, and the ability to act independently.
10 2.31 1.21 As the data illustrates, the impact of nancial rewards on
various performance dimensions was more widespread.
1 3.66 1.06 That is, nancial reward instruments tended to have a
2 3.64 1.26 stronger and more universal appeal to respondents in
3 3.54 1.15 comparison to non-nancial rewards. The latter were
4 3.49 1.25
5 3.38 1.26
found to be relatively less inuential and conned
6 3.35 1.21 to a more narrow range of performance dimensions
7 3.34 1.18 (see Table 2). These results support Hypothesis (H1) that
8 3.16 1.19 the perceived motivational effects of nancial rewards on
9 3.05 1.08
10 2.40 1.19 various task and extra-task performance dimensions are
greater than that of non-nancial rewards.
1 4.24 0.99
2 4.19 1.03 4.2. Gender and position differences
3 3.97 1.02
4 3.76 1.15 A second aim of this study was to examine how reward-
5 3.72 1.16
6 3.69 1.32
performance perceptions varied according to gender and
7 3.29 1.20 position. To examine for potential gender and position
8 3.11 1.16 effects on specic rewardperformance relationships, a
9 3.10 1.31 series of t-tests and analysis of variance were performed
10 2.89 1.35
(see Table 3). Contrary to that hypothesized, female
employees were found to possess a higher nancial reward
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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**
Time-off
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
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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**
Promotion
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
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
attached more value to basic salary increase and individual
bonus/tips than their male counterparts. By comparison,
male respondents perceived job interest and team-based
bonus as relatively more important to motivating their
behaviors. No signicant differences in relation to other
rewardperformance relationships were apparent. Thus,
the results refute Hypothesis H2a that the motivational
effects of nancial rewards on various performance
dimensions will be higher for male than female employees.
For Hypothesis (H2b), the present research found
signicant position-related differences in terms of the
performance implications of certain reward instruments
(see Table 3). For example, the perceived motivational
effects of non-nancial rewards (i.e. job interest, recogni-
tion, responsibility and power, promotion, and training
and development opportunities) on various performance
dimensions were much higher for managerial than non-
managerial respondents. On the contrary, non-managerial
employees considered basic salary increase, individual
bonus, and time-off as being more important. Overall,
the relationships between non-nancial rewards and
performance were perceived as being stronger by manage-
rial employees and nancial reward and performance
linkages were considered stronger by non-managerial
employees. Therefore, Hypothesis H2b, that the perceived
motivational effects of nancial rewards on various task
and extra-task performance dimensions will be greater for
non-managerial than managerial employees, is supported.
To summarize, both gender and position affected
rewardperformance perceptions. Female employees were
found to possess a somewhat higher orientation toward
nancial rewards and male employees viewed job interest
as being relatively more important. Managerial employees
perceived a stronger link between non-nancial rewards
and various performance behaviors versus their non-
managerial counterparts who valued nancial rewards
more.
5. Discussion
This study set out to examine two critical aspects of the
rewardperformance relationship yet to be sufciently
addressed by prior research. First, we set out to examine
whether certain types of rewards are more appropriate than
others at achieving particular task and extra-task perfor-
mance dimensions. Second, we explored the possibility that
the perceived performance implications of a range of
reward instruments may vary according to gender and
position.
5.1. Findings
As hypothesized, the ndings demonstrate that nancial
rewards do indeed possess the greatest effects on perfor-
mance overall. The ndings also conrm that rewards
possess differential performance implications. In particu-
lar, nancial rewards, such as basic salary increase and
individual-based bonuses/tips, were viewed to provide
signicant motivational potential, especially for realizing
task-, relational-, and outcome-performance dimensions.
Interestingly, in addition to nancial rewards, non-
nancial rewards were also perceived as important to the
attainment of various performance dimensions. Promotion
and recognition, for example, were considered highly
effective for inuencing behaviors such as innovation,
problem solving, honesty, and acting independently. This
tells us that non-nancial rewards also play an important
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
500 F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503
role in an organizations overall reward infrastructure.
They may be effective at inuencing behavior that is more
discretionary in nature, process-oriented, or which relies
primarily upon employee effort and initiative as opposed to
ability or situational factors (Organ, 1990). This is quite
different from task-related performance, which is often tied
more directly to nancial rewards (e.g. commission, tips).
Nevertheless, certain non-nancial rewards, such as job
security and time-off, were considered the least motiva-
tional of all. This may in part reect a commonly held
belief that benets (e.g. time-off) are merely entitlements
(Armstrong and Murlis, 2004) and hence, offer little
incentive in the way of motivating different dimensions of
performance.
Moreover, certain rewards (e.g. individual bonus, basic
salary increase, promotion) appeared to be more univer-
sally effective while others (e.g. team-based bonus,
recognition, T&D) were found to be more performance-
specic. For example, the perceived relationships between
intrinsic rewards (i.e. promotional opportunities, recogni-
tion, and job interest) and extra-role behavioral dimensions
(e.g. innovation and creativity, problem solving, team-
work) were strong. In comparison, T&D was perceived as
effective only for inuencing task-related performance. For
extra-task performance dimensions, its inuence was
considered weak. In general, the impact of nancial
rewards on performance dimensions tended to be more
universal in comparison to the more performance-specic
non-nancial rewards.
Another interesting nding was that individual bonuses/
incentives (team bonuses/incentives) had a greater and
more widespread (weaker and limited) appeal to respon-
dents. This is an interesting nding because according to
prior research (Hofstede, 2001), individual-based incentives
should be less acceptable in a collectivist culture, such as
HK, since they are thought to cause detrimental effects to
group harmony and the cohesion of work groups. The
overwhelmingly strong (weak) perceptual link found for
individual (versus team) incentivesperformance may
stem from conditional factors other than culture, such as
the perception about the strength and clarity of the link
between individual (versus team) performance and reward
(Porter and Lawler, 1968) or distributive justice (Sweeney
and McFarlin, 1993).
Gender and position comparisons revealed both simila-
rities and differences in terms of the perceived reward
performance linkages (H2a2b). Overall, gender
differences were not pronounced. For example, both
female and male employees were quite similar in the way
they perceived the relationships between non-nancial
rewards and the performance dimensions. There were
some exceptions, however. Opposite to that hypothesized,
female employees tended to exhibit a higher nancial
orientation than their male counterparts, who perceived a
stronger job interestperformance relationship.
In terms of position, signicant differences emerged. As
hypothesized, nancial rewards possessed a broad appeal
to non-managerial in comparison to managerial employees.
For managerial employees, non-nancial rewards, espe-
cially those of intrinsic nature, appeared to have a stronger
effect on various performance dimensions. In general,
managers were more concerned with job-related rewards,
such as interest in the job, responsibility and power. These
ndings support the notion that employees higher up the
organizational hierarchy are more intrinsically-oriented,
whereas lower level employees are more instrumentally-
oriented. As our results demonstrated, the relationships
between basic salary increase, tips, and time-off and
various performance dimensions were stronger for
non-managerial employees. By contrast, the linkages
between job interest, recognition, responsibility, and
training and development opportunities and performance
were stronger for managerial employees. Interpreting these
results in light of needs theory (e.g. Maslow, 1954),
managerial employees are more likely to be motivated by
higher-order needs, i.e. self-growth and esteem/recognition,
whereas non-managerial employees are motivated more by
lower-order needs, i.e. basic salary increase and time-off.
Since managers and non-managers perceive the perfor-
mance implications of rewards quite differently, it is risky
for organizations to use a homogenous approach when
rewarding employees at different levels in the organiza-
tional hierarchy. Therefore, position-related differences
were much more apparent than those associated with
gender.
5.2. Implications
The present study offers some important implications for
theory and practice. As the agency view holds, rewards
play a signicant role in aligning the interests of employees
with those of the organization. We extend this perspective
by demonstrating that, in addition to nancial rewards,
non-nancial rewards may be benecial to the achievement
of different dimensions of employee performance. More
specically, we suggest that nancial rewards have
signicant performance implications for task behaviors,
whereas a mix of nancial and non-nancial rewards is
benecial to the achievement of extra-task behaviors. In
this sense, corporate citizenship and pro-social behavior
can be enhanced through the use of non-nancial rewards
as well. In terms of lessons for practice, our ndings imply
that organizations cannot over-generalize the perceived
motivational strength and effectiveness of a reward and
apply it uniformly to all situations. Rather, it is vital for
companies to monitor employee perceptions of and
reactions to different rewards to ensure that they stimulate
the desired behavior. To enhance the motivational impact
of a reward, organizations must therefore understand the
perceived performance implications of the reward instru-
ment. For hotels, this may include utilizing a range of non-
nancial rewards to achieve extra-task behaviors, such as
going beyond the call of duty when serving customers and
providing spontaneous exceptional service, and other
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
F.F.T. Chiang, T.A. Birtch / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 491503
forms of organizational citizenship or pro-social behaviors
essential to accomplishing organizational goals.
5.3. Limitations
There are several important caveats to this study that
deserve attention. A number of additional factors that
might inuence the rewardperformance relationship (e.g.
organizational characteristics and economic conditions)
should be considered in future work. For example,
employees working for smaller-sized hotels may not be
motivated by promotion. Similarly, during times of
economic recession (e.g. downsizing), employees may be
more concerned about job security. The results may also
reect the characteristics of an industry. The manufactur-
ing industry is likely to have a very different set of
performance goals than the service orientation found in the
hotel industry. Since public sector organizations are not
prot-oriented, their performance objectives and in turn
employees values may be quite different. Thus, although
our ndings provide some valuable insights into the
performance implications of a variety of reward instru-
ments, they may not be generalizable to other types of
industries and sectors. Understanding the inuence of such
factors may reveal additional insights into the reward
performance relationship.
6. Conclusion
The present study advances our understanding about the
effectiveness of various reward instruments in achieving
task and extra-task performance behaviors on several
fronts. First, we found that the perceived motivating values
of different types of rewards, both nancial and non-
nancial, were different. In this sense, certain rewards were
found to be more appropriate than others at achieving a
range of different performance dimensions. Second, we
found that characteristics, such as gender and position,
affected the perceived performance implications of various
rewards. Other characteristics and contextual factors also
warrant attention. Third, this research extends earlier
theoretical perspectives, such as agency and expectancy,
by demonstrating that non-nancial rewards can play a
fundamental role in an organizations reward infrastruc-
ture. Fourth, we offer some important implications to
practice. As this research conrms, rewards produce
differential effects on different performance behaviors
whether they be task or extra-task in nature. This nding
has especially important implications to the hotel industry
where it has become a business imperative that scarce
rewards are more effectively aligned with strategic prio-
rities, such as excellence in service. An intimate under-
standing of employee perceptions towards the
rewardperformance relationship is therefore required if
work behavior is to be inuenced. By doing so, organiza-
tions can better utilize rewards not only to satisfy employee
needs but also to simultaneously achieve employee
501
performance priorities, improve resource efciency, and
enhance customer service quality.
References
Agut, S., Grau, R., Peiro, J.M., 2003. Competency needs among mana-
gers from Spanish hotels and restaurants and their training
demands. International Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (3),
281295.
Akbaba, A., 2006. Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: a study
in a business hotel in Turkey. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 25 (2), 123.
Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.J., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent.
Strategic Management Journal 14, 3346.
Armstrong, M., 1996. Reward Management. Kogan Page, London.
Armstrong, M., Murlis, H., 2004. Reward Management: A Handbook of
Remuneration Strategy and Practice, fth ed. Kogan Page, London.
Ashforth, B.E., Mael, F., 1989. Social identity theory and the organiza-
tion. Academy of Management Review 14, 2039.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., 1991. The big ve personality dimensions
and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44,
126.
Bartol, K., Srivastava, A., 2002. Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role
of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organiza-
tional Studies 9, 6477.
Bateman, T.S., Organ, D.W., 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier:
the relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy
of Management Journal 26, 587595.
Bateman, T.S., ONeill, H., Kenworthy-U Ren, A., 2002. A hierarchical
taxonomy of top managers goals. Journal of Applied Psychology 87,
11341148.
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
among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service
behaviors. Journal of Retailing 73 (1), 3961.
Borman, W.C., Motowidlo, S.J., 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to
include elements of contextual performance. In: Schmitt, N., Borman,
W.C. (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, pp. 7198.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J., 2003. Strategy and Human Resource Management.
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Boyd, B.K., Salamin, A., 2001. Strategic reward systems: a contingency
model of pay system design. Strategic Management Journal 22,
777792.
Brief, A.P., Motowidlo, S.J., 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors.
Academy of Management Review 11, 710725.
Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A., Peter, J.P., 1993. Improving the measure-
ment of service quality. Journal of Retailing 69, 127138.
Brownell, J., 1994. Women in hospitality management: general managers
perceptions of factors related to career development. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 13, 101117.
Chiang, F., Birtch, T.A., 2005. A taxonomy of reward preference:
examining country differences. Journal of International Management
11, 357375.
Chiang, F., Birtch, T.A., 2007. The transferability of management
practices: examining cross-national differences in reward preferences.
Human Relations 60 (9), 12931330.
Chiu, S.F., Tsai, M.C., 2006. Relationships among burnout, job
involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of
Psychology 140, 517530.
Coff, R.W., 1997. Human assets and management dilemmas: coping with
hazards on the road to resource-based theory. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 22 (2), 374402.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2000. The what and why of goal pursuits:
human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry 11, 227268.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125, 627668.
Deckop, J.R., Mangel, R., Cirka, C.C., 1999. Getting more than you pay
for: organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance
plans. Academy of Management Journal 42, 420428.
Delery, J.E., Doty, D.H., 1996. Modes of theorizing in strategic human
resource management: tests of universalistic, contingency and cong-
urational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal
39, 802835.
Dewald, B., 2003. Tipping in Hong Kong restaurants. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 22 (3), 307319.
Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J., Makhijani, M.G., 1995. Gender and the
effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 117,
125145.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Agency theory: an assessment and review.
Academy of Management Review 14 (1), 5774.
Gerhart, B., Milkovich, G.T., 1990. Organizational differences in
managerial compensation and nancial performance. Academy of
Management Journal 33, 663691.
Henderson, R.I., 2003. Compensation Management in a Knowledge-
based World, ninth ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hofstede, G., 2001. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Beha-
viors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, second ed. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hunt, S.T., 1996. Generic work behavior: an investigation into the
dimensions of entry-level, hourly job performance. Personnel Psychol-
ogy 49, 5183.
Iverson, K., 2000. The paradox of the contented female manager: an
empirical investigation of gender differences in pay expectation in the
hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management
19, 3351.
Jackson, L.A., Gardner, P.D., Sullivan, L.A., 1992. Explaining gender
differences in self-pay expectations: social comparison standards
and perceptions of fair pay. Journal of Applied Psychology 77,
651663.
Janssen, O., 2001. Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear
relationships between job demands, and job performance and job
satisfaction. Journal of Management Journal 44, 10391050.
Johnson, R.A., Neelankavil, J.P., Jadhav, A., 1986. Developing the
executive resource. Business Horizon 29 (6), 2933.
Karatepe, O.M., Sokmen, A., 2006. The effects of work role and family
role variables on psychological and behavioral outcomes of frontline
employees. Tourism Management 27, 255268.
Kim, H.J., McCahon, C., Miller, J., 2003. Service orientation for contact
employees in Korean casual-dining restaurants. International Journal
of Hospitality Management 22, 6783.
Kessler, I., Purcell, J., 1992. Performance related pay: objectives and
applications. Human Resource Management Journal 2, 1633.
Komaki, J.L., 2003. Reinforcement theory at work: enhancing and
explaining what employees do. In: Porter, L.W., Bigley, G.A., Steers,
R.M. (Eds.), Motivation and Work Behavior. McGraw-Hill,
New York, pp. 95111.
Lawler, E.E., 2000. Rewarding Excellence: Pay Strategies for the
New Economy. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Lawler, E.E., Jenkins, G.D., 1992. Strategic reward systems. In: Dunnette,
M., Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, vol. 2. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 10091055.
Lee, Y.K., Nam, J.H., Park, D.H., Lee, K.A., 2006. What factors
inuence customer-oriented prosocial behavior of customer-contact
employees? Journal of Services Marketing 20, 251264.
Levesque, T., McDougall, G., 1996. Determinants of customer satisfac-
tion in retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing 14 (7),
1220.
Li, L., Leung, R.W., 2001. Female managers in Asian hotels: prole and
career challenges. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 13 (4), 189196.
Lucas, R., Deery, M., 2004. Signicant developments and emerging issues
in human resource management. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 23, 459472.
Lynn, M., 2003. Restaurant tips and service quality: a weak relationship
or just weak measurement. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 22 (3), 321325.
Mak, K.M., Akhtar, S., 2003. Human resource management practices,
strategic orientations, and company performance: a correlation study
of publicly listed companies. Journal of American Academy of
Business 2 (2), 510515.
Mamman, A., Sulaiman, M., Fadel, A., 1996. Attitudes to pay systems: an
exploratory study within and across cultures. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 7 (1), 101121.
Maslow, A.H., 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New
York.
Milkovich, G.T., Newman, M.J., 2005. Compensation, eighth ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Montemayor, E.F., 1996. Congruence between pay policy and competitive
strategy in high-performing rms. Journal of Management 22 (6),
889908.
Ng, C.W., Pine, R., 2003. Women and men in hotel management in Hong
Kong: perceptions of gender and career development issues. Interna-
tional Journal of Hospitality Management 22, 85102.
Organ, D.W., 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
behavior. In: Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L. (Eds.), Research in
Organizational behavior, vol. 12. JAI, Greenwich, CT, pp. 4372.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a
multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service
quality. Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 1240.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., 1991. Understanding
customer expectations of service. Sloan Management Review 39,
3948.
Pfeffer, J., 1994. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the
Power of the Work Force. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Pizam, A., Ellis, T., 1999. Customer satisfaction and its measurement in
hospitality enterprises. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management 11 (7), 326339.
Pizam, A., Thornburg, S.W., 2000. Absenteeism and voluntary turnover in
Central Florida hotels: a pilot study. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 19, 211217.
Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance.
Irwin Inc., Homewood.
Rajagopalan, N., 1997. Strategic orientations, incentive plan adoptions,
and rm performance: evidence from electric utility rms. Strategic
Management Journal 18, 761785.
Ross, G.F., 1995. Managementemployee divergences among hospitality
industry employee service quality ideals. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 14, 1124.
Schneider, B., Brown, D.E., 1993. The service organization: human
resource management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics 21,
3952.
Schneider, B., Hayes, S.C., Lim, B.C., Raver, J.L., Godfrey, E.G., Huang,
M., Nishii, L.H., Ziegert, J.C., 2003. The human side of strategy:
employee experiences of strategic alignment in a service organization.
Organizational Dynamics 32, 122141.
Slack, N., Chambers, S., Harland, C., Harrison, A., Johnston, R., 1998.
Operations Management. Pitman, London.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., Near, J.P., 1983. Organizational citizenship
behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology
68, 653663.
Sparrowe, R.T., Iverson, K.M., 1999. Cracks in the glass ceiling? An
empirical study of gender differences in income in the hospitality
industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23, 420.
Stajkovic, A.D., Luthans, F., 2001. Differential effects of incentive
motivators on work performance. Academy of Management Journal
44 (3), 580590.
Stredwick, J., 2000. Aligning rewards to organisational goalsa multi-
nationals experience. European Business Review 12 (1), 917.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage
and The Family 30, 558564.
Subich, L.M., Barrett, G.V., Doverspike, D., Alexander, R.A., 1989. The
effects of sex-role-related factors on occupational choice and salary.
In: Michael, R.T., Hartmann, H.I., Farrell, B.O. (Eds.), Pay Equity:
Empirical Inquiries. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Susskind, A.M., Borchgrevink, C.P., Kacmar, K.M., Brymer, R.A., 2000.
Customer service employees behavioral intentions and attitudes: an
examination of construct validity and a path model. International
Journal of Hospitality Management 19, 5377.
Sweeney, P.D., McFarlin, D.B., 1993. Workers evaluations of the ends and
the means: an examination of four models of distributive and procedural
justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 55, 2340.
Tajfel, H., Turner, H.C., 1985. The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In: Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of
Intergroup Relations. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, pp. 724.
Viswesvaran, C., 2001. Assessment of individual job performance: a
review of the past century and a look ahead. In: Anderson, N., Ones,
D.S., Sinangil, H.K., Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial,
Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 1. Sage Publications,
Beverley Hills, CA.
Zacarelli, H.E., 1985. Is the hospitality-foodservice industry turning its
employees onor off? The manager makes the decision. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 123124.
Zingheim, P.K., Schuster, J.R., 1995. Moving one notch north: executing
the transition to new pay. Compensation and Benets Review 27,
3339.