10989_The impact of reward systems on employee performance

Dublin Business School in association with Liverpool John Moore’s
University

Title: The impact of reward systems on employee performance

A thesis submitted to Dublin Business School in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for Masters of Business Administration in Business
Management

Brian Murphy
Student no: 1690779
Word Count: 20,320

Masters of Business Administration

May 2015
1

Contents
Declaration
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
4
Chapter 1: Introduction and background ………………………………………………………………………..
5
1.1 Introduction
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5
1.2 Background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
7
1.3 Research Issue
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
………………………………………………………………………………………..
9
2.1 Introduction
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
9
2.2 Team Based Reward Systems
…………………………………………………………………………….
10
2.3 Performance Related Pay (PRP) …………………………………………………………………………
15
2.4 Total Rewards System ………………………………………………………………………………………
22
2.5 Conclusion on literature review ………………………………………………………………………….
31
2.6 Limitations on literature review
………………………………………………………………………….
32
Chapter 3: Research Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….
33
3.1 Introduction
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
33
3.2 Research Philosophy
…………………………………………………………………………………………
33
3.3 Research Approach & Design
…………………………………………………………………………….
34
3.4 Research Strategy……………………………………………………………………………………………..
36
3.5 Data Collection ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
37
3.5.1 Primary Data ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
38
3.5.2 Secondary Data ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
40
3.6 Interview Selection …………………………………………………………………………………………..
41
3.6.1 Link to the research
………………………………………………………………………………………..
41
3.6.2 Data Quality ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
42
3.6.3 Preparing the interviews …………………………………………………………………………………
42
3.7 Ethical Issues …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
43
3.8 Research Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………………..
44
Chapter 4: Findings, Analysis and Discussion ………………………………………………………………
45
4.1 Introduction
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
45
4.2 Interviewee Profile
……………………………………………………………………………………………
45
2

4.3 Presentation of Findings ……………………………………………………………………………………
45
4.3.1 Employee Performance and Rewards ……………………………………………………………….
46
4.3.2 Team based rewards
……………………………………………………………………………………….
47
4.3.3 Performance Related Pay
………………………………………………………………………………..
49
4.3.4 Total Rewards System ……………………………………………………………………………………
50
4.4 Analysis and Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………………
52
4.4.1 Introduction
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
52
4.4.2 Discussion of Themes …………………………………………………………………………………….
52
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations ………………………………………………………………
57
5.1 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
57
5.2 Recommendations
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
59
Chapter 6: Reflection on Learning
……………………………………………………………………………….
61
Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
65
Appendix 1: Interview 1 SK01 ………………………………………………………………………………….
72
Appendix 2: Interview 2 SK02 ………………………………………………………………………………….
77
Appendix 3: Interview 3 SK03 ………………………………………………………………………………….
83
Appendix 4: Interview 4 SK04 ………………………………………………………………………………….
87
Appendix 5: Request to gain access to research material ……………………………………………….
91
Appendix 6: Confidentiality Agreement
………………………………………………………………………
94
Appendix 7: Consent Form
………………………………………………………………………………………..
95
Appendix 8: Security Clearance …………………………………………………………………………………
96

3

Declaration

I hereby declare that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme
of study leading to the reward of Masters of Business Administration at Dublin Business
School, is entirely my own work unless referenced in the text as a specific source and
included in the bibliography. Furthermore, no part of this work has been submitted for
assessment for any other academic purpose other than in partial fulfilment of that stated
above.

Signed Date

Brian Murphy

05/05/2015

4

Abstract
This research paper focuses on the effects of reward systems on employee performance in
the modern work environment and how satisfaction with rewards can lead to higher
performance and better job satisfaction. Based on a critical review of published literature,
it is clear how important the right combination of rewards is to the performance of an
organisation. Employees should always be aware of the relationship between their level
of performance and how they are rewarded for that performance. This thesis will examine
how different types of reward systems affect that performance and attempt to establish
which type of reward systems are more beneficial to the company in question and in the
current business climate it operates in. The research is conducted in a period of particular
financial turbulence for the mining industry, and wider global economic environment. As
such, reward structures and the perceived value of those rewards, come more into focus
as financial pressures restrict the type of rewards available, while retaining and
motivating staff becomes more challenging. How can performance be enhanced and the
required business outcomes accomplished? How can reward systems contribute to this
performance and outcomes? These issues will be addressed in the context of best
international practice regarding reward structures and from primary data collection. This
research was conducted at operational managerial level. Considering how many
employees report into this level, this is where I believe both employee and employer
interact the most regarding rewards, motivation and how that affects performance.

5

Chapter 1: Introduction and background

1.1 Introduction
Paying employees for productivity has been the cornerstone of industrial and business
development for centuries. Financial reward has always been important in managing
employee’s performance, but over the last 25 years other elements of compensation have
developed to provide employers with more scope to reward, and thus, motivate
employees. Armstrong and Taylor (2010, p. 331) state that “performance is defined as
behaviour that accomplishes results. Performance management influences performance
by helping people to understand what good performance means and by providing the
information needed to improve it. Reward management influences performance by
recognising and rewarding good performance and by providing incentives to improve it”.
The purpose of this research study is to attempt to identify how these rewards impact
employee performance and how well the current reward system does this, within the
company forming the basis for my research. Torrington et al. (2011) describe the
importance of workplace rewards as:
Reward is clearly central to the employment relationship. While there are plenty
of people who enjoy working and who claim they would not stop working even if
they were to win a big cash prize in a lottery, most of us work in large part
because it is our only means of earning the money we need to sustain us and our
families. How much we are paid and in what form is therefore an issue which
matters hugely to us (Torrington et al., 2011, p.514).
The rewards that we apply to both individual and team performance are therefore critical
in determining how affective our reward strategy will be. Wilson (2003, p.128) describes
rewards and their purpose as including systems, programmes and practices that influence
the actions of people. The purpose of reward systems is to provide a systematic way to
deliver positive consequences. Fundamental purpose is to provide positive consequences
for contributions to desired performance.
6

Defining the concept of human resource management in the mid-1980’s led to a greater
appreciation for the value your workforce could make to the overall business goals of the
organisation and how it could be groomed and cultivated to add most value to
competitive advantage. For the purpose of this study, the desired outcome is to show if
different types of reward systems do have positive consequences and if these
consequences develop into increased or decreased performance. Weightman (2004, p.
174) argues “the main construct of performance management is that work groups and
individuals see what they have to do to make their contribution to the organisations
overall effectiveness. There needs to be a clear link with the organisational objectives and
this involves good communication of clear objectives that everyone understands”.
Based on the review of current literature, this research sets out to explore clearly what
variables exist in attributing the correct reward structure to an individual employee or
team. Reward management is both complex and problematic and very susceptible to
outside influences such as economic environments, culture and individual employee
preferences and perceptions. What is applicable, effective and performance enhancing for
one employee or team may not have the same effect on other employee’s in similar
circumstances. There is much published literature on the benefits and problems
surrounding performance management and performance appraisal systems. These
become more complex and harder to manage as organisational structures cross
international boundaries and cultures. In this context, the reward systems we apply can
become vital in achieving the desired level of performance and job satisfaction. The
researcher has worked for 7 years within the chosen organisation for the research, holding
various supervisory and managerial roles, so is aware of how important rewards systems
are to employee performance. As such, I aim to examine what impacts the current reward
structure has on performance, and to a lesser extent motivation, and how that relates to
best international practice in the themes examined.

7

1.2 Background
The research will focus on one company – Sandvik Mining – a Swedish manufacturing
company, specialising in producing and supplying machinery for the mining sector
globally. It has over 15,000 employees. Sandvik Mining has been a part of the Sandvik
Group since 1998 when the Sandvik Group acquired the Finish Company, Tamrock.
Sandvik Mining is a leading global supplier of equipment and tools, service and technical
solutions for the mining industry.
http://www.mining.sandvik.com/
The research will focus on employees in the supply chain management section of the
company, across different departments and geographic locations and with different
cultural backgrounds.
This research proposal takes a qualitative approach to analysing collected primary data
and also extensively uses published literature concerning the role of reward systems in
performance management and there effect on employee performance.
Employee retention relates directly to how we reward them. Replacing employees in a
company can be an arduous and expensive exercise. Even in more secure industries such
as the public sector, performance needs to be managed and staff motivated as in the
private sector. Retention of experienced staff in both these industries is important to
create competitive advantage and organisational success. This study will also look at the
importance of rewarding experienced and high performing staff. So in a time when the
amount of financial rewards is restricted by the economic climate, retaining high
performers with rewards has to be achieved while making all staff feel valued. I will
investigate if these values, along with a total reward approach to how we compensate
employees, have an effect on employee performance.
As more and more organisations cross international boundaries to conduct business,
rewards that are relevant in one country may not be as important in another. I aim to
establish if a structured reward system, and the specific type of rewards applicable to this
organisation, is imperative for increasing employee performance or if it has any effect at
all. This is all in the context of an ever changing society, where most workers aspire to be
8

wealthy in a way that previous generations did not. These aspirations from an increasing
educated and mobile workforce put even more emphasis on an organisations reward
systems and structures, and highlight the importance of rewards in the context of
achieving job satisfaction among employee’s and using this as a competitive weapon
against business rivals.

1.3 Research Issue
This research takes place at a time of unprecedented change within the Sandvik group
and by extension, Sandvik Mining. Several organisational changes have occurred across
the company in the last 4 years and these have led to major internal uncertainty within the
company. It is important to note that the reward system within Sandvik is dependent and
driven by current market conditions which are not financially favourable in the mining
industry at present.
Also, reward systems and strategy are a centralised activity due to out-sourcing and
centralising of HR functions, so remuneration and reward is very much guided from
remote locations and often not fully in touch with specific in country market conditions.

9

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
Saunders et al. (2009, p.98) state that “a critical review of literature is necessary to help
you to develop a thorough understanding of, and insight into, previous research that
relates to your research question(s) and objectives”.
This literature review on reward systems encompasses the areas of performance related
pay, total reward systems and team rewards. It will reveal the many different types of
incentives available to modern day employees as well as the most favourable way to
apply those incentives to get the best performance form your staff. Reviewing the current
published literature in this field will allow the researcher establish a base, to which
further research can be added. This dissertation explores three of the main theories and
practices of rewards in the workplace and how they affect performance, as well as
specific cases within organisations explored in the critical review of already published
literature. The theory on reward systems and their effects on performance cannot be
evaluated without looking at how work motivation is also affected by these rewards and
how that motivation is directly linked to performance. Kanfer et al. (2012) describe
motivation in the work sense as a set of processes which are ultimately used to determine
a person’s actions, and which actions they will use to achieve a desired outcome. This
psychological procedure determines how personal effort is used in the ‘direction,
intensity and persistence’ of these actions in relation to your work. How you are
rewarded for this work will have a great effect on this direction, intensity and persistence.
Ensuring you have the right reward strategy and structure in place in your organisation is
vital for the positive performance and motivation of your staff and these rewards systems
should be based on what is needed to achieve the desired level of performance and
motivation. Adams (1965) describes equity theory as the perception of how you are
treated compared to others and in essence that you will be more satisfied and motivated if
you think you are been fairly treated. This procedural justice element to how rewards are
interpreted runs deep in terms of this performance and motivation. Armstrong (2010,
10

p.41) states that “in general, use an evidence-based approach, which essentially means
managing reward systems on the basis of evidence rather than opinion, on understanding
rather than assumptions, and on an unrelenting commitment to gather the necessary facts
to make more intelligent and informed decisions”.

2.2 Team Based Reward Systems
In the modern business environment, team performance is becoming more and more
critical to organisational success. One of the first questions asked at most interviews
today is ‘can you work as part of a team?’ Ensuring employees work both productively
and collaboratively as part of a team can be difficult and according to Torrington et al.
(2011) if the performance management activity is not defined correctly, employees
individual goals may damage the team’s performance and vice versa. Group based
awards appear to be logical compliments of performance measurement that focuses on
teams and the quality/quantity of work they produce and (Dematteo et al., 1998, p. 144)
found that applying rewards to teams as a whole is based on the assumption that team
rewards will do something qualitatively different than individual rewards. Also from a
performance evaluation point of view, it may be easier and less complex for a manager to
evaluate a team’s performance as opposed to individual performance. So it could be
argued that managing performance and rewards available for achieving the level of
performance desired can be complimentary and less time consuming from a monitoring
and measuring point of view in a team based structure. However, according to
(Armstrong, 2012, p. 294) it can take time for a team member to adjust to part of their
remuneration been determined by the group effort and how long that takes will be
determined by the maturity of the team members and how used they are to working
together. Although the idea of having a high performing team working closely and
collaboratively together is appealing, the danger is forcing people into a new
remuneration arrangement who may already be just getting used to a new way of
working.
11

In some organisations it may be more advantageous to not apply individual performance
targets and focus only on collective reward and performance plans. Kramar and Syed
(2012) has identified that group rewards or incentives are more likely to yield a
collaborative approach to performance and thus be more effective in reaching your shared
goals. They also argue that collective incentive schemes may encourage more
organisational buy in from employees compared to those schemes of an individual nature.
However, this does not mean that team based rewards are not compatible with individual
performance related pay schemes as both can be combined with careful attention. As
Kerrin’s and Oliver (2002) comment in their research on collective and individual
improvement activities, the effectiveness of collective or team based rewards can be
directly related to the culture of the organisation. As base pay from an individualistic
point of view has always been seen as the backbone of compensation, when
organisational design moves into supporting teams for productivity, then the applicable
collective rewards should be adapted to support this. They found that companies faced
challenges in moving from a traditional system of reward based around the individual to a
more team based reward structure, but that they could operate simultaneously with
success. They also note that challenges also arise where manufacturing processes can be
built around the concept of teams, while rewards for continuous improvement activities
still remain linked to individual rewards.
A study by Michael D. Johnson (2009) argues the effectiveness of a team based reward
system in the basic sense. The dynamics of the team play a big part in the “reward
interdependence”, i.e. how an individual’s reward is based on the performance of another
team member. This study argues the need to introduce more individual incentives within
the team based reward structure. “Equal Allocations” become important where reward is
not only dependent on overall team performance, but is shared equally between all team
members (Johnson, 2009, p. 4). It suggests team members must help each other to
achieve their end result, but they are rewarded differently based on what they have
contributed to the team’s performance. He also found that where transparency of team
member’s contributions is visible, then it can make the team member more conscious of
that contribution, thus increasing the tendency to act in favour of the team. Research into
the relationship between empowerment and rewards by Born and Molleman (1996) found
12

that the correct reward system, targeted in the right way, can support in the empowerment
of the employee. This was in the context of autonomous work groups where cross
training was prevalent. Although ‘incidental bonuses’ were deemed to be effective,
applying them to reward the behaviour of the group was considered to be more effective
and encouraged an overall feeling of empowerment.
Similarly in a survey carried out on team based rewards in computer – mediated groups,
(Rock et al., 2011, p. 431) found there was a lower based score for an ‘equity strategy’
where everybody gets the same. In this study team based rewards showed no correlation
with higher performance. However, it did show that a team based rewards system can
lead to better cooperation and communication between team members. In their study of
the employee reward and recognition process within an Australian organisation London
and Higgot (1997) found that emphasising recognition as part of the reward process
increased employee involvement and recognising team based success at company
meetings where all employees were invited to, resulted in positive outcomes. They also
suggest that any rewards or recognition process needs to be a formal one and removed
from too much direct managerial influence. It should be seen to be unbiased and fair.
With the increasing use of team based work structures, it is important to choose the right
rewards to obtain the highest performance. But constructive behaviours between team
members are also important. The argument for ‘equality’ based team rewards where all
members are rewarded in an identical way as opposed to an ‘equity’ system where
members are rewarded based on their individual performance in the team, is further
explored in a study by (Bamberger and Levi, 2009, p. 301). They found “equality
orientated pay structures” within a team setting led to better behaviour outcomes for the
team such as more positive cooperation between members and better sharing of
individual competencies. So rather than focusing on specific team performance goals they
look at the ‘behaviour responses’ that a team based reward structure can bring when
teammates have to respond to help requests from other teammates. Rewarding team-
related behaviour such as helping your team mates enhanced the over-all effectiveness of
the team. It also found that individuals at the higher level of development within the
organisation were more inclined to help in a team setting even when doing so was not to
13

their apparent advantage. Understanding behaviour is important in this context.
Weightman (2004) describes influencing employee behaviour through instructing and
rewarding as ‘behaviour modification’. This is important for managing people because if
personality is learned and reliant on reinforcement then the right type of rewards applied
to a team should yield positive behaviours which can increase motivation and
performance. Similarly, King (2007) argues that initiating team work on a small scale
throughout the organisation and focussing on essential tasks that help people to grow
along the entire career chain, will contribute positively to ‘career motivation’. As the
corporate world sees such a high turnover of staff and thus have less incentive to spend
resources on motivating staff, this idea of ‘career motivation’ i.e. getting the best
commitment from your staff, can add real value to your organisation. There are proven
clear links between commitment, productivity, and quality of work/life balance.
The validity of team based reward systems can also depend on the specific industry you
apply them in. Sometimes a combination of individual and group financial incentives as
well as a mixture of formal and informal rewards schemes, can encourage employees to
engage in both ‘in-role’ and ‘extra-role’ behaviour at the same time (Yap et al., 2009, p.
280). In this study specific to the retail sales industry, it found a mix of individual and
group rewards encouraged both ‘in’ and ‘extra’ role behaviours or tasks, specific to your
job description and tasks that are more discretionary and go above and beyond what you
are expected to do. It also showed ‘informal rewards’, defined as more spontaneous
rewards presented by individual store managers to be more effective in enhancing the
performance and motivation of team members. As DeMatteo et al.(1998) comment in
their extensive review on team based rewards, a key question is how can different reward
practices be applied to support and foster high levels of individual performance while still
encourage team work within your organisation? Most researchers seem to suggest a
combination of both type of rewards, applied in the right combination and in the right
environment can be most conducive to improving performance.
There is evidence to suggest that individual monetary incentives within a team setting,
aligned with the right type of group rewards, can positively affect behaviours, team
dynamics and productivity. However many organisations are slow to implement team pay
14

or other extrinsic team rewards because they are adequately happy with their individual
performance related pay schemes (Armstrong, 2007, p. 352). It is these companies who
should consider team based rewards as a means to improve performance more and if they
wish to include teamwork as a competence to be measured and rewarded as part of a
performance management system. Similarly, in her study on reward and recognition
programmes in the knowledge based environment, Milne (2007) found major
shortcomings on how team based rewards were viewed in terms of motivation.
Employees may have difficulty in seeing how their efforts translate into results and may
become demotivated if they see a team member been rewarded for not contributing
enough to the end result. She argues an equality based reward in a team setting rather
than an equity based one where everyone gets the same. Therefore the design of team
based rewards is vital if you are to avoid negative effects on motivation, which ultimately
will lead to bigger problems for your organisation, if allowed to foster.
So although the basic elements of teamwork need to be in place to achieve the desired
level of performance, Cacioppe (1999, p. 325) in his study on how team rewards drive
organisational success suggests “this especially includes positive interdependence,
personal accountability, promoted interaction, and appropriate use of social skills and
group processing. This suggests that reward and recognition systems, are one of the most
important ways to foster positive interdependence and personal accountability”. So
identifying the correct rewards for your team should be followed by the correct design of
that strategy. This evidence based research also found that as organisations continue to
flatten hierarchies and develop team based models to improve performance; reward and
recognition practices which are aligned to these changes will yield the best results.
Aligning organisational goals with developing team based rewards and including the
culture and value of the organisation in this development, is the suggested approach.
A low risk approach to this would be to introduce a team based recognition strategy
which should aim to reinforce the capability of the team. This will allow organisations to
reap the benefits of closer working relationships with the team now, and to assess
whether even greater benefits would arise later from specific team based pay (Thorpe &
Homan, 2000). In their evidence based research including a survey of over 173 reward
15

and HR practitioners, (Armstrong et al., 2011, p. 114) show that while many
organisations are still not evaluating the effectiveness of their reward systems, some are
by using certain criteria. This reluctance relates to team rewards just as it does to
individual reward structures. The researchers show that although evaluation of the reward
systems in question displayed a higher level of employee engagement after a change in
that system, it could not conclusively be linked to improved performance. It was not
possible to develop a reward system with a system of logical steps that concluded with a
well-developed and operational reward system. As the very nature of reward is specific to
an individual or team for only a certain period in time, and as all organisations are
different or may have different cultures and designs, they will use different criteria and
measures in their approach to reward systems. What works for one organisation may not
work for another. However, in the evidence based research on organisational rewards
systems carried by (Datta, 2012, p. 482) an ORD (optimised rewards distribution) model
was developed where rewards distribution followed ‘well-grounded strategy which best
corresponds to the exchange’. In this sense human resources are considered as portfolio
or capital assets. So this research considered rewards distribution as a human capital
management system with performance reviews as inputs in the process and the actual end
rewards as the outputs. A team of eight employees were closely monitored in terms of job
tasks and performance output. Results showed that using this evidence based model, both
individuals and the entire team could be measured effectively in what was seen as an
unbiased and transparent way. Effective measurement made the distribution of rewards
more relevant and ultimately reflected positively on performance.
There is a need for more focussed research on the effectiveness of team based rewards on
performance and within the industry which this research is focussed on.

2.3 Performance Related Pay (PRP)
In recent years, many organisations have moved towards rewarding employees for
performance as a means to achieve organisational goals (Mullins, 2005). Essentially they
have tied compensation to performance. The debate on the effectiveness of financial
16

remuneration on performance goes on as researchers try to establish the organisational
and cultural fit for such a practice. Rayner and Adam-Smith (2005, p. 101) state “as both
performance and motivation are affected by many factors, performance related pay (PRP)
(or any other intervention) cannot be linked in a casual manner”. They argue that
although it may be relatively easy to provide answers to individual aspects of the
effectiveness of PRP, when all variables related to this concept as it is applied are taken
into consideration, connecting PRP to performance levels becomes more difficult.
Performance appraisals are a key aspect of managing any pay for performance model.
Smith and William (2003) in their research paper exploring the link among performance
rating pay and motivational influences looked at the dangers of receiving the incorrect
merit increase where performance related pay models are applied and the effects this can
have on motivation. In a survey administered to 5 different companies, ranging from
administrative support to supervisors and managers, they found that 58% of those
surveyed received a merit increase that did not correspond to their actual performance
rating. It found that the “de-coupling” concept between performance rating and the
reward was a common practice among companies surveyed. This highlights the
importance for any merit based pay model to be fair and transparent in order for it to be
successful in the long term in increasing motivation and performance. The majority of
respondents did not feel their increased reward was based on their performance but rather
influenced by organisational budget constraints. Similarly, St-Onge et al. (2009),
highlight the prevalence of performance appraisal distortion and its effects on
performance and motivation. Although this distortion is inevitable in most organisations,
managers should also look at reviewing the appraisals and how we communicate the
success or failure as well the reward attached.
Armstrong (2009, p. 254) claims it is better to separate performance management and
pay, “decoupling” both, so as to make a distinction between developmental potential and
the impact of your performance on incremental pay rises. He describes the difficulty in
paying for performance where it needs to be measurable on different levels, thus evidence
based and this evidence needs to be seen to be fair and transparent and not conducted
behind closed doors.
17

In an interview with Juliet Norton (2010, pp. 41-43), Michael Armstrong goes on to
argue that HR departments for some time have not evaluated their reward policies to
validate their relevance. In a Chartered Institute of Personnel Development (CIPD)
survey in 2009, they found that the “remarkably low proportion of 12 per cent of
respondents had evaluated their performance-related pay schemes”. This indifference to
the current relevance of their reward systems contrasted starkly to the attention and
funding given to training schemes for employees and considering how much is spent on
pay and rewards, more attention should be given to this rather than training programmes
considering the consequences those poor rewards systems can have on an organisation.
Having the right type of rewards programme will help workers to grow, mature and
ultimately add value to your organisation. Pay, both ‘variable and base’, is key to
ensuring you get the most value from your employees, especially high performers
according to a report on salary surveys (Zingheim, 2010, p. 9). Organisations that spread
pay more evenly drive away high performers and encourage the same type of average
performance throughout the organisation. This report argues financial remuneration
should be based on the value you add to your organisation. But how important is pay to
the success of a company over a longer period of time? In their study on the role of
reward systems in the high performance organisation, de Waal and Jansen (2011, p. 9)
found pay related bonuses to be neither effectual nor ineffectual to an organisations
performance. While there is ample evidence to suggest certain types of performance
related pay increases productivity, this was not the conclusion of the study. Of the 12
‘HPO’ (high performance organisation) characteristics discussed in this study, pay was
the most dominant. However it concluded that over the longer period, this does not have
a positive or negative effect on organisational performance. Gilmore and Smith (2005)
refer to this high performance organisation as been non-hierarchical and moving away
from central management control to a more team based form of working with
responsibilities spread more evenly and based on high levels of trust and communication.
This raises some interesting points on how to reward these teams, either collectively or
individually, and how reward systems work in the team based environment. This will be
further discussed later in the chapter. To enhance this point, employee motivation can be
driven more by intrinsic rewards (e.g. doing work you enjoy) than by extrinsic rewards
18

(pay, bonuses). In their study on employee and change initiatives, Stumpf et al. (2013, p.
10) focussed on two intrinsic rewards – meaningfulness and choice. They argue that these
are essential to employee satisfaction and retaining employees in times of organisational
uncertainty and change. So in this case, intrinsic rewards were more effective than
monetary rewards. This is in the context of organisational change, so it is interesting to
note that job satisfaction and intention to stay within your role during times of
organisational change, rely of the correct blend of non-financial rewards. Job satisfaction
is an important factor in an employee’s performance and intrinsic rewards play an
important part in this.
Similarly, in their study of the effect of cash bonuses on employee performance in the
Kenya Power and Lighting Company Ltd, Njanja et al. (2013) found that although the
majority of staff surveyed had a perception that cash bonuses motivate performance, the
study concluded that these cash bonuses had no effect on employee performance. Those
who had received a bonus and those who had not, perceived it to affect their performance
the same; hence it did not have a significant effect on performance. However, conversely
in their study of reward structures within the British construction industry (Drunker and
White, 1996, p. 142) showed that due to the project nature of that industry and the clear
distinction in its work force between the manual and white collar workforce, PRP
systems may yield results among professional and senior managers in that industry. It
suggests that this PRP model could be developed in the context of improving
performance in a project team, and around a competency or skill based pay system.
Similarly, Bart et al. (2008, p. 9), in their wide ranging study on who pays for
performance and based on Norwegian establishment surveys from 1997 to 2003, found
that the success or failure of performance related pay will very much depend on the
setting that it is introduced into and the “prediction is that output-based incentive pay
schemes are more likely to be observed when there is considerable employee discretion
over work tasks”. So they found that performance related pay is more widespread in
bigger organisations and less common in more unionised organisations. They found a
link between the educational qualification of employees and the use of individual based
performance pay and also a clear link between performance been positively affected by
19

PRP and the level of autonomy the work has. In this sense the more discretion a worker
has over his/her tasks, the more successful PRP will be.
Although there is a lot of evidence to suggest both type of rewards affect organisational
performance, here the researchers suggest that focussing on intrinsic rewards shows that
the role itself is enough to foster within the employee, a sense of worth, enjoyment and
empowerment. These intrinsic rewards can be particularly affective in times of change
within an organisational structure. However, the allocation of these rewards in a
systematic and fair manner is crucial to their success. And of course the issue of
individualistic need can directly affect the positive performance outcome of PRP. In their
study on organisational rewards: considering employee need in allocation, Webb Day et
al. (2014) discuss how using a pay-for-performance model in a western organisation can
have positive results on performance. By focussing not just on the pay, but also on the
individual’s specific needs for this pay, it found that not only can you achieve positive
performance outcomes, but it helps the organisation to respond better to employee
expectations. It also found that through communication of need to your manager,
employees with higher needs were more likely to receive larger rewards.
Similarly, when rewarding knowledge workers or those tasked with innovating as part of
their role, a motivated employee is more productive and thus a higher performer.
Intrinsic motivation is more important for productivity and performance when relating to
creative or innovative workers (Markova and Ford, 2011). This study focussed on
employees in over 30 large companies and through a scaling system rated by supervisors,
found that neither monetary nor non-monetary rewards had any direct effect on
performance. However, they did have an effect on motivation and the more motivated the
employees were, the more time they spent on job tasks and therefore positively affect
performance in the long term.
This in turn is important for organisational competitiveness. It also shows how non pay
based rewards and performance and innovation can intertwine with positive outcomes.
So in affect money is not the panacea and does not lead to a longer working time or
improved cooperation and behaviours among workers. Intrinsic rewards can be equally
effective, but less costly.
20

Bratton and Gold (2012, p. 370) highlight the fact that performance-based pay systems tie
pay to employees outputs. These outputs might contain positive contributions from the
individual or team, thus providing the basis for different types of pay systems.
However PRP is not without its pitfalls, specifically if not managed or implemented
correctly. Lewis (2006) argues employees and managers can lose faith in the concept due
to:
1). Poor design or communication
2). Excessive focus on financial results
3). Inadequate salary differentiation (a problem in times of low inflation and across
different geographic locations)
4). Too much emphasis on individual performance
According to Armstrong (2007, p. 285) there has been a backlash against PRP in the
1990’s and this has led modern day organisations to introduce second generation
schemes, in order to avoid earlier mistakes. There is room for more research in this area
in relation to trying the concept with more competence-related or contribution-related
pay.
So depending on the scheme of PRP chosen, it can be effective when a ‘participative
system’ is used inclusive of an employee’s overall performance objectives or ineffective
where the PRP scheme is ‘highly selective’ (Schmidt et al., 2011). In this study on
performance related pay in German public services, the researchers looked at how PRP
influences functionality, or how people work. This, by extension, can determine
performance. They looked at the impact of introducing PRP in a decentralised way and if
local factors influence its effectiveness, which is an interesting concept when evaluating
PRP in a multinational organization. Their findings pointed firmly to the introduction of
PRP causing problems to a greater or lesser extent depending on the method of
performance assessment applied. Within the context of a public service body, the
effectiveness of PRP has weakened because of the small financial budget available for
reward.
21

However, in their research involving six different case studies from Italian central
government, (Azzone and Palermo, 2011, p. 107) found serious flaws in the reward
structure where no link could be found between performance appraisal and rewards. In
this case performance was found to suffer adversely, and it was recommended to use
existing reliable performance measures to overcome this especially when the organisation
is going through change. However, in the context of the public sector performance-based
rewards schemes (PBRS), and pay as a facet of these, have been shown to be effective in
managing employee performance, especially high performers. Performance based pay
aligned with a broader performance assessment can facilitate better customer focussed
performance metrics as well as other organisational objectives within a public sector
environment (Kealesitse et al., 2013). This study on developing customer-focussed public
sector reward schemes in the Botswana government’s performance based reward system,
found that implementing a performance based reward scheme was difficult where
employees do not have a high degree of autonomy, which is common in many public
sector bodies. They also found the broad and conflicting nature of targets within this
public sector meant performance related pay schemes were more difficult to implement
successfully and thus to increase performance.
Similarly, but in a different industry (Randle, 1997, p. 192) in his research paper on PRP
systems in the pharmaceutical research sector, discovered that most participants were not
opposed to the concept of performance related pay but in practice it was widely
condemned as the rating system was not perceived to be fair or transparent enough. He
questions how accurately managers can define what constitutes good performance in the
research sector as measuring the quality of ideas, which is extremely important in the
R&D sector, can prove difficult for managers. The real danger in this industry context is
that PRP may alter the output of scientific researchers, encouraging them to adapt certain
behaviours which are at odds with the essential practice of team work in this industry. In
this regard, PRP can have an adverse effect on performance in the overall value add to
the organisation. They also found that PRP, applied contingently on performance, can
reduce “intrinsic motivation” which is believed to be important among scientific staff.
They considered the dysfunctional elements of PRP outweighs any perceived benefits in
22

organisations that rely on team work for productivity and that it will eventually be
relegated in terms of valuable rewards available to employees in such settings.
Even if the correct PRP scheme is chosen, employee motivation can also affect this
performance so it’s important that this is not ignored as Hume (1995) highlights:
Whilst employees will normally attend work in return for an agreed wage or
salary, the level of effort or work rate of employees receiving the same wage or
salary is likely to be significantly different. Motivation is therefore concerned with
both the direction and intensity of behaviour – what causes specific actions, and
what determines the intensity of such action (Hume, 1995, p. 14).
As traditional reward systems such as pay compensate employees based on skills and
competences, it is important not to lose the ability to reward based on flexibility and other
personal and professional traits employees may demonstrate in the workplace, such as
performing well in teams or showing the right decision making ability in difficult
situations.

2.4 Total Rewards System
This concept, although broad in its application, is defined by Taylor (2011, p. 140) as
“total reward involves designing a rich mix of complimentary initiatives which aim to
maximize the chances that employees will find their work to be ‘rewarding’ in the widest
sense of the word”. Aligning this reward system design with the overall strategy of the
organization so as it’s not perceived to be ad-hoc is considered to be a key factor in its
success according to Stredwick (2000) in his case study on aligning rewards to
organizational goals within a multinational pharmaceutical company. It found that
through “broad-banding” or the allocation of roles into different grades with different
rewards, it motivated employees to perform better in order to attain progression in the
their careers, but these rewards needed to be varied and flexible and not just pay related.
Also it highlights the need for HR practitioners to understand the business needs of the
23

organization and to design reward strategies that change employee behaviors that will in
turn lead to increased performance.
Finding the right blend of tangible and intangible rewards to adequately motivate and
retain your employees is a difficult task. The total reward approach is therefore very
broad and can never constitute a one size fits all solution to rewarding employees in the
workplace. One important question posed by (De Mattio et al., 1998, p. 174) is how a
combination of reward practices can be used to reinforce and encourage high levels of
individual performance and, at the same time, foster team work among individuals. Some
researchers suggest that rather than choosing individual or group based incentives on
their own, a combination of the two incentive strategies may be more effective in
motivating performance at the individual level and cooperation at the team level
(Heneman and von Hippel, 1995). In their research on how reward strategy effects
performance in the Malaysian insurance industry, (Tze San et al., 2012) found that
although financial and objective measures are central in designing reward systems, when
they incorporated non -financial rewards into the reward system, they seen an increase in
both financial and non-financial aspects of performance. They believed this lead to an
increase in the organisations reputation, more energy and team spirit in the workplace and
made the organisation more attractive to potential new recruits. They also concluded that
although similar reward systems exist across organisations in this industry, the
development of the reward system will depend on the size of the organisation.
As you can see below in Figure 1, the world at work total rewards model on strategies to
attract, motivate and retain employees illustrates how a total rewards package,
incorporated into the organisations design, is supposed to yield positive performance
results.

24

Figure 1: World at Work Total rewards model

(Source: WorldatWork (2006), from www.worldatwork.org/pub/total_rewards_model.pdf)
Investing in this type of reward system can foster high-performance work teams and
individuals, and help to achieve organisational goals (Hall-Ellis, 2014, p. 66). In this
study on how reward systems can promote high performance work teams within a library
environment, the researcher found that development and recognition is a shared
responsibility between employee and management. So you must establish a clear
connection between behaviour and performance on one side and rewards on the other.
Employees expected compensation and benefits as a normal parts of their rewards for
working, but performance can be increased by adding to these typical rewards with
recognition of achievements in front of peers, “employee of the month”, message on
library intranet or social media and appreciation (handwritten note from manager, lunch
with manager, recognition meal event). Although the monetary outlay was modest, it was
well worth the investment.
The total reward system should be well structured, customer focussed, fit in strategically
with organisational goals and be designed to encourage ethical behaviour. Pay is still an
important part of it. So the pressures to achieve this incentive and reach your