یک طبقه بندی از اولویت پاداش: بررسی تفاوت های کشور

Reward practices that are effective in one country may be very different from those that are successful in others. This is largely due to reward preference, which is shaped by individual needs, values and expectations. By integrating both the theories of motivation and culture, this study examines employee reward preference in four countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Finland and Hong Kong. A construct for examining the multi-dimensional nature of reward is used, the type-system-criterion (TSC) model, to identify where specific differences in reward preference lie. The findings lend support to and extend the existing body of research. Yet, in contrast to prior research, empirical analysis reveals that while preferences for certain types of rewards remain relatively divergent, differences in preferences for both reward systems and the criteria by which rewards are allocated are diminishing as the forces of convergence take hold. The findings are particularly relevant to managers engaged in the design and implementation of reward practices in a MNC environment and open reward research to a promising new direction.

A crucial challenge facing managers today is to identify which rewards lead to superior employee performance (Kossek and Lobel, 1996). As managers grapple with performance and motivation related issues, these may be further exacerbated by growing resource constraints, fierce competitive rivalry, harsh business climates, and entry into foreign markets. The above pressures combined with the business reality that competitors can and often do imitate products virtually overnight, makes a highly motivated and effective workforce one of the few remaining routes to competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). The success of a reward depends on its ability to achieve any one of a number of objectives, such as to attract, retain and motivate employees (Milkovich and Newman, 2002). Although employee performance is influenced by a number of factors beyond motivation (e.g., ability, competence, resources), the effectiveness of skilled and capable employees will be impeded if they are not motivated with appropriate rewards (Lawler, 2000). No organization is immune to the ill effects of an under-performing workforce. This underscores the importance that organizations should attach to understanding employee needs, values and preferences—an essential first step in determining what specific rewards drive and motivate optimum performance. Prior research (e.g., Chiang, in press, Schuler and Rogovsky, 1998 and Sethia and Von Glinow, 1985) has suggested that there is a close interdependence between an organization's rewards, motivation and the culture in which it is embedded. As firms establishing foreign affiliates attempt to transfer their reward practices to different national settings, the need to better understand human behavior becomes acute (Salk and Shenkar, 2001). Reward practices considered successful in North America, for instance, may not be readily transplanted to Europe or Asia (Hofstede, 2001). Organizations engaged in multi-national activity must be cognizant of the potentially significant influence that culture wields on reward preference. This necessitates that the principles of motivation, which are fundamental to the design and implementation of rewards, and for the most part originate in the West, be re-examined in light of possible cross-cultural effects. In view of the large number of cross-national studies, it is surprising to find that the influence of culture on reward preference remains largely unexplored. Much attention has, however, been given to the notion of ‘fit’ between compensation and firm strategy (e.g., Balkin and Gomez-Mejia, 1990, Boyd and Salamin, 2001 and Rajagopalan, 1996). Although it is generally agreed that the successful alignment of rewards with business strategy relies very much on understanding employee reward perceptions (Lawler, 1995, Wilson, 1995 and Zingheim and Schuster, 1995), little empirical research has examined employee preferences in the reward-strategy relationship. Prior studies are also predominantly American in orientation (e.g., Barkmena and Gomez-Mejia, 1998, Gerhart and Milkovich, 1990 and Kahn and Sherer, 1990) and have focused on either a particular employee group (e.g., Pennings, 1993) or a single dimension of reward (e.g., benefits) (Hempel, 1998). Few are empirical (Gomez-Mejia and Welbourne, 1991 and Hodgetts and Luthans, 1993). Only one recent study by Schuler and Rogovsky (1998) examined the relationship between culture and compensation practices, however, it focused narrowly on financial rewards. Given the inherent limitations of earlier work, the present study aims to advance our understanding of reward preference in the cross-cultural context and for a more comprehensive set of rewards than that found in prior research. Such an understanding is particularly relevant to multinational corporations (MNCs) attempting to transfer reward practices across borders.

In our cross-cultural study of reward preference, we found that reward type preference was by and large influenced by the value systems inherent in different countries. However, convergence is evident with respect to reward system and criterion preferences. The influence of culture, then, may be giving way to a variety of other more influential factors. We identified several in this study, including specific organization, industry and environmental characteristics. The consequences of these contextual variables on reward preference merits continued research. Several limitations warrant careful consideration. First, the four countries studied share some similarities in terms of their index scores on Hofstede's dimensions of national culture. Also, some index scores are only mid-range, for example, Canada's score on masculinity–femininity and Finland's score on individualism–collectivism are not strong. Perhaps, more pronounced differences in reward preference will result from countries that score at opposite ends of the spectrum on each dimension. Similarly, given that Canada and HK share a colonial legacy with the UK, it is not surprising that we witness some similarities in reward preference. For this same reason, HK may not be representative of collectivism or of other Asian cultures (such as Taiwan, Mainland China) (Paik et al., 1996). HK, a former colony of the UK until 1997, has legal and institutional frameworks that more closely resemble the UK's than those in other parts of Asia or Mainland China. Second, using Hofstede's scores as a benchmark should be exercised with a degree of caution, as cultural values have likely changed since his typology was first developed more than two decades ago. A recent study of culture, the GLOBE project, sheds some light on the potential for cultures to change (Ashkanasy, 2002). Future research on reward preference should measure culture directly. Third, given that the companies surveyed are profit maximizing, reward allocation preference is most likely affected by an organization's economic goals. Previous research by Leventhal (1976) indicated that the reward distribution norm adopted by an organization relates to both the goals of the reward system and the characteristics of the allocator. This may in part explain the overwhelming desire employees displayed for distribution norms based on performance and skill. This equity preference (reward for performance) is more a feature of the private sector. It may not be congruent with the objectives and values of the public sector or not-for-profit organizations. Fourth, public sector organizations have features, such as lifetime employment, reward distribution according to rank, and promotion based on seniority. Reward practices considered successful in the banking industry may be quite different from those that are effective in other industries, such as the public sector or manufacturing. Attention to these limitations will improve our understanding of reward preference in the cross-border context and be beneficial to future research. In an era of increasing global competition, managers must be aware of the inevitable interface between reward practices and national culture. This study alerts managers to the fact that designing a “one size fits all” reward strategy, based on the assumption that employee needs, values and expectations are homogeneous across geographic boundaries, is hazardous. To simply transplant reward practices to different foreign subsidiaries and expect them to work effectively, without appropriate sensitivity to the effects of contextual forces such as culture, is not operational. An awareness of culture's consequences on reward preferences is clearly important to all those engaged in the design and implementation of reward strategies in a multi-national environment. Specific differences in preference can be more readily detected by utilizing a diagnostic tool, such as the TSC reward taxonomy, which more fully represents the interdependent reward constructs and their constituent components. In doing so, organizations can maximize the use of reward types, systems and criteria that have the highest motivational impact.