Do you get what you need? : a study of the relationship between personal work goals and reward preferences

(1)

Sandra Rullens

Studentnumber: 6067190

MSc. Business Studies; Leading & Managing People Supervisor: M. de Haas

Final version: 22th of June

Master Thesis

Do you get what you need?

(2)

~ 2 ~

Abstract

Finding an appropriate reward system, which meets the expectations of the employees, is increasingly important in the highly competitive business environment. The 'war for talent' is of growing concern, since it is getting harder to get and retain the best people for the organization. The human resources in the companies should be rewarded according to their wishes in order to increase employee satisfaction and at the end improve organizational outcomes.

This research is a study about the link between personal work goals and reward preferences of employees. Different categories (extrinsic and intrinsic) can be distinguished in personal work goals and reward preferences and this thesis will explore if there is a link between these categories. The main questions of this research are: How do the personal work goals influence the reward preference of employees? and What is the effect of age and sector on the personal work goals and the reward preferences of employees?

A quantitative method is used to measure the variables, in the form of an internet survey. Regression analyses are used to test the hypotheses and to find out if age and sector influence employees’ personal goals and reward preferences. The main conclusions are that there is a significant relationship between extrinsic personal work goals and extrinsic reward preferences and intrinsic personal work goals and intrinsic reward preferences. Unfortunately only the effect of age and sector on extrinsic reward preferences is found significant. As every research this research has also some drawbacks and implications. Overall some interesting findings are derived from this thesis, which establish a greater insight in field of performance management.

Keywords: Performance Management, Personal Work goals, Reward preferences, Reward Effectiveness

(3)

~ 3 ~

Chapter 1 Introduction

Most people spend the majority of their adult life in paid employment (Judge et al, 2010). There are different reasons why people devote themselves to work. Most of the time earning money is the most important factor for people to work (Judge et al, 2010). For lots of people working is not a choice, it is necessary to survive and live a comfortable life.

The reasons why people work can differ, but money is not the only motivator for work. Work motivation is about factors or events that strengthen and sustain employees’ behavior in organizations over time (Bonsdorff et al, 2011). The motivation of employees will depend on the persons’ self and contextual factors. In the last decades work motivation is a widely studied topic. Together with an increased attention to needs, researchers became more interested in the individual differences in work motivation. Rewards motivate employees by satisfying various human needs. Most organizations have complex reward systems that are developed to increase employees’ motivation, satisfaction and in the end the productivity of the firm (Herpen et al, 2005).

The reward systems that exist within organizations might be part of the overall performance management strategy, but this is not a requirement. Performance management is a process to improve performance on different levels (organizational, team and individual level) and which is mostly managed by line managers (Armstrong, 2000). The main objective of an effective performance managements system is to understand the needs of the employees and enable that these objectives will be achieved, which will finally result in business outcomes. In an ideal organization all employees will strive for the same objectives. Having a clear mission statement can direct employees in the desired way. The mission and values of an organization can create performance objectives for individuals, teams or the whole organization. The performance of these different groups can be measured and compared with the objectives of the organization. In the view of Armstrong (2000) a good performance

(6)

~ 6 ~

management system should contain a clear statement of the company’s values and objectives, individual objectives that are linked to those of the company, performance reviews on a regularly basis, a pay system based on performance and training and counseling to guide employees.

Pay and other rewards are linked in various ways to task performance and organizational outcomes (Bonsdorff et al. 2011). A primary task for human resource departments is to develop and manage a reward system which is efficient and fits the objectives of the organization. Appropriate rewards will increase the motivation of employees (Bartol & Locke, 2000). The incentive power of rewards is related to the extent the recipient values the reward (Lowe et al, 2002), so this may vary by individual. The main challenge for organizations is to develop reward practices that are in line with the preferences of individuals. So before an effective reward infrastructure that motivates employees can be implemented, first the individual differences and preferences must be understood.

Not only suitable rewards can motivate employees also goals are widely recognized means to understand motivated behavior (Brette & VandeWalle, 1999). Personal goals are the strivings of individuals for the future and what they want to achieve on different domains of life (Brunstein et al, 1996). Since an individual can have multiple goals for different domains in life, a wide range of goals can be pursued. Goals that are related to work are called personal work goals (Grant et al, 2007). These work goals can motivate employees during work. From the perspective of the goal theory the commitment to a goal may be increased by money or other rewards (Katzell & Thompson, 1990). But how these two concepts are related is not yet investigated in academic research.

Prior research suggests that the age and working sector of employees influence the personal work goals they pursue and the preferences for certain rewards (Harpaz, 1990; Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Doering et al, 1983; Khojesteh, 1993). With working sector, most

(7)

~ 7 ~

researchers mean the distinction between public and private sector workers. Because these influences are already demonstrated but never tested as an effect on both personal work goals and rewards preferences, these variables are included in this research.

To summarize, this thesis concerns the field of performance management and is intended to answer this gap in the literature. As this part of human resources management is still very broad, this study will focus on the relationship between personal work goals of employees and reward system that fits best with these different goals. This research aims to answer the following research questions:

1. How do the personal work goals influence the reward preference of employees? 2. What is the effect of age and sector on employees’ personal work goals and reward

preferences?

The structure of this thesis is as follows. In the next part the literature concerning these topics is reviewed. Chapter 3 discusses the theoretical framework and will introduce the corresponding hypotheses. Chapter 4 will describe the methodology used in this research and chapter 5 will present the results. In chapter 6 I will give a discussion of the results and finally chapter 7 will give the overall conclusion of this thesis.

(8)

~ 8 ~

Chapter 2 Literature Study

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will give a brief overview of the existing literature on the relevant topics. It will start by introducing performance management. Paragraph 2.3 will cover the literature in the field of rewards. First will be described what rewards are, which rewards can be distinguished, what reward preferences are and why rewards can be effective. Paragraph 2.4 will switch to the topic of personal work goals. First a broad description will be given and after that the concept will be categorized in different groups.

2.2 Performance Management

Performance management is the ongoing process of identifying, measuring and developing the performance of individual employees and teams to align the performance of the workforce with the strategic goals of the organization (Aguinis, 2009). So performance management encompasses different layers of analysis and can be placed in the field of human resource management. In the academic field different terms are introduced to describe this concept; for example, planning, budgeting, pay-for-performance, performance-based budgeting, management-by objectives (Heinrich, 2002). All definitions include the need to make the employee performance measurable in order to make it more ‘manageable’. Performance management is not just a combination of single practices aimed to measure and improve employee performance. Rather, performance management is an integrated process in which managers and employees together set specific goals, measure performance, review results and reward performance in order to improve the effectiveness of the organization (Mondy, Noe & Premeaux, 2002).The alignment of HRM practices, so that employee performance will improve, is not an easy challenge. In the perfect model the relationship between HRM and organizational performance is realized by HRM practices that increase employees’ performance and motivation. The performance outcomes will result in financial outcomes for

(9)

~ 9 ~

the organization (Guest, 1997). Figure 1 is a virtual representation of the link between HRM and performance.

Figure 1: HRM & Performance link

Source: Guest (1997)

The figure indicates that one of the HRM practices that influences performance is the reward system of the organization. The reward system of an organization includes the absolute level of rewards, the performance measurement and evaluation systems that influence the careers of employees (Herpen et al, 2005). In this study the kind of rewards will be the topic of research. What rewards exactly are and what kind of rewards exist, will be described in the next paragraph.

2.3 Rewards

Rewards are the benefits that workers receive from their job (Malhotra et al, 2007). Rewards refer to all kind of financial benefits and intangible services that an employee receives from the organization as part of the employment relationship. Rewards play an important role in every organization. They influence job attitudes, such as organizational commitment, motivation and job satisfaction (Vijayakumar & Subha, 2013). Organizational rewards

(10)

~ 10 ~

encompass all the benefits, both financial and non-financial that an employee receives during their employment within an organization. Lawler (2003) describes in his research two factors that determine the attractiveness of rewards. These determinants are the quantity of rewards provided and the importance of the reward for the employee.

For organizations it is very important to develop and manage an appropriate reward system. Armstrong (1993) defines a reward system as: “An arrangement in the form of processes practices, structures, subsystems and procedures which will be concerned with providing and maintaining appropriate types and levels of pay, benefits and other forms of rewards” (p3).The purpose of a reward system for organizations is to attract, motivate and retain high-quality employees (Gomez-Mejia et al, 2004). But reward systems do not exist within a ‘vacuum’ (Thierry, 2002). An appropriate reward system should be built on the organizational context and on the understanding of the employees’ preferences for certain rewards (Lawler, 2000). Next to this, the reward systems should be aligned with the HR strategy and the general business strategy of an organization (Thierry, 2002).

Scholl (2006) divides the financial reward system into four different components. The first component he mentions is the pay structure. This is the distribution of pay among various jobs within the organization. The second component is the pay level, compared to similar types of jobs in the job market. The next component Scholl (2006) mentions is the pay form: Is it a fixed pay that employees receive for their work or is it variable pay dependent on the level of specific outcomes. The last component is the basis for pay increase: The reason for a change in the amount of fixed pay, for example a basis for pay increase can be performance or merit.

The distinction of the reward systems by Scholl (2009) is only based on financial rewards, namely pay. Bonsdorff (2011) describes the distinction of financial and non-financial rewards. The financial reward category includes not only pay, but also rewards like bonuses

(11)

~ 11 ~

(variable pay), stocks, options, insurance and retirement benefits. Many management studies have considered money as most important motivator, but in recent years there is a shift towards the importance of non-financial rewards to motivate employees. Non-financial rewards can refer to job tasks, job security, praise and recognition and the possibilities to grow within the job or the organization. Especially the possibility to learn is very important in our contemporary knowledge society. Continuous development will lead to more skills for more challenging job tasks. Financial rewards are supposed to promote high results and productivity, while non-financial rewards are more focused on strengthening employee’s organizational commitment (Gomez-Meija et al., 2004).

Williamson et al. (2009) categorized rewards based on the employees needs and made the distinction between extrinsic, intrinsic and social rewards. Extrinsic rewards refer to the physical benefits given by the organization, like pay, bonus, fringe benefits and career opportunities. Intrinsic rewards on the other hand come from the content of the job itself and include motivators such as autonomy, role clarity and training. The intrinsic rewards will have consequences for the psychological development of the employee. The last type of rewards Williamson et al (2009) describe is the social reward. These rewards arise from the interaction with other people within the organization and regard the relationships with other colleagues or supervisors.

This study will focus on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (Williamson et al, 2009) because this distinction can be related to the different personal work goals of employees. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic can also be made in personal work goals. This makes it possible to relate both concepts and formulate hypotheses.

(12)

~ 12 ~ 2.4 Reward Preferences

The behavior of employees can be explained by different variables. Boyer (2011) states that the behavior of individuals can be explained by two variables, namely preferences and incentives. In his model preferences are stable over time, rooted in personal behavioral characteristics or due to a long term personality-socialization process. In Boyer’s view both preferences and incentives can change, but in a different set of time.

When organizations want to develop an appropriate incentive system, they should investigate work-related attitudes, values and reward preferences (Wittmer, 1991). Employees differ in their reward preference. Reward preferences include financial and non-financial elements and are closely related to work motivation (Bonsdorff, 2012).

The preferences for certain reward systems can vary by sector or organizational type (Wittmer, 1991). Also the country where the organization is located can influence the reward preferences of employees (Chiang & Birtch, 2007). Multinational organizations should adapt their reward practices when they enter new countries. Reward preferences can also differ by the position of an employee within the organization (Dubinsky et al, 2000), age (Bonsdorff, 2012), gender and income (Kovach, 1995).

Because of the differences between organizations and individual employees, flexible benefit systems have become more popular as opposed to standardized reward systems (Dubinsky et al, 2000). With the upcoming pressure for organizations to implement reward programs that will truly improve productivity, the need for organizations to distinguish between various rewards for employees increases. But what are the actual outcomes when organizations pursue the right reward methods? That will be described in the next paragraph.

(13)

~ 13 ~ 2.5 Reward Effectiveness

The success of an organization is based on how the organization motivates employees and their productivity and on how they provide recognition for their improved performance. Managing the performance of employees within the organization is a key part of the human resource practice. Which rewards are preferred most can vary as described before. There are many studies that investigate the link between rewards and performance. Often those studies demonstrate a positive link (Guzzo et al, 1985; Jenkins et al, 1998), but to find the right methodology is hard. Studies show that reward practices have a relationship with organizational performance but do not demonstrate which practices are especially effective in specific contexts. The complex interaction of many factors makes it difficult to find out what the effect is of a reward system alone (Kessler & Purcell, 1992).

While measuring the effectiveness of reward systems the perception of employees should be considered. Lincoln (1990) found out that the rewards that are offered by the organization have a big influence on the employees’ attitude towards the organization and the job itself. Intrinsic rewards are especially related to affective commitment or job involvement, while extrinsic rewards are more related to the commitment to the organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Mottaz (1985) studied the relationship between rewards and work satisfaction. The findings of this study suggest that all types of workers are demanding more from their work than only good pay, safety and comfortable conditions. Employees are looking for autonomy, meaning and challenge in their work. Mottaz (1985) suggest that intrinsic rewards are the most important determinant of overall work satisfaction. Extrinsic rewards are more important in lower-level occupations than in higher-level occupations. Also the relationship between rewards and motivation is a well-researched topic. Rewards may actually improve performance as they serve as ‘positive reinforces’. Ryan and Deci (2000) distinguish two forms of motivations, namely intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

(14)

~ 14 ~

Intrinsic motivation is doing things because it is inherently satisfying or enjoyable and extrinsic motivation refers to doing things because of the outcomes. If extrinsic rewards will improve intrinsic motivation is still a point of discussion. Different studies show various outcomes. The results of the meta-analyses (Frey & Jegen, 2001) show that sometimes rewards increase intrinsic motivation and sometimes this is not the case. When rewards are provided in line with employees’ strivings or personal work goals, these will satisfy and motivate and consequentially increase organizational performance. Reward effectiveness explains the improvement in performance when work goals and reward preferences are in line with each other, that is why it is mentioned in the literature review.

2.6 Personal Goals

Personal goals are the aspirations that a person tries to attain, maintain or avoid in his or her life (Wiese & Salmela-Aro, 2008). People can have different goals for different domains in life and they may vary among individuals (Brunstein, 1999). They can be short-term or long-term and the outcomes can be divided in within-person consequences (e.g. self-efficacy) or person-environment consequences (e.g. fulfilling of social roles) (Wiese & Salmela-Aro, 2008). The goals that people strive for are determined by personality and contextual demands. But all personal goals are a fundamental element for understanding human motivation and development. This is also what Ford and Lerner (1992) suggest, that all human behavior is organized around personal goals. They say that most of the time people have multiple goals, so people need a sense of self-regulation to manage and combine these different strivings. Goals can be set at different hierarchical levels (Robins & Roberts, 2000). A distinction can be made between high-level, mid-level goals and personal projects. At the end of the hierarchy a small set of goals, without higher goals are set. These higher level goals are the underlying factor of the individual’s behavior. They are idealized motions of the self and show a certain worldview (Robins & Roberts, 2000). It can be the motivator for more specific

(15)

~ 15 ~

goals and performance (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999). Midlevel goals are projects of people that they normally pursue in everyday life and that can be achieved within a limited period of time (Pomaki et al, 2004). These goals are person-specific and are most of the times assessed by iterative procedures (Ter Doest et al, 2006). Midlevel goals are personal strivings such as career and relationships (Robins & Roberts, 2000). The lowest level of goals is the personal project. These are goals for specific actions and events, e.g. getting training in specific techniques or behavior. Although the division in different hierarchical levels seems accepted, the distribution of goals among these different layers is not. Many researchers have labeled the levels with various names. This research will focus on midlevel goals, because most motivational researchers focus on mid-level goals (Lock & Latham, 1990). Mid-level work goals refer to strivings in the work setting and they are more specific than general individual goals. But work goals are still quite broad: they show what an employee wants out of work in general, and are not outcomes of specific tasks (Ros et al, 1999).

2.7 Personal Work Goals

Goals that are work and career related are called ‘personal work goals’ and depend on both the employee and the context of work (Grant et al, 2007). These personal work goals are expected to embody employees’ self-imposed intentions and demands within their work environment (Pomaki & Maes, 2002). Goals can change during the career of employees through changing work context, various opportunities and demands and changes in personal life. Personal work goals are mid-level goals. They show what people try to attain in general and are not outcomes of specific tasks. They imply the values that people pursue with their work.

But what kind of goals do employees set for their work? In the study of Wiese & Salmela-Aro (2008) a distinction is made between different work goals that have both within-person consequences like learning and job satisfaction and work goals that have within-

(16)

person-~ 16 person-~

environment consequences like job security and social relationships at work. Kasser & Ryan (1996) distinguish two types of goals based on their content, namely extrinsic and intrinsic goals. Extrinsic goals depend on the reaction of others, like financial success. Kasser & Ryan (1996) mark three general goals as extrinsic, namely money for financial success, social recognition for fame, and an appealing appearance to improve the image. These three goals can only be reached through the reaction of others, for instance the praise for certain behaviors. These extrinsic goals do therefore not satisfy as such, instead their appealing character comes from the presumed admiration or sense of worth when attaining those goals. Intrinsic goals on the other hand will satisfy basic and inherent psychological needs. Kasser & Ryan (1996) distinguish four intrinsic goals: Connectedness with capabilities, doing something good, a health goal and self-acceptance to grow. These four intrinsic goals are in line with self-actualization and therefore valuable and satisfying to the individual and their value do not depend on others.

An International Research Team, composed of 15 researchers from 8 different countries, was formed to investigate the “Meaning of Work” (MOW). Harpaz (1990), one of the researchers, started a research about the importance of work goals for employees. The measure he used consisted of 11 personal work goals that could be divided between an extrinsic and intrinsic orientation. The work goals that Harpaz (1990) mentions are (1) learning opportunities, (2) interpersonal relations, (3) promotion opportunity, (4) convenient work hours, (5) variety, (6) interesting work, (7) job security, (8) ability-job match, (9) pay, (10) working conditions and (11) autonomy. Learning opportunities are the opportunities to attend training or to learn on the job. Interpersonal working relations refer to the ties with colleagues and supervisors. Promotion opportunities are the chances for advancement of an employee’s position in an organizational hierarchy system. Convenient work hours refer to work hours that don’t disturb personal life and are acceptable in the view of the employee.

(17)

~ 17 ~

Variety is not doing monotonous work. Interesting work means that you are doing work that you really want to do. Job security is the prospective that an employee has to continue the employment. There is an ability-job match when the qualities of the employee accord with the requirements needed for the job. Pay refers to the financial rewards received for work, not only salary but also individual and group incentives, stock plans, etc. Working conditions include the physical circumstances, like lighting, temperature, cleanness and noise. The interpersonal working relations refer to the ties with colleagues and supervisors. Lastly autonomy is the freedom to decide for yourself how to perform in your job. In this research the measure of Harpaz (1990) is used, because it is based on leading researchers of Quinn (1971) and Herzberg et al. (1957). Next to this it is a commonly used scale of MOW studies and the reliability and validity is frequently confirmed (Ruiz-Quiintanilla & Claes, 2000)

When organizations accommodate personal work goals through work-related issues such as performance management, this can result in greater job satisfaction for employees (Ter Doest et al, 2006). When employees experience the organization as supportive of their work-related personal goals this will lead to greater goal commitment and wellbeing. As subject of further research Ter Doest et al. (2006) advised to examine if particular types of organizational climate, including performance management, facilitate particular types of personal goals. The specific research question and research objectives are described in the next chapter.

2.8 Research Gap

Performance management, reward systems and personal work goals are well researched topics and many contributions to these fields are made. A good research topic should be available in data and time, of current concern in the field and needs a clear link to relevant literature (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). By reviewing the literature, the topic appeared to answer a research gap, so this study will be a contribution to the existing literature. Several researchers

(18)

~ 18 ~

point out that future research on this subject is necessary in order to provide a realistic insight into the relationship between these variables.

Kasser & Ryan (1993) found in their study that financial goals undermine well-being, because the financial goals interfere with the higher need goals like self-fulfillment or affiliation. As recommendation for further research they introduce the idea of relating the goals that individuals have with income satisfaction. Not only Kasser & Ryan (1993) made a recommendation for further research into the relationship between personal goals and pay satisfaction, also Hyvönen et al. (2009) mentioned it in their study. In their study about the relationship between personal work goals and well-being they give the advice for further research to investigate goal facilitation at work, such as rewards and efforts invested in the workplace. Hyvönen et al. (2009) pose that when rewards support personal goals, this may increase the well-being of employees. So a good reason to investigate this link.

Wittmer’s (1991) study investigates if there is a relationship between working sector and reward preferences. The findings suggest that there are different reward preferences between private and public managers. Pay was found to be the primary motivator for private sector managers. In the public and hybrid sector this was also relatively important, but also the delivering of good service played an important role in the reward system of the public sector. In the study of Kovach (1995) different employee variables are linked to reward preferences. Gender, age, income level, job type and organizational level are linked to the reward preferences of employees. Most relationships were significant, so there are noteworthy differences between those groups of employees. This research will study the influence of age and working sector on personal work goals and reward preferences, because prior research has shown contradictions of the effect of these variables.

(19)

~ 19 ~

During my literature review I found no academic research that relates the personal work goals of employees directly to the reward preferences. So this will be the main area of study for this thesis and the leading questions will be:

preferences?

The overall aim of this research is to explore if there is a link for employees between personal work goals and reward preference.

(20)

~ 20 ~

Chapter 3 Conceptual Model & Hypotheses

3.1 Conceptual Model

This study concerns two main areas namely an understanding of employees’ personal work goals and an understanding of employees’ reward preferences and the link between these two concepts. The leading questions of this thesis are:

preferences?

The conceptual model is pictured below:

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

3.2 Hypotheses

In the literature review the concepts of personal work goals and reward preferences are defined and described. To measure the personal work goals of employees the measurement of Harpaz (1990) is used. When you divide these goals into intrinsic and extrinsic (Kasser &Ryan, 1996) the following distinction can be made.

Personal work goals Reward preferences

(21)

~ 21 ~

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic can also be made in the reward preferences of employees (Williamson et al, 2009). The intrinsic rewards are rewards received from doing the job, while the extrinsic rewards are given by the organization. The two categories include the following rewards, based on the distinction of Kasser & Ryan (1996).

Based on these distinctions I will pose the following hypotheses:

H1: Reward preferences will be related to personal goals: employees who have extrinsic work goals will prefer extrinsic rewards.

H2: Reward preference will be related to personal goals: employees who have intrinsic work goals will prefer intrinsic rewards.

Extrinsic Work Goals: - Interpersonal relations - Promotion opportunity - Convenient work hours - A lot of variety

- Job security - Good pay

- Good physical working conditions

Intrinsic Work Goals: - Learning opportunities - Interesting work - Autonomy

- Good match between your job requirements and your abilities and experience.

Extrinsic Rewards

- Adequate working conditions - Pay

- Promotional opportunity - Adequate fringe benefits - Security

- Feedback from supervisor

Intrinsic Rewards - Autonomy

- Task significance - Participation - Opportunities

- Feedback from work self - Decision making

(22)

~ 22 ~ The model below is a virtual presentation of H1 and H2:

Figure 3: Model of H1 & H2

If employees pursue more extrinsic or intrinsic goals depends on different variables. Two variables that are considered in this research are age and sector. If age and sector influence personal work goals and reward preferences in the same direction is described next.

3.3 Influence of Age

Age-related variations are also found in work-motivation (Bonsdorff, 2011). The age of employees influences the personal work goals that employees strive for and their preferences for certain rewards. That is the reason age is included in this research. Prior research has shown that there are differences in personal work goals and reward preferences between age groups. The relevant findings for this research are discussed below.

The relative importance of certain work goals differ according to age (Harpaz, 1990). Doing interesting work is the most important goal in all age categories, although there is a slight deviation for employees older than 50. Opportunities to learn are more important for the age category of under 30, while autonomy is ranked higher in the over 50 category. Because Harpaz (1990) didn't mention the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic personal work goals, therefore this link is interesting to investigate in this thesis.

Age-related differences can also be found in reward preferences as is investigated in the research of Bonsdorff (2011). Preferences of people become more diverse when they get

Extrinsic Personal Work Goals

Intrinsic Personal Work Goals

Extrinsic Rewards

Intrinsic Rewards

+

(23)

~ 23 ~

older (Doering et al., 1983). But this is not the case for nurses; Older more experienced nurses tended to prefer financial rewards more often ten younger nurses (Bonsdorff, 2011). The research of Kovach (1995) shows that there is a significant difference between the reward preference of the under 30 group respondents and each other category. Good wages, job security and promotion and growth are the most chosen rewards for the under 30 group. These rewards can be categorized as extrinsic rewards. The age group of 31 till 40 still puts job security high on their hierarchy, but other basic needs are less important for them. Older employees place more emphasis on their social and ego needs as help with personal problems and loyalty to other employees. So they value intrinsic rewards more.

Following the findings in the literature as discussed, I hypothesize that age has a positive relationship with intrinsic personal work goals of employees and their intrinsic reward preferences and a negative relationship with extrinsic goals and the preference for extrinsic rewards.

H3: Age has a positive relationship with intrinsic personal work goals of employees and their preference for intrinsic rewards and a negative relationship with extrinsic goals and the preference for extrinsic rewards.

3.4 Influence of Sector

Not only age is a determinant for personal work goals but also the sector where people work contributes to significant differences (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). Private sector workers appreciated financial goals most, while public sector workers ranked doing interesting work as most important. Also the goals of "being involved in the business" and "sympathetic help with personal problems" are ranked higher in the private sector. The importance placed on the job security goal is not significantly different for public or private sector workers.

Next to the differences in personal work goals the sector also influences the reward preferences of employees. Wittmer’s (1991) study focuses on the differences in reward

(24)

~ 24 ~

preferences between private, hybrid and public sector workers. His findings suggest that employees of core private organizations ranked pay as primary motivator. Public sector workers ranked pay also relatively important, but they valued doing helpful work to others as most preferred reward. Rewards such as status and prestige are more important to private sector workers. Khojasteh (1993) investigated the differences in motivation between private and public sector workers. The findings indicate that pay was a significantly greater motivator for private than public sector workers. Next to this the intrinsic rewards "achievement" and "advancement" motivate private and public workers equally. While recognition was the second most important reward for public workers, it was ranked very low for the private sector. Because the sector influences the personal work goals and the reward preferences of people, there is a big change this effect occurs in the same direction. To investigate this link, sector is included in this research.

Following the findings in the literature as discussed, I hypothesize that sector has a negative relationship with intrinsic personal work goals of employees and their intrinsic reward preferences and a positive relationship with extrinsic goals and the preferences for extrinsic rewards.

H4: Sector has a negative relationship with intrinsic personal work goals of employees and their preference for intrinsic rewards and a positive relationship with extrinsic goals and the preference for extrinsic rewards.

(25)

~ 25 ~

Figure 4: Model of H3& H4

-

+

Extrinsic Personal Work Goals

Intrinsic Personal Work Goals

Extrinsic Rewards Intrinsic Rewards Sector Age Age Sector

-

(26)

~ 26 ~

Chapter 4 Methodology

This chapter will describe the empirical procedure of the research. The research strategy, sample, measurement of the variables, control variable and the ethics are explained in more detail.

4.1 Research Strategy

The purpose of this research can be seen as explanatory, because it analyzes the relationship between personal work goals and reward preferences (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). In order to empirically support this relationship a quantitative study was conducted. A survey on the internet is used to collect the data. The advantage of a survey design is the opportunity to create a large amount of data, which decreases the margin of error.

In this study the measures regard the personal work goals and reward preferences. Additionally, the questionnaire collects the needed data to measure the effect of age and sector. In order to generate a large amount of respondents, the questionnaire is translated into Dutch. Before the questionnaire was distributed, first a pilot was done to test the clarity of the questions (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Three master students of different specialisms gave feedback on the questionnaire and provided advice if adjustments were needed.

4.2 Sample

The sample of this research consisted of 200 employees of different types of organizations. The population for this research is the working population of The Netherlands, everybody who is in paid work could fill in the internet based survey. A non-probability sampling method is used to generate as much as possible respondents. A disadvantage of this way of sampling is the decrease of the external validity (Field, 2009). Because respondents are not randomly chosen, not all age categories and working sector groups are equally represented. This could have influenced the outcomes, but this will be described later on in the discussion.

(27)

~ 27 ~

The link to the questionnaire is posted on Facebook and LinkedIn in order to increase the respond rate. Because the biggest part of the working population is working in the private sector, emails were sent to governmental organizations and hospitals in order to obtain more respondents from public sector workers. Distribution of the survey through the intranet of the Amsterdam university hospital increased response from public organizations. Additionally a snowball sample procedure is used in order to create a larger and more diverse population (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

Finally 200 respondents participated in the questionnaire. Unfortunately not all surveys were completed; the way of dealing with the missing data will be described in the results chapter. The majority of the participants was between 21 and 30 years old (39%) and female (69%). 35% of the respondents have university as highest educational level and 42% fulfilled vocational education; only 13% of the respondents only finished high school in different degrees. As this research investigates the effect of the sector were people work in, the private and public sector had to be big enough to produce results. 57 % of the respondents are working in the public sector, against 43% private sector workers. The percentage public sector workers is so high, because the questionnaire was posted on the Amsterdam Medical Centre intranet. The consequence is that 50% of the participants are working in the healthcare sector.

4.3 Measurement of variables

In the questionnaire I used existing scales, with an established validity. By using validated scales the reliability will increase and comparison of the results of different studies is possible (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).

Personal work goals are expected to embody employees’ self-imposed intentions and demands within their work environment (Pomaki & Maes, 2002). In this study personal work goals are measured as a set of formulated goals. The measurement was developed by Harpaz

(28)

~ 28 ~

(1990), but is almost similar to the measure employed by Quinn (1971) and Herzberg et al (1957). In the study of Harpaz (1990) a ranking is used to measure the importance of the different personal work goals. But to facilitate the analysis, I use a five-point Likert scale, ranking from not important at all (=1) to very important (=5). Respondents were presented the following question (Harpaz 1990):

What is important for you in your working life?

- A lot of opportunities to learn new things

- Good interpersonal relations with supervisors, co-workers etc. - Good opportunity for upgrading promotion

- Convenient work hours - A lot of variety

- Interesting work (work that you really like) - Good job security

- A good match between your job requirements and your abilities and experience - Good pay

- Good physical working conditions - A lot of autonomy

This research investigates the relationship between personal work goals of employees and their reward preferences. To measure the reward preferences the respondents did give their preferences for 28 types of rewards by using a five-point Likert scale (1=I prefer very little, 5= I prefer very much). The list of rewards is derived from the study of Chiang & Birtch (2007) and is widely used and empirically tested. The list of rewards consists of both extrinsic rewards (e.g. co-worker relationship and status, financial rewards) and intrinsic rewards (e.g. challenge opportunities and accomplishment).

(29)

~ 29 ~

The variables age and sector were measured because they could affect both variables simultaneously. Age is measured by using a scale ranging from 15-20 years to 51 years and older. Sector is divided into public and private sector, where the public sector is defined as governmental organizations or organizations that are predominantly financed by public means such as healthcare or education. The Dutch translation of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.

4.4 Control Variable

Besides these variables a control variable is included in order to minimize the unintended effect that might influence the results of the study. This variable is held constant in order to make a more adequate finding between the independent and dependent variables (Field, 2009). The demographic variable that is held constant in this study is gender. Gender may influence the importance of certain work goals (Harpaz, 1990). His study indicated that autonomy is significantly more important for men than for women and having convenient working hours is significantly more important for women.

4.5 Ethics

This study is conducted in an ethical way, where the results are used confidentially. The questionnaire starts with a clear introduction of the research objectives, topics and the

duration of the survey. Participation is voluntary and only if participants were interested in the outcomes of the research, they fill in their email address. The anonymity of the participants is completely guaranteed.

(30)

~ 30 ~

Chapter 5 Results

This chapter discusses the outcomes of the statistical analyses. The first paragraph describes the process of data preparation. Then the validity and reliability will be tested, to ensure that the instrument actually measures what is set out to measure and that this measurement is consistent. In the next paragraph a factor analyses is performed, to find underlying categories. This is followed by the descriptive statistics. To test the hypotheses the regression analyses are used, this process will be described in paragraph 5.5.

5.1 Data Preparation

Personal work goals and reward preferences are the variables that are measured in this study. The first step of data preparation is coding of the data. Because no counter questions were included in the survey, recoding is not necessary in this case.

The missing data are coded with 999. For this analysis a 'Pairwise Selection' is used to handle the missing data. A 'Pairwise Selection' means that a score of a respondent is only excluded from the analyses, when the variable is involved in this analysis (Field, 2009). This way of handling missing data is chosen to keep the respondent rate high enough and ensure the statistical power of the analyses.

5.2 Validity and Reliability Analyses

Validity means that an instrument actually measures what it supposed to measure (Field, 2009). In this study a questionnaire is used to collect the data. First a pilot-study was done with students from different disciplines to ensure that all questions and instructions were clear, in order to increase the validity. Also, existing validated scales were used to measure the variables as described in the methodology part.

(31)

~ 31 ~

The Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure for reliability (Field, 2009). Because different items measure one variable, it is important that the measurement is consistent in measuring the construct. The Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of personal work goal is 0.69 and 0.92 for the reward preferences of individuals. Because the Cronbach's Alpha is almost equal or higher to 0.7 this means that the internal validity of the measurement scale is sufficient. Because the Chronbach's Alpha did not increase when any item was deleted, all items were maintained.

Not only the validity and reliability should be considered, but also an exploratory analysis should be conducted to verify if the data are normally distributed. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis.

Table 1: Test of distribution of the data and normality

Skewness Kurtosis Kolmogorov-Smirnov

Extrinsic Personal Work Goals 0.215 0.654 .118* Intrinsic Personal Work Goals -1.814 11.342 .139* Extrinsic Reward Preferences -0.201 -.883 .072 Intrinsic Reward Preferences -0.611 2.260 .094* * . Significant at the .005 level (2-tailed)

Because the sample is smaller than 300 respondents, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is used to test the normality (Field, 2009). This test shows that extrinsic reward preferences are not significant, so the zero hypothesis of the normal distribution of data can be confirmed. The scores on extrinsic reward preferences are normally distributed. The scores on extrinsic and intrinsic personal work goals and intrinsic reward preferences are significant (p=0.001; p<0.001), so these data are not normally distributed. From this results can be concluded that the assumptions for conducting parametric analyses are not met. This will not be a problem for the data analysis in this research, because the linear regressions do not presume normality of the data. But it is noteworthy to mention.

(32)

~ 32 ~ 5.3 Factor Analyses

Factor analyses, using a principal component analysis and varimax rotated solutions, were conducted to find underlying dimensions. Because both variables consist of items that could correlate a factor analyses is done for the personal work goal and reward preference variable. Before a factor analyses can be done first the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) should be considered (Field, 2009) The KMO represents the ratio of the squared correlation between variables to the squared partial correlation between variables. A KMO can range from 0 till 1 and the value of 0.5 is acceptable. The KMO of the factor analyses on personal work goals is 0.683 so good enough to run the analysis. Also the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity should be significant. A significant test tells that the R-matrix is not an identity matrix, so there are relationships between variables. For this dataset, Barlett’s test is highly significant (p<.001), so a factor analyses is appropriate. Table 2 shows the summary of the factor analysis of personal work goals. Only factor loadings of more than 0.4 are displayed and ranked in size. The rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Table 2: Rotated factor loadings of personal work goals

Item 1 2 3 4

Interesting Work ,821

A lot of variety ,792

A good match between job requirements and your abilities ,532

The success of the organization ,785

Good pay ,627

A lot of autonomy ,612

Good job security ,755

Good interpersonal relations with supervisors, co-workers etc ,643

Good physical working conditions ,632

Good opportunity for upgrading promotion ,801

A lot of opportunities to learn new things ,478 ,626

Convenient work hours ,482 -,570

Eigenvalues 2,086 1,784 1,779 1,475

% of variance 17,38 14,87 14,82 12,293

(33)

~ 33 ~

The four resulting components can be defined in the context of the research question. Component 1 consists of doing interesting work, a lot of variety and a good match between job requirements and abilities and will be defined as intrinsic personal work goals (work related). Component 2 includes the success of the organization, good pay and autonomy which are extrinsic personal work goals. Component 3 consists of good job security, interpersonal relationships, physical work conditions and convenient work hours that are also extrinsic goals. Component number 4 include opportunities for promotion, learning new things and are extrinsic as well as intrinsic. The goal of 'learning new things' is added to the intrinsic category and the 'opportunities for promotion' to the extrinsic category.

For reward preferences as well a principal component analysis with a varimax rotated solution was conducted. The KMO was .864 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was found significant so the analyses could be done. Table 3 shows the results of the principal component analyses after a rotation converged in 7 iterations. Factor loadings smaller than .4 were removed and the outcomes were also ranked by size.

Table 3: Rotated factor loadings of Reward preferences

Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 More challenge .802 Task variety .767 Responsibility .728 Use skill/ability .705 Autonomy .679 Accomplishment .628 Learning opportunities .625

Team spirit activities .790

Organizational support .721

Relationships with co-workers .654

Management support .604 .420

Fair treatment/ equity .601

Team performance incentives .540 .540

Job satisfaction .498

Individual performance incentives .794

Organizational stock plan .685

Job title/status 674

(34)

~ 34 ~

More power/authority .543

Working home opportunities .818

Better balance work-personal life .741

Secondary work arrangements .620

Job location .467 Lower workload .437 Higher workload .815 More tasks .766 Job security .794 Basic salary .431 .678 Eigenvalues 4,130 3,654 3,397 2,775 1,944 1,907 % of variance 14,75 13,05 12,13 9,91 6,95 6,81 α .858 .841 .837 .791 .772 .682

As Table 3 shows, reward preferences can be divided into 6 components. Four of these components together encompass all but four items. Factor 1, intrinsic rewards includes 7 items. Factor 2, extrinsic rewards, includes 7 items. Factor 3, financial rewards, include 8 items and finally factor 4, support rewards, include 6 items. Factor 5 & 6 only include 2 items each; a specific category name for these factors cannot be given.

5.4 Descriptive Statistics

This study contains four descriptive variables, namely gender, age, education and working sector. Table 2 gives a summary of these variables. Because a 'Pairwise selection' is used for the missing data, the amount of results may vary according to the variables.

The majority of the respondents is male (69,4%) and in the age category of 21 till 30 years (83%). Most respondents finished vocational education as highest degree (39,5%) and are working in the public sector (56,3%), employees of the healthcare sector are best represented (50%).

(35)

~ 35 ~

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for categorical variables

Variables Frequency Percent Cumulative

Percent Gender Female Male Total Missing value 59 134 193 7 30,6 69,4 100,0 3,5 30,6 100,0 Age 15-20 year 21-30 year 31-40 year 41-50 year

51 year and older Total Missing value 5 83 32 35 40 195 5 2,6 42,6 16,4 17,9 20,5 100,0 2,5 2,6 45,1 61,5 79,5 100,0 Educational level Primary school VMBO HAVO VWO MBO HBO WO Different Total Missing value 1 2 8 16 18 79 65 3 192 8 0,5 1,0 4,0 8,0 9,0 39,5 32,5 1,6 100,0 4,0 0,5 1,6 5,7 14,1 23,4 64,6 98,4 100,0 Sector Public Private Total Missing value 107 83 190 10 56,3 43,7 100,0 5,0 56,3 100,0 Sector specification

Construction and real estate Culture, sports & recreation Energy & Water

Trade

Information, communication & media Agriculture & fish

Government Transport Business services Healthcare Other services Total Missing value 2 2 2 8 7 2 5 1 45 93 19 186 14 1,1 1,1 1,1 4,3 3,8 1,1 2,7 0,5 24,2 50,0 10,2 100,0 7,0 1,1 2,2 3,2 7,5 11,3 12,4 15,1 15,6 39,8 89,8 100,0

(36)

~ 36 ~

The factors resulting from the factor analyses will be used in the regression model. The extrinsic factors of personal work goals (factor 2,3 & and the promotion item of factor 4) are combined and tested if they have a significant effect on the extrinsic factors of reward preferences (factor 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6). The same is done for the intrinsic personal work goals (factor 1 and the learning opportunities of factor 4) and the intrinsic reward preferences (factor 1). Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of these variables.

Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 job 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 3.11 1.234 1 2. Gender 1 = male 2 = female 1.69 0.462 -0.074 1 3. Sector 1 = public 2 = private 1.44 0.497 -0.288** -0.148* 1 4.Intrinsic Personal Work Goals 4.31 0.414 0.024 0.025 -0.043 1 5. Extrinsic Personal Work Goals 3.99 0.383 0.111 -0.039 0.057 0.395** 1 6. Intrinsic Reward Preferences 3.62 0.576 -0.047 -0.010 0.100 0.660** 0.458** 1 7 Extrinsic Reward Preferences 2.88 0.697 -0.238** -0.091 0.225* 0.195** 0.504** 0.441** 1 * represent the fact that the coefficient is found significant at the 5% level and ** on a 1% level.

Table 5 shows some interesting effects that will be discussed in short. There is a negative significant correlation between sector and age (-0.0288), which means the people who work in the private sector are on average younger than those in the public sector. Also the correlation between gender and sector is found significant.

The correlations between the different groups of work goals and reward preferences are all positive and significant. But the correlations between intrinsic work goals and intrinsic rewards (0.660) and those of extrinsic work goals and extrinsic rewards (0.504) are bigger than those of intrinsic work goals and extrinsic rewards (0.225) and extrinsic work goals and intrinsic rewards (0.458). So the correlations indicate a link between personal work goals and

(37)

~ 37 ~ reward preferences.

To specify the extrinsic categories, there is a distinction made between financial and social work goals and rewards. Table 6 shows the means, standard deviations and correlations of these subcategories.

Table 6: Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Financial goal - 'Good Pay' 4.03 0.615 1

2. Social goal - 'Good relations' 4.36 0.632 0.018 1

3. Financial reward preferences (factor 3) 2.75 0.854 0.465** 0.046 1

4. Social reward preferences (factor 2) 3.20 0.817 0.216* 0.409** 0.631** 1 * represent the fact that the coefficient is found significant at the 5% level and ** on a 1% level.

The table above shows the significant correlation between the financial goal and the financial rewards (0.465). Noteworthy is the significant correlation between the financial goal and social rewards (0.216), but as expected this correlation is less strong. The correlation between the social goal and the social rewards is also found significant (0.409).

The variables of financial and social reward preferences show a very strong, positive, significant correlation (0.631). This means that people who rate the financial reward as important, will also rate social rewards as important. In the next paragraph I will describe if these relationships are confirmed by regression analyses.

5.5 Testing the hypotheses

The final step in the data analyses is to test the hypotheses to find significant relationships between the variables. H1 and H2 are tested by doing a linear regression analyses. The effect of age and sector, as described in H3 and H4, is also explored by conducting regressions.

H1: Reward preferences will be related to personal goals: employees who have extrinsic work goals will prefer extrinsic rewards.

(38)

~ 38 ~

To test this hypothesis a linear regression analyses is conducted, controlled for gender. A significance level of p<0.05 is used to confirm or reject the hypotheses The first regression tests if employees with extrinsic personal work goals will prefer extrinsic rewards, controlled by the gender of the individuals. Gender explains only 0,8% in the total variance. The regression model with extrinsic personal work goals as independent variable is significant. The results show a significant positive relationship between extrinsic personal work goals and extrinsic reward preferences (β=.501;t=6.807; p<0.001). So hypothesis 1 is supported. In addition, to the category of extrinsic as a whole, also the link between the financial personal work goal (good pay) and financial rewards (factor 3 of the factor analyses) is explored. To test this relationship a linear regression is conducted controlled for gender. The results tell that there is a significant relationship between these variables. So the work goal of good pay predicts at a significant level the preference for financial rewards (β.460; t=6.383; p<0.001).

Furthermore, the relationship between the social personal work goal 'good interpersonal relations with supervisors, co-workers etc' and the preference for social rewards (factor 2) is tested. This relationship is also found significant (β.412;t=5.525;p<0.001). So people who score high on the personal work goal of 'good interpersonal relations' prefer social rewards significant more. This factor group of social rewards include team spirit activities, organizational support, relationships with co-workers, management support, fair treatment, team performance incentives and job satisfaction.

H2: Reward preference will be related to personal goals: employees who have intrinsic work goals will prefer intrinsic rewards.

To test the second hypothesis the same control variable is used, namely gender. Gender explains 0% of the variance in extrinsic reward preferences. The regression of intrinsic reward

(39)

~ 39 ~

preferences on intrinsic work goals is significant and explains 44% of the total variance (β=.661;t=10.533;p<0.001). So hypothesis 2 is also supported.

H3: Age has a positive relationship with intrinsic personal work goals of employees and their preference for intrinsic rewards and a negative relationship with extrinsic goals and the preference for extrinsic rewards.

The third hypothesis concerned the effect of age on personal work goals and reward preferences. The effect of age is tested by using a simple linear regression controlled by gender. The first model, the linear regression of age and intrinsic personal work goals is not found significant (β=0.026; t=0.333; p>0.740). Also the second model, the linear regression of age and intrinsic rewards preferences is not found significant (β=-0.048; t=-0.583; p>0.561). This means that the hypothesis that age is positively related with intrinsic personal work goals and with the preference for intrinsic rewards is rejected. Therefore age does not induce differences in the striving for intrinsic personal work goals or the preference for intrinsic rewards.

When the effect of age is tested for extrinsic personal work goals, this result is also found insignificant (β=0.109; t=1.432; p>0.154). Therefore age is not a predictor for extrinsic work goals. On the other hand the effect of age on the preference for extrinsic rewards is found significant (β=-0.246; t=-2.991; p<0.003). The coefficient of this variable is negative and significant (β=-0.246), which means that younger people prefer extrinsic rewards more than older people. This result is in line with hypotheses 3.

These results lead to a partial rejection of hypotheses 3 that age has a positive relationship with intrinsic personal work goals and reward preferences and a negative relationship with extrinsic goals. Only the negative relationship between age and extrinsic reward preferences is found significant. Most regressions are not found significant and beside that, the coefficients show that age does not influence the dependent variables in the same

(40)

~ 40 ~

direction. The coefficient of intrinsic personal work goals is positive (β=0.026), while those of intrinsic reward preferences is found negative (β=-0.048). But because they are not significant, no conclusions can be drawn from it.

H4: Sector has a negative relationship with intrinsic personal work goals of employees and their preference for intrinsic rewards and a positive relationship with extrinsic goals and the preference for extrinsic rewards.

The fourth and last hypothesis concerned the role of the sector on personal work goals and reward preferences. This role is tested for the intrinsic as well as the extrinsic relationship, controlled for gender. The relationship of sector with intrinsic personal work goals is not found significant (β=-0.040; t=-0.516; p>0.606). This means that there is no relationship between sector and the striving of employees for intrinsic personal work goals. The second model that tests the relationship between sector and intrinsic rewards is also not found significant (β=0.100;t=1.210;p>0.228). This means that the first part of the hypothesis that sector is negatively related with intrinsic personal work goals and their preference for intrinsic rewards is rejected. Therefore the sector where people work in does not induce differences in the striving for intrinsic personal work goals or the preference for intrinsic rewards.

When the effect of sector is tested for the extrinsic variables the results are different. The relationship between working sector and extrinsic personal work goals is positive but not found significant (β=0.052; t=0.675; p>0.501). On the other hand the relationship between working sector and extrinsic reward preferences is found significant (β=0.216; t=2.58;p<0.05). The coefficient of the regression is positive so extrinsic rewards are more preferable for people working in the private sector, which is in line with hypothesis 4. These results lead to a partial rejection of hypotheses 4 that sector has a positive relationship with intrinsic personal work goals and reward preferences. The regressions are not found significant and beside that, also these coefficients show that working sector does

(41)

~ 41 ~

not influence the dependent variables in the same direction. The coefficient of intrinsic personal work goals is negative (β=-0.040), while those of intrinsic reward preferences is found positive (β=0.100). But because these findings are not significant, no causal relations can be concluded. Figure 4 depicts the overall results of this thesis.

Figure 4: Conceptual model incorporated with results

Extrinsic Reward Preferences

Intrinsic Reward Preferences Extrinsic Personal work goals

Intrinsic Personal work goals

Age Sector 1 2 5 7 6 1. β=0.109 2. β=-0.246* 3. β=-0.040 4. β=0.216* 5. β=0.501* 6. β=0.661* 7. β=0.026 8. β=-0.048 9. β=-0.040 10.β= 0.100 *significant on a 5% level Sector Age 3 4 8 9 10

(42)

~ 42 ~

Chapter 6 Discussion of Results

This chapter will discuss the results of the analyses and the implications of the main findings of this research. Following this, the implications for research and practice will be discussed. This chapter ends with the limitations of this thesis and recommendations for future research.

6.1 Main findings

The aim of this thesis was to investigate if there is a link between personal work goals and reward preferences. The central questions of this research are:

1. How do the personal work goals influence the reward preference of employees?

2.What is the effect of age and sector on personal work goals and the reward preferences of employees?

The data show that there is a significant relationship between extrinsic personal work goals and extrinsic reward preferences. So hypothesis 1 is supported. People who pursue extrinsic goals such as "good pay", "job security" or "promotion", will prefer extrinsic reward like "basic salary", "management support" or "more tasks". Furthermore the relationship between the financial work goal of 'good pay' and the preference for financial rewards was tested and found significant. So people who pursue the goal of good pay, will prefer financial rewards. This is a logical connection and was expected from the literature. Also the relationship between the social work goal of 'good interpersonal relations with coworkers, supervisors etc' and the preference for social rewards, resulting from the factor analyses, is explored. This link is also found significant. So people who score high on the social personal work goal, will prefer social rewards more, like an equal relationship with co-workers and management. Because these two subcategories of extrinsic rewards were found to have a significant relationship with their relating reward preferences, this supports the confirmation of hypothesis 1.

Do you get what you need? : a study of the relationship between personal work goals and reward preferences

Sandra Rullens

Master Thesis

Do you get what you need?

Abstract

Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 2

Literature Study

Chapter 3

Conceptual Model & Hypotheses

+

-

+

+

+

+

-

Chapter 4

Methodology

Chapter 5

Results

Chapter 6

Discussion of Results