Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY: APPLIED
BUSINESS AND EDUCATION RESEARCH
2022, Vol. 3, No. 5, 919 – 934
http://dx.doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.03.05.18
How to cite:
Bongalonta, M. B. & Bongalonta, M. M. (2022). Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based
Bonus (PBB) System in State Universities and Colleges (SUCS) in Bicol, Philippines. International Journal of
Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research. 3 (5), 919 – 934. doi: 10.11594/ijmaber.03.05.18
Research Article
Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB)
System in State Universities and Colleges (SUCS) in Bicol, Philippines
Michael B. Bongalonta*, Michelle M. Bongalonta
Sorsogon State College Bulan Campus
Article history:
Submission May 2022
Revised May 2022
Accepted May 2022
ABSTRACT
This study examined the relationship between job satisfaction and organ-
izational commitment among SUC faculty members and their perception
of the PBB system. It also explored the underlying issues in the PBB sys-
tem and how it could be improved. Mixed design method of research was
used. It was found that the faculty members’ perception of the PBB sys-
tem directly affects their job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment. Addressing issues in the PBB system becomes urgent given the pre-
vailing wariness and lack of confidence among faculty members towards
the way the PBB system is being implemented.
Keywords: Performance-based bonus system, Job satisfaction, Organiza-
tional commitment, PBB forced-ranking system, Fairness,
Transparency, Utility of performance appraisal, Effectiveness
of performance appraisal, Employees’ involvement, Adequacy
of rewards.
*Corresponding author:
E-mail:
michaelbonga-
lonta27@gmail.com
Introduction
The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) Sys-
tem is an incentive introduced by the Philip-
pine government through the Performance-
Based Incentive System (PBIS) under the gov-
ernment’s strategic performance management
system (CSC, 2016). This is a “top-up incentive
given to government personnel based on their
individual contribution to the accomplishment
of their respective agency’s performance tar-
gets” (DepEd, 2016). It aims to instill a culture
of excellence in serving the public thru the bu-
reaucracy and to improve the delivery of public
goods and services to all Filipinos.
As stated in the PBB implementing guide-
lines, all government agencies that achieved at
least 90% of each of their respective targets for
a given fiscal year shall “force rank” their re-
spective offices or delivery units into three per-
formance categories: best, better, and good. In
turn, the offices or delivery units shall then
“force-rank” their individual employees into
similar categories (CSC, 2016). Thus, the PBB
that an employee will receive is primarily de-
pendent on the performance category of the of-
fice or delivery unit where he or she belongs
and not entirely on their individual contribu-
tion or performance. The purpose of this kind
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 920 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
of system is to foster a culture of teamwork
within each of the offices or delivery units.
The implementation of the PBB system rep-
resents a substantial investment by the na-
tional government on one of its important re-
sources, its employees, who are at the frontline
in the delivery of public services. This critical
role of employees brings about the need on the
part of government to ensure that they remain
productive, satisfied, and committed to their
job in the organization. One of the means to
achieve this is by investing on a reward system.
The wealth of literature that link incentives
to employees’ satisfaction, commitment, moti-
vation, and productivity manifests that a re-
ward system is an important component of any
organization. As far as 1911, Frederick Taylor
and his scientific management theory de-
scribed money as the leading influence in moti-
vating employees and, therefore, promoted the
formation of incentive wage systems in order
to encourage personnel to achieve higher per-
formance, commitment, and job satisfaction.
Subsequent and more recent studies (Saleem,
2011; Majoor, 2012; Osa, 2014) also provided
evidence confirming that performance-based
monetary rewards or incentives positively
affect employee productivity, job satisfaction
and organizational commitment.
The same applies to State Universities and
Colleges (SUCs). These government institutions
are mandated by law to deliver accessible and
high-quality education to the Filipino public.
Similar to other organizations, SUCs fundamen-
tally require a workforce that possesses a high
degree of motivation, job satisfaction, and or-
ganizational commitment in order to success-
fully carry-out their mandate, hence, its inclu-
sion in the government’s PBB system.
Nevertheless, the implementation of the
PBB system in SUCs is not without issues par-
ticularly on the part of the employees. These is-
sues include, but not limited to, the improper or
inadequate communication of PBB implement-
ing guidelines which in turn results in confu-
sion and misinterpretations, perceived subjec-
tivity or unfairness in appraising and ranking
employees’ performance, perceived weak-
nesses and/or inconsistencies in evaluation in-
struments, tedious and time-consuming pro-
cesses, unavailability of funds, and
sluggishness in giving out the PBB (Torneo et
al., 2016). If not addressed adequately by man-
agement, these issues risk creating a negative
effect on employee productivity, job satisfac-
tion, and organizational commitment, which is
entirely contrary to what the PBB system orig-
inally intends to achieve.
Objectives of the Study
This study was conducted to examine the
faculty members’ perception of the PBB system
and its effects on the level of their job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment in the
context of State Universities and Colleges
(SUCs) in the Bicol Region. This research also
intended to identify the factors that faculty
members perceive to affect the PBB system and
the recommendations to improve its imple-
mentation.
Literature Review
Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
According to Boachie-Mensah (2011), per-
formance-based pay “refers to a process of
providing a financial reward to an individual
which is based on the individual, group or or-
ganizational performance (p. 271-272).” He de-
scribed that this is given to employees for per-
formance enhancement; however, this is not
limited to monetary incentives because non-fi-
nancial rewards in the form of recognition and
the like are also considered performance pay.
In the government, the Civil Service Com-
mission (2016) stated that the PBB utilizes a
forced ranking system in ranking its bureaus or
delivery units and the personnel within these
units. It states that in this system, the perfor-
mance of the delivery unit and the individual
contributions in achieving the department’s or
agency’s targets are the bases for incentives, as
reflected in their accomplishments report. It
also states that in granting the PBB, it is man-
dated that bureaus or delivery units will be
forced-ranked according to their accomplish-
ment of targets and will be categorized as best
bureaus (top 10 percent of ranked bureaus),
better bureaus (next 25 percent), good bureaus
(remaining 50 to 65 percent) and poor bureaus
(bureaus that failed to accomplish 90 percent
of their targets). It further states that the result
of which served as the basis of force ranking the
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 921 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
employees as best performers (top 10 percent
of ranked employees in a bureau), better per-
formers (next 25 percent), and good perform-
ers (next 65 percent), in which, the best per-
former from the best-performing unit or best
bureau will get a PBB of P35,000, the better
performer from a better bureau will get
P15,000. In contrast, the good performer from
a good bureau will get P5,000. However, it dis-
closes that individual employees who receive a
rating of below satisfactory under the annual
performance appraisal system of the Civil Ser-
vice Commission and those who belong to poor
bureaus will not be eligible to receive any
amount of PBB.
In the case of educational agencies such as
the Philippine High School of Arts (PHSA), per-
formance monetary incentives are given to in-
dividual personnel based on his/her expected
outputs to motivate higher performance and
ensure achievement of education targets and
commitments (CSC, 2016). In connection to this
provision, Digo (2013) has cited that the De-
partment of Budget Management National
Budget Circular (NBC) NO. 461, s.1998 has pre-
scribed the mandated functions of faculty
members engaged in advanced and higher edu-
cation and the corresponding requirements for
upgrading and promotion, such as compliance
with the Common Criteria for Evaluation (CCE)
points and the Qualitative Contribution Evalua-
tion (QCE) points. It was stated further that the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is-
sued the supplemental implementing guide-
lines that served as the procedural guidelines
on qualifying for PBB.
As per CSC (2016) provision, only govern-
ment employees of departments and agencies
of the National Government with a regular, con-
tractual and casual status who have an em-
ployer-employee relationship with these de-
partments and agencies and who have been in
the government service for at least four (4)
months as of November 30, 2012, may be cov-
ered by the PBIS. For SUCs, the implementation
shall be coordinated with the Commission on
Higher Education. Despite the availability of
the PBB guidelines, memoranda and provi-
sions, there were still issues in implementing
the PBB system. The preliminary findings of the
study conducted by Torneo et al. (2016) about
the PBIS revealed that there were issues with
its implementation such as inequality of PBB,
tedious and time-consuming procedure, no ad-
ditional personnel and resources, unverified al-
legations of doctored reports, issues on ranking
other staff together, and non-orientation of
some employees on the PBIS.
All types of organizations commonly imple-
ment this kind of reward system solely to boost
the performance of the employees, enhancing
the level of employees’ job satisfaction and se-
curing their commitment to the organizations.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is defined by Kodwani
(2012) as "a pleasurable or positive emotional
state, resulting from the appraisal of one's job
or job experience as a result of the employees'
perception of how well their job provides their
needs; this can be stated as the level to which
people like or dislike their jobs (p. 28)." He dis-
cussed that this represents the emotional reac-
tion of a person to a job situation arising from
work itself, salary, an opportunity for promo-
tion, supervision, and co-workers.
Likewise, Suma (2013) has indicated the
two aspects of job satisfaction particularly:
facet satisfaction and overall satisfaction. He
defines that "facet satisfaction refers to the ten-
dency for an employee to be more or less satis-
fied with various facets or aspects of the job
while overall satisfaction focuses on the gen-
eral internal state of satisfaction or dissatisfac-
tion within the individual (p. 43)." Relatedly, it
was highlighted by Huttu (2014) that the satis-
faction of the employees with the incentives
greatly affects their commitment and job satis-
faction.
As stated by Ismail (2012), job satisfaction
represents the "feelings or a general attitude of
the employees in relation to their work and its
components such as the working environment,
working conditions, equitable rewards, and
communication with the co-workers (p. 13-
14)." He articulated that the job satisfaction
level is directly proportional to a person's feel-
ings towards his job and colleagues. Larkin et
al. (2016) found out that "achievement, recog-
nition, the work itself, responsibility, and ad-
vancement are factors that contribute to job
satisfaction (p.28)."
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 922 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
On the other hand, Abugre (2013) pointed
out that higher rewards play a major role in
promoting the employees' job satisfaction and,
consequently, higher productivity in organiza-
tions. He confirmed a substantial relationship
between higher rewards and increased job sat-
isfaction of employees. Moreover, he stated
that increased job satisfaction relates to the
worker's enthusiasm which encourages work-
ers to perform efficiently and effectively. This
relates to the findings of the study conducted
by Majoor (2012), which revealed that "perfor-
mance-related pay is associated with different
types of satisfaction: overall satisfaction, satis-
faction with pay, satisfaction with job security,
and satisfaction with hours (p. 25)." Finally,
Younes (2012) mentioned that many organiza-
tions give substantial attention to assessing the
employees' attitudes focusing on their job sat-
isfaction. Hence, he likewise regarded that un-
derstanding the factors that influence employ-
ees' satisfaction is essential for managers to
motivate employees to perform and meet the
desired direction for the organization's effec-
tiveness.
Organizational Commitment
Tella et al. (2007) defined organizational
commitment as "a strong desire to remain a
member of a particular organization; a willing-
ness to exert high levels of efforts on behalf of
the organization and a defined belief in and ac-
ceptability of the values and goals of the organ-
ization (p. 6)."
This definition highlights the three dimen-
sions of commitment: membership affiliation,
team effort, and belief in organizational values.
This supports the findings of Watson (2010) re-
garding the concept of affective organizational
commitment, which represents the "willing-
ness of the employees to exert considerable ef-
fort on behalf of the organization and a strong
desire to maintain membership in the organi-
zation (p. 16)."
Additionally, Rizal (2014) has stated fur-
ther that organizational commitment repre-
sents a sense of identification, involvement,
and loyalty that employees express, showing
the condition where employees are very inter-
ested in the organization's goals, values, and
goals. However, he noted that the level of
employees' commitment means more than just
a formal membership because it includes a
strong desire to seek a high level of effort to
achieve the organization's goals. Suma (2013)
has elaborated on the different forms of com-
mitment using a "three-component model of
organizational commitment," which includes
the affective commitment, which emanates
from the emotional attachment of the employ-
ees to the institution, the continuance commit-
ment, which stems from the material and social
considerations of staying in the firm, and the
normative commitment manifesting the view
that staying in the entity is merely an obliga-
tion.
Correspondingly, Kanwar (2012) added
that organizational commitment refers to the
belongingness of an individual and affection in
a particular organization. He pointed out that it
is the "degree to which employees believe in
and accept organizational goals and desire to
remain with the organization (p. 29)." His study
affirmed that both men and women have simi-
lar sentiments towards organizational commit-
ment and are equally contented with the com-
pany policies. Conversely, Ahmad (2015) has
emphasized the negative impact of employee
turnover on organizational effectiveness, such
as cost of the organization, disruption to oper-
ations, and membership demoralization. He
added that turnover of employees entails addi-
tional organizational costs due to termination,
advertising, recruitment, selection, and hiring;
thus, securing a commitment from the employ-
ees is imperative.
Srivastava (2013) found that job satisfac-
tion is related to organizational commitment.
He compounded that employees who are more
satisfied with their jobs are also more commit-
ted to their organization and that trusting the
employees makes them more committed to the
organization. Another study revealed a positive
and significant association between financial
incentives and employee commitment (Saleem,
2011), which means that a rise in monetary in-
centives such as promotion and bonuses en-
hanced employee commitment, increasing em-
ployee performance and reducing turnover.
Contrary to this result, Ismail (2012) found out
that there is no significant relationship be-
tween organizational commitment and job
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 923 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
satisfaction which means that regardless of
whether employees are committed or not com-
mitted to their current job, it does not affect the
level of their job satisfaction.
Reward System in Government or Public
Sectors
Torneo et al. (2016) has disclosed the is-
sues relating to the ineffectiveness of the PBB
system.
These include inequality of PBB seen by
some as unfair (e.g., all work for best rating but
some will get less), tedious and time-consum-
ing implementation, no additional personnel
and resources, unverified allegations of doc-
tored reports and issues on ranking different
staff together, and non-orientation of some em-
ployees on the PBIS.
The study on PBP within the education sec-
tor found that the effect on worker attitudes
and intrinsic motivation was negative and that
the employees generally perceive the imple-
mentation of PBP as unjust. The negative im-
pact of the PBB in the case of the public sector
is the result of low levels of organizational
trust, absence of transparency, trust, and lead-
ership credibility (Boachie-Mensah, 2011).
In addition, the finding of the study con-
ducted by Munzhedzi (2011) showed that the
Performance Appraisal System (PMS) did not
contribute to the improvement of productivity
of the DL in the Limpopo Province. Thus, it was
recommended that “there should be a regular
and thorough training of officials within the
DLGH about the PMS and how it influences
productivity and that the Departmental Moder-
ating Committee should demand verifiable evi-
dence to justify a higher rating during quarterly
assessments, and that punitive/disciplinary
measures be taken against those who do not
comply with the provision of the PMS policy,
particularly failure to submit performance in-
struments (p. 1).”
Ismail (2012) reported that public sector
managers and employees experienced lower
pay and job satisfaction levels. He reputes that
this arises from the fact that performance-re-
lated pay in the public sector consistently
breaks to carry on its promise. He added that
this failure is due to implementation break-
downs and as the result of the integral
institutional characteristics of public organiza-
tions, which are considered to inherently en-
cumber the effectiveness of financial incen-
tives.
Likewise, public institutions face budget re-
strictions and public expectations regarding
the responsible management of resources,
making it legally or politically unachievable to
offer sufficiently large bonuses (Belle, 2015).
Finally, the individual faculty performance rat-
ing cannot be predicted from their level of un-
derstanding of the PBIS or vice versa because
the faculty members’ performance rating is not
dependent on their level of understanding of
PBIS (Digo, 2013).
Effects of Performance-Based Bonus on
Employees
Many entities use diversified incentive pro-
grams to reward employees for past perfor-
mance and encourage or maintain high perfor-
mance in the future. Substantial investment in
pay for performance (PFP) by most organiza-
tions intends to ensure positive effects on em-
ployee motivation, productivity, and perfor-
mance (Park & Sturman, 2012).
According to Waqas (2014), rewards in-
clude monetary and non-monetary incentives.
Monetary enhances the direct satisfaction of
employees, and non-monetary rewards are
useful for the recognition of employees, and
that recognition is an inspirational tool for the
employees and leads to the work. He further
mentioned that financial rewards could boost
motivation, but non-monetary incentives are
more effective subjects because of the intrinsic
motivational impact on the workers, which
shows that intrinsically motivated workers
naturally enjoy their work or job. On the other
hand, as confirmed by Yazdanifard (2014), sal-
ary is one of the basic motivations for workers
to do their job, and that personal income is pos-
itively correlated to job satisfaction.” In fact, the
study of Taiwan R&D professionals in technol-
ogy sector found out that “monetary rewards
based on output have a positive association
with their work performance.
In connection to this, rewards manage-
ment is one of the basic instruments superiors
use to motivate their employees. Thus, to ob-
serve a diligent work performance, it should be
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 924 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
one of the major responsibilities of supervisors
to discover which specific reward is going to
motivate certain individuals. The effectual re-
ward system positively motivates workers to
bring their maximum effective output when re-
quired (Fatima, 2013). In the same way, em-
ployees’ salary affects their productivity and
their tendency to transfer employment to other
organizations. This implies that whenever the
“employees see that hard work and superior
performance is recognized and rewarded by
the organization, they will increase higher per-
formance with a hope to obtain a higher com-
pensation level” (Mintarti, 2014, p. 64).
In the case of Performance-Based Pay,
Boachie-Mensah (2011) stressed that employ-
ees will work harder if they value monetary re-
wards and believe that those awards will result
from their increased efforts. Reinforcement
theory posits a direct relationship between the
desired target behavior (e.g., performance) and
its consequences (e.g., pay). It suggests that pay
can create consequences for desired behaviors,
such as high performance that will reinforce
the behaviors.
Literature states that using a performance-
based pay scheme can increase employees’
productivity, effort, and earnings and that a
well-designed pay scheme results in individual
and organizational performance (Ahmad,
2015). Moreover, he added that an appropriate
communication process and disclosure of the
information about performance-based incen-
tives to employees and appropriateness of the
determination of the salary based on perfor-
mance appraisal systems might lead to in-
creased job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Vroom’s expectancy theory has
introduced other perspectives that affect em-
ployees’ behavior and performance, such “as
personality, skills, knowledge, experience, and
abilities.” Furthermore, this idea states that ef-
fort, performance, and outcomes are associated
with an individual’s motivation (Aydin, 2012).
In the same perspective, Mc Gregor’s The-
ory X and Y stresses the significance of strict su-
pervision, external rewards, penalties, and the
motivating role of job satisfaction. This theory
expounded that the degree of commitment to
goals equals the size of the rewards associated
with their accomplishment (Osa, 2014). How-
ever, agency theory assumes that the principal
can limit differences from his interest by estab-
lishing suitable incentives for the agent (Ma-
joor, 2012).
Outputs of The Study
The study provides SUCs and other imple-
menting agency administrators with relevant
information that could be used to further en-
hance the implementation of the PBB system to
benefit their employees and improve public
service delivery.
Owners and managers of private organiza-
tions may likewise gain insight from the study,
which they could use in examining and design-
ing performance-based incentive systems for
their employees. Educators and researchers
may similarly utilize the results of the study as
material for academic instruction and as a ref-
erence for future studies on a similar or related
topic.
Framework of the Study
This study modifies Adams’ Equity Theory
to explain the variables used in the current
study (Figure 1). This framework proposes the
notion that the perception of SUC faculty mem-
bers of the performance-based bonus (PBB)
system directly affects the level of their job sat-
isfaction and organizational commitment.
This means that the more that SUC faculty
members perceive equity between their
performance and the value of the performance-
based bonus they receive, the more they are
likely to become satisfied with their job and
committed to the organization. Otherwise, they
will become dissatisfied with their job and
disloyal to the organization.
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 925 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
Figure 1. Conceptual Paradigm
Performance-based bonus (PBB) system is
comprised of six conceptual domains: fairness,
transparency, the utility of the performance ap-
praisal system, effectiveness of performance
appraisals, employees’ involvement, and ade-
quacy of rewards. These domains are consid-
ered bases for employee perception as to how
successful an incentive system, i.e., the PBB sys-
tem, is implemented, directly affecting em-
ployee job satisfaction and organizational com-
mitment. For example, if an employee per-
ceives that an incentive system is fair, he or she
will likely become more satisfied and or com-
mitted to the job. On the other hand, if an em-
ployee perceives it to be unfair, he or she will
become less satisfied and or committed to the
job. Thus, successful implementation of an in-
centive system, in this case, the PBB system, re-
quires meeting these characteristics; other-
wise, it will diminish employee job satisfaction
and commitment.
Methodology
This study used a mixed design to examine
the relationship between the level of job satis-
faction and organizational commitment among
SUC faculty members and their perception of
the PBB system and explore from their point of
view the underlying issues and concerns con-
cerning the implementation of the PBB system
and the ways by which it could be improved.
The study was conducted in the Bicol Re-
gion involving six SUCs located in the provinces
of Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur,
Catanduanes, Masbate, and Sorsogon, respec-
tively. Only one SUC was selected from each
province. In cases wherein the SUC has several
branches, only the main campus was chosen. In
the case wherein more than one SUC was oper-
ating in the province, the study chose the oldest
SUC. The respondents of the study are com-
posed of permanent, contractual, and tempo-
rary SUC faculty members who have rendered
one-year government service and above. Based
on official records obtained from the Human
Resource Department of each identified SUC,
there was a total of 906 qualified faculty mem-
bers from which the study took a representa-
tive sample of 260 (C.I.=95%; M.E.=5%) for the
survey.
This study used structured survey ques-
tionnaires to facilitate the survey. The survey
questionnaire used consisted of four parts. The
first three parts are a modification of the in-
struments developed by Ismail (2012) to ob-
tain information regarding the respondents’
personal and professional background, level of
job satisfaction, and organizational commit-
ment. The modifications were made to suit the
context and respondents of the study. The last
section of the survey questionnaire was devel-
oped to determine the respondents’ perception
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 926 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
of the PBB system regarding fairness, transpar-
ency, the utility of the appraisal system, effec-
tiveness of performance appraisals, employees’
involvement, and adequacy of rewards. The
portion about the utility and effectiveness of
the PBB appraisal system was adopted from Ca-
padosa (2013). In general, the questionnaire
asked the respondents to rate statements about
a specific variable (e.g., job satisfaction, organi-
zational commitment, fairness) using a five-
point Likert scale. Focus group discussions
(FGDs) were conducted to primarily explore
underlying issues and concerns regarding im-
plementing the PBB system and how it could be
improved.
The data obtained from the survey were
summarized and analyzed using descriptive
and inferential statistics, while the data gath-
ered from the FGDs were transcribed and
coded to determine the emergent patterns with
regard to the implementation of the PBB
system and the ways by which it could be im-
proved.
Results and Analysis
This chapter presents the interpretation
and analysis of the data obtained from the sur-
vey and FGDs.
Job Satisfaction
SUC faculty members were highly satis-
fied with their job (M=3.84) (table 1). In the
case of SUCs, faculty members appear to derive
higher satisfaction from work itself (M=4.38),
the kind of relationship they have with their
peers at work (M=4.19) as well as their imme-
diate supervisor (M=4.09). This implies that
faculty members derive much satisfaction from
work itself because it contributes to their per-
sonal goals and that a smooth relationship that
they enjoy with their co-workers facilitates the
attainment of this goal.
Table 1. Level of job satisfaction of SUC faculty members, Bicol Region, 2016
Test Statements
Mean
Scores
I am satisfied with my job as a faculty member in this College / University.
4.38
I am satisfied with my co-workers in this College / University.
4.19
I am satisfied with my immediate dean and supervisor in this College / University.
4.09
I am satisfied with flexibility of working hours in this College / University.
3.97
I am satisfied with the administration of this College / University compared to
other organizations.
3.96
I am satisfied with the process of determining my salary increase in this College /
University.
3.91
I am satisfied with the loading system of the College / University.
3.87
I am satisfied with the process of the College / University in giving me opportunity
for advancements.
3.86
I am satisfied with the physical working environment of the College / University.
3.76
I am satisfied with the system of the College / University in giving me a promotion.
3.72
I am satisfied with the amount of performance-based bonus I received from the
College / University.
2.48
Average Mean Score
3.84
Note: 4.50-5.00 = Very High; 3.50-4.49 = High; 2.50-3.49 = Moderate;
1.50-2.49 = Low; 1.00-1.49 = Very Low
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 927 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
This finding can be linked to the study of Is-
mail (2012) that found out that job satisfaction
emanates from the feelings and general atti-
tudes of the employees in relation to their
work, the working environment as well as the
relationship and communication with their
colleagues which suggests “that a person with
a high level of job satisfaction holds positive
feelings about his or her job, while an unsatis-
fied person holds negative feelings towards his
colleagues.” In addition, the result appeared to
be consistent with the idea of Kodwani (2012)
that the level of job satisfaction “represents the
emotional response of a person to a job situa-
tion which stems from the work itself, supervi-
sion and co-workers.”
On the other hand, the actual amount which
they receive as PBB appear to be a source of rel-
atively lower satisfaction among SUC faculty
members (M=2.48). This suggests that the PBB
has minimal contribution to the overall satis-
faction that SUC faculty members feel towards
their job. In the worst case, one could reasona-
bly argue that based on the results, the PBB is a
likely source of dissatisfaction among faculty
members in SUCs.
This is because the amount of the PBB that
they receive is not comparable with the
bonuses received by their counterparts in the
private sector. This sense of dissatisfaction in-
fers that the PBB does not serve its basic pur-
pose of rewarding performing employees, and,
quite the contrary, it seems to discourage them.
The result is consistent with the finding of Is-
mail (2012) which disclosed that public em-
ployees experienced lower levels of job satis-
faction since performance-related pay in the
public sector consistently fails to deliver on its
promise.
Organizational Commitment
By and large, faculty members of SUCs in Bi-
col were highly committed to their organiza-
tion (M=4.07) (table 2). Moreover, the results
show that SUC faculty members appear to ex-
hibit a high level of affective commitment as
manifested by their willingness to spend the
rest of their career in their academic institution
(M=4.28) and work after office hours even if
without pay (M=4.26).
Table 2. Level of organizational commitment of SUC faculty members, Bicol Region, 2016
Test Statements
Mean Scores
I would be willing to spend the rest of my career as faculty member of this
College/University.
4.28
I am willing to work after office hour even if without pay.
4.26
I do feel like ‘part of family’ of this College/University.
4.23
This College/University has a ‘sentimental value’ to me.
4.10
I do feel 'emotionally attached' to this College/University.
4.09
I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to this College/University.
4.08
It would be very hard for me to leave this College/University, even if I wanted to.
3.97
I never thought to leaving this College/University even the condition of this is
not stable for this moment.
3.95
If I don’t get any increase in my take home pay, it’s alright for me.
3.89
If I get another offer for a better job elsewhere I would not feel it was right to leave
this College/University.
3.89
Average Mean Score
4.07
Note: 4.50-5.00 = Very High; 3.50-4.49 = High; 2.50-3.49 = Moderate;
1.50-2.49 = Low; 1.00-1.49 = Very Low
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 928 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
The respondents also feel a sense of belong-
ingness since they feel like they are part of a
family (M=4.23) to which they place a fair
amount of sentimental value (M=4.10) and a
deep sense of emotional attachment (M=4.09)
and loyalty (M=4.08).
This result suggests that SUC faculty mem-
bers have a strong emotional and psychological
attachment to their institution, which means
that they feel a strong sense of affection to-
wards their institution and that they are willing
to remain part of the school regardless of the
situation to continuously serve the government
and the interest of the students. Moreover, the
fact that faculty members scored the lowest in
normative commitment supports the notion
that their desire to stay and work for the school
largely stems from their emotional attachment
to the institution and less from the view that
doing so is merely an obligation. This is con-
sistent with the findings of Watson (2010) that
employees with a high level of affective com-
mitment have a willingness to exert considera-
ble effort on behalf of the group and a strong
desire to maintain membership in the organi-
zation.
Perception of SUC Faculty Members of the
PBB System
Table 3 shows that SUC faculty members
are neutral on their view with regards to the
PBB system (M=3.13).
Table 3. Perception of SUC faculty members of the PBB system, Bicol Region, 2016
Variables of the PBB System
Mean Scores
Utility of Performance Appraisal System in the PBB System
3.37
Effective Performance Appraisal in the PBB System
3.35
Transparency of the PBB System
3.24
Fairness of the PBB System
3.22
Adequacy of Rewards of the PBB System
3.13
Employees’ Involvement in the PBB System
2.49
Average Mean Score
3.13
Note: 4.50-5.00 = Strongly Agree; 3.50-4.49 = Agree; 2.50-3.49 = Neutral;
1.50-2.49 = Disagree; 1.00-1.49 = Strongly Disagree
However, in the survey, most of the SUC fac-
ulty members dissent that they were ever in-
volved in implementing the PBB system
(M=2.49). This finding suggests that the devel-
opment and implementation of the PBB system
in Bicol SUCs is basically treated as a manage-
ment function which indicates that SUCs do not
adopt a participatory management system in
Bicol in the implementation of the PBB system.
The Effect of Faculty Members’ Perception of
the PBB System on their Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment
This portion presents the information
about the effect of the faculty members’ per-
ception of the PBB system on their job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment. For this
purpose, correlation and linear regression
analyses were performed.
The resulting correlation coefficient be-
tween employee perception and job satisfac-
tion was .422 (p=.01), which indicates a signifi-
cant moderate, positive relationship between
the faculty’s perception of the PBB system and
job satisfaction (Table 4).
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 929 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
Table 4. Relation of faculty perception of the PBB system to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment
Job Satisfaction
Organizational Commitment
Pearson Correlation
.422**
.406**
Sig.(2-tailed)
.000
.000
N
260
260
Interpretation
Moderate
Moderate
** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
In turn, the correlation coefficient between
employee perception and organizational com-
mitment was .406 (p=.01), which also indicates
a significant moderate, positive relationship
between the faculty’s perception of the PBB
system and the organizational commitment
(Table 4).
These results suggest that the more SUC
faculty members perceive the PBB system to be
equitable, the more likely they will become sat-
isfied with their work and committed to the in-
stitution. Conversely, if the faculty members
perceive that the PBB system is less equitable,
it will likely diminish their job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.
In order to quantify the effect of each of the
domains presumed to comprise the faculty’s
perception of the PBB system with respect to
job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment, the employee scores for job satisfaction
and organizational commitment were re-
gressed separately against employee percep-
tion of the PBB system.
Table 5 shows the result of linear regres-
sion analysis wherein the level of employee job
satisfaction was regressed against the six do-
mains presumed to influence employee percep-
tion of the PBB system, namely: fairness, trans-
parency, the utility of the performance ap-
praisal system, effectiveness of the perfor-
mance appraisal system, employees’ involve-
ment, and adequacy of rewards.
Table 5. Regression analysis among independent variables and job satisfaction
Independent Variables
Coefficients, ϐ
Sig.
Std. Error
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
Constant
2.790
.000
.154
Fairness
.009
.861
.053
.461
2.167
Transparency
.210
.001**
.064
.333
3.005
Utility of PAS
.055
.477
.078
.248
4.031
Effective Performance Appraisal
.070
.330
.072
.287
3.482
Employees’ Involvement
.033
.432
.042
.605
1.652
Adequacy of Rewards
-.055
.281
.050
.561
1.783
F Value
11.236
R Square
.210
Adjusted R Square
.192
** Significant at the 0.01 level
The results show that of the six variables of
the PBB system, only one, i.e., transparency,
was found to significantly affect the level of job
satisfaction among SUC faculty members
(p=.001) (Table 5). The value and positive sign
of the coefficient for transparency (ϐ=.210)
suggest that a one-point increase in the degree
of transparency in which the PBB system is per-
ceived will increase the level of employee job
satisfaction by .210 points. In the case of SUCs,
increasing the degree of transparency would
both mean improving communication and dis-
closure of matters relevant to the PBB and in-
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 930 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
creasing employee involvement in the perfor-
mance targets and evaluation instruments for-
mulation.
On the other hand, Table 6 presents the re-
sults of a similar regression model but uses
organizational commitment as the dependent
variable.
Table 6. Regression analysis among independent variables and organizational commitment
Independent Variables
Coefficients, ϐ
Sig.
Std. Error
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance
VIF
Constant
3.012
.000
.164
Fairness
.081
.155
.057
.461
2.167
Transparency
.202
.003**
.067
.333
3.005
Utility of PAS
-.141
.089
.083
.248
4.031
Effective Performance Appraisal
.214
.005**
.077
.287
3.482
Employees’ Involvement
.036
.426
.045
.605
1.652
Adequacy of Rewards
-.059
.274
.054
.561
1.783
F Value
10.911
R Square
.206
Adjusted R Square
.187
Note: ** Significant at 95%.0 Confidence Interval
The regression analysis revealed that two
of the six variables of the PBB system, i.e., trans-
parency (p=.003) and effectiveness of perfor-
mance appraisal (p=.005), were found to have
a significant effect on the level of organizational
commitment among SUC faculty members (Ta-
ble 6). The value and the positive sign of the co-
efficient for transparency (ϐ=.202) suggest that
a one-point increase in the degree of transpar-
ency in which the PBB system is perceived will
increase the level of organizational commit-
ment among employees by .202 points.
In turn, the value and the positive sign of
the coefficient for the effective performance ap-
praisal (ϐ=.214) suggest that a one-point in-
crease in the degree by which the PBB ap-
praisal system is perceived to validly reflect in-
dividual employee performance will conse-
quently increase the level of organizational
commitment among employees by .214 points.
The collinearity statistics for each regres-
sion model exhibited high acceptable levels of
tolerance values which are comfortably above
the recommended minimum level of tolerance
value of .20 (Menard, 1995) as well as accepta-
ble levels of variance inflation factors (VIF)
which did not exceed the recommended maxi-
mum VIF value of 5. The tolerance and VIF val-
ues indicate no evidence of multicollinearity in
any of the variables in each regression model,
which could adversely affect their results.
The PPB System: Focus Group Discussion
with SUC Faculty Organization Officers
The following presents the results and dis-
cussions of the six FGDs which involved 42 of-
ficers of the different SUC faculty organizations
in the Bicol Region.
It highlights the factors affecting the imple-
mentation of the PBB system as well as the pos-
sible actions that could be taken to improve
them based on the personal observations and
experiences articulated by the FGD partici-
pants.
Factors Perceived by the Participants that
Affect the PBB System
Validity of PBB evaluation instruments.
The FGD participants maintained that the eval-
uation instruments used in the PBB system are
unreliable, inappropriate, and subjective. They
said that, as such, it forfeits the real purpose of
the PBB system since this does not actually re-
flect and consequently reward the actual per-
formance of SUC faculty members and other
employees. This then contributes to the wari-
ness that employees feel towards the PBB sys-
tem.
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 931 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
Transparency. The FGD participants main-
tained that information about individual fac-
ulty ranking, performance targets, and relevant
guidelines are not adequately disseminated to
SUC faculty members. They attributed this to
the lack of an effective information and com-
munication system in the SUCs.
They related that the PBB system is being
implemented in the SUC without proper con-
sultation and communication between the ad-
ministration and the faculty members. This di-
minishes employee confidence in the PBB sys-
tem.
Employee engagement. Closely related to
the issue of transparency is the involvement of
employees in the implementation of the PBB
system. The participants said that the employ-
ees have very limited participation, especially
in formulating the PBB instruments and setting
the PBB performance targets.
They pointed out that the audiences in
meetings and discussions regarding the PBB
did not entirely represent the employees. This
created the impression that implementing the
PBB system is more of a function of the SUC ad-
ministration and much less of the employees.
PBB Forced-Ranking System. FGD partici-
pants repeatedly raised the issue concerning
the ineffectiveness of the forced ranking sys-
tem in implementing the PBB system in Bicol
SUCs. They emphasized that the forced-ranking
system forfeits the purpose of the PBB rewards
system because of the unnecessary but inten-
tional adjustments to the actual employees’
performance. They stated further that the
PBB’s existing evaluation process ignores SUC
employees’ actual and tangible contributions to
achieving the performance targets.
Recommendations Given by the Participants
to Improve the PBB System
During the focus group discussions, SUC
faculty officers suggested reviewing and revis-
ing the existing PBB evaluation instruments to
increase validity since the existing PBB instru-
ment does not effectively measure the perfor-
mance of the employees, and it neglected the
actual contribution of the faculty members to
the performance targets. For this purpose, they
also suggested that inputs from relevant ex-
perts and external parties such as Accrediting
Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities
in the Philippines (AACCUP) and the Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization (ISO)
should also be considered.
Furthermore, FGD participants have sug-
gested that all decisions regarding the PBB sys-
tem should be made transparent by effectively
disseminating information and ensuring that
all the employees well understand these. The
FGD participants also recommended that the
involvement of employees in the course of im-
plementing the PBB system should be highly
encouraged. This is to solicit inputs or feedback
and obtain consensus from employees to avoid
or minimize conflicts or complaints. They ex-
plained that engaging employees in imple-
menting the PBB system, particularly in the for-
mulation of the PBB performance targets and
evaluation instruments, is the best way to make
the faculty members cognizant and supportive
of the PBB system. Last but equally important,
SUC faculty officers strongly recommend that
SUCs avoid, if not eliminate, the use of the
forced-ranking system in the implementation
of the PBB system to make it more effectively
address the needs of SUC employees for a more
equitable performance-based incentive.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Survey results show that SUC faculty mem-
bers in Bicol Region are highly satisfied with
their job. They appear to derive higher satisfac-
tion from the work itself and the kind of rela-
tionship they have with their peers at work and
with their immediate supervisor. However,
their experience with the PBB, particularly
with the “forced-ranking” scheme, appears to
be a possible source of job dissatisfaction. SUC
faculty members also appeared to exhibit a
high level of affective commitment, which ema-
nates from having a strong emotional and psy-
chological attachment to their institution ra-
ther than from material or social considera-
tions.
The survey revealed that SUC faculty mem-
bers were neutral in their views toward the
PBB system. This may be partially explained by
the faculty respondents' anxiousness about the
possible consequences of their responses.
However, the FGDs disclosed some concerns
evidencing the ineffectiveness of the SUC PBB
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 932 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
system, i.e., unfairness and ineffectiveness of
the performance appraisal due to the forced-
ranking system, lack of transparency, non-in-
volvement of SUC employees, and inadequacy
as well as irregularity of benefits in the imple-
mentation, which forfeits the original purpose
of the PBB system.
Moreover, there is quantitative and qualita-
tive evidence that the manner by which the PBB
system is implemented directly affects job sat-
isfaction and organizational commitment
among SUC faculty members. Specifically, the
evidence suggests that the degree to which SUC
faculty members perceive the performance ap-
praisal as valid and effective significantly af-
fects their organizational commitment. Addi-
tionally, the degree to which SUC faculty mem-
bers perceive the PBB system as transparent
directly affects their satisfaction with their job
and commitment to their institution.
Several factors and issues, i.e., the validity
of PBB evaluation instruments, transparency,
employees’ engagement, and the PBB forced-
ranking system, affect the implementation of
the PBB system, particularly in the case of SUCs
in the Bicol Region. Thus, addressing these is-
sues becomes urgent given the prevailing war-
iness and lack of confidence among faculty
members towards how the PBB system is being
implemented in their respective SUCs.
The study offers the following recommen-
dations to help address the issues in the PBB
system and for use in future related studies:
1. The government should review the existing
PBB system guidelines to make necessary
revisions to increase the validity of evalua-
tion instruments, transparency of the evalu-
ation process, and meaningful involvement
of the employees in this review process. For
this purpose, inputs from relevant experts
and external parties such as AACCUP and
ISO and the SUC “labeling” should also be
considered.
2. The government should consider revising
the PBB ranking system to ensure that all
the employees’ individual performances are
fully recognized and equitably rewarded.
3. SUCs should revisit their information and
communication plans to ensure that teach-
ing and non-teaching personnel are regu-
larly and clearly informed of matters re-
garding the implementation of the PBB, par-
ticularly concerning performance targets
and evaluation requirements. This is to
avoid or reduce confusion and complaints
and ensure organizational cohesion and col-
lective compliance.
4. The survey instrument used in the current
study to determine the perception of SUC
faculty members on the PBB system can be
further subjected to principal component
analysis and other tests of reliability to in-
crease its validity for the benefit of future re-
lated studies.
5. To improve the models used in the current
study, future investigators could add other
explanatory variables such as the types of
employees based on their motivation, em-
ployee’s perception of the PBB evaluation
criteria, classification of employees by rank
or position, among others, to improve the
explanatory power of the regression models
of the current study. Future researchers
would also benefit from using a larger sam-
ple to include various employees of SUCs,
i.e., non-teaching personnel, to address the
inherent limitation of this study.
6. Future research with a more in-depth ap-
proach could be conducted. They could in-
corporate non-monetary incentives, i.e.,
recognition, promotion, and appreciation,
hence, establishing a stronger relationship
between the reward system, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment.
References
Abugre, S. S. (2013). The influence of rewards and job
satisfaction on employees in the service industry.
The Business & Management Review,3(2), 30.
Ahmad, R. (2015). The mediating effect of organizational
justice in determining the relationship between
performances based pay and employees’ turnover
intention (A Research Propositions within the
Malaysian Context) . International Journal of
Contemporary Applied Sciences, 2(6),164-166.
Aydin, O. T. (2012). The impact of theory x, theory y and
theory z on research performance: An empirical
study from a Turkish university. International
Journal of Advances in Management and
Economics(1), 49.
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 933 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
Belle, N. (2015). Monetary incentives, motivation, and job
effort in the public sector: an experimental study
with Italian government executives. Review of
Public Personnel Administration,35(2), 101.
Boachie-Mensah, F. (2011). Performance-based pay as a
motivational tool for achieving organisational
performance: An exploratory case study.
International Journal of Business and
Management,6(12), 271-272.
Capadosa, P. B. (2013). The employees' perception of the
performance appraisal system of the local
government of Iloilo city, Philippines. [Master’s
thesis, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University], 1,3,6.
Civil Service Commission. (2016). PBIS Governance,
Policy and Prospective Developments. Retrieved
from http://www.gov.ph/pbb/faqs/.
Department of Education. (2015). DepEd Order 30.
Guidelines on the grant of performance-based
bonus (PBB) for the Department of Education
(DepEd) employees and officials. Retrieved from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/pbb/.
Digo, G. (2013). Faculty performance rating and its rela-
tion to the level of understanding on performance-
based incentive system. Sorsogon State College Re-
search Journal,2, 232-233.
Fatima, N.et al. (2013). Impact of rewards system on
teacher’s motivation: Evidence from the private
schools of Karachi. Journal of Education and Social
Sciences,1(1), 1-2.
Huttu, E. (2014). The effects of incentives on performance
and job satisfaction. Unpublished master’s thesis.
India: Tempere university of Technology,17.
Ismail, N. (2012). Organizational commitment and job
satisfaction among staff of higher learning education
institutions in Kelantan. Unpublished thesis.
Malaysia: Universiti Utara Malaysia
Kanwar, Y. P. S., Singh, A. K., & Kodwani, A. D. (2012). A
study of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and turnover intent among the IT and
ITES sector employees. Vision, 16(1), 27.
Kodwani, Y. K. (2012). A study of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and turnover intent
among the IT and ITES sector employees.
Vision,16(1) , 28.
Larkin, I. M., Brantley-Dias, L. & Lokey-Vega, A. (2016).
Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
turnover intention of online teachers in the K-12
setting. Online Learning,20(3), 28.
Majoor, M. (2012). The effect of incentive intensity on job
satisfaction. Master Thesis. Netherlands:
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Mintarti, R. (2014). Effect of compensation on motivation,
organizational commitment and employee perfor-
mance (studies at local revenue management in
Kendari city). International Journal of Business and
Management Invention,3(2), 64-75.
Munzhedzi, P.H. (2011). Performance management system
and improved productivity: A case of the department
of local government and housing in the Limpopo
province. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. South Af-
rica: University of South Africa
Osa, I. G. (2014). Monetary incentives motivates
employee's on organizational performance. Global
Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences,2(7),
63.
Park, S., & Sturman, M. C. (2012). How and what you pay
matters: the relative effectiveness of merit pay, bo-
nuses and long-term incentives on future job per-
formance. Compensation & Benefits Review, 44(2),
80-85.
Rizal, M. (2014). Effect of compensation on motivation, or-
ganizational commitment and employee perfor-
mance (studies at local revenue management in
Kendari city). International Journal of Business and
Management Invention,3(2), 66.
Saleem, S. (2011). The impact of financial incentives on
employees commitment. European Journal of
Business Management,3 (4), 259.
Srivastava, S. (2013). Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment Relationship: Effect of Personality
Variables. Vision, 17(2), 159-167.
Suma, S. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment: the case of Shkodra municipality
.European Scientific Journal,9 (17), 43.
Tella, A., Ayeni, C. O. & Popoola, S. O. (2007). Work moti-
vation, job satisfaction, and organizational commit-
ment of library personnel in academic and research
libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice,1(1), 6.
Torneo, A. R., Malbarosa, A. & Espiritu, L. et al. (2016,
October 29). The Performance-Based Incentives
System and its effects on DILG, CHED and DEPED.
http://www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/useruplo
ad/hrsympo/Perfor
mance-Based%20Incentives%20System-
Dr.%20Ador%20Torneo.pdf.
Waqas, Z. (2014). The effect of monetary and non-
monetary rewards on employee engagement and
firm performance. European Journal of Business and
Management,6(31), 73-75.
Watson T. (2010). Leader ethics and organizational com-
mitment. Undergraduate Leadership Review, 3(1),
16-26.
MB Bongalonta & MM Bongalonta, 2022 / Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and The Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) System
IJMABER 934 Volume 3 | Number 5 | May | 2022
Yazdanifard, R. (2014). The impact of positive
reinforcement on employees’ performance in
organizations. American Journal of Industrial and
Business Management,4, 9.
Younes, M. R. (2012). Job satisfaction and work
performance a case study of the American University
in Cairo. [Master’s thesis, The American University
in Cairo School of Global Affairs and Public Policy].