2011 Nadia Sajjad Hafiza, Syed Sohaib Shah, Humera Jamsheed, Khalid Zaman 327

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REWARDS AND

EMPLOYEES MOTIVATION IN THE NON-
PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS OF PAKISTAN
Nadia Sajjad Hafza, S!d S"#ai$ S#a#, H%&!'a
(a&)#!!d
MS Scholar, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of
Information Technology,
Abbottabad, Pakistan
K#a*id Za&a+ ,-"''!)."+di+/ a%0#"'1
MS Scholar, Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS Institute of
Information Technology,
Abbottabad, Pakistan
!mail" khalid#aman$ciitnetpk, %halid&#aman'()$yahoocom
A$)0'a20
This study empirically examines the relationship between rewards and employees moti!ation in the non"profit or#anizations of
Pakistan. Employees of three organizations (PERRA, Worl !ision an "#$%& 'e(elopment )o*nation+ ,orking in -hy.er Pakhtonkh*,a
pro(in/e of Pakistan ,ere taken as sample of the st*y. "elf esigne 0*estionnaire ,as *se for ata /olle/tion. 121 0*estionnaires ,ere istri.*te
an 107 ,ere ret*rne, hen/e the response rate ,as 21.34. 5he ata ,as analyze *sing the te/hni0*es of ran$ correlation coefficient and multiple
re#ression analysis% &ll the findin#s were tested at '%'( and '%') le!el of si#nificance% The res*lt /on/l*es that there is a ire/t relationship
.et,een e6trinsi/ re,ars an the employee7s moti(ation. 8o,e(er, intrinsi/ re,ars found an insi#nificant impact on employee moti!ation%
Key words* +ewards, ,mployee moti!ation, Non"-rofit .r#anization /N0.1,
9orrelation, Regression, -P- pro(in/e, Pakistan.
&n toay7s /ompetiti(e .*siness en(ironment /ompanies
are fa/ing many /hallenges an among those /hallenges
a/0*iring right ,orkfor/e an retaining it, is of *tmost
importan/e. $o,aays, h*man asset is /onsiere to .e the
most important asset of any organization. &n orer to #et the
efficient and effecti!e result from human resource,
employee moti(ation is ne/essary.
Employee ,ill gi(e their ma6im*m ,hen they ha(e a feeling or
tr*st that their efforts ,ill .e re,are .y the management. 5here
are many fa/tors that effe/t employee performan/e like ,orking
/onitions, ,orker an employer relationship, training an
e(elopment opport*nities, :o. se/*rity, an /ompany7s o(er all
poli/ies an pro/e*res for re,aring employees, et/. Among all
those fa/tors ,hi/h affe/t employee performan/e, moti(ation that
/omes ,ith re,ars is of *tmost importan/e. ;oti(ation is an
accumulation of different processes which influence and
direct our beha!ior to achie!e some specific #oal /2aron,
1<23+.
5his st*y ,ill e6amine
the employee7s moti(ation
of an organization ,ith the
re,ars (.oth e6trinsi/ an
intrinsi/+ gi(en to them. )or
the st*y, parti/*larly
employees of non"profit
or#anizations of -a$istan
will be selected, an as a
sample employees ,o*l .e
taken from three non"profit
or#anizations of
&bbottabad, K-K,
-a$istan, namely, PERRA,
Worl !ision an "#$%&
'e(elopment )o*nation.
Re,ars /an .e e6trinsi/
or intrinsi/, e6trinsi/ re,ars
are tangi.le re,ars an
these re,ars are e6ternal to
the :o. or task performe .y
the employee. E6ternal
re,ars /an .e in terms of
salary=pay, in/enti(es,
.on*ses, promotions, :o.
se/*rity, et/. &ntrinsi/
re,ars are intangi.le
re,ars or psy/hologi/al
re,ars like appre/iation,
meeting the ne, /hallenges,
positi(e an /aring attit*e
from employer, an :o.
rotation after attaining the
goal. )rey (1<<7+ arg*es that
on/e pay e6/ees a
s*.sisten/e le(el, intrinsi/
fa/tors are stronger
moti(ators, an staff
moti(ation re0*ires intrinsi/
re,ars s*/h as satisfa/tion
at oing a goo :o. an a
sense of oing something ,orth,hile.
Hafiza N. S., Shah S. S.,
Jamsheed H., Zaman K. -
Relationship Between
Rewards and Employees
oti!ation in the Non-"rofit #r$anizations of "a%istan
322 >*siness &ntelligen/e ?o*rnal ?*ly
3esired performance can only be achie!ed
efficiently an effe/ti(ely, if employee gets a sense of m*t*al
gain of organization as ,ell as of himself, ,ith the
attainment of that defined tar#et or #oal% &n or#anization
must /aref*lly set the re,ar system to e(al*ate the
employee7s performan/e at all le(els an then re,aring
them ,hether (isi.le pay for performan/e or in(isi.le
satisfa/tion. 5he /on/ept of performan/e management has
gi(en a re,ar system ,hi/h /ontains@ nees an goals
alignment .et,een organization an employees, re,aring
employees .oth e6trinsi/ally an intrinsi/ally. 5he system
also s*ggests ,here training an e(elopment is neee .y
the employee in order to complete the defined #oals%
This trainin# or e(elopment nee assessment of employee
gi(es them an intrinsi/ moti(ation.
The objecti!e of this study is to find out the
relationship between rewards and employees
performance in non"profit or#anization in -a$istan%
4ore specific objecti!es are to find out*
1 5he effe/t of intrinsi/ re,ars on employee7s
performan/e.
2 5he effe/t of e6trinsi/ re,ars on employeesA
performan/e an
3 5he effe/t of .oth intrinsi/ an e6trinsi/ re,ars on
employeesA performan/e
>ase on the a.o(e o.:e/ti(es, the present st*y seeks
to test the follo,ing hypothesisB
H&' (here is a dire)t relationship *etween intrinsi)
rewards and employee moti!ation.
H+' (here is a dire)t relationship *etween e,trinsi)
rewards and employee moti!ation.
The si#nificance of the study would be an idea about
relati(e importan/e of e6trinsi/ an intrinsi/ re,ars.
;anagement /an get a .etter iea ,hile preparing its re,ar
system that ,hat kin of re,ar ,o*l .e gi(en the most
importan/e an at ,hat stage thro*gh s*/h a type of st*y.
5his paper is organize as follo,sB after intro*/tion in
se/tion 1, literat*re re(ie, is /arrie o*t in se/tion 2.
Resear/h frame,ork an methoology is mentione in
se/tion 3. Res*lt an is/*ssion is pro(ie in se/tion C.
)inal se/tion /on/l*es the st*y.
Li0!'a0%'!
R!3i!4
8*man reso*r/e is one of
the most important reso*r/es
of #ainin# competiti!e
ad!anta#e o!er
competitors for a firm%
An this reso*r/e /an .e
retaine an optimally
*tilize thro*gh moti(ating it
*sing ifferent te/hni0*es
among which reward is of
si#nificance importance%
5arraher et al
(2003+ a(o/ates that there
sho*l .e an effe/ti(e
re,ar system to retain the
high performers in the
organization an re,ar
sho*l .e relate to their
pro*/ti(ity. A lot of ,ork
has .een one on e(al*ating
the relationship .et,een
re,ars an employee
moti(ation an there e6ist a
large n*m.er of st*ies in
the literat*re es/ri.ing
impa/t of re,ar on
employee moti(ation. &n
orer to ma6imize the
performan/e of the
employees organization
m*st make s*/h poli/ies an
pro/e*res an form*late
s*/h re,ar system *ner
those poli/ies an
pro/e*res ,hi/h in/rease
employee satisfa/tion an
moti(ation. >ishop (1<27+
s*ggeste that pay is ire/tly
relate ,ith pro*/ti(ity an
re,ar system epens *pon
the size of an organization.
Drganizations in toay7s
/ompetiti(e en(ironment
,ant to etermine the
reasona.le .alan/e .et,een
employee loyalty an
/ommitment, an
performan/e of the
organization.
5he e6isting literat*re on
ini(i*als7 inno(ati(e
performan/e re(eals a ,ie
array of ini(i*al an
organizational ante/eent
fa/tors. Among many
ini(i*al antecedents
that influence employees
inno!ati!e performan/e are
attit*es (Williams, 200C+,
/ogniti(e styles ("/ott an
>r*/e, 1<<C+, personality
an emographi/
/hara/teristi/s s*/h as age,
e*/ation .a/kgro*n, an
prior RE' e6perien/e
(Ro.erts, 1<<1 an
Roth,ell, 1<<2+. &n terms of
organizational ante/eents,
e6penit*re on RE'
(8ai:imanolis, 2000+,
/ooperation ,ith e6ternal
technolo#y pro!ider,
leaders influence /Ha#e
and 3ewar,
1<73+, an re,ar system
(Eisen.erger an 9ameron,
1<<3@ ?anssen, 2000@
;*mfor, 2000+ are
/ommonly /ite as fa/tors
that affe/t ini(i*als7
inno(ati(e performan/e.
,fficient reward system
can be a #ood moti!ator
but an inefficient reward
system can lead to
demoti!ation of the
employees. Reio an
9allahon (200C+ /on/l*es
that .oth intrinsi/ an
e6trinsi/ re,ars moti(ates
the employee res*lte in
higher pro*/ti(ity.
;ost of the organizations
ha(e gaine the immense
progress .y f*lly /omplying
,ith their .*siness strategy
thro*gh a ,ell .alan/e
re,ar an re/ognition
programs for employee.
'eeprose (1<<C+ arg*e that the moti(ation of employees antheir pro*/ti(ity /an .e enhan/e thro*gh
Business Intelligence Journal -
July, 2011 Vol.4 No.2
2011 Nadia Sajjad Hafiza, Syed Sohaib Shah, Humera Jamsheed, Khalid Zaman 32<
pro(iing them effe/ti(e re/ognition ,hi/h *ltimately
res*lts in impro(e performan/e of organizations. 5he
entire s*//ess of an organization is .ase on ho, an
organization keeps its employees moti(ate an in ,hat
,ay they e(al*ate the performan/e of employees for :o.
/ompensation.
"ometimes management pays more attention to e6trinsi/
re,ars .*t intrinsi/ re,ars are e0*ally important in
employee moti(ation. &ntangi.le or psy/hologi/al re,ars
like appre/iation an re/ognition plays a (ital role in
moti(ating employee an in/reasing his performan/e.
Anre, (200C+ /on/l*es that /ommitment of employees is
.ase on re,ars an re/ognition. Fa,ler (2003+ arg*e that
prosperity an s*r(i(al of the organizations is etermine
thro*gh ho, they treat their h*man reso*r/e. A:ila an
A.iola (200C+ e6amine that intrinsi/ re,ars are re,ars
,ithin the :o. itself like satisfa/tion from /ompleting a task
s*//essf*lly, appre/iation from the .oss, a*tonomy, et/, ,hile
e6trinsi/ re,ars are tangi.le re,ars like pay, bonuses,
frin#e benefits, promotions, etc% 6ilip$ows$i an ?ohnson
(2002+ e6amine the relationships .et,een meas*res of :o.
inse/*rity, organizational /ommitment, t*rno(er,
a.senteeism, an ,orker performan/e ,ithin a
man*fa/t*rer. A positi(e
relationship ,as fo*n
.et,een :o. inse/*rity an
intentions to t*rno(er, an a
small negati(e /orrelation
,as fo*n .et,een
meas*res of :o. inse/*rity
an organizational
/ommitment. 5osti an
8er.st (200<+ is/*ss a.o*t
.eha(ior systems approa/h
,hi/h /an .e *se to
a/hie(e a /*stomer /entere
organization thro*gh
e6amples an reports from
/ons*ltation /ases. ?ohnson
et al (2010+ esta.lish the
effe/ts of presenting
organizational information
thro*gh impli/it an e6pli/it
r*les on salesGrelate target
.eha(iors in a retail setting.
Res*lts ini/ate that ,hen
organizational information
,as presente in a specific
form, producti!ity was
increased and maintained
longer than ,hen presente
in other forms.
R!)!a'2#
D!)i/+ a+d
M!0#"d"*"/
As this st*y e6amines
the impa/t of e6trinsi/ an
intrinsi/ re,ars on
employee moti(ation, the
employees of the non"
profit or#anizations
wor$in# in K-K has
been taken as pop*lation.
Employee moti(ation is
taken as epenent
(aria.le an e6trinsi/ an
intrinsi/ re,ars are taken
as inepenent (aria.le.
5he frame,ork of the
st*y is gi(en in )ig*re 1,
2 an 3 respe/ti(ely.
-i$.r
e &'
/ntrins
i)
Rewa
rds
and
Empl
oyee
0s oti!ation
Empo,ermen
t
an
A*tonomy
Re/ognition
an
Employee
Appre/iation
;oti(ation
9hallenging
5a
sk
s
"o*r/eB "elf 9onstr*/t
Hafiza N. S., Shah S. S., Jamsheed H.,
Zaman K. - Relationship Between
Rewards and Employees oti!ation in
the Non-"rofit #r$anizations of "a%istan
330
"o*r/eB "elf 9onstr*/t
>*siness &ntelligen/e
?o*rnal ?*ly
-i$.
re +'
E,tri
nsi)
Rew
ards
and
Em
ploy
ees
oti
!ati
on
Pay="alary
)ringe >enefits
>on*ses
;oti(ation
Promotions
-i$.re 1' Resear)h -ramewor%
&ntrinsi/ Re,ars
Employees7 ;oti(ation
E6trinsi/ Re,ars
S
a
m
p
li
n
g
#s
ing
/on(e
nien/e
metho
of
sampl
ing,
121
0*esti
onnair
es
,ere
istri.
*te among the employees of three selected
non"profit or#anizations namely, -,++&,
Worl !ision an "#$%& ,orking in
A..otta.a. 107 0*estionnaires ,ere
ret*rne, so the response rate ,as 21.34.
Data Collection
"elf 'esigne 0*estionnaire has .een
e(elope for ata /olle/tion. "elfGesigne
0*estionnaire ,as i(ie into t,o parts@ one
/ontaining so/ioGemographi/ 0*estions an
the se/on part /ontaining 0*estions relate to
(aria.les that are e6trinsi/ an intrinsi/
re,ars an employee moti(ation. Parameters
for meas*ring e6trinsi/ rewards are pay,
bonuses, frin#e benefits, and promotions
,hile parameters for meas*ring intrinsi/
re,ars are empo,erment an a*tonomy,
re/ognition an appre/iation, an /hallenging
tasks. )i(e point Fikert "/ale ranging from 1
(strongly isagree+ to 1 (strongly agree+ ,as
*se to meas*re responses. 5he responents7
s/ores for ea/h
/onstr*/t ,ere o.taine .y
s*mming a/ross all the item
s/ores of the ini(i*al
(aria.les. 5he 9ron.a/h7s
Alpha reliability coefficients
for the sample are #i!en in
Table (%
(a*le &' 2ron*a)hs
3lpha Relia*ility
2oeffi)ients
Items
,xtrinsic +ewards
7ntrinsic +ewards
R!)%*0) a+d
Di)2%))i"+
Frequency
Distribution
5a.le 2 sho,s the
emographi/ information
of the responents. ;ost of
the responents are falling
in the age gro*p of 23G30
year ,ith the per/entage of
104 an then 31G31 years
of age ,ith 214. 5he
emographi/
/hara/teristi/s also sho, a
gener i(ision of the
responents, ma:ority of
the responents7 are males,
i.e. 204 representing a
.igger part of the sample
gro*p. 8o,e(er, 204
per/ent responents are
females.
Business Intelligence Journal - July, 2011 Vol.4 No.2
2011 Nadia Sajjad Hafiza, Syed Sohaib Shah, Humera Jamsheed, Khalid Zaman 331
(a*le +' -re4.en)y 5istri*.tion of 5emo$raphi) 6aria*les Correlation Analysis
Variables Frequency Percentage
Age
8("8) (' 9%:
8;":' )) )(%<
:(":) 8) 8:%:
:;"<' '9 =%<
<("<) ') <%;
<;")' '8 (%=
)(")) '( (%8
Gender
4ales >> >(%9
6emales :' 8=%(
Education
?nder #raduate ': 8%=
0raduate <8 :9%8
4asters ;( )>%'
.thers '( (%'
Descriptive Statistics
5a.le 3 e6plains that ma:ority of the responses
regaring pay, frin#e benefits, appreciation and
challen#in# tas$s ,ere ne*tral i.e., mean (al*e is less
than 3.1. 5he responses of promotions, .on*ses,
empo,erment an moti(ation sho, that employees
/onsier this fa/tor slightly more important than other
fa/tors as mean (al*e is greater than 3.1. "tanar
e(iation of /hallenging tasks an pay sho,s that these
(aria.les ha(e e6tensi(e responses than its mean as (al*e
ini/ates 1.33 an 1.2C respe/ti(ely. Dne of the reasons for
this e(iation /o*l .e the sele/tion of three ifferent
organizations in the sample ha(ing ifferent pay pa/kages.
(a*le 1' 5es)ripti!e Statisti)s
Variables Mean Std. Deiation
-ay /-&@1 :%8=)> (%8<((
6rin#e 2enefits /621 :%:)>( %=9:<
-romotions /-+.1 :%)>(< %>'=;
2onuses /2.N1 :%:>(< %=<);
,mpowerment /,4-1 <%')'' %>;;=
&ppreciation /&--1 8%9<;< %=)((
5hallen#in# Tas$ /5T1 8%9'=9 (%::>:
4oti!ation /4.T1 :%9=)> %<>;(
"pearman7s 9orrelation
,as performe to st*y the
size an magnit*e of the
relationship .et,een the
(aria.les. 5he relationship
.et,een e6trinsi/, intrinsi/
an employee performan/e
are sho,n in the 5a.le C.
5a.le C sho,s that all
e6trinsi/ re,ars i.e., pay,
frin#e benefits, promotions,
bonuses are positi!e and
si#nificant related with
employee moti!ation,
whereas intrinsi/ re,ars
i.e., empo,erment
appre/iation an challen#in#
tas$ ha!e a ne#ati!e but
insi#nificant impact with
employee moti!ation%
5orrelation coefficient
between frin#e benefits
and moti!ation /'%:(91 is
the hi#hest amon# all the
!ariables and is si#nificant
at 99A% -ay /'%8=(1 and
promotions /'%8)<1 are
also si#nificant at 99A%
2onuses ha(e a ,eakest
/orrelation among e6trinsi/
re,ars .*t it is si#nificant
at 9)A% &mon# intrinsic
rewards all are insi#nificant
relationship with employee
moti!ation%
Table 4:
Correlation
Matri
4.T (%'''
-&@ %8=(BB (%'''
62 %:(9BB %:<8BB (%'''
-+. %8)<BB %:8=BB %:(>BB (%'''
2.N %(9'B %'>; %<8:BB %::'BB
,4- "%'<8 %'>' "%((< %'><
&-- "%'(9 "%(>9 "%(>8 %()) %((;
5T "%'8: "%8)'B "%8=9BB "%(;; %(''
77 2orrelation is si$nifi)ant at
the .8& le!el.
7 2orrelation is si$nifi)ant at
the .89 le!el.
Incremental
Regression
5he in/remental
regression is performe .y
remo(ing ini(i*al
inepenent (aria.les from
the moel an .y /he/king
the effe/t on the (al*e of RG
s0*are. Among all the
!ariables remo!ed, frin#e
benefit has altered the
!alue of RGs0*are to a
highest egree i.e., 2.C4
e/reases in the portion of
the epenent (aria.le
e6plaine .y inepenent
(aria.les as the (al*e for the
RGs0*are /hanges from
1C.24 to C1.24. 5his
importan/e is also
highlighte in the
re#ression result as the
!alue of coefficient of the
!ariable is highest among
all the (aria.les in their three
moels respe/ti(ely. 5he
res*lt is presente in 5a.le 1.
Hafiza N. S., Shah S. S., Jamsheed H., Zaman K. -
Relationship Between
Rewards and Employees
oti!ation in the Non-
"rofit #r$anizations of
"a%istan
332 >*siness &ntelligen/e ?o*rnal ?*ly
(a*le 9' /n)remental Re$ression 5ependent 6aria*le' Employee oti!ation
Variables !"S# !"S$ !"S% !"S& !"S' !"S( !"S) !"S*
-ay %(<) C %8<'BBB %(== %(:( %'>> %(<' %('=
62 %:<>B %:=>B C %:;<B %:='B %:><B %:))B %:<;B
-+. %8': %8:;BBB %8:)BBB C %88'BBB %(=' %()< %(:<
2.N %'9> %'>> %8(<BBB %(89 C %':9 %'>; %';'
,4- "%8=;BB "%8<;BBB "%:8<BB "%8;=BB "%8;:BB C "%8>8BB "%8')
&-- "%8(> "%8') "%8;: "%'>( "%(=< "%(;: C %';9
5H %:>> %:(; %:>< %8:: %::> %()< %(>; C
+ sDuare %)<8 %)8= %<)= %)(; %):) %<9< %):: %)(9
6"!alue :%;='B <%');B 8%>=;B :%=(>B <%88(B :%:=(B <%(;8B :%=>>B
3"E (%>>: (%>99 (%;(( (%>): (%>=9 (%>(; (%><' (%>(8
7, 77 and 777 indi)ates si$nifi)an)e at 8.8&, 8.89 and 8.8: per)ent le!el.
The result further shows #oodness of fit in the
incremental re#ression after remo!in# frin#e benefits in
5a.le 3. 5his e/rease in the (al*e of the RGs0*are sho,s
the importance of frin#e benefits in the model%
(a*le ;' Res.lts of /n)remental Re$ression remo!in$
-rin$e Benefits
Models Values
+"sDuared /ori#inal1 '%)<8
+"sDuared /after the remo!al1 '%<)=
Hypothesis Testing
H&' (here is a dire)t relationship *etween intrinsi)
rewards and employee moti!ation.
5he res*lts of /orrelation matri6 re:e/ts the hypothesis as it
gi(es a negati(e an ,eaker relationship of empo,erment (G
0.0C2+, appre/iation (G0.01<+ an /hallenging tasks (G0.023+
,ith employee moti(ation. &ntrinsi/ re,ars are insi#nificant
relationship with employee moti!ation%
&n/remental regression also re:e/ts this hypothesis, ,hi/h
sho,s that empo,erment an appre/iation has a negati(e impa/t
on employee moti(ation. An only empo,erment is si#nificant
amon# intrinsic !ariables% 5hris and &wonusi /8''<1
supports that extrinsic rewards ha!e a si#nificant impa/t on
employee moti(ation ,hile intrinsi/ re,ars dont ha!e any
si#nificant impact on employee moti!ation%
H+' (here is a dire)t
relationship *etween
e,trinsi) rewards and
employee moti!ation.
5he res*lts of
/orrelation matri6 ha(e
s*pporte the hypothesis
that there e6ist a
positi(e=ire/t relationship
.et,een e6trinsi/ re,ars
an employee moti(ation.
7ncremental re#ression
analysis also confirms
the hypothesis, as the
most si#nificant !ariable
is frin#e benefit ,hi/h is
an e6trinsi/ re,ar.
-"+2*%)i"+
8*man reso*r/e is
/onsiere to .e the most
important reso*r/e of an
organization to remain
/ompetiti(e in toay7s
/ompetiti(e .*siness ,orl.
A/0*iring the right
,orkfor/e an then
retaining that for/e is one of
the /hallenges fa/e .y
organizations an their
management. 5he res*lts
from this study re!eal that
there is a si#nificant and
positi!e relationship
.et,een e6trinsi/ re,ars
an employee moti(ation
.*t it has .een o.ser(e that
organizations are not
offerin# ri#ht amount of
financial rewards
/extrinsic rewards1 to their
employees in this sector%
-ay is a si#nificant fa/tor
,hi/h affe/ts employee
moti(ation .*t the res*lts
moerately s*pports the
hypothesis *e to ifferen/e
.et,een the pay pa/kages of
three ifferent organizations.
6rin#e benefits are !ery
important in moti!atin#
employees a//oring to
this st*y, so organizations
m*st ha(e to pro!ide all
the essential frin#e
benefits to their
employees, it also
increase their job
efficiency%
Business Intelligence Journal -
July, 2011 Vol.4 No.2
2011 Nadia Sajjad Hafiza, Syed Sohaib Shah, Humera Jamsheed, Khalid Zaman 333
Dn the other han, intrinsi/ re,ars ha(e a ,eaker impa/t
on employee moti(ation. Empo,erment has negati(e effe/t
on employee moti(ation, *e to the la/k of tr*st .et,een
employee an his=her .oss thro*gh ,hi/h employee thinks
that his=her .oss has o(er .*ren him instea of thinking
himself empo,ere. 5here is an inire/t relationship .et,een
appre/iation an employee moti(ation as employees of the
or#anizations are not satisfied with their pay pa/kages. "o
in the a.sen/e of e6trinsi/ re,ars ,hi/h is the .asi/ so*r/e
of moti(ation for employee, intrinsi/ re,ars like
re/ognition, appre/iation an empo,erment is of little
importan/e. Pay is potentially po,erf*l tool to employee
moti(ation so the employees /an only .e intrinsi/ally
moti(ate to perform an a/ti(ity ,hen they are fully satisfied
with the pay they are #ettin#%
5here are /ertain limitations of the st*y ,hi/h /an .e
taken into a//o*nt for f*rther st*ies in the f*t*re, like
sample size ,as too small an only organizations ,orking in
A..otta.a ,ere /onsiere. Another important limitation
,as that the pay str*/t*re of the three organizations ,as
ifferent from one another, so responses regaring pay
!ariable were de!iatin#, #eneratin# sli#htly si#nificant
impa/t of pay on employee moti(ation. 5hese limitations can
be a!oided in the future studies carried out in this field,
an a more /lear pi/t*re /an .e o.taine regaring impa/t of
e6trinsi/ an intrinsi/ re,ars on employee moti(ation.
R!5!'!+2!)
&jila, 5 and &biola, &% /8''<1% 7nfluence of +ewards
on Workers Performan/e in an Drganization, ?o*rnal of
"o/ial "/ien/e, 2(1+, pp.7G12
Anre,, ' an -ent, R. (2007+. H5he impa/t of
per/ei(e leaership .eha(iors on satisfa/tion,
/ommitment, an moti(ationB An e6pansion of the
m*ltiimensional moel of leaership7,
&nternational ?o*rnal of 9oa/hing "/ien/e, 1(1+, p
31G13.
>aron, R. A. (1<23+. >eha(ior in organizations, p.
123, $e, IorkB Allyn E >a/on, &n/.
>ishop, ?. (1<27+. 5he re/ognition E Re,ar of
Employee Performan/e, ?o*rnal of Fa.or
E/onomi/s !ol. 1, $o. C Part 2B 5he $e,
E/onomi/s of Personnel pp. "33G"13.
9arraher, R, %i.son, A. E >*/kley R (2003+.
.9ompensation in the >alti/ an the #"A, >alti/
?o*rnal of ;anagement !ol. 1, pp 7G23.
5hris &%, &wonusi &%
/8''<1% 7nfluence of
+ewards on
Workers Performan/e
in a Drganization,
?o*rnal of "o/ial
"/ien/e, 2(1+B 7G12
9ollins, ?. (1<<1+.
;oti(ating Io*r
Drganization, 1st
eition. ;/%ra,G8ill
&nternational, p 127.
'eeprose, '. (1<<C+.
8o, to re/ognize an
re,ar employees.
$e, IorkB
A;A9D;.
Eisen.erger, R., an
9ameron, ?. (1<<3+.
'etrimental Effe/ts of
Re,ar, Ameri/an
Psy/hologist, !ol.11,
$o.11, pp.1113G1133.
)ilipko,ski, ;. an
?ohnson, 9. ;.
(2002+. 9omparisons
of Performan/e an
?o. &nse/*rity in
#nion an $on*nion
"ites of a
;an*fa/t*ring
9ompany, ?o*rnal of
Drganizational
>eha(ior
;anagement, !ol.22,
$o.C, pp.212 J 237.
)rey. >. (1<<7+. Dn the
Relationship .et,een
&ntrinsi/ an E6trinsi/
Work ;oti(ation.
&nternational ?o*rnal of
&n*strial
Drganization, 11, p C27
J C3<.
%aertner, -. E %aertner,
%. (1<21+.
Performan/eG
/ontingent Pay for
)eeral ;anagers.
Aministration E
"o/iety, 17, 1, p 7G20.
8a:imanolis, A. (2000+.
An &n(estigation of
&nno(ation
Ante/eents in "mall
)irms in the 9onte6t
of a "mall
'e(eloping 9o*ntry,
RE' ;anagement,
!ol.30, $o.3, pp.231G
2C1.
8age, ?., an 'e,ar, R.
(1<73+. Elite !al*es
!ers*s Drganizational
"tr*/t*re in
Prei/ting &nno(ation,
Aministrati(e
"/ien/e K*arterly,
!ol.12, $o.3, pp.27<G
2<0.
?anssen, D. (2000+. ?o.
'emans, Per/eptions
of EffortGRe,ar
)airness an &nno(ati(e
Work >eha(ior, ?o*rnal
of D//*pational an
Drganizational
Psy/hology, !ol.73,
$o.3, pp.227G302.
?ohnson, R.A.,
8o*manfar, R. an
"mith, %.". (2010+.
5he Effe/t of &mpli/it
an E6pli/it R*les on
9*stomer %reeting
an Pro*/ti(ity in a
Retail Drganization,
?o*rnal of
Drganizational
>eha(ior
;anagement, !ol.30,
$o,1, pp32G C2
Fa,ler, E. E. (2003+.
5reat people right.
"an )ran/is/oB
?osseyG>ass &n/.
;/%ra,G8ill &r,in.
;*mfor, ;.'. (2000+.
;anaging 9reati(e
PeopleB "trategies an
5a/ti/s for
&nno(ation, 8*man
Reso*r/e ;anagement Re(ie,, !ol.10, $o.3,
pp.313G311.
Reio, %, 5. E 9allahon, ?. F. (200C+. Affe/t, 9*riosity,
an so/ializationGrelate Fearning@ a path analysis of
ante/eents to :o.
performan/e, ?o*rnal
of >*siness an
Psy/hology, !ol.1<,
pp3G22.
Hafiza N. S., Shah S. S.,
Jamsheed H., Zaman K. -
Relationship Between
Rewards and Employees
oti!ation in the Non-"rofit #r$anizations of
"a%istan
33C >*siness &ntelligen/e ?o*rnal ?*ly
Ro.erts, E.>. (1<<1+. Entreprene*rs in 8igh 5osti, '. an 8er.st, ".A. (200<+. Drganizational
5e/hnologyB Fessons from ;&5 an >eyon, $e, Performan/e an 9*stomer !al*e, ?o*rnal of
IorkB D6for #ni(ersity Press. Drganizational >eha(ior ;anagement, !ol.2<,
Roth,ell, R. (1<<2+. "*//essf*l &n*strial &nno(ationB $o.3, pp.2<CG 31C.
9riti/al )a/tors for the 1<<0s, RE' ;anagement, Williams, ".'. (200C+. Personality, Attit*e, an
!ol.22, $o.3, pp.221G23<. Feader 7nfluences on 3i!er#ent Thin$in# and
"/ott, ".%. an >r*/e, R.A. (1<<C+. 'eterminants of 9reati(ity in Drganizations, E*ropean ?o*rnal of
&nno(ati(e >eha(iorB A Path ;oel of &ni(i*al &nno(ation ;anagement, !ol.7, $o.3, pp.127G20C.
&nno(ation in the Workpla/e, A/aemy of
;anagement ?o*rnal, !ol.37, $o.3, pp.120G1<<.
Business Intelligence Journal - July,
2011 Vol.4 No.2