A STUDY TO ASSESS THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORMANCE-RELATED

PAY ON EMPLOYEES TOWARDS THE PERFORMANCE

OF THE ORGANIZATION, S.Y. 2014-2015

An Undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of College of Business Administration
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Manila

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Business Administration Major in Human Resource
Development Management Minor in Service Management Program for Business
Process Outsourcing

by
Group 3
FUENTES, Anne Rochel D.
GADIL, Maria Danesa M.
GARCIA, Darwin M.
GRAJO, Norrycel B.
GUEVARRA, John Michael R.
HAMMOND, Micaela Marie D.
JAVELONA, Mark Jacobs T.
LABAY, Daphnee Gwynne I.
LANDICHO, Aira Jane R.

2015

Republic of the Philippines

Polytechnic University of the Philippines

College of Business
Sta. Mesa, Manila

Group 3
Total Quality Management

Leader:

Fuentes, Anne Rochel D.

Members:

Gadil, Maria Danesa M.

Hammond, Micaela Marie D.

Garcia, Darwin M.

Javelona, Mark Jacobs T.

Grajo, Norrycel B.

Labay, Daphnee Gwynne I.

Guevarra, John Michael R.

Landicho, Aira Jane R.

RESEARCH TITLE:
A Study to Assess the Relationship of Performance-Related Pay on Employees
Towards the Performance of the Organization

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

This research study seeks to analyze the relationship of performance-related pay
on employees towards the performance of the organization.

SUB-PROBLEMS:
1 Are employees satisfied after they have been evaluated and are categorized into
performance groups?
2 What improvements have been made by the organization since the
implementation of performance-related pay?
3 Is there a significant relationship between the performance-related pay on
employees and performance of the organization?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
1 To analyze the effects of performance-related pay to employees and
organization.
2

To identify if performance-related pay motivates employees on doing their job.

3 To investigate if implementing performance-related pay is a good or bad thing for

the organization.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:
There is a high significant relationship between the performance-related pay on
employees and the performance of the organization.

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Many different compensation practices are lumped under the name payfor-performance. We used to think of pay as primarily an entitlement. If
employees went to work and did well enough to avoid being fired, you were
entitled to the same size check as everyone else doing the same job as you.
Pay-for-performance plans signal a movement away from entitlement, sometimes
a very slow movement toward pay that varies with some measure of individual or
organizational performance.
Despite the omission, merit pay is still pay-for-performance used for more
than three quarters of all employees. Companies uses performance-related pay
scheme to encourage employees to work harder. The better employees or
teams, carry out works, the more the company or employer pays you. It is
believed that it is a way of rewarding employees for higher performance.
Employers introduce this type of scheme to keep current staff and sometimes
because of wanting to compete to a new talent, and lastly they may be seeking a
fairer way of distributing wages. In order for performance related schemes to
work they should be based on clear, measurable targets that are agreed by both
the employer and employees.
Performance-related pay is a method of remuneration that links pay
progression to an assessment of individual performance, usually measured
against pre-agreed objectives. Pay increases awarded through performancerelated pay as defined here are normally consolidated into basic pay although
sometimes they involve the payment of non-consolidated cash lump sums.
It has grown in prominence since the 1980s as employers have
increasingly sought effective ways of driving high performance levels by linking
employee reward to business objectives. However, it has proved in some
circumstances a rather crude instrument and the 1990s and beyond witnessed a

number of challenges to the theory. As some of the earlier schemes failed to

deliver the promised results, some employers brought in new or revised
performance-related pay schemes or moved to new approaches altogether while
others have developed hybrid schemes.
In the current debate on the issue of merit pay for teachers and
government employees, one frequently hears the lament: If only we could
measure results e ay business does. Then we could pay for performance instead
of mere seniority! This statement assumes that business actually has a rational
system of paying according to performance. The truth is business merely acts
and talks as if it does.
Formal merit-pay programs are a relatively recent phenomenon. In the
past it was common for a firm to pay a fixed wage or salary based primarily on
market supply-and-demand factors. Top management made all the major
decisions and took the risks. White-collar employees were few in number and,
although better educated than their blue-collar counterparts, had scarcely any
decision-making authority and were readily replaceable. Salary increases were in
frequent and highly discretionary; however, they were not arbitrary. Most
businesses were small, and top managers knew who was doing a god job and
who wasnt. If the firm was making money, there might be a bonus or a pay raise,
but for every employee the boss made an informed judgement. As businesses
grew and became more complicated, it became impossible for top management
to make sound decisions about the worth of subordinates several rungs lower.
Yet, realizing that such decisions had to be made, various objective systems
designed to decide performance and pay questions evolved.
With the increase in professional management over the past 30 years and
its emphasis on good employee relations, merit-pay programs have spread to the
point where most firms would be embarrassed if their policy manuals, business
plans, and annual reports did not include statements stressing the link between
determined by a merit-pay system, according to a study of the Bureau of National
Affairs (BNA). Unfortunately, broad-scale merit-pay programs simply do not work.

Money becomes important insofar as it can satisfy recognized needs. If

different needs are, in fact, prepotent across individuals, this information could be
used to design a pay-for-performance system.
Given that money can satisfy at least a subset of basic needs, the
question now becomes should salary increases be based on level of
performance? Substantial evidence exist that management and workers alike
believe that pay should be tied to performance. Numerous studies indicate that
tying pay to performance has a positive impact on employee performance. A
common type of study is to introduce an incentive system and observe whether
workers, whose pay is now directly dependent on level of output, increase their
level of performance. Several studies indicate that introduction of an incentive
system results in higher performance than occurs for workers receiving hourly
pay.

Background of the Study

The researchers are students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines
under Bachelor of Science in Business Administration Major in Human Resource
Development Management Minor in Service Management Program for Business
Process Outsourcing. Since they are future human resources managers, the
researchers decided to come up with this study in order to identify or know the
best way to motivate the employees and what would make them perform
excellent that would satisfy them in return.
It has been said in several theories from psychology that the linking of pay
to performance should lead to increased performance. In such order, payment
and performance when linked with motivation will increased the performance of
employees. The performance of the organization as a whole.
Todays competency in the business industry is crucial to survive. Ones
organization must know how to value every great performance given by the
employees. However, some of the employees dont give equal or higher
performance than other employees in the organization. That is the reason why

we came up with pay-related performance which will show that there is a clear
difference between ordinary and extra ordinary performance. It will also show if it
motivates employees in performing better. In such way, we will know what the
performance of the organization and if it is ready and will survive the
competency.
In this study, we choose Teleperformance to be the respondent of our
study. Teleperformance is a global company, worldwide leader in multichannel
customer experience. The company is specialized in customer service, technical
support, call center, debt collection and social media.
Teleperformance is the only one capable among the companies weve
gone through in providing us the demand of the study being conducted. They
agreed on letting us take our survey in their company. Another reason is that,
Teleperformance has a multiple number of employees which we are looking for to
achieve the accuracy of the result of the research to be conducted. Providing the
stated reason, we come up to the decision of having Teleperformance as the
respondents of our study.

Theoretical Framework
In order for an employee to perform his job well, one must be motivated to
do so. This section tends to explain how motivation theories will be a guide for
the researchers in the development in their study.
One of the first theories of motivation which can be used in relation to our
study is expectancy theory. This theory was developed by Victor Vroom (1964)
and has been refined by any authors, including Porter and Lawler (1968), since
1964. According to expectancy theory, motivation, or the force to act, results from
conscious, decision-making process undertaken by individual. And also,
individual motivation to put forth more or less effort is determined by a rational
calculation. It is said in this theory that there are three questions that individuals
must ask themselves.

Figure 1
Vrooms Expectancy Theory
The first question is whether the person believes that high levels of effort
will lead to desired outcomes. This perception is labeled as expectancy which
refers to the individuals perception that a certain level of effort is required to
achieve a certain level of performance. For example, do you believe that the
effort you put forth in a class is related to learning worthwhile material and
receiving a good grade? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort.
The second question is the degree to which the person believes that
performance is related to secondary outcomes such as rewards. This is labeled
ass instrumentality which is a perception that the strength of the belief that a
certain level of performance will be associated with various outcomes. For
example, do you believe that passing the class is related to rewards such as
getting a better job or gaining approval from your instructor, from your friends or
parents? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort.
Finally, individuals are also concerned about the value of the rewards
awaiting them as a result of performance. The anticipated satisfaction that will
result from an outcome is labeled as valence. For example, do you value getting
a better job or gaining approval from your instructor, from your friends or
parents? If these outcomes are desirable to you, you are more likely to put forth
effort.

Conceptual Framework
This section will describe the concept that will be used for conducting the
research. It is conceptualized and developed by the researchers using their own
knowledge and ideas. This concept illustrates how performance-related pay
impacts employee performance for the organization and motivation to work well
to boost productivity and loyalty in every employee to the company.

Employee

Recognition

Benefits

Effort

Rewards

Satisfaction

Dissatisfaction

Expectation

High
Performance

Low
Performance

Statement of the Problem

The study aims to determine the relationship between the performancerelated pay on employees and the performance of the organization
Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:
4 Are employees satisfied after they have been evaluated and are categorized into
performance groups?
5 What improvements have been made by the organization since the
implementation of performance-related pay?
6 Is there a significant relationship between the performance-related pay on
employees and performance of the organization?

Statement of the Postulate Hypothesis

There is a high significant relationship between the performance-related
pay on employees and the performance of the organization.

Significance of the Study

The study is focused on how performance-related pay scheme creates an
impact on employees toward their performance in the organization and how the
company retains their employees and maintains a high productive performance
of each and everyone. Each one of the employee can make the career of the
company down, that is why they always have their own ways of how to maintain
and retain their employees, how to make them happy and satisfied. The result of
this study will tell if performance-related pay scheme is a better strategy for te
employees and also for the organization.
Hence, this study will be of great help to the following:
To the students. This study will serve as additional information especially
to management students in identifying or determining whether it is much better to
use performance-related pay as a strategy to improve and motivate performance
of individual as they enter real world.
To the researchers. This study will determine the relationship between
the performance-related pay on employees towards their performance and how it
affects the organizations productivity and will serve as a further material on
determining satisfaction of employees in a certain way.
To the future researchers. This study will be an effective instrument and
reference for the researchers who will intend to make any further significance
study particularly in the performance-related pay on employee strategy towards
the performance of organization
To the other distributor companies in the industry. This study may
serve as a foundation or knowledge in identifying if performance-related pay
would satisfy their employees, if that would motivate them and would make them

loyal, and make them to retain or stay with your company and unleash a
productive job well done in every employee. This will serve as an idea on how
motivated employee becomes a big help or factor on boosting companys career
success and competitiveness through their performances. This study will let the
organization know what things or components are missing in their company that
makes their employees unhappy so they can change it.
To the HR Practitioners/Managers. This study will help those HR
Practitioners choose the best method that would meet the employees
preferences/needs and wants in order to retain, make them happy and
contented. It would help the employees work motivated and have a high quality
performance. This will also help HRs to better observe what satisfies employees
and what are not. This will help them know and be knowledgeable enough to
make certain of what is needed, what they really want and what is important.
With this study, HR will know that a motivated employee that receives preferred
or satisfactory benefits shows good performance that results to a high quality of
service to the company that can help companys productivity and that will help
them sell their products and would make and attract their customers trust and
appreciate their efforts.

Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study will help to determine the relationship between performancerelated pay on employees and their performance. The study will be confined to
the employees of the said company.
The company consists of 195 employees as the total population of this
study. 131 employees or 67.18% from the total population are randomly selected
using slovins formula to become the respondents which will be covered by this
study.

Definition of Terms

To have a better understanding for this study, the following terms were
defined conceptually.
Expectation. Something that someone assumes to have, give, or aim.
Job Performance.

The overall expected value from employees

behaviors carried out over the course of a set of period of time.

Labor. The services performed by workers for wages as distinguished
from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profit.
Merit Pay. A compensation system that directly ties an individuals salary
or wage increase to measures of performance accomplishments during a
specified time period.
Motivation. A force or influence that causes someone to do something.
Payment. Something that is given to someone in exchange for something
else like in exchange for the work or service a person does.
Productivity. A measure of the efficiency of a person, machine, factory
system, etc., in converting inputs into useful outputs.
Profit. A financial benefit that is realized when the amount of revenue
gained from a business activity exceeds the expenses, costs and taxes needed
to sustain the activity. Any profit that is gained goes to the business owners who
may or may not decide to spend it on the business.
Reward.

To give money or another kind of payment to someone or

something for something good that has been done.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Presented in this chapter is a discussion of the different variables from

different sources both from local and foreign literature and studies. This review
enabled the researchers to enrich and broaden their knowledge of the topic
under the study. These materials also helped significantly in validating basic
assumptions. These are integrated to show their relationship to the problem.

Foreign Literature
Pay often can be used to motivate employee performance. But a pay plan
also must (1) create the belief that good performance leads to high levels of pay,
(2) minimizes the negative consequences of good performance (in which you do,
the more they give you to do), and (3) create conditions in which rewards after
that pay are seem to be related to good performance. These three conditions
follow from expectancy theory of motivation, which states that individuals will be
continued to seek goals they value and can attain.
Managers use numerous methods to their attempts to relate pay to
performance. One survey of personnel practices reported high dissatisfaction
with pay plans. Many pay plans are disliked because they are implemented
poorly or because they are not well suited for a particular job.
Incentive pay plans can be rated on three separate criteria. First, each
plan can be rated in terms of its effectiveness in creating the perception that pay
is tied to performance. Second, pay plans can be evaluated in terms of their
success in minimizing negative side effects, such as disruptive competition,
conflict, and grievances. Third, each plan can be rated in terms of whether it
contributes to the perception that important rewards other than pay (e.g., feelings
of esteem and increased responsibility) result from high performance.
The six basic plans are straight salary on (1) individual, (2) group, and (3)
organization-wide bases. Moreover, salary and salary-plus-bonus plans can be
based on different performance measures. For example, an individuals salary or
salary-plus-bonus plan can be based upon his or her productivity, cost-

effectiveness, or superiors rating. Similar performance measures are applicable

to group-based salary and salary-plus-bonus plans. Organization-wide salary and
salary-plus-bonus plans can be based on productivity and cost-effectiveness, but
also upon profits. Thus, when these three performance measures are linked to
the six basic pay plans, 18 different variations are possible. Each of these 18
variations can range from very effective (+3) to very ineffective (-3) in relation to
each of the three criteria.
The most effective plan for producing the perception that pay is in fact
related to performance is the individual salary plus bonus based upon
productivity. However, this same plan is least effective in minimizing negative
side effects. Highly productive employees often are ostracized by their fellow
employees for being rate-busters. Thus, as is the case of many other managerial
practices, the alternative that is most effective for one purpose is least effective
for other purposes. Clearly, the choice of pay plan involves compromise, and the
direction of the decision will be affected by factors specific to a situation,
including the relative case of developing valid performance measures.
In many situations, it is difficult to develop valid, equitable, and acceptable
measures of performance. Therefore, it is hard to relative pay to performance.
For example, measures of college teaching effectiveness are quite controversial.
No widely accepted, objective performance measurement technique exists,
although subjective peer or student evaluations are often used.
In other situations, too much emphasis may be placed on objective measures of
performance. If objective measures only are used in determining pay increases,
the employee may emphasize only these and disregard others that are also
important. Management must balance its objective and subjective performance
evaluations. Another important issue involved in tying pay to performance is that
of amounts. Motivating high performers may cost a lot of money. A company that
cannot afford large increases may not want to use pay motivate exceptional
performance. Moreover, some individuals are not motivated by even large
increases in pay. Management should determine what value employees place on

pay before tying pay increases to improved performance (Ivancevich, Donnelly,

and Gibson, 1986).
The motivation theories and job design approaches discussed in the last
two chapters all deal, in one way or another, with the rewards people get from
their work and how these rewards impact performance. Now it is time to discuss
how these multiple ideas and perspectives can be linked together in a context of
performance management.
Whether or not a work setting proves motivational for a given individual
depends on the availability of rewards and their perceived value. Note the
importance of performance contingency and immediacy in determining how
rewards affect future performance. Note also that content theories are useful in
the model as guides to understanding individual attributes and identifying the
needs that give motivational value to the possible rewards. When the individuals
experiences valued rewards for works performance, motivation should be directly
and positively affected. Motivation should also occur when job satisfactions
results from rewards that are perceived to be equitable. When felt negative
inequity results, satisfaction will be low, and motivation will be reduced.
The typical reward systems of organizations emphasize a mix of intrinsic
and extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards are positively valued work outcomes that
the individual receives directly as a result of task performance; they do not
require the participation of another person or source. It was intrinsic rewards that
were largely at issue in the concept of job enrichment discussed in the last
chapter. The expectation is that high content jobs, in terms of two-factor theory,
or jobs high in core characteristics will create many intrinsic rewards. A feeling
of achievement after completing a particularly challenging task in a job designed
with a good person-job fit is an example.
Extrinsic rewards are positively valued work outcomes that are given to an
individual or group by some other person or source in the work setting. They
might include things like sincere praise for a job well done or symbolic tokens of
accomplishment such as employee-of-the-month awards. Importantly too,

anything dealing with compensation, or the pay and benefits have to be well
managed in all aspects of the integrated model for their motivation value to prove
positive in terms of performance impact.
Pay is not only important as an extrinsic rewards; it is an especially
complex one. When pay functions well as a reward in the integrated model, it can
help an organization attract and retain highly capable workers. It can also help
satisfy and motivate these workers to work hard to achieve high performance.
But similarly, any dissatisfaction with pay can also generate negative effects on
motivation and performance. Pay problems sometimes are associated with bad
attitudes, grievances, absenteeism, turnover, poor organizational citizenship, and
even adverse impacts on employees physical and mental health.
The research of scholar and consultant Edward Lawler generally
concludes that for pay to serve as motivator, high levels of job performance must
be viewed as the path through which high pay can be achieved. A survey by the
Hudson Institute, however, shows that this is more easily said than done. When
asked if employees who do better get paid more, a sample of managers
responded with 48 percents agreement; only 31 percents of non-managers
indicated agreement. And when asked if their last pay raise had been based on
performance, 46 percent of managers and 29 percent of non-managers said yes.
It is most common to talk about pay for performance in respect to merit
pay, a compensation system that directly ties an individuals salary or wage
increase to measures of performance accomplishments during a specified time
period. Although research supports the logic and theoretical benefits of merit pay,
it also indicates that the implementation of merit pay plans is not as universal or
as easy as might be expected. In fact, surveys over the past 30 or so years have
found that as many as 80 percent of respondents felt that they were not
rewarded for a job well done.
To work well, a merit pay plan should create a belief among employees
that the way to achieve high pay is to perform at high levels. This means that the
merit system should be based on realistic and accurate measures of individual

work performance. It also means that the merit system is able to clearly
discriminate between high and low performers in the amount of pay increases
awarded. Finally, it is also important that any merit aspects of a pay increase
are not confused with across-the-board cost-of-living adjustments.
Merit pay plans are just one attempt to enhance the positive value of pay
as a work reward. But they are subject to criticisms. For example, merit pay plans
may cause problems when they emphasize individual achievements and fail to
recognize the high degree of task interdependence that is common in many
organizations today. Also, merit pay systems must be consistent with overall
organization strategies and environmental challenges if they are to be effective.
For example, a firm facing a tight labor market with a limited supply of highly
skilled individuals might benefit more from a pay system that emphasizes
employee retention rather than strict performance results. With these points in
mind, it is appropriate to examine a variety of additional and creative pay
practices. Another way to link pay with performance accomplishments is through
gain sharing. Such a plan gives workers the opportunity to earn more by
receiving shares of any productivity gains that they help to create (Schermerhorn
Jr., Hunt, and Osborn, 2008).
Do you believe that money is motivator for the people who report to you?
Can wages be effective as motivational tools? Would you still work if you did not
need the monetary rewards? In the United States, historically, most individuals
would answer yes to that question. So, if money is not the main reason you go to
work, what does motivate you? Each of you undoubtedly came up with a
somewhat different answer to that question, which is why a discussion on theory
of pay as a motivational tool can become so complex. Once the basic individual
needs in each of us met, there is no single source of satisfaction that will
motivate all of us.
Historically, wage rates were structured to reward the employees with the
highest skill levels with the higher wages. Oftentimes, the level of skill required by
the job was determined to be more important. To motivate and retain our valuable
employees, hospitality organizations are trying to develop methods of

determining who should be and should be not rewarded. Many of these programs
are founded upon the idea of basing rewards on the level of performance each
person obtains along with the value of that performance level to the overall
success of the hospitality enterprise. Those that contribute the most to the
achievement of the organizational goals and operational objectives are
compensated with the largest reward. Those who do not make a significant
contribution to the organizations success receive a proportionately lesser
reward. It is in pay-for-performance compensation that pay has its greatest
influence as a motivator. People usually like to know what they can expect in
return for their level of performance. In such a system, the staff knows what to
expect regarding the level of effort that they must achieve in order to receive a
desired outcome or reward. Rewards serve to motivate performance by satisfying
the needs of our employees that relate to work.
Some of the long-standing customs regarding pay structures in the
hospitality industry will be changing as employees continue to become
increasingly scarce. Historically, wage rates were structured to rewards the
employees with the highest skill levels with the higher wages. Oftentimes, the
level of skill required by the job was determined to be more important (i.e., higher
wage) than the contribution of the particular job to the achievement of the
operations objectives. In the next chapter there will be less disparity in
compensation among unskilled, semiskilled and skilled employees. More
important than level of skill will be the level of the performance.
To motivate and retain our valuable employees, hospitality organizations
are trying to develop methods of determining who should be and who should not
be rewarded. Many of these programs are founded upon the idea of basing
rewards on the level of performance each person obtains along with the value of
that performance level to the overall success of the hospitality enterprise. Those
that contribute the most to the achievement of the organizational goals and
operational objectives are compensated with the largest reward. Those who do
not make a significant contribution to the organizations success receive a
proportionately lesser reward.

It is in pay-for-performance compensation plans that pay has its greatest

influence as a motivator. People usually like to know what they can expect in
return for their level of performance. In such a system, the staffs know what to
expect regarding the level of effort that they must achieve in order to receive a
desired outcome or reward. Rewards serve to motivate performance by satisfying
the needs of our employees that relate to work.
For compensation to be effective as a motivator, your employees must
believe that good performance will lead to greater pay, and at the same time, that
minimal performance levels will not be rewarded. Too often in traditional
compensation plans, the employees perceive that no one recognizes extra effort
and that even marginal performance levels will receive the same percentage pay
increases each year. This will depend upon your merit budget and whether or not
management can distinguish between good and bad performance and reward as
such.
A pay-for-performance system is based upon established performance
goals that are designed to be challenging, but obtainable. Here, risk taking is
encouraged through a non-punitive appraisal process that is based upon both
quantitative and qualitative performance measures. This approach tends to foster
both creativity and team spirit among your people. In addition, programs have
been found to increase productivity levels. Although it is appealing to most
people to believe that their pay is tied directly to their performance, there can be
problems in implementing pay-for-performance plans. The major obstacle for
most hospitality organizations, especially those with several decentralized levels
of management, is the difficulty in accurately and objectively linking pay levels to
performance.

In

addition,

pay-for-performance

plans

must

be

clearly

communicated to your employees, or those plans lose their effectiveness (Tanke,

2001).
Ideally, managements strategy for the organization should be a critical
determinant of the features and operations of the pay system. For example,
managers may have the goal of maintaining or improving profitability or market
share by stimulating employee performance. Thus, they should design and use a

merit pay system rather than a system based on other criteria such as seniority.
As another example, managers may have the goal of attracting and retaining
desirable employees. Here they can use a pay survey to determine competitive
wages in comparable companies and adjust pay rates to meet or exceed the
going rates.
Skill-based pay systems are becoming increasingly popular in both large
and small companies, including Nortel, au Bon Pain, and Quaker Oats.
Employees with higher skill levels receive higher pay than those with lower skill
levels. At Quaker Oats pet food plant in Topeka, Kansas, for example, employees
start at $8.75 per hour but can reach a top hourly rate of $14.50 when they
master a series of skills. Also called competency-based pay, skill-based pay
systems encourage employees to develop their skills and competencies, thus
making them more valuable to the organization as well as more employable if
they leave their present job. Thus, these systems work well within the context of
the changing nature of careers and working relationships discussed earlier in this
chapter. In addition, skill-based pay helps the organization be more flexible and
adaptable to changing needs from the environment.
Another approach to establishing wage or salary rates, which has been
widely used in the past, is job-based pay. With job-based pay, compensation is
linked to the specific tasks that an employee performs. Although job-based pay
systems still are used by some companies, they do present some problems. For
one thing, job-based pay may fail to reward the type of learning behaviour
needed for the organization to adapt and survive in todays rapidly changing
environment. In addition, these systems reinforce an emphasis on organizational
hierarchy and centralized decision making and control, which are inconsistent
with

the

growing

emphasis

on

employee

participation

and

increased

responsibility (Daft, 2000).

The idea behind skill-based pay (also called pay for knowledge) is to
motivate employees to learn a wide variety of work tasks, irrespective of the job
that they might be doing at any given time. The more skills that are acquired, the
higher the persons pay. Companies use skill-based pay to encourage employee

flexibility in task assignments and to give them a broader picture of the work
process. It is especially useful on self- managed teams, in which employees
divide up the work as they see fit. It is also useful in flexible manufacturing, in
which rapid changes in job demands can occur. Training costs can be high with a
skill-based system. Also, when the system is in place, it has to be used.
Sometimes, managers want to keep employees on a task they are good at rather
than letting them acquire new skills. However, skill-based programs can have
positive consequences. If the use of money as a motivator is primarily an attempt
to capitalize on extrinsic motivation, current approaches to using job design as a
motivator represent an attempt to capitalize on intrinsic motivation. In essence,
the goal of job design is to identify the characteristics that make some tasks more
motivating than others and to capture these characteristic in the design of job.
Alternative working schedules as motivators for a diverse Workforce. The
purpose of these modifications is not to motivate people to work harder and thus
produce direct performance benefits. Rather, the purpose is to meet diverse
workforce needs and promote job satisfaction. In turn, this should facilitate
recruiting the best personnel and reduce costly absenteeism and turnover (Johns
and Sacks, 2008).
PRP aims to provide a flexible and cost-effective means of distributing
rewards fairly between the good and poorer performers while also contributing
towards improved organization performance. Moreover it is based on principles
to which most people, employees as well as managers, seem to adhere. Most of
us are very happy to see individuals rewarded for superior performance and/or
effort and would like payment decisions to be based on such criteria. The
problems arise when attempts are made to put the principles into practice. A
system which is fair and objective in theory can easily fail to achieve these
objectives when implemented (Brown and Armstrong, 2000).
Level of pay and pay system characteristics influence a job candidates
decision to join a firm, but this shouldnt be too surprising. Pay is one of the more
visible rewards in the whole recruitment process. Job offers spell out the level of
compensation and may even include discussions about the kind of pay such as

bonuses and profit-sharing participation. Less common are statement such as

Youll get plenty of work variety, or Dont worry about empowerment, or The
workload isnt too heavy. These other rewards are subjective and tend to require
actual time on the job before we can decide if they are positive or negative
features of the job. Not so for pay. Being perceived as more objective, its more
easily communicated in the employment offer (Milkovich, Newman and Gerhart,
2011).

Local Literature
The maintenance function that is most sensitive to conceptualize and
operationalize is compensation administration. The pay and benefits a worker
receives are a yardstick of how adequately his needs, even including some nonmaterial ones, are met either directly or indirectly. To a great extent, his
purchasing power sourced from his job emoluments determines the type, level
and extent of physical amenities, safety, security, affiliation, status he can procure
and enjoy for himself, his family and those he is responsible for. Compensation is
a denominator of productivity and job worth. The question that strikes many a
worker when asked to engage himself in any work activity and para-work
assignments, Whats in it for me? usually baffles, if not piques, a management
that can not understand the ultimate meaning that the actual take home pay
carries for the worker. The lifes accoutrements that he needs in the midst of high
cost of living make the reward system a matter for serious consideration. Its
implications also to the organization and to the nation should moreover be
recognized by a rational management.
Based on content of the package, rewards are either intrinsic or extrinsic.
Intrinsic rewards are those related to the job itself like the motivators of Herzberg
while extrinsic rewards refer to the components outside the job like pay. Robbins
classifies extrinsic rewards as direct, indirect and non-financial compensation.
Intrinsic rewards include workers involvement in decision-making, greater
job freedom and discretion, more responsibility, interesting and challenging work,

opportunities for personal growth and diversity of activities. These emanate from
the job itself and Herzberg calls them the motivators.
Under extrinsic rewards, the most obvious form . . . and the one that is
probably responsible for more gossip and disgruntlement than any other, is direct
compensation. This classification includes basic salary or wage, overtime and
holiday pay, performance bonuses, profit sharing and stock options. Robbins
defines stock options as rights to purchase stock at a specified price at some
later time. Pensions, retirements pay and business partnership can be added to
this rubric. Indirect compensation covers protection program, pay for time not
worked, services and perquisites. Protection programs may come in the form of
safety and security plans like insurance, tenure, security guards, burglar alarms
and the like. When a worker goes off earlier than prescribed time for some very
pressing matter, and during floods, typhoons and snack time he enjoys no salary
deductions and thus is paid for time not worked. This is usually an internal
matter between him and his supervisor. Examples oof services and perquisites
are scholarship, non-formal training programs, tution refunds for educational
courses, bus service, car and gasoline allowances, gear, health and safety plans,
day care centers for workers children, credit unions, discounts for goods and
services provided by the organization and its sisters, social, cultural and
recreational events and club membership, counseling services and legal service.
Benefits, programs and services have been considered maintenance factors
since they are given to everybody and are not contingent on performance.
Fringe benefits which employers provide run the gamut of pay of various
kinds for rest periods, holidays, vacations, sick leaves, leaves of absence,
paternity and maternity leaves, bereavement leave, insurance for life, health,
accident, workmens compensation coverage. These fall under the rubric of
indirect compensation.
Non-financial compensation also takes various forms like those appearing
in the structure of rewards. Unlike indirect compensation, this consists of material
and physical accoutrements. Office furnishings attuned to ones artistic sense but
within the means of the organization; lunch hours that give ease in driving

through and in fulfilling after lunch hour engagements; parking space that is
physically convenient; work assignments that are in consonance with ones
abilities, interests and work hours; a secretary not shared with other executives
helping accomplish programs and project more speedily. Other incentives in this
category enjoyed by Filipino executives include personalized stationery, name
signs on office door and table, etc. (Concepcion, 2008).
Rewards that are used to compensate employees for their efforts may be
classified into three types. They are pay, incentive, and benefits.
Pay, also known as base salary, refers to standard salary that an
employee receives for doing a job. Every regular employee in an organization is
assured of this form of compensation.
Incentives are rewards given to employees for performing beyond the
standard requirements. This is normally given apart from the base salary. It is
expected that only a portion of the total number of employees will be entitled to
this form of compensation. Benefits are rewards given to an employee or group
of employees for maintaining membership in the organization.
The rate of employee compensation is influenced directly or indirectly by a
combination of internal and external factors. The external factors that may affect
the determination of rewards consist of labor market conditions, area wage rates,
cost of living, and collective bargaining. Labor Market Conditions. The price of
any commodity, including labor, depends much on supply and demand. When
there is an oversupply of labor, wage rates tend to be lower. Supply, however,
cannot be referred to labor in general because not all segments of the labor force
are in the same supply situation. Some professions like nursing and teaching
may be in short supply but this may not be true with others.
The oversupply of unskilled and semi-skilled labor in the Philippines push
wage rates of these segments to the lowest possible levels. The only forces that
prevent wage rates from going even lower are the government with the
enforcement of the Minimun Wage Law and unions that demand wages at
acceptable levels. Area Wage Rates. Organizations within a given area compete

with one another in attracting qualified manpower. This forces employers to adapt
wage rates that are competitive. When employers pay too high compared with
others within the area, their labor costs will be excessive and they may lose to
competitors in keeping the prices of their products or services competitive. If they
pay too low, they will fail to attract qualified applicants and they may even fail to
motivate current employees to stay.
There are also internal factors that affect compensation rates. They refer
to: employers compensation policy, worth of a job, employees relative worth,
and employers ability to pay.
Employers Compensation Policy. Organizations differ I terms of
compensation policy. Some want to maintain leadership position in terms of
compensation. Companies that are concerned with maintaining low prices of their
products or services will have to adapt to lower wage rates. This is not the case
when the selling rice of the companys products or services is not the primary tool
of competition.
Since performance makes organizations effective, it may be used as a
basis for rewarding employees this means better performers must be rewarded
properly. If this is adopted, it can be made effective if an effective performance
evaluation system is installed.
Even if employers want to provide higher levels of compensation to employees,
some of them cannot afford it. The affordability factor, however, is dependent on
the funds allotted by the employer for operational expenses, which include those
concerning compensation. The pool of operational funds can be increased by
additional investment from the employer and the retention of earnings. On the
other hand, it can be depleted by capital investments and the reduction of
income. Oftentimes, reduced incomes are results of poor productivity of
employees (Medina, 2006).
People work for pay while the private company and government pay for
work. The contemplation of work is both what the individual can do and what he
has actually done. The middle idea is that paid work is what the worker should

have done. In this sense, both work and pay are approximations which in all
cases should be that actual work should equal or exceed the pay received. This
may sometimes, however, be belied by actuality.
The concept of compensation goes beyond payment for work done. It
includes benefits that the worker receives for being with the organization, for
being employed over a period of time and for the rank or position held in the
enterprise or government. The cost of compensating workers in terms of basic
pay and benefits and the importance of compensation to the workers quality of
life makes compensation management a vital aspect of human resources
management. Thus the compensation and benefits package must be clearly
communicated to the employees. In some companies, all employees belonging
to a common job category receive common benefits package. However, there are
those that practice the cafeteria approach where employees, subject to a value
limit, are free to choose the benefits they wish to avail. For example, unmarried
employees with dependents prefer health insurance. The cafeteria approach is
obviously ore complicated and expensive to administer (Azanza, 2000).
One of the most difficult functions of personnel management is that which
concerns compensating the employees fairly and equitably. There are four kinds
of employee compensation: salary or wage, incentive pay, allowances, and
benefits. Salary or wage is the basic compensation while incentive pay is
designed to encourage the employee to render extra effort over normal
production. Allowances are given to meet employee needs during temporary
situations. Benefits are rewards for belonging to an organization. In a period of
inflationary pressures and economic uncertainties, compensation assumes an
overriding importance not only to management but also to the community.
The pay that an employee receives from his employer is the primary
reason for his being on his job. He works to earn a living. His pay provides him
with a strong incentive to do his job well. The employees rate of pay often
indicates his status in the company. His wages determine not only his standard of
living and the comforts that he and his family can have but also his standing in
the community. It also determines what he can contribute to community

development and social welfare. His pay determines his purchasing power. With
higher wages he can acquire more goods and services for his family. High
purchasing power for the workers stimulates the production of more goods and
increases the need for more services. Hence higher pay may lead to greater
production.
An employees pay must be commensurate with his efforts. It must be
equitable in relation to what the other employees get for what they do, otherwise,
he or the other employees will feel that they are being cheated. Most industrial
disputes concern wages because wages affect the very lives of the workers and
their families. If the employees salary is either lower than what he expects for his
services or less than what other employees receive for similar jobs, he either
quits the company or stays on but dissatisfied with his employment and the firm
itself.
One way to retain competent employees and their morale high is to plan
salary levels so as to establish uniformity of pay in relation to the jobs in the
company and to those in the other business establishments in the community.
Workers have a practice of comparing jobs and their wages with those of other
workers, and judge the equity or inequity of their pay. They consider their pay
either commensurate or not with the work they do in comparison with the wages
paid to the other workers within the firm. And they can make an assessment of
the fairness of the firm that pays higher salaries for jobs involving greater
responsibility or are more difficult to do and therefore require higher degrees of
ability and skill.
The size of the payroll is one of the major factors in production. In most
industrial firms, wages and salaries constitute the largest single cost of operation.
The control of costs is therefore a primary concern of management, as it affects
the prices of the products or services of the enterprise. While management may
want to give high wages to its workers, it is also concerned with the control of
costs in order to make its goods and services available at prices within the reach
of consumers and competitive with the goods and services of other firms.

Salary costs rise as a result of many causes, including competition among

employers in securing the services of certain type of employees, the effect of
wage increases, and the expanding scope of fringe benefits. Unless employees
earn their pay through effective production effort, outlays for salaries and wages
will produce a low return and the firm, the source of the employees pay, will
suffer.
Employers constantly strive to reduce production costs to keep the
company in the competitive market and earn enough profits. Wage raises are
generally passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, unless the
increased costs are offset by greater efficiency in production or are absorbed by
the company (Sison, 1991).
There are some situations where the link between performance and pay is
very clear and very direct. Many years ago I spent a few months working as a
commission only financial adviser. My pay was linked directly to my performance
and I knew as I was selling a particular product what my pay would be. The
pressure was to sell as much as I could and to work as hard as I could to make a
good living. I enjoyed the income I generated, but the pressure was so intense
that I returned to working as a financial director. The pay was not as good, but in
comparison the job was easy and almost pressure free.
The skilled carpenter who works alone has to obtain work and produce
good quality results in order to be pad and to continue to obtain work on the
basis of reputation for quality and reliability. For the vast majority of people
working as employees for organizations pay has only a rather tenuous link to
their performance. It is in this particular context where so many problems arise.
Profit sharing is NOT performance-related pay. It is too remote from the
individual to have a clear and calculated link with what the person actually does.
Profit sharing, whether in payment of money or issuing shares, does give
employees a sense of having a stake in the business and is valuable from this
point of view, but it has nothing to do with individual performance. Bonuses paid
for doing well are only vaguely related to performance. Most bonus systems are

at the subjective whim of management and also fail to have a direct link, unless
they are calculated in accordance to some measured standard of performance
which is directly related to an individuals output.
Schemes that link some additional payment to the subjective appraisal
ratings that are assessed once a year, also do not work. In fact such schemes
are widely mistrusted because they are usually manipulated by management
according to some predefined standard distribution of ratings, which is partly to
control the level of payouts and partly to keep people in their places.
Systems that provide a lump sum out of profits, which is distributed locally by
business units in relation to the contribution they made to profits, are again too
remote and too easily manipulated for staff to have confidence in receiving a
payout that directly reflects their hard work. The focus becomes keeping the
boss sweet rather than performance (Bentley, 2000).

Foreign Studies
According to Nadia Klos (2006) entitled Incentive Performance Related
Pay and Productivity a clear evidence of positive effect of imposition of
performance related monetary incentive schemes, as well as increasing a flexible
performance related part of wage on labor productivity was detected. Moreover,
enterprises which do not use performance related remuneration schemes are
less productive, which coincides with classical principal-agent theory.
.According to the study of Jin Xu (2013), CEO compensation policy as a
monetary incentive is assumed to solve the agency problems. From the view of
corporate governance, different compensation component generates different
degrees of risk-takings and different orientations in executive decision makings.
Cash compensation including basic salaries and bonus plans is mostly used as
an entitlement program rather than a motivation program for stimulating
performance. Incentive compensation including stock options granted, restricted
stock grants, long-term incentive payouts and other forms of pay, is more virtually
drives the total pay-for-performance relationship and is acclaimed in firms with

cash constrains. Besides, executives obtain substantial other types of payouts

such perks, pensions and separation pay which are largely decoupled from firm
performance and further boost the pay-without-performance.
Shilongo (2013) concluded that the equity dimensions specify that there is
a broad consensus that is essential to relate pay to performance. Bonus is
alleged to be an irrelevant motivator if the package is unattractive and feedback
is ineffective. The main purpose of the PIBS is to nurture organizational
achievement culture and its main drawback is attributable to encourage
employees to exercise a narrow focus on short-term quantifiable goals.
However, the results of the study of Nick Snoeker (2010), show that
employee reward satisfaction and motivation are not strongly related to the
manner of payment. Also, character traits mostly do not seem to influence the
preference regarding either performance based pay or fixed pay, tangible
rewards or non tangible rewards, skill based pay or job based pay and rigid
benefits or flexible benefits.
Jingjing Weng (2012) concluded that although the principle of linking
employees pay to their performance was found to be well accepted by all
employees across the PSUs investigated, it needs to be acknowledged that there
are some occupations in the PSU sector where PRP may be less appropriate,
such as teaching, which involves a wide range of tasks and where measuring
output is costly.
Local Studies
According to Danao, Del Rosario, Gonzaga, Grabiles, Ombid, Valor, and
Venta, companys compensation strategy must be commensurate with the efforts
performed by their employees. It must be equitable in relation to what the
employee gets for what they do or otherwise if they are not compensated well,
they will think that they were being cheated. The company should always
recognize who has the best performance and the one who contributes a lot to
your business because a very motivated employee can have good effects to your
firm. Management should adhere to the rules of compensation policy so that the

employees will feel that their pay is fair in relation to the work that they do and in
comparison with the pay that others get because a firm cannot give a higher pay
to other employees as long as they deserve to have it.
According to Rafi, staffs and personnel work to achieve not only personal
objectives but also monetary objectives. It is noted that industries are trying their
very best to find innovative payment system approach which may directly
connect with the enhancement of the performance of both staffs and personnel
and the entire organization. Accordingly, most staffs and personnel expects and
needs to be compensated in line with the work they have done for the company
and most staffs and personnel expects that their potential and skills will enhance
if the employee receive payment system which are fair and commensurate the
skills and expectation. In line with the management of any industry, it is said that
having an efficient payment system program can boost job satisfaction and
enhance commitment as well as performance of staffs and personnel.

The

management of any industry can do this by considering an employee payment

system program which provides the staffs and personnel that they deserve
payment to the quality of the work that they have rendered in the company.
According to Sanchez, another good intention is paying for performance
(also popularly abbreviated in the US as P4P). It serves as management?s
expression of gratitude to competent and loyal employees. It makes sense
because workers should be rewarded for good performance. It has been applied
in corporate practice under the popular name of merit increase in basic salary
based on performance evaluation. But the problem with P4P is that it is a
permanent reward for variable performance. It gives permanent salary increases
even when the performance of employees may decline in the future. The
increase cannot be taken away because labor laws do not allow any decrease in
basic salaries.
Useless increases. The president of one of my client companies once told
me he gave a big raise to his secretary because of her excellent performance.
But he regretted it because the secretary became unreliable after she got
married. Lesson: Performance can decline despite a salary increase. As a

consultant, I learned that the company had been giving merit increases
averaging 10 percent of basic salaries every year based on performance
evaluation ratings. I discovered that performance appraisal ratings of at least 90
percent of employees was always high even as the productivity indices of the
company was declining annually. Here was a case of paying for high
performance ratings despite declining productivity.
Make it a bonus. Paying for performance has great value because it gives
management the opportunity to express its gratitude to employees who meet and
exceed work expectations. But if given as salary increase, there is no guarantee
that the employees will repeat the desired work behavior. The better option is to
grant the pay for performance as a bonus, a one-time reward for those who
produce the expected output or outcome. In this way, the company does not risk
continuously paying employees whose performance may worsen. Moreover,
when employees know that they can get the bonus only when they meet certain
targets, their initiative is sustained. The concept is also often called the
productivity incentive program, which serves two purposes. First, it makes people
conscious of the productivity goals that they have to accomplish. Second, the
expense for the bonus can be directly associated with the accomplishment of
corporate goals. There are, however, certain issues that have to be considered in
designing the bonus for performance program. First, the targets must be
objectively measurable in terms of output and/or outcome. Second, it will be best
to reward groups instead of individual employees.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter contains the methods and procedures to be used in this
study. Specifically, this chapter includes the discussion of the research method
used, the description of the respondents, instruments used, validation of

instrument, other data gathering techniques, the procedure and the statistical
treatment of data.

Research Method Used

This study made an assessment of the "Relationship of PerformanceRelated Pay on Employees toward the Performance of the Organization for the
Second Semester, S.Y. 2014-2015". This descriptive-survey method of research
was used in the study. The descriptive-survey method is used to obtain
information concerning the current status of phenomena. The purpose of this
method is to describe "what exist" with respect to situational variables (Leedy,
187).
It aims to record, describe, interpret, analyze and compare the gathered
facts or information about the chosen field of study. With this, the use of
descriptive method enables the researcher to gather primary information and
review of literature which are used in order to design the data gathering
instrument used. This is also helpful in order to come up with the information that
are needed to provide the guidelines regarding the findings and results of the
research. On the other hand, data gathered in this method will also be helpful in
order to support the different data or values which will be gathered from the
sampling population.

Sampling Procedures
The researchers used the simple random sampling method where the
respondents came from Teleperformance. Each individual is chosen randomly
and entirely by chance, such that each individual has the same probability of
being chosen at any stage during the sampling process, and each subset of

individuals has the same probability of being chosen for the sample as any other
subset of individuals.
To select the number of respondents, we rely on the Slovins formula.
n = N / (1 + Ne2)
Where,
n= sampling size
N= total population
e= level of confidence (error of tolerance)
Computation of Sample Size (n)
195
n=

195
=

1 + 195 (0.05) 2

130.87248

1.49

We come up with a sum total of 131 respondents which well include in the
study using the simple random sampling method.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of this study are the employees of selected BPO
Company which is Teleperformance. These respondents were described using
certain selected demographic variable as age, gender, civil status, and
educational attainment.

Research Instrument
The following three (3) questionnaires were used by the researcher in gathering
the data:

Respondents Profile

Questionnaire.

This

questionnaire,

9-item

instrument, was developed to gather information regarding work life variables

which might affect the job satisfaction and work commitment. All responses to the
questions on sex and marital status were coded and entered as categorical data.
However, the questions on position, years of service, educational qualifications,
employment status, age, and distance of residence were coded and treated as
ordinal data due to their inherent order.
Level of Sufficiency on Benefits, Budget Allocation and Career
Advancement Questionnaire. This questionnaire is divided into 4 portions: a)
Remuneration and Other Monetary Benefits; b) Non-monetary Benefits; c)
Budget Allocation; and d) Career Advancement. For each question of each
portion, the respondents answered on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 means Very
insufficient , 2 means Insufficient, 3 means Sufficient, and 4means Very
sufficient. Item scores were summed for a total score.
Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. The Short-Form Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) as modified by Anderson, etal. (1984) was used in this
study. The response options were assigned ordinal weights with Very dissatisfied
as number 1, Dissatisfied as number 2, Satisfied as number 3, and Very
satisfied as number 4. Item scores were summed for a total score.
Work Commitment Questionnaire. This questionnaire is divided into 3 subquestionnaires:
a. Job Involvement Questionnaire. The questionnaire used in this study
was developed by Kanungo (1982). It is a10-item instrument measured on a 6point Likert scale: 1means Strongly disagree, 2 means Disagree, 3 means
Mildly disagree, 4 means Mildly agree, 5 means Agree, and 6 means Strongly
agree. Item scores were summed for a total score.
b. Career Commitment Questionnaire. The questionnaire used in this
study was developed by Blau (1985). It is an8-item instrument measured on a 5point Likert scale: 1means Strongly disagree, 2 means Disagree, 3 means

Unsure, 4 means Agree, and 5 means Strongly agree. Item scores were
summed for a total score. And,
c. Organizational Commitment Questionnaire. The questionnaire used in
this study was developed by Mow day et al (1970). It is a 9-item instrument
measured on a 7-point Likert scale: 1 means Strongly disagree, 2means
Moderately disagree, 3 means Slightly disagree,4 means neither disagree nor
agree, 5 means Slightly agree, 6 means Moderately agree, and 7 means
Strongly agree. Item scores were summed for a total score.

Data Collection Procedure

The researchers contacted the Companys supervisor or Human Resource
Chairperson to ask for permission to conduct a study, and to obtain the names
and other pertinent data of the respondents from the Administrative Section of
the division.
The questionnaires were the main instruments for data gathering which
were personally distributed by the researchers themselves. They contained a
covering letter describing the study and indicating the confidentiality of the
information that may be given out by the respondents.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The data were subjected to analysis using the Statistical Packages for
Social Sciences (SPSS). The following statistical tools were used:
Frequencies and Percentages. This was used to determine the
demographic profile of # .
Formula:

P=

freq
100
N

Where N = total number of respondents

Mean. This was used to determine the level of sufficiency given to company
employees in terms of remuneration and other monetary benefits, non-monetary
benefits, budget allocation, and career advancement; the level of job satisfaction;
and the level of work commitment.
Formula:
Where x

m=

x
N

= the Sum of responses

N = the Sum of respondents

Kendall tau Correlation. This was employed to determine the significant
relationship between job satisfactions and work commitment among company
employees.
Formula:

T=

S
1 /2 N (N 1)

WhereS = actual responses

N = total number of respondents

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Azanza, P. (2000). Human Resources Management. JMC Press, Inc.
Bentley, T. (1996). Bridging the Performance Gap. Gower Publishing Ltd.
Daft, Richard (2000) Management (Fifth Edition). Thomson Learning, Inc.
Dyck, R. and M. Neubert. (2010) Management. Thomson Learning, Inc.
Heneman, R. (1992). Merit Pay: Linking Pay Increases to Performance Ratings.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Ivancevich, J.; Donnelly Jr., J.; and J Gibson. (1986). Managing for Performance
(Third Edition). Plano, Texas: Business Publications, Inc.
Johns, G. and A. M. Saks. (2008). Organizational Behaviour: Understanding and
Managing Life at Work. Page 152-155, 185-209.
Martires, C. (2008). Human Resources Management: Principles and Practices
(Third Edition). Mandaluyong City, Philippines: National Book Store.
Medina, R. (2006). Personnel and Human Resources Management. Rex Book
Store, Inc.
Milkovich, G. and J Newman. (2005). Compensation (2nd Edition). New York,
New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Milkovich, G. and J Newman. (2005). Compensation (Eighth Edition). New York,
New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Milkovich, G.; Newman, J. and B. Gerhart. (2011). Compensation (Tenth
Edition). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Miranda, G. and C. Miranda-Gow. (2005). Wage and Salary Administration
Manila Philippines: National Book Store.
Schermerhorn Jr., J.; Hunt, J. and R. Osborn. (2008). Organizational Behavior
(Tenth Edition). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sison, P. (1991). Personnel and Human Resources Management. Manila,
Philippines: Rex Book Store, Inc.
Tanke, M. (2001). Human Resources Management for the Hospitality Industry.
Albany, New York: Thomson Learning, Inc.
Torrington, D.; Hall, L. and S. Taylor. (2002). Human Resources Management.
Page 344.

THESES AND DISSERTATIONS

Danao, J.; Del Rosario, E.; Gonzaga, J.; Grabiles, F.; Ombid, R.; Valor, B. and J.
Venta. (2010). Employees Satisfaction Regarding the Compensation
Strategies of Tobys Sports, SM Novaliches Branch and SSS Main. pp.
23-24.
Klos, N. (2006). Incentive Performance Related Pay And Productivity.
Unpublished Thesis. National University Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
Shilongo, H. N. (2013). The Impact Of Performance Related Pay On Employees
A Case Study Of The Performance Incentive Bonus Scheme At The
Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. Unpublished Thesis. Polytechnic of
Namibia.
Snoeker, N. (2010). Pay Factors, Employee Satisfaction And Motivation: A
Survey On The Influence Of Pay Factors And Character Traits On
Perceived Reward Satisfaction And Motivation. Unpublished Master
Thesis. Erasmus University.
Weng, J (2012). Pay System Reforms in Public Units In Contemporary China:
The Implementation and Impact of Performance Related-Pay.
Unpublished Dissertation. London School of Economics.
Xu, J. (2013). CEO Pay-for-performance during the Period from 2008 to 2012.
Unpublished Master Thesis. University of Oulu.

JOURNAL/ARTICLES
Rafi, M. S. (2013). Research Korner: Strengths and Weaknesses Individual
Performance Related Pay Financial Reward Scheme.
Sanchez, A. G. (2012). Management Solutions: A Better Way to Pay for
Performance.

ELECTRONIC SOURCES
https://www.scribd.com/doc/16682662/21/Research-Instrument
http://researchkorner.blogspot.com/2013/11/strengths-and-weaknessesindividual.html