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
1
Department of Business Administration, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
2
Department of English, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
3
Department of Business Administration, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
4
Department of Computer Sciences, NUST, Islamabad, Pakistan
5
Department of Banking and Finance, Government College University, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

A R TI C L E I N F O
Art i c l e h i st ory :
Received: 30 September 2011;
Received in revised form:
17 December 2011;
Accepted: 26 December 2011;
K ey w or d s
Jobs, Employee Productivity,
Employee Performance,
Organizational Productivity.
A B ST R A C T
The study is examined how employee’s job performance is affected by job involvement and
reward system. The main objective of this study is examined how job performance of the
employees is affected through described independent variables that are job involvement and
reward system in banking sectors. This study examined that Effective Reward system and
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
organization knows these 2 matters can increase their overall profit or increase
organizational productivity. This study shows Reward system refers to that program which is
offered by any organization for the purpose to increase employee performance and employee
productivity.
© 2011 Elixir All rights reserved.

Introduction performance and also indentify the relationship between them

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

Tele:
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
base on their performance. This study also tells that
Organizational culture matters a lot. If culture of organization is
good and have a healthy environment it can lead to the better
result. Employees will heartily participate in their work, in their
duties and responsibilities and if they enjoy their working
condition they will have more productive result that will good
for any organization. Organizational culture impacts on
employee performance if employee will work with full
motivation and have a good environment they will produce more
effective and productive result and their involvement towards
their work will also increased and if all these things increased
organizational results will automatic increased. The purpose of
this present study was to examine the effect of job involvement
on the employees’ job performance. A second purpose of this
study was investigating the impact of reward system on the
employees, job performance.
Methodology
Research Methodology
The questionnaire was distributed among employees in
different banks like UBL, MCB, HBL and NBP. A total 50
questionnaires were distributed out of which 44 returned with a
response rate of 88 percent .After deducting unfilled
questionnaires, finally 44 were available for statistical analysis.
The questionnaire distrusted from the range of Executives and
lower staff of different banks in Faisalabad region. With this
questionnaire covering letter was also attached which shows the
purpose or importance of this research and also tells that
participation was voluntary in nature. In order to collect data
from Executives and lower staff random sampling technique was
used. The qualifications of the respondents of this report ranged
from high school to post graduate and the result tells us post
graduate were 88 % and remaining 12% were graduate.
In order to find out Mean and Standard Deviation for
various characteristics Descriptive statistics has been used in this
study. Mean describes the average response of the employees
while Standard Deviation reveals from the mean “(Cooper &
schindler, 2005)”.
Regression analysis has also been used to check the change
in relationship. SPSS software was used for Regression analysis.
Cronbach’s alpha has been used because it considered as most
reliable tool for measuring the reliability test. Analysis of the
data shows reliable result the low degree of error.
Measures:
Other then job performance the entire responses were
obtained through self-reported measures. The research was
conducted in English, as English is well understood in the
majority of working areas, especially by those respondents
included in my study.
Job involvement: Job involvement was measured by using
(Kanungo, 1982) ten items scale. Responses in this study were
made on five point scale ranging form 1= ‘strongly disagree’ to
5= ‘strongly agree’ A sample item for job involvement is quoted
as: “I am very much involved personally in my job “. Reliability
results for cronbach’s alpha in this study are found 0.65 for job
involvement.
Reward system: Reward system was measured by using
David Creelman 8 items scale. Responses were made on five
point scale ranging form 1= ‘strongly disagree’ to 5= ‘strongly
agree’. A sample item for relational contract is: “Is this reward
system increasing your knowledge, skills, and abilities”.
Reliability results for cronbach’s alpha are found 0.95.
Job Performance: Job performance was measured by
using 7 - Items scale by (William & Anderson, 1991).
Responses were taken on 5 point likert scale ranging form 1=
strongly disagree to 5= strongly Agree. Sample item is “This
person failed to complete the assigned duties”. Reliability results
for cronbach’s alpha are found 0.91.
Results
Frequency Distribution
Frequency distribution has been used in order to check the
frequency of the data. Frequency distribution helps researcher to
get array of data. It explains the frequency with which the
respondents respond towards a specific question. Dependent and
independent variables of the study are analyzed one after the
other to check the frequency distribution.
Frequency results depict about the responses of the
respondents that how many employees perceive about how
much they are involved with their organization. Job involvement
is measured by using 5 likert scale where “1= strongly disagree,
2= disagree, 3= neither agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5=
strongly agree”. Table 1 consists of the items used for measuring
the Job involvement response frequencies against each item.
Moreover, mean and standard deviation of each item is also
given in order to find out average response.
Individual results of frequency distribution reveal that
mostly employees reported responses from neither agree nor
disagree to agree. Both extremes i.e. strongly disagree and
strongly agree have less frequently been reported by the
respondents.
Results of the first question regarding Job involvement zero
respondents answered highly disagree, 2 respondents reported
disagree about first question, 13 respondents were neither agree
nor disagree, 24 respondents were agree about the Job
involvement question one as “The most important” and finally 5
answered from the respondents towards first question that was
highly agreeable. Next second question as “To me, my job is”
employees respond only 4 were highly disagree, 4 disagree, 13
employees neither agree nor disagree but 15 of the respondents
were agree and 8 employees marked highly agree regarding
second question and mean average of the respondents was agree,
so first and second question showed the employee’s state of
mind towards agreeableness. Third item in which response of
the 1 employee was highly disagree, 1 reported disagree, 9
respondents neither agree nor disagree but 23 of the respondents
were agree and 10 employees marked highly agree. Fourth item
revealed the result 3 employees respond highly disagree, 5
respondents disagree, 13 neither agree nor disagree, but 17
respondents exposed result as agreeableness and only 6
respondents highly agree, mean average of this question was
3.41 that’s mean average respond tends toward agreeableness.
Fifth item revealed as 1 respondent highly disagree and 2
employees respond disagree, 12 respondents neither agree nor
disagree, 22 gave the answer agree and 7 employees showed
their concern about highly agree which showed majority of the
respondents inclined towards showing they are neither agree nor
disagree and also showing their agreeableness for this question.
In sixth item as “I have very strong” only 2 employees respond
highly disagree, 7 answered disagree, 12 respondents neither
agree nor disagree, on the other hand 14 reported in the favor of
this question but only 9 employees were highly agreed, mean
average regarding this question was positive, finally all the
respondents were agree with this question of the job
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
neither agree nor disagree, 9 employees were in the favor and
only 3 respondents were strongly agree, mean average was
recorded 2.93. Eightieth, 1 respondent was highly disagree, 5
respondents were disagree, 12 neither agree nor disagree, 20
employees agreed in the eightieth question of job involvement,
and 6 with highly agree, 3.57 was calculated mean of this item
that showed agreeable results. Ninth, “I consider my job” 1
employee tendency towards strongly disagree, 5 were disagree
with this concern, 10 employees neither agree nor disagree, 17
were agree and whereas only 11 employees were highly agree,
average mean of this question is 3.73, result of this question was
in favor. Tenth, zero employee respond as strongly disagree,
whereas 2 were disagree, 6 employees revealed the result neither
agree nor disagree, 23 were agreed and only 13 were highly
agreed, mean average of this query was 4.07, respondents
showed favorableness.
Frequency results reveals about employee’s perception
towards reward system them and organization.
Reward system was also measured by using 8 items scale
likert scale where “1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neither
agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5= strongly agree”. Table 2
consists of the items used for measuring this variable and their
response frequency. Mean and standard deviation has also been
found out to gauge the average and variation in the data.
Individual results of frequency distribution shows that
mostly employees reported responses from agree to highly
agree.
Result of the first question as “Does this reward system”,
Reward system reported 4 respondents were highly disagree
with this question, 5 were disagree, 13 respondents neither agree
nor disagree, 13 were respond agree and 9 employees were
highly agree and mean average for this question depicted that
majority of the respondents answered as neither agree nor
disagree and also agree. Second question was “What do you
think” perception of the employees regarding this question was
almost same as first question, there were only 6 employees
highly disagree, 6 employees respond disagree, 3 respondents
neither agree nor disagree, 16 employees respond as agree, but
13 answered about highly agree, again mean average of the
respondents showed the results as 3.55 this figure also revealed
employees of the organization were agreed with this question.
Third, question was “Is this reward system developing your
career”, only 2 employees were highly disagree, 6 employees
responses this question as disagree, 9 employees neither agree
nor disagree, 15 employees results depicted they were agree
with this concern, 12 respondents were highly agree. Fourth,
question was “Is this reward system enhancing your
productivity”, 3 respondents gave answer as highly disagree, 4
employees were respond disagree with this question, 9
respondents neither agree nor disagree, 15 employee’s responds
were reported that they were agree with this question, 13
employees were highly agree and mean average the employees
for this question noted 3.71. Fifth, question was “Is this reward
system working according to your job level”, 2 responses carried
with highly disagree, 10 respondents reported disagree, 12
neither agree not disagree, 14 employees answered as agree, 6
employees were highly agree and mean average of this question
noted 3.27 that calculate the result, response was agreeableness.
. In sixth item as “Is this reward system increasing your
knowledge, skills, and abilities” only 3 employees respond
highly disagree, 7 answered disagree, 6 respondents neither
agree nor disagree, on the other hand 17 reported in the favor of
this question but 11 employees were highly agreed, mean
average regarding this question was positive, finally all the
respondents were agree with this question of the reward system.
In Seventh item as “Does this reward system lead to satisfactory
results for overall organization” 3 respondents strongly disagree,
4 employees answered disagree, 11 employees neither agree nor
disagree, 16 employees were in the favor and 10 respondents
were strongly agree, mean average was recorded 3.59 which
reveals favorable result, overall opinion of the respondents in the
regard was agreeableness. In eightieth question, 3 respondents
were highly disagree, 6 respondents were disagree, 12 neither
agree nor disagree, 13 employees agreed in the eightieth
question of reward system, and 10 with highly agree, 3.48 was
calculated mean of this item that showed agreeable results.
This table shows the responses of the respondents that on
the average how Executives or managers perceive about their
employee’s performance. Job performance is also measured by
using 5 likert scale where “1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=
neither agree nor disagree, 4= agree and 5= strongly agree”.
Table 3 consists of the questions used for measuring the job
performance and their response frequency.
Results of first question regarding job performance reported
1 respondent was highly disagree, 1 as disagree, 9 employees
neither agree nor disagree, Executives or managers answered
that 28 employees performed their assigned responsibilities in
well manner and employees met the outcomes, 5 respondents
were highly agree overall mean average of this question, the
employee’s performance observed in agreeable according to the
Executives or managers. Second, question was about to measure
the performance of the employees that they fulfilled the
responsibilities assigned to them, so, manager’s point of view
only 1 respondent did not complete his duty during his working
hour, 2 respondents disagreed by the managers that they also did
not fulfill their responsibilities, Executives or managers
answered neither agree nor disagree for 8 employees, for 28
employees performed their duties, for 5 employees manager
were highly agree so, mean average of this question was 3.77
which depict the tendency of the performance of employee in
banking sector of the Faisalabad is good. Third, question was
about given task was performed by the employees or not, about
1 respondent managers or executives highly disagree, 2
employees did not perform the task that was assigned to them
according to the manager, manager about 10 employees neither
agree nor disagree, 27 employees perform the duties managers
agreed about the performance of the employees, manager
evaluated the performance of 4 employees as highly agree that
they performed their tasks but average results about this
question managers were satisfied form the performance of the
employees mean average was recorded 3.70. Fourth question
was about “employees meet the formal performance” only 1
employee according to the managers or executives did not meet
the formal performance, for 3 employees managers or executives
were disagree they also did not perform their responsibilities,
managers or executives for 23 employees neither agree nor
disagree, on the other hand managers or executives analyzed 10
employees meet the formal performance and he agreed with
their mind set for the job, for 7 employees managers or
executives remarked as highly agree but mean average of the
question reported that most of the employees may be or not meet
the formal performance. Fifth, question was “Neglects aspects of
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
“neglect aspects of the job in which they obligated to perform”,
for 3 employees managers or executives answered as disagree
the stated number of the employees also did not neglect aspects
of the job they obligated to perform, for 22 managers neither
agree or disagree, for 14 of the respondents managers or
executives revealed the result as agree that employees neglect
their duties in which they obligated to perform, and highly agree
for 4 employees, average mean of this question was noted 3.39.
Sixth, question managers or executives strictly remarked 1
respondent “engage in activities that will directly affect his/her
performance”, for 4 employees managers or executives was
disagree, for 24 employees managers or executives neither agree
nor disagree, for 11 employees managers or executives reported
as agree, for the sake of 4 employees managers or executives
answered as highly agree and overall average mean was noted
3.30. Seventh, question was “Fail to perform essential duties”,
mean average of this question was 3.27 which measure that
mostly manager’s responds about their employees neither agree
nor disagree.
Descriptive Statistics
The result shows descriptive statistics, correlations and
reliability. The mean of age 2.45 which show average age of the
employees is almost 31 years, the mean for income level of the
employees is 2.48 (S.D = 1.109) which show average income
level of the employees is almost 16,000 to 30,000, the mean for
qualification is 3.87 (S.D = .32), the mean for experience of the
employees is 2.34 (S.D = .83), the mean for job involvement is
3.59 (S.D = 0.89) and mean for reward system is 3.53 (S.D =
1.04) , mean for job performance is 3.56 (S.D =.70).
Regression Analysis
There is a table 4 which shows all regression results of job
involvement, Reward system and with employee’s job
performance.
Job involvement and job performance
Hypothesis 1 predicted that there is a significant positive
relationship between job involvement and employees job
performance. I regressed Job involvement with job performance
(ß = 0.016, R2 = 0.00) which shows that job involvement have
significant impact on employees job performance, which clearly
prove that those employees who have relational contract show
higher level of performance on their jobs. Value of ß = 0.016
shows that one unit change in job involvement bring 0.016 unit
change in job performance and R2 =0.00 shows that zero
percent variation in job performance is explained by job
involvement and remaining by other factors, So regression
results significantly support first hypothesis of the study.
Reward system and job performance
Hypothesis 2 predicted that there is a significant strong
relationship between reward system and job performance. When
reward system regressed with job performance, following values
are derived, (ß = .12, R2 =.014). Results of regression analysis
shows that reward system have significant positive and strong
impact on employee’s job performance. Value of ß = .12 shows
that one unit change in reward system bring .12 unit positive
change in job performance and R2 =.014 shows that variation in
job performance is explained by reward system and remaining
by other factors. So regression results significantly support
second hypothesis of the study.
Conclusion
The results of the study shows strong support for the
proposed hypothesis of the research either hypothesis
manipulate significant positive or negative relationship which
derives the comprehend results. The basic main hypothesis of
the research in this study proposed is to measure the impact of
Job involvement on the employee’s job performance. The
relationship of these variables job involvement and job
performance was measured positive relationship from the data
collection from banking sector of Pakistan in Punjab
(Faisalabad). The results of the proposed hypothesis show that if
the employees are fully involved or committed with their job
then they will produce more effective results for themselves and
as well as for the organization. There is positive relationship
between job involvement and job performance if one thing both
of them will increase other thing automatically increased if
employees are fully involved and full of motivation he will
definitely receive positive results and his or her performance
will improve day by day. Organization should involve
employees in decision making scheme so that their level of
motivation should be increase. If employees are fully involved
towards their job and performing their task or responsibilities
with great attention than organization should also take some
positive actions specially designed for the betterment of the
employees.
Reference
Somers, M.J. & Birnbaum, D. (1998). Work-related
commitment and job performance:it’s also the nature of the
performance that counts. Journal of OrganizationalBehaviour,
19, 621-34.
Yousef, D.A. (1998). Satisfaction with job security as a
predictor of organizational commitment and job performance in
a multicultural environment. International Journal of Manpower,
19, 184-194
Zikmund, W.G. (2003). Business research methods. Ohio:
Thomson South-Western.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.L., Podsakoff, N.P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R.
(1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on
followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107 – 142.
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1977). Organizational research on
job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1981). Changing correlates of job
involvement in three career stages. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 18, 138-144.
Rotenberry, P.F., & Moberg, P.J. (2007). Assessing the impact
of job involvement on performance. Management Research
News , 30, 203-215.
Saal, F.E. (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 53-61.
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A
theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.
Motowidlo, S.J. & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task
performance should be distinguished from contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding
Performance Appraisal, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P.M.,
(1994). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive
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
structural role theory, II. Human Relations, 17, 3-17.
Organ, D.W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-
performance Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-
557.
Campbell, J.D., Trapnell, P.D., Heine, S.J., Katz, I.M., Lavallee,
L.F., & Lehman, D.R. (1996). Self-concept clarity:
Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 141-156.
Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction
problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D.
Dunnette and L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp 687-732), Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H., & Sager, CE
(1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmidt, W.C. Borman,
& Assoc. (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations, pp 35-70,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cardy, R. L. & Dobbins, G. H. (1994). Performance Appraisal:
Alternative Perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western
Publishing Co.
Dyer, L. & Theriault, R. (1976). The determinants of pay
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 596-604.
Gerhart, B., Minkhoff, H.B., & Olsen, R.N. (1995). Employee
compensation, theory, practice, and evidence. Center for
Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY: working paper 95-04.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R. & Balkin, D.B. (1992). Compensation,
organizational strategy, and firm performance. Cincinnati, Ohio:
South-Western Publishing Co.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B., & Cardy, R.L. (1998).
Managing human resources. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Graham-Moore, B.E. & Ross, T.L. (1990). Productivity
gainsharing: How employee incentive plans can improve
business performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Heneman, H.G., & Schwab, D.P. (1985) Pay satisfaction: Its
multidimensional nature and measurement. Journal of
Psychology, 20, 129-141.
Ilgen, D.R., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (1992). The structure of work:
Job design and roles. In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 2,
2nd ed., pp 165-207), Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1995). Understanding human
resource management in the context of organizations and their
environments. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 237-204.
Mead R. What is Stress? Roger Mead Associates, Stress
Management, Coaching and Training for Individuals and Groups
2000.
Murphy, S. L. Sauter, Occupational Stress Issues &
Development in Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Harrison, D.A., and Martocchio, J.J. (1998). Time for
absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots and
outcomes. Journal of Management, 24, 305-350.
Lawler, E.E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 3-15.
Lawler, E.E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage, San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E.E. (1986). High Involvement Management:
Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational
Performance, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Role-Based
Performance Scale WP 97-05 Page 28
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., & Ledford, G.E. (1992).
Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management:
Practices and Results in Fortune 1000 Companies, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A
theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.
Motowidlo, S.J. & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task
performance should be distinguished from contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
JK White RR Ruh (1973). Effects of Personal Values on the
relationship between participation and Job Attitudes.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 4, p.509
Murphy, K. R. & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding
Performance Appraisal, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lodahl, T., and Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and
measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49, 24-33.

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