Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2003. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references. Available also from UMI Company.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Economics, June 2001. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

Not available / text

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Illinois State University, 1989. / Title from title page screen, viewed October 10, 2005. Dissertation Committee: Rodney P. Riegle (chair), Mary Ann Lynn, Ronald Laymon, Chris Eisele, Thomas Nelson. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 185-196) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

The chief purpose of this survey is to explore employee's perception and experience with Performance Pay and how they affect motivation in the workplace. / Thesis (DBA(DoctorateofBusinessAdministration))--University of South Australia, 2005.

Automotive component manufacturing companies where the labour is low skilled and the processes are labour intensive, are being challenged on a more regular basis to find methods to satisfy needs to motivate employees to improve performance. Automotive companies are becoming more under pressure to motivate employees through non-monetary rewards, due to collective bargaining which has made pay for performance very inflexible. It is because of this fact that employers have to assess non-monetary reward methods to motivate employees to improve performance. To be motivators, rewards must be aligned with the needs of people and the things that they value. If these rewards are aligned with employees needs, this could lead to increase in employee motivation, which will in turn lead to improvement in performance, and therefore lead to companies becoming more competitive. This research paper aims to assess what would be the motivators when establishing a non-monetary reward system. To this end the various motivational theories are presented which clearly identifies what needs people have and how they can be satisfied to change behaviour and therefore improve performance. Secondly, reward systems are discussed with various types of rewards being considered and more specifically non-monetary rewards. Applied research was undertaken to determine non-monetary rewards that will motivate low-skilled employees to improve performance. A survey, with the aid of a structured questionnaire, was used to gain information from 60 employees. The research was conducted in three companies that manufacture components for the auto industry. The majority of the respondents indicated that: 1. basic needs must be satisfied with monetary rewards; 2. non-monetary rewards, if linked to higher hierarchical needs, will then motivate employees; 3. non-monetary rewards should preferably be of a physical nature such as certificates, caps and t-shirts; 4. satisfaction of these higher level needs motivate employees and improve their performance; 5. employees prefer feedback and recognition as a non-monetary reward on a regular basis, and 6. the needs of employees should be identified through a survey to establish which rewards will satisfy these needs.

M.Comm. / Paying for performance is however not an easy solution for organisational performance problems. As stated by Wright (1991: 16), "even the most ardent supporters of performancebased reward systems recognise that it is extraordinarily difficult to manage well". There is also a school of thought that rejects the claims made of performance-based rewards. A recent survey of British Telecom executives carried out by the Society of Telecom Executives (1991: 35) revealed that only 6 per cent of those responding to the survey thought that performance-based rewards improved their performance compared with an overwhelming 70 per cent who thought it had not. Research conducted by Carmen and Wood (1992: 8) on behalf of the Institute of Personnel Management and the National Economic Development Office into payment schemes, did not confirm that performance-based pay was a motivator. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 40 personnel directors and managers from large and medium organisations. They concluded that the personnel managers interviewed were by no means certain that performancebased rewards succeed in motivating people. Most were not convinced they could unequivocally identify that performance-based rewards was increasing either individual or organisational performance. When these research findings are closely investigated, it can normally be established that specific reasons contribute to the failure of the performance-based reward systems to increase motivation and organisational performance. Armstrong and Murlis (1994: 252) believe these reasons are mostly: A failure to involve employees sufficiently in the design and implementation of the system; A mistaken belief that the performance-based reward system on its own will achieve the expected increase in motivation and performance; and The poor people skills of those managers that are responsible for managing implemented performance-based reward systems.

M.Phil. / Purpose: The purpose of the research was to evaluate the extent to which the constructs and dimensions identified by De Swardt (2005) are valid in describing and predicting the outcome of a variable pay plan. The following secondary research questions were therefore asked: What is the reliability of the eleven dimensions and three constructs? What are the statistical characteristics of the 11 dimensions and 3 constructs, and can they be used to benchmark new variable pay plans? How reliable are the 78 items as test criteria for the 11 dimensions and 3 constructs? Motivation for study: The primary rationale for this study was the unavailability of empirically tested models and the lack of validated variable pay instruments that evaluate the outcome of any variable pay scheme. Design/Methodology/Approach: The study followed a quantitative research methodology, with the primary objective of assessing outcome similarities through Structural Equation Modelling (EQS) factor analysis. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were performed to the sample data to measure correlations. Findings: The findings of the research highlighted that there were minimal differences between De Swardt’s variable pay models. Differences were identified by analyzing the reliability statistics and factor analysis rules of assessing model fit. Following certain research limitations, the research questions were further refined for use in future studies. The research findings confirmed De Swardt’s (2005) theoretical model of predicting variable pay outcome. Research limitations: Although the study was conducted amongst a wider population group, individual organisation feedback from the selected participants was not balanced. A considerably larger portion of the feedback was obtained from the company with which the researcher was employed. Practical implications/Value-add: The outcome of this research confirms the commercial applicability of the instrument in identifying potential flaws in any variable pay scheme during the early stages of implementation. This will have a positive impact on an organisation’s bottom line. Additionally, quantifying the impact of variable pay plans will not only enhance HR’s credibility with regards to the broader organisational goals, but will encourage a well-structured, performance-linked variable pay system based on tested models.

No description available.