“It’s [Not] All ‘Bout the Money”: How do Performance-based Pay and Support of Psychological Needs Variables Relate to Job Performance?

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Control variables
1.	Age (years)	–
2.	Gender (woman %)	–0.11**	–
3.	Pay-level (log)	0.34**	–0.24**	–
Performance based pay variables
4.	Instrumentality of the pay system	0.07	0.03	0.11**	(0.79)
5.	Performance-based pay raise (log)	–0.02	–0.11**	0.59**	0.15**	(0.87)
6.	Procedural pay-setting justice	0.01	0.07**	0.06	0.73**	0.22**	–
Support of psychological needs variables
7.	Feedback	0.00	0.07*	–0.05	0.54**	0.13**	0.50**	(0.92)
8.	Job autonomy	0.09*	–0.10*	0.32**	0.33**	0.34**	0.34**	0.27**	(0.71)
9.	Social support from colleagues	–0.06	0.04	–0.21**	0.19**	–0.10*	0.15**	0.24**	0.17**	(0.84)
DV: Performance outcomes
10.	Task performance	0.10*	0.11**	0.10*	0.07	0.16**	0.10*	0.18**	0.34**	0.12**	(0.80)
11.	Contextual performance	–0.04	0.03	0.19**	0.03	0.29**	0.10*	0.14**	0.35**	0.08*	0.65**	(0.84)
Mean		46.10	0.40	13	2.78	9.10	3.03	3.78	2.94	3.84	3.76	3.90
Standard deviation		10.42	–	0.25	0.98	0.38	0.89	0.82	1.03	0.87	0.66	0.66

[i] * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. N = 582. – Not applicable.

Table 2

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis predicting task and contextual performance (standardized regression weights from the last step) and relative weight analysis testing the relative importance of predictors.

		Task performance			Contextual performance
		β	Raw relative weights	Relative weights as % av R²	β	Raw relative weights	Relative weights as % av R²
	*Control variables*
1.	Age (years)	0.11*	0.01	5.4	–0.07	0.00	2.3
2.	Gender (woman)	0.16***	0.02	10.7	0.08*	0.00	1.9
3.	Pay-level (log)	–0.02	0.01	3.2	0.08	.02	10.5
	ΔR² (adj.)	0.03		19.3	0.05		14.7
	*Performance-based pay variables*
4.	Instrumentality of the pay system	–0.12*	0.00	2.2	–0.18**	0.01	3.7
5.	Performance-based pay raise (log)	0.10	0.01	8.4	0.16**	0.04	23.1
6.	Procedural pay-setting justice	–0.03	0.00	2.0	0.01	0.00	2.4
	ΔR² (adj.)	0.02		12.6	0.03		29.2
	*Support of psychological needs variables*
7.	Feedback	0.13***	0.02	10.7	0.12*	0.01	7.1
8.	Job autonomy	0.32***	0.09	52.5	0.29***	0.08	45.8
9.	Social support from colleagues	0.06	0.01	4.90	0.06	0.01	3.2
	ΔR² (adj.)/%	0.11		68.1	0.09		56.1
	Total R² (adj)	0.16		100	0.17		100

[i] * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. N = 582.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.107 | Journal eISSN: 2002-2867

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 9 - 9

Submitted on: Nov 27, 2019

Accepted on: Jun 29, 2020

Published on: Sep 16, 2020

Published by: Stockholm University Press

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

performance pay,

rewards,

expectancy theory,

self-determination theory,

performance,

needs

© 2020 Alexander Nordgren Selar, Helena Falkenberg, Johnny Hellgren, Marylène Gagné, Magnus Sverke, published by Stockholm University Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 5 (2020): Issue 1