Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

5963 Saad Bin Nasir et al./ Elixir Mgmt.

Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

Available online at www.elixirpublishers.com (Elixir International Journal)

Management Arts
Elixir Mgmt. Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

The impact of job involvement, reward system on employees job performance

Saad Bin Nasir1, Rizwan Farooq Goraya2, Umer Arshad3, Fahad Bin Nasir4 and Awais Ijaz Cheema5
Department of Business Administration, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Department of English, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Department of Business Administration, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Department of Computer Sciences, NUST, Islamabad, Pakistan
Department of Banking and Finance, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Art i c l e h i st ory : The study is examined how employee’s job performance is affected by job involvement and
Received: 30 September 2011; reward system. The main objective of this study is examined how job performance of the
Received in revised form: employees is affected through described independent variables that are job involvement and
17 December 2011; reward system in banking sectors. This study examined that Effective Reward system and
Accepted: 26 December 2011; job involvement of employees playing important role in every organization since from many
years and organization itself pays more attention to these kinds of sensitive matters because
K ey w or d s organization knows these 2 matters can increase their overall profit or increase
Jobs, Employee Productivity, organizational productivity. This study shows Reward system refers to that program which is
Employee Performance, offered by any organization for the purpose to increase employee performance and employee
Organizational Productivity. productivity.
© 2011 Elixir All rights reserved.

Introduction performance and also indentify the relationship between them

This study is focused upon identification of various and also checked the impact of reward system on employee’s
relationships between job involvements; reward system and job performance. One study “(Chughtai)” founded that measure
employees job performance. the relationship between employee s job involvements and
In old days it was concept that if a capital has enough employees job performance and also checked the organizational
capital that organization will earn more success that organization citizenship behavior and got the result that there was positive
will more profitable and will easily achieves its target. Now the relationship between both of them. This study also measure that
concept has been changed and now organizations realize that there is also strong relationship between organizational
human capital leads to competitive edge. commitment and job involvement. Further this research also
Those organizations who have skilled workforce that gives result that job involvement has more strong and positive
organization will effectively deal with the capital when impact on organizational citizenship behavior than on job
workforce has knowledge of every thing and people of the performance. And the other study “(Puwanenthiren
organization are experienced they can able to effective use of Pratheepkanth)” that shows the impact of reward system on
money. employees’ job performance. Reward system is an opportunity
Employees are the most important stakeholders of the or tools for the employees that given to them by the organization
company and also consider the valuable assets of the company if to improve their motivation level, abilities, skills, knowledge,
they are productive and performing their job with full behaviors and attitude so that they can qualify for reward
commitment that organization will earn more profit and get system. This study shows that there is a strong relationship
superior value in the market. between reward system and employees job performance.
Organization should give high importance to their Because the strong reward system leads to the high level of
employees and also include in decision making at the end their employees job performance. Employees know if they do well
motivation level will b high and they will perform their work in they can get better result in the form of reward program. They
better way. do their work in an effective manner which leads to the overall
In small companies most of the times there is no concern to profitable results of the organization. This study will help us to
employees motivation. All efforts are performed for the learn that Reward system is separate from salary usually and
organization productivity and profitable results and employees employees have more chances to get these types of rewards if
are usually ignored in those organizations. At the end they pay more attention to their work. And usually when reward
employee’s performance and motivation level decreased. system is offer than competition among employees also start
Employees’ job performance may be affecting by number of every one try to work hard and improves his performance so that
different factors. Different numbers of employees have different he qualify for reward. This study gives us knowledge that
attitude and behavior and these two important things play an employee involvement of each employee of the organization
important role in their productivity or performance. also has positive impact on employee job performance. When
The level, to which the employee gets involved in his job, the employees are more committed towards their work, their
also plays a vital role in determining his performance. The duties, and their responsibilities they can leads to their
project will identify the impact of job involvement on job organization in a productive and effective manner.

E-mail addresses: saad.goraya@hotmail.co.uk
© 2011 Elixir All rights reserved
5964 Saad Bin Nasir et al./ Elixir Mgmt. Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

They have more chances to get reward program which is totally Job Performance: Job performance was measured by
base on their performance. This study also tells that using 7 - Items scale by (William & Anderson, 1991).
Organizational culture matters a lot. If culture of organization is Responses were taken on 5 point likert scale ranging form 1=
good and have a healthy environment it can lead to the better strongly disagree to 5= strongly Agree. Sample item is “This
result. Employees will heartily participate in their work, in their person failed to complete the assigned duties”. Reliability results
duties and responsibilities and if they enjoy their working for cronbach’s alpha are found 0.91.
condition they will have more productive result that will good Results
for any organization. Organizational culture impacts on Frequency Distribution
employee performance if employee will work with full Frequency distribution has been used in order to check the
motivation and have a good environment they will produce more frequency of the data. Frequency distribution helps researcher to
effective and productive result and their involvement towards get array of data. It explains the frequency with which the
their work will also increased and if all these things increased respondents respond towards a specific question. Dependent and
organizational results will automatic increased. The purpose of independent variables of the study are analyzed one after the
this present study was to examine the effect of job involvement other to check the frequency distribution.
on the employees’ job performance. A second purpose of this Frequency results depict about the responses of the
study was investigating the impact of reward system on the respondents that how many employees perceive about how
employees, job performance. much they are involved with their organization. Job involvement
Methodology is measured by using 5 likert scale where “1= strongly disagree,
Research Methodology 2= disagree, 3= neither agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5=
The questionnaire was distributed among employees in strongly agree”. Table 1 consists of the items used for measuring
different banks like UBL, MCB, HBL and NBP. A total 50 the Job involvement response frequencies against each item.
questionnaires were distributed out of which 44 returned with a Moreover, mean and standard deviation of each item is also
response rate of 88 percent .After deducting unfilled given in order to find out average response.
questionnaires, finally 44 were available for statistical analysis. Individual results of frequency distribution reveal that
The questionnaire distrusted from the range of Executives and mostly employees reported responses from neither agree nor
lower staff of different banks in Faisalabad region. With this disagree to agree. Both extremes i.e. strongly disagree and
questionnaire covering letter was also attached which shows the strongly agree have less frequently been reported by the
purpose or importance of this research and also tells that respondents.
participation was voluntary in nature. In order to collect data Results of the first question regarding Job involvement zero
from Executives and lower staff random sampling technique was respondents answered highly disagree, 2 respondents reported
used. The qualifications of the respondents of this report ranged disagree about first question, 13 respondents were neither agree
from high school to post graduate and the result tells us post nor disagree, 24 respondents were agree about the Job
graduate were 88 % and remaining 12% were graduate. involvement question one as “The most important” and finally 5
In order to find out Mean and Standard Deviation for answered from the respondents towards first question that was
various characteristics Descriptive statistics has been used in this highly agreeable. Next second question as “To me, my job is”
study. Mean describes the average response of the employees employees respond only 4 were highly disagree, 4 disagree, 13
while Standard Deviation reveals from the mean “(Cooper & employees neither agree nor disagree but 15 of the respondents
schindler, 2005)”. were agree and 8 employees marked highly agree regarding
Regression analysis has also been used to check the change second question and mean average of the respondents was agree,
in relationship. SPSS software was used for Regression analysis. so first and second question showed the employee’s state of
Cronbach’s alpha has been used because it considered as most mind towards agreeableness. Third item in which response of
reliable tool for measuring the reliability test. Analysis of the the 1 employee was highly disagree, 1 reported disagree, 9
data shows reliable result the low degree of error. respondents neither agree nor disagree but 23 of the respondents
Measures: were agree and 10 employees marked highly agree. Fourth item
Other then job performance the entire responses were revealed the result 3 employees respond highly disagree, 5
obtained through self-reported measures. The research was respondents disagree, 13 neither agree nor disagree, but 17
conducted in English, as English is well understood in the respondents exposed result as agreeableness and only 6
majority of working areas, especially by those respondents respondents highly agree, mean average of this question was
included in my study. 3.41 that’s mean average respond tends toward agreeableness.
Job involvement: Job involvement was measured by using Fifth item revealed as 1 respondent highly disagree and 2
(Kanungo, 1982) ten items scale. Responses in this study were employees respond disagree, 12 respondents neither agree nor
made on five point scale ranging form 1= ‘strongly disagree’ to disagree, 22 gave the answer agree and 7 employees showed
5= ‘strongly agree’ A sample item for job involvement is quoted their concern about highly agree which showed majority of the
as: “I am very much involved personally in my job “. Reliability respondents inclined towards showing they are neither agree nor
results for cronbach’s alpha in this study are found 0.65 for job disagree and also showing their agreeableness for this question.
involvement. In sixth item as “I have very strong” only 2 employees respond
Reward system: Reward system was measured by using highly disagree, 7 answered disagree, 12 respondents neither
David Creelman 8 items scale. Responses were made on five agree nor disagree, on the other hand 14 reported in the favor of
point scale ranging form 1= ‘strongly disagree’ to 5= ‘strongly this question but only 9 employees were highly agreed, mean
agree’. A sample item for relational contract is: “Is this reward average regarding this question was positive, finally all the
system increasing your knowledge, skills, and abilities”. respondents were agree with this question of the job
Reliability results for cronbach’s alpha are found 0.95. involvement. In Seventh item as “Usually i feel” 5 respondents
5965 Saad Bin Nasir et al./ Elixir Mgmt. Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

strongly disagree, 8 employees answered disagree, 19 employees agree nor disagree, on the other hand 17 reported in the favor of
neither agree nor disagree, 9 employees were in the favor and this question but 11 employees were highly agreed, mean
only 3 respondents were strongly agree, mean average was average regarding this question was positive, finally all the
recorded 2.93. Eightieth, 1 respondent was highly disagree, 5 respondents were agree with this question of the reward system.
respondents were disagree, 12 neither agree nor disagree, 20 In Seventh item as “Does this reward system lead to satisfactory
employees agreed in the eightieth question of job involvement, results for overall organization” 3 respondents strongly disagree,
and 6 with highly agree, 3.57 was calculated mean of this item 4 employees answered disagree, 11 employees neither agree nor
that showed agreeable results. Ninth, “I consider my job” 1 disagree, 16 employees were in the favor and 10 respondents
employee tendency towards strongly disagree, 5 were disagree were strongly agree, mean average was recorded 3.59 which
with this concern, 10 employees neither agree nor disagree, 17 reveals favorable result, overall opinion of the respondents in the
were agree and whereas only 11 employees were highly agree, regard was agreeableness. In eightieth question, 3 respondents
average mean of this question is 3.73, result of this question was were highly disagree, 6 respondents were disagree, 12 neither
in favor. Tenth, zero employee respond as strongly disagree, agree nor disagree, 13 employees agreed in the eightieth
whereas 2 were disagree, 6 employees revealed the result neither question of reward system, and 10 with highly agree, 3.48 was
agree nor disagree, 23 were agreed and only 13 were highly calculated mean of this item that showed agreeable results.
agreed, mean average of this query was 4.07, respondents This table shows the responses of the respondents that on
showed favorableness. the average how Executives or managers perceive about their
Frequency results reveals about employee’s perception employee’s performance. Job performance is also measured by
towards reward system them and organization. using 5 likert scale where “1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=
Reward system was also measured by using 8 items scale neither agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5= strongly agree”.
likert scale where “1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neither Table 3 consists of the questions used for measuring the job
agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5= strongly agree”. Table 2 performance and their response frequency.
consists of the items used for measuring this variable and their Results of first question regarding job performance reported
response frequency. Mean and standard deviation has also been 1 respondent was highly disagree, 1 as disagree, 9 employees
found out to gauge the average and variation in the data. neither agree nor disagree, Executives or managers answered
Individual results of frequency distribution shows that that 28 employees performed their assigned responsibilities in
mostly employees reported responses from agree to highly well manner and employees met the outcomes, 5 respondents
agree. were highly agree overall mean average of this question, the
Result of the first question as “Does this reward system”, employee’s performance observed in agreeable according to the
Reward system reported 4 respondents were highly disagree Executives or managers. Second, question was about to measure
with this question, 5 were disagree, 13 respondents neither agree the performance of the employees that they fulfilled the
nor disagree, 13 were respond agree and 9 employees were responsibilities assigned to them, so, manager’s point of view
highly agree and mean average for this question depicted that only 1 respondent did not complete his duty during his working
majority of the respondents answered as neither agree nor hour, 2 respondents disagreed by the managers that they also did
disagree and also agree. Second question was “What do you not fulfill their responsibilities, Executives or managers
think” perception of the employees regarding this question was answered neither agree nor disagree for 8 employees, for 28
almost same as first question, there were only 6 employees employees performed their duties, for 5 employees manager
highly disagree, 6 employees respond disagree, 3 respondents were highly agree so, mean average of this question was 3.77
neither agree nor disagree, 16 employees respond as agree, but which depict the tendency of the performance of employee in
13 answered about highly agree, again mean average of the banking sector of the Faisalabad is good. Third, question was
respondents showed the results as 3.55 this figure also revealed about given task was performed by the employees or not, about
employees of the organization were agreed with this question. 1 respondent managers or executives highly disagree, 2
Third, question was “Is this reward system developing your employees did not perform the task that was assigned to them
career”, only 2 employees were highly disagree, 6 employees according to the manager, manager about 10 employees neither
responses this question as disagree, 9 employees neither agree agree nor disagree, 27 employees perform the duties managers
nor disagree, 15 employees results depicted they were agree agreed about the performance of the employees, manager
with this concern, 12 respondents were highly agree. Fourth, evaluated the performance of 4 employees as highly agree that
question was “Is this reward system enhancing your they performed their tasks but average results about this
productivity”, 3 respondents gave answer as highly disagree, 4 question managers were satisfied form the performance of the
employees were respond disagree with this question, 9 employees mean average was recorded 3.70. Fourth question
respondents neither agree nor disagree, 15 employee’s responds was about “employees meet the formal performance” only 1
were reported that they were agree with this question, 13 employee according to the managers or executives did not meet
employees were highly agree and mean average the employees the formal performance, for 3 employees managers or executives
for this question noted 3.71. Fifth, question was “Is this reward were disagree they also did not perform their responsibilities,
system working according to your job level”, 2 responses carried managers or executives for 23 employees neither agree nor
with highly disagree, 10 respondents reported disagree, 12 disagree, on the other hand managers or executives analyzed 10
neither agree not disagree, 14 employees answered as agree, 6 employees meet the formal performance and he agreed with
employees were highly agree and mean average of this question their mind set for the job, for 7 employees managers or
noted 3.27 that calculate the result, response was agreeableness. executives remarked as highly agree but mean average of the
. In sixth item as “Is this reward system increasing your question reported that most of the employees may be or not meet
knowledge, skills, and abilities” only 3 employees respond the formal performance. Fifth, question was “Neglects aspects of
highly disagree, 7 answered disagree, 6 respondents neither the job he/she is obligated to perform”, according to this
5966 Saad Bin Nasir et al./ Elixir Mgmt. Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

managers or executives reported that 1 of the respondent manipulate significant positive or negative relationship which
“neglect aspects of the job in which they obligated to perform”, derives the comprehend results. The basic main hypothesis of
for 3 employees managers or executives answered as disagree the research in this study proposed is to measure the impact of
the stated number of the employees also did not neglect aspects Job involvement on the employee’s job performance. The
of the job they obligated to perform, for 22 managers neither relationship of these variables job involvement and job
agree or disagree, for 14 of the respondents managers or performance was measured positive relationship from the data
executives revealed the result as agree that employees neglect collection from banking sector of Pakistan in Punjab
their duties in which they obligated to perform, and highly agree (Faisalabad). The results of the proposed hypothesis show that if
for 4 employees, average mean of this question was noted 3.39. the employees are fully involved or committed with their job
Sixth, question managers or executives strictly remarked 1 then they will produce more effective results for themselves and
respondent “engage in activities that will directly affect his/her as well as for the organization. There is positive relationship
performance”, for 4 employees managers or executives was between job involvement and job performance if one thing both
disagree, for 24 employees managers or executives neither agree of them will increase other thing automatically increased if
nor disagree, for 11 employees managers or executives reported employees are fully involved and full of motivation he will
as agree, for the sake of 4 employees managers or executives definitely receive positive results and his or her performance
answered as highly agree and overall average mean was noted will improve day by day. Organization should involve
3.30. Seventh, question was “Fail to perform essential duties”, employees in decision making scheme so that their level of
mean average of this question was 3.27 which measure that motivation should be increase. If employees are fully involved
mostly manager’s responds about their employees neither agree towards their job and performing their task or responsibilities
nor disagree. with great attention than organization should also take some
Descriptive Statistics positive actions specially designed for the betterment of the
The result shows descriptive statistics, correlations and employees.
reliability. The mean of age 2.45 which show average age of the Reference
employees is almost 31 years, the mean for income level of the Somers, M.J. & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related
employees is 2.48 (S.D = 1.109) which show average income commitment and job performance:it’s also the nature of the
level of the employees is almost 16,000 to 30,000, the mean for performance that counts. Journal of OrganizationalBehaviour,
qualification is 3.87 (S.D = .32), the mean for experience of the 19, 621-34.
employees is 2.34 (S.D = .83), the mean for job involvement is Yousef, D.A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a
3.59 (S.D = 0.89) and mean for reward system is 3.53 (S.D = predictor of organizational commitment and job performance in
1.04) , mean for job performance is 3.56 (S.D =.70). a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower,
Regression Analysis 19, 184-194
There is a table 4 which shows all regression results of job Zikmund, W.G. (2003). Business research methods. Ohio:
involvement, Reward system and with employee’s job Thomson South-Western.
performance. Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.L., Podsakoff, N.P.
Job involvement and job performance (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A
Hypothesis 1 predicted that there is a significant positive critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
relationship between job involvement and employees job Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
performance. I regressed Job involvement with job performance Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R.
(ß = 0.016, R2 = 0.00) which shows that job involvement have (1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on
significant impact on employees job performance, which clearly followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
prove that those employees who have relational contract show citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107 – 142.
higher level of performance on their jobs. Value of ß = 0.016 Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1977). Organizational research on
shows that one unit change in job involvement bring 0.016 unit job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
change in job performance and R2 =0.00 shows that zero Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1981). Changing correlates of job
percent variation in job performance is explained by job involvement in three career stages. Journal of Vocational
involvement and remaining by other factors, So regression Behaviour, 18, 138-144.
results significantly support first hypothesis of the study. Rotenberry, P.F., & Moberg, P.J. (2007). Assessing the impact
Reward system and job performance of job involvement on performance. Management Research
Hypothesis 2 predicted that there is a significant strong News , 30, 203-215.
relationship between reward system and job performance. When Saal, F.E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach.
reward system regressed with job performance, following values Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 53-61.
are derived, (ß = .12, R2 =.014). Results of regression analysis Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A
shows that reward system have significant positive and strong theory of individual differences in task and contextual
impact on employee’s job performance. Value of ß = .12 shows performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.
that one unit change in reward system bring .12 unit positive Motowidlo, S.J. & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task
change in job performance and R2 =.014 shows that variation in performance should be distinguished from contextual
job performance is explained by reward system and remaining performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
by other factors. So regression results significantly support Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding
second hypothesis of the study. Performance Appraisal, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Conclusion Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P.M.,
The results of the study shows strong support for the (1994). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive
proposed hypothesis of the research either hypothesis Advantage. Burr Ridge, Illinois: Irwin.
5967 Saad Bin Nasir et al./ Elixir Mgmt. Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

Oeser, O.A., & Harary, F. (1964). A mathematical model for Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 2,
structural role theory, II. Human Relations, 17, 3-17. 2nd ed., pp 165-207), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Organ, D.W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction- Press.
performance Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547- Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1995). Understanding human
557. resource management in the context of organizations and their
Campbell, J.D., Trapnell, P.D., Heine, S.J., Katz, I.M., Lavallee, environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237-204.
L.F., & Lehman, D.R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Mead R. What is Stress? Roger Mead Associates, Stress
Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries, Management, Coaching and Training for Individuals and Groups
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156. 2000.
Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction Murphy, S. L. Sauter, Occupational Stress Issues &
problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Development in Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Dunnette and L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Harrison, D.A., and Martocchio, J.J. (1998). Time for
Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp 687-732), Palo absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots and
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 305-350.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H., & Sager, CE Lawler, E.E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based
(1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmidt, W.C. Borman, organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 3-15.
& Assoc. (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations, pp 35-70, Lawler, E.E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage, San Francisco,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cardy, R. L. & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance Appraisal: Lawler, E.E. (1986). High Involvement Management:
Alternative Perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational
Publishing Co. Performance, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Role-Based
Dyer, L. & Theriault, R. (1976). The determinants of pay Performance Scale WP 97-05 Page 28
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 596-604. Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., & Ledford, G.E. (1992).
Gerhart, B., Minkhoff, H.B., & Olsen, R.N. (1995). Employee Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management:
compensation, theory, practice, and evidence. Center for Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies, San
Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
NY: working paper 95-04. Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Balkin, D.B. (1992). Compensation, theory of individual differences in task and contextual
organizational strategy, and firm performance. Cincinnati, Ohio: performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.
South-Western Publishing Co. Motowidlo, S.J. & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., & Cardy, R.L. (1998). performance should be distinguished from contextual
Managing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
Hall, Inc. JK White RR Ruh (1973). Effects of Personal Values on the
Graham-Moore, B.E. & Ross, T.L. (1990). Productivity relationship between participation and Job Attitudes.
gainsharing: How employee incentive plans can improve Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 4, p.509
business performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding
Heneman, H.G., & Schwab, D.P. (1985) Pay satisfaction: Its Performance Appraisal, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
multidimensional nature and measurement. Journal of Lodahl, T., and Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and
Psychology, 20, 129-141. measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied
Ilgen, D.R., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1992). The structure of work: Psychology, 49, 24-33.
Job design and roles. In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (Eds.),

Table 1Job involvement

Item # Job Involvement 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation

1 The most important… 0 2 13 24 5 3.73 0.727

2 To me, my job is… 4 4 13 15 8 3.43 1.169
3 I am very much involved… 1 1 9 23 10 3.91 0.857
4 I live, eat and breathe… 3 5 13 17 6 3.41 1.085
5 Most of my interests… 1 2 12 22 7 3.73 0.872
6 I have very strong… 2 7 12 14 9 3.48 1.130
7 Usually i feel… 5 8 19 9 3 2.93 1.065
8 Most of my personal life… 1 5 12 20 6 3.57 0.949
9 I consider my job… 1 5 10 17 11 3.73 1.042
10 I like to be really… 0 2 6 23 13 4.07 0.789
5968 Saad Bin Nasir et al./ Elixir Mgmt. Arts 41 (2011) 5963-5968

Table 2 Reward System

Item # Reward System 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation

1 Does this reward system.. 4 5 13 13 9 3.41 1.206

2 What do you think……. 6 6 3 16 13 3.55 1.405
3 Is this reward system.. 2 6 9 15 12 3.66 1.160
4 Is this reward system … 3 4 9 15 13 3.71 1.192
5 Is this reward system … 2 10 12 14 6 3.27 1.107
6 Is this reward system … 3 7 6 17 11 3.59 1.226
7 Does this reward system… 3 4 11 16 10 3.59 1.147
8 Is this reward system.. 3 6 12 13 10 3.48 1.190

Table 3 Job Performance

Item # Performance 1 2 3 4 5 Mean St. Deviation

1 Adequately complete……. 1 1 9 28 5 3.80 0.764

2 Fulfills responsibilities……….. 1 2 8 28 5 3.77 0.803
3 Perform tasks that……… 1 2 10 27 4 3.70 0.794
4 Meets formal performance.. 1 3 23 10 7 3.72 0.898
5 Neglects aspects of the……. 1 3 22 14 4 3.39 0.841
6 Engage in activities……. 1 4 24 11 4 3.30 0.851
7 Fails to perform…….. 2 4 24 8 6 3.27 0.973

Table 4 Regression analysis

Job Performance
Variables β R2

job involvement 0.016 0.000

Reward system 0.120 0.014