Content uploaded by Muhammad Shakil Ahmad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Muhammad Shakil Ahmad on May 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Review of Business Research Papers
Vol. 5 No. 4 June 2009 Pp.270-279
The Impact Of Reward And Recognition Programs On
Employee’s Motivation And Satisfaction:
An Empirical Study
Reena Ali1 and M.Shakil Ahmed2
Objective-This study highlighted “the impact of reward and recognition
programs on employee’s motivation and satisfaction” Methodology-The
study was conducted from October till December; 2008 the Sample
chosen for the study is 80 employees of UNILEVER companies
Results-The factors affecting satisfaction were identified; payment
(0.86**), promotion (0.74**), working condition (0.61**), personal(0.37*)
as Analysis showed immense support for positive relationship between
REWARD and EMPLOYEE SATISFICTION. All these results are
statistically significant thus providing rigor and generalizability in
research. Conclusion-This exploratory study suggests for the positive
relationship between reward and satisfaction
Key Words: HRM, Motivation, Satisfaction
Field of Research: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT.
1. Introduction
In order for an organization to meet its obligations to shareholders, employees
and society, its top management must develop a relationship between the
organization and employees that will fulfill the continually changing needs of both
parties. At a minimum the organization expects employees to perform reliably the
tasks assigned to them and at the standards set for them, and to follow the rules
that have been established to govern the workplace. Management often expects
more: that employees take initiative, supervise themselves, continue to learn new
skills, and be responsive to business needs. At a minimum, employees expect
their organization to provide fair pay, safe working conditions, and fair treatment.
(Beer, Spector, Lawrence, Mills, & Walton, 1984). Traditionally most reward and
recognition programmes were vague and often given in response to a manager’s
1 Reena Ali, student BSBA Hons, Comsats Institute of Information Technology, reena_ali@hotmail.com
2 Mr. Shakil Ahmad, Lecturer, Comsats Institute of Information Technology, onlyshakil@gmail.com
Ali & Ahmed
271
perception of when an employee performed exceptionally well. There were
usually no set standards by which exceptional performance could be measured,
and it could have meant anything from having a good attitude, assisting another
department, or being consistently punctual. In current organizational settings this
is no longer the case, as organizations understand the great gains derived by
linking rewards and recognition to their business strategy (Flynn, 1998)
2. Literature Review
There is a large body of literature, including research literature, on rewards and
recognition programmes. Many of the studies focus on the effects of rewards on
task interest and performance and are found in the literature concerned with
motivation: both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In intrinsically motivated
behavior there is no reward except with the task itself. Reward and recognition
programmes come within the discussion on extrinsically motivated behavior that
occurs when an activity is rewarded by incentives not inherent in the task (Deci,
1971). Many contemporary authors have also defined the concept of motivation.
Motivation has been defined as: the psychological process that gives behavior
purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a tendency to behave in a purposive
method to achieve specific, unmet desires (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995);
an inner force to gratify an unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994); and the will to
accomplish (Bedeian, 1993). For this paper, motivation is operationally defined
as the inner force that drives individuals to achieve personal and organizational
goals.
Understanding what motivates employees is one of the key challenges for
managers. Although it is not possible directly to motivate others, it is nonetheless
important to know how to influence what others are motivated to do, with the
overall aim of having employees identify their own welfare with that of the
organization (Bruce and Pepitone, 1999). In general terms rewards programmes
come within the overall concept of compensation strategies which are defined as
the “deliberate utilization of the pay system as an essential integrating
mechanism through which the efforts of various sub-units or individuals are
directed towards the achievement of an organization’s strategic objectives”
(Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992). They are management tools that hopefully
contribute to a firm's effectiveness by influencing individual or group behavior
(Lawler and Cohen, 1992). All businesses use pay, promotion, bonuses or other
types of rewards to encourage high levels of performance (Cameron and Pierce,
1977).
At a minimum, employees expect the organization to provide fair pay, safe
working conditions, and fair treatment. Like management, employees often
expect more, depending on the strength of their needs for security, status,
involvement, challenge, power, and responsibility. Just how ambitious the
expectations of each party are vary from organization to organization. For
Ali & Ahmed
272
organizations to address these expectations an understanding of employee
motivation is required (Beer et al., 1984). Carnegie (1975) emphasizes the
human aspects of management. They postulate that as it is people who make a
business succeed – or fail – it is the organization’s chief responsibility to motivate
their people so that they will assure success. The authors believe that each
human being has the potential for creativity and for achieving goals. The infinite
question is how organizations reach this potential and how they stimulate
creativity and foster in their people the desire to succeed and to achieve self-
fulfillment through their work. The common theme of the above authors is the
belief that people need to be respected and treated as precious human capital,
more essential to an organization’s effectiveness than its financial capital. People
are now seen as the primary source of a company’s competitive advantage.
Therefore, the way people are treated increasingly determines whether an
organization will prosper or even survive (Lawler, 2003). Organizations are under
constant pressure to enhance and improve their performance and are realizing
that an interdependent relationship exists between organizational performance
and employee performance. In the following section the focus will be on the
motivational theories and the impact that these theories have on enhancing
employee performance.
3. Methodology
The sample study used tells the variability and reliability of the biographical data
of the respondents. The procedure used to gather data is the hypotheses and the
statistical techniques used to analyze the data
3.1 Data Collection Instrument
For the purpose of this study a quantitative methodology was followed and a
questionnaire was used as the measuring instrument. The data gathering
techniques used included a biographical questionnaire and the Work Satisfaction
and Motivation Questionnaire as set out by De Beer (1987).
3.2 Biographical Questionnaire
The biographical questionnaire was a self-developed questionnaire that
incorporated the following personal information of the respondents, gender,
home language, marital status, age, race, job classification, education,
qualifications, job grade and tenure.
3.3 Work Satisfaction And Motivation Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of nine dimensions that impact employee
Ali & Ahmed
273
satisfaction and motivation.
3.4 The Nine Dimensions Of The Questionnaire
According to De Beer (1987) the nine dimensions are as follows:
1. Work content probed the respondents’ feelings about the type of work they
do.
2. Payment probed respondents’ satisfaction with their salaries.
3. Promotion probed for the opportunity that the organization offers for
promotion.
4. Recognition probed whether the respondent was receiving the recognition
and feedback for the jobs they perform.
5. Working conditions were probed as the fifth factor and looked at opportunity
to mix with colleagues and interpersonal relations.
6. Benefits looked at whether the benefits such as pension, medical schemes
and leave were satisfactory.
7. Personal probed the respondents’ feelings towards their job.
8. Leadership or supervision probed the level of satisfaction with the manager.
9. General probed if the respondents’ had considered alternative employment,
and hence their level of satisfaction with the organization.
4. Reliability And Validity Of The Questionnaire
“Reliability refers to the consistency or dependability of a measuring instrument.
Validity, on the other hand, refers to the extent to which a measurement
procedure actually measures what it is intended to measure rather than
measuring something else, or nothing at all” (Leary, 2004, p. 69). De Beer (1987)
conducted an item analysis to evaluate the inter-item consistency of the Work
Motivation and Satisfaction Questionnaire. This provides an indication of the
consistency of responses to all the items delineated in a measuring instrument.
The Cronbach-Alpha reliability coefficients for the subsections of the Work
Satisfaction and Motivation are as follows: Work content (r = 0.78), payment (r =
0.86), promotion (r = 0.84), recognition (r = 0.90), working conditions (r = 0.77),
benefits (r = 0.84), my leader/supervisor (r = 0.72), general (r = 0.75).
Prinsloo (1996) determined the internal consistency of the Work Motivation and
Satisfaction Questionnaire by computing the coefficient alphas, conducting an
item analysis and factor analysis. Prinsloo (1996) reported a coefficient alpha
that is consistently high, ranging from .82 to .93, with a median of .90 for the
instrument. The results of the item analysis also indicated that each item had a
positive correlation with the total score for the Work Motivation and Satisfaction
Questionnaire, with the average correlations ranging from a low of .42 to .74, with
a median correlation of .64. This suggests that the 43 items of the Work
Motivation and Satisfaction Questionnaire are relatively homogenous with
respect to the underlying attitude construct they measure (Prinsloo, 1996).
Similarly, the results of the factor analysis corroborate findings indicating that the
Ali & Ahmed
274
items are measuring a single common underlying construct (Prinsloo, 1996).
According to Prinsloo (1996), the reliability of this instrument is determined with
the aid of the SPSSX-programme in conjunction with Cronbach coefficient-alpha.
The calculated coefficient-alpha is 0.82, which suggests a strong positive item-
homogeneity in this measuring instrument. This signifies as an indication of test
reliability.
4.1 Procedure and Statistical Methods
80 questionnaires were distributed among the employees out of whom 65 were
responded appropriately giving an 85% response which is acceptable to make
this study rigorous and generalizable. The obtained data is analyzed through
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. The statistical
methods involved those of descriptive (mean and standard deviation) and
inferential statistics (Pearson Correlation) for the predictors of motivation and
satisfaction of employees.
5. Results
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for the dimensions of work motivation and
satisfaction
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Work Content 1.53 .69
Payment 2.57 .65
Promotion 2.10 .62
Recognition 2.88 .62
Working Conditions 1.34 .72
Benefits 1.86 .63
Personal 1.23 .64
Leader/Supervisor 1.42 .69
General 1.32 .54
• Where high variables correspond to high motivation
Ali & Ahmed
275
With respect to the dimensions of work motivation assessed by the work
motivation and satisfaction questionnaire, Table 1 indicates that the means for
the work content, payment, promotion, recognition, working conditions, benefits,
personal, leader/supervisor and general ranged from a low of 1.32 to a high of
2.88. It therefore appears that staff in the sample is relatively motivated;
however, the mean values for payment, promotion, recognition and benefits were
the lowest. These mean values indicate the areas that employees were most
likely to be demotivated and dissatisfied
Table 1 thus shows that staff in the sample is most likely to be motivated due to
their working conditions, personal and general dimensions. They are least
motivated by the payment they receive and recognition as determined by the
Work Motivation and Satisfaction Questionnaire
Table 2
Dimension Correlations rewards and satisfaction
Work Motivation and Satisfaction
Variable Pearson correlation Significance (2-tailed)
Work Content 0.66** 0.000
Payment 0.86** 0.000
Promotion 0.74** 0.000
Recognition 0.92** 0.000
Working Conditions 0.61** 0.000
Benefits 0.65** 0.000
Personal 0.37 * 0.000
Leader/Supervisor 0.32 * 0.023
General 0.34 * 0.005
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The results indicate that work content correlates significantly with work motivation
and satisfaction (r = 0.66, p < 0.01). This supports the hypothesis that there is a
significant relationship between work content and work motivation and
satisfaction. A significant correlation is shown to exist between payment and
work motivation and satisfaction (r = 0.86, p < 0.01), supporting the hypothesis
that there is a significant relationship between payment and work motivation and
satisfaction. There was also a significant relationship between promotion and
work motivation and satisfaction (r = 0.74, p < 0.01). Hence, this supports the
hypothesis that promotion opportunities are significantly related to work
motivation and satisfaction.
Ali & Ahmed
276
A significant correlation also exists between recognition and work motivation and
satisfaction (r = 0.92, p < 0.01), supporting that recognition is significant in
explaining the variance in work motivation and satisfaction. There was a
significant relationship between working conditions and work motivation and
satisfaction (r = 0.61, p < 0.01). Hence, the hypothesis that there is a relationship
between working conditions and work motivation and satisfaction is supported.
There was a significant relationship between benefits and work motivation and
satisfaction (r = 0.65, p < 0.01), supporting the hypothesis that benefits are
significant in explaining work motivation and satisfaction.
A significant correlation was found to exist between the dimension of personal
and work motivation and satisfaction (r = 0.37, p < 0,05). There was a significant
relationship between leader/supervisor and work motivation and satisfaction (r =
0.32, p < 0.05) as well as between general and work motivation and satisfaction
(r = 0.34, p < 0.05). The results indicate that for the Interco relation matrix
exploring the relationship between the dimensions of the Work Satisfaction and
Motivation Questionnaire, that all the coefficients were positive. The results
depicted in Table indicate that there is a significant statistical relationship
between the dimensions of work motivation and satisfaction. Accordingly, the null
hypothesis is rejected.
Table 3
The relationship between rewards, recognition and work motivation and
satisfaction
Work satisfaction and Motivation
Rewards 0.86 **
Recognition 0.92**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
There is a statistically significant, direct and positive relationship between
rewards and work satisfaction and motivation (r = 0.86, p < 0.01). Hence, if
rewards offered to employees were to be altered, then there would be a
corresponding change in work motivation and satisfaction. The coefficient of
determination, (R - squared = 0 .74), implies that 74% of the variation in work
motivation and satisfaction of the sample can be attributed to rewards received,
which implies that the remaining 26% can be explained by other factors not
considered. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant, direct and
positive relationship between recognition and work satisfaction and motivation (r
= 0.92, p < 0.01). This implies that if the recognition accorded to employees were
to change, there would be a change in work motivation and satisfaction. The
coefficient of determination, (R - squared = 0.60), implies that 60% of the
variation in work motivation and satisfaction of the sample can be attributed to
recognition, while the remaining 40% can be attributed to other variables which
were not explored in the current research.
Ali & Ahmed
277
5.1 Multiple Regression Analysis
On the basis of the results obtained indicating a direct positive relationship
between the dimensions of work satisfaction and motivation, all the dimensions
of the instrument were assessed using multiple regression analysis to ascertain
the extent to which they explain the variance in work satisfaction and motivation.
Table 4
Stepwise Regression: Dependent variable (work motivation and
satisfaction)
Multiple Regression 0.93942
R squared (R2) 0.84276
R squared (Adjusted R2) 0.71404
Standard error 3.43232 F = 16.59 Sig. F = 0.00**
Variables in the equation B SE for B T P
Work Content -2.9645 1.1857 2.36 0.03*
Payment -1.5234 0.2863 5.32 0.00**
Promotion -0.6828 0.2903 3.65 0.00**
Recognition -2.6846 1.1857 2.48 0.00**
Working conditions -1.2534 0.2863 1.34 0.00**
Benefits -0.5856 0.2903 1.65 0.00**
Personal -3.5535 0.1452 1.79 0.00**
Leader / supervisor -2.2338 1.7683 1.43 0.00**
General -2.1045 0.1564 1.33 0.00**
The results shown in Table 4 indicate a relatively high percentage of the variation
in work motivation and satisfaction can be explained by the variables entered in
the equation (R - squared = 84.27%; R- squared (adjusted) = 71.4%). Thus 71%
of the variance in work motivation and satisfaction can be explained by work
content, payment, promotion, recognition, working conditions, benefits, personal,
leader/supervisor and general dimensions. The F-ratio of 16.59 (p < 0.01)
indicates the regression of work motivation and satisfaction on the dimensions
assessed, expressed through the adjusted squared multiple (R - squared (adj.) =
71.40%) is statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. These
variables account for 71% of the variance in work motivation and satisfaction.
This finding suggests that other unexplored variables could account for the other
variance in work motivation and satisfaction.
Ali & Ahmed
278
6. Recommendations For Future Research
Current literature on rewards and recognition has not sufficiently dealt with the
issues of diversity and the impact that it could have on the motivation and
satisfaction levels of different people. Therefore, further research on the impact
of reward and recognition on motivation and satisfaction for diverse groups of
people could be beneficial to organizations. Research should focus on the broad
spectrum of diversity categories including, race, gender, disability, etc., but apart
from race and gender, factors such as age and tenure should also be
investigated. The results of such studies could yield some interesting findings
and could also significantly impact the delivery of meaningful rewards and
recognition to diverse groups of people. According to La Motta (1995, p. 6),
“motivation is simply the reason individuals have for doing the things they do
when and how they do them.” In day-to-day society many different things
motivate people, and that which motivates one person may not necessarily
motivate another. This supports the view that a “one size fits all” approach to
rewards and recognition will not be sufficient to motivate people who are
inherently different, due to their personality characteristics, but also due to
cultural characteristics. Further studies could also incorporate qualitative
research as the present study only used quantitative research methodology.
7. Conclusion And Recommendation
This chapter has focused on the presentation of results achieved in this study.
Pearson’s product moment correlation was used to indicate relationships and
differences in the dimensions of work motivation and satisfaction based on the
sample used in the study and more specifically to indicate differences in rewards
and recognition (as components within the work satisfaction and motivation
questionnaire). The results in reflect that there is a statistically significant
relationship between reward and recognition respectively, and motivation and
satisfaction. The study revealed that if rewards or recognition offered to
employees were to be altered, then there would be a corresponding change in
work motivation and satisfaction. The results of this study also indicated that
employees were less motivated by rewards and recognition than some of the
other dimensions of the Work Satisfaction and Motivation Questionnaire. By
implication, this means that if more focus is placed on rewards and recognition, it
could have a resultant positive impact on motivation and thus result in higher
levels of job performance. Given the case study nature of this investigation,
results of findings may be specific only to the Operation business unit and may
not be generalized to the other business units within the organization, or to other
similar business units outside of the organization. However, the business unit
could use the outcomes of the research study to revisit its current reward and
recognition programmes and in particular focus on addressing the needs of
diverse groups of people within the business unit.
Ali & Ahmed
279
8.0 Reference
Beer, M., Spector, B., Lawrence, P.R., Mills, D.Q., & Walton, R.E. 1984.
Managing human assets. New York: The Free Press.
Carnegie, D. 1987 Managing through people. New York: Dale Carnegie &
Associates, INC.
De Beer, M.J. 1987 'n Ondersoek na die rol wat arbeidsomset in die bedryf speel
met spesifieke verwysing na werkbevrediging en werksmotivering.
Unpublished master’s dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Flynn, G. 1998. Is your recognition program understood? Workforce, 77(7), 30-
35.
La Motta, T. 1995. Recognition: The quality way. New York: Quality Resources.
Lawler, E.E. 2003. Treat people right. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Leary, M.R. 2004. Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods. USA: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Prinsloo, I. 1996. Die effek van regstellende aksie op die werkmotiveering van 'n
groep swart administratiewe werkers. Unpublished master’s dissertation,
University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. 1992. Organizational Behavior (2nd Ed.).
USA: Richard D. Irwin Inc.
