Financial rewards alone will not increase job performance and satisfaction

A study into the relationship between rewards, job satisfaction and performance

26 April 2012

Dennis Bours, Dpbours@yahoo.com

BSM023 Managing People (B), RGU

Page 2 of 22

- This page was intentionally left blank for double-sided printing -

Page 3 of 22

Executive Summary

The historical idea that job satisfaction is related to job performance dates back to the early days of

industrial psychology. The British are the second most dissatisfied employees in Europe, though Britain has

not been marked by Europe’s lowest industrial performance figures. The aim of this study was to review the

relationship between financial and non-financial rewards, job satisfaction and job performance.

This study rejects there is a direct job satisfaction-performance relationship. It is plausible that financial

rewards alone will not increase job performance, though research taking place in a developing economic

environment with possible concerns of economic stability finds that financial rewards alone do increase

performance under such circumstances.

It is plausible that financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy,

including non-financial rewards, though not accepted on the basis of the research being reviewed for this

study.

Page 4 of 22

- This page was intentionally left blank for double-sided printing -

Page 5 of 22

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Report aim ........................................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Research methodology ......................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Report structure ................................................................................................................................... 8

2. Job satisfaction and job performance ......................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Satisfaction and employee engagement ............................................................................................. 10

2.2 Job performance ................................................................................................................................ 12

3. Financial vs non-financial rewards ............................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Financial rewards ............................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Non-financial rewards ........................................................................................................................ 14

4. Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................. 16

5. Concluding remarks and recommendations ............................................................................................. 19

References................................................................................................................................................... 20

Page 6 of 22

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 2.1: Possible relationships between Job Satisfaction (JS) and Job Performance (JP) ............................. 9

Figure 2.2: Drivers to and elements of engagement ..................................................................................... 10

Figure 2.3: Employee engagement ............................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4.1: Possible relationships between constructs ................................................................................. 16

Figure 4.2: Financial rewards as a single moderating variable....................................................................... 17

Figure 4.3: Possible relationships between rewards, engagement and performance .................................... 18

Table 2.1: Estimated Effect Sizes for the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship .......................................... 10

Table 3.1: Financial and non-financial rewards ............................................................................................. 13

Page 7 of 22

1. Introduction

This study’s subject matter is: “financial rewards alone will not increase job performance and satisfaction”.1

The idea that job satisfaction is related to job performance dates back to the early days of Industrial

Psychology (Kornhauser and Sharp 1932, as stated in Wright 2006). Psychology Professor Mihaly

Csikszentmihalyi (1991) asserts: “An organization whose employees are happy is more productive, has a

higher morale, and has a lower turnover”. Kay (1996) and Lumesse (2011) state the British are the second

most dissatisfied employees in Europe, though Britain hasn’t been marked by Europe’s lowest industrial

performance figures.

Do happier employees ensure increased job performance? Smith (2011) presents mixed research results

analyzing employee happiness and actual economic performance. Zeynep (2012) states that happy

employees result in increased retail sales.2

1.1 Report aim

This study aims to illustrate the relationship between financial rewards, job satisfaction and performance.

More specifically, the various constructs are explained, the effect of financial and non-financial rewards

towards job satisfaction and performance is reviewed and the inter-linkage between financial and non-

financial rewards is assessed.

1.2 Hypotheses

Based on the above aim, this report will test the following hypotheses:

H1: There is a direct relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.

H2: Financial rewards alone will not increase job performance.

H3: Financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy, including non-

financial rewards.

1 ‘Incentives and rewards’ are seen as one and the same construct and named ‘rewards’ throughout the report.

2 Zeynep’s article (2012) is mostly anecdotal in nature and only takes into account a very limited number of US retailers.

Page 8 of 22

1.3 Research methodology

This study’s research methodology encompassed secondary on-line and off-line desk studies containing

objective, unbiased knowledge, based on repeatable experiments and sound, valid and logical reasoning.

The main question, whether financial rewards alone will increase job performance, is distilled across three

hypotheses.

This required describing the concepts of job satisfaction and job performance, which led to the construct of

employee engagement, and the defining of performance as output and not behaviour related. With

constructs clarified, the focus was on the relation and correlation between financial and non-financial

rewards on output-related job performance.

1.4 Report structure

The job satisfaction-performance relationship is investigated in Chapter 2, linking job satisfaction and

employee engagement. Chapter 3 explores the relationship between financial and non-financial rewards to

employee engagement and job performance, looking at performance outcome measures.

Conclusions are drawn and hypotheses testing are presented in Chapter 4. Concluding remarks and

recommendations for future research are offered in Chapter 5.

Page 9 of 22

2. Job satisfaction and job performance

Organizational theorists (Arnold 2005) developed several viewpoints regarding the job satisfaction-

performance relationship: (1) satisfaction causes performance; (2) performance causes satisfaction; (3)

satisfaction and performance cause each other, (4) the satisfaction-performance relationship is moderated

by (an)other variable(s); or (5) both are caused by (an)other external variable(s).

Numerous researchers studied each of these proposed relationships, though this did not result in consensus

on which explanation is most valid across all settings or circumstances. Most findings point to the

conclusion that the job satisfaction-performance relationship is weak at best. Jones (2006) analyzed various

meta-analyses, presented in Table 2.1, and came to the same conclusion that there is a positive though very

weak job satisfaction-performance relationship. The relationship seems to be an “illusory correlation, being

a perceived relationship between two variables that we logically or intuitively think should interrelate, but, in

fact, do not” (Chapman and Chapman 1969).

Figure 2.1: Possible relationships between Job Satisfaction (JS) and Job Performance (JP)

Page 10 of 22

2.1 Satisfaction and employee engagement

One conclusion drawn by researchers, as represented in Table 2.1 (Wright and Cropanzano 2000), is that the

weak job satisfaction-performance relationship relates to the narrow definition of ‘job satisfaction’. Wright

and Cropanzano propose ‘happiness’ as construct, capturing various life aspects. Jones (2006) calls it ‘life

satisfaction’ and both researches showed stronger correlations with job performance.3

Another construct is ‘employee engagement’, first described as an ‘updated’ job satisfaction-concept

(Schmidt et al. 1993). He defines employee engagement as "an employee's involvement with, commitment

to, and satisfaction with work”. Research (Blacksmith and Harter 2011, Harter et. al. 2009, Hulme 2006,

Jeung 2011, Ryan and Edward 2000) defines a limited group of employee engagement drivers, visualised in

Figure 2.2.

3 It has to be noted that researches finding strong correlations were based on small research samples.

Table 2.1: Estimated Effect Sizes for the Satisfaction-Performance Relationship (Jones 2006)

Figure 2.2: Drivers to and elements of engagement

Page 11 of 22

Employee engagement goes beyond satisfaction, moving from the emotional - satisfaction with the job - to

the behavioural and output related - performance on the job. The biggest difference between job

satisfaction and employee engagement is the purpose with which it is defined. Employee engagement is by

definition employee behaviour demonstrating high levels of employee involvement, commitment, and

loyalty. Main engagement drivers focus on those factors shown by research to be specifically related to job

performance. (Blacksmith and Harter 2011, Harter et. al. 2009, Mars 2012)

Research (Buckingham and Coffman 1999, Blacksmith and Harter 2011, and Crabtree 2004) shows that the

working population can be divided into three categories:

1. People who are engaged (committed,

involved, satisfied, loyal, productive);

2. Those who are not engaged (just

putting in time);

3. People who are actively disengaged

(unhappy, spreading discontent).

29% of the working population is fully

engaged. The rest of the population is either

“not engaged” (52%) or “actively disengaged”

(19%).

This report does not focus on how to engage employees; the focus is on whether engagement impacts job

performance. It is interesting to note that in the above research, productivity was seen as partly defining

engagement, ie. engaged employees are committed, satisfied, loyal and productive.

Figure 2.3: Employee engagement

Page 12 of 22

2.2 Job performance

Bauer’s (2004) study on job satisfaction and performance in the EU finds a number of drivers for the

satisfaction-performance relationship, though most are drivers to and elements of engagement. Cook

(2008) also concludes that the satisfaction-performance relationship is partly spurious.4

Despite the relevance of job performance as output measure in industrial and organizational psychology

research, relatively little effort has been spent on clarifying and defining the performance concept (Campbell

1990, Campbell et. al. 1993). Job performance in this report will not focus on behavioural aspects, but on

the outcome aspects of performance, referring to the results of the employee’s behaviour. Output

performance measures include the following:

• Customer loyalty • Safety incidents

• Profitability • Absenteeism

• Productivity • Shrinkage

• Employee turnover • Patient safety incidents

• Quality (or defects).5

(Harter et. al., 2009)

4 The research found that the correlation is partly due to common causes of both constructs and these common causes are related to drivers to

engagement as displayed in Figure 2.2. 5

Output performance measures are industry and sector-specific.

Page 13 of 22

3. Financial vs non-financial rewards

This chapter reviews reward types and their effects on job performance, either directly or through

engagement. Table 3.1 gives a non-exhaustive list of financial and non-financial rewards.6 7

3.1 Financial rewards

Nimalathasan and Brabete’s (2010) case study of the Sri Lankan people’s bank in finds strong correlations

(0.61) between pay and job performance. It also finds strong correlations between promotion (0.57) and job

performance, and working condition (0.74) and job performance – which are non-financial rewards.

Ajila and Abiola’s (2004) Central Nigerian Bank focused research finds a significant relationship between

financial rewards and job performance. Akanbi (2011) comes to the same conclusion researching rewards in

6 Rewards can be part of multiple categories, ie. a company car is partly a financial reward as well as manipulatable.

7 Partly financial rewards are those that either replace an expense the employee would have had for his work otherwise, eg. a company car, or an

expense the employee could have made otherwise, eg. gym pass or holiday trip, and the money can now be used differently. Clothing allowance can be both purely or partly financial, depending upon the representation aspect of the employee’s position.

Table 3.1: Financial and non-financial rewards

Page 14 of 22

Nigerian flour mills. Hafiza et. al. (2011) comes to the same findings when researching non-governmental

organizations in Pakistan.

Performance-related pay (prp) is seen as a good indicator of the importance of financial rewards.

Thompson’s 1993 study as discussed in Matthewman et. al. (2009), Kohn (1993) and Pfeffer (1998), shows

that employees do not find prp-schemes motivational, irrespective of their performance ratings. Money in

itself is not regarded as a strong motivator. Herzberg et. al. (1956) claim: “while the lack of it may cause

dissatisfaction, money does not result in lasting satisfaction”. And Pfeffer (1998) rightfully states: “People do

work for money – but they work even more for meaning in their lives”.

3.2 Non-financial rewards

Ajila and Abiola’s (2004) and Akanbi’s (2011) research finds no significant relationship between the non-

financial rewards of praise, recognition and employer recommendation towards job performance. They do

find a significant relationship between financial fairness8 and job performance. Hafiza et. al. (2011) also

concludes that non-financial rewards9 have an insignificant impact towards job motivation and performance.

Danish and Usman (2010) find an insignificant relationship between recognition and appreciation, and job

motivation and performance in Pakistan.

Bauer’s (2004) study on job satisfaction and performance in the EU finds that High Performance Workplace

Organizations (HPWOs)10 perform better because of higher levels of job satisfaction. The main drivers for

this relation are the involvement in flexible work systems, the increased autonomy over how to perform

tasks, the opportunity to be part of decision-making and increased communication with co-workers. All of

these are non-financial rewards, drivers to and elements of employee engagement (cf. Figure 2.2).

Harter’s et. al. (2009) study focuses on non-financial rewards and their job performance relationship.

Gallup’s Q12 survey instrument used focuses on drivers like satisfaction, recognition, praise,

encouragement, involvement, commitment, feedback, dialogue, work relationships and opportunities. This

study is a leading meta-analysis on the relationship between employee engagement and organizational

8 The financial fiarness principle has not been defined, but the study states that “pay should be in line with profits made by the organization and

wage differentials between high and low income earners should be within reason”, Ajila and Abiola (2004).

9 The non-financial rewards tested in this study are job autonomy, recognition, appreciation and level of challenge of tasks.

10 “HPWOs are characterized by flat hierarchy structures, job rotation, self-responsible teams, multi-tasking, a greater involvement of lower-level

employees in decisionmaking, the replacement of vertical by horizontal communication channels, and complementary HRM practice s that give

employees the ap propriate incentives to participate in decision-making through the use of alternative payment schemes and increased employer provided training.”, Bauer (2004).

Page 15 of 22

performance outcome measures.11 In its seventh edition, the study incorporates 26 countries, though most

research on which it is based still focuses on North-America.12

The study concludes that employee engagement relates to each of the nine performance outcomes (cf.

Paragraph 2.2) and correlations are consistent across different organizations, with a 0.48 true score

correlation between employee engagement and performance. The study further concludes that

organizations in the top half on employee engagement double their chances of performance outcome

related success compared to those in the bottom half.

11 “The overall study involved 955,905 independent employee responses to surveys and 32,394 independent business/work units in 152

organizations, with an average of 30 employees per unit and 213 business/work units per organization. One hundred ninety-nine (199) research studies were conducted across the 152 organizations.”, Harter et. al., 2009

12 “The meta-analysis includes data from 26 countries. The coverage of research studies now includes business units in Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Korea,

Thailand), Australia, New Zealand, Europe (Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Austria, Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Greece), former communist countries (Russia, Hungary, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Poland), Latin America (Brazil, Mexico), the Middle East (United Arab Emirates), and North America (Canada and the United States).”, Harter et. al., 2009

Page 16 of 22

4. Conclusions

The British are Europe’s second most dissatisfied employees, though the UK has not been marked by

Europe’s lowest industrial performance. Companies feel pay is not the only motivator; communication and

open management are mentioned as other motivators, but the impact of these on job performance is not

proven.

H1: There is a direct relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.

Industrial psychology and some recent studies find an average to strong correlation between job satisfaction

and performance. Though other studies and meta-analysis conclude that the relationship is not as strong,

not necessarily direct and related correlation is partly due to common causes of both constructs and/or

other moderating variables and wider constructs like employee engagement influencing the relationship.

Hypothesis 1 on the direct job satisfaction-performance relationship is not accepted.

Based on the reviewed research, a possible relationship between the constructs is presented in Figure 4.1,

though further research is needed to prove these relationships.

Figure 4.1: Possible relationships between constructs

Page 17 of 22

H2: Financial rewards alone will not increase job performance.

Pay represents a very important factor in the employee-employer relationship. For the employer it

represents a considerable part of operating expenses and affects staff recruitment and retention. For the

employee it is vital to maintaining a standard of living and is seen as a value measure of his/her services or

performance. Wages are also important to the government because it impacts economic elements like

employment, inflation and development in general.

Studies find a moderate to strong correlation between financial rewards and job performance. The same

studies also find other non-financial constructs strongly correlating to job performance, however they do

not answer whether these are moderating variables towards ‘financial rewards’ and its relationship with job

performance.

Other research finds that money in itself is not a strong motivator; “People do work for money – but they

work even more for meaning in their lives” (Pfeffer 1998).

Hypothesis 2 on financial rewards alone not increasing job performance is plausible, though not accepted.

Research comes to contradictory conclusions, which might be related to the wider economic environment

and stability under which research took place. Financial rewards alone seem to increase job performance in

countries in which the economic system is still in development.

Figure 4.2: Financial rewards as a single moderating variable

Page 18 of 22

H3: Financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy, including

non-financial rewards.

Studies often explain the correlation of variables towards job performance; though seldom present

conclusions on the relationships between these variables correlating with job performance.

Research shows that a mix of rewards has a positive impact on job performance; though it is not clear what

would the best mix of rewards and what the impact is of non-financial rewards on financial rewards.

Hypothesis 3 on financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy,

including non-financial rewards, is plausible though not accepted on the basis of the research being

reviewed for this study.

A possible relationship between rewards – as drivers of engagement and performance is presented in Figure

4.3, though further research would be needed to prove these relationships.

Figure 4.3: Possible relationships between rewards, engagement and performance

Page 19 of 22

5. Concluding remarks and recommendations

This study’s aim was to analyze the relationship between financial and non-financial rewards, job

satisfaction and performance. This study rejects there is a direct job satisfaction-performance relationship.

The relationship is not necessarily direct and job satisfaction as a construct is more emotion than output

related, opposed to the main drivers of employee engagement specifically relating to job performance.

It is plausible that financial rewards alone will not increase job performance, though research taking place in

developing economic environments with possible concerns of economic stability finds that financial rewards

alone do increase performance under such circumstances.

It is plausible that financial rewards will increase job performance if part of a wider rewards strategy,

including non-financial rewards, though not accepted on the basis of the research being reviewed for this

study.

Researchers have been investigating the relationships between financial and non-financial rewards, job

satisfaction and job performance; though most have not analyzed how financial and non-financial rewards

interlink and influence one another and moderate the rewards-performance relationship. Further research

is needed to prove how various reward packages influence job performance in differing economic

environments.

Page 20 of 22

References

AJILA, CHRIS, ABIOLA, AWONUSI, 2004. Influence Of Rewards On Workers Performance In An

Organization, [online] KRE Journal for Social Sciences, Vol. 8. (1), pp. 7-12, Kamla-Raj Enterprises (KRE).

Available from: http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JSS/JSS-08-0-000-000-2004-Web/JSS-08-1-

001-084-2004-Abst-PDF/JSS-08-1-007-012-2004-Ajila/JSS-08-1-007-012-2004-Ajila.pdf [accessed 12 April

2012]

AKANBI, PAUL AYOBAMI, 2011. Influence Of Extrinsic And Intrinsic Motivation On Employees’

Performance. [online] Ajayi Crowther University. Nigeria. Available from: http://www.ilo.org/

public/english/iira/documents/congresses/regional/lagos2011/3rdparallel/session3b/motivationworker.

pdf [accessed 13 April 2012]

ARNOLD, J., et al. 2010. Work Psychology. 5th ed. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall

BLACKSMITH, NIKKI, HARTER, JIM, 2011. Majority Of American Workers Not Engaged In Their Jobs

[online]. Gallup Management Journal. Available from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/ 150383/Majority-

American-Workers-Not-Engaged-Jobs.aspx [accessed 24 March 2012]

BUCKINGHAM, MARCUS, COFFMAN, CURT, 1999. First, Break All The Rules: What The World's Greatest

Managers Do Differently. 1ST Edition, Simon & Schuster Trade

CAMPBELL, J. P., 1990. Modelling The Performance Prediction Problem In Industrial And Organizational

Psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press

CAMPBELL, J. P., MCCLOY, R. A., OPPLER, S. H., SAGER, C. E., 1993. A theory of performance. In E.

Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & Associates (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass

CHAPMAN, L. J., CHAPMAN, J. P., 1969. Illusory Correlation As An Obstacle To The Use Of Valid Psycho-

diagnostic Signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Issue 74, pp. 271 – 280;

COOK, ALLISON LAURA, 2008. Job Satisfaction And Job Performance: Is the Relationship Spurious?

Master of Science in Psychology Thesis

CRABTREE, STEVE, 2004. Getting Personal In The Workspace – Are Negative Relationships Squelching

Productivity In Your Company? [online]. Gallup Management Journal. Available from:

http://gmj.gallup.com/content/11956/getting-personal-workplace.aspx [accessed 21 March 2012]

Page 21 of 22

CSIKSZENTMIHALYI, MIHALY, 1991. Flow: The Psychology Of Optimal Experience. 1st Edition, Harper

Perennial

DANISH, RIZWAN, QAISER, USMAN, ALI, 2010. Impact Of Reward And Recognition On Job Satisfaction

And Motivation: An Empirical Study From Pakistan. [online] CCSE International Journal on Business and

Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 2010. Available from:

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/4061/4221 [accessed 14 April 2012]

HAFIZA, N. S., et. al. 2011. Relationship Between Rewards And Employee’s Motivation In The Non-Profit

Organizations Of Pakistan. [online] Business Intelligence Journal, July 2011, Vol. 4, No. 2. Available from:

http://www.saycocorporativo.com/saycoUK/BIJ/journal/Vol4No2/ Article_11.pdf [accessed 14 April

2012]

HARTER, JAMES K., et. al. 2009. Q12 Meta-analysis: The Relationship Between Engagement At Work And

Organizational Outcomes. Gallup Inc.

HERZBERG, FREDERICK, MAUSNER, BERNARD, BLOCH-SNYDERMAN, BARBARA, 1956. The Motivation To

Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

HULME, VIRGINIA A., 2006. What Distinguishes The Best From The Rest. China Business Review, Vol. 32 –

2

JEUNG, CHANG-WOOK, 2011. The Concept Of Employee Engagement: A Comprehensive Review From A

Positive Organizational Behaviour Perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, Issue 24(2), pp. 49

– 69

JONES, MICHELLE D., 2006. Which Is A Better Predictor Of Job Performance: Job Satisfaction Or Life

Satisfaction? Institute of Behavioural and Applied Management (IBAM), Providence College

KAY, HELEN, 1996. Motivation Blues. Human Resources Journal, No. 26, pp. 39, 41-42

KOHN, ALFIE, 1994. Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work. Harvard Business Review, September – October,

pp. 1-7

LUMESSE, 2011. Global Workplace Survey June 2011. [online] Insight Paper, Lumesse talent

management. Available from: http://www.lumesse.com/knowledge-centre/insight-library?pid=12123

[accessed 16 April 2012]

MATTHEWMAN, LISA, ROSE, AMANDA, HETHERINGTON, ANGELA, 2009. Work Psychology: An

Introduction To Human Behaviour In The Workplace. Oxford University Press, New York

MARS, STEVE, 2012. The Essence Of Engagement. White Paper, Questar, Eagan – Minnesota

Page 22 of 22

NIMALATHASAN, BALASUNDARAM, BRABETE, VALERIU, 2010. Job Satisfaction And Employees’ Work

Performance: A Case Study Of People’s Bank In Jaffna Peninsula, Sri Lanka. [online] University of Jaffna,

Sri Lanka in collaboration with University of Craiova, Romania. Available from:

http://www.mnmk.ro/documents/2010special/5SriLankaBrabeteFFF.pdf [accessed 9 April 2012]

PFEFFER, JEFFREY 1998. Six Dangerous Myths About Pay: Many Managers Have Bought Into Expensive

Fictions About Compensation. Have you? Harvard Business Review, May – June, pp. 42 - 51

RYAN, RICHARD M., EDWARD, DECI L., 2000. Self-Determination Theory And Facilitation Of Intrinsic

Motivation, Social Development, And Well-Being. [online] American Psychologist Association, Issue 55,

pp. 68–78. Available from: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/ documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf

[accessed 28 March 2012]

SCHMIDT, FRANK L., et. al., 1993. Employee Engagement, Satisfaction And Business-Unit Outcomes: A

Meta-Analysis, Gallup Inc.

SMITH, JACQUELYN, 2011. The Companies Doing The Most To Make Their Employees Happier [online].

Forbes.com. Available from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/ 2011/08/29/the-companies-

doing-the-most-to-make-their-employees-happier/ [accessed 24 March 2012]

WRIGHT, T. A., 2006. The Emergence Of Job Satisfaction In Organizational Behaviour: A Historical

Overview Of The Dawn Of Job Attitude Research. Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 Iss: 3, pp. 262

– 277

WRIGHT, T. A., CROPANZANO, R., 2000. Psychological Well-Being And Job Satisfaction As Predictors Of

Job Performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Issue 5, pp. 84 – 94;

ZEYNEP, TON, 2012. Why “Good Jobs” Are Good For Retailers [online]. Harvard Business Review

magazine January – February 2012. Available from: http://hbr.org/2012/01/why-good-jobs-are-good-

for-retailers/ar/1 [accessed 25 March 2012].