(Author’s name)

(Institutional Affiliation)

Individual performance in organizations is in most cases depended on exchanges where inducements of motivation are offered for the productivity of the organization’s employees (Cranny , Smith & Stone 1992). In this case, the utilization of inducements, which in most cases are related to finance, is commonly used on both the agendas of practitioners and researchers in the matters of human resource. There are different kinds of inducements for performance some of which include setting of objectives and goals, paying of incentives, enrichment of jobs, and participation (Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw & Denny 1980). Researchers into the issue have found that paying of incentives is one of the most critical motivational inducements in most associations that desire to amplify the performance of their workers. As it follows, more and more researchers are supporting the need for the use of incentives in increasing productivity in organizations (Fisher & Locke 1992).

However, despite the fact that most studies point to the beneficial effects of incentives, some have argued against it (Kohn 1993). Kohn argues against the basis of the theory that employees at all stages can be satisfied and motivated to perform more by the use of incentive programs or reward systems, arguing that workers who expect external rewards in exchange for performance perform poorly when compared to those who perform without expecting any rewards. Other researchers such as Beer (1995) point out that programs for motivation or reward has a maximum half-life of five years, after which it expires and organizations have to get rid of it.

Other than the issue that the debate on the effectiveness of motivation or reward systems on performance of employees, it has also been noted that other debates exist on the issue of the effects of these incentives or reward systems on the attitudes of the employees towards their job (Greene 1973). Furthermore, there has been little o no evidence at all linking motivational schemes or reward systems to job satisfaction of employees. As a result, this paper will seek to address these issues through the evaluation and study of numerous researches and studies to establish the impact of the motivational scheme on a number of aspects in job satisfaction in Singapore. Through a wide and deep study of job satisfaction of employees, after and before the use of incentives and reward systems, the paper looks at the effects of a number of incentives or reward mechanisms on job satisfaction of a number of employees all derived from studies on employees from Singapore.

The incentive behind this paper results from the need to explore an essential dependent variable that resulted from a recent study that suggested that it is an essential factor for a firm to engage in motivational or reward systems for the success of the organization in the service industry (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand & Meglino 1979). Choosing Singapore as a country of interest in this study does not stem from any special circumstance other than a matter of choice and convenience. As the country, just like many others globally, enter the limiting economic times, more organizations are turning into reward and incentive programs as a way of improving productivity and profitability (Ilgen & Pulakos 1999). The study, therefore, hopes to find out what kind of incentives are used in Singapore to encourage employee productivity, and whether these incentives are effective in improving performance, and whether they are related in any way to job satisfaction of the employees.

To achieve this, the study will adopt a research methodology, which will include an intense and longitudinal survey of the available literature and surveys on the issue to come up with a conclusive comparison and conclusion. Through the study, the research paper will try to come to a conclusive answer to the issues at hand.


Beer M1993, Rethinking rewards, Harvard Business Review, December, 37-45

Cranny J, Smith P C & Stone E1992, Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance, Lexington Books, New York.

Fisher CD & Locke EA 1992, A new look in job satisfaction research and theory. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance, Lexington Books, New York.

Greene C N 1973, Causal connections among managers’ merit pay, job satisfaction, and performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 58, no. 1, 95-100.

Ilgen DR & Pulakos D 1999, The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Kohn A 1993, Alfie Kohn responds. Harvard Business Review. December, 48-49.

Locke EA, Feren B, McCaleb M, Shaw N & Denny AT 1980, The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In K.D. Duncan, MM. Gruneburg & D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in Working Life, Wiley, New York.

Mobley WH, Griffeth W, Hand H & Meglino BM 1979, Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process, Psychological Bulletin, May, 493-522.

Podsakoff P M, MacKenzie S B, Moorman RH & Fetter R 1990, Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, vol.1, 107-142

Podsakoff P M & Todor W 1985, Relationship between leader reward and punishment behavior and group processes and productivity, Journal of Management, vol.11, 55-73.

Schofield P 1998, It’s true: Happy workers are more productive, Works Management, December 1998, vol. 51, no. 12, 33-35.

Singapore National Employers’ Federation 1992, Survey report on performance-related schemes, SNEF, Singapore.

Smith PC, Kendall LM & Hulin CL, 1969, The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes, Rand McNally, Chicago.

Taylor P 1991, Morale is the main issue, Financial Times, p.12.

Winstanly N 1982, Are merit increases really effective? ASPA Personnel Administrator Berea, April.