Introduction:
Kraft Foods Asia Pacific encouraged its sales teams to meet their targets by offering a prize – a gold chain – not to them, but to their wives or mothers.
H1: Along with the reward there are other major factors, which influence productivity/output/efficiency of employees. The intangible benefits/reward has stronger effect than the tangible benefits such as size/amount of reward. The relation between reward and performance becomes stronger when the reward is attached with a family member.
H2: Rewards in form of gifts are more effective than simple cash rewards.
H3: Performance will be better if the reward is associated with a family member, as we can correlate easily or imagine the intangible result of our endeavor from the degree of happiness of our family member or praise/feedback received from them.
H4: Family support makes a considerable impact on the performance. Employees with high performance have better family support than those with trouble in relations.
H5: Presenting gift vouchers (from M&S, Tesco & Amazon) which employees can use to buy their day to day requirements will have similar effect as it allows the family/spouse to perceive the benefits directly.
H6: This reward system suitable for jobs such as sales and marketing not for other functional groups such as finance and operations.
H7: This type of reward is more effective in countries such as India & China not in UK, Middle east.
H8: These kinds of gifts are more effective for young employees or couples as compared to old employees/couples.
On basis of expectancy theory which explains why people are motivated to work, perform, learn and change we will try to explore the above hypothesis.
DV: Performance
IV: Social partner/Family support
Organizations have the ability to reward individuals in many ways. Because they can vary both the kinds of rewards they give and the reasons for which they give them, organizations can draw from an almost infinite number of approaches to reward individuals. People don’t automatically come to work, continue to work, or work hard for an organization. They need to be motivated to take a job with a company, to come to work each day, to continue to work there, to learn, to perform efficiently, and to accept change. The most widely accepted explanation for why people are motivated to work, perform, learn and change is rooted in what psychologists call expectancy theory.
Organizations need reward systems that motivate performance, reward change, and encourage the development of individual and organizational capabilities and competencies.
Expectancy theory
For legal expectancy, seeExpectation damages.
Expectancy theory is about the mental processes regarding choice, or choosing. It explains the processes that an individual undergoes to make choices. Inorganizational behaviorstudy, expectancy theory is amotivationtheory first proposed byVictor Vroomof theYale School of Management.
Expectancy theory predicts that employees in an organization will be motivated when they believe that:
* putting in more effort will yield better job performance
* better job performance will lead to organizational rewards, such as an increase in salary or benefits
* these predicted organizational rewards are valued by the employee in question.
“This theory emphasizes the needs for organizations to relate rewards directly to performance and to ensure that the rewards provided are those rewards deserved and wanted by the recipients.”[1]
– Emphasizes self interest in the alignment of rewards with employee’s wants. – Emphasizes the connections among expected behaviors, rewards and organizational goals
Vroom’s theory assumes that behavior results from conscious choices among alternatives whose purpose it is to maximize pleasure and to minimize pain. Together with Edward Lawler and Lyman Porter, Vroom suggested that the relationship between people’s behavior at work and their goals was not as simple as was first imagined by other scientists. Vroom realized that an employee’s performance is based on individual factors such as personality, skills, knowledge, experience and abilities.
Victor H. Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theory which are valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentality (I). The three elements are important behind choosing one element over another because they are clearly defined: effort-performance expectancy (E>P expectancy), performance-outcome expectancy (P>O expectancy).
E>P expectancy: Our assessment of the probability our efforts will lead to the required performance level.
P>O expectancy: Our assessment of the probability our successful performance will lead to certain outcomes.
Vroom’s model is based on three concepts:[2]
1. Valence – Strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome. For the valence to be positive, the person must prefer attaining the outcome to not attaining it.
2. Instrumentality – Means of the first level outcome in obtaining the desired second level outcome; the degree to which a first level outcome will lead to the second level outcome.
3. Expectancy – Probability or strength of belief that a particular action will lead to a particular first level outcome.
Vroom says the product of these variables is the motivation.
In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie, managers should use systems that tie rewards very closely to performance. Managers also need to ensure that the rewards provided are deserved and wanted by the recipients.[3]In order to improve the effort-performance tie, managers should engage in training to improve their capabilities and improve their belief that added effort will in fact lead to better performance.[4]
Literature review:
Stephen J Perkins, Employee Reward: Contexts, Alternatives and Consequences
Michael Armstrong, A Handbook of Employee Reward Management and Practice
Michael Armstrong, Employee Reward (People & organisations)
John Shields, Managing Employee Performance and Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies
Bob Nelson, 1001 Ways to Reward Employees
Donna Deeprose, How to Recognize & Reward Employees: 150 Ways to Inspire Peak Performance
Dianna Podmoroff, 365 Ways to Motivate and Reward Your Employees Every Day: With Little or No Money
Donna Deeprose, How to Recognise and Reward Employees
David Sirota, The Enthusiastic Employee: How Companies Profit by Giving Workers What They Want
Methodology:
1. Questionnaires,
2. Personal interview with 20 employees of five different companies
3. Two focus groups (10 members each) to make a comparative study
Analysis and interpretation:
Ethical Issues:
As this research is an evaluation of a reward system as per geographic or demographic there is a remote possibility that few may feel of distinguishing or discrimination. However as it will be for academic purpose we can avoid any such remote possibilities.
Reflection:
* No such major as the data collection method will be kept anonymous.
* For focus group the MBA / EMBA cohort can be used as there is a diverse mix of nationalities with a major percentage from Asia Pacific.
Conclusion:
The outcome of this research will shade some light between rewards and work motivation. This will further help companies develop effective reward systems to motivate their employees to achieve individual and organizational goals.