Effect of Money and Other Rewards in Organization

Question: Discuss about theEffect of Money and Other Rewards in Organization. Answer: Introduction Rewards are one of the most effective options in motivating employees for their potential work in the organization (Aktar, Sachu and Ali 2012). Moreover, a motivated employee is a valuable asset for organizations. However, it just does not include only monetary benefits, it rather include some other non-financial benefits. Moreover, rewards that are required to motivate employee include two types of benefits such as intrinsic and the extrinsic (Aktar, Sachu and Ali 2012). Further, extrinsic benefits include basic salary package of the employee whereas intrinsic benefits include all the internal recognition given to an employee. Moreover, intrinsic reward may include internal recognition on some achievement, encouraging thoughts sharing with employees, distribution of awards for different achievements (Fang, Gerhart and Ledford Jr 2013). Nevertheless, these monetary and non-financial benefits can never guarantee of producing a flawless output from employees. Moreover, some employees a re not motivated for these monetary and non-financial benefits, as they tend to be in a state of stagnancy. In the present time, the organizational realities of the past do not find its existence across the globe. Moreover, the fundamental of organizational behaviour have taken a drastic shifting to the monetary benefits (Aktar, Sachu and Ali 2012). It is an undeniable fact that majority of employees have their prime target set on the monetary benefits. They always look for a better salary offering. Moreover, a better salary offering creates a sense of importance in them towards the organization. However, once they step into the organization, the reality of their image appears in their performance. They tend to perform just for the sake of meeting with the set targets to avoid any sort of hampering to their monthly salary. However, few employees are there who have dedicated their effort in fulfilling the desire of the Company with no significant concern for the monetary benefits. Moreover, there primary target is to achieve the desired mission and vision of the organization. However, they are in rare number and the competition picture in the market very well illustrates the findings. In a particular segment of the market, there are only few notable giant companies. Further, not all the companies are performing at an equivalent level. The outright performance of some notable companies in the Smartphone sector clearly illustrates the findings. Various companies are offering Smartphones but only fey have notable position in the market. Nonetheless, IPhone, Samsung, Sony, LG, Motorola, HTC, Lenovo, and Nokia are the few names in this context. However, there are thousands of companies, which are manufacturing Smartphones but they have not succeeded in leaving any significant impression on the customers (Aguinis, Joo and Gottfredson 2013). Those who are leading companies, their employees have their primary target set on achieving the goal. Moreover, a quick scuffling of employees from one company to another does hamper the project and the objective of the organization (Eslami and Gharakhani 2012). However, it is not a deniable point that big companies such as Apple, Samsung and many more have lesser rate of attrition in their organization. It is an undeniable fact that effectiveness of skilled employees is likely to be affected if they are not motivated for their performance (Young, Beckman and Baker 2012). In this context, the Theory of Expectancy suggests that employees need to be motivated when they perceive the linkage of their performance with the monetary and the non-financial rewards (Aktar, Sachu and Ali 2012). The Contingency Theory suggests that conflicts are inescapable, but it is manageable (Rajhans 2012). Nevertheless, this theory support the fact that conflicts in the organization in between the management and the employees for any valuable reason are unstoppable, it is rather bound to happen. Moreover, The Contingency Theory highlights one of the most basic problems, which an organization could face. However, the Theory of Expectancy tries to provide some effective solution from the organizational problem such as rewarding employees on their performance. There are some issues at the work place, which are conflicting with the fundamentals of organizational behaviours such as Employee issues, team problem and many more (Rajhans 2012). Nevertheless, rewarding employees on their performance by means of different intrinsic and extrinsic benefits has its relation with one of the issues highlighted in the organizational context (Aktar, Sachu and Ali 2012). However, unfair behaviour in distributing incentives to the employees might hamper the entire team by encouraging them for a conflict in between the employees and the management (Dobre 2013). Having conversation with such employees might also not produce the desired objective as employees are sometime very confined and hesitate to reveal their inner truth in front of the management. Further, this indeed is not a very healthy move in favour of both the employee and its existing organization. However, the risen issues can be managed with some alternative ways and in this regard; rewarding e mployees for their performance represent the alternative step of the organization (Rajhans 2012). There are some other non-financial benefits, which might uplift the lost morale of employees such as rewarding them on their achievement with some congratulatory words, circulating a mail inside the organization for congratulating the identified achievement (Agwu 2013). However, this also has few limitations as different employees have different perception for benefits. To some the monetary benefit is everything but some are also there to whom the recognition in the organization matter the most. Nevertheless, all the monetary and the non-financial benefits can never guarantee of a motivated approach from employees (Erbasi and Arat 2012). Moreover, theses are important ways, which organization can opt for incepting motivation into employees. However, these are not the ultimate options for incepting motivation into employees. Examples of numerous Smartphone companies who are yet to prove their significant position in the market, do well illustrates the truth of financial and non-financ ial benefits in organizations. The potentiality of monetary benefits such as incentive has proved its supremacy in bringing the changes in physical output of many companies (Chiang and Birtch 2012). However, to identify the right person to reward with the incentives is of utmost requirement. Statistics on employees performance might vary with the real picture inside the organization as some employees have potential in them to prove their calibre but not aware of ways to explore the same (Newman and Sheikh 2012). Moreover, to identify the deserving employee for the monetary benefits is of utmost importance for an organizational success. It is indeed very tough to identify those potential employees and find the best suitable ways to motivate them. Further, incentives are given on performance basis and those employees are yet to deliver their productivity. This is a challenging task for the management to find out the best possible solution to reward unidentified potential employees and fetch the potential contributio n from them (Byron and Khazanchi 2012). A recent example on the output of the incentive payment to the employees very well justify the fact that monetary benefits can never alone motivate employees for their responsibilities. In California and New Jersey, 38 customers visited to the 27 Sears repair shops, which produced 34 cases of unnecessary repairs. Moreover, the chairperson of the Sears stated that the incentives and sales goal oriented programs developed such an environment, which gave birth to mistakes. Moreover, it resulted in such a huge fault repairing service given to customers. The repair shop employees have been awarded with incentives for producing strong repairs to customers. As a result, for the instance, the chairperson of the Sears Company changed its incentive modes to the quality employees. Moreover, from now onwards, only the quality works would attract the defined incentives. The fact that incentives and bonuses work for the managers in the organization does not necessarily hold true in case of its emp loyees (Choi, Cheong and Feinberg 2012). Moreover, managers are very much aware of their task whereas employees because of their negligence for various reasons are not often close to the objective of the project. Various reasons that compel employees for their negligence behaviour in organization can be anything such as insufficient salary packages, no bonuses and other non-financial rewards (Malik, Butt and Choi 2015). Financial incentives play a significant role in motivating employees across organizations. However, relying heavily on the incentive program is not a safe and productive plan (Datta 2012). The heavily reliance on the money incentives given to employees may also lead to a consequence, which the Company had never imagined. The example of Google Company in this context is very valuable, which represents a clear picture about the correct execution of the motivational program. The Google Company is no longer distributing founder awards; they are rather confined to some executive awards. Designing the correct program for the incentives distribution is of utmost requirement (Cho and Perry 2012). Many small organizations do not have a plan to implement the incentive program in the best suitable way. Example of Sears company very well help in finding out the hidden part behind the incentive program. However, the incentive program cannot alone predict the success for the organizations. Quality production with sheer potential work from employees is of utmost requirement for an organization. It is rather more important than the monetary benefits. However, to ensure quality work from employees is a challenging task, which cannot just happen with some smaller events. It is rather a gradual development of strategic plan, which help the organization in achieving the desired quality production (Fang, Gerhart and Ledford Jr 2013). The theory of expectancy suggests that employees need to be motivated when they perceive the necessity of the same (Aktar, Sachu and Ali 2012). However, employees have different trends elated to the intrinsic and the extrinsic benefits in organization. Some employees are there to whom intrinsic benefits are more important than the monetary benefits. Moreover, these are managerial post, which is focussed on project rather than on monetary benefits only. However, in case of employees, monetary benefits keep the utmost significance. Further, it is an undeniable fact that money can never guarantee of a quality production as cited in the example of Sears Company, which gave incentives to its employees not for the quality production but for the repairing cases they handled (Ojo 2012). Moreover, an unanalysed step produced an unexpected result for the Sears Company in California and New Jersey. Moreover, this indeed give a solid support in favour the fact that monetary benefits cannot alone guarantee of quality performance in organization. The theory of expectance does not find a strong foothold in modern era of industries. Nevertheless, monetary benefits are a significant tool to motivate employees for exploring their potential skills. However, this has several limitations as depicted in the examples of the Sears and the Google Company. Both the companies had to change their mode of operations related to the employees motivation. The theory of expectancy does produce a picture, which can be a part of organizational practices in order to bring some improved performance but a heavily reliance on this, is not advisable (Cerasoli, Nicklin and Ford 2014). Moreover, to ensure quality production, various other parameters are there that are more effective than the monetary benefits. Ensuring safety and security of employees, providing cooperative working environment and the management are some of the most effective ways that could improve the quality of production. Employees working in those countries, which are always at danger, are more susceptible to a conservative approach towards their work responsibilities (Linz and Semykina 2012). Moreover, they do not find a cooperative environment where they could actually justify their presence in the Company. The feeling of losing lives at any point in time has contributed in their less than potential performance in such countries. Countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, Taliban and many more have less number of foreign employees than the other parts of world. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, the Middle East Countries and many more have more offshore drives for jobs. This clearly gives a picture that the threat, which is underlying in countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, Taliban and many more, have caused as a retarding force to the offshore drives in the Country. Nevertheless, an employee participation in organization depend on various factors such as job satisfaction, coopera tive environment, good salary packages, cooperative management, financial and non-financial benefits and many more (Amah and Ahiauzu 2013). Moreover, this is not dependent on a single factor, which produces a strong supportive evidence in favour of the fact that monetary benefits cannot alone guarantee for a quality production. Monetary and other financial benefits given to employees are important as they add probability to the production of some notable performance in organizations. However, these benefits are less important than other benefits such as safe and secure working environment, cooperative work environment and the management. Moreover, safety is the first requirement, which comes into picture by the time when employees are incepted in organization. Further, a safe and secure environment constructs supportive perspectives of employees towards the organization. Moreover, this help in winning employees faith on the organization. Nevertheless, in association to this, the cooperative working environment and the management do produce an effective result in the organizational performance. Monetary and other financial benefits can never ensure the potential output from employees. On contrary to this, it can only produce some significant differences in the organizational performances. Further, relying he avily on the monetary benefits might also hamper the organizational performance as it is revealed from the example of the Sears and the Google Company. The Sears Company suffered a lot due to throwing incentives on large number of selling. It eventually produced not less than 34 cases of repairs across its various repairing shops in California and New Jersey. The removal of founder award with the executive award does produce the conservative approach of the Google Company towards the monetary and other financial rewards. Nevertheless, monetary and other financial rewards are the part of an organizational fundamentals but it has its own limitations, which can never be denied. Some part of recommendation is for the application of expectancy theory in the present organizational practices. Moreover, relying heavily on the monetary benefits is not advisable rather it needs to be a part of organizational fundamentals. It needs to be executed as per a proper plan to achieve the maximum result. Nevertheless, following the footsteps of the Sears Company, organizations can achieve better results with monetary benefits. Further, the inception of The Contingency Theory in the organization is best preferred for the fact that problems are acceptable but these are also manageable. Moreover, management need to analyse their performer who have contributed in the improved performance of the organization. Further, they need to maintain a balance in between all the team members. Employees should be rewarded based on their performance with various intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. However, unfair distribution of incentives should not be in the practice and to achieve this, a transparent management is of utmost requirement. Moreover, a transparent management would maintain balance behaviour in between the employees. Nevertheless, a careful observation of employees performance is of utmost importance to the present organizational fundamentals. References Aguinis, H., Joo, H. and Gottfredson, R.K., 2013. What monetary rewards can and cannot do: How to show employees the money.Business Horizons,56(2), pp.241-249. Agwu, M.O., 2013. Impact of fair reward system on employees? job performance in Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited, Port Harcourt.British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioral Science,3(1), pp.47-64. Aktar, S., Sachu, M.K. and Ali, M.E., 2012. The impact of rewards on employee performance in commercial banks of Bangladesh: an empirical study.IOSR Journal of Business and Management,6(2), pp.9-15. Amah, E. and Ahiauzu, A., 2013. Employee involvement and organizational effectiveness.Journal of Management Development,32(7), pp.661-674. Byron, K. and Khazanchi, S., 2012. Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M. and Ford, M.T., 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis.Psychological bulletin,140(4), p.980. Chiang, F.F. and Birtch, T.A., 2012. The performance implications of financial and non?financial rewards: an Asian nordic comparison.Journal of Management Studies,49(3), pp.538-570. Cho, Y.J. and Perry, J.L., 2012. Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness, and extrinsic reward expectancy.Review of Public Personnel Administration,32(4), pp.382-406. Choi, S., Cheong, K. and Feinberg, R.A., 2012. Moderating effects of supervisor support, monetary rewards, and career paths on the relationship between job burnout and turnover intentions in the context of call centers.Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,22(5), pp.492-516. Datta, P., 2012. An applied organizational rewards distribution system.Management Decision,50(3), pp.479-501. Dobre, O.I., 2013. Employee motivation and organizational performance.Journal of Management and Socio-Economic, (1). Erbasi, A. and Arat, T., 2012. The effect of financial and non-financial incentives on job satisfaction: An examination of food chain premises in Turkey.International Business Research,5(10), p.136. Eslami, J. and Gharakhani, D., 2012. Organizational commitment and job satisfaction.ARPN Journal of Science and Technology,2(2), pp.85-91. Fang, M., Gerhart, B. and Ledford Jr, G.E., 2013. Negative effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation: more smoke than fire.World at work journal,22(2), pp.17-29. Linz, S.J. and Semykina, A., 2012. What makes workers happy? Anticipated rewards and job satisfaction.Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society,51(4), pp.811-844. Malik, M.A.R., Butt, A.N. and Choi, J.N., 2015. Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self?efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control.Journal of Organizational Behavior,36(1), pp.59-74. Newman, A. and Sheikh, A.Z., 2012. Organizational rewards and employee commitment: a Chinese study.Journal of Managerial Psychology,27(1), pp.71-89. Ojo, O., 2012. Influence of organizational culture on employee work behavior.International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies,3(11), pp.46-57. Rajhans, K., 2012. Effective organizational communication: A key to employee motivation and performance.Interscience Management Review,2(2), pp.81-85. Young, G.J., Beckman, H. and Baker, E., 2012. Financial incentives, professional values and performance: A study of pay?for?performance in a professional organization.Journal of Organizational Behavior,33(7), pp.964-983.