89-277-1-PB

Compensation: Impact of Rewards, Organisational Justice on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions in Retail Store Operations – A Study of Delhi and NCR

Pooja Misra, Neeti Rana1 and Varsha Dixit1

Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida, UP 1 Gautam Buddha University, Yamuna Expressway, Greater Noida, UPE-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Compensation influences key outcomes like job satisfaction, attraction, retention, performance, skill acquisition, co-operation, motivation and turnover intent of employees. Retention and motivation of personnel has become a major concern for HR especially in the Indian Retail industry. Compensation & Benefits have been ascribed to be one of the factors responsible for the high attrition rate. Study of pay and turnover intent, shows that there is a negative relationship between the two factors. Compensation, used as rewards for excellent job performance affect an employee’s job satisfaction level, morale and turnover intentions. In compensation studies, process of social comparison with relevant others are a major determinant of job satisfaction. Put into the context of pay satisfaction, Adams’ equity theory argues that one compares one’s job input/pay ratio with certain referents. Heneman and Schwab conceptualized pay satisfaction as a multidimensional construct. Pay satisfaction is an important determinant of turnover and an employee’s intent to leave the organization. Compensation is formulated based on internal consistency and pay level relative to the market. An effective and just compensation policy can act as a stimulant for an organization to gain a competitive edge. Employees’ with perception of higher levels of procedural and distributive justice are more likely to feel obliged and perform their roles by putting in discretionary effort. The fairness of an internally aligned and externally competitive pay structure is judged in terms of organizational justice ie. distributive and procedural justice. The present study seeks to analyze the impact of Compensation components in terms of Rewards and Benefits and Organizational Justice on Turnover Intentions and the role of Job Satisfaction in terms of Pay. This study has been done for the Indian Retail Industry with special reference to Retail Store Operations. From the study it was seen that Rewards and Organizational Justice in terms of Distributive and Procedural Justice impact Job Satisfaction which in turn affects and could be ascribed as one of the reasons for high attrition rates. In addition, there could be other reasons such as challenging work role, role of supervisor, training and development opportunities etc. which could impact turnover intentions of employees in the Indian Retail industry and the same needs to be further researched. The research also showed that employees believed in having a clear and transparent compensation system reflective of performance and productivity and they were keen that the Management should be willing to address any pay issues. Job satisfaction in terms of pay was seen to be impacted by pay received in relation to referent others and the Management should be conscious of attempting to maintain parity amongst employees and relative to other Companies in the Retail industry. The independent factors of Financial (base pay, merit pay, incentive, bonus etc.), non Financial Reward (discount coupons, employee of the month), Benefits, Distributive and Procedural Justice impact Job Satisfaction which in turn impacts absenteeism and attrition rates in the Retail industry. It is interesting to see that there is no difference in Job satisfaction levels between male and female employees which works in favor of Store Operations management.

Keywords: Compensation, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Job Satisfaction, Turnover Intent

Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Management & Information Systems, 2012

406 Business Management and Information Systems

Introduction

The Retail Industry of India, today, accounts for over 10 per cent of the country’s GDP and is one of the most dynamic and fast paced industries. It is gradually inching its way towards becoming the next booming industry. It is projected to grow to US$ 833 billion by 2013 and US$ 1.3 trillion by 2018, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10% and employs almost 8% of India’s employable population (Rahman 2012). The factors responsible for the rapid growth are population expansion, increasing wealth of individuals and rapid construction of organised retail infrastructure. As per a report of Deloitte Consulting 2012 on Compensation Trends Survey 2012, attrition is a major challenge for the Retail Industry primarily in the Junior Management level and in the sales roles. Attrition rates in this industry are 35-40% with front end jobs facing 60-80% attrition rate. Thus, it is imperative to conduct research in this industry especially for Retail Store Operations. One of the factors responsible for the high attrition rates is Compensation & Benefits.

As per Singh and Mishra (2008), few studies have been done on analyzing HR challenges in the Indian retail sector and also with regards to the extant research there are gaping holes. While developing processes and systems, Indian retailers need to develop a set of good HR practices to enhance competency and retention of employees (Singh and Mishra 2008). Evidence shows that high levels of employee engagement are associated with improved individual employee performance (Smythe, 2008; Luthans and Peterson, 2002). A sense of return on investments can come from external rewards and recognition in addition to meaningful work. Benefits, pay, incentives are some of the compensation package components that created value for the organizations and its employees. Compensation, which was used as rewards for excellent job performance affect an employee’s morale and job satisfaction. In view of the Social Exchange Theory, employees on receiving rewards and recognition from their organization feel obliged to respond with higher levels of engagement. Employees’ with perception of higher levels of procedural and distributive justice are more likely to feel obliged and perform their roles by putting in discretionary effort and giving more of themselves through greater levels of engagement.

CompensationThe term compensation includes pay, incentives and benefits offered by the employers of the company for hiring the services of the employees. Compensation plays an important role in maintaining and retaining an effective workforce (Bergmann and Scarpello 2001). A compensation policy which is just and effective acts as a catalyst for an organization to gain a competitive edge. Studies have shown that compensation was one of the strongest determinants of employee attitudes, motivation and behaviors (Gerhart and Milkovich, 1992). Compensation influences key outcomes like job satisfaction, attraction, retention, performance, skill acquisition, co-operation and motivation.

Compensation primarily has two objectives – a reward for services rendered to the organization and to act as a stimulus or motivate employees to improve performance. Benefits and Rewards such as bonus, incentives, merit pay, stocks are considered a powerful tool for long term retention of potential employees. When people’s perception is that they are being treated fairly and appreciated, they give more of their time, creative energy and value adding discretionary effort, which directly impacts the organization’s — and individual’s — performance. Organisational Justice is fundamental to compensation systems. The fairness of an internally aligned and externally competitive pay structure is judged in terms of distributive justice and procedural justice. Procedural justice is the perceived fairness of procedures for determining the pay structure, the rules and procedures guiding pay decisions and the information that accompanies their implementation. Distributive justice is perceived fairness of pay received, ratio between the contribution of employees (input) and compensation received relevant to others. Researchers have stressed that many employees perceive pay allocation decisions to be unfair (Heneman and Judge 2000; Tekleab et al. 2005) which may explain the weak link between actual pay and performance.

Compensation: Impact of Rewards, Organisational Justice on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions . . . 407

Job SatisfactionJob satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). Thus, job satisfaction is directly tied to individual needs including challenging work, equitable compensation and a supportive work environment and colleagues (Ostroff, 1992). In compensation studies, process of social comparison with relevant others is a major determinant of job satisfaction. Put into the context of pay satisfaction, Adams’ equity theory argues that one compares one’s job input/pay ratio with certain referents. It can be understood as an outcome of the gap between what one desires, and what one gets (Lawler 1964). Heneman and Schwab (1985) conceptualized pay satisfaction as a multidimensional construct and defined a four facet structure of pay satisfaction - pay level, benefits, raises, structure and administration. Pay satisfaction is an important determinant of turnover and an employee’s intent to leave the organization ((Hom and Griffeth, 1995).

Research Objectives and Focus Issues

Interestingly, research in India has not yet fully investigated impact of compensation components in terms of Organizational Justice ie Distributive and Procedural Justice and its impact on Job Satisfaction and turnover intentions for the Retail Industry especially for Retail Store Operations. The scope of the study would be the Retail industry in India with specific reference to Retail Store Operations in Delhi and NCR.

• To analyse the impact of Compensation Components (Financial and Non Financial Reward and Benefits) in terms of Organisational Justice – Distributive and Procedural Justice on turnover intentions and the role of job satisfaction.

• To investigate the influence of Compensation components (Financial and Non Financial Reward and Benefits) in terms of Organisational Justice – Distributive and Procedural Justice on Job Satisfaction.

• To analyse the impact of Job Satisfaction levels on Turnover Intentions in Retail Store Operations.

Literature Review and Study Hypothesis

Indian firms are using clear remuneration policies to attract and retain talent. Research shows that organizations with flatter, more participative management perform better than rigidly hierarchical organizations. If everyone is eligible, should incentive pay go to all employees? Job performance is influenced directly by extrinsic factors such as fairness of current rewards and potential for rewards. Despite the recognition of pay valence for employees in general and salespeople in particular, dissatisfaction with pay and compensation plans remains prominent in employee surveys (Ramaswami S and Singh J, 2003). The firm linkage between satisfied workers and customer satisfaction drives a large number of organizations to utilize incentive programs to improve workplace productivity, reduce absenteeism and reward employees’ contributions (Renk K, 2010). Researchers have identified job characteristics, perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, reward and recognition, procedural justice and distributive justice as antecedents of employee engagement (Sak 2006). Distributive and Procedural justice seems to be viewed by employees as more important than actual pay. Bhatnagar J (2008) conducted research on talent management in Indian BPO/ITeS employees in the ITeS sector. Of the top five: job satisfaction and retention factors; fair pay was one factor.

Of the three types of compensation, straight salary, combination and straight commission; the combination plan is the most popular (Cooke E 1999). Poornima (2009) in her study stated: Herzberg’s motivation is based on an employee being satisfied or not satisfied. If hygiene factors are not present in an organization, it can de-motivate and cause dissatisfaction. Studies have found that unskilled workers


demonstrate a desire for extrinsic rewards. Based on the fairness of pay ie procedural and distributive justice theory, biases in performance appraisal and biased pay allocations, can be viewed as violations of organizational justice, and/or as forms of organizational politics (Salimaki A and Jamsen S, 2009).

Pay performance incentives differ across executives according to their responsibility and are structured to motivate managers (Aggarwal RK and Samwick A, 2003). A study demonstrates that employees who receive higher amounts of pay (pay level) feel more highly valued by the organization (Organisation based self esteem ie OBSE), and those who feel valued highly (OBSE) are rated as higher performers. A pay structure that is perceived to be unequal is associated with a substantial reduction in both non-union members’ overall job satisfaction and their satisfaction with pay (Petrescu A and Simmons R, 2008). Results showed that all factor loadings for the four dimensions of pay satisfaction are relatively strong, with the highest for Pay-raise, followed by Benefits, Structure/Administration and then Pay-level. If the best employees receive desired rewards, they may exhibit higher job satisfaction and, as a result, reduced turnover. Results also showed that expectancy perception, instrumental perception, distributive justice and procedural justice are significant determinants of satisfaction with pay incentive schemes (Ogenyi OE and Victoria OO, 2006). When compensation is judged as being fair, in relation to both internal and external equity, it can increase the feeling of job satisfaction for all employees. The possible developments of this research could lead to a comparison between employees of several countries (Igalens J and Roussel P, 1999).

Compensation used as rewards for excellent performance affects an employee’s morale and job satisfaction. The four drives that underlie motivation are the drive to acquire (The reward system), drive to bond, drive to comprehend and defend (Nohria N 2008). It is suggested for the organisation to consider performance-based pay and benefits in designing compensation system as performance based pay has influences on job satisfaction and organisational commitment which are amongst the important organisational factors. (Ibrahim II and Boerhaneoddin AA, 2010).

Turnover intent is the intent of an employee on a voluntary basis to leave the organization. Study of pay and turnover intent, shows that there is a negative relationship between the two factors (Montowidlo, 1982). Equity theory research shows that employees who felt that they were being paid unfairly leave the organisation (Milkovich & Newman, 2005). Vandenberghe and Tremblay (2008) and Tekleab, Bartol, and Liu (2005) have cited distributive and procedural justice as determinants of pay satisfaction which in turn negatively impacts turnover.

From the review of literature, it is thus seen that Compensation components such as Merit Pay, Incentives, Non financial Reward and Organisational Justice ie Procedural and Distributive Justice could impact Job Satisfaction levels which in turn could impact Turnover Intentions.

Model Proposed


Research Methodology

Given the exploratory nature of the research it was Ex Post facto in nature. The design of the approach for investigation included self-completed questionnaires and possible secondary sources (statistical handbooks, books, reports, journals, internet information). Primary data was collected through administered questionnaires to assess the impact of rewards and benefits and distributive and procedural justice on turnover intentions and the role of job satisfaction. The data was collected from 118 employees, who are working in Retail Store Operations ie Store Managers and Customer Associates in Delhi and NCR region. The respondents were approached personally for their responses and interviews.

The descriptive statistics of the data is given below:

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Reward 118 14.00 36.00 24.2157 6.07392

Job satisfaction 118 16.00 70.00 41.2745 12.18865

Distributive Justice 118 14.00 57.00 39.4118 11.50509

Procedural Justice 118 12.00 55.00 29.9412 9.15950

Turnover Intentions 118 5.00 22.00 13.2941 3.78045

Valid N (listwise) 118

Analysis and Interpretation

ReliabilityThe reliability of questions for analyzing Reward (Financial and non Financial Reward, Benefits), Organisational Justice ie Procedural and Distributive Justice, Job Satisfaction and Turnover intentions was tested through Cronbach Alpha. For Reward, questions such as achieving targets leads to good incentive payouts by the Company; in the past few weeks, I have received praise or recognition for doing good work,; good performance leads to receiving discount coupons and being awarded the employee of the month; the financial rewards are a direct reflection of my contribution to the organisational goals were asked. Cronbach Alpha for Reward was 0.770 which indicates good internal consistency amongst the questions asked.

In case of procedural justice, questions such as the management is available to discuss fairness of procedures regarding pay issues of concern to me; my opinions are considered during annual Merit Pay increase, incentive payout etc.; Financial and non financial rewards determination is free of bias were asked. For distributive justice, questions such as compared to peers in my Company and other Companies in the Retail Industry, I am suitably compensated in terms of Annual Bonus, merit payout, incentives; I work too hard considering my outcomes were asked. The Cronbach Alpha for Procedural and Distributive Justice was 0.931 and 0.915 indicating strong internal consistency. Cronbach Alpha for Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intent was 0.934 and 0.657. This shows that reliability of questions for Reward, Organisational Justice in terms of Procedural and Distributive Justice, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions was good.

Pearson Correlation AnalysisTable 2 shows that there is a high co-relation of 0.660 and 0.561 between Reward and Procedural and Distributive Justice. The correlation for Distributive and Procedural Justice (in terms of reward) and


Job Satisfaction is also high (0.691 and 0.854 respectively) for employees in Retail Store Operations in the National Capital Region. The correlation in case of turnover intention shows that the independent parameter of reward, procedural justice and distributive justice has a moderate impact and thus Compensation can be ascribed as one of the reasons for high attrition levels.

Principal Component AnalysisThe Principal component analysis was done to understand the key factors which affect Reward, Procedural and Distributive Justice and Job Satisfaction for employees in Retail Store Operations. This will help the Senior Management understand and maintain focus on a limited set of primary factors which can increase the level of Job Satisfaction in Retail Stores and thereby help reduce attrition rates.

RewardThe value of KMO is 0.606 which indicates that the correlation between the pairs of variables can be explained and factor analysis as a data reduction technique is appropriate. Bartlett’s test of sphericity is used to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the observed co-relation matrix and identity matrix. Eigenvalues represent the amount of variance associated with the factor. The results showed that three components are able to explain 67.003% of variance.

Table 2. Pearson Correlation Analysis

Reward Job Satisfaction Distributive Justice

Procedural Justice

Turnover Intentions

Reward 1Job satisfaction 0.403** 1Distributive Justice 0.660** 0.691** 1Procedural Justice 0.561** 0.854** 0.805** 1Turnover Intentions 0.427** 0.323* 0.418** 0.428** 1

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Figure 1. Component Plot in Rotated Space

The rotated component matrix and loading plot shows that each variable of Reward is predominantly loaded on one of the three components. The three components can be labeled as do the financial payouts take care of the needs of employees, achieving targets leads to good financial payouts and good performance


leads to non financial rewards and recognition. Therefore, while designing compensation components the HR and Senior management needs to keep the above three factors in mind.

Distributive JusticeIn case of Distributive Justice, KMO value is 0.763 which shows factor analysis as a data reduction technique is appropriate. Eigenvalues show that two components are able to explain 64.681% of variance.


The rotated component matrix and loading plot shows that each variable of Distributive Justice is predominantly loaded on one of the two components. One component can be labeled as: Are the rewards received a reflection of the effort put in by the employee and the second component can be labeled as are the rewards (financial, non financial) and benefits received suitable in comparison to referent others (in the same company and other companies in the Retail industry). The Senior Management thus needs to be aware that with regards to Distributive Justice the above two factors are met taken care of.

Procedural JusticeIn case of Procedural Justice, KMO value is 0.860 which shows factor analysis as a data reduction technique is appropriate. Eigenvalues show that two components are able to explain 70.055% of variance.



The rotated component matrix and loading plot shows that each variable of Procedural Justice for the Retail Store Operations is predominantly loaded on one of the two components. The two components that managers need to ensure for are: The payout policies should be communicated quickly and are bias free; In addition, Opinions of employees at all levels should be considered while deciding on payout policies for financial and non financial reward and benefits.

Job SatisfactionIn case of Job satisfaction, KMO value is 0.870 which shows factor analysis as a data reduction technique is appropriate. Eigenvalues show that three components are able to explain 74.795% of variance.


The rotated component matrix and loading plot shows that each variable of Job Satisfaction in terms of Pay for the Retail Store Operations is predominantly loaded on one of the three components ie are the employees satisfied with the incentive payout, bonus, merit pay increase etc.,; impact of compensation package and motivation levels on job satisfaction levels and are employees satisfied with the processes and procedures adopted in case of compensation policies and administering of pay policies Thus for maximizing of job satisfaction in terms of pay, managers need to keep a sharp focus on these three factors.

Regression AnalysisRegression analysis helps us understand how the typical value of the dependent variable changes when any one of the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed. Keeping in mind, the strong correlation between Reward and Distributive and Procedural Justice (to avoid the problem of multicollinearity), in case of regression analysis Rewards parameter was dropped. On taking the independent variables as Procedural and Distributive Justice and the Dependent variable as Job satisfaction, the value of R2 derived was 0.730 which shows that 73% of the variation in Job satisfaction can be explained by Organisational Justice ie Procedural and Distributive Justice in terms of Financial and non financial rewards and benefits.

Table 3. Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .854a .730 .719 6.46557

a. Predictors: (Constant), Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice b. Dependent Variable: Job satisfaction

The equation derived from regression analysis is:Job Satisfaction = 7.147 + 0.10Distributive Justice + 1.127 Procedural Justice


This shows that in Retail Store Operation in NCR region Job Satisfaction is expected to increase by 1.127 when Procedural Justice increases by 1 and by 0.12 when Distributive justice increases by 1.

The Linear Relationship between Job satisfaction (independent variable) and Turnover intentions (dependent variable) shows that the goodness of fit is 0.104 ie 10.4% of reasons for turnover intentions are explainable by Job satisfaction in terms of pay. This shows that one of the reasons for high attrition rate could be job satisfaction of the employee in terms of organizational justice where pay and rewards are concerned. This also shows that in addition to pay satisfaction there could be other reasons such as training and development opportunities, motivation levels, role of supervisor, challenging job role etc. which could also be reasons for the high attrition rate in the Retail industry. The same can be further researched into.

Table 4. Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .323a .104 .086 3.61429a. Predictors: (Constant), Jobsatisfaction b. Dependent Variable: TurnoverIntentions

T TestA T-Test was also conducted to check for significant difference in Job satisfaction levels between male and female employees in Sore Operations in the Retail industry in NCR.

H0: There is no significant difference in Job satisfaction levels between male and female employees in Store operations.

H1: There is significant difference in Job satisfaction levels between male and female employees in Store operations.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare Job Satisfaction levels between male and female employees. It was seen that there was no significant difference in score for male (Mean = 41.1351, Sd. = 12.48) and female (Mean = 41.64, Sd. = 11.81; p = 0.89). Thus it was seen that the company is not discriminating in terms of pay policies and procedures in case of male and female employees in the Retail sector and therefore, the pay satisfaction levels for bot male and female employees are similar.

Conclusion

Thus from the research it is seen that for Retail Store Operations in Delhi and National Capital Region, Organisational Justice (in terms of Reward) ie Distributive and Procedural Justice) has an impact on Job Satisfaction which further impacts and could be ascribed as one of the reasons for high attrition. From regression analysis, it was seen that 73% of the variation in Job satisfaction can be explained by Organisational Justice ie Procedural and Distributive Justice in terms of Financial and non financial rewards and benefits. A correlation between Reward and Organisational Justice, Reward, Organisational Justice and Job Satisfaction and Reward, Organisational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions has been established. However, in addition there could be other reasons such as challenging work role, development opportunities, supervisor’s role etc which could also be the reason for the high attrition rates and the same needs to be further researched. The Management of Retail Companies need to ensure that Rewards (Financial and Non financial) and benefits are a true reflection of performance and should be based on productivity levels. They also need to focus on the fact that pay policies are transparent and fair and are communicated quickly and clearly to employees. It is important that the Retail Companies understand that Rewards (financial, non financial) and benefits received should be suitable in comparison to referent others (in the same company and other companies in the


Retail industry), achieving targets should lead to good financial payouts and non financial rewards and recognition. These independent factors put together affect Job satisfaction levels in terms of Pay which in turn impacts absenteeism and attrition rates in the Retail industry. It is interesting to see that there is no difference in Job satisfaction levels between male and female employees which works in favor of Store Operations management. It also needs to be kept in mind that the study was limited to Delhi and the National Capital Region only and it was focused on entry level and Junior management of Retail Store Operations. Thus, its application for senior management level would need to be further investigated.

References [1] Aggarwal R.K. and Samwick A. (Aug 2003), “Performance Incentives within Firms; The Effect of

Managerial Responsibility”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. LVIII, No. 4. [2] Bergmann T.J. and Scarpello V.G. (2001), Compensation Decision Making, 4th Ed., Harcourt, Fort Worth,

TX. [3] Bhatnagar J. (2008), “Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES employees: key

to retention”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2007, pp. 640-663. [4] Cooke E. (1999), “Control and Motivation in sales management through Compensation Plan”, Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, pp. 80-83. [5] Gerhart B., Milkovich G.T. (1992), Employee Compensation: Research and Practice, Handbook of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, 2nd Ed., Vol. 3, pp. 481-569. [6] Griffeth, R.W. and Hom, P.W. (1995), The employee turnover process. In M. Rowland & R. Ferris (Eds.),

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 245-293. [7] Heneman, H.G. and Judge, T.A. (2000), Incentives and motivation. In S. Rynes & B. Gerhart (Eds.),

Compensation in Organizations: Progress and Prospects, San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press, pp. 61–103

[8] Heneman III, H.G. and Schwab D.P. (1985), “Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement”, International Journal of Psychology, 20, 129-141

[9] Ibrahim II and Boerhaneoddin A.A. (2010), “Is job satisfaction mediating the relationship between compensation structure and organizational commitment? A study in the Malaysian Power Utility”, Journal of Global Business and Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1.

[10] Igalens J. and Roussel P. (1999), “A study of the relationships between compensation package, work motivation and job satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 7, p. 1003.

[11] Lawler III E.E. (1964), Managers job performance and their attitude towards their pay, PhD thesis, University of Calfornia, Berkeley CA.

[12] Locke E.A. (1976), The nature and causes of job satisfaction, In Dunette Md(Ed), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1297-1349.

[13] Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2002), “Employee engagement and manager self efficacy: implications for managerial effectiveness and development”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-87.

[14] Milkovich, G.T. and Newman J.M. (2005), Compensation, 8th Ed: McGraw-Hill.[15] Motowildo, S.J. (1982), “Relationship between self-rated performance and pay satisfaction among sales

representatives”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, pp. 209-213.[16] Nohria N., Groysberg B. and Lee L. (2008), “Employee Motivation A Powerful New Model”, Harvard

Business Review, July–August.[17] Omar O.E. and Ogenyi V.O. (2006), “Determinants of pay satisfaction of senior managers in the Nigerian

Civil Service”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 687-701.


[18] Ostroff, C. (1992), “The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An organisational level analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963-74.

[19] Petrescu A.I. and Simmons R. (2008), “Human resource management practices and workers’ job Satisfaction”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 651-667.

[20] Poornima S. (2009), “Motivating Through Satisfaction: An Ongoing Effort of HR in Organizations”, The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. 28 VIII, No. 5.

[21] Rahman T. (February 2012), “Organised Retail Industry in India – Opportunities and Challenges”, International Journal of Research in Finance & Marketing, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 82-94.

[22] Ramaswami S. and Singh J. (October 2003), “Antecedents and Consequences of Merit Pay Fairness for Industrial Sales People”, Journal of Marketing, pp. 46-66.

[23] Renk, K. (2010), Incentive Marketing Association.[24] Sak, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial

Psychology, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 600-619.[25] Salimaki A. and Jamsen S. (2009), “Perceptions of politics and fairness in merit pay”, Journal of Managerial

Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2010, pp. 229-251.[26] Singh B.D. and Mishra S. (2008), “Indian Retail Sector-HR Challenges and Measures for Improvement”,

Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, July, Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources.[27] Smythe, J. (2008), “Engaging employees to drive performance”, Communication World, Vol. 25, No. 3,

pp. 20-2.[28] Tekleab, A.G., Bartol, K.M. and Liu, W. (2005), “Is it pay levels or pay raises that matter to fairness and

turnover?” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp. 899–921.[29] Tremblay, M., Sire, B. and Balkin, D.B. (2000), “The role of organizational justice in pay and employee

benefits satisfaction, and its effects on work attitudes”, Group and Organization Management, 25, pp. 269–290.

[30] Vandenberghe C. and Tremblay V. (2008), “The Role of Pay Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Turnover Intentions: A Two-Sample Study”, J. Bus. Psychol., 22, pp. 275–286.

Documents

89-277-1-PB