Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
The major reason of grabbing the individuals to work in a team (as compared to
individual-pay plan system) promotes the exchange of ideas and knowledge and enhances the
organizational learning rather than supporting competition among the employees, which can
cease the flow of innovation suggestions and also can direct to erroneous or false information.
Distribution of rewards among the team members on the basis of equality may boost adherence
and solidarity of the group members comparatively differential allotment of incentives based on
an employees performance may maximize the overall performance and efficiency of the team.
As the resources available to an individual are limited, so the structure and procedure of the
allocation of rewards has a undeviating impact on the tendency of an employees individual job
satisfaction, effort and performance. Many researches and motivational theories declare that
group members attain a higher degree of efficacy to social behaviors in an equality based reward
system relative to equity based allocation compensation plans. With reference to many
distribution strategies and prior studies, it is observed that the equitably distributed reward within
a team leads to a greater degree of performance than the equally based rewards distribution
system. As the team work is becoming more important with the passage of time, the
organizations are facing the challenge to answer the question that which reward system should be
the best to compensate the team members and that does not affect the job satisfaction of the
members in a negative aspect. Two factors have a significant impact on team performance: 1.
the timing of the rewards and 2. The distribution of rewards among the team members. The
dissemination strategy of rewards has a direct impact on the motivational and satisfaction levels
of the employees. Team members have different acceptance level towards cooperative and
competitive situations; they rejoice equally distributed rewards in cooperative situation whereas
in competitive situation their standing may be dissimilar.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

1.2 Problem Statement

There are a number of confrontations faced by an organization associated with the morale
and the job satisfaction of the employees, which are directly have an strong impact on the
overall performance and efficiency of the company. Therefore, it is a requirement for the
organizations to recognize and prioritize the significance of an individual employees job
satisfaction and the importance of monetary incentives to not only attracts but also to retain
quality employees by encouraging their motivational level at workplace. The management can
enhance an individual performance by the fair distribution of rewards among employees. This
thesis will study the relationship between team reward system and job satisfaction of employees
and the impact of implementing different types of team reward system on the team members job
satisfaction. The problem statement is To determine the impact of different reward distribution
strategies among the team members on the job satisfaction.

1.3 Hypotheses
The unfair distribution of monetary incentives may leads to the dissatisfaction of job
among the team members. To discover the relationship of the type, mode of a team incentive
plan and job satisfaction of the employees within a team, we assume that:
Ho: There is no relationship between team compensation plan and job satisfaction.
HoA: There is a significant relationship between team compensation plan and job satisfaction.
H1: Equally based reward system has no relationship with job satisfaction of the team members.
H1A: Equally based reward system has a significant relationship with job satisfaction of the team
members.
H2: Equity based reward system has no relationship with job satisfaction of the team members.
H2A: Equity based reward system has a significant relationship with job satisfaction of the team
members.

1.4 Outline of the Study

The purpose of conducting this thesis was to gauge the effect of the structure and type of
an incentive plan follows by an organization on the job satisfaction of the employees who work
in a team to achieve an assigned task. This thesis includes the following five chapters:

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Chapter One entails a brief synopsis of the area of study, along with the purpose of conducting
the research, problem statement, hypotheses as well as the definitions of the independent and
dependent variables of the study.
Chapter Two includes prior investigations and statements on the topic are reviewed and
discussed in this portion to support the study with a strong theoretical background.
Third chapter consists of the detailed research plan which elaborates the primary and the
secondary data involved in gathering the required information to complete the investigation as
well as brief discussion over the research model and the statistical techniques utilized to search
out the result
Chapter Four contains results which present the analysis of gathered data and the research
findings of this study, obtained through the primary data collected by the structured
questionnaire. Hence, interpretations of the statistical results and the tables shown the outcomes
generated through SPSS 17 are given in this section.
In the last segment of the study, the conclusion obtained from the findings of the analyzed data is
stated and it also provides more clarifications on the topic Relationship of a team incentive plan
and job satisfaction of the employees. Furthermore, research implications and
recommendations for further research are also suggested and illustrated in this part.

1.5 Definitions
Following are the definitions of the dependent and independent variables involved in the
research model; hence it will be helpful for the reader in better understanding of each variable
individually.
A Team: A group of employees with a complete set of interrelating skills required to accomplish
a task, or project. Team members (1) perform with a high amplitude of liaison, (2) are
responsible for the aggregate performance, and (3) make efforts to achieve a common goal and
shared rewards. (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/team.html)

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Job-Satisfaction: The degree to which team members are gratified with the opportunities given
to them to use their skills and the degree to which they consider the job to be a worthwhile to
enhance their career and the rewards that are receiving by them are justifiable to their
participation.
Equally Based Rewards: The degree to which the team members awarded by the incentives
uniformly.
Equity Based Rewards: The extent to which rewards are distributed on an employees
individual performance within a team.

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Zobal (1998) have written that to organize business now a days teams are very known
way of doing things in order to be very responsive in fast moving business world. And emerging
way to reinforce and back team system is a compensation plan or compensation system but sadly
the traditional way is just opposite and follows individual based system for compensation.
Because the design of these systems is based on Theory X-businesses which are very ineffective
and even destructive in teams and collaborative environment of work place. Therefore people
have started looking for ways in which they can compensate people who are part of teams. But it
has been suggested that teams should be paid on customization basis where every team should be
viewed as a separate identity. And before everything else organizations should understand and
check the framework where the compensation system is going to be applied which includes the
information of organizational structure, clear understanding of the business strategy organization
is following, the management system of performance. Then a company should take information
in to their consideration regarding critical elements and other considerations of operations.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Where the critical elements consist of points like what is the organizations level of focus on
individual based plan or team based plan and a combination of each. The other critical element
is, what is the relationship of different variables on the performance of employees where variable
can be a base pay or other financial reward. On the other hand operational considerations include
what is the each and every specific compensation element and what is the reason behind it, what
are the most suitable way of measures and how are they suitable, what will be the impact of
Raters and Ratees and who will perform these ratings for whom.
The reasons of teams failure in an organization is its outmoded formation of incentive plans.
Sarin and Mahajan (2001) quoted that the most productive reward structure in enhancing teams
performance is that which provides lowest risk to the team.
Barua, Lee and Whinston (1995) stated that as the team work is becoming more important with
the passage of time, the organizations are facing the challenge to answer the question that which
rewards system should be the best to compensate the team members and that does not affect the
job satisfaction of the members in a negative aspect.
Hoffman and Rogelberg (1998) quoted that an incentive system conveys the message to
employees that to what extent a teams efficiency is important and admired by the organization.
There is a strong association between the outcome interdependency and the cooperation level
among the team members (Bamberger and Levi, 2008).Experts also indicate a primary strong
link between the type of team incentive system and the effectiveness of the team (Stewart and
Barrick, 2000).

DeMatteo, Eby and Sundstrom (1998) argued that prior researches enlighten certain facts
regarding team-based rewards: the first thing is the mode of the distribution of team rewards

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

either on the basis of equality, with all members getting equal incentives or on equity, with
members acquiring according to their participation and effort level. Incentive systems are major
tools to enhance a firms efficacy and performance by influencing individual and team behavior.
Studies also stated that it is very hard for a supervisor to recognize the performance of an
individual without getting the influence of other employees of the group (Kyzlinkov,
Dokulilov, and Kroupa, 2007). Findings suggest that the performances of employees may be
evaluated and measured more correctly at the team level rather than on individual basis.
Rack, Ellwart, Hertel and Konradt (2011) demonstrated that most of the working environments
contain a variable rewarding system for its employees. In such cases, the rewards given to the
employees depend on the quality work they put in and their contribution towards the main goal
of the team. The significance of the above mentioned team-based rewards has reached
historically high levels in the last few decades. From a multi-tiered organizations point of view,
team-based rewards are far more effective and beneficial. And the main reason for their
preferences of such a system is that it promotes exchange of information among the members of
a team. Instead of enhancing just normal competition, it stimulates the will to learn from the
group members, which is a huge advantage to have in this day and age.
Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, and Ilgen (2003) commented that the biggest
component of the rewards-based system is monetary compensation. There is almost no doubt that
varying the employee remuneration results in greater overall productivity. For example, a
collective study of thirty nine researches showed that monetary incentives increase the quality of
work when the employees productivity is measured in quantitative units.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Another important point to mention here is that it is not necessary that the equal distribution of
team-based rewards leads to better performance. In fact, the general belief in the prevalent
society is that the equitable distribution is better for an organization in the long-run, when
compared to the equally distributed rewarding system.
Shaw, Duffy and Stark (2001) quoted that almost all of the projects in an organization involve a
team-risk. A team is a congregation and cooperation of individuals who put in their efforts to
complete the given tasks and to achieve a common and shared goal.
Giacobbe-Miller, Miller and Zhang (1997) declared that if a team is assigned a task, then
subsequently, on completion of the project on allotted, their work would be appraised and
rewarded accordingly by the organization. Reward systems are one of the main reasons of
choosing an individual to be part of a project. So to derive the maximum output out of an
individual, reward-system should be devised such to provide the best possible incentive plan
which motivates the individuals and indirectly the team. To compose an incentive system for a
group, the management needs to consider the characteristics and attitude of the individuals
towards the team work. Different individuals would have different point of views; although they
would be part of the same team. In accordance with difference on thoughts of reward- systems
should not be surprising at all.
An individual who thinks himself as of high performance is likely to believe himself of being
superior to rest of the colleagues and so he would expect reward system to be equity based,
which recognize his personal efforts in the completion of a project. In the other hand, individuals
with low performance capabilities would prefer a reward system which is based on equality,
where each of the members would be treated equally and would be appreciated as a team.
Some of the studies, conducted in the past show that high performing members fancy to work
individually when teams are, rewarded on equality basis. While, studies also demonstrate that

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

those individuals who have had a positive experience working as a team in part tend to have
assertive attitudes towards team-based rewards.
Hamilton, Nickerson and Owan (2003) stated that the employees with low skills could anticipate
that tie up themselves in a team with higher- skilled workers can increase their compensation,
while the employees with high aptitude would expect contrarily. This contradiction develops an
immense problem of choosing the members of a team.
Rack et al. (2011) argued that equitably division of rewards causes better output than the rewards
distributed on the basis of equality. Equity theory raises the effort and efficacy level of confident
workers that this type or scheme of incentive plans could be beneficial for them. Individuals with
low self-esteem and ability have low probability to be positive towards equity based reward
systems. Even, they might attain a higher level of performance under the equality principle.
Equally distributed rewards impose and maintain a higher degree of collaboration in
communication and also attain a superior level of satisfaction than equitably scheme of incentive
plans.
Weisberg (1996) revealed that the group scheme may cause the failure of the worker to observe
their own participation in achieving the entire goal. This may discourage them to exhibit the full
efforts towards team work.
Many teams success lies behind the use of team-based organization performance model. It
tremendously benefits a team in solving countless detracting issues such as composition, hitting
the right target, responsibility, trustworthy bridging between two ends, easy to centralize the
body, making efforts to achieve organizations ambition and its obligated fashion, holding the
possession and being a part of the organization's function, affairs related power and mastery,
structuring, accomplishing velvety and texture in organization's execution, outcome, the picture

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

that an organization creates on its applicant; and the spirit , the potential that begins and remains
the organization in a long run, and the range it has to acquire more information and take over,
which are up in the air.
Forrester and Drexler (1999) highlighted these points and provided comprehensive information
with organizational scenarios, scrutinizing the ways to own them, and characterizing faults that
some organizations attempt and also the path that repeal them. They also furnished the elevated
vision of the essential features and their connections. However the team-based organization
performance model not only underlines that a team must be an organizations substantial, on the
other hand it might be sentenced that when an organization reflects team-based working,
numerous primal requirements are acquired and provides work with expertise is attained. As
reflected by prior literature, teams are more fruitful under certain circumstances. When a verity
of work awaits and rate of activity starts playing a vital role, and accelerates dynamic market
environment; when conception and learning is essential. When organization laid on team base
structure for such reasons or others, the team-based organization performance model acts as a
mean of self-management.
Beel (2007) concluded that an effective group based incentive plan tremendously strengthens the
organizational progress, bridging between managers and employees resulting a great
understanding and bringing multiple visions to a single opinion that is focusing on an
organizational growth. Usually high performers prefer to work on individual bases.
DeMatteo et al. (1998) quoted that the main supposition in implementing team reward system is
that such incentive plan will arise something qualitatively dissimilar outcomes than individual
incentives. Group-based pay plan may grab the presence of cooperation on the team-level
practices. Such behavioral change in employees tends to lead the working environment to the

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

10

smooth mode and this ultimately improves the efficiency of the entire organization. He also
stated that the presence of free riders in a team may dishearten the high performing workers of
the similar group. People expect that the social accord and compatibility may arise by following
the allocation of equally-based incentive in an organization. While, equity-based reward systems
may maximize the performance and effort level. The kind of a team incentive plan which adopts
by an organization also depends on the type and structure of a team.
Giacobbe-Miller et al. (1997) in their article related the efforts to motivate the employees while
improving the pay schemes. They completely focused on the high productivity, which is to some
extend dependent on the salary package one is provided with. An activity was conducted to
measure the proper justice in the pay. Many Chinese and US managers have to divide the
expected bonus among the workers of a group. It proved to be beneficial in three ways. Firstly
this activity not only catches the ethical actions but also did the forecasting on the truly existing
actions. Secondly, it also improved the external strengths and foundations. And lastly this activity
acknowledged collective principles of behavior or axiom on the distribution policy of wages.
Result came and it was concluded that honesty and equality plays a vital role in the Chinese
culture to make decisions. The best and the most considered standard according to the Chinese
was honesty or equity through which they use in make decisions. It is being well known that in
China they consider human as a great asset, plus they have the largest number of employees
present, maybe because China have the ability to do fair dealing in the terms of salary packages.
The more an individual works the more pay he gets and the more increase in productivity occurs.
China is well creative and has the pleasant mind of accomplishment in their goals, just because
they are concern about the incentives and compensation of every worker. They provide job

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

11

security and with every passing minute they are improving the benefits system, so that they can
gain more productivity.
Henderson and Fredrickson (2001) stated that uneven distribution of the money paid for work,
created a feeling of denial among the working class. Economists are also trying to figure out that
what scale they should measure the team work .It is really a tough job to make a distinction
between individuals who are trying to achieve same objectives, while working in a group. This
article examined the differences in the pay rate of the senior post employees, example CEO.
Theories such as tournament and behavioral are still trying to sort out this unequal salary query.
Basically there are two reasons for this distress; one is the differences in the pay scale of the top
level workers and the lower level workers. Secondly the power to act, the expertise differ from
one to another. Its simple to measure the inequality in the pay rather than measuring the
efficiency of an individual.
A very interesting observance of Lazear and Rosen is that when a person gets promotion, his
salary increases, but whats the clue that his ability have increased too? This study concluded that
social, political factors and market plays a vital role in the different rates of pay. Whereas the
pressure remains there in the firm economic and behavioral aspects.
Brown (1995) concluded that the interaction of group based incentive plans and team work in a
mutual reinforcement manner can produce an extravagant performance. DeMatteo et al. (1998)
acknowledged that according to the Expectancy Theory, there can be an increase in performance
only if an employee observes the connection between participation, performance and the
outcome. This link is quite complex to identify.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

12

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS

The research methods basically expose the methods & procedures that were undergone in
order to accumulate relevant information required to acquire the results.

3.1 Method of data collection:

The research is purely non-parametric thats why primary data and secondary (articles
and previous research papers) used to accomplish the objective. The secondary data assisted the
thesis by previous research papers that were beneficial in making the model and hypothesis and
in indicating the related variables. Primary data was collected through a structured close ended
questionnaire from certain organizations located in Karachi. The questionnaire was purely
designed to identify the responses of the employees towards the implementation of different
techniques of distributing incentives among the team members.

3.2 Sampling Technique:

The equal probability selection method (EPSM) was utilized as a sampling technique to
gather the required set of information from the respondents. The sample was selected from the
population of the companies located in Karachi which operate the work in teams and apply
different types of compensation plans to remunerate them; the respondents were contacted on
random basis to fill the questionnaire.

3.3 Sample Size:

287 respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire as the sample size of the research.
Mainly, the employees of certain departments who usually get team incentives were targeted e.g.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

13

Call Centers, Sales Force, Project based teams, Cross Functional Product Development teams
etc.

3.4 Instruments of Data Collection:

Structured closed ended questionnaire was the instrument of collecting the primary data.
Secondary data was collected through the internet, articles and books. The survey noticeably
contained the questions that grab the perceptions of the respondents towards the structure of the
distribution of monetary incentives among the group members.

3.5 Research Model Developed:

The following conceptual framework was developed on the basis of the literature review
in Chapter 2. The given model for the study consists of Job Satisfaction as the independent
variable as it can be easily influenced by all the declared dependent variables.
J
E
o
q
b
u
i
a
S
t
l
a
y
i
t
i
B
y
s
a
f
s
B
e
a
c
d
s
t
e
i
R
d
o
e
n
w
R
a
e
r
w
d
a
s
r
d
s

Figure 3.1 (Research Model)

Variables Studied in the presented thesis are as follows:
Independent Variables:
1. Equally Based Rewards
2. Equity Based Rewards
Dependent Variable:
1. Job satisfaction

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

14

3.6 Statistical Technique

As the research is based upon assessing the relationship between the dependant and
independent variables, so, Multiple Regression was deemed as the most appropriate statistical
technique to test the proposed hypotheses, using the SPSS software. All the variables developed
via questionnaire were categorical (i.e. Nominal or Ordinal).

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
4.1 Findings and Interpretation of the results
To test the hypotheses, the data collected via questionnaires of the sample size 287 was
entered on SPSS 17.0, and to gauge the relationship between the types of a team incentive plan
and the level of job satisfaction, Multiple Linear Regression was applied on the figures.
Table 4.1
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases

Valid

%
102

35.5

Excluded

185

64.5

Total

287

100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

15

Total numbers of observations are taken 287 where 102 are valid and remaining are excluded,
because respondents can respond by selecting one option from the two given choices in the
structured questionnaire.
Table 4.2
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.778

18

Reliability Analysis of the data is to inquire and determine the variations among the answers of
the respondents. Here Cronbach's Alpha is .778 which means we have targeted 77.8 % of the
sample size.
And the reliability test is accepted due to Cronbachs Alpha which is greater than 0.6 which
means 60%.
Table 4.3
Variables Entered/Removed
Variables
Model
1

Variables

Entered

Removed

Equity, Equality

Method
. Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

First two dummy independent variables that is Equity and Equality were introduced in the above
shown table to separate these variables from the factors Cooperation and Competition.
Table 4.4
Model Summary
Model
1

R Square
.083

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.007

a. Predictors: (Constant), Equity, Equality

.000

.66980

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Then, Multiple Regression was applied to analyze the data and to verify the acceptance of the
proposed hypothesis.

Table 4.5

ANOVAb
Model
1

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

.893

.447

Residual

127.410

284

.449

Total

128.303

286

Sig.
.995

.371a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Equity, Equality

b. Dependent Variable: Job_Satisfaction

As Sig Value is greater than 0.05, ANOVA is rejected. It means that there is no impact of these
variables on the job satisfaction level.
In both model, the level of job satisfaction is same. It can be either high or low, but both the
variables have no impact on the degree of job satisfaction of the team members.

16

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

17

Table 4.6
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Coefficients

Std. Error

(Constant)

3.667

.117

Equality

-.044

.093

Equity

-.134

.095

Beta

Sig.

31.445

.000

-.031

-.478

.633

-.091

-1.408

.160

a. Dependent Variable: Job_Satisfaction

Analysis is done to check the impact of Equity and Equality on the level of job satisfaction. The
above table shows that both the dummy variables (Equity and Equality) have the Sig Value is
greater than 0.05, which directly accept the proposed hypotheses. It also states that there is no
impact of Equity or Equality based rewards on the job satisfaction level.

4.2 Hypothesis Assessment Summary

Following are the evaluation of the proposed hypotheses on the basis of the
empirical evidences.
Table 4.7
Hypotheses

Criterion

Sig. Value

Empirical Conclusion

Ho: There is no relationship

Multiple Linear

0.371

As Sig Value > 0.05,

Proposed hypothesis has

between team compensation plan

Regression
accepted.

and job satisfaction.

H1: Equally based reward system

Multiple Linear

has no relationship with job

Regression

satisfaction of the team

members.

0.633

Hypothesis Accepted.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

H2: Equity based reward system

Multiple Linear

has no relationship with job

Regression

0.160

18

Hypothesis Accepted.

satisfaction of the team

members.

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSIONS,

IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
5.1 Conclusions
The core object of the research was to investigate the association between the modes of a
compensation plan used for the distribution of incentives among the team members and the
degree of job satisfaction attained by the group members. To analyze the relationship, primary
data were collected through a structured questionnaire filled by a sample size of 287. In which
employees work in a team and get team incentives are mainly targeted. After assessing the data
through the statistical tool SPSS, it has concluded that there is no relationship between the
structure of a team incentive plan and the job satisfaction of the team members. In both the

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

19

examined types of the team compensation plan, which are Equity and Equality, the extent of job
satisfaction acquire by the employees is same. It can either be high or low, but the structure of a
pay plan is not the reason of obtaining a high or facing a low level of job satisfaction among the
employees.

5.2 Discussions
Reward systems consider as one of the core lining up component, which an organization
has to deal with, to lucratively utilize the team structures. Human resource management experts
often argue that work in team are not relatively productive unless accompanied with a legitimate
and justifiable team-based compensation plan, as individual performance can undermine team
fortitude. An employees individual performance can increase the productivity of the company as
a whole which can directly enhance the financial performance and the overall efficiency of the
organization. It has become vital for the organizations to formulate and select an appropriate pay
plan to get a high level of job satisfaction among the employees. It has determined through this
study that the mode a reward system has no impact on the amplitude of the job satisfaction of the
employees. It can be either high or low by implementing any type of a compensation plan, but
the degree of the satisfaction remains same.

5.3 Implications and Recommendations

The results of the study can help the organizations to identify the best rewards systems to
compensate a team to get the highest level of job satisfaction among the employees. The Human
Resource Departments and Managers can utilize the research to determine the impact of a reward
system on job satisfaction of employees (within a team). The end results of the research can help

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

20

the organizations to evaluate the facts regarding the implementation of different methods of
rewarding a team and their impact on the job satisfaction level.

5.4 Future Research

The present thesis has opened the ways to the related phenomenon of the reward system.
As it has concluded from the findings that there is no relationship between a team compensation
and job satisfaction, so using the current research model further research can be done with the
analysis of the other factors that can be the reason of increase or decrease in the level of job
satisfaction of the group members.

References
Bamberger, P. A., & Levi, R. (2009). Team-based reward allocation structures and the helping
behaviors of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (4),
300-327.
Barua, A., Sophie Lee, C. H., & Whinston, A. B. (1995). Incentives and Computing Systems for
Team-Based Organizations. Organization Science, 6 (4), 487-504.
Beel, J. (2007). Project Team Rewards - Rewarding and Motivating your Project Team. USA:
CreateSpace LLC, Part of the Amazon.com group of companies.
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R.
(2003). Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.
The Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5), 572-590.
Brown, D. L. (1995). Team-based reward plans. TEAM PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AN
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 1 (1), 23-31.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

21

DeMatteo, J. S., Eby, L. T., & Sundstrom, E. (1998). Team Based Rewards: Current Empirical
Evidence and Directions for Future Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 141183.
Forrester, R., & Drexler, A. B. (1999). A Model for Team-Based Organization Performance. The
Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005), 13 ( 3), 36-49.
Giacobbe-Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J., & Zhang, W. (1997). Equity, equality and need as
determinants of pay allocation - A comparative study of Chinese and US managers. Employee
Relations, 19 (4), 309-320.
Hamilton, B. H., Nickerson, J. A., & Owan, H. (2003). Team Incentives and Worker
Heterogeneity: An Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Teams on Productivity and Participation.
Journal of Political Economy, 111 (3), 465-497.
Hoffman, J. R., & Rogelberg, S. G. (1998). A guide to team incentive. Team Performance
Management, 4 (1), 23-32.
Kyzlinkov, R., Dokulilov, L., & Kroupa, A. (2007). Teamwork and high performance work.
Ireland: European Foundation forthe Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Nickel, J.E. & ONeal, S. (1990), Small Group Incentives: Gain sharing in the Microsm. In
Compensation and Benefits Review, 22 (2), 22- 29.
Rack, O., Ellwart, T., Hertel, G., & Konradt, U. (2011). Team-based rewards in computermediated groups. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26 (5), 419-438.
Sarin, S., & Mahajan, V. (2001). The Effect of Reward Structures on the Performance of CrossFunctional Product Development Teams. Journal of Marketing, 65, 35-53.
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2003). Team Reward Attitude: Construct
Development and Initial Validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (8), 903-917.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the
Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type. The Academy of
Management Journal, 43 (2), 135-148.
Weisberg, J. (1996). Differential teamwork performance: The impact of general and specific
human capital levels. International Journal of Manpower, 18-29.
Zenger, T. R., & Marshall, C. R. (2000). Determinants of Incentive Intensity in Group-Based
Rewards. The Academy of Management Journal, 149-163.

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

22

Zobal, C. (1998). The ideal team compensation system an overview: Part I. Team
Performance Management, 4 (5), 235-249.

Appendix
SURVEY FORM
Strongly
Agree
1.
2.

You work in a team that has a common goal to be

achieved.
Your organization executes following practice to reward
your team.
A.All members get equal shares of profit.
B.Everyone gets the share according to their
contribution and performance.

4.

You are satisfied with the incentive plan which your

organization follows to reward your team.
You achieve your desired target frequently.

5.

You prefer following among the members of a team.

3.

A.Cooperation
B.Competition

6.
7.

You are satisfied with a team-based way of working.

In your current pay plan, you have good opportunities to

Agree

Moderate

Disagree Strongly
Disagree

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

8.
9.
10.
11.

get additional bonuses.

Task interdependency affects the overall team work.
You are satisfied with the compensation plan which your
organization follows.
Current reward system practicing by your company
enhances an individuals productivity.
Ease of recognition of an individuals performance is
high in the system which you follow.
Name
____________________________________
Gender
No of Years completed
Less than 1 year
1-5 years
6-10 years
Above 10 years

Variable view

Male

Female

23

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Data view

24

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

25

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N
Cases

Valid

102

35.5

Excludeda

185

64.5

Total

287

100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

.778

18

Regression

Variables Entered/Removed
Model
1

Variables

Variables

Entered

Removed

Equity, Equalitya

a. All requested variables entered.

Method
. Enter

26

Relationship between Team Incentive Plans and Job Satisfaction

Model Summary
Model

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

R Square
.083a

Adjusted R

.007

.000

.66980

a. Predictors: (Constant), Equity, Equality

ANOVAb
Model
1

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

.893

.447

Residual

127.410

284

.449

Total

128.303

286

Sig.
.995

.371a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Equity, Equality

b. Dependent Variable: Job_Satisfaction

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients
Model
1

Std. Error

(Constant)

3.667

.117

Equality

-.044

.093

Equity

-.134

.095

a. Dependent Variable: Job_Satisfaction

Coefficients
Beta

Sig.

31.445

.000

-.031

-.478

.633

-.091

-1.408

.160

27