Posted: June 30th, 2015
A critical evaluation of the reward management in a typical pharmaceutical HR department to discover the impact on staff productivity
Employee performance is a critical part in the efficiency of every organization, in pharmaceutical industry in particular. This research proposal aimed to examine the impact of a rewards system on employee’s productivity. AB.F Skinner’s Operant Conditioning is used as the research’s theoretical background. Other theories were used to support the arguments and findings in this paper such as Adams’ Equity Theory and Alderfer’s ERG Theory. Quantitative approach is used as the primary method for data collection and analysis. The research findings of this research study indicate that there exist a strong positive correlationship between incentive and rewards program at pharmaceutical industry’s HR department and productivity, performance, and satisfaction.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER # 2: LITERATURE REVIEW… 5
Worker’s Performance in Reward Consideration. 11
Challenges in Searching for the Right Criteria for Performance Based Rewards. 14
Satisfaction and Productivity. 23
CHAPTER # 3: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS. 26
Sampling and Sampling Procedures. 26
CHAPTER # 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.. 39
Recommendations for Future Research. 42
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Employee productivity plays an important role in the organization’s performance. Therefore, employees should enhance their productivity. Many businesses today believe that empowering employees will improves productivity and will provide significant benefits in the future. This philosophy is based on the theory that employees are empowered through making decisions, which makes them feel capable, reliable, and dedicated to work more effectively and efficiently, and in a good business practices, especially employees become more productive. A company or organization that empowered their employees would definitely outperform their competitors.
Employee must take part in the company by determining the quality defects it has and ways to develop the efficiency of its employees. This philosophy the company adopts regarding this will establish its quality, because employee empowerment and quality would enable companies to become well-established in their respective business ventures. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial process involves all types of functions and activities related in identifying and exploring opportunities. In fact, employee empowering is an instrument in combating poverty and unemployment because of process of job creation and long-term economic growth that is widely recognized.
In several organizations, policy-makers and practitioners tend to intervene in order to stimulate the business industry as a mean of promoting economic well-being. In addition, business interventions are necessary to address resource, attitudinal, strategic and operational barriers to the renewal of company performance. A wide variety of interventions have been introduced to encourage new forms of growth such as Business Ownership Experience, Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Performance: Novice, Habitual, Serial and Portfolio Entrepreneurs.
By definition rewards refer to all forms of benefits, financial returns receive by the employee as part of the employment relationship. Rewards are benefits received arising from rendering or performing a task and taking on responsibility. There are two types of rewards: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic rewards refer to psychological and intangible rewards which can be in the form of recognition which boosts employees’ intrinsic motivation. Another type is the extrinsic rewards which refer to tangible and financial rewards such as pay, interpersonal rewards, benefits, and bonuses.
The reward package has an impact on employee’s performance. Based on the research and findings of Partheepkanth and Yapa, a reward system helps increase an employee’s performance by improving the employee’s skills, abilities and knowledge to obtain the organization objectives. A reward practice plays an important role in enhancing an employee’s performance in order to achieve organizational objectives. Many researchers have determined that employee rewards is directly attach to employee performance. They also indicate that in organizations that do not reward employees, the employee’s performance may decrease. An effective reward system can serves as a tool to motivate while an inefficient reward system can result in demotivating them.. In terms of employees, internal conflict, high turnover, lack of commitment or loyalty, lateness and felling grievances are some examples of problems that indicate that organizations need to create or develop a strategic reward system for employees to retain proficient employees that could result achieving a sustainable competitive advantage.
Research Rationale
The primary goal of this research is to determine the relationship of a rewards system to employee productivity. It seeks to identify how the rewards system affects the productivity of employees in a typical pharmaceutical company.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this study is:
- To identify the relationship between rewards and employee productivity in a typical pharmaceutical company;
- To examine the effectiveness of the reward system; and
- To give some recommendations on how the pharmaceutical company would improve their existing rewards system.
Research Questions
- What is the relationship of the existing rewards system to the productivity of employees?
- What is the relationship of the extrinsic rewards to the productivity of employees?
- What is the relationship of the intrinsic rewards to the productivity of employees?
Research Hypothesis
H1: There isn’t a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and performance.
H2: There is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and satisfaction.
Recent studies have revealed that reward system has direct impact on job satisfaction and performance of employees (Pratheepkanth) (Yapa).
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Recent studies have revealed that reward system has direct impact on job satisfaction and performance of employees (Pratheepkanth;Yapa). Adams’ Equity Theory talks about the balance between the employee’s input and output. This theory helps a person asses and projects properly in regards to their relationship with their work and their employer. This also implies that motivation is based on these variables. The employee’s input are being hard working, performing on high level of skills, tolerance to changes and unpredictable work situations, loyalty to the company and the superior, commitment to work, determination, enthusiasm, trust, support of colleagues and personal sacrifices. The outputs are compensation which covers incentives are salary and number of days or times of work. This also includes recognition, reputation, responsibility, sense of achievement, praise, stimulus, sense of growth and job security. The problem with this theory is that demotivation happens if the employee feels that their input is not equal to their output.
The theory that Alderfer’s ERG indicates that where ERG corresponds to Existence needs, Relatedness needs, and Growth needs. This theory deals with organizational motivation, where the company or the manager handle the employees depending on their need. The first one is Existence needs which are focused to the physiological and physical needs of a person. This includes the need for food, shelter and safety in the work place. The second one is Relatedness needs this includes the need to interact with others, receive recognitions and to feel the security with other people. Lastly is the Growth need where a person’s self esteem is hinged on their achievements and personal goals.
The theory’s essence is not to provide every need because in reality the needs are over powering each other. If one of the needs is emphasized and satisfied the other need is blocked. There are also phases that are considered in this theory such as progression and regression. The progress on the needs should be in proper sequence where the first need is the existence needs, which progresses to relatedness needs and in turn progressing to growth needs. Progression is the increase of needs according to the needs and it is measured through the length of stay on the company. If the sequence is going backwards, it is called regression of needs. But the reality of the theory is that there is no sequence followed by the needs because it will be focused on what is currently satisfying the person.
Theoretical Framework
AB.F Skinner is known as the father of Operant Conditioning. His work is based on Thorndike’s law of effect thus his theory is like an addition to this. His term for the law of effect is reinforcement. He states that behaviour that is reinforced will most likely be repeated while behaviour that is not will most likely be extinguished. There are two basic concepts in operant conditioning:
(1) reinforcement and
(2) punishment (Adler-Tapia, 2012, 48).
Reinforcement is defined as the event that strengthens or increases the behaviour that it follows. Skinner states that there are two kinds of reinforcers. Positive reinforcers as events add outcomes that are favourable. They are presented after the behaviour. In other words, situations that reflect positive reinforcement adds something favourable which will strengthen the behaviour. These can be in the form of praise, affirmation or rewards (Adler-Tapia, 2012, 23).
Negative reinforcers remove an unfavourable event or outcome after the behaviour is displayed. The perfect example of negative reinforcement is the famous Skinner box. Skinner placed a rat in the box and exposed it to an unpleasant electric current. When the rat moves about the box, it would accidentally knock the lever which would switch off the electricity. After discovering this, the rats learned to go straight to the lever. The consequences of getting rid of the discomfort made them repeat the action again and again.
Punishment on the other hand is giving an adverse event that would cause the behaviour to decrease or be eliminated. Skinner proposed two types of punishment, positive and negative. Positive punishment is referred to as the punishment by application which involves the presentation of an unfavourable event in order to weaken the response. Negative punishment is regarded as the punishment by removal wherein a favourable outcome is removed after the behaviour is executed (Adler-Tapia, 2012, 18).
Satisfaction
Satisfaction is a vital part in every employee’s life. Companies should pay attention to whether they are responding to their employees’ needs or not. In Maslow’s concept of hierarchy of needs, it was stated that lower level needs must be satisfied first or at least relatively satisfied before higher level needs become motivators. According to him, needs could be arranged on a hierarchy with each ascending step representing a higher need but one less basic to survival. Lower needs must be satisfied first. Anyone motivated by esteem or self-actualization must have previously satisfied needs for food and safety. Maslow has arranged the following needs in order of their prepotency: physiological, safety, love and belongingness, self-esteem and self-actualization.
This concept is helpful as it can be a guide for the management to know what should be prioritized for their employees, and through this study, the needs of the employees are identified. The management will also develop the idea on what can motivate its employees and improve their performance at work (Cardy & Leonard, 2014, 14).
However, in the case of pharmaceutical HR department, things may be a little different. There are several factors that are being considered in measure for job satisfaction. In an article written by Litherland, shift, ability and reward are just three of the factors to be considered. In services that should be available any minute a guest asks for it, shifting has become a way to meet this demand. Hence, employees who work in the shift they prefer are more satisfied. Ability is another factor. If one is given the tasks which he/she knows one can accomplish well because of the abilities he/she has, one is more likely to be satisfied than those who are given tasks they don’t even know how to accomplish. Lastly, reward is also a factor that is being looked into which could affect job satisfaction. Of course those who receive a more competitive pay tend to be more satisfied than those who work for places that cannot give as much pay as others. But still, just like with the other articles given above, extrinsic factor such as salary isn’t the sole source of job satisfaction. Just like other employees, workers also need to feel a sense of achievement to be truly satisfied with their job (Mohammed & Eleswed, 2013, 43).
Satisfaction can predict the better commitment among employees. In the study conducted in the University of Rochester by Leone, findings support the positive role of the work climate in predicting higher order need satisfaction. In return, this predicts higher work engagement. Higher order need satisfaction also predicted job satisfaction, self-esteem, and psychological adjustment. This means that employees need a good working climate. This could refer to the working area itself, people they deal with and the load of work they have to do in a day. If employees find their working climate healthy and bearable, it can be expected that they’ll be able to carry out the tasks they are expected to do.
To Buchanan, job satisfaction is a complex matter to discuss . He agrees that there are different types of job satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic job satisfaction refers to the satisfaction experienced by employees from the kind of work they do. Extrinsic job satisfaction refers to the feeling of satisfaction considering the conditions of work such as pay, co-workers and supervisor. These two types are different from each other yet they play an important role in identifying factors that could make an employee feel good or bad about their jobs. According to him, this can mean different things to different people. Although it is usually linked to motivation, the nature of relationship between job satisfaction and motivation to perform well at work is not clearly defined because job satisfaction is more of an attitude, an internal state wherebye a feeling of achievement usually defines job satisfaction.
Meanwhile, in an article posted by Mayo Clinic, it was stated that it is important to understand the link between work approach and job satisfaction. Three approaches were discussed in this article. First, it is a job if one focuses more on the financial rewards he gets from it. It is a career if one is more interested in the advancements he might. Money could be just a second priority rather it is the status, prestige and power that is being sought for. Finally, it is a called if one is after the nature of work itself. Financial rewards and advancements has no importance in this type of approach. To be able to identify one’s satisfaction towards a job, he must be able to know in himself how he actually approaches a job.
Rewards
Despite many years of research studies, differences of opinion still exist on whether or not a reward can be a motivator in improving the performance of workers. Some say that implementing a reward program is beneficial for the organization to improve productivity, while other believes that it harms the organization (Kohn, 1993; Murphy, 2007). One the one hand Kohn (1993) suggests that implementation of a reward program is detrimental to the organization, as it breaks the team effort by creating a competitive environment among workers in the workplace. He further argued that it can only be a short-term solution if the problem is reduced productivity: after some years of a reward program, all workers would start expecting to be rewarded, even for average performance (Wong, 2012, 14).
On the other hand, many other researchers have concluded that productivity is increased when workers are rewarded based on their performance (Shrestha, 2011, 13). They suggested that workers who are rewarded are willing to put more effort into their work. Rewards can boost the morale of the workers (Nyaanga, 2012, 33). Louka (2011) conducted a survey of 860 participants in a study of hotel casino employees and found employees to be more satisfied if their work was recognized, leading to a reduced level of turnover. Each year, the United States spends around $7 billion on non-cash incentives; and, the total estimated amount of spending on rewards is around $114 billion per annum, if all cash incentives are included (Mecha, 2013, 36).
Lemmons (2014) reported that, by using an incentive system in one plant division, the average labour productivity increased by 68%, the rate of defects in finished goods is decreased by 95%, and material waste was reduced by 44%. In addition to these results, the rate of absenteeism decreased by an average of 47% and turnover decreased by 67%. Several researchers have also reported increases in production when workers were rewarded for their performance. Researchers believe that, while rewards are based on performance, workers are not only motivated to produce more, but also try to learn more productive ways to perform their tasks (Griffin, 2012, 53).
Rewarding employees for their efforts and achievements is one of the prime motivators (Coblio, 2011, 23). The attraction of rewards activates desired behaviours and inhibits the undesirable ones. Carafa (2011) found a 45% improvement in performance when providing team incentives and 27% increase in performance when providing individual incentives. The study also found significant improvement in one’s intrinsic interest in work tasks when effective monetary incentives were provided to the employees, thereby rejecting the claim of previous research that tangible incentives destroy the intrinsic interest in work, making workers have a more “money grabbing mentality” (Carafa, 2011, 35).
Worker’s Performance in Reward Consideration
An empirical research indicated the existence of a positive relationship between task performance and contextual performance (Brown, 2012, 35). Although both types of performance positively contribute to performance evaluation, most studies have suggested that the relationship between task performance and employee rewards is fairly straight forward (Askar, 2010, 34). On the other hand, the relation between contextual performance and rewards can be different, depending on the value given to the task and contextual performance criteria (Pratheepkanth, 2011, 92). Mohammed & Eleswed (2013) claimed that contextual performance is not directly recognized by a formal reward system. However, Griffin (2012) argued that both contextual and task performance seem to be considered equally in evaluating overall performance.
The relationship between reward and contextual performance can be negative or positive, depending on the consideration of contextual performance for rewards (Coblio, 2011, 23). Coblio (2011) further emphasized that contextual performance behaviour is not directly recognized by the formal reward system; thus, these behaviours may or may not be rewarded by supervisors. In a study of university professors, Brown (2012) found that the reward was based mainly on task performance rather than contextual performance; and, there existed negative relationships between contextual performance and rewards. Brown (2012) also found that task performance was more influential than contextual performance. Furthermore, he concluded that, if task performance is low, overall ratings are also low, regardless of the contextual performance level. He further emphasized that supervisors were more interested in task performance information than in contextual performance information; however, the result may be different in other sectors, depending on the nature of the work.
Some researchers have argued that contextual performance is not linked to the formal reward system. As contextual performance is not included as part of formal role requirements, it is not rewarded through the formal organizational evaluation and reward systems. It does, however, promote the effective functioning of the organization (Wong, 2012, 14). Moreover, many reward systems only consider task performance for evaluating their workers, potentially creating dissatisfaction in the performance evaluation process. If the reward system does not consider contextual performance behaviours, then spending time on this performance could have negative consequences for individuals (Nyaanga, 2012, 33). Thus, workers may start ignoring contextual performance.
An organization, however, cannot function properly unless the behaviours supporting organizational goals are rewarded (Mecha, 2013, 36). Contextual performance is more important in situations where work is based on team performance, such as the construction industry, and where more willingness is needed to exert effort. Many researchers have indicated that involving contextual performance is beneficial for both organizations and individuals, as it makes the organization function effectively. Thus, rewards should be redefined to include these behaviours (Louka, 2011, 24). Consideration of contextual performance in the reward process is important in the construction industry, as individual’s performance does not only depend upon the individual’s job knowledge, skills and abilities, but also on other team members’ skills and their behaviour on the work site. Taking in account contextual criteria in a performance appraisal helps to include situational constraints and avoid opportunity bias, which occurs when workers achieve differing levels of performance, due to factors beyond workers’ control (Askar, 2010, 34).
In an organizational setting, it is not sufficient for workers to have the skills and knowledge to perform the task, but they must have the willingness to use these skills to accomplish the organization’s goal. Without adequate motivation to use their skills, the capability of workers does not matter. Workers must also communicate, follow instructions from supervisors, help co-workers and coordinate with each other to accomplish the job. These activities are necessary to reduce interdepartmental friction and help workers to perform the job (Lemmons, 2014, 36).
Workers may know how to accomplish a task, but may not necessarily be motivated to accomplish it effectively and efficiently, resulting in less effort being put into the work. The behaviours and attitudes of workers’ are measured through contextual performance, which includes both interpersonal dimensions and motivational elements that are necessary to accomplish the job successfully in an organizational setting (Wong, 2012, 14). Including contextual behaviour in the performance evaluation criteria for rewards is recognition that working in an organization is different from working alone (Shrestha, 2011, 13).
Challenges in Searching for the Right Criteria for Performance Based Rewards
For centuries, managers have been attempting to find the right mix of performance evaluation criteria that reduce turnover and improve satisfaction and, thus, the productivity of workers. Nyaanga (2012) reported that there are mainly three problems that make it difficult to identify the correct set of performance criteria:
- i) supervisors’ perceptions with regard to the cause-and-effect relationship of their actions,
- ii) the variability of preferences over time, and
iii) the organization’s pursuit of contradictory preferences.
Organizations should maintain the optimal level of job performance, in order to achieve their goals and missions. Improvement and sustainment of job performance can be achieved, if an organization uses effective evaluation criteria to evaluate worker performance (Mecha, 2013, 36). An important aspect of designing a successful performance based reward program is the determination of the appropriate criteria to reward workers for their contributions to the organization. A supervisor or manager can look at three types of variables – cost-related variables, judgment on traits or attitudes, and observation and recording of behaviour – to evaluate the performance of individual workers (Louka, 2011, 24). Cost-related variables can be an excellent indicator of organization’s effectiveness.
It is, however, not sufficient enough to measure the performance of workers, because cost-related variables do not inform the worker as to how or why he/she is effective or ineffective. Moreover, these variables are not fully controllable by workers, since many factors, such as weather, tools and equipment and economic conditions, affect them (Lemmons, 2014, 36). Workers can be motivated and capable of doing the required work, but they may not receive proper supervision. Lack of detailed planning, design changes, inadequate communication, adverse weather, congested work areas, and non-availability of tools and materials at the right time at the right place are other factors that affect a worker’s performance over which he/she has little or no control (Griffin, 2012, 53). These factors significantly influence the cost, quality, quantity and timing of the project. Due to these uncontrollable factors, productivity is reduced without being a result of the worker’s motivation and skills.
Coblio (2011) argued that measurement of performance based on traditional performance variables, such as cost, quality, quantity and time, should be changed, as these criteria are not sufficient for evaluating a worker’s performance. Psychologists also argue that the evaluation of a worker’s performance through observable behaviour is important to measure job performance or failure (Carafa, 2011, 35). Many researchers have become increasingly vocal about the need for broadly defining performance as the total contribution that a worker makes to an organization, rather than using traditional measures. Organizational knowledge, past contributions, organizational citizenship behaviours and loyalty should be considered to define performance (Brown, 2012, 35). The parameters should incorporate knowledge, skills and behavioural inputs that contribute to better performance (Askar, 2010, 34).
Traditional job performance criteria are dependent on core technical proficiency. This trend has been changing recently: increasing effort has been given to incorporating motivational and interpersonal aspects of job performance (Pratheepkanth, 2011, 92). Behaviourally based measures are under the direct control of workers and are less affected by external factors than cost-related indexes. The advantage of behavioural criteria is that they allow the manager to determine how performance on cost-related variables can be maintained or improved (Mohammed & Eleswed, 2013, 44). “These motivational or interpersonal performance variables are collectively called as contextual performance” (Shrestha, 2011, 13). Numerous researchers have listed useful contextual performance variables and suggested that worker performance should be evaluated on both task and contextual performances (Nyaanga, 2012, 33).
When workers see that supervisors do not evaluate performance with appropriate measures, they may think that supervisors do not value the measures that are needed to succeed in the job. The consequences of differences in the perceptions of workers and supervisors, due to the use of inappropriate measures in the reward criteria, may decrease procedural fairness as well as the perception of distributive fairness (Mecha, 2013, 36). If employers want to optimally satisfy and motivate employees with a reward system, managers need to understand the preferences of workers regarding the criteria used to determine the reward system. Satisfaction from a reward is increased when workers feel that it is based on appropriate criteria (Louka, 2011, 24). The worker’s perception of the determinants of the performance based reward is essential to his/her job satisfaction. Furthermore, workers’ preferences on performance criteria give managers insight into what motivates workers to be more productive, in order to maximize their performances and improve productivity.
An understanding of workers’ preferences on reward criteria is a management imperative, due to the dynamic nature of the construction industry and the constantly changing nature of workers’ attitudes and their preferences (Lemmons, 2014, 36). Some criteria that management views as valuable for performance evaluation may not be preferred by workers as the basis for their performance based reward. For instance, management may think that evaluating their workers on the basis of leadership, judgment, planning, and decision-making skills is appropriate; however, workers may prefer some other performance criteria (Griffin, 2012, 53). A survey conducted by Coblio (2011) revealed that 50% of the respondents in consulting civil engineering firms perceived technical skills to be the main criteria; whereas, one third of respondents’ companies considered communication skills, project management, administration, goal setting and profit making as the important criteria for performance evaluation of employees in their civil engineering firm.
According to Brown (2012), environmental factors within an organization that can impact the performance of the workforce include a training certification system, a reward and recognition system, a performance assessment system, management support and control, and organization culture. Similarly, Brown (2012) put forward the concept that financial incentive programs can increase productivity by decreasing production costs and construction time. In many cases of worker performance evaluations, important criteria of performance have been overlooked by management. For successful implementation of rewards based on performance, both workers and management must agree on the criteria and priority rating that should be used for evaluation of their performance (Lemmons, 2014, 36).
Performance
In studying any professional group it is important to be able to classify individuals according to their achievement (Griffin, 2012, 53). For one, it is likely that the successful members of the profession set the standards of conduct which are followed by the less successful or aspiring professional. Also, they are likely to display most clearly the attitudes that are characteristic of their profession. As early as 1932, a review of the literature by Brown (2012) found no significant relation between satisfaction and performance. Nevertheless, research on the issue continued. Shrestha (2011) found that morale and job satisfaction were highly correlated to productivity in United States shipyards during World War II. Mecha (2013) found that job satisfaction correlated positively with high and low levels of productivity but was not related to the middle range of productivity.
Askar (2010) and Griffin (2012) concluded that job satisfaction was related to certain aspects of productivity; yet, Coblio (2011) claim the two variables are not necessarily related. In a major review, Pratheepkanth (2011) concluded “there is little evidence in the available literature that employee attitudes bear any simple or, for that matter, appreciable–relationship to performance on the job” (p. 396). In spite of this negative conclusion, Mohammed and Eleswed, (2013) renewed interest in the issue when their review concluded that “there is frequent evidence that positive job attitudes are favourable to increased productivity. The relationship is not absolute, but there are enough data to justify attention to attitudes as a factor in improving the worker’s output” (p. 103).
Approaching the issue from a different perspective, Brown (2012) argued that there existed small, but positive relationships between these two controversial variables. Much of the research cited, except Brown (2012), appears to be an outgrowth of the human relations movement, which gained widespread attention during the 1930’s. A major tenet of this approach suggested that higher morale leads to increased productivity, and much of the research effort appears to have been directed at supporting this position. During the fifties, a second major approach attempted to relate satisfaction and performance through moderators (Wong, 2012, 14). A variant considered satisfaction and performance as joint independent or dependent variables related to some third variable. A third major movement advocated that performance leads to satisfaction.
Shrestha (2011) were instrumental in popularizing this approach. Their model, simply stated, says that “good performance may lead to rewards, which in turn lead to satisfaction; this formulation then would say that satisfaction, rather than causing performance, as was previously assumed, is caused by it” (p. 23). The rationale for their model is grounded in the expectancy theory (Nyaanga, 2012, 33). Brown (2012) attempt to eliminate some of the problems inherent in expectancy theory by incorporating aspects of equity theory and need theory to explain how satisfaction develops and how outcomes gain their valence, and partially to explain how expectancies develop. This model considers performance a first level outcome (‘act’ in Brown (2012) terminology), rewards (each with their respective valence and relation to performance) as second level outcome, and satisfaction a result of the usefulness of the rewards in satisfying needs.
The basic point to be made is that satisfaction is seen as a dependent variable which should be related to valued outcome. Value of an outcome is determined by the degree to which it satisfies needs or by the degree of relationship perceived by the individual between outcomes and satisfaction. Satisfaction has only an indirect effect on performance via a feedback loop to expectancies. Public service entails meeting with communities and public organizations, working on departmental or university committees, and performing charitable or educational activities (Mohammed & Eleswed, 2013, 44). Some departments regard these activities highly and demand faculty successful in building contacts on the outside. However, as in the case of teaching, such activities are more inclined to receive local rather than national recognition.
The market for faculty with these skills may be circumscribed given the difficulties inherent in determining a faculty member’s public service abilities. Administrative skills are largely learned on the job (Pratheepkanth, 2011, 92). While grant management, departmental and university duties, and prior work experiences provide faculty with some skills, many administrative abilities reduce to experience in specific human capital (Askar, 2010, 34). Furthermore, administrative skills are not easily measured, and thus the market for this type of skill might be limited. But because administrators have a supervisory role in the department, their salary is likely to be higher than that of other faculty.
Most faculties enter the job market possessing more than one skill, and the salary an individual is offered presumably includes a return for each skill valued by the employing department (Brown, 2012, 35). Different disciplines may assign different weights to given skills, and hence the structure of salaries could vary by discipline. It might also vary by sex as males and females may be subject to dissimilar supply and demand phenomena.
Effectiveness
Past salesperson evaluation research has focused primarily on the effectiveness dimension of performance (Askar, 2010, 34). From the salesperson point of view, effectiveness has been defined as the extent to which “preferred solutions” are realized in the salesperson-customer interaction. Lemmons (2014), on the other hand, defined effectiveness from the organizational standpoint as the degree to which salespersons make contributions to valued organizational outcomes such as profits, market share, or customer satisfaction. Insight into the determinants of salesperson effectiveness was provided by two key conceptual models by Askar (2010), as well as by a number of empirical studies in the sales literature that tested these models.
Conceptually Askar (2010) model depicted salesperson effectiveness performance to be determined by salesperson motivation, role perception, and aptitude which, in turn, are influenced by individual, organizational, and environmental factors. Alternatively, Askar (2010) provided a contingency approach to salesperson effectiveness. In this approach, salesperson effectiveness is determined by a set of selling behaviours. The relationship between these selling behaviours and effectiveness are moderated by three sets of variables. The three sets of moderators are
(1) the characteristics of the salesperson (e.g., knowledge of customer and product, alternative choice, and skills and capabilities);
(2) the buyer’s task (buyer’s knowledge of the product, product alternatives in the market, and buyer’s experience with the product), and
(3) the salesperson-customer relationship.
The selling behaviours include the degree of adaptive selling (the altering of sales activities to fit customer needs and the sales context), influence bases (e.g., legitimacy or credibility), influence techniques (e.g., product-related or emotion-related) and salesperson-customer interaction. Askar (2010) model is supported by two meta-analysis studies. Brown (2012) explored six categories of antecedent variables: aptitude, role perception, motivation, skills, organizational, and environmental factors. The findings of these studies suggest that no single category of variables predicts a sufficiently large amount of performance variance. The most predictive variables are salesperson role perceptions and skills which, as will be discussed later, can be enhanced by training. Most notably, though, the influence of the antecedent variables is moderated by the sales context: type of customers, type of product sold, and the particular performance measurements used.
Overall, Askar (2010) contingency model was supported. Shrestha (2011) completed another meta-analysis in which focus was placed on the influence of personal variables on performance. Two broad categories were evaluated: biographical and psychological variables. Again, the results indicated that no single variable category predicted a large amount of performance variance. Although personal history and family background were found to be significantly associated with performance, the influences were moderated by the type of customers, the type of product sold, and the particular performance measurements used.
A key implication for sales managers stemming from this study is that no single personal variable can predict effectiveness sufficiently well. Given these findings, recent personal selling research has examined other personal and organizational factors that may enhance salesperson effectiveness. Among these personal variables are the notions of “working smart” and “working hard”, as well as salesperson goal orientations. Organizational variables that have been explored in this regard include sales force control systems, organizational culture, and sales force training. These variables are reviewed later in this chapter as focal constructs of the current study.
Efficiency
The current business environment’s emphasis on cost-minimizing, downsizing, and maximizing productivity requires, in addition to effectiveness, a high level of efficiency from salespeople (Nyaanga, 2012, 33). In fact, there are several reasons supporting the importance of efficiency in salesperson performance. First, increased competition in domestic and foreign markets and the rapidly escalating costs of personal selling have heightened the need to not only sell effectively, but to do so in an efficient manner as well. That is, sales management is placing an increasing emphasis on sales force productivity (Mecha, 2013, 36). Thus, many salespersons are increasingly being charged with the tasks of achieving sales objectives while minimizing the costs associated with those sales (Louka, 2011, 24). Secondly, at the firm level, Griffin (2012) found that the most popular measure of marketing performance is efficiency, that is, productivity.
This finding was based on their survey of more than 50 studies spanning 30 years on the topic of assessing management performance. This firm-level emphasis on efficiency achievement may also directly or indirectly influence sales management to require salespeople to work more efficiently. Conceptually, efficiency has been defined as the ratio of outputs of on activity to the inputs required by that activity (Shrestha, 2011, 13). Although marketing researchers have long been interested in measuring efficiency performance, methods for measuring efficiency were much criticized. Recently, however, empirical studies have applied an advanced management science tool – data envelopment analysis (DEA) – to measure efficiency more accurately (Nyaanga, 2012, 33).
Satisfaction and Productivity
In recent years there have been many writers who believe favourable employee attitudes and employee cantered supervision were necessary in order to spur greater productivity on the part of the employee (Mecha, 2013, 36). Brown (2012), for example, has concluded that employees in high skilled Jobs will aspire for high quality work as well as an acceptable rate of productivity and will express a high interest in their Jobs, whereas employees in low skill Jobs will aspire only to an acceptable rate of productivity and will show little interest in work. Brown (2012) has found that persons who are ego-involved in their Jobs are rated higher in Job performance than those who are not ego-involved in their Jobs.
There is also some tendency for the relationship between ego-involvement and performance to be greater for persons who are high in autonomy. Pearson, Barker and Elliott in their conclusions, reached by means of scale analysis, showed a significant correlation between efficiency of salesmen and Job satisfaction. Lemmons (2014) concluded that supervisors of high producing groups, which were also the highest on member satisfactions, possessed both the technological skills needed to support group tasks and the ability to help members to satisfy their important needs. The proposed relationship between satisfaction and productivity has not gone unchallenged, however. Lemmons (2014) assume that individuals are motivated to achieve certain goals the achievement of which results in satisfaction.
Productivity is seldom a goal in itself but is more commonly a means to goal attainment. High satisfaction and high production can be expected to occur together only when productivity is perceived as a means to attain certain important goals and when these goals are achieved. Under other conditions, the relationship may be negative or may not exist at all. Askar (2010) found no relationship between any of the indexes of satisfaction and productivity. Brown (2012) concludes that “the evidence from various studies is sufficiently powerful so that we should abandon, in future research, the use of satisfaction or morale indexes as variables intervening between supervisory and organizational characteristics on the one hand and productivity on the other” (p. 48).
Shrestha (2011) reports that his results fail to support the hypothesis that employee satisfaction is positively related to group productivity. In a study of the sales office situation Shrestha (2011) found that an individual salesman’s satisfaction with his office manager was not correlated with his performance, they concluded that in the present setting neither variable is the direct cause of the other. March and Simon see job satisfactions as influencing the “decision to participate” (to come to work) but not as affecting very directly the “decisions to produce” (to work hard). The early work of the Michigan Survey Research Centre was based on the notion that supervision influenced morale which influenced productivity, but these researchers never succeeded in establishing any definite relation between morale and productivity. Graham concludes that productivity or job stability may be only a means toward the realization of certain other goals such as status or ownership of various luxuries. In addition, when pressure for productivity is high, an employee may perform efficiently even when he is quite dissatisfied, this might help to explain the lack of a positive relationship between job satisfaction and increased production (Wong, 2012, 14).
CHAPTER # 3: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
Research Design
A more rigorous and systematic approach to studying the impact of reward system to employee productivity is through a quantitative research design which involves statistical treatments. In this type of empirical design, numeric and quantifiable data is needed wherein after testing the hypothesis thorough various statistical treatments, conclusions are formed logically and objectively. In particular, the study will use a non-experimental quantitative study – correlation study. The goal of a correlational study is to provide strong evidence that there is a relationship between the dependent variable (DV) and the independent variable (IV).In a survey research, numeric description of attitudes, trends, and opinions of the sample population studied is provided.
Population
The target population of this particular research study is comprised of employees of HR department from pharmaceutical industry.
Sampling and Sampling Procedures
The sampling procedure of simple random sampling would be used for this particular research study. The sample is composed of 100 employees of HR department from pharmaceutical industry.
Procedures for Recruitment
The research participants were informed through email about the methodology of filling the survey. Information from the reviews was gathered through an online PC review system called SurveyMonkey© (SurveyMonkey.com, n.d.). The methodology will be started by reaching imminent participants by email or telephonically. Study participants will be advised on the obliged methods for getting authorization, informed assent frame that needed participant’s signature. Every participant is asked for to sign and return the structures and reviews to the researcher. Participants are informed in the Letter of Introduction that they may decline to take an interest in the study or withdraw from the study whenever without penalty. The individual would have been informed that all records and materials gave to bolster his or her cooperation in the process would be secured
Instrumentation
The instrument for this particular research study will be developed by the researcher. Questionnaire for this study developed by observing the past research studies on the selected research topic.
Data Analysis
The surveyed data set for this study particular research study were analyzed by using statistical software SPSS 20.0. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were used to analyze the surveyed data set. Proposed research hypothesis were examined by using one way ANOVA. Pearson correlation analysis was carried out to examine the strength of relationship among the study variables.
Ethical Procedures
Ethical concerns are principal when planning, directing, and assessing research. The strategies for the assurance of human participants were painstakingly noticed. An arbitrary numeric identifier was doled out to participants to guarantee the obscurity of their reactions all through the research process. The researcher would ensure the privacy and namelessness of the participants and guaranteed the outcomes are truthful. The researcher nonbiased, precise, and fair all through the procedure. The ethics starts with the idea of the research venture and finishes with how we speak to and offer with others what we have realized. In the middle of, ethics ought to drive our hands on work direct, our hypothesis decisions for elucidation, and our cognizant consideration regarding self-reflexivity.
As indicated by Creswell (2013) affectability, security and extraordinary consideration ought to take in diverse regions i.e. educated assent from the research participants for taking an interest in the research; shielding the research participants from any conceivable damage; guaranteeing classifiedness and protection; and securing gatherings that is helpless. Consequently, the researcher gained an educated assent marked by the research participants in consent to take an interest readily in the research. Moreover, the researcher guarantees that no mischief is brought on to the research participant or some other individual connected with the study.
The researcher likewise verifies that the names, individual subtle elements and schools names are kept secret to look after protection. It was additionally be guaranteed by the researcher that the outcomes are kept in a sheltered spot to secure information burglary. Also, the researcher comprehends the effect of individual predispositions on the outcomes and result of the study; subsequently, the researcher tries to stay away from his own inclination to influence the elucidation of the outcomes. Ethical issues tended to amid every phase of the research. The researcher endeavours not to damage the security of people included and to make every vital step concerning ethical issues of the study. The accompanying measures are brought to guarantee congruity with ethical guidelines: research consent (an uncommon application structure), protection upkeep (obscurity), security of rights, and affectability affirmation to social qualities, racial and sexual orientation contrasts. The research authorization acquired by strict after the comparing college regulations. An announcement identifying with educated agree fastened to the overview and reflects consistence by support. It is prescribed the structure to be marked by every participant. Moreover, every time the researcher starts directing a meeting, he clarifies its motivation and how they got data utilized and also answers every single rising inquiry.
The information gathered for this study late and pertinent to the research point. Studies that are important and add to the comprehension of the research theme and results utilized for adding to the hypothetical base for the research discoveries. What’s more, data got from credible sources, including libraries, databases, and online academic articles, companion investigated researches, and participants that give significant and precise data.
CHAPTER # 4: FINDINGS
Introduction
This research study aimed at analyzing the relationship between the rewards systems of a pharmaceutical HR department and employees’ productivity, performance and satisfaction. To accomplish this research aim this study focus on the employees’ productivity, performance and satisfaction and reward management in pharmaceutical HR department. A questionnaire survey is conducted with the employees of pharmaceutical HR department. This chapter presents the survey findings and hypothesis testing.
| Your Age * Gender Crosstabulation | ||||
| Count | ||||
| Question 2: Gender | Total | |||
| Male | Female | |||
| Age | 21 – 30 | 21 | 7 | 28 |
| 31 – 40 | 40 | 8 | 48 | |
| 41 – 50 | 17 | 6 | 23 | |
| 51 and Older | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| Total | 79 | 21 | 100 | |
The above table indicated that most of the respondents who took part in this survey are from age group 31-40 and are male.
| The reward system has an impact on the employee performance and productivity. | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Strongly disagree | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Disagree | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | |
| Neutral | 20 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 22.0 | |
| Agree | 45 | 45.0 | 45.0 | 67.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 33 | 33.0 | 33.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “The reward system has an impact on the employee performance and productivity”. There were 78 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that the reward system has an influential impact on the employee performance. So, it can be said that reward system is effective for motivating the employees.
| My salary is satisfactory in relation to what I do | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Disagree | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Neutral | 19 | 19.0 | 19.0 | 20.0 | |
| Agree | 45 | 45.0 | 45.0 | 65.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 35 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “My salary is satisfactory in relation to what I do”. There were 80 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that their salary is satisfactory in relation to what they do. So, it can be said that most of the survey respondents are satisfied with their salary package.
| The basis of payment, for example overtime payment, is reasonable | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Strongly disagree | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Disagree | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | |
| Neutral | 27 | 27.0 | 27.0 | 30.0 | |
| Agree | 43 | 43.0 | 43.0 | 73.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 27 | 27.0 | 27.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “The basis of payment, for example overtime payment, is reasonable”. There were 70 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that the basis of payment, for example overtime payment, is reasonable. The survey respondents were satisfied with their incentives program.
| Salary increases are decided on a fair manner | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Disagree | 4 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Neutral | 17 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 21.0 | |
| Agree | 36 | 36.0 | 36.0 | 57.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 43 | 43.0 | 43.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “Salary increases are decided on a fair manner”. There were 77 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that the increase in salary are decided on a fair manner. The reward system is implemented in today’s world leading organizations in order to motivate their employees. On the other hand, it can also be observed from the above table that there were only 4 percent of the survey respondents disagree with the asked statement.
| The payment policy in my company keeps me motivated | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Strongly disagree | 1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Neutral | 12 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 13.0 | |
| Agree | 47 | 47.0 | 47.0 | 60.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 40 | 40.0 | 40.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “The payment policy in my company keeps me motivated”. There were 87 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that the payment policy in their company keeps them motivated.
| The promotion policy in my company keeps me motivated | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Disagree | 7 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Neutral | 21 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 28.0 | |
| Agree | 36 | 36.0 | 36.0 | 64.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 36 | 36.0 | 36.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “The promotion policy in my company keeps me motivated”. There were 72 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that the promotion policy in their company keeps them motivated. The promotion policy of any organization is effective for motivating their employees.
| I receive constructive criticism about my work | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Disagree | 2 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Neutral | 12 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 14.0 | |
| Agree | 42 | 42.0 | 42.0 | 56.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 44 | 44.0 | 44.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “I receive constructive criticism about my work”. There were 86 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that they receive constructive criticism about their work.
| The recognition policy in my company keeps me motivated | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Neutral | 23 | 23.0 | 23.0 | 23.0 |
| Agree | 41 | 41.0 | 41.0 | 64.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 36 | 36.0 | 36.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “The recognition policy in my company keeps me motivated”. There were 77 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that the recognition policy in their company keeps them motivated.
| I get the opportunity to mix with my colleagues and to communicate on aspects of our work | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Disagree | 4 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Neutral | 22 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 26.0 | |
| Agree | 32 | 32.0 | 32.0 | 58.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 42 | 42.0 | 42.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “I get the opportunity to mix with my colleagues and to communicate on aspects of our work”. There were 74 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that they get the opportunity to mix with their colleagues and to communicate on aspects of their work.
| Apart from all my financial and non financial benefits I enjoy my work | |||||
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | ||
| Valid | Neutral | 16 | 16.0 | 16.0 | 16.0 |
| Agree | 48 | 48.0 | 48.0 | 64.0 | |
| Strongly Agree | 36 | 36.0 | 36.0 | 100.0 | |
| Total | 100 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
The above table presents the findings of “Apart from all my financial and non financial benefits I enjoy my work”. There were 84 percent of the survey’s respondents either agree or strongly agree that apart from all their financial and non financial benefits they enjoy their work and it ultimately increase productivity.
Hypothesis Testing
H10: There isn’t a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and performance.
H1a: There is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and performance.
| ANOVA | |||||
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | 6.670 | 4 | 1.668 | 1.843 | .013 |
| Within Groups | 40.710 | 96 | .905 | ||
| Total | 47.380 | 100 | |||
From the above ANOVA table it can be observed that p value is 0.013 which is less than .05 so null hypotheses is rejected and concluded that is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and performance.
H20: There isn’t a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and satisfaction.
H2a: There is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and satisfaction.
| ANOVA | |||||
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | |
| Between Groups | .801 | 4 | .200 | .193 | .001 |
| Within Groups | 46.579 | 96 | 1.035 | ||
| Total | 47.380 | 100 | |||
From the above ANOVA table it can be observed that p value is 0.001 which is less than .05 so null hypotheses is rejected and concluded that there is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and satisfaction.
Correlation Analysis
| Correlations | ||||
| Incentives and rewards | Performance | Productivity | ||
| Incentives and rewards | Pearson Correlation | 1 | .726 | .782 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .004 | ||
| N | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Performance | Pearson Correlation | .726 | 1 | .816 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | .001 | ||
| N | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| Productivity | Pearson Correlation | .782 | .816 | 1 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .004 | .001 | ||
| N | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
The correlation among incentives and rewards and performance (r = 0.726, p = .000<.05) reported in the table is positive and significantly different from 0 because the p-value of 0.000 is lower than 0.05. Incentives and rewards and performance are helpful in enhancing the profitability pharmaceutical industry. Incentives and rewards and employees performance in the pharmaceutical industry are directly proportional as indicated by the value of Pearson correlation. So, strong relationship exists among the Incentives and rewards system and employees’ performance.
The correlation incentives and rewards system and productivity (r = 0.782, p = .002<.05) reported in the table is positive and significantly different from 0 because the p-value of 0.002 is lower than 0.05. Incentives and rewards and productivity in pharmaceutical industry’s HR department are directly proportional as indicated by the value of Pearson correlation. So, strong relationship exists among the Incentives and rewards and productivity.
The correlation performance and productivity (r = 0.816, p = .001<.05) reported in the table is positive and significantly different from 0 because the p-value of 0.001 is lower than 0.05. Performance and productivity are helpful in enhancing the market performance of pharmaceutical industry. Performance and productivity are directly proportional as indicated by the value of Pearson correlation.
Summary
This research study is conducted to examine the relationship among the employees’ productivity, performance, satisfaction and reward systems. The main focus of this research study is to examine the changes that are brought about in an organization in relation to the rewarding system of the pharmaceutical industry. The research findings of this particular research study indicated that reward system is an effective tool to improve the performance of the employees at pharmaceutical industry’s HR department. The findings of hypothesis testing indicated that:
- There is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and performance.
- There is a significant impact of reward on pharmaceutical HR department employee’s productivity and satisfaction.
The findings of correlation analysis indicated that there exists a strong and positive relationship among the incentives and rewards system, performance and productivity of employees. The findings of this research study indicated that the reward system act as the primary source for improving the productivity and performance of the employees at pharmaceutical HR department. The reward system of any organization plays a critical role in implementing business strategy and supporting organizational culture change. The compensation and benefits program of any organization is considered as a key step in developing a successful total rewards strategy. The management of the organization should design their reward system after examining the attitude and behaviour of their employees.
CHAPTER # 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
A research implies that the high level of employee satisfaction plays a critical role in empowering employees in the workplace. According to the research study by the National Association of Working People in 1999, companies with high level of employee satisfaction were tested in order to point out the source of satisfaction. The case study suggest that companies with high levels of employee satisfaction had a freedom and flexible in engaging work culture that empowered the employees. Moreover, past researchers reconfirmed this case study, in citing that empowered employees with higher levels of satisfaction than organizations with more structured and less flexible work and hierarchical environment (The Benefit of Empowering Employee).
These environments are the source of empowering the employees, wherein employees have the privilege to identify the problems, find and provide solutions, and make important decisions. Flexible work schedules, increased responsibilities, a fun work culture and recognitions all of these contributes to the employees’ sense of feeling empowered. In addition, employee’s levels of satisfaction are much higher compared to other organizations with cultures that prohibits and no employee empowerment philosophy. The increased levels of employee satisfaction can lead to the number of significant benefits such as higher levels of loyalty, which can increase retention ratios. In additionally, produce high quality work by the satisfied employees, prevent or reducing the product defects and poor services issues. Overall, these factors contribute to the increase of productivity, resulting to new opportunities and improve the overall organizations ‘performance (The Benefit of Empowering Employee).
Conclusion
As the pharmaceutical industry continues to transform its commercial model to evolve ahead of marketplace changes, the significance of employee productivity, performance and levels of job satisfaction will remain a priority. The pharmaceutical industry will continue to seek evidence that informs decision making aligned to improving, and not infringing upon, employee levels of job satisfaction. The degree of variability reflected in management span of control suggests that organizations throughout the pharmaceutical industry have yet to determine what the optimal span of control is to ensure job satisfaction is not compromised.
The significant issue regarding peak levels of job satisfaction in comparison to an optimal level. Based on the incongruent nature of management span of control, an argument can be made that organizations continue to pursue a span of control that may have a relationship to peak levels of employee job satisfaction. In a recent article, Pratheepkanth (2011) affirms the significance of employee job satisfaction to the health of the pharmaceutical industry and offers, “In today’s pharmaceutical industry, HR managers must ensure that they employ the right people for the jobs within their organization. At the same time, management must create a work environment that is free from dissatisfiers” (p.7).
The work of Carafa (2011) support the importance of span of control and suggest “In other words, there may be an optimal span of control for the production of one goal, but this may not be optimal for the production of another goal within the same organization” (p. 649). The degree of difference in management span of control observed in this study indicates a diversity of perspective regarding optimal deployment across the pharmaceutical industry. Griffin (2012) speculates that the difference in management span of control seen across industries is experimentation to “determine how wide can they be and still be effective” (p. 23).
The model used in Mecha (2013), for which this research design was based, suggested that a positive relationship was present between span of control, as part of a social subsystem, and employee satisfaction. The findings of Shrestha (2011) and suggest that there is no evidence of a relationship between employee levels of job satisfaction and management span of control. In the work of Shrestha (2011), it’s important to note that management span of control was measured with the management system in the organization and the competency of the individual managers. Therefore, it’s not known how much influence the specific construct of management span of control had in the positive relationship that was confirmed in the research of Shrestha (2011).
The purpose of the study was to inform the pharmaceutical industry of the relationship between HR department employees’ reward system, productivity, performance and satisfaction.
It is conclude that there is a relationship between the variables; it represents an important finding for the pharmaceutical industry as further consolidation and reorganization are in the not so distant future. However, additional analysis conducted among survey participants may prove beneficial to the pharmaceutical industry. An analysis, utilizing SPSS version 20.0, suggests a strong positive relationship (r = .7) that was statistically significant (p < .05) between the Incentives and rewards, performance and productivity. A finding supported in the work of Lemmons (2014), who, in examining the landmark work of Herzberg, state, “Second, both effective supervisors and senior management are significant predictors of job satisfaction” (p. 247).
Brown (2012) write in Pharmaceutical Executive and suggest, “Employee satisfaction is most affected by employees’ relationship with their immediate managers” (p. 3). In 2002, DeMan and Williams, in Pharmaceutical Executive, offer “If a manager is not someone the employee can respect or learn from, the work environment becomes a difficult place to be” (Wong, 2012, 14). Although, management span of control across the pharmaceutical industry is related to employee levels of job satisfaction, is an important advancement for the industry as it relates to management span of control. The industry will need to ensure management span of control is not negatively impacting a supervisor’s capability of achieving satisfactory ratings from subordinates. As such, management span of control has situational importance and warrants examination from the pharmaceutical industry.
Recommendations for Future Research
As the pharmaceutical industry continues to evolve its commercial model a persistent focus on its human capital will remain a significant priority. An opportunity to utilize a sample that will allow for evaluation of the relationship between management span of control and employee level of satisfaction across specific departments would prove beneficial. In the absence of such data, the myriad of disciplines within the pharmaceutical industry, including, but not limited to, sales, marketing, regulatory, legal, and medical, prevent these data from being generalized. Also, the magnitude of difference inherent in each of the aforementioned disciplines warrants further investigation by discipline.
Employee productivity, performance and satisfaction may reflect a different perspective given the conditions of the pharmaceutical industry as it addresses landmark legislation from the current administration. As a result, the span of control an employee is part of may be a distant secondary or tertiary factor in their overall job satisfaction. In comparison, when federal regulation and the economy were not the negative forces they are today, an employee’s evaluation of job satisfaction was through a different lens. Therefore, future research following the expected transition from legislation to regulation may provide the pharmaceutical industry with a perspective that reflects the current state of mind of its employees.
As the pharmaceutical industry focuses its efforts on transforming the commercial model, the development of its human capital is often measured by the perception of upward mobility. The lower scores that were reported on the level of satisfaction with opportunities for promotion in comparison to the other facets of job satisfaction as measured by the productivity that future research in this area is warranted. An understanding of why the levels of satisfaction are lower and what can potentially be done to improve these scores would prove informative and beneficial to the pharmaceutical industry. Although the industry may not be able to address the issue, it may uncover an important insight regarding the development interest of its human capital. An important recommendation for future research would be to ensure a gender appropriate sample that can be generalized to the population. As such, a representative balance between male and female would prove beneficial in a future study.
REFERENCES
Adler-Tapia, R, 2012. Child Psychotherapy: Integrating Developmental Theory Into Clinical Practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Askar, A. I. (2010). Evaluating electronic performance support system in the workplace: The relationship between system usage and its impact on task productivity, management control, task innovation and user satisfaction (Order No. 3448551). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (860147140). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/860147140?accountid=35812
Brown, C. D. (2010). The effects of leadership behavior on clinical registered nurse work satisfaction (Order No. 3438401). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (840598697). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/840598697?accountid=35812
Brown, R. T., Jr. (2012). The impact of micromessaging on performance and productivity in information technology environments (Order No. 3519437). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1038956424). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1038956424?accountid=35812
Carafa, T. (2011). The indirect advantage of training on productivity (Order No. NR83242). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1002431746). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1002431746?accountid=35812
Cardy, R., & Leonard, B. (2014). Performance Management: Concepts, Skills and Exercises. New York: Routledge.
Chitwood, J. (2010). Leadership style, employee satisfaction, and productivity in the enrollment department of a proprietary university (Order No. 3471690). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (887707740). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/887707740?accountid=35812
Coblio, N. A. (2011). The impact of pharmacy work design on pharmacist productivity (Order No. 3482395). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (909934325). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/909934325?accountid=35812
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Croasdale, A. D. (2010). Telecommuting from the employee perspective: Examining telecommuting as an influencing factor in effective performance, job satisfaction and productivity (Order No. 3403220). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (305242468). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305242468?accountid=35812
Data Retrieved from “The Benefit of Empowering Employee.” saylor.org. February 9, 2015 <http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BUS208-5.2-The-Benefits-of-Empowering-Employees-FINAL.pdf>.
“Business Ownership Experience, Entrepreneurial Behavior And Performance: Movice, Habitual, Serial And Portfolio Enterpreneurs”. February 9, 2015. etheses.nottingham.ac.uk. 17 November 2013 <http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/380/1/A._Ucbasaran.pdf>.
- Job Performance and Satisfaction. (2006, September 4). Retrieved March 22, 2015, from ezinearticles: http://ezinearticles.com/?Job-Performance-and-Satisfaction&id=290072
Frank, S. A. (2010). What does it take to motivate better performance and productivity in the federal workplace? ask the employees (Order No. 3468037). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (885766770). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/885766770?accountid=35812
Griffin, J. D. (2012). Leadership recognition of organizational citizenship behaviors in performance evaluations in washington state healthcare organizations (Order No. 3534889). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ University of Phoenix; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1282652882). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282652882?accountid=35812
Jenks, J. (1991). Do your performance appraisals boost productivity? Management Revie , 45-47.
Ju, M. (2010). The impact of institutional and peer support on faculty research productivity: A comparative analysis of research vs. non-research institutions (Order No. 3428719). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (759116154). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/759116154?accountid=35812
Lemmons, T. M. (2014). A phenomenological study of the lived experience of work productivity among non-tenure track agriculture-based extension faculty at a research-intensive land-grant university (Order No. 3667011). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1642488493). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1642488493?accountid=35812
Liu, Y. (2010). Exploring multiple patterns of faculty productivity in STEM disciplines at doctoral universities (Order No. 3575908). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1460754216). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1460754216?accountid=35812
Louka, A. (2011). The role of perceived relatedness in intrinsic need satisfaction: A gender differences study in the workplace(Order No. 3495872). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (924472803). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/924472803?accountid=35812
Madden, S. (2014). Examining employees’ perceptions of corporate volunteerism in a small organization as it affects employee satisfaction and performance: A qualitative study (Order No. 3643643). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1627153663). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1627153663?accountid=35812
Mecha, E. I. (2013). An examination of employee perception about the relationship between communication satisfaction and productivity in the nigerian banking industry (Order No. 3605535). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1490797090). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1490797090?accountid=35812
Mohammed, F., & Eleswed, M. (2013). Job Satifaction and Organizational Commitment: A Correlational Study in Bahrain. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology , 43-44.
Nayavich, J. (2013). Exploring compensation model reform towards improved innovation and productivity within three manufacturing firms (Order No. 3571492). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1431144393). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1431144393?accountid=35812
Nyaanga, S. G. (2012). The impact of telecommuting intensity on employee perception outcomes: Job satisfaction, productivity, and organizational commitment (Order No. 3557296). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1335198889). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1335198889?accountid=35812
Okwendi, S. J. (2013). Relationship between leadership and officers’ job satisfaction: Impact on public safety in nigeria (Order No. 3601476). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1466301254). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466301254?accountid=35812
Pratheepkanth, P (2011). “Reward System and Its Impact on Employee Motivation in Commercial Bank of Sri Lanka Plc, In Jaffna District.” Global Journal of Management and Business Research: 85-92.
Shrestha, T. (2011). Industry perceptions on reward issues of construction workers to improve productivity (Order No. MR81382). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (913006470). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/913006470?accountid=35812
Victorino, C. A. (2012). Examining faculty satisfaction, productivity, and collegiality in higher education: Contemporary contexts and modern methods (Order No. 3540219). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1099072170). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1099072170?accountid=35812
Wong, M. (2012). Telework and human resources goals: Examining the relationship between telecommuting, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and productivity (Order No. 1549050). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1475264198). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1475264198?accountid=35812
Yapa, S (2002). “An examination of the relationship among job satisfaction, rewards and organizational commitment.” Journal of the Management Science: 46-66.
Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.