CC BY
76
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
www.orgpsyjournal.hse.ru
The mediating role of needs satisfaction on the relationship between total rewards satisfaction and retention: A proposed model
Jeeta SARKAR
KL University, Hyderabad, India
Abstract. Purpose. The purpose of the research is to investigate the effect of total rewards on retention. The scholar refers to Self Determination Theory to strengthen the assertion that retention is higher when employees experience satisfaction with total rewards. A mediation mechanism is proposed in which total rewards satisfaction leads to retention via needs satisfaction of "autonomy, competence and relatedness". Methodology. This is a conceptual paper focussing on selected scholarly works published in various HR and OB journals over a period that provide theoretical support for the proposed model. Findings. The paper presents a model of total rewards and retention in which the constructs of total rewards satisfaction, need satisfaction for autonomy, need satisfaction for competence and need satisfaction for relatedness influence retention. The scholar offers several propositions to be empirically tested. The research questions are follows: 1) What is the impact of total rewards satisfaction on retention? 2) To what extent does total rewards satisfaction affects the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness? 3) To what extent do psychological needs as propose by Self Determination Theory impacts retention? 4) To what extent does Self Determination Theory's need satisfaction mediate the relationships between total rewards satisfaction and retention? Originality. The paper adds to total rewards literature by extending the construct pay satisfaction by postulating an original relationship between total rewards satisfaction and retention. In this framework, need satisfaction for autonomy, need satisfaction for competence and need satisfaction for relatedness offer a unique perspective on the link between total rewards satisfaction and retention.
Keywords: total rewards, total rewards satisfaction, self-determination theory, need satisfaction, retention.
Introduction
Rewarding employees are among the most significant organizational expense and core to the relationship between employees and organization. With the crises like current COVID-19 pandemic, the main challenge before every organization is the retention of skilled workforce during covid and post-coronavirus times which is limited in number (Elsafty, Ragheb, 2020; Jayathilake et al., 2021) and long-term organizational success, regardless of the sector in which an organization operates (Groves, 2011; McDonnell, 2011). An unexpected departure of employees can create many challenges for an employer, including work productivity, employee morale, and filling the vacancy. This is the
Address: R.V.S Nagar, Moinabad-Chilkur Rd, near AP Police Academy, Aziznagar, Telangana 500075, India E-mail: [email protected]
reality for many employers in light of COVID-19, making employee retention a bigger challenge than in the past, a priority and working on retention strategies consistently.
Total rewards in this transformational journey play an important role. It is one ofthe best strategies to meet the company's needs and the needs of employees, thereby overcoming the challenges of retention. Total rewards aim at providing facilitative work environment marked with ample scope for recognition, learning and development and career growth opportunities in an organization. This has been supported by one of the recent studies highlighting the fact that salary is not everything but to create a positive bond with them by addressing the recognition, appraisal, promotion, and pay including incentives and entertaining periodic leaves and job rotation to fit into the changing scenario and economic landscape (Kumar, 2021). Total rewards, being a holistic employee-oriented approach. Hence, the role of total rewards as a retention lever, tend to keep employees happy by taking care of their needs, productive, and connected to each other and their organization, which enhances retention (Wassem et al., 2019).
While reviewing the literature, we did not come across any study that has investigated the need satisfaction framework underlying reward-retention relationships excepting few studies that have highlighted the role of need satisfaction in yielding positive organizational outcomes such as organizational commitment, work engagement, and intention to stay (Haivas et al., 2014; Kovjanic et al., 2012). Thus, the research relies on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) conceptualization of psychological needs which is dominated by the studies saying that satisfaction these needs leads to positive workplace outcomes such as job commitment, satisfaction, engagement, and lower turnover (Baard et al., 2004).
The current study sought to contribute to the literature by using a SDT perspective to study employee retention as a function of total rewards satisfaction through need satisfaction. Thus, the purpose of this study is to conceptualize the link between the antecedent total rewards and need satisfaction as the mediator and their collective effect on the outcome (retention). The study is organized as follows: the author started with a literature review of total rewards and its positive effect on employee retention. We also reviewed literature on needs satisfaction which might enhance the positive effect of total rewards. Further, we developed an exploratory model grounded in extant literature that will possibly motivate the employee to stay with an organization. Based on the conceptual model few propositions on causality and mediation effects are stated, and finally the article concludes with comments on implications, empirical testing of the stated propositions and limitations of the proposed model.
Total rewards
It was in 2000s, when the concept of total rewards (TR) evolved and became popular HR strategy in most of the organizations in the United States. It was popularised by WorldatWork1 that attracted substantial amount of seminal earlier research and studies from scholars like (Armstrong, Brown, 2005; Jiang et al., 2009; Zingheim et al., 2009) to current research focusing on implementing TR not only for retention but also for workplace happiness (Alhmoud, Rjoub, 2019; Gulyani, Sharma, 2018), receiving organizational and supervisor support (Smit et al., 2015). However, M. Armstrong points out that it was Adam Smith in 1776 who was first to refer total rewards in terms of "total net advantage", identifying a number of elements beyond pay viz. "agreeableness or disagreeableness of work, difficulty and expense of learning it, job security, responsibility, and the possibility of
1 WorldatWork is a global association for human resources management professionals and business leaders focused on attracting,
motivating, and retaining employees.
success or failure" (Armstrong, 2010). M. Silverman and P. A. Reilly argued that "the concept of total reward is based on the assumption that people work for more than money" (Silverman, Reilly 2003). Supporting them, Z. Jiang stated that "[w]hat once was 'compensation', or 'total compensation' has evolved into an interdependent triad of total rewards" (Jiang et al., 2009).
Owing to the debate sparked among the companies with respect to comprehensive list of items to be included; WorldatWork (2007) has come up with two camps of definition viz. narrow definition and broader definition. Narrow definition of total rewards was referred to as total compensation that includes compensation and benefits, tangible components such as development. Broad definition referred total rewards as value propositions or total value that included everything while working for an organization. We feel that the reason of WorldatWork hinting bifurcating denotation of total rewards is the decision of an organization to choose total rewards strategy depending on what they want for their employees, thereby allowing ample scope for organizations to choose the best as per their capability. However, it was observed that there was an inclination towards broader definition of TR (WorldatWork, 2007). Overall, TR aims at embracing everything meaningful to the employment relationship at the workplace including monetary and non-monetary and beyond such as social and psychological benefits, making the work environment motivating and the organization a best place to work (Chinyio et al., 2018; Morgan et al., 2013; Twenge et al., 2010; Gulyani, Sharma, 2018; Alhmoud, Rjoub, 2019). In the light of uncertain times that organizations and employees are going through, total rewards aim at including variety of rewards so as to satisfy material and non-material needs of the employees so that they stay with the organization.
Total reward models
Apart from academic research, in recent years, many consultants, and organizations have developed TR models and frameworks. The effort was to determine common threads while classifying TR into different categories. Though, the elements of TR models are more or less similar with minor exceptions, all the models highlight unitary efforts to satisfy varied needs and motivate employees to perform optimally so as to achieve best results for organization and himself / herself. Some of the models developed by the consultants and / or organizations and academicians are briefly detailed in the table given below (Refer Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of Total Rewards Models
Sl.No Total rewards Model
Tangible (Extrinsic)
Intangible (Intrinsic)
1 WorldatWork
2 Hay Group
Compensation Benefits
Guaranteed cash Annual variable pay Benefits
3 Zingheim and Schuster
4 Towers Watson
5 Towers Perrin
Total pay
Foundational rewards (base pay, benefits, risk benefits, employee assistance and wellness programmes)
Performance-based rewards (increases, incentives, recognition, profit sharing) Pay
Benefits
Work-life effectiveness Recognition
Performance management Talent development Work culture and climate Leadership and direction Career growth and development Work environment Learning and development Compelling future Individual growth Positive workplace
Career- and environmental awards (training and development, talent mobility, technology, flexible work programmes, work-life programmes, corporate social responsibility, employee assistance programmes) Learning and development Work environment
6 CLC (2007)
Remuneration and Benefits
7 Team Lease India Compensation
Benefits
8 Nienaber Base Pay
Contingency Pay Benefits
9 Mercer Pay
Benefits
10 Armstrong, Brown Base Pay (2006) Contingency Pay
Benefits
Work environment
Work/life balance
Organisational environment
Work-life Integration
Performance management
Recognition
Talent development
Performance and career Management
Quality Work Environment
Work-life Integration
Benefits (work-life)
Career
Learning and Development Work Experience
Recognition, achievement, and growth
Table 2. A clustered view of different financial and nonfinancial reward categories
Transactional or Financial or Tangible Rewards
Remuneration (including base pay and variable pay and share ownership) Benefits
Relational or Non-Financial or Intangible Rewards
Work-Life Quality / Work Environment
Work-Home Integration
Performance Management and Recognition
Career and Development Opportunities
Learning and Development
Talent Development
Individual Growth
Compelling Future
Work experience
Workplace quality
Positive Workplace
The models developed by consultants and academicians are almost same with respect to the categorization which acknowledge that TR is all about employee value proposition which is not limited to compensation and benefits only which makes the employer-employee relationship valuable having long-term orientation. For the purposes of an initial overview in the current study, the authors also gave a clustered view of different monetary / financial and non-monetary / non-financial reward categories (Refer Table 2).
Retention
Many studies on retention were conducted over last 50 years or so. During 1970s, major dominant theories evolved that focused on turnover processes and factors (Steel, Lounsbury, 2009). During 1980s and 1990s, focus shifted to organizational and contextual factors viz. organizational culture, organizational size, and reward system, individual conditions viz. leadership, interpersonal relations, and realistic job preview (Holtom et al., 2008). In the last decade researchers have begun focusing on individual characteristics at the individual, group and organizational levels and the interaction between the individual and organizational factors. Other trends in the last decade have included investigating the process of leaving an organization and a shift of focus from answering questions about why people leave to why they stay (Holtom et al., 2008).
Numerous studies have defined retention. There have been some studies describing retention as an effort while few studies have highlighted the ROI approach towards retention. For instance,
retention is "an effort by an employer to keep desirable employees in order to meet organizational objectives" (Frank et al., 2004). Defining retention in broader terms, "retention as a mean to prevent the loss of proficient employees from leaving" (Chiboiwa et al., 2010). By highlighting the ROI approach to retention resulting from effective recruitment and training, the concept can be described in terms of "adequacy or sufficiency of length of service" (Humphrey et al., 2009). All the definitions acknowledge the fact that retention as a managerial approach is an effort required by the organization to create a positive work environment that keeps the employees' content with their present organization and encourage them to not look further for any job change.
Need satisfaction
The present research relies on need satisfaction approach of SDT (Deci, Ryan, 2000). SDT is an "organismic dialectic theory of motivation" which means that "individuals are active, growth-oriented organisms" (Deci, Ryan, 2000). They have natural inclination to get involved in interesting tasks, work hard for development, and strive to feel connected within and around the world surrounding him to satisfy three "universal innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness" (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). According to SDT, "psychological needs are defined as innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well-being" (Deci, Ryan, 2000). Upon satisfaction of these innate needs, the motivation experienced by an individual is self-determined as a result of which individual starts performing at optimum level (Ryan, Deci, 2000).
Autonomy, competence and relatedness
Autonomy as per SDT connotes freedom of choice and volitional action (Deci, Ryan, 2000). However, need for autonomy is also said to be satisfied by "following others' requests if the individual is provided with a meaningful rationale for following the request" (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). In such a situation, "the individual internalizes others' requests by transforming them into personally endorsed values and self-regulations" (Deci, Ryan, 2000), and thus feels independent on following the requests. E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan explained the need for competence as a desire to feel competent in the world that surrounds him (Deci, Ryan, 2000). Surviving the uncertainties and meeting the challenges effectively signifies need satisfaction for competence. Need for competence leads to gaining mastery over skills of performing specific task(s) and their performance does not get affected by challenging work role or stress resulting from workload (Church et al., 2013; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Relatedness need is defined as achieving a sense of belongingness, a feeling of being accepted by others and not feeling being lonely (Church et al., 2013). Need for relatedness is "the desire to feel connected to others — to love and care, and to be loved and cared for" (Deci, Ryan, 2000). R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci explained that "proximal relational support may not be necessary for intrinsic motivation, but a secure relational base does seem to be important for the expression of intrinsic motivation" (Deci, Ryan, 2000). In any organizational setting, an employee working in a team with cooperative team members who don't let him feel lonely and are always available to lend ears to his personal problems and extend support in case of work-related problems leads to satisfaction of need for relatedness than those who feel lonely for not having friendly colleagues at work (Van den Broeck et al., 2008).
Linkage between total rewards, need satisfaction and retention
Researchers have pointed out that organizations should adopt total rewards as compensation mechanism for retaining talented employees (Cao et al., 2013; Medcof, Rumpel, 2007). The need
satisfaction is important in retaining employees and hence, organization should handle the need satisfying intentions of any total reward strategy with care (Roath, Schut, 2009; Whiddett, Hollyforde, 2003). Such an argument is in line with the discussion of monetary rewards in the article, which proposes a possible positive effect of rewards on the need for competence if the rewards reflect on the individual's skills (Deci et al., 1999). However, such rewards may at the same time be detrimental to autonomy need satisfaction if they are contingent on doing behaviors well because the rewards can create a feeling of pressure to do the action well in order to receive the rewards. If the pay were experienced as task non-contingent, the controlling aspect of the compensation might be relatively non-salient which could allow the competence affirmation implicit in high pay to have a positive effect without being offset by the undermining of autonomy. This may have been the underlying reasoning for the proposition in the study that proposed a positive relation between pay levels and need satisfaction (Gagné, Forest, 2008). The problem with that, however, is that if the rewards were task non-contingent and therefore did not affect autonomy, they would have been unlikely to convey competence because non-contingent rewards (i.e., pay level) are not directly linked to the person's performance.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model. Source: Authors' own finding
Note: a1b1: TRS ->Autonomy ->Retention; a2b2: TRS -> Competence -> Retention; a3b3: TRS -> Relatedness -> Retention; c': direct effect of TRS on Retention; c: total effect of TRS on Retention; (a1b1) x (a2b2) x (a3b3): indirect
effect of TRS on retention through mediators
With respect to retention, SDT argues that higher rewards do not necessarily mean higher retention as pecuniary benefits and other perquisites are perceived more as externally contingent, thereby reducing employees' need for autonomy and competence and urge to integrate with organizational goals (Deci et al., 1999). While people are motivated by rewards including monetary and relational, these rewards work in different ways and may lead to disparate outcomes depending on whether it leads to need satisfaction or need frustration of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci, Ryan, 2008; Van den Broeck et al, 2010). Further, several studies have found a direct positive correlation between need satisfaction for autonomy and intention to stay (Dysvik, Kuvaas, 2010; Kuvaas, 2006; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). The study argues that a higher tendency towards autonomy, competence and relatedness satisfaction has higher intention to stay. Thus, total rewards according
to SDT, can be regarded as a strategy fostering positive workplace environment wherein employees experience psychological need satisfaction relational components which provides a framework for allowing them to be more engaged.
Based on these academic instances, following research questions are formulated. A hypothetical model displayed in Figure 1 explains the proposed causality between the constructs to be investigated in this study in the form of research questions and / or propositions. The propositions are formulated after examining the respective research questions and providing rationale for the same.
RQ1: What is the impact of total rewards satisfaction on retention?
Studies have affirmed that compensation and benefits is the best strategy to attract, engage and retain talent (Mitchell et al., 2001; Horwitz et al., 2003; Teclemichael, Soeters, 2006). However, some researchers conclude that employees are more interested in non-monetary rewards covering good working environment, supportive leaders and superiors, and career and development opportunities (Wang et al., 2012; Kaye, Jordan-Evans, 2000). Similarly, it has been highlighted that "88% of highly skilled employees leave the organizations for reasons that are not based on money, but the main reasons were limited development opportunities (39%), unhappiness with management (23%), lack of recognition (17%) and other reasons (10%)" (Hill, Tande, 2006). P. Lockwood and M. Armstrong focussed on work-life balance programs as an important retention factor (Armstrong, 2009; Lockwood, 2006). Both the studies have found out that flexible working arrangements are in higher demand. Work-life balance programs is one of the important components of "value proposition package" and "requires compensation professionals to understand what employees want and design total rewards that meet these needs to fulfil family obligations" (Lockwood, 2006).
It was found a positive relationship between retention of employees and important factors of organizational support in terms of manager and colleague support, and work-life balance in terms of flexible working arrangements (Gaan, 2008; Thompson, Prottas, 2006). M. Armstrong has included all these factors under "value proposition package" that will result in enhancing retention (Armstrong, 2009). It was also found that performance management and recognition lead to creation of pool of motivated workforce resulting in higher intention to stay (Smerek, Peterson, 2007; Swanepoel et al., 2014). Some researchers have concluded that career and development opportunities enable the employees to increase their capabilities and take more responsibilities which in a long run will lead to greater retention (Greene, 2011; Martocchio, 2013). Thus, the authors propose:
P1: Total rewards satisfaction is positively associated with retention.
RQ2: To what extent does total rewards satisfaction affects the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness?
Limited research is found on exploring the impact of total rewards on basic psychological need satisfaction. In absence of any research, the scholar therefore, included mere summary of individual studies from different domains, thereby calling for further exploration. Total rewards to be relevant cannot be implemented and administered without considering employee needs. The relation between total rewards and SDT's need satisfaction is based on the theory that components of total rewards have two aspects viz. informational and controlling aspects. The theorized relationships between tangible rewards and need satisfaction were as follows: (a) tangible reward is designed to be salient in controlling aspect thereby reducing the feelings of autonomy (Deci, Koestner, 1999); (b) intangible reward is salient in informational aspect i.e. it provides information on performance and development opportunities, thereby satisfying individuals' need for competence (Vansteenkiste,
Deci, 2003); (c) the processes through which the tangible reward is administered may be or may not be related to need for relatedness. Therefore, one would expect that both tangible and intangible rewards are related to need satisfaction autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 2001). However, it was found that though there was no relation between compensation and employees' basic psychological need satisfaction, but work environment characterized by leadership support has a positive relationship (Olafsen et al., 2015). Due to very scarce or no empirical evidence but with theoretical underpinning the authors propose the following:
P2: Total rewards satisfaction is positively associated need satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
RQ3: To what extent do psychological needs as proposed by SDT impacts retention?
SDTS's need satisfaction have led to positive outcomes in terms of well-being in different domains like physical education, sports, parenting, and adolescence (Deci, Ryan, 2008). Of late, the benefits of needs satisfaction have been percolated to the workplace as well. Need satisfaction encourage positive outcomes at workplace such as higher performance, engagement, and higher intention to stay (Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, Deci, 2005; Milyavskaya, Koestner, 2011; Rothmann et al., 2013; Stone et al., 2009). There has been a host of studies with findings indicating that the need satisfaction for "autonomy, competence and relatedness" enhance intention to stay because satisfaction of needs will lead to employees becoming more committed towards the organization, and hence developing tendency to remain with the organisation (Greguras, Diefendorff, 2009; Haivas et al., 2014; Kovjanic et al., 2012; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).
Although, the impact of need satisfactions on retention has not been directly examined before, there are few evidence highlighting the influential role of satisfaction of the need for autonomy on retention. For example, some researchers stressed on a same reason that employees experiencing autonomy satisfaction are more likely to experience enhanced job satisfaction, reduced job stress and better work-life balance (Rathi, Lee, 2017; Thompson, Prottas, 2006). Further, employees experiencing autonomy are more unlikely to sacrifice and leave their present job. Employees who experience competence are more likely to experience well-being at work, as well as to be more intrinsically motivated, compared to those who experience less competence (Gagné, Deci, 2005). Therefore, it is likely that employees who feel that their need for competence is satisfied might have more to sacrifice if they leave. Further T. R. Mitchell with colleagues opined that skills and abilities are required to gain expertise in the job, it is possible that need for competence is automatically satisfied with job demands which in turn leads employees to experience organizational fit and hence enhanced retention (Mitchell et al., 2001). With respect to need satisfaction for relatedness, previous studies have found that high-quality relationships at work are important for employee retention (e.g., Gillet et al., 2012; Van den Broeck et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007; Rathi, Lee, 2017). The above-mentioned studies provide the ground for the following proposition.
P3: Need satisfaction for autonomy, need satisfaction for competence and need satisfaction for relatedness is positively related with retention.
RQ4: To what extent does SDT's need satisfaction mediate the relationships between different components of total rewards satisfaction and retention?
The research aims to gain insights on the mediating effect of need satisfaction in between total rewards and retention. The scholar proposes that total rewards is likely to enhance retention through basic psychological need satisfaction. There has been numerous where need satisfaction has been
used as a mediating variable. The following table gives an overview of studies wherein SDT's need satisfaction has been used as a mediating variable. For instance, studies have been conducted in the area of physical education, sports and coaching, life satisfaction, parenting and adolescence. However, the number of studies is very limited in organizational setup and has solely focussed on leadership, work engagement, job satisfaction and commitment (Trepanier et al., 2013; Gozukara, §im§ek, 2015; Kovjanic et al., 2012). However, research on SDT and pay considered basic psychological needs satisfaction as a potential mediator (Olafsen et al., 2015). Therefore, it is proposed that total rewards facilitating basic psychological need satisfaction will result in greater retention. Thus, the following proposition is given below:
P4: Need satisfaction for autonomy, need satisfaction for competence and need satisfaction for relatedness mediate the relation between total rewards satisfaction and retention.
The summative propositions are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary of Propositions and Visual Depiction
Proposition
Path Depiction
Visual Depiction
P1: Total rewards satisfaction is positively associated with retention
This will be shown by the direct effect V
P2: Total rewards satisfaction is positively associated need satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness
This will be shown by the paths al for autonomy; a2 for competence and a3 for relatedness
P3: Need satisfaction for autonomy, need satisfaction for competence and need satisfaction for relatedness is positively related with retention
This will be shown by the paths bl for autonomy; b2 for competence and b3 for relatedness
P4: Need satisfaction for autonomy, need satisfaction for competence and need satisfaction for relatedness mediates the relation between total rewards satisfaction with retention
This will be shown by indirect effect (albl) x (a2b2) x (a3b3) and total effect
Source: Authors' own finding
Implications for future research and practice
The model proposed in this article is exploratory and therefore the first research implication will be to operationalize and empirically test the proposed linkages. The authors might like to investigate the composite effect of need satisfaction along with studying the individual effect of each need satisfaction. Another research implication of this study is to investigate and confirm the role of certain moderator like need supportive job environment marked by job autonomy and manager support for autonomy (Baard et al., 2004). P. P. Baard and colleagues report that high level of need supportive environment will enhance the positive effect of total rewards on autonomous motivation (Baard et al., 2004). Our assertion is that an employee who experiences job autonomy and receives managerial support for autonomy will be more motivated to stay with the current organization. Hence, this article will instigate future studies which will put to test different assumptions of SDT by empirically testing the mentioned linkages.
Limitations
The study suffers from unavoidable limitations. Our study has failed to discuss other factors mainly demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, qualification, and experience which might play
equally significant role in influencing the impact of total rewards and retention. Other moderators such as cultural dimensions and attitude towards money that may give new insights has not been included in our study. In countries with high level of power distance, having less job autonomy is obvious owing to unquestionable loyalty (Tepper et al., 2007). Hence employees from such countries will lead to lower need satisfaction for autonomy and competence. Similarly, attitude towards money marked by how employees value money and want to make more money directly influences their retention (Li-Ping Tang et al., 2000). These limitations will offer direction to future researchers in designing their studies by incorporating the moderators excluded in our study.
Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed an exploratory model suggesting total rewards to positively influence retention. The study also identifies need satisfaction for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as mediators. Our understanding of need satisfaction mechanism influencing rewards-retention relationship will provide new insight into retention literature by focussing on the fact that total rewards is not only about monetary rewards but inclusive of everything that employees value. The research will also be useful to organizations in terms of saving money, avoiding payment of higher compensation for the purpose of achieving greater retention.
References
Alhmoud, A., Rjoub, H. (2019). Total rewards and employee retention in a Middle Eastern context. SAGE Open, 1-13.
Armstrong, M. (2009). Armstrong's Handbook of Human Resource Management. 11th ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Armstrong, M. (2010). Armstrong's handbook of reward management practice: Improving performance
through reward. s.l.: Kogan Page Publishers. Armstrong, M., Brown, D. (2005). Reward strategies and trends in the United Kingdom: the land of
diverse and pragmatic dreams. Compensation & Benefits Review, 37(4), 41-53. Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(10), 2045-2068.
Bhattacharyya, D. K. (2013). R&R Are More Holistic Than C&B: We Should Rename C&B to R&R.
Compensation & Benefits, 45(5), 286-288. Broeck Van den, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 83(4), 981-1002. Cao, Z., Chen, J., Song, Y. (2013). Does Total Rewards Reduce the Core Employees' Turnover Intention?.
International Journal of Business and Management, 8(20), 62-75. Chiboiwa, M. W., Samuel, M. O., Chipunza, C. (2010). An examination of employee retention strategy in a private organisation in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Business Management, 4(10), 2103-2109. Chinyio, E., Suresh, S., Salisu, J. B. (2018). The impacts of monetary rewards on public sector employees
in construction. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(1), 125-142. Church, A. et al., 2013. Need satisfaction and well-being: Testing self-determination theory in eight
cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(4), 507-534. Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T. A., Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58(3), 613-640.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M. (1999). A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. In: O. P. John, P. W. Robins, L. A. Pervin (Eds.). Handbook of personality: Theory and research (654-678). s.l.: The Guilford Press.
Deci, E., Ryan, R., Gagné, M., Leone, D., Usunov, J. Kornazheva, B. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 27(8), 930-942 .
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B. (2010). Exploring the relative and combined influence of mastery-approach goals and work intrinsic motivation on employee turnover intention. Personnel Review, 20(2), 138-156.
Edwards, J. R., Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of management review, 25(1), 178-199.
Elsafty, A. S., Ragheb, M. (2020). The Role of Human Resource Management Towards Employees Retention During Covid-19 Pandemic in Medical Supplies Sector-Egypt. Business and Management Studies, 6(2), 5059-5059.
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., Taylor, C. R. (2004). The race for talent: Retaining and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, 27(3), 12-25.
Gaan, N. (2008). Stress, social support, job attitudes and job outcome across gender. ICFAIJournal of Organizational Behavior, 7(4), 34-44.
Gagné, M., Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J. (2008). The Study of Compensation Systems Through the Lens of Self-Determination Theory: Reconciling 35 Years of Debate. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 225-232.
Gillet, N., Evelyne, F., Forest, J., Brunault, P., Colombat, P. (2012). The impact of organizational factors on psychological needs and their relations with well-being. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 437-450.
Gozükara, 1., §im§ek, O. F. (2015). Linking transformational leadership to work engagement and the mediator effect of job autonomy: A study in a Turkish private non-profit university. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science (963-971).
Greene, R. J. (2011). Rewarding performance: Guiding principles; custom strategies. London, United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Greguras, G., Diefendorff, J. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(2), 465-477.
Groves, K. S. (2011). Talent management best practices: How exemplary health careorganizations create value in a down economy. Health Care Management Review, 36(3), 227-240.
Gulyani, G., Sharma, T. (2018). Total rewards components and work happiness in new ventures: The mediating role of work engagement. Evidence-based HRM, 6(3), 255-271.
Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., Pepermans, R. (2014). What Motivates You Doesn't Motivate Me": Individual Differences in the Needs Satisfaction-Motivation Relationship of Romanian Volunteers. Applied Psychology, 63(2), 326-343.
Hill, B., Tande, C. (2006). Total rewards: The employment value proposition. Workspan, 10(6), 19-22.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of cross cultural management, 1(2), 11-17.
Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Eberly, M. B. (2008). 5 turnover and retention research: a glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 231-274.
Horwitz, F. M., Heng, C. T., Quazi, H. A. (2003). Finders, keepers? Attracting, motivating and retaining knowledge workers. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(4), 23-44.
Humphreys, J., Wakerman, J., Pashen, D., Buykx, P. (2017). Reten tion strategies and incen tives for health workers in rural and remote areas: what works? Australia: The Australian National University.
Jayathilake, H., Daud, D., Eaw, H., Annuar, N. (2021). Employee development and retention of Generation-Z employees in the post-COVID-19 workplace: a conceptual framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(7), 2343-2364.
Jiang, Z., Xiao, Q., Qi, H., Xiao, L. (2009). Total reward strategy: A human resources management strategy going with the trend of the times. International Journal of Business and management, 4(11), 177-183.
Kaye, B., Jordan-Evans, S. (2000). Retention: Tag, you're it!. Training and development-Alexandria-American society for training and development, 54(4), 29-39.
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S., Jonas, K., Van Quaquebeke, N., Dick, R. (2012). How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination based analysis of employees' needs as mediating links. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1031-1052.
Kumar, S. (2021). A study on adept soft skill & knowledge accompanying hospitality employee retention behavior during Covid-19 lockdown phase. Anais Brasileiros de Estudos Turísticos-ABET.
Kuvaas, B. (2006). Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes: mediating and moderating roles of work motivation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(3), 504-522.
Li-Ping Tang, T., Kim, J. K., Shin-Hsiung Tang, D. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human relations, 53(2), 213-245.
Lockwood, P. (2006). Someone like me can be successful": Do college students need same-gender role models?. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 36-46.
Martocchio, J. J. (2013). Strategic compensation: A human resource management approach. 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson.
McDonnell, A. (2011). Still fighting the "war for talent"? Bridging the science versus practice gap. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 169-173.
Medcof, J. W., Rumpel, S. (2007). High technology workers and total rewards. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18, 59-72.
Milyavskaya, M., Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and individual differences, 50(3), 387-391.
Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., Lee, T., Sablynski, Ch., Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using j ob embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121.
Morgan, J. C., Dill, J., Kalleberg, A. L. (2013). The quality of healthcare jobs: can intrinsic rewards compensate for low extrinsic rewards? Work, employment and society, 27(5), 802-822.
Nienaber, R., Bussin, M. H. R., Henn, C. (2011). The relationship between personality types and reward preferences. Acta Commercii, 11(2), 56-79.
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., Deci, E. L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 56(4), 447-457.
Rathi, N., Lee, K. (2017). Role of basic psychological need satisfaction in retaining talent: an investigation in the Indian context. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 9, 2-15.
Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2089-2113.
Roath, J., Schutt, A. (2009). Strategic total rewards systems. California: Sage Publications.
Rothmann, S., Diedericks, E., Swart, J. P. (2013). Manager relations, psychological need satisfaction and intention to leave in the agricultural sector. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1-11.
Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1629-1646.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Samuel, M. O., Chipunza, C. (2009). Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational variables as a panacea. African journal of business management, 3(8), 410-415.
Silverman, M., Reilly, P. A., 2003. How Flexible is Total Reward? Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
Smerek, R. E., Peterson, M., 2007. Examining Herzberg's theory: Improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university. Research in higher education, 48(2), 229-250.
Smit, W. A., Stanz, K. J., Bussin, M. (2015). Retention preferences and the relationship between total rewards, perceived organisational support and perceived supervisor support. South African Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1-13.
Steel, R. P., Lounsbury, J. W. (2009). Turnover process models: Review and synthesis of a conceptual literature. Human Resource Management Review, 19(4), 271-282.
Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 75-91.
Swanepoel, S., Botha, P. A., Mangonyane, N. B. (2014). Politicisation of performance appraisals. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 1-9.
Teclemichael Tessema, M., Soeters, J. L. (2006). Challenges and prospects of HRM in developing countries: testing the HRM-performance link in the Eritrean civil service. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 86-105.
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive supervision, upward maintenance communication, and subordinates' psychological distress. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1169-1180.
Thompson, C. A., Prottas, D. J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of occupational health psychology, 11(1), 100-118.
Trépanier, S. G., Fernet, C., Austin, S. (2013). Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: The mediating role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Work & Stress, 27(2), 123-140.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142.
Vansteenkiste, M., Deci, E. L. (2003). Competitively contingent rewards and intrinsic motivation: Can losers remain motivated? Motivation and emotion, 27(4), 273-299.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 251-277.
Wang, Y. D., Yang, C., Wang, K. Y. (2012). Comparing public and private employees' job satisfaction and turnover. Public Personnel Management, 41(3), 557-573.
Wassem, M., Baig, S. A., Abrar, M., Hashim, M., Zia-Ur-Rehman, M., Awan, U., Amjad, F., Nawab, Y. (2019). Impact of capacity building and managerial support on employees' performance: The moderating role of employees' retention. SAGE Open, 9(3), 1-13.
Whiddett, S. Hollyforde, S. (2003). A practical guide to competencies: how to enhance individual and organisational performance. 2nd ed. London: CIPD Publishing.
WorldatWork (2007). The WorldatWork Handbook of Compensation, Benefits and Total Rewards. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
WorldatWork (2015). Total rewards model a framework for strategies to attract, motivate and retain employees. Washington, D.C.: WorldatWork.
Zingheim, P. K., Schuster, J. R., Dertien, M. G. (2009). Compensation, reward and retention practices in fast-growth companies. World at Work Journal, 18(2), 22-39.
Received 17.01.2021
Удовлетворение потребностей как медиатор во взаимосвязи между совокупным вознаграждением и удержанием персонала: предлагаемая модель
САРКАР Джита
Университет Ксавьера, Бхубанешвар, Индия
Аннотация. Цель. Цель исследования — изучить влияние общего вознаграждения на удержание. Автор обращается к теории самодетерминации, чтобы подтвердить положение о том, что удержание персонала выше, когда сотрудники удовлетворены общим вознаграждением. Предлагается механизм посредничества, в котором полное вознаграждение приводит к удержанию сотрудников в организации посредством удовлетворения их потребностей в «автономии, компетентности и взаимосвязи с другими людьми». Методология. Статья носит концептуальный характер, она посвящена избранным научным работам, опубликованным в различных журналах по управлению персоналом и организационному поведению за определённый период, которые обеспечивают теоретическое обоснование предлагаемой модели. Выводы. В статье представлена модель взаимосвязи совокупного вознаграждения и удержания сотрудников, в которой конструкты «удовлетворённость совокупным вознаграждением», «удовлетворение потребности в автономии», «удовлетворения потребности в компетентности» и «удовлетворения потребности во взаимосвязанности» влияют на «удержание персонала». Автор предлагает несколько положений для эмпирической проверки. Исследовательские вопросы: 1) Как совокупное вознаграждение влияет на удержание сотрудников? 2) В какой степени общее вознаграждение влияет на потребность в автономии, компетентности и взаимосвязанности? 3) В какой степени психологические потребности, предложенные теорией самодетерминации, влияют на удержание сотрудников? 4) В какой степени удовлетворение потребностей самодетерминации опосредует отношения между различными компонентами совокупного вознаграждения и удержания сотрудников? Оригинальность. Эта статья дополняет литературу по совокупному вознаграждению, расширяя конструкт «удовлетворённость вознаграждением», постулируя исходную взаимосвязь между удовлетворённостью общим вознаграждением и удержанием персонала. В этом контексте удовлетворение потребности в автономии, удовлетворение потребности в компетентности и удовлетворение потребности во взаимосвязанности предлагают уникальную перспективу связи между удовлетворённостью общим вознаграждением и удержанием персонала.
Ключевые слова: совокупное вознаграждение; теория самодетерминации; потребность в автономии; потребность в компетентности; потребность во взаимосвязанности; удержание персонала.
