The Power of Workplace Rewards

Anais Thibault Landry; A.V.  Whillans

Article | Compensation & Benefits Review | June 2018

The Power of Workplace Rewards: Using Self-Determination Theory to Understand Why Reward Satisfaction Matters for Workers Around the World

by Anais Thibault Landry and A.V. Whillans

Abstract

How can workplace rewards promote employee well-being and engagement? To answer these questions, we utilized self-determination theory to examine whether reward satisfaction predicted employee well-being, job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and affective commitment, as well as valuable organizational outcomes, such as workplace contribution and loyalty. Specifically, we investigated the role of three universal psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—in explaining whether and why reward satisfaction matters for employees’ well-being. We tested our model in a large, cross-sectional study with full-time employees working for multinational corporations in six main world regions: Asia, Europe, India, Latin America, North America, and Oceania (N = 5,852). Consistent with our theorizing, we found cross-cultural evidence that reward satisfaction promoted greater employee functioning through psychological need satisfaction, contributing to better organizational outcomes. Critically, our results were consistent regardless of geographic location. As such, this study provides some of the strongest evidence to date for the power of understanding psychological mechanisms in the workplace: Regardless of the actual rewards that employees received, how workplace rewards made employees feel significantly predicted their optimal functioning.

Keywords: workplace; rewards; motivation; Employees; Satisfaction; Motivation and Incentives; Welfare or Wellbeing;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now Purchase

Citation:

Landry, Anais Thibault, and A.V. Whillans. "The Power of Workplace Rewards: Using Self-Determination Theory to Understand Why Reward Satisfaction Matters for Workers Around the World." Compensation & Benefits Review 50, no. 3 (June 2018): 123–148.

There is a growing debate about whether high-income individuals are more or less generous when income inequality is high. We advance this ongoing conversation by analysing a large and comprehensive data set with approximately one million respondents from 140 countries. In this data set, higher-income individuals who live in countries with greater income inequality are less likely to donate money to charity and are more likely to volunteer than their lower-income counterparts. Higher-income individuals who feel financially insecure or show distrust of others are especially unlikely to donate money to charity under high income inequality. These moderators do not influence rates of volunteering. Together, these results advance the debate regarding whether and when inequality shapes prosocial behaviour.

Over the last two decades, global wealth has risen. Yet, material affluence has not translated into time affluence. Instead, most people today report feeling persistently “time poor”—like they have too many things to do and not enough time to do them. This is critical because time poverty is linked to lower well-being, physical health, and productivity. For example, in our analysis of 2.5 million Americans, subjective feelings of time poverty had a stronger negative effect on well-being than being unemployed. However, individuals, organisations, and policymakers often overlook the pernicious effects of time poverty. Billions of dollars are spent each year to alleviate material poverty, while time poverty is often ignored or exacerbated. In this Perspective, we discuss the organisational, institutional, and psychological factors that explain why time poverty is often under appreciated. We argue that scientists, policymakers, and organisational leaders need to devote more attention and resources toward understanding and reducing time poverty to promote psychological and economic well-being.

Conventional wisdom says you should ask your colleagues for feedback. However, research suggests that feedback often has no (or even a negative) impact on our performance. This is because the feedback we receive is often too vague—it fails to highlight what we can improve on or how to improve. New research suggests a better approach. Across four experiments—including a field experiment conducted in an executive education classroom—researchers found that people received more effective input when they asked for advice rather than feedback.

Faculty & Research

The Power of Workplace Rewards: Using Self-Determination Theory to Understand Why Reward Satisfaction Matters for Workers Around the World

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author