Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

Article

Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices &


Organizational Practices

Pragya Sonawane

Scope of Non-monetary Rewards

A study on work rewards touches the


life of every individual associated either
directly or indirectly with work. Since
rewards get extended beyond the
workplace their impact on families is
This paper reports the results of an
certain. The use of recognition as a
exploratory study of non-monetary
means of influencing behaviour is not a
rewards in terms of the employee
novel idea. As one of the basic needs of
choices and organizational
human beings, recognition has found
practices. The study describes the
ample place in literature. Every single
phenomenon and discusses the
motivational theory has discussed its
perspectives of employees as well
relevance and impacts on individual
as the employers and compares the
behaviour. The increased emphasis in
approaches of Indian and foreign
recent times, however, owed to the
multinationals in the FMCG sector.
changes in work life due to environ-
Seven pointers to the designing of
mental pressures, both internal and
recognition programmes are made
external. The challenge of retaining the
along with identifying the future
talent has led organizations into experi-
research possibilities.
menting with fresh ways of rewarding.
With increased salaries becoming
entitlement for employees, the extensive
scope of non-monetary rewards presents
varied options for use.

Human Relations School

Pragya Sonawane is from Tata Institute of Social Human beings have constantly
Sciences, Mumbai 400088 endeavoured to stretch beyond potential.
E-Mail:pragyasonawane@yahoo.com Issues related to improving efficiency

256 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

have always intrigued the human mind ment, opportunity to use ideas,
and whether it is Adam Smith’s Division opportunity to offer suggestions at work
of Labour or Taylor’s Scientific Manage- and appreciation of one’s efforts. In
ment, theories have been conceived another study by W.W. Ronan (1970) it
towards improving efficiency. The use was found that the job characteristics
of non-monetary factors, however, could that were important to a diverse group
be traced to the post Human Relations of employees were related to the nature
School of management thought. The of work they do and satisfaction that they
serendipitous results of the Hawthorne obtain from it.
experiments indicated the presence of
factors other than monetary and
Job is meaningful for employees if
physiological variables and their impacts
it involves them in the identification
on employee productivity. These
and solution of the problems that
findings opened a new chapter and
affect them.
revolutionized the field of management
research.
Meaningful Work
Lindhal (1949) conducted a series of
researches where employees consistently According to researches conducted
ranked items such as “full appreciation in the field of ‘meaningful work’, a job
for work done”, “feeling in on things”, is meaningful for employees if it
and “interesting work” as being more involves them in the identification and
important to them than the traditional solution of the problems that affect them.
incentives (cited in Nelson 2001). Other It is said that if the worker could voice
researchers like Kovach (1980) and his/her opinion, it would bring positive
Wilson (1988) later replicated these results for both the worker and the
findings. In their survey of sixteen organisation. (Roche & Mackinnon
studies including over eleven thousand 1970)
employees, Herzberg et al. (1957:46)
concluded that the average worker ranks A study on job preferences of over
pay sixth in importance behind security, fifty-seven thousand job applicants,
interesting work, opportunity for conducted over a period of thirty years,
advancement, appreciation, company indicated security, advancement
and management, and intrinsic aspects opportunity and type of work, as the job
of the job. Keller’s (1965) study to factors most important to men. Women
identify the job factors important to employees considered type of work,
employees found eight factors none of company and security as the most
which related closely to monetary important job factors in deciding
rewards. The eight factors were job whether their job is good or bad. Both
satisfaction, pride in organisation, men and women ranked pay lower to
relation with fellow workers, relations advancement opportunity and type of
with superiors, treatment by manage- work (Jurgensen 1978).

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 257


The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

Grievance Handling, Monetary Benefits,


At the top of the managers’ list was Participative Management, Objectivity
interesting work, followed by and Rationality, Recognition and
appreciation of work, a feeling of Appreciation, Safety and Security,
being “in on things”, job security Training and Education, and Welfare
and good wages. Facilities. It was found that employers
believed Safety and Security, and
Kovach (1980) reports of studies that Monetary Benefits as the most important
compared manager’s ranking of what needs. In his book Not by Bread Alone,
they wanted from their jobs with what Sharma (1989:129) insisted that there
their bosses thought were important to was the need by Indian public sector
the managers. At the top of the managers’ organisations to focus on employee
list was interesting work, followed by Advancement Opportunities, Training
appreciation of work, a feeling of being and Education and Participative
“in on things”, job security and good Management to improve on their
wages. The employers however thought organisational climate scores. These
good wages, job security, promotion/ were imperative for improving the
growth, good working conditions and employer-employee relations.
interesting work as most important to
their employees (cited in Bessell et al. Studies quoted above were conducted
2002). A study of 1385 workers over a period of five decades (1940-1990)
representing five occupational groups and attended largely to a general enquiry
indicated that intrinsic rewards were the into job factors important to employees.
most powerful determinants of work However with changing times and ever
satisfaction, followed by extrinsic social changing needs of employees, more
rewards and extrinsic organizational focused enquiry in the field of non-
rewards. Extrinsic organizational monetary rewards was initiated in the last
rewards were important only to workers one and a half decades (1990-2005).
in lower level occupations. The findings Graham (1990) conducted a study illus-
of the study suggested that all classes of trating the significance of non-monetary
workers were demanding more from rewards. After examining and asking
their work than the traditional rewards employees about 65 potential incentives
of good pay, safe and comfortable in the workplace, the top five incentives
conditions and opportunities for getting as initiated by managers and based on
ahead. Autonomy, meaning and employee performance were found to be
challenge in work were sought more than non-monetary in nature (cited in Nelson
the traditional rewards (Mottaz 1980). 2001).

In another study of 51 organisations Positive Reinforcements


in India, Sharma (1989:167) defined
Organisational Climate as a set of nine Fred Luthans has been instrumental
factors viz. Scope for Advancement, in establishing positive reinforcement

258 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

one reason why people left their jobs


Supervisor’s use of motivating (cited in Nelson 2001:8). Barkema
language correlates significantly (1995) conducted an econometric study
with subordinate’s performance in 1985 on 116 managers in mid sized
and job satisfaction. firms and tried to assess the role of
external intervention on work per-
effects of recognition on performance. formance. The findings indicated that in
A meta-analysis of all the studies the case of impersonal supervision, there
conducted over a period of 20 years, was a positive influence of monitoring.
found an average of 15 percent While in cases where there was strict
performance improvement in service regulation there was a negative influence
applications. When recognition was on work performance. Extrinsic
combined with performance feedback an interventions made the employees feel
average increase of 41 percent was that the managers did not have faith in
reported in manufacturing and 30 their abilities (cited in Frey & Jegen
percent in service organizations 2000:13-14).
(Luthans & Stajkovic 1999, Stajkovic &
Luthans 1997). The use of monetary Motivating Language
incentives however also had the same
impact as recognition in service According to Mayfield et al. (1998),
organisations, although recognition supervisor’s use of motivating language
combined with performance feedback, correlates significantly with sub-
had a double (30% vs. 14%) impact in ordinate’s performance and job satis-
comparison to monetary incentives in faction. A survey conducted on nursing
service organisations (Luthans & staff proved the hypothesis that the
Stajkovic 2000:3). The findings of the superior’s use of motivating language
1993 study of changing US workforce had a positive effect on the subordinate’s
also indicated a rise in the importance performance and job satisfaction
of non-monetary rewards. When (Mayfield et al. 1998). Role of line
employees were asked the reasons that managers is also considered important
were ‘very important’ in deciding to take in motivating employees by reinforcing
a job with the current employer, the top behaviour through the non-financial
variable listed by 65% of respondents was rewards like praise and feedback (Fisher
“open communication”, followed by 1996). It has been confirmed by
“effect on personal/family life”, “nature Newcomb (1999) and Ballentine et al.
of work” and “management quality”.
Wages ranked 16th on the list (cited in
The three most prevalent non-
Nelson 2001:8). According to another
monetary rewards identified were
survey of executives by Robert Half
Advancement Opportunities, Opp-
International (1994) more than 34
ortunities Flexible Work Schedules
percent of executives reported that lack
and Opportunities to Learn New Skills
of praise and recognition was the number

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 259


The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

(2003) that non- monetary rewards play formance appraisal as the two critical
an important role in controlling staff determinants of organisational commit-
turnover. Banker et al (2000) confirm ment (Sharma & Joshi 2001). This was
that firms are increasingly adopting non- despite the fact that the respondents had
financial incentives. Mushrush (2002) asserted ‘money’ and ‘welfare’ as the
identifies lack of non-monetary rewards most neglected dimensions of human
as an important cause for employee resource management in the organi-
turnover. (cited in Essayarchive.com). sation.
Strategic Rewards Survey done by
Watson Wyatt of about 410 employers The use of rewards to motivate
in 2000 found that employers were using performance has also been studied. In a
non-monetary rewards more than what meta-analytic review of researches (45
they used a year ago (Watson Wyatt, researches conducted over a period of 40
2006). The three most prevalent non- years), it was claimed that the average
monetary rewards identified were effect of incentives on all tasks in all work
Advancement Opportunities (76%, up settings was a 22% gain in performance.
from 60% in 1999), Flexible Work The study reported that monetary rewards
Schedules (73%, up from 64%) and tend to influence performance more than
Opportunities to Learn New Skills (68%, non-monetary rewards. The performance
up from 62%). Nelson (2001) explored gains for money were (27%) twice the
the conditions that enabled or inhibited average gains from non-monetary
the use of non-monetary rewards by rewards (13%). However, it was asserted
managers. His findings suggested that that the findings should be “viewed with
managers who were high users of non- caution”, since the number of monetary
monetary rewards, had an initial positive rewards studies were four times the other
experience with the behaviour, which studies. Moreover, the actual cash value
had made them more likely to use non- of the non-tangible gifts was not
monetary rewards with their employees ascertained (Condly et al. 2003:46-63).
themselves and other colleagues. Sheryl
and Don Grimme from the Employee Major Benefits
Retention Headquarters (US) have
worked on projects which emphasize the Jeffrey (2003) cites three major
importance of non-monetary rewards benefits of non-monetary rewards;
(Sheryl and Don Grimme 2001). Separability, Memory Value and Trophy
Value. A study conducted in a public
Studies conducted in India in the sector organisation in Turkey suggested
field of organizational commitment that employees valued non-monetary
show non-tangible extrinsic rewards to rewards as much as monetary rewards.
be critical in determining organizational The employees claimed that the usage of
commitment. A study in a manu- non-monetary rewards was inadequate in
facturing organisation in the private their organisation and that they look
sector reported job content and per- forward to such initiatives. It was claimed

260 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

that employees prefer job related non-


monetary rewards more than social or any Research revealed that satisfied
other tangible non-monetary incentive employees were more likely to
(Yavuz 2004). A theoretical attempt to invest in their own company and
establish the significance of non- felt more valued as employees.
monetary rewards was made by Crifo and
Diaye (2004) who developed a principal- research suppositions and lines of
agent model using both monetary and enquiry from the organization’s and
non-monetary incentives and showed how employee’s perspectives. It is assumed
non-monetary incentives could compete that an organization’s profile will have
with monetary incentives and could an influence on its philosophy which in
perform better in increasing the intrinsic turn will monitor the practices. Likewise
motivation of the agent. An online poll an individual’s characteristics will
by Martiz Research Inc (2005), conducted determine his/her needs which will be
in United States of America over 1,002 manifested through the choices that they
randomly selected, full-time, employed make. Role of the superior is assumed
adults (502 male, 500 female) aged 18 – to have an impact on how the rewards
65+ identified significant gaps between are practiced within the organization.
how employees are recognised and how The past experiences of the individual
they want to be recognised. The study also employee with non-monetary rewards
indicated that the employees who were are said to impact their needs and the
satisfied with their organisation’s same is expected of the organization and
recognition programs were also more superior. Finally, some differences are
satisfied with their jobs and were more expected between employee choices and
likely to remain with their company than organizational practices which when
those who were not satisfied with their resolved may lead to positive outcomes
organisation’s recognition programs. for the organization as well as the
Research revealed that satisfied employees.
employees were more likely to invest in
their own company and felt more valued Methodology
as employees. Moreover, 55% of emp-
loyees were found to agree or strongly This research work endeavoured to
agree that the quality of organisation’s develop a holistic comprehension of the
recognition efforts significantly phenomenon of non-monetary rewards
influences their job performance. by exploring the related issues. Two
Chronology of researches on non- different organisations (one Indian and
monetary rewards is listed in Table 1. another foreign) were studied. The
different factors influencing reward
Conceptual Framework philosophy and practices were ques-
tioned. Employee perceptions and
The framework as depicted through choices were studied with a focus on the
the conceptual map (Fig 1) presents the factors influencing them. Moreover,

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 261


The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

Table 1: Chronology of Researches on Non-monetary Rewards

Researcher Period STUDY

Lawrence Lindhal 1949 Ranking of job factors


Frederick Herzberg et al. 1957 Survey of sixteen studies on job factors
Ellis O. Keller 1965 Importance of job factors
W.W. Ronan 1970 Job characteristics
William J. Roche &
Neil L. Mackinnon 1970 Meaningful work
Clifford E Jurgensen 1978 Job preferences
Kenneth Kovach 1980 Ranking of job factors
Clifford J Mottaz 1980 Importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
Baldev Raj Sharma 1987 Organisational climate
Merchant 1989 Honorary recognition
Gerald Graham 1990 Incentives at workplace
Study of Changing Workforce 1993 Reasons for taking a job with a particular employer
Robert Half International 1994 Reasons for leaving the job
Barkema 1995 Influence of supervision
Jacqueline Rowley Mayfield,
Milton Ray Mayfield &
Jerry Kopf 1998 Supervisor’s use of motivating language & its effect on
performance
Newcomb 1999 Staff turnover
Fred Luthans &
Alexander D. Stajkovic 2000 Effect of recognition on performance meta-analysis of
studies conducted over a period of 20 yrs.
Watson Wyatt 2000 Strategic rewards survey
Bob Nelson 2001 Characteristics of managers who are high users of non-
monetary rewards.
Sheryl & Don Grimme 2001 Importance of non-monetary rewards
Baldev Raj Sharma &
Rama J Joshi 2001 Determinants of organisational commitment
Steven J Condly, Richarde
Clark & Harold D Stolovitch 2003 Effects of incentives on performance
Scott Jeffrey 2003 Non-tangible rewards
Nilay Yauz 2004 Non-monetary rewards in a public organisation in Turkey
Patricia Crifo & Marc-Arthur
Diaye 2004 Theoretical model comparing monetary & non-monetary
incentives
Martiz Research Inc 2005 Online poll comparing reward practices to employee
preferences

262 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


)LJXUH
5HZDUG3KLORVRSK\
2UJDQLVDWLRQ

(PSKDVLVRQQRQ

PRQHWDU\UHZDUGV
3URILOH

(PSKDVLVRQWHDP
6WUDWHJ\
UHZDUGV
3DVW

H[SHULHQFHV
&XOWXUH
3/3

)RUPDO1RQPRQHWDU\ 2XWFRPHRIUHVROYLQJ
,PPHGLDWH6XSHULRU
,QIRUPDO1RQ
5HZDUGV3UDFWLFHG WKHGLIIHUHQFHV

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


PRQHWDU\

+ROLGD\7ULSV*LIW %HWWHUHPSOR\HH
%HOLHILQ1RQ 2SHQ&RPQ
9RXFKHUV PRWLYDWLRQ
PRQHWDU\UHZDUGV )HHGEDFN3DW
(PSOR\HHRI
/HDGHUVKLSVW\OH RQWKHEDFN
3DVW
WKHPRQWK ,QFUHDVHG
3URYLGHVRSHQ
H[SHULHQFHV
FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO

FRPPLWPHQW

%HWWHUSHUIRUPDQFH
',))(5(1&(6

,QIRUPDO1RQ

PRQHWDU\ ,QIRUPDO1RQPRQHWDU\
Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

5HZDUG&KRLFHV

(PSOR\HH
$SSUHFLDWLRQ 'D\RII
6HQVLWLYLW\ 6DEEDWLFDOV
(PSOR\HH1HHGV
$JH
)HHGEDFN
*HQGHU

0DULWDO6WDWXV 1HHGV7LPHRII"
&DUHHU6WDJH 6HOIHVWHHP
3DVW
)XQFWLRQDO 6HOIDFWXDOL]DWLRQ
H[SHULHQFHV
&KDUDFWHULVWLFV 6RFLDO

263
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

differences between organisation rewards and data was collected through


practices and employee choices were in-depth interviews with the help of an
analysed to identify the intricacies of interview guide. Data analysis aimed at
employee motivation. Finally, the to build concepts and themes from the
research aimed at presenting an intra and data collected through interviews.
inter-organisation perspective of non- The objective was to describe the
monetary rewards. phenomenon, classify and interconnect
the concepts to arrive at ‘thick des-
Objectives of the study cription’ of the issues under consi-
deration.
1) To explore the meaning of non-
monetary rewards and identify Findings
factors that influence reward
philosophy and practices. The foremost learning that was
critical to this study and to various other
2) To identify the factors that shapes an
future endeavours was the operation-
individual’s perception and choices
alisation of non-monetary rewards as
towards a particular reward.
they function in the corporate. Non-
3) To explore differences between the monetary rewards as recognized by the
choices of the individuals and the organisational representatives can be
practices of the organization. defined as ‘the formal reward platforms
whereby a token is given to employees
4) To explore how can the gaps for recognising their efforts or/and
between the employee choices and achievements.’ The emphasis was on the
organisation practices be judi- formal nature of the programs, (said to
ciously reduced. have a better impact than informal
initiatives), the token which may be
The study was placed in qualitative monetary or not, and recognition, which
paradigm with the ontological was the underlying premise for the
assumption of reality being subjective in success of any reward program. Praise
nature. Epistemology of the study and appreciation were viewed as
entailed studying individual perceptions informal recognition opportunities
of the employees and the organization. whereby managers could build employee
Two organizations were identified with motivation and sustain performance.
the inclusion criteria of having an However, it was asserted that since these
existing system of non-monetary were not institutionalised into the
rewards (minimum five years of system, their impacts and subsequently
operation). Theoretical sampling was the perceived value were low. These
adopted to select the employees within were also under the discretion of the
the organization. Inductive logic of individual manager, whose character-
enquiry was used to arrive at a set of istics influenced the usage of such
concepts as regards non-monetary rewards. Employee’s perception of such

264 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

rewards remained unclear as every to the different job profiles of the


positive aspect of work was referred as employees.
a non-monetary reward. From a
promotion to a praise, from a paid
Sharing good relations with the
vacation to a training program, all were
superior tends to increase the
perceived to be non-monetary rewards.
perceived value of recognition/
No strict definition of non-monetary
reward provided by the superior.
rewards was possible from the
employee’s standpoint since these
rewards were perceived to have an Another important factor in
indefinite scope. determining the reward practices was the
role of the immediate superior. An
individual who finds appreciation and
The role of the managers at high
recognition as important for employee
echelons of an organisation is
motivation would use the non-monetary
significant in influencing the
reward platforms to recognize his/her
reward philosophy of the
subordinates. Moreover, it was found
organisation.
that the relationship that an employee
shares with his/her manager was critical
Top management’s views and the for the employee to perceive the reward
values of the organisation were found as as valuable. Sharing good relations with
the two key determinants of an the superior tends to increase the
organisation’s reward philosophy. It was perceived value of recognition/reward
found that belief of top management in provided by the superior. This was true
the power of recognition was crucial in for praise and appreciation also;
ensuring that organisation practiced such employees did not perceive recognition
non-monetary rewards. Moreover, when as sincere when given by an estranged
an organisation espoused people senior. Thus, the role of the superior
oriented values, it would have a better influences the way non-monetary
focus on rewarding and hence would rewards are practiced and perceived in
initiate a more robust reward system. an organisation.
Thus, the role of the managers at high
echelons of an organisation is significant It was observed in the two cases
in influencing the reward philosophy of (Indian and Foreign multinational) that
the organisation. employee characteristics (Age, Sex,
Functional Role, Marital Status, Years
While designing the non-monetary of Experience), did not influence their
reward practices, employers took note of needs. Career Advancement Opportu-
the work role of employees. For a sales nities emerged as the most prominent
function, a set of rewards were used need in majority of the cases. A very
which was different from what were used limited influence of employee character-
in a corporate role. This was done due istic on employee reward needs was

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 265


The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

ments, the employees also tend to value


The organisation’s rewarding the rewards more. However, when the
philosophy influences the emp- reward philosophy did not advocate
loyee’s perception and choices recognition and celebration and when
towards the non-monetary rewards. the organisation put low emphasis on
non-monetary rewards, employees also
established when married women subsequently take the rewards
demanded better timing at work and frivolously. Thus, the organisation’s
other facilities for managing home from rewarding philosophy influences the
the office. As regards employee employee’s perception and choices
perception and choices, inter-linkages towards the non-monetary rewards.
were found between organisation’s Fig 2 summarises the findings of the
reward philosophy and employee study.
choices. It was observed from the two
cases that when an organisation’s reward Diverging & Converging Issues
philosophy supported an extensive
configuration of non-monetary rewards There were no prominent
and when the organisation believed in differences between employee choices
recognising and celebrating achieve- and organisational practices. However,

7RS

0DQDJHPHQW
V

EHOLHI

5HZDUG

3KLORVRSK\ 7RS
([WHQVLYH 0DQDJHPHQW
V
105 EHOLHI
&RQILJXUDWLRQ

2UJDQLVDWLRQD

9DOXHV

7RS

0DQDJHPHQW
V

EHOLHI
:RUN3URILOH

105

3UDFWLFHV

Fig. 2
Factors Influencing Non-monetary Rewards Philosophy & Practices

266 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

As regards customization of rewards,


Employees held informal employees were keen on it while
recognition like praise or a note of organizations felt that it would entail
thanks from senior manager as losing objectivity. Since customization
important to them, while the to individual employee needs was open
organisation found formal to subjective interpretations and could
platforms as more significant in challenge the neutrality of the system,
terms of the impact on employee organizations preferred setting standards
motivation. and maintaining uniformity across the
system.

some areas of incongruity were Difference of opinion was also


identified. The first divergence was in observed towards the issue of employee
their opinion on scope of rewards. involvement in designing of reward
While the organisation considered programs. While employees were willing
formal reward platforms as non- to participate, employers were
monetary rewards, employees brought apprehensive of the feasibility of such
every rewarding aspect of work within an initiative. Congruence between em-
the scope of such rewards. There were ployees and the organization was
no issues regarding the ‘token’ used in identified in their opinion towards
rewarding. Employees asserted that gift monetary rewards. Both agreed that
vouchers or items worth a few thousand monetary rewards had to be competitive
rupees did not make any difference to and that no organization could afford to
them; it was the value of recognition pay less than the market rate. In the
attached with these rewards which was words of a manager, “if you are not
significant. An important area of competitive as a pay master, there are
divergence was identified in the so many hunters waiting for good
perceived value of informal reward talent.” However, emphasizing the
programs for the employees and the importance of non-monetary rewards,
employers. Employees held informal both asserted that such rewards were
recognition like praise or a note of equally important and that both the
thanks from senior manager as reward types had to act in close
important to them, while the organi- association. To quote a sales-HR
sation found formal platforms as more manager, “Non-monetary, or monetary,
significant in terms of the impact on both are extremely important; I can’t do
employee motivation. This discrepancy one without the other. They have to go
can have serious impli-cations for the hand in hand. I don’t think one can say,
employer-employee relations. The do only monetary or non-monetary.”
importance of informal programs for Non-monetary rewards were said to
employees indicates that there should reinforce the organizational values in
be more emphasis on informal ways of employees and make the working
rewarding. pleasant and easier. These rewards

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 267


The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

presented platforms where desired monthly targets. It was the small card
behaviours could be reinforced in the given by the senior or an appreciation
employees. Recognition at various in a meeting that influenced the
forums, made employees feel that the everyday working the most. Non-
organization cared for them and that monetary rewards were thus important
their efforts were being acknowledged. in day-to-day functioning of employees
It was asserted by the managers that such while monetary rewards were important
feelings of belongingness and loyalty for doing justice to the transaction
could be developed only through the use contract between employee and the
of non-monetary rewards. organisation.

Monetary rewards, on the other Inter-organization Differences


hand, were satisfying/hygiene factors
and their impact on employee It was observed that the apparent
motivation was short-lived. In the words differences between employee choices
of an HR manager, “if you really ask and organizational practices were more
me how much time it takes for people rampant in the case of the Indian
to digest a monetary reward, it takes organization and rare differences were
less than one minute. Even a promotion observed in the foreign company. The
letter or an increment letter would take Indian organization espoused a culture
a minute to digest and the person would which was low on recognition while the
assume that he was on this salary for foreign company advocated a high
the past fifty years. It just takes that profile recognition structure. The inter-
much time.” Employees did not think organization differences are summarized
of monthly salary while doing the in the Table 2.

Table 2 Inter-organization Differences

Indian Organization Foreign Organization

Top Management’s Emphasis Monetary Rewards Equally on Monetary Rewards and


Non-monetary Rewards

Values Work Oriented People Oriented

Non-monetary Rewards Structure Limited Extensive

Celebration Low Emphasis Huge Emphasis

Recognition Rare Phenomenon Common Phenomenon

Employee’s View Non-monetary Rewards Non-monetary Rewards as


as mere ‘Add-ons’ Critical for Performance

268 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

recognition program but every single


Good superior-subordinate re-
effort towards creating a healthier
lationship at workplace is the
workplace.
harbinger of success of not just the
recognition program but every
Future Concerns
single effort towards creating a
healthier workplace.
Some issues remain to be dealt with
in future researches. The present study
touched upon the individual demo-
Seeking Congruence graphics as a factor influencing the
individual choices; it however remains
In order to abridge the gap between to be seen as to how psychological
the existing employer-employee factors can play a role in determining
differences, employees suggested three employee choices as regards non-
steps: a small survey of employee monetary rewards. Moreover, limited
opinions, initiation of an employee generalizations from the present study
involvement program and regular ‘skip- leave scope for a quantitative study to
level meetings’. From the results of the be initiated in the field so as to provide
study seven pointers to the designing of generalizations in other contexts as well.
recognition programs can be made. A In addition to this a comparative analysis
people-oriented work culture adds to the of different sectors may add significantly
perceived value of any effort made by to the domain of employee recognition.
the organization towards employee Improvement in any field comes with
recognition. Celebration as a part of sustained efforts.
every event energizes the workplace and
creates fervour around programs. Proper References
communication of the program elimi-
nates misinterpretations and presents Bessell Ian, Brad Dicks, Allen Wysocki & Karl
Kepner (2002), “Understanding Moti-
transparency. Sincere and timely
vation: An Effective Tool for Managers”,
delivery adds to the meaning-fulness of Department of Food and Resource
recognition. Customization to the Economics, Florida Cooperative Extension
plausible extent develops within Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural
employees feelings of being cared by the Sciences, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, retrieved on 26 th April
organization. Emphasis on informal
2006 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HR/
recognition helps develop a culture of HR01700.pdf
recognition; with the onus of recognition
Barkema (1995), cited in Frey Bruno S & Reto
on the individual employee, informal
Jegen (1999), Working Paper No. 26,
programs present a great opportunity to “Motivation Crowding Theory: A Survey
build excitement and add fun to the of Empirical Evidence”, retrieved on 11th
workplace. Finally, good superior- Jan 2006 http://www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/
subordinate relationship at workplace is speer/iewwp026.pdf
the harbinger of success of not just the

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 269


The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

Condly Steven J, Richard e Clark & Harold D Kovach Kenneth (1980), cited in Bessell Ian,
Stolovitch (2003), “The Effects of Brad Dicks, AllenWysocki & Karl Kepner
Incentives on Workplace Performance: A (2002) Understanding Motivation: An
Meta-analytic Review of Research Effective Tool for Managers, Department
Studies”, Performance Improvement of Food and Resource Economics, Florida
Quarterly, 16 (3):46-63. Also available on Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of
http://www.ispi.org/pdf/Vol16_03_46 Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
condly.pdf reyreived on 11th May2006. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, retrieved on
26 th April 2006, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/
Crifo Patricia & Marc-Arthur Diaye (2004), pdffiles/HR/HR01700.pdf
“Incentives in Agency Relationships: To be
Monetary or Non-monetary?”, retrieved on Lindhal Lawerence (1949), cited in Nelson Bob
11th January 2006 from http://www.univ- (2001), Factors that Encourage or Inhibit
vry.fr/PagesHtml/laboratoires/Epee/EPEE/ the Use of Non-Monetary Recognition by
colloques/CrifoDiaye-EPEE.pdf U.S. Managers, Ph.D. Thesis, retrieved on
31 st Jan 2006, www.nelson-motivation.
Fisher, Martin (1998) How to Reward Your Staff: com
A Guide to Obtaining Better Performance
through the Reward System, New Delhi, Luthans Fred & Alexander D. Stajkovic (2000),
Kogan Page. ‘The Impact of Recognition on Employee
Performance: Theory, Research and
Frey Bruno S. & Reto Jegen (1999), Working Practice’, retrieved on 17th June 2006 from
Paper No. 26, “Motivation Crowding http://www.sba.muohio.edu/management/
Theory: A Survey of Empirical Evidence”, mwAcademy/2000/38a.pdf
retrieved on 11 th Jan 2006 http://www.
landecon.cam.ac.uk/speer/iewwp026.pdf Martiz Poll on Employee Recognition, October
(2005), BOSSES NOT “ON THE SAME
Graham Gerald (1990), cited in Nelson Bob PAGE” AS EMPLOYEES REGARDING
(2001), “Factors that Encourage or Inhibit RECOGNITION, Retrieved from http://
the Use of Non-Monetary Recognition by www.recognition.org/associations/5847/
U.S. Managers”, Ph.D. Thesis, retrieved on files/maritz_poll_2005.pdf on April 4,
31st Jan 2006, www.nelson-motivation.com 2007.
Herzberg Frederick, Bernard Mausner, Richard Mayfield, Jacqueline Rowley, Milton Ray
O Peterson & Dora F Capwell (1957), Job Mayfield & Jerry Kopf (1998), “The
Attitudes: Review of Research and Effects of Leader Motivating Language on
Opinion, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Subordinate Performance and Job Satis-
Psychological Service of Pittsburgh http:/ faction”, Human Resource Management,
/essayarchive.com on 10 th Dec 2005. 37(3&4):235-48.
Jeffrey Scott (2003), retrieved on 23 rd Dec. 2005 Mottaz, Clifford J. (1985), “The Relative
http://www.maritzrewards.com/pdfs/site- Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic
benefits.pdf Copyright with The SITE Rewards as Determinants of Work Satis-
Foundation. faction”, The Sociological Quarterly,
Jurgensen Clifford E (1978), “Job Preferences 26(3):365-85.
(What Makes a Job Good or Bad?)”, MOW International Research Team (1987), The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 (3): Meaning of Work, Academic Press.
267-76.
NAER and WorldatWork, May (2005), Trends in
Keller Ellis O (1965), Management Development: Employee Recognition 2005, Retrieved
A Series of Lectures & Articles, New Delhi, f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. r e c o g n i t i o n . o rg /
National Productivity Council. associations/5847/filesNAER World%

270 IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008


Non-monetary Rewards: Employee Choices & Organizational Practices

20at%20Work%20 Survey2005.pdfon Sheryl & Don Grimme (2006), retrieved on 11th


April 4, 2007. Jan 2006, http://www.employee-retention-
hq.com/
Nelson Bob (2001), Factors that Encourage or
Inhibit the Use of Non-Monetary Reco- Watson Wyatt Survey retrieved on 13th January
gnition by U.S. Managers, Ph.D. Thesis, 2006 http://www.relojournal.com/
retrieved on 31 st Jan 2006, www.nelson- current%20Issue/toc.htm
motivation .com
Wilson Valerie (1988), cited in Nelson Bob
Roche, William J. & Neil L. Mackinnon (1970), (2001), Factors that Encourage or Inhibit
“Motivating People with Meaningful the Use of Non-Monetary Recognition by
Work”, Harvard Business Review, May- U.S. Managers, Ph.D. Thesis, retrieved on
June: 97. 31 st Jan 2006, www.nelson-motivation
.com
Ronan, W.W. (1970), “Relative Importance of Job
Characteristics”, Journal of Applied Yauz Nilay (2004), The Use of Non-Monetary
Psychology, 54(2):192-200. Incentives as a Motivational Tool: A Survey
Study in a Public Organisation in Turkey,
Sharma Baldev R. (1989), Not by Bread Alone, retrieved on 17TH June 2006 from http://
New Delhi, Shri Ram Centre for IR&HR etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12605141/
Sharma Baldev R. & Rama J Joshi (2001), index.pdf
“Determinants of Organisational Commit-
ment in a Manufacturing Organization in
the Private Sector”, Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations Vol. 37(2).

IJIR, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008 271

Вам также может понравиться