Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library]On: 11 November 2014, At: 06:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
Why is group-based pay perceived asmeaningful, meaningless or negative?Exploring the meanings of paysuggested by reflection theoryAnu Hakonen a , Johanna Maaniemi a & Jari Juhani Hakanen ba Department of Industrial Engineering and Management , AaltoUniversity , Espoo, Finlandb Finnish Institute of Occupational Health , Helsinki, FinlandPublished online: 24 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Anu Hakonen , Johanna Maaniemi & Jari Juhani Hakanen (2011) Why is group-based pay perceived as meaningful, meaningless or negative? Exploring the meanings of paysuggested by reflection theory, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22:10,2245-2261, DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.580194
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.580194
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Why is group-based pay perceived as meaningful, meaningless ornegative? Exploring the meanings of pay suggested by reflection theory
Anu Hakonena*, Johanna Maaniemia and Jari Juhani Hakanenb
aDepartment of Industrial Engineering and Management, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland;bFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland
This study explored the propositions of the reflection theory of pay [Thierry (2001),Work Motivation in the Context of a Globalizing Economy, Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, pp. 149–166]. The theory is grounded in theories of individualmotivation. However, in a group-based pay context more socially oriented motivationalfactors may also play a role. In addition, the theory does not take into account that paymay have negative meanings. In this study, we have adopted a qualitative approach toimprove the understanding of what meanings group-based pay may have. The researchquestions were the following: (1) why is group-based result-oriented pay perceived asmeaningful, (2) why is group-based result-oriented pay perceived as meaningless and(3) why is group-based result-oriented pay perceived to have a negative meaning.To study the meanings attached to group-based pay, we conducted 29 focus groupinterviews (88 employees) in six municipal organizations in Finland. The resultsshowed that the reasons for perceiving group-based pay as meaningful were related tothe value of money, compensation for performance, the positive messages signalledby the pay and positive outcomes. On the other hand, when pay was perceived asmeaningless, the arguments were related to the weak instrumentality of money,weak links between performance and pay, incompatibility and lack of knowledge.The negative meanings were related to negative message conveyed by the pay and itsoutcomes. When these results were compared with four meanings proposed byreflection theory, all four categories were found in the speech of the interviewees.In addition, two new categories were found and designated as ‘messages’ and‘outcomes’. These new categories were theoretically linked to social identity theory.
Keywords: group-based pay; meaning of pay; reflection theory of pay; result-orientedpay
Introduction
Despite the growing importance of pay systems in working life, very little research has
been conducted to study why and how people react to different kinds of pay systems.
However, at the same time, organizations globally, and also in Finland, have increasingly
implemented new pay practices. One implication of linking pay to performance is
result-oriented pay, which has been implemented in many Finnish organizations.
Result-oriented pay is a supplementary bonus system that has predetermined goals or
measures usually at group/unit or organizational level (Hulkko, Ylikorkala, Hakonen and
Sweins 2005). This measurement level differentiates result-oriented pay systems from
the typical performance-based pay systems, which are usually based on individual
performance.
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online
q 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2011.580194
http://www.informaworld.com
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 22, No. 10, June 2011, 2245–2261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In result-oriented pay, performance is measured with a variety of both economic
and quality- or process-oriented indicators. Rewards are usually quite small: the typical
maximum is one month’s salary (Hulkko et al. 2005). Result-oriented pay is rather similar
to gain-sharing, as defined by Gerhart and Rynes (2003, p. 195), ‘gain-sharing is a results-
based program that links pay to performance at a collective level . . . . A second feature of
gain-sharing plans is that they often target multiple objectives other than productivity’.
Previous studies have shown that, in general, pay that is linked to performance relates
to improved individual motivation and performance (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta and Shaw
1998). Empirical evidence has also shown that group-based pay has positive effects on
performance (Hatcher and Ross 1991; Welbourne and Gomez-Mejia 1995). These studies
have mainly focused on testing the relationships between elements of pay structure and
outcomes such as performance. Recently, several researchers have suggested that new
research is needed to explain the psychological mechanisms governing the effects of pay,
and the conditions under which it exerts an effect (Heneman and Judge 2000; Shaw, Duffy,
Mitra, Lockart and Bowler 2003; Gardner, Dyne and Pierce 2004; Rynes, Gerhart and
Parks 2005; Scott, Shaw and Duffy 2008). The reflection theory of pay (Thierry 1998,
2001) was designed to explain this psychological process related to pay and its effects on
individual performance. In particular, it aims at explaining which meanings pay may have
for individuals and how pay via these meanings affects individual behaviour at work.
However, like most motivation theories, reflection theory was designed to explain
individual-based motivation and its efficacy in the context of group-based pay systems,
such as result-oriented pay, remains unclear.
Reflection theory of pay
The reflection theory of pay (Thierry 1998, 2001) is grounded in the proposition that pay
is meaningful to individuals because it reflects information about domains that are
relevant to them. In other words, the meaning of pay is determined by the extent that it
conveys information about domains that are vital to self-identity. Thus, the theory
proposes that the meaning of pay differs between individuals. The theory proposes that
the pay system affects the performance and pay satisfaction of employees through its
meaning. It implies that the more important the pay, the greater its impact. Thierry
(1992a,b, 1998, 2001, 2002) suggests that pay can be meaningful for individuals in four
different ways.
(1) Motivational properties. Pay can be meaningful if a person considers it a means
for achieving important goals. In other words, motivational properties refer to
the instrumentality of pay. This category of pay meaning is based on propositions
of expectancy theory (Vroom 1964) and Lawler’s (1971) ideas on the importance
of pay.
(2) Relative position stresses two characteristics of feedback. Individuals can
perceive a pay system as meaningful, if it gives them feedback on their success in
relation to co-workers or goals. Several theories are related to this category.
Equity theory (Adams 1965) asserts the idea of obtaining feedback on
effectiveness in relation to co-workers. Goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham
1990) stresses the role of feedback in performance.
(3) The control dimension refers to power. Pay can be meaningful, if it reflects the
position of an employee in the organizational hierarchy. Control stresses the
degree to which an individual has influenced the performance of other
employees. A pay system can be perceived as meaningful, if it signals the
A. Hakonen et al.2246
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
importance of a person to the organization. One key theory behind this dimension
is the theory of cognitive evaluation (Deci and Ryan 1985). It suggests that pay
can be meaningful if it supports an individual’s feeling of competence and
self-determination.
(4) Spending. Pay denotes the goods and services purchased. In this sense, pay can
be meaningful, if it affects a person’s ability to acquire goods and services. This
is especially important, if there are no other means available to acquire these
goods. According to Thierry (2001), this category is partly based on expectancy
theory (Vroom 1964).
However, the theory has been tested only in a few studies, and they have
mainly focused on pay satisfaction as an outcome (Miedema-Van den Heuvel 1994;
Salimaki, Ylikorkala, Hulkko, Nyman and Keskivaara 2005; Salimaki, Hakonen and
Heneman 2009). In particular, to our knowledge, there are no previous studies concerning
the content of the meaning categories proposed by the theory.
Present study
Previous research has shown that some intervening variables like pay-for-performance
perceptions, trait positive affectivity and organization-based self-esteem may explain how
individuals react to pay (Shaw et al. 2003; Gardner et al. 2004; Scott et al. 2008). These
studies, however, conclude that there should be further theorizing and study on how
employees perceive the pay systems used and why.
This study explores the ideas of the promising but largely untested reflection theory.
Thus far, it has been unclear whether all the proposed meaning categories that may
mediate the impacts of pay on pay satisfaction and performance can be identified
empirically. Moreover, it is possible that some meaning categories have not been included
in the theory. By using the inductive grounded theory approach, we sought to explore these
largely unknown psychological mechanisms.
More specifically, there are three unexplored aspects in reflection theory that
motivated and guided this study. First, the reflection theory of pay is grounded in theories
of individual motivation. The applicability of the theory has not been studied in the context
of group-based pay. Hence, here, it remains to be studied how the theory lends itself to
group-based pay, which might also require scrutiny of more socially oriented motivational
factors.
Second, to test reflection theory, Thierry and his colleagues have developed a
‘meaning of pay scale’ (MOP; MiedemaMiedema-Van den Heuvel 1994). Factor analyses
conducted in the studies using the MOP scale have reported difficulties in distinguishing
the four meanings (Shaw 1996; Thierry 2001; Hakonen, Hulkko and Maaniemi 2006;
Salimaki et al. 2009). Thus, we find it important to clarify the content of the pay meaning
categories with a qualitative approach.
Third, the basic idea of reflection theory is that pay is either meaningful or
meaningless. The theory does not make any propositions that pay meaning categories
could also have negative connotations (Salimaki et al. 2009). We considered it fruitful to
study not only the positive but also the neutral and negative connotations of pay meanings.
The research questions were as follows:
(1) Why is group-based result-oriented pay perceived as meaningful?
(2) Why is group-based result-oriented pay perceived as meaningless?
(3) Why is group-based result-oriented pay perceived to have negative meanings?
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2247
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Methods
In this study, 29 group interviews were conducted in six municipal sector organizations in
Finland. Altogether 88 employees participated in the interviews. The interviews were
conducted in 2006 and 2007 by three researchers.
The data were collected from six municipal sector organizations in Finland.
The interviews were conducted in 24 units using result-oriented pay practices. Of the
24 units, 12 were health care units, two youth work units, five administrative work units
and five transportation units. The size of the units varied from 30 to 260 employees. Every
plan had multiple targets with measures of efficiency, quality and process development.
The pay was based on the whole unit’s performance, and the maximum bonus was 5% of
the person’s annual salary.
The interviews can be characterized as semi-structured using the so-called
‘general interview guide’ style (Patton 1990). This interview style has absorbed qualities
from both unstructured and structured interview approaches. In the semi-structured
approach, the researcher uses an ‘interview guide’ or a checklist to make sure that all
relevant topics are covered. We followed this approach to obtain and cover common
information and themes in each interview (Patton 1990; Fontana and Frey 1994). This was
particularly important because three different researchers conducted the interviews.
Hence, predetermined questions minimized the variation between the interviews
conducted by different people. Although we used an interview checklist, no pre-set
response categories were used because the main interest was in exploring different kinds
of reasoning for the meaning of pay (Patton 1990; Fontana and Frey 1994).
The interviews lasted from 45 to 60 minutes and they took place in a meeting room at
the group’s workplace. In the beginning of each interview the researchers provided general
instructions to the interviewees and emphasized the confidentiality of the interviews.
Interviewees were encouraged to freely express their opinions about several
predetermined themes related to the pay system as well as reasons for their opinions.
These themes covered topics such as the structure of the pay system, the roles of different
stakeholders in the pay system implementation, the perceived effects of the pay system
and future development suggestions. We particularly focused on arguments and reasoning
why the interviewees perceived the pay system the way they did.
Analysis
All the interviews were recorded and transcribed word by word. The data were entered and
coded with the ATLAS.ti software. The analysis with Atlas was carried out by the first
author of this study. However, during the analysing process, all three researchers discussed
the content of the categories and agreed on the grouping of the arguments.
To find answers to the research questions, the first task was to clarify what kind of
reasoning the interviewees used in arguing about the meaning of the pay system. This
required an open and inductive perspective to the interview data, and therefore no
predetermined meaning categories proposed by reflection theory were used in this phase.
Consequently, we employed inductive data analysis and a theory development approach
based on the principles of the grounded theory approach (Strauss 1987; Strauss and Corbin
1994; Glaser and Strauss 1999). The aim of the grounded theory is to reduce the influence
of previously developed theories and categories. The theory suggests that categories
emerge from the interview text (Strauss and Corbin 1990, pp. 45–46).
In keeping with grounded theory, the interviews were first read through several times
to clarify how the interviewees described the meaning of pay. During this reading process,
A. Hakonen et al.2248
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
it became increasingly clear that the employees expressed the meaning of pay in various
ways. In particular, we noticed that interviewees did not use the word ‘meaning’ often
when describing the meaning of the pay system for them (e.g. ‘this is meaningful for me,
because . . . ’). Instead, they used the words ‘important’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘good’ or ‘bad’
(e.g. ‘the pay system is important because . . . ’). At this point, it also became evident that
pay could elicit three different types of evaluations: (1) positive meaning: positive
arguments about the pay system and definitions/descriptions why the pay system was
important; (2) neutral meaning: definitions/descriptions why the pay system was irrelevant
or meaningless; and (3) negative meaning: negative arguments about the pay system and
why it invoked negative feelings and attitudes. Consequently, during this preparatory stage
of the analysis, we decided that our unit of analysis were the interview quotes regarding
the pay system as positive, neutral or negative.
Thus, in the second step, we searched and categorized all relevant quotes on meaning
separately into the categories of positive, neutral and negative meanings. After this, each
meaning category was explored more closely according to the grounded theory principles.
For example, we identified 353 relevant quotes from the interviews that were related to the
positive meaning of pay. Reading the quotes carefully revealed similarities and differences
among them. At this point we started to create ‘reduced quotes’ from the authentic quotes:
every meaning quote found was shortened to a more compact form thus defining the key
message of the authentic quote. For example, a quote including 30 words was reduced to a
couple of words. If two (or more) different authentic quotes included the same message,
the same reduced quote was attached to them. During this stage of analysis, 80 reduced
quotes were generated from the 353 authentic quotes.
In the third step, we further coded the 80 reduced quotes according to their content -what
were the reasons for a positive meaning of pay to the interviewees. Carrying out another
round of analysis with these questions in mind, the 80 reduced quotes were grouped into 17
subcategories according to their content. In the fourth step, these 17 subcategories were
further reduced to eight main categories. In this analysis phase, the subcategories were
grouped into more simplified or abstract categories. Finally, in the fifth step, four core
categories were formulated by moving from data-driven descriptive categories toward more
general and theoretical categories. Similarly, we conducted analyses to answer what makes
group-based, result-oriented pay meaningless and what negative meanings may group-
based, result-oriented pay have. The categorization process is illustrated in Table 1.
Results
Why is group-based pay perceived as meaningful?
The 80 expressed meanings of pay were coded and finally grouped into four core
categories. The four categories of reasons identified for perceiving pay as meaningful were
Table 1. The data categorization process.
Data categorizationprocess
Positivemeaning Neutral meaning (meaningless) Negative meaning
Authentic quotes 353 192 40Reduced quotes 80 43 12Subcategories 19 14 9Main categories 9 10 4Core categories 4 4 2
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2249
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
related to (1) the value of money, (2) compensation for performance, (3) messages
signalled by the pay or pay system and (4) the positive outcomes. The content of these
categories will be discussed next.
First, pay was perceived as meaningful because of either the general value or the
instrumentality of money (Table 2). The interviewees emphasized that extra money is
always good, especially if they considered their overall wages low. Some of the
interviewees also stated that that money is always important, and receiving more money
with this kind of bonus system is good. In addition, others argued that the pay system was
meaningful because through the pay system they could get money to purchase something
they needed or something extra. The interviewees suggested various uses for the money.
They either gave examples of how they had used the money in the past or described
intentions or possible targets.
The second core category was related to what was provided by the pay system in
exchange for the performance of an individual or group (Table 3). In this main category,
money was considered important because it was related to performance and not because of
its economic value.
Table 2. Pay system is meaningful because of the value of money involved.
I. The value of money Quote from interview
1. General value of money† Extra pay is good Yes, it is financially meaningful. With these low wages it
seems important.† Money is important I’m happy to receive some extra money.
2. Instrumentality of money† Something needed Yes, it has been like monetarily significant – if you have some
bills that can wait, you know the incentive pay is coming ina certain month and you can arrange that too, to pay major bills.
† Something extra Yes it is; it’s a positive point – because you see, I think aboutit then, what will I use it for, yes it goes for something extra . . . forpampering myself.
Table 3. Pay is meaningful because it is linked with employees’ performance.
II. Compensation for performance Quote from interview
3. Money as a compensation for performance† Money as a reward for performance Because if I know right now that if I do things in a
certain way I’ll get some separate compensationfor it, then yes, money has an effect.
† Employees can affect the bonus with theirown performance
And it’s nice that you’ve earned it yourself withyour own work...it’s a luxury. It’s not likewinning a lottery, or like a winning raffle ticket,but yes, look, I’ve earned this.
4. Feedback† The pay system gives feedbacka Of course it serves as feedback, when you keep
track of it and reach them, the- you know – thetargets of course.
Note: a Occasionally, the interviewees spoke about the meaning of the entire pay system, not only about bonuses.In the feedback subcategory the meaning was related to feedback the implementation of pay system hadincreased. In the analysis, the arguments related to whole pay system were categorized to different categories thanarguments that were clearly related to bonuses.
A. Hakonen et al.2250
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
The money was perceived as meaningful because it was related to performance –
employees can influence the bonus by performing well. Moreover, it was also stated that
setting goals and giving feedback is more active when those procedures are linked to the
pay system. Thus, according to this main category, the pay system was perceived as
meaningful because through it employees received more feedback on their performance.
The third core category was related to more abstract or symbolic aspects signalled by
either the pay or the pay system (Table 4). In general, the employees felt that the pay system
conveys a symbolic, positive message. The interviewees perceived the existence of the pay
system or money as a sign of respect from upper management. In addition, some
interviewees considered that a bonus itself signalled recognition. However, in this category,
respect and recognition were not related to performance as in the previous core category.
The fourth core category of pay meanings is related to positive outcomes (Table 5).
Based on their experiences, the interviewees argued that the pay system was meaningful
because of its positive outcomes. Some employees stated that the pay system was
Table 4. Pay system is meaningful because it conveys a positive message.
III. Positive message Quote from interview
5. Respect† Existence of the pay system signalsrespect
In general, that is – in my opinion in general thatthere is a system like this, that shows appreciation.
† Money signals respect I just mean that it’s like, like some real amount hascome, it’s like in my opinion a sign that our work isappreciated.
6. Recognition† Money signals general recognition Yes, there’s a feeling that somehow you’ve been
singled out.†Money signals feedback or recognitionfor performance
Well, it’s gratitude to us for getting somethingaccomplished.
Table 5. The pay system is meaningful because of its positive outcomes.
IV. Positive outcomes Quote from interview
7. Performance† Motivation In my opinion incentive pay is extremely important, it’s like that’s the
motivation.† Goal-orientation In my view it’s maybe the goal orientation and the fact that there’s
something to go after, then in that sense I think it’s really good, good, it’slike a reason for doing the job well, then yes, it is also rewarding.
† Efficiency I like the incentive pay system in the sense that it rationalizes things andthey get done a little more efficiently.
† Quality Yes, the quality of care, it’s surely increased here to some extent. We’remore focussed and systematic and commit to certain routines. There’s themotivation to do things precisely, according to instructions.
8. Work attitudes† Togetherness The system also unites the working community and helps us somehow to
work for it together. And maybe, maybe it creates some sort of feeling thatlook we did it and we achieved something, something of that kind.
† Job satisfaction Yes, in my opinion it’s job satisfaction, that is in the sense that our jobdescription has been changed by this, and our methods are changed, so itcreates some kind of satisfaction, you could even say that it’s a positiveinfluence.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2251
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
meaningful because it had positive effects on performance. These effects were related to
increased motivation, goal-orientation, efficiency and quality. In addition, the pay system
was considered meaningful because it led to improved work attitudes; for example, to
increased job satisfaction and feelings of togetherness with the group.
Why is group-based pay perceived as meaningless?
Our second research question was to find out why group-based result-oriented pay was
perceived as meaningless. As regards meaninglessness, we found four categories of
arguments that were related to (1) the weak instrumentality of money, (2) weak links
between performance and pay, (3) incompatibility and (4) lack of knowledge.
The first core category in which pay was perceived as meaningless was related to the
weak instrumentality of money (Table 6). Too little money or uncertainty as to whether
any money was forthcoming made pay meaningless. Some interviewees also argued that
the amount of money was too small when considered on a per-month basis. In addition,
employees perceived the pay as meaningless when they considered the bonus too small
compared with their inputs, with bonuses paid in other organizations, or with the
possibility to earn the same amount of money with extra work.
The second core category of pay perceived as meaningless was related to a weak link
between the individual’s performance and pay (Table 7). The interviewees perceived pay
as meaningless because they considered it impossible to influence the size of the bonus
with their performance. There were three possible reasons for this argument: a lack of
knowledge on how one’s performance related to the goals or the size of the bonus; the fact
that one’s work was irrelevant in reaching the group’s goals; or that the work of an outsider
had an impact on the group’s bonuses.
In addition, the interviewees considered the pay meaningless because of measuring
problems. They either thought that the measurement of their own work was difficult or
impossible, or that relevant task accomplishments did not contribute to the size of the
bonus. The feeling that measurement was problematic was also related to the view that the
goals were impossible to reach. Moreover, pay was perceived as meaningless because
Table 6. Pay system is meaningless due to weak instrumentality of money.
I. Weak instrumentality of money Quote from interview
1. Amount and uncertainty of money† Amount of money You get 500 to 600 and then less the tax, well... No it can’t,
no it can’t mean like very much.† Uncertainty of money Since you could say that the payments are uncertain, then
like it can in no way have an effect.2. Bonus is too small compared with something† . . . input All the time these go up, these targets and development
work go forward at a faster pace so that relativelyspeaking, it’s really unreasonable, unreasonable theamount of work to get that sum.
† . . . bonuses paid elsewhere But it really wasn’t big. Compared with what business andothers get. With pay for an extra month or something else,then it certainly was small.
† . . . possibility to earn the samemoney with extra work
You could just as well terminate the incentive scheme. I’llgo along completely with that. That you work twoweekends and sign for hours then you get as much moneyas you would from this organization’s incentive pay.
A. Hakonen et al.2252
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
inputs were not in line with outputs, in other words with the size of the bonus. Employees
thought that certain groups or individuals were rewarded with bonuses for much less effort
than their own. Furthermore, interviewees also perceived group-based pay as meaningless
because it was determined by group performance and thus neither provided feedback nor
demonstrated respect for individual performance.
The third core category of pay perceived as meaningless was related to the pay being
incompatible with the work or the environment (Table 8). In this category, interviewees,
for example, perceived pay as meaningless by emphasizing that they were performing well
Table 7. Pay is meaningless, because the link between performance and pay is weak.
II. Weak link between performance and pay Quote from interview
3. Cannot influence bonuses by own performance† Does not know how his/her ownperformance relates to goals or the size ofthe bonus
I don’t really have anything that would tell mehow I could do something better so that I’d getmore incentive pay.
† Cannot exert an influence with his/her ownwork
It’s like I said, you’d have to be able to split it upinto maybe smaller pieces, so that in my ownwork I could really be able to have a biggereffect, then it might have some, some meaning.
†Work of outsiders (another group or person)determines the bonus
An outsider has had an effect on things. Thatshouldn’t be. And that they cause bad feeling, thatsomeone from the outside gets by with very little,and this has a clear effect on our incentive pay.
4. Measuring problems† Measuring the work is difficult cause you can’t measure our work so precisely.† Relevant tasks do not contribute to thesize of the bonus/goals are not relevant
So that you really do so much work near thepatient, that you don’t measure, that you justlook for something concrete, that you don’talways have time to do, so . . .
† Goals are impossible to reach So does it make any sense to try to reachsomething that you can’t reach – it’d be moresatisfying if you knew that it could be reached, ofcoursewithwork.But if itwas possible, then if youreached it, now that would be much better, thanthat you know that you won’t get there anyway.
5. Input–output ratio unfair† Unfairness between different groupsor units
How can you get the same if you fool around,well everyone would feel that it’s unfair.
† Individual differences in contribution That it comes in a way despite your input, thatyou’re well OK, absences due to illness, but in away it’s the same amount to everyone. That ifyou have to like once a month or every otherweek, in a real sweat, do some crazy nonsenseevery Saturday but someone else just sits thereand drinks coffee and plays pool, then it’ssomething like that.
6. Individual performance not recognizable† No feedback for individual performance It doesn’t tell anything about you own input.
We’re treated like a mass in the incentive payscheme. It doesn’t consider individual workinputs.
† No respect for individual performance Since it’s a group award, then you don’t get thefeeling that your personal work input isappreciated.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2253
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
for other reasons. They either stressed their intrinsic work motivation or stated that doing
their work properly was a duty.
The fourth core category of pay perceived as meaningless was related to a lack of
knowledge (Table 9). Employees argued that the pay system was irrelevant for them
because they did not know when the bonuses were paid and how much money they were
going to receive. They also stated that the structure of the pay system was too complicated
or unclear. In addition, interviewees said that they did not know what criteria were used
and that resulted in goal and role ambiguity. Moreover, pay was also meaningless for some
interviewees because it was poorly communicated. Employees stated that supervisors
should remind them of the criteria and report more actively on the situation.
Table 8. Pay is meaningless, because it is incompatible with work or the environment.
V. Incompatibility Quote from interview
11. Work is done well for other reasons† Intrinsic motivation/content of work So that surely it’s so that it comes from inside, it has
to be, that you in a way like it and have the energy togo on with it. So that it’s not the size of the award thatgets me to do more.
† Duty And it doesn’t really essentially affect your own workbecause you always try to do it in the best waypossible.
12. Pay system inappropriate for the environment or the work† Is inappropriate for this environment Not in my opinion, you can’t really do this sort of
thing in a hospital. I don’t think it suits things here.† Inappropriate for this work When you do this kind of mental work, it’s in no way
concrete It doesn’t show up in your everyday workwhen you shuffle some document this way, you don’tgive any thought to incentive pay at all.
Table 9. Pay is meaningless, because the person does not have enough knowledge.
VI. Lack of knowledge Quote from interview
13. Lack of knowledge† . . . about the amount or time ofpayment
Because I don’t even know when it’s coming, I justnotice how much it is. Oh, now it came, then youthink what you’re going to do with it, I’ve not spent itbeforehand, I don’t know how much it’ll be and I’venot known when it’ll come.
† . . . about structure It’s confusing and complicated and the part that anindividual can affect, well that seems prettyinsignificant.
† . . . about measures It doesn’t affect those who don’t know anythingabout the card and the criteria, and . . .
14. Lack of communication† Should be communicated frequently This is the kind of thing that you have to remember
throughout the period, that not quite, only sometimes,once in the spring, then they put those pieces of paperin front of you and then the next time say that youwon’t get anything. Otherwise, it doesn’t meananything.
† No active communication Yes, we go through them to some extent, but wecould do more, so that it’d motivate a little.
A. Hakonen et al.2254
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Why is group-based, result-oriented pay perceived to have negative meanings?
In this category, we found arguments that were related either to negative messages
communicated by pay or to negative outcomes.
The first core category was related to the negative messages conveyed by the pay
system (Table 10). The negative message was related either to feelings of pressure or to the
fact that the pay system was initiated from top-down. In addition, some employees
perceived that money signals disrespect. This feeling of disrespect was usually related to
the view that the bonuses were small. Some employees were also of the opinion that
decisions by management to reduce the sum of money being paid were a sign of disrespect.
The second core category was related to negative outcomes of pay. These negative
outcomes were related to either performance or well-being (Table 11). Pay was perceived
as negative when employees considered that it weakened performance by decreasing
quality, directing behaviour excessively or making cooperation complicated. In addition,
pay was considered as negative when the pay system was thought to be a source of stress or
reduced job satisfaction.
Discussion
Based on this study, group-based result-oriented pay can have positive, neutral or negative
meanings for employees. In other words, pay can be regarded as meaningful, meaningless
or comprising of negative meanings. Pay was considered positive and meaningful for four
reasons: because of the value of the money involved; because it provides compensation for
the individual’s performance, thus linking pay and individual performance; because of the
positive message it conveys; and because of the experienced positive outcomes, for
example, increased job satisfaction.
Table 10. Pay has negative meaning, because it conveys a negative message.
III. Negative message the pay or paysystem communicates Quote from interview
7. Pay system signals something negative† Pressure I don’t feel that this is the way to convey that work
and work input are appreciated, that here the idea isthat now you do something, do like a little more, thatthen next year you’ll have to do even a little morethan that..
† Assigned by top management At a workplace like this things are in generaldetermined from somewhere above, things that youjust have to do without griping, without them havingbeen justified or some examples given of what goodthey are. It’s a little like – like bureaucracy doesn’twork at a workplace if it’s one way, it comes fromabove and the rest do the work.
8. Money signals disrespect† Smallness of money signals disrespect A few hundred is like making fun of us, like this is how
much you really appreciate us . . . then there may bemore resistance if the amounts are really small.
† Reducing money signals disrespect At least I remember the feeling that this doesn’t meananything, we talked about this when we’d done thework for it, then it came from somewhere there, that itwas rejected so, then you got the feeling that youweren’t appreciated.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2255
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In addition to positive meanings, the interviewees also emphasized the reasons why
pay was sometimes perceived as meaningless. It is noteworthy that these meaninglessness
categories were not necessarily only the opposites of the positive meanings attributed to
the pay system. We found four different kinds of reasons why group-based, result-oriented
pay was perceived as meaningless: because of the weak instrumentality of money; because
it had a weak link with the individual’s own performance; because it was considered
incompatible with the work or the environment; or because employees did not have
enough knowledge about the system. Moreover, our study also suggests that pay can have
negative meanings for the employees. The pay system was regarded as negative when it
was perceived either to convey a negative message or to lead to negative outcomes, such as
increased stress.
Present findings and reflection theory
Taken together, our inductively derived categories of meaning for pay can mainly be
linked with the four categories suggested by reflection theory: motivational properties,
spending, relative position, and control (Thierry 2001). However, we also found two
additional dimensions which are not included in the theory and which we labelled as
positive message and positive outcomes.
All the interviewees provided some arguments regarding value of money. Pay was
perceived as meaningful because of either the general value of money or because money
was seen as a means to purchase something needed or something nice and extra. In other
words, the money had some general or instrumental value or it was considered to support
the person’s well-being. All these comments illustrated the meaning categories of
‘motivational properties’ and ‘spending dimension’ proposed in reflection theory. Further
support for these two dimensions was obtained by the arguments that pay was meaningless
Table 11. Pay has negative meaning, because it has negative outcomes.
IV. Negative outcomes Quote from interview
9. Poor performance† Decreases quality That involves a lot the fear that if you want to make it
that much more efficient, then is it really in the patient’sinterest?
† Directs too much If you just don’t do it – so that you do just those thingsthat affect incentive pay and leave the shitty stuff undonethat doesn’t have an effect on pay.
† Makes cooperation complicated And if it has side effects, so that the people who needincentive pay to manage, then it may be a limiting factorbetween departments. In other words, if you get assistancefrom somewhere else, from another group of employees,the idea comes to mind that ‘we’re not really interestedwhether your department gets more when the incentivepay is divided up’, in other words it distorts yourmotivation to work.
10. Ill-being† Is stressful It makes me a bit stressed.† Reduces job satisfaction The employer’s strategy, in other words you get the
impression that your own job satisfaction, that really, ifI try my best and that’s still not enough, then it’ll certainly,that kind of thing will certainly cause pressure when itcomes from above.
A. Hakonen et al.2256
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
because of the weak instrumentality of money, that is, bonuses were too small or uncertain.
Moreover, when the bonus was not viewed as meaningful, the interviewees compared the
amount of money either with their effort, with bonuses paid by other employers, or with
the possibility to earn the same amount of money easier with some extra work.
In addition, the interviewees reasoned that pay was meaningful because it gave some
compensation for individual performance. In this sense, the bonuses were perceived as
meaningful because employees could influence the amount of money with their own
performance. Alternatively, the pay system could also give additional feedback on how
successful employees had been in achieving their goals. This category linking pay and
performance is consistent with the ‘relative position’ category as proposed in reflection
theory (Thierry 2001). The basic tenet of the relative position is that pay is important
because through it employees receive feedback on their success in relation to their goals or
to other employees. Moreover, the interviewees emphasized that the pay was meaningless,
if it was not sufficiently linked with performance. These arguments about pay as
meaningless are in line with the propositions of goal-setting (Locke and Latham 1990) and
equity (Adams 1965) theories, which form the basis of the category ‘relative position’ in
reflection theory.
The reflection theory of pay proposes that pay is also meaningful when it reflects an
employee’s control position in the organization. The basic tenet of this category is that pay
may support feelings of competence and self-determination as suggested by the theory of
cognitive evaluation (Deci and Ryan 1985). In our study, the interviewees did not produce
positive arguments that would sketch the content of the control category. However, we
found a negative meaning category that we labelled as ‘negative message’. In this
category, the pay system was regarded as the management’s control tool because it was
seen to signal pressure or to be initiated from top-down. In addition, some interviewees
stated that pay was meaningless because they were motivated to perform well for other
reasons, for example because their tasks were intrinsically motivating. These statements
are consistent with the assumptions of cognitive evaluation theory but apparently for the
opposite reasons as those proposed by reflection theory. Pay systems may not only signal
control and competence but also undermine intrinsic motivation and self-determination
(Deci and Ryan 1985; Gagne and Deci 2005). Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that when the
inducement for a behaviour is given by someone else, it is perceived as an attempt to
control behaviour, and thus intrinsic motivation decreases. These differences between our
findings and reflection theory may partly relate to our focus on group-based pay which
cannot convey information about individual power positions (control) in the
organizational hierarchy. It may have also been socially undesirable to argue for this
kind of meaning in a group interview.
Meaninglessness categories
We found four aspects explaining why pay was perceived as meaningless: the weak
instrumentality of money, weak links between performance and pay, incompatibility and a
lack of knowledge. The first three categories seemed to be conditions that can decrease the
meaning of pay. For example, as stated by expectancy theory, pay cannot motivate if the
link between pay and performance is weak.
We suggest that the last category related to knowledge is not a category of pay
meaning, but an essential precondition that an individual needs to create a meaning for
pay. This relates to basic propositions in the model of the reflection theory of pay, where
knowledge of the pay system is a prerequisite or moderator for the meaning of pay.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2257
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
This is also in line with previous research suggesting that employees are more satisfied
with their pay when they know the system well (Martin and Lee 1992; Heneman and
Judge 2000; Mulvey, LeBlanc, Heneman and McInerney 2002; Sweins, Kalmi and
Hulkko-Nyman 2009). In a similar vein, Kauhanen and Piekkola (2006) found that
the pay system was perceived as more motivating when the employees knew their
performance measures.
Positive meaning categories that cannot be linked with reflection theory
We found two meaningful categories that cannot be linked with the propositions of
reflection theory: Positive message and positive outcomes. First, the interviewees
perceived pay as meaningful because it conveyed a positive message, that is, extra money,
and the existence of the pay system signalled recognition and respect. Second, the
interviewees also perceived pay as meaningful, because it had led to positive outcomes
such as good performance or positive work attitudes. These two categories of pay meaning
do not seem to lie within the scope of Thierry’s theory (1998, 2001). We suggest that this
has to do with the individual emphasis in the motivation theories behind reflection theory
(Vroom 1964; Adams 1965; Deci and Ryan 1985; Locke and Latham 1990). Our study
focused on group rewards, in which the very aim is to activate and motivate group-level
actions. In other words, group rewards should primarily motivate individuals to cooperate,
produce better quality or perform better as a group, not as individuals. As regards the
group level, the explanatory power of individual-based motivation theories and hence
reflection theory is not sufficient. Our results on the salience of positive messages and
outcomes can be understood with social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979). The basic
premise of social identity theory is that people can have different foci of social
identifications: personal or group. More specifically, social identification is defined as
‘the perception of oneness with or belonging to a group’ (Ashforth and Mael 1989, p. 34).
The fundamental assumption of the theory is that individuals define themselves in terms of
their social group memberships and that group-defined self-perception produces
distinctive effects on social behaviour and inter-group relations (Hogg and Abrams
1988). The motivational force is a product of this self-definition, which is connected to
self-esteem and self-identity. When people identify themselves at the personal level, they
are motivated to do things that promote their personal identity as individuals (e.g. personal
advancement). When group-level identity is salient, it is associated with motivation to do
things that promote individuals’ social identity as group members, for example, through
cooperation and enhancement of group goals (see Riketta 2005 for review of empirical
results). Here, we argue that group rewards also make the group-level identification salient
and motivate the employees to group-level achievements that they perceive as meaningful.
Thus, the categories related to message and outcomes found in this study can be explained
by a group-level motivation theory, the social identity theory.
The interviewees argued that pay was meaningful because the existence of the pay
system signalled that they were respected. In light of social identity theory, the feeling that
the group is respected enhances identification with that group and group-serving
behaviour. Furthermore, when employees said that pay was meaningful due to positive
outcomes, for example, because it helped them to produce better quality services, they
were talking about the achievement of the group. These accounts were reflections of their
group-level social identity – a strong motivator, which the successful implementation of a
group reward system has helped to make salient. Finally, self-determination theory
(Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2000) proposes that the three basic needs of
A. Hakonen et al.2258
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
autonomy, competence and relatedness play a crucial role in the intrinsic motivation to
perform well. In our study, the two new positive meaningful categories, particularly the
sub-categories of respect and recognition, can also be understood as fulfilling the basic
need of relatedness not included in the theorizing of the original reflection theory.
Negative meaning categories
Finally, we identified two aspects why pay was perceived to have negative connotations:
negative message and negative outcomes. The interviewees argued that pay had a negative
meaning, because it was perceived to signal disrespect or because it had a negative
connotation due to its negative outcomes. We suggest that these negative meanings can
also be linked with the propositions of the social identity approach. According to this
approach, negative meanings of pay can lead to weak identification with the group and
thus decrease a person’s motivation to serve that group.
Limitations and future research
This study was limited to employees in the municipal sector. Consequently, further study
is needed to expand the results for employees in private sector organizations. Further
research could also investigate whether the size of the bonuses has an impact on the
perceived meanings. In this study, all the interviewees received quite small bonuses.
However, we conducted 29 focus group interviews in six different organizations, and
therefore we consider that our data-set was heterogeneous enough for the present
purposes. Future research could measure the suggested new dimensions for meaning of
pay and the negative meanings and test the dimensionality. Our study suggests that
negative meanings may be related to poor performance, low satisfaction, and stress. Future
research should also study the effects of these negative meanings on performance and
satisfaction. Theoretically, in future studies it would be interesting to investigate more
closely the propositions of reflection theory, social identity theory and self-determination
theory in organizations using different individual and group pay systems.
Practical implications and conclusion
Our findings have a number of practical implications. First, they remind managers
and human resource professionals that interpretations of pay systems are diverse.
The challenge is to understand this diversity and remember the importance of
communication in strengthening the positive interpretations and avoiding negative
connotations. Second, the reasons for considering pay as meaningless lead us to suggest
that it is essential to define and communicate clearly the link between an employee’s work
and his group’s goal achievement. In addition, we also highlight the importance of overall
information and communication to increase knowledge about the pay system among
employees. Finally, we suggest that fair implementation procedures of the pay system are
important to communicate respect, not control.
To summarize, we found that all four pay meanings proposed by reflection theory were
relevant in the context of group-based pay. However, the control category was only linked
to negative meanings. In addition, our study expands the research on how employees react
to group-based pay. Furthermore, our findings provided ideas for refining the propositions
of reflection theory by suggesting two new categories of pay meaning and by describing
reasons why pay can be meaningless and even have negative meanings.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2259
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
References
Adams, J.S. (1965), ‘Inequity in Social Exchange,’ in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,ed. L.R. Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, pp. 267–299.
Ashforth, B.E., and Mael, F.A. (1989), ‘Social Identity Theory and the Organization,’ Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 20–39.
Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior,New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. (2000), ‘The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and theSelf-Determination of Behavior,’ Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Fontana, A., and Frey (1994), ‘Interviewing. The Art of Science,’ in Handbook of QualitativeResearch, eds. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 361–376.
Gagne, M., and Deci, E.L. (2005), ‘Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation,’ Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gardner, D.G., Van Dyne, L., and Pierce, J.L. (2004), ‘The Effects of Pay Level on Organization-BasedSelf-Esteem and Performance: A Field Study,’ Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 77, 1–16.
Gerhart, B., and Rynes, S.L. (2003), Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1999), Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies, for QualitativeResearch, New York: Aldine Gryter.
Hakonen, A., Hulkko, K., and Maaniemi, J. (2006), ‘Meaning of Results Oriented Pay and its Effectson Individual Performancex,’ Paper presented at European Productivity Conference, Espoo.
Hatcher, L., and Ross, T.L. (1991), ‘From Individual Incentives to an Organization-Wide GainSharing Plan: Effects on Teamwork and Product Quality,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior,12, 169–183.
Heneman, R.L., and Judge, T. (2000), ‘Compensation Attitudes: A Review and Recommendationsfor Future Research,’ in Compensation in Organizations. Current Research and Practice, eds.S.L. Rynes and B. Gerhart, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, pp. 61–103.
Hogg, M.A., and Abrams, D. (1988), Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of IntergroupRelations and Group Processes, London: Routledge.
Hulkko, K., Ylikorkala, A., Hakonen, A., and Sweins, T. (2005), ‘Tulospalkkaus,’ in PalkitseminenGlobaalissa Suomessa, (‘Results Oriented Pay’, in Pay in Global Finland.) eds. J. Kauhanen andM. Vartiainen, Juva: WSOY, pp. 199–220.
Jenkins, G.D. Jr, Mitra, A., Gupta, N., and Shaw, J.D. (1998), ‘Are Financial Incentives Related toPerformance? AMeta-Analytic Review of Empirical Research,’ Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 777–787.
Kauhanen, A., and Piekkola, H. (2006), ‘What Makes Performance-Related Pay Schemes Work?Finnish Evidence,’ Journal of Management and Governance, 10, 2, 149–177.
Lawler, E.E. (1971), Pay and Organizational Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.Locke, E.A., and Latham, P.G. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Martin, J.E., and Lee, R.T. (1992), ‘Pay Knowledge and Referents in a Tired-Employment Setting,’
Relations Industrielles, 47, 4, 654–671.Miedema-Van den Heuvel, H. (1994), De Achterkant Van Het Salaris, (The Backside of Salary)
Assen: Van Gorcum.Mulvey, P.W., LeBlanc, P.V., Heneman, R.L., and McInerney, M. (2002), The Knowledge of Pay
Study, E-mails from the Frontline, Scottsdale, AZ: WorldatWork.Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.), Newbury Park: Sage.Riketta, M. (2005), ‘Organizational Identification: A Meta-Analysis,’ Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 358–384.Ryan, R.M., and Deci, E.L. (2000), ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic
Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being,’ American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B., and Parks, L. (2005), ‘Personnel Psychology: Performance Evaluation and
Pay for Performance,’ Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571–600.Salimaki, A., Hakonen, A., and Heneman, R. (2009), ‘Managers Generating Meaning for Pay: A Test
for Reflection Theory,’ Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 161–177.Salimaki, A., Ylikorkala, A., Hulkko, K., Nyman, G., and Keskivaara, P. (2005), ‘Esimiehet
Palkkausjarjestelman Soveltajina: Malli Siita, Miten Esimies voi Vaikuttaa Palkkausjarjestelman
A. Hakonen et al.2260
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Toimivuuteen,’ (Supervisors’ Role in Implementing Pay System), Journal of the FinnishPsychological Society, 1, 53–70.
Scott, K.L., Shaw, J.D., and Duffy, M.K. (2008), ‘Merit Pay Raises and Organization-BasedSelf-Esteem,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 967–980.
Shaw, J.D. (1996), ‘A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Pay Meaning Dimensions on an English-Speaking Sample,’ Paper Presented at the 1996 Southwest Academy of ManagementConference, San Antonio, Texas.
Shaw, J.D., Duffy, M.K., Mitra, A., Lockart, D.E., and Bowler, M. (2003), ‘Reactions to Merit PayIncreases: A Longitudinal Test of a Signal Sensitivity Perspective,’ Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 538–544.
Strauss, A. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research. Grounded Theory Procedures andTechniques, Newbury Park: Sage.
Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1994), ‘Grounded Theory Methodology. An Overview,’ in Handbook ofQualitative Research, eds. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Thousand Oak, CA: Sage, pp. 273–285.
Sweins, C., Kalmi, P., and Hulkko-Nyman, K. (2009), ‘Personnel Knowledge of the Pay System, PaySatisfaction and Pay Effectiveness: Evidence from Finnish Personnel Funds,’ InternationalHuman Resource Management Journal, 20, 2, 457–477.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. (1979), ‘An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,’ in The SocialPsychology of Intergroup Relations, eds. W.G. Austin and S. Worschel, Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.
Thierry, H. (1992a), ‘Pay and Payment Systems,’ in Employment Relations: The Psychology ofInfluence and Control at Work, eds. J.F. Hartley and G.M. Stephenson, Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 136–160.
Thierry, H. (1992b), ‘Payment. Which Meanings are Rewarding?’ American Behavioral Scientist,35, 694–707.
Thierry, H. (1998), ‘Compensating Work,’ in Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology(Vol. 4), eds. P. Drenth, H. Thierry and C.J. de Wolff, Hove: Psychology Press Ltd.,pp. 291–319.
Thierry, H. (2001), ‘The Reflection Theory on Compensation,’ inWork Motivation in the Context ofa Globalizing Economy, eds. M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck and H. Thierry, Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, pp. 149–166.
Thierry, H. (2002), ‘Enhancing Performance Through Pay and Reward Systems,’ in PsychologicalManagement of Individual Performance, ed. S. Sonnentag, Chichester: Wiley, pp. 325–347.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, New York: Wiley.Welbourne, T.M., and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1995), ‘Gainsharing: A Critical Review and a Future
Research Agenda,’ Journal of Management, 21, 559–609.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 2261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Cor
nell
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
6:11
11
Nov
embe
r 20
14
