THESIS FINAL

REWARDS AND RETENTION: THE ROLE OF AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT
GENEVIEVE WINSOME KARLEIN
KRLGEN001
A research report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the
Honours in Organisational Psychology (Change Management).
University of Cape Town
2013
Supervisor: Anton Schlechter
COMPULSORY DECLARATION:
This work has not been previously submitted in whole, or in part, for the award of any
degree. It is my own work. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation
from the work, or works of other people has been attributed, cited and referenced.
Signature: Date: 23/10/2013

Rewards and Retention: The Role of Affective Commitment
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Abstract 3
2. Introduction 3
Rewards 4
Affective Commitment 6
Affective Commitment and Retention 6
Financial and Non-Financial Rewards and Affective Commitment 7
Retention, Affective Commitment and Rewards 8
The Average Income Effect 9
3. Method 10
Research Design 10
Instruments 10
Reward Scales 10
Affective Commitment Scale 11
Intention to Stay Scale 12
Average Monthly Income 12
Population 12
Sample and Procedure 12
Statistical Analysis 13
4. Results 13
Reliability 13
Validity 14
Descriptive Statistics 15
Inferential Statistics: Results Relating to Hypotheses 16
5. Discussion 17
Limitations of the Present Study 20
Recommendations for Future Research 21
Theoretical and Practical Implications 22
6. References 24
7. Appendices 30
A: Conceptual Model 30
B: Sample Demographics 31
C: Mediation Analyses Results 32
D: Questionnaire 33
E: Permission Letters 40

3
ABSTRACT
One of the largest human resource management issues is employee retention. The aim of this
study was to examine the relationships between extrinsic rewards (both financial and non-
financial), intrinsic rewards (non-financial), employee affective commitment and employee
intentions to stay or remain employed by their current organisation. In addition the study
examined the role of an individual’s average monthly income in moderating the relationship
between financial/non-financial rewards and affective commitment. The sample included
individuals currently employed by an organisation. Data was collected from 225 participants
in 29 organisations across the Western Cape, South Africa. Correlation, regression, mediation
and moderation analyses were used to analyse survey data. Findings suggest that extrinsic
financial rewards are the strongest predictor of variance in affective commitment.
Additionally, affective commitment was found to mediate the relationship between
satisfaction with both financial and non-financial rewards and an employee’s’ intention to
stay. The study highlighted how both financial and non-financial reward systems relate
positively to affective commitment and therefore should be used to improve employee
retention.
INTRODUCTION
The highly competitive environment in which most organisations find themselves requires
them to maintain a sustainable competitive advantage in order to survive. An efficient, skilled
and productive work force is vital in developing and maintaining a competitive advantage.
This is because human capital is strongly associated with business performance (Newman &
Sheikh, 2012). A committed, engaged and dedicated work force is a valuable asset as it
cannot easily be imitated by organisations’ competitors (Ansari, 2011).
Although investing in human resources and retaining them is fundamental to success,
employee turnover still remains one of the major issues in human resource management
today (Longnecker & Shanklin, 2004). Since there is often a limited supply of highly skilled
individuals and the costs of turnover are high, organisations have to ensure the retention of
their valued employees. Turnover generally brings a loss in skills and increased financial
costs associated with the replacement of these skills (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch &
Topolnytsky, 2002). These losses in skills can ultimately cost organisations the opportunity to
remain competitive in their respective industries (Gardner, Wright & Moynihan, 2011).

4
In prior literature, organisational commitment has emerged as one of the major factors
influencing employee retention. Furthermore, affective commitment has appeared as a
significant contributor towards an employee's intention to stay with an organisation, as it
represents the emotional attachment an individual has for the organisation and their
subsequent desire to remain a member (Ansari, 2011). It is therefore fundamental that
organisations value and develop affective commitment in employees through human resource
systems aimed at fostering it (Gardner et al., 2011). The challenge for organisations is
therefore to establish how they can best develop systems that foster affective commitment. A
number of factors have been associated with increased employee commitment, however
among the most effective and widely used are financial and non-financial reward systems.
These rewards systems refer to all the benefits, whether they are financial in the form of
tangible monetary rewards or non-financial, such as employees’ positive experiences and
feelings arising from their job (Newman & Sheikh, 2012).
Research surrounding which type of rewards best predict affective commitment has however
obtained mixed results (Malhotra, Budhwar & Prowse, 2007). Workforces often comprise
groups of individuals that share different needs, desires and values; yet research concerning
how rewards may influence the development of affective commitment within these various
groups is limited (Rahman, Hussain & Hussain, 2011). This is especially true when
investigating the role an employees’ current income plays in predicting an employees’
preference for financial or non-financial rewards (Young, Worchel & Woehr, 1998). It seems
logical to assume that employees from lower income groups may prefer financial rewards
over non-financial; however little research has investigated such preferences for these groups.
This lack of research surrounding the different types of rewards and their subsequent
relationship with affective commitment limits the possibility of maximising affective
commitment through developing customised and effective reward systems, as a tool for
retention (Gardner et al., 2011). Thus, within the conceptual framework outlined above at
least two research questions emerge: are financial and non-financial rewards related to
affective commitment, and are these relationships moderated by an employee’s average
income? Furthermore: is affective commitment positively related to the intention to stay?
Rewards
Reward systems are often instilled to promote employee performance, increase motivation
and improve retention (Dzuranin, & Stuart, 2012; Gkorezis & Petridou, 2012). The existing

5
literature defines two main types of rewards, namely intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. These
rewards can then be further classified as financial or non-financial in nature.
Intrinsic rewards
These are the emotional rewards that an employee gains when performing tasks inherent to
the content of their job: tasks which motivate them (Malhotra et al., 2007; Newman &
Sheikh, 2012; O'Driscoll & Randall, 1999). Such emotional rewards can also arise from the
way in which an employee is allowed to perform these tasks and the feedback and
recognition received for performing these tasks correctly (Newman & Sheikh, 2012).
Extrinsic rewards
These can be defined in terms of features that are not inherent to the job content:
organisational rewards and social rewards are examples. Organisational rewards are rewards
designed to motivate performance and increase retention and typically include features like
pay, benefits and promotional opportunities (i.e. they can be financial or non-financial in
nature) (Malhotra et al., 2007). Social rewards, however, are a result of the employee’s
interaction with others at work (i.e. their satisfaction with a supervisor’s conduct towards
them; friendly, helpful and supportive peers; and positive interactions with subordinates)
(Malhotra et al., 2007; Newman & Sheikh, 2012). As an objective of the present study is to
determine which aspects of human resource- reward systems relate to positive outcomes
(affective commitment) in employees, the role of extrinsic social rewards becomes less valid
as organisations have limited control over the relationships existing between employees
(Malhotra et al., 2007; Newman & Sheikh, 2012).
Financial rewards
Financial extrinsic rewards refer to the tangible monetary rewards an organisation provides
for each employee. These include overtime and bonus pay and a multitude of additional
benefits including medical aid or pension fund contributions and life insurance.
Non-financial rewards
Non-financial rewards include both extrinsic organisational rewards, intrinsic task rewards
(which are inherent to the content of the job itself) and the investment in training of
employees. Non-financial extrinsic organisational rewards are those rewards offered by the
organisation which can include certificates, promotions and time off. Intrinsic task rewards
are non-financial in nature and include motivational job characteristics such as participation

6
in decision making, autonomy, role clarity, skill variety and feedback (Malhotra et al., 2007).
Employees also value their organisation’s attempts to invest continually in developing their
skills through training, as this increases their capabilities and improves their opportunities for
career advancement (Chew & Chan, 2008). Therefore training emerges as playing an integral
role in overall satisfaction with reward packages and can be regarded as an important non-
financial motivator and intrinsic reward (Malhotra et al., 2007). For this reason the
conceptual framework of reward systems utilised in this study includes both financial and
non-financial extrinsic organisational rewards and non-financial intrinsic rewards (i.e.
involving tasks and training) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Graphic representation of rewards categorisation for the present study
Affective Commitment
Affective commitment refers to the emotional bond an employee has with their organisation:
that is, the bond that results from emotional identification with the organisation. This
emotional identification is created through the employee’s affective attitude towards the
values and goals of their organisation (Ansari, 2011; O'Driscoll, & Randall, 1999; Patrick &
Sonia, 2012).
Affective Commitment and Retention
Previous literature suggests that affective commitment is positively associated with retention,
as a committed employee (one who is involved in, and enjoys their membership of the
organisation) has the desire to remain a member (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ansari, 2011; Meyer
et al., 2002; O'Driscoll & Randall, 1999; Patrick & Sonia, 2012). This desire to remain a
member would be seen in an employee who develops a strong emotional bond for the
organisation as a result of their belief that the organisation is dependable in looking after their
interests, and who respects the goals and values of their organisation in terms of how
employees are treated and what business goals are pursued (Dunham, Grube & Castañeda,
Non-Financial
Rewards
Extrinsic
Organisational
Rewards
Instrinsic Task
andTraining
Rewards
Financial
Rewards
Extrinsic
Organisational
Rewards

7
1994). The emotional bond between an employee and an organisation reflects affective
commitment and encourages individuals to behave in a way that benefits the organisation,
with the main behavioural effect being the desire to continue in the employment relationship.
This emotional bond therefore contributes to a reduction in overall voluntary employee
turnover (Gardner et al., 2011; Patrick & Sonia, 2012).
Organisational commitment does not comprise affective commitment alone. Continuance
commitment is created through an employee’s belief in the anticipated costs and drawbacks
of leaving, and normative commitment is created through the moral obligation felt towards
their organisation. It is logical to assume that affective commitment will have the most
significant effect on retention, as an employee who is emotionally attached to the
organisation would be one more likely to stay than one who stays solely out of obligation or
because of the drawbacks of leaving (Ansari, 2011). Although prior literature suggests that all
three forms of commitment have a negative relationship with voluntary turnover, affective
commitment has the strongest negative relationship with turnover intentions (Luchak &
Gellatly, 2007). A meta-analysis involving 155 studies and 50,146 employees revealed a
significant negative correlation between affective commitment and actual turnover (r= -0.23,
p<0.05) (Meyer et al., 2002). Turnover intentions had the largest negative correlation with
affective commitment (r= -0.51, p<0.05) when compared to the other forms of commitment
(normative commitment r= -0.39, p<0.05 or continuance commitment r= -0.17, p<0.05)
(Meyer et al., 2002). Therefore the present study opted to focus on affective commitment
rather than the other forms of organisational commitment when examining retention.
Turnover intention (intention to leave) is used as a measure that predicts turnover, however
when seeking to predict whether an employee wants to stay with an organisation one would
measure their intention to stay (McCarthy, Tyrrel & Lehane, 2007). Therefore the intention to
stay should have the opposite relationship with affective commitment from that of turnover
intentions (McCarthy et al., 2007). Based on the arguments presented above the following
hypothesis was proposed;
H1: A significant positive relationship exists between affective commitment and intention to stay.
Financial and Non-Financial Rewards and Affective Commitment
Research suggests that employees who are satisfied with their employee benefits (HR reward
systems) respond by developing greater affective commitment towards the organisation, as
they feel that their organisation cares for their interests (Mahal, 2012; Malhotra et al., 2007;

8
Newman & Sheikh, 2012). This may be because employees perceive their organisation to be
committed towards their wellbeing when they receive the rewards that they value. Previous
research has found the antecedents of affective commitment to include intrinsic non-financial
rewards such as perceived job characteristics of task autonomy, task significance, task
identity, skill variety, supervisory feedback and the ability to influence decisions at work
(Dunham, Grube & Castañeda, 1994). This is in accordance with literature which supports
the view that intrinsic rewards are more closely associated with organisational commitment
than extrinsic rewards (Newman & Sheikh, 2012). In opposition another stream of literature
suggests that extrinsic rewards (both financial and non-financial) are more powerful
determinants of affective commitment than non-financial intrinsic rewards, as organisations
have direct control over their provision. Therefore if employees value their organisation’s HR
reward systems (perceiving these to consider their needs), this will increase their
identification with the organisation and their attachment to it (Mahal, 2012). Based on the
above, the following hypotheses were formulated:
H2: Employee satisfaction with financial rewards is positively related to their level of affective
commitment.
H3: Employee satisfaction with non-financial rewards is positively related to their level of affective
commitment.
H4: Employee satisfaction with extrinsic financial rewards, extrinsic non-financial rewards and
intrinsic non-financial rewards predicts variance in affective commitment.
Retention, Affective Commitment and Rewards
Affective commitment has been seen to influence retention positively and thus investigation
into the elements that encourage affective commitment is essential in order to maintain a
competitive advantage (Ansari, 2011). Research surrounding retention, affective commitment
and rewards indicates that the satisfaction with rewards, which best predict affective
commitment, has included benefits such as; role clarity, fair reward allocation (financial/non-
financial), promotional opportunities and career development (Malhotra et al., 2007;
Newman & Sheikh, 2012; O'Driscoll & Randall, 1999; Patrick & Sonia, 2012). The reason
that these rewards increase affective commitment in employees could be that when an
employee feels that they have control and autonomy (non-financial intrinsic task rewards),
they believe their supervisor provides valuable training (intrinsic reward) and provides
rewards fairly (financial and non-financial extrinsic organisational rewards); thus their
emotional identification with the organisation increases (Mahal, 2012; Malhotra et al., 2007).
Consequently, if HR reward systems use rewards designed to motivate and empower

9
employees; and employees value these systems for meeting their needs, they should display
increased affective commitment, which, ultimately, reduces turnover (Chew & Chan, 2008;
Gardner et al., 2011). Therefore although research has identified that a direct relationship
exists between satisfaction with rewards and employee intentions to stay, affective
commitment is believed to mediate this relationship through the affective attitudinal change
towards the organisation that takes place in employees (Chew & Chan, 2008). Therefore the
following hypotheses were formulated based on the arguments above;
H5: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between satisfaction with financial rewards and
an employee’s intention to stay
H6: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between satisfaction with non-financial rewards
and an employee’s intention to stay
The Average Income Effect
Literature suggests that those individuals who earn less would prefer extrinsic financial
rewards over non-financial rewards (Angle & Perry, 1983; Loscocco, 1990). However this
research is limited and has obtained mixed results (Young, Worchel & Woehr, 1998), with
some research suggesting that an employee’s income level indirectly affects their preference
of rewards when predicting affective commitment, as valued rewards would contribute to
affective commitment more than rewards that an employee does not care for (Patrick &
Sonia, 2012; Young, Worchel & Woehr, 1998). An individual’s average monthly salary may
therefore moderate the relationship between rewards and affective commitment. Therefore it
is important to understand workforce diversity in preference for financial and non-financial
rewards, in order to design better suited reward systems that cater for employees in different
income brackets and working environments. The following hypotheses concerning the effect
income has on the relationship between affective commitment and rewards were formulated
based on the arguments presented above;
H7: An employee’slevel of income moderates the relationship between satisfaction with financial
rewards and affective commitment.
H8: An employee’slevel of income moderates the relationship between satisfaction with non-financial
rewards and affective commitment.
For a full conceptual model of the variables under investigation see Appendix A.

10
METHOD
Research Design
A quantitive correlational research approach was undertaken to establish the relationships
between the variables under investigation. This was done through the collection of numerical
data, which was analysed using various statistical methods (Aliaga & Gunderson, 2000). A
descriptive research design was employed to investigate the hypotheses and aimed at
determining which variables were associated with employee retention (Jonassen, 1996). The
hypotheses were tested using cross-sectional data obtained through both online and paper-
and-pencil based questionnaires.
Instruments
The research questionnaire consisted of three scales measuring satisfaction with rewards (17
items), affective commitment (6 items) and the intention to stay (4 items). A total of twenty
eight items (with average monthly income included) were used in the inferential analyses. For
affective commitment and intention to stay scales an interval 5-point, Likert scale (1 =
strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neutral, 4= agree and 5 = strongly agree), assumed to have
equidistant points between each of the scale components, was used to measure a participants
level of agreement to a particular statement (Velleman & Wilkinson, 1993). Five- point
Likert-type response scales were used for all scales in the questionnaire as research has
supported that the coefficient alpha of reliability with Likert scales increases up to five points
and then levels off (Hinkin, 1998). A neutral response point was used to cater for those
participants who may have felt indifferent towards the presented item. A participant who
strongly agreed with an item demonstrated high affective commitment and strong intentions
to stay. None of the items in the questionnaire were reverse coded.
Reward Scales
The reward sub-scales were sub-divided into extrinsic financial rewards, extrinsic non-
financial rewards and intrinsic non-financial rewards. The extrinsic non-financial and
intrinsic financial scales were adapted from Malhotra, Budhwar and Prowse’s (2007)
statements to simplified items listing of each type of reward. For each of the reward items
presented, participants were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction regarding their
organisation’s provision of that specific reward. The scale used ranged from (1= highly
dissatisfied, 2= dissatisfied, 3= neutral, 4= satisfied, 5= highly satisfied). Items were selected

11
for each scale based on the Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses results for each
item. The items with the highest factor loadings, indicating construct validity, were selected.
Extrinsic financial rewards
Items one to five of the reward scale were classified as extrinsic financial rewards. These
included tangible financial compensation and benefits (i.e. pay, bonuses, medical aid and
pension fund) from the organisation as defined by Longnecker and Shanklin (2004).
Extrinsic non-financial rewards
Items six to eight of the rewards scale were defined as promotional opportunities and working
conditions. Items one and two from Malhotra’s et al., (2007) promotional scale, who had
originally drawn these items from Mottaz (1988) and Young, Worchel and Woehr’s (1998)
scales, were adapted for use in the present study. The three-item promotional scale was found
to have high internal consistency (Conbrach α= .91) and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis
revealed the items to have high construct validity (Malhotra, Budhwar & Prowse, 2007). Item
one from Malhotra’s et al., (2007) two- item working conditions scale, which had a Conbrach
alpha of (α = .89) and was of satisfactory construct validity, was drawn and adapted.
Intrinsic non-financial rewards
Items nine to seventeen of the rewards scale were classified as intrinsic non-financial
rewards. All of these items were drawn from Malhotra’s et al., (2007) intrinsic rewards sub-
scales, which included scales for training (Conbrach α = .73), role clarity (Conbrach α = .85),
skill variety (Conbrach α = .76), autonomy (Conbrach α = .82), feedback (Conbrach α= .82)
and participation (Conbrach α = .76). Additionally, through Confirmatory Factor Analysis,
these sub-scales were seen to display construct validity (Malhotra et al., 2007). For training,
item three from the original three-item scale was selected. In terms of role clarity items one,
two and five from the original five-item scale was selected. For skill variety, item one from
the original two-item scale was selected. For autonomy, item two from the original three-item
scale was selected. For feedback, original scale items one and two were selected and lastly
for the participation scale, items one and two were combined for use in the present study.
Affective Commitment Scale
Items used in the present study were adapted from Allen and Meyer’s (1990) eight item
Affective Commitment Scale. In a review of over forty studies, Allen and Meyer (1996)
found the scale to have satisfactory internal consistency (Conbrach α ≥ .85). Evidence of

12
construct validity has been found through both Exploratory (EFA) (Allen & Meyer, 1990;
McGee & Ford, 1987; Reilly & Orsak, 1991), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis consistently
indicating that AC items load as a one dimensional scale (Meyer, Allen & Gellatly, 1990;
Moorman, Niehoff & Organ, 1993; Shore & Tetrick, 1991). However items three: ‘’I really
feel as if this organisation’s problems are my own’’ and seven: ‘’this organisation has a great
deal of personal meaning for me’’ from the original scale were not included in the present
study as the EFA loadings for these items were low (Malhotra et al., 2007). As item one from
the original scale was ambiguous, it was simplified to ‘’I am very happy being a member of
this organisation’’. Lastly items four, five, six and eight from the original scale were adapted
from negatively worded items which were reverse coded to positive items; allowing for a
score of five on each scale to reflect a high level of affective commitment.
Intention to Stay (IS) Scale
Item three in the present studies IS scale was developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins and
Klesh (1979). The original three-item scale was considered reliable (internal consistency)
(Conbrach α = .79) (Chen, Hui & Sego, 1998). Items four and seven in the present study
originated from the Intention to Stay Questionnaire (ISQ) (Martin & Roodt, 2007; Riley,
2006), which also displayed internal consistency (Conbrach α= .895) (Martin, 2007). Item six
was taken from Price and Mueller’s (1986) four-item scale which was of high internal
consistency (Conbrach α = .90) (Kim, Price, Mueller & Watson, 1996; Price & Kim, 1993).
Items were selected from the above-mentioned scales based on face validity.
Average Monthly Income
Participants were asked to provide either their gross (before tax and deductions) annual
package or their gross monthly income. Data for gross annual package was then converted to
average gross monthly income, by dividing the figure provided by twelve.
Population
The empirical work in this study consisted of gathering data from participants. The
population consisted of employees who were at the time employed by an organisation.
Sample and Procedure
Approval was granted by the ethics committee at the University of Cape Town to conduct
this research. Convenience sampling was used to obtain data from participants. Data was
collected by four post graduate students studying in the field of Business Management

13
studies, namely Organisational Psychology. Data collection began by seeking permission
from employers or management at certain organisations in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Researchers assured the respondent organisations that their company and employee
information would be kept anonymous. Reassurance was both verbal and additionally
through a cover letter outlining the purpose of the study, voluntary participation and the
issues of confidentiality and anonymity. This allowed the research team to gain entry into a
number of organisations to administer the paper-and-pencil questionnaires. There was no
specific time limit given to complete the questionnaire, however on average it took ten
minutes to complete. The online version of the questionnaire, including its cover letter was
forwarded to managers of various organisations who were asked to complete and forward the
questionnaire to their subordinates. This snowballing technique created a wider scope for data
collection. Participants were removed if more that 25% of their data was missing for the
questionnaire. Table 1 (see Appendix B) outlines the demographics of the sample.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 was used for all analyses.
Reliability in terms of internal consistency (Conbrach alpha) and total item correlations were
used to determine which items should be omitted from further analyses. Principal Component
Analysis was used to demonstrate construct validity, establishing whether each sub-scale was
unidimensional. A standard multiple regression was used to establish which predictor
variables (extrinsic financial/non-financial and intrinsic non-financial rewards) best predicted
variance in affective commitment. Bivariate correlations established the relationships
between the rewards and commitment as well as commitment and retention. Howell’s (2009)
moderator analysis tested the effect income has on the relationship between rewards and
affective commitment. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure for mediator analysis tested if
affective commitment mediated the relationship between rewards and retention.
RESULTS
Reliability
Scales were considered for further analysis if they had a Conbrach alpha of at least .7 and
item-total correlations of no less than .3 (Burns & Burns, 2008). Reliability analysis revealed
all scales to have acceptable internal consistencies (α ≥.7) and additionally, all items within
the scales had high item-total correlations (> 0.30). Subsequently no items were omitted as
scales were confirmed to be reliable. Results are illustrated in Table 2.

14
Table 2: Reliability:Internal consistenciesof scales used in the present study.
Scale Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient (α)
Item- total
correlations
Total number of
items in scale
Extrinsic financial rewards (s) .755 .429< r <.592 5
Extrinsic non-financial rewards (s) .779 .549< r <.699 3
Intrinsic non-financial rewards (s) .916 .626< r <.777 9
Affective commitment .928 .738< r <.893 6
Intention to stay .808 .592< r <.704 4
Note. (s)= satisfaction with rewards mentioned above.
Validity
Principle Component Analysis was used to establish construct scale validity. The Principle
Component Analysis was conducted if the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy was above .50, indicating that validity analysis was appropriate. Additionally
Bartlett’s test of sphericity had to be significant, indicating that the variables within the scales
correlate (Matsunaga, 2010). Components were considered irrefutable if they had eigenvalues
greater than 1, which is the critical value beyond which components are deemed as relevant
(Kaiser, 1965). Additionally, factor loadings in component matrices had to be above .30;
indicating that a significant correlations between items and the components (Burns & Burns,
2008). Lastly, items are not to cross-load, which is constituted by a discrepancy between the
primary and secondary loadings of less than 0.3 (Matsunaga, 2010). The scales under
investigation met all the above conditions and validity results are reflected in Table 3.
The extrinsic-financial rewards scale revealed two components; the results for the first
component are shown in Table 3. The second component had an eigenvalue of 1.2 and
accounted for 24% of the variance. Direct Oblimin rotation was used to establish how items
loaded on each component. Items which loaded on the second component included items four
and five, which measured satisfaction towards medical aid and pension fund. These items can
be interpreted as indirect (benefits not received physically in cash) financial rewards, whereas
the remaining items measured more direct financial-rewards such as pay, bonuses and
increases. However, direct or indirect, the items constituted financial rewards. Thus the scale
was treated as unidimensional and remained aggregated as a whole.
The intrinsic non-financial rewards scale revealed two components; the results for the first
component are shown in Table 3. The second component had an eigenvalue of 1.17 and
explained 13% of the variance. Items 9, 15, 16, and 17 loaded on the second component.

15
These items included feedback/recognition, participation and the provision of training which
are theoretically different to the remaining intrinsic reward items, which were associated with
rewards gained through satisfaction with one’s physical job tasks, roles and responsibilities.
Both literature and the Cattell’s (1966) scree plot supported the view that intrinsic rewards
comprise of all of the above constructs. The scale was thus treated as unidimensional.
Table 3: Validity results using Principle Component Analysis. Rotation method:Oblimin with Kaiser
Normalisation.
Note. AC= affective commitment, IS= intention to stay, EFRS= satisfaction with financial rewards (extrinsic),
NFRS= satisfaction with non-financial rewards, ENFRS= satisfaction with non-financial rewards (extrinsic),
INFRS= satisfaction with non-financial rewards (intrinsic).
Descriptive Statistics
The mean scores indicate that participants had relatively high levels of affective commitment
and moderate satisfaction regarding financial rewards (extrinsic) and non-financial rewards
(extrinsic and intrinsic). In terms of intention to stay the average participant indicated that
they felt neutral towards remaining employed by their organisation (see Table 4).
Table 4: Descriptive Statisticsfor the variables in the present study.
Note. N= the number of participantsincluded for each scale, Mean= the average, SD= the standard deviation
from the mean and (s) = satisfaction.
Scale KMO Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Sig df X2
Eigen
value 1st
component
Explained
variance
(%)
Minimum
factor
loading
Maximum
factor
loading
No. of
items
AC .896 .001 1065.05 15 4.46 74.2 .820 .935 6
IS .768 .001 274.33 6 2.52 63.0 .776 .845 4
EFRS .682 .001 337.7 10 2.56 51.2 .577 .806 5
ENFRS .664 .001 187.08 3 2.08 69.52 .785 .885 3
INFRS .891 .001 1298.4 36 5.38 60.00 .696 .852 9
Scale N Mean SD
Affective commitment 224 3.57 .95
Intention to stay 224 3.00 1.01
Average monthly income(before tax and deductions) 139 24630.66 49565.05
Financial rewards-extrinsic (s) 219 3.30 .84
Non-financial rewards (s) 220 3.30 .77
Extrinsic non-financial (s) 218 3.17 .90
-Intrinsic non-financial (s) 220 3.41 .80

16
Inferential Statistics: Results Relating to Hypotheses
The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed significant and moderate to strong relationships
between all the variables in study (Cohen, 1988). Hypotheses one, two and three were all
supported. Results are illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5: Pearson correlation coefficient matrix for the variables under investigation.
Intention to
stay
EFRS NFRS ENFRS INFRS
Affective commitment .690**
(n=224)
H1
.493**
(n=219)
H2
.510**
(n=220)
H3
.484**
(n=218)
.476**
(n=220)
Intention to stay .576**
(n=219)
.595**
(n=220)
.527**
(n=218)
.572**
(n=220)
Note. **= Significant at the p<0.01 level. EFRS= satisfaction with financial rewards (extrinsic), NFRS=
satisfaction with non-financial rewards, ENFRS= satisfaction with non-financial rewards (extrinsic), INFRS=
satisfaction with non-financial rewards (intrinsic).
A standard multiple regression was used to test the fourth hypothesis, where a number of
conditions had to be met: Firstly, the predictor variables (extrinsic financial rewards, extrinsic
non-financial rewards and intrinsic rewards) all inter-correlated below the standard of r= 0.7,
thus indicating no multicollinearity (Burns & Burns, 2008). Secondly, the data set comprised
of 225 valid cases, therefore the condition of fifteen cases per independent variable for the
regression was satisfied (Burns & Burns, 2008). The regression analysis was significant (F3,
217= 32.19, p<.001), with 30.1% of unique variance in affective commitment explained by the
predictor variables (independent variables) (R =.560). The hypothesis was supported, with
extrinsic financial rewards as the strongest predictor of affective commitment, (represented
by the following regression equation; y= 1.15+ .311x) as demonstrated in Table 6.
Table 6: Standard Multiple Regression:Standardised beta coefficients (β) of the predictor
variablesof affective commitment.
Predictor variable β t p
Extrinsic financial rewards .27** 3.66 .000
Extrinsic non-financial
rewards
.18* 2.06 .04
Intrinsic rewards .19* 2.28 .023
Note.** Significant at the p<0.01 level; * Significant at the p<0.05 level.
A mediation analysis was used to test hypotheses five and six (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To
investigate whether affective commitment mediated the relationship between financial

17
rewards and intention to stay, as well as the relationship between non-financial rewards and
intentions to stay; where the following conditions for the mediation analysis had to be met.
The path from independent variable [extrinsic financial (EFRS)/ non-financial rewards
(NFRS)] to the mediating variable and from mediating to the dependent variable (intention to
stay) must be a significant relationship. The results of the simple regression analyses are
illustrated in Table 7(see Appendix C). The direct relationship between both EFRS/NFRS
and intention to stay were then analysed, and the beta coefficients (simple regression) were
compared to the beta coefficients of EFRS/NFRS in the standard multiple regressions. A
mediating relationship was found as the beta coefficients decreased significantly for both
EFRS and NFRS in the standard multiple regressions when compared to the beta coefficients
for EFRS and NFRS in the simple regressions respectively. Finally a partial correlation was
computed which controlled for affective commitment. It was established that affective
commitment acted as a partial mediator for the relationship between both financial and non-
financial rewards and intention to stay as both partial correlations were significant. The
hypotheses were thus supported as seen in Table 7 (see Appendix C).
A moderation analysis was used to test hypotheses seven and eight (Howell, 2009). Howell’s
(2009) moderation analysis requires the computation of centred means for the independent
variable (EFRS/NFRS) and the moderating variable (average monthly income). The centred
product of both these centred means are then placed as the interaction term in a hierarchical
regression; where EFRS/NFRS and average monthly income are placed as the predictors
(independent variables) of affective commitment (dependant variable). The hierarchical
regression analysis was significant (F3, 137=16.122, p<.001), revealing that hypothesis seven
was unsupported due to the fact that the centred product of financial rewards and gross
monthly income was not a significant predictor of affective commitment (β=-.05, t=-.525,
p=.60). For hypothesis eight the hierarchical regression was significant (F3, 137= 13.069, p<
.001); however the centred product of non-financial rewards and gross monthly income was
not a significant predictor of affective commitment (β = -.04, t= -.370, p=.71). Therefore an
employees’ income level was not found to moderate the relationship between their
satisfaction with EFRS/NFRS and affective commitment in the present study.
DISCUSSION
The research objective for this study was to demonstrate how satisfaction with financial and
non-financial rewards is strongly linked to higher levels of affective commitment in

18
employees, thus motivating employees to stay and therefore leading to improved retention for
organisations. The abovementioned objective was achieved. The second research objective
was to demonstrate the role an individual’s average monthly income had in moderating the
relationship between rewards and affective commitment. This objective was not fulfilled.
Findings relating to the first hypothesis revealed that an employee who is affectively
committed to their organisation is likely to stay there. This finding is consistent with prior
research supporting the theory that affective commitment is positively associated with
employee intentions to stay (Ansari, 2011; Meyer et al., 2002; O'Driscoll & Randall, 1999;
Patrick & Sonia, 2012).
Findings relating to hypotheses two and three indicated that an employee’s satisfaction with
financial (r=.493; p<.001) and non-financial rewards (r=.51; p<.001) has both a strong and
positive relationship to how affectively committed employees are towards their organisation.
These findings are consistent with previous empirical work which states that the presence of
effective rewards systems within an organisation relates strongly to increased affective
commitment in its employees (Mahal, 2012; Malhotra et al., 2007; Newman & Sheikh, 2012).
Additionally, non-financial rewards (which comprise extrinsic and intrinsic rewards) had a
slightly stronger relationship to affective commitment than financial rewards did. It must be
noted however that these two findings were only marginally different, so that a more reliable
conclusion would equate the effects of financial and non-financial rewards. Findings relating
to hypothesis four, however, did offer more insight into which specific types of reward best
predict variance in affective commitment.
Findings relative to hypothesis four demonstrated that employee satisfaction associated with
financial benefits (pay, bonuses, increases, medical aid and pension fund contributions) was
superior (β= .27, t= 3.66, p=.001) to both extrinsic non-financial organisational rewards (β=
.18, t= 2.06, p=.04) (promotional policies, opportunities for career advancement and working
conditions conducive to job performance) and intrinsic rewards (β= .19, t= 2.28, p=.023)
(motivational job characteristics such as: skill variety, autonomy, role clarity, feedback,
participation and training) in its ability to predict variance in affective commitment. This
finding provides new insight into two opposing themes of literature related to whether
extrinsic or intrinsic rewards are best associated with affective commitment (Gardener et al.,
2011; Malhotra, Budhwar & Prowse, 2007). One view claims that extrinsic rewards lead to
higher levels of affective commitment than intrinsic rewards do (Goulet & Frank, 2002;

19
Miao, Newman, Sun & Xu, 2013) and the other theme highlights that intrinsic rewards have
the largest influence on organisational commitment, particularly in western societies (Steijn
& Leisink, 2006).
The present study’s findings suggest that extrinsic financial rewards are superior to both
extrinsic non-financial and intrinsic non-financial rewards in predicting affective
commitment. Therefore it may not be expedient to categorise rewards simply as extrinsic
(financial or non-financial rewards- offered by the organisation) or intrinsic (non-financial
rewards- inherent to one’s job) without additionally considering whether these are financial
or non-financial in nature. Employers need to consider the fact that monetary rewards seem to
have more relevance than intrinsic and extrinsic non-financial rewards in creating and
maintaining a committed workforce. This could be because emerging economies such as
South Africa place a greater importance on extrinsic financial benefits than is found in
Western countries, where individuals enjoy an overall higher standard of living and are thus
less receptive to financial rewards (Newman & Sheikh, 2012). Another explanation could be
that organisations have better control over extrinsic rewards than over intrinsic rewards
(Angle & Perry, 1983). However, all types of reward should still be considered, as
deprivation of any one type may have a negative impact on commitment, regardless of
whether other rewards remain coexistent (Miao et al., 2013).
Hypotheses five and six supported the limited amount of prior literature in the assumption
that affective commitment mediates the relationship between satisfaction with financial
(Farrell & Rusbult, 1981) and non-financial rewards on the one hand and an employee’s
intention to stay on the other (Chew & Chan, 2008). What this suggests is that an employee
who is appropriately rewarded is more affectively committed and thus more likely to stay
with their organisation. However the findings for both hypotheses five and six suggest that
the mediation was partial, indicating that a direct relationship (between rewards and the
intention to stay) may exist even when affective commitment is not present. For example, an
individual may consider staying with their organisation solely because they would lose
certain financial pay or non-financial benefits by leaving. This could also hypothetically
speak to continuance commitment in that previous empirical work has demonstrated that
continuance commitment, like affective commitment, is strongly linked to satisfaction with
extrinsic benefits (Malhotra et al., 2007; Newman & Sheikh, 2012).

20
The literature suggests that those individuals who earn less should prefer extrinsic financial
rewards over non-financial rewards (Angle & Perry, 1983; Loscocco, 1990). Since this
literature has similarly been limited and has obtained mixed results (Young, Worchel &
Woehr, 1998), the present study aimed to contribute to the existing theory. However the
study’s hypotheses were unsupported. Findings relating to hypotheses seven and eight
showed that an employee’s level of income (average monthly income before tax and
deductions) did not moderate the relationship between satisfaction with financial or non-
financial rewards and affective commitment in this study. This could be attributed to
individuals’ preference for extrinsic rewards regardless of what salary they earn, or it could
be contingent on the fact that thirty eight per cent of participants within the study were
reluctant to provide information regarding their salary, impeding the possibility of an
accurate statistical analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Participants who did respond, may
have inflated or understated their salary, either to seem more socially desirable or in an
attempt to conceal their information (Paulhus, 1991). This could have occurred regardless of
anonymity, as managers often collected paper-and-pencil surveys from their staff. Another
factor could be that participants may not have accurately recalled the amount which they earn
before tax and deductions as readily and correctly as they could recall their net salary.
Limitations of the Present Study
The first limitation is characteristic of the study’s design which followed a correlational
approach with the result that cause and effect between the variables could not be quantified
(Gay, 1996). It is therefore unclear as to whether affectively committed employees positively
perceive their rewards as more satisfying or whether a positive perception of rewards leads to
increased commitment. The same can be said for employees’ intentions to stay; we cannot
distinguish whether those that do not want to leave become affectively committed or whether
affective commitment leads to reduced turnover intentions.
Response bias could also be an issue, as the length of the questionnaire totalled sixty items, or
seventy six items when including the demographic section. As the questionnaire was a
collation of four separate studies, thirty two questions were not relevant to the current study,
and with no incentive to complete the survey participants may have become demotivated.
Additionally, participants may have been fatigued and therefore may not have answered to
the best of their ability (Lavrakas, 2008).

21
Thirdly, the sample size equated to two hundred and twenty five participants. Research shows
that one hundred participants is the minimum requirement for making decisions based on
statistical findings, yet larger sample sizes increase power and decrease estimation error
(Cohen, 1992). In general, samples size below two hundred are regarded as poor, two
hundred as fair, three-hundred as good; and five hundred is considered robust against
estimation error (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Therefore a sample of five hundred or more
should be utilised to obtain more accurate results: however, time and financial constraints
limited this possibility.
Fourthly, the online data collection procedure limited the controls over which type of
individual was answering the questionnaire. This restricted the possibility of controlling for
extraneous variables relating to testing conditions and the selection of the target population:
for example, it could not be determined whether participants were genuinely and currently
employed by an organisation or not. The participants were approached through convenient
sampling methods and thus did not originate from any specific industry, nor were randomly
selected. It is therefore not possible to determine which rewards systems suit particular
organisations operating in various industries, so that in turn it would be incorrect to infer the
results to all industries. With this limitation in mind, it was however possible to determine
that the present study’s largest proportion of participants came from the retail, technology,
financial and telecommunication industries respectively, with eighty six per cent of the
population being drawn from organisations operating in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Recommendations for Future Research
Workforces often consist of groups of individuals that share different needs, desires and
values, hence future research could aim to examine more specifically which types of rewards
are best suited for certain industries operating in South Africa. This could provide insight into
how best to design reward systems that foster affective commitment and retention in different
contexts. Methodological approaches could include stratified sampling procedures where
organisations in particular industries are randomly selected and approached. Random
sampling of participants would result in representative samples and allow for accurate
conclusions to be drawn. This process would however be impractical and would require
immense funding, thus making it preferable simply to administer the questionnaire to a large
number of participants in order to gain an accurate representation. Furthermore, all testing
conditions should remain standardised, with researchers personally administering the

22
questionnaires. Future studies should offer incentives for participants to become involved in
the study and should similarly ensure that questionnaires are concise: this would likely
increase willingness to participate and ensure more accurate responses from participants.
Further investigation into the non-financial extrinsic rewards should aim to establish whether
factors like time off and recognition in the form of certificates and public praise could also
have an effect and should thus be included in the scale (Dzuranin & Stuart, 2012). Secondly,
the segment of the survey that focused on intrinsic rewards consisted of various constructs
(role clarity, autonomy, provision of training, skill variety, feedback and participation), all of
which were classified under intrinsic rewards in prior literature. Often, only one to two items
might be provided on the questionnaire for assessing a particular construct, as the overall
length of the questionnaire was of concern. This therefore limited the possibility of measuring
the effects of these sub domains of intrinsic rewards on affective commitment and thus this
area should be a goal for future research.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
The findings are of significance for Human Resource managers interested in enhancing
employee commitment and improving organisational efficiency, especially in organisations
that are characterised by high employee turnover. Findings demonstrate that significant
differences in the antecedents of organisational commitment exist, which speaks to the need
for customised and effectively designed reward systems. This emphasises the importance of
both financial and non-financial rewards in increasing affective commitment and
demonstrates the link between affective commitment and improved employee retention.
Additionally it demonstrates how variance in employees’ affective commitment has a strong
association with an employees’ satisfaction with the extrinsic financial benefits they receive.
This finding may differ in different contexts; thus interventions concerned with promoting the
communication of needs between supervisors and subordinates could be beneficial in
determining which rewards employees consider to be poorly provided or lacking.
Additionally, it could be beneficial to integrate these extrinsic financial rewards systems with
performance management systems as a means of further motivating employees to perform.
These performance management systems should be consistent in identifying those employees
that deserve career advancement, and this opportunity/incentive should be well
communicated, as the present study revealed the importance of fair promotional opportunities
in predicting affective commitment (Miao et al., 2013).

23
In South Africa, where skill shortages are vast and are coupled with high staff turnover,
leading to increased training and recruitment costs, the retention of human capital should be a
particular priority for organisations wishing both to increase their profitability and to
maintain a competitive advantage. Encouraging affective commitment through effective
rewards systems is therefore a priority in that staff turnover is reduced. Effective rewards
systems should place emphasis on the role of supervisors in managing their subordinate’s job
characteristics, and should seek methods that promote the clear understanding of expectations
related to responsibilities. Ways in which the content of tasks and employee responsibility
can be adjusted should be investigated in order to increase satisfaction with these intrinsic
rewards. Managers should be assessed on their ability to give constructive feedback and to
identify employees who require training. Lastly, financial compensation should be evaluated
in terms of whether it is sufficient for the position, meets employee needs and responds
appropriately to the performance of the employee (Kinnie, Hutchinson, Rayton & Swart,
2005). When these employee needs are met, employees will perceive their organisation as
one which takes an interest in their wellbeing. This is the point at which they are most likely
to develop affective commitment, thus becoming attached to their organisation and
experiencing the desire to stay.

24
References
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2000). Interactive Statistics (1st ed.). Rapid City: Prentice
Hall, Inc.
Angle, H., & Perry, J. (1983). Organisational commitment: Individual and organisational
influences. Work and Occupations 10(1), 138-140.
Ansari, N. G. (2011). Employee perception of HRM practices: Impact on commitment to the
organization. South Asian Journal of Management, 18(3), 122-149.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Burns, R. B., & Burns, R. A. (2008). Business research methods and statistics using
SPSS. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan organizational
assessment questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural
Research, 1(2), 245-276.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behaviour
in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(6), 922 - 31.

25
Chew, J., & Chan, C.A. (2008). Human resource practices, organizational commitment and
intention to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29(6), 503-522.
Cohen, J. (1998). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155‐159.
Dzuranin, A., & Stuart, N. (2012). The effect of tangible and intangible noncash rewards on
performance and satisfaction in a production setting. Management Accounting
Quarterly, 13(4), 1-9.
Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C.E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job
commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and
investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(1), 78-95.
Gardner, T. M., Wright, P. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2011). The impact of motivation,
empowerment, and skill-enhancing practices on aggregate voluntary turnover: The
mediating effect of collective affective commitment. Personnel Psychology, 64(2),
315-350.
Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Gkorezis, P., & Petridou, E. (2012). The effect of extrinsic rewards on public and private
sector employees' psychological empowerment: A comparative approach.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3596-3612.
Goulet, L.R., & Frank, M.L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: Public,
non-profit, and for-profit. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 201–210.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121.
Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmot, CA: Cengage
Learning.

26
Jonassen., D. (1996). Handbook of research for educational communications and technology:
A project of the association for educational communications and technology. New
York: Macmillan.
Kaiser, H. F. (1965). Psychometric approaches to factor analysis: In proceedings of the 1964
invitational conference on testing problems. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational
Testing Service.
Kim, S., Price, J., Mueller, C., & Watson, T. (1996). The determinants of career intent
among physicians at a U.S. Air Force hospital. Human Relations, 49(7), 947-
976.
Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2005). Satisfaction with HR practices
and commitment to the organisation: Why one size does not fit all. Human Resource
Management Journal, 15(4), 1748-8583.
Lavrakas, P. J. (Ed.). (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage Publications,
Incorporated.
Longnecker, B. M., & Shanklin, N. (2004). Total rewards: A three-legged platform
toward improved productivity. Employee Benefit Plan Review, 59(1), 8-10.
Loscocco, K,. A. (1990). Reactions to blue- collar work: A comparison of woman and
men. Work and Occupations 17(2), 167-171.
Luchak, A. A., & Gellatly, I. R. (2007). A comparison of linear and nonlinear relations
between organizational commitment and work outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(3), 786-793.
Mahal, P. (2012). HR practices as determinants of organizational commitment and
employee retention. IUP Journal of Management Research, 11(4), 37-53.
Malhotra, N., Budhwar, P., & Prowse, P. (2007). Linking rewards to commitment: An
empirical investigation of four UK call centres. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 18(12), 2095-2128.

27
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor analyse your data right: Do’s, don’ts, how-to’s. The
International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97-110.
Martin, A. (2008). Employee perceptions of organisational commitment, job satisfaction and
turnover intentions in a post-merger South African Tertiary institution (Doctoral
dissertation, The University of Johannesburg).
Martin, A. & Roodt, G. (2007). Perceptions of organisational commitment, job satisfaction
and turnover intentions in a post-merger South African tertiary institution. SA Journal
of Industrial Psychology, 34 (1), 1-23.
McCarthy, G., Tyrrel, M. P., & Lehane, E. (2007). Intention to leave or stay in nursing.
Journal of Nursing Management, 15(3), 248-255.
McGee, G.W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational
commitment: Re-examination of the affective and continuance commitment
scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638–642.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of vocational behaviour, 61(1),
20-52.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance
commitment to the organization: Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent
and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710-720.
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Sun, Y., & Xu, L. (2013). What factors influence the
organizational commitment of public sector employees in China? The role of
extrinsic, intrinsic and social rewards. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(17), 3262-3280.
Moorman, R. H., Neihoff, B. P., & Organ, D.W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behaviour: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 6, 209–225.

28
Mottaz, C.J. (1988). Determinants of Organizational Commitment. Human Relations,
41(6), 467–82.
Newman, A. A., & Sheikh, A. Z. (2012). Organizational commitment in Chinese small- and
medium sized enterprises: The role of extrinsic, intrinsic and social rewards.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(2), 349-367.
O'Driscoll, M. P., & Randall, D. M. (1999). Perceived organisational support, satisfaction
with rewards, and employee job involvement and organisational commitment. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48(2), 197-209.
Patrick, H., & Sonia, J. (2012). Job satisfaction and affective Commitment. IUP Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 23-36.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response biases. In J.P.Robinson et al.
(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Price, J., & Kim, S. (1993). The relationship between demographic variables and intent to
stay in the military: Medical personnel in a U.S. Air Force hospital. Armed Forces
and Society, 20(1), 125-144.
Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement.Marshfield, MA:
Pitman.
Rahman, M., Hussain, M., & Hussain, B. (2011). Assessing the relationship between
diversified workforce and reward on employees’ performance in the
organisation: An exploratory study of private organisations in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Employment Studies, 19(2), 83-111.
Reilly, N. P., & Orsak, C. L. (1991). A career stage analysis of career and organizational
commitment in nursing. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 39, 311–330.

29
Riley, D. (2006). Turnover Intentions: the mediation effects of job satisfaction, affective
commitment and continuance commitment (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Waikato).
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1991). A construct validity study of the survey of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 637-643.
Steijn, B., & Leisink, P. (2006). Organizational commitment among Dutch public sector
employees. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72(2),187–201.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New
York: Harper Collins.
Velleman, P. F., & Wilkinson, L. (1993). Nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio typologies are
misleading. The American Statistician, 47 (1), 65–72.
Young, B. S., Worchel, S., & Woehr, D. J. (1998). Organizational commitment among
public service employees. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 339- 348.

30
APPENDICES
A. Conceptual Model
Rewards Retention
H1: A significant positive relationship exists between affective commitment and intention to
stay.
H2: Employees satisfaction with financial rewards is positively related to their level of
affective commitment.
H3: Employee satisfaction with non-financial rewards is positively related to their level of
affective commitment.
H4: Employee satisfaction with extrinsic financial rewards, extrinsic non-financial rewards
and intrinsic non-financial rewards predicts variance in affective commitment.
H5: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between satisfaction with financial
rewards and an employee’s intention to stay
H6: Affective commitment mediates the relationship between satisfaction with non-financial
rewards and an employee’s intention to stay
H7: An employees’ level of income moderates the relationship between satisfaction with
financial rewards and affective commitment.
H8: An employees’ level of income moderates the relationship between satisfaction with
non-financial rewards and affective commitment.
Affective Commitment
(Mediator: H5 & H6)
Financial Rewards
 ExtrinsicFinancial
Rewards
Non-Financial Rewards
 ExtrinsicNon-
financial rewards
 IntrinsicNon-
financial rewards
Intentionsto Stay
Average Income Effect
(Moderator)
H7
H1
H8
H2
H3
H4

31
B. Sample Demographics
Table 1: Descriptive sample statistics (n=225)
Socio-demographic characteristics M SD N %
Gender Male 216 35
Female 65
Age 32.4 10.19 212
Home Language English 213 85.4
Afrikaans 12.7
Xhosa 1
Work status Full time permanent 213 84.2
Fixed term contract 9.4
Part time/ Casual 6.6
Current level of employment Non-Management 208 52.4
Supervisor 10.6
Team Leader 7.2
Middle Management 16.3
Senior Management 8.2
Executive 5.3
Highest Level of education Less than grade 12 or Matric 211 8.5
Grade 12 or Matric 36.5
Diploma 19.
Bachelor’s degree 16
Post-graduate degree 20
Months employed at the organisation 60 76 205
Gross monthly income 24630 49565 139
Race Prefer not to answer 209 3.8
Black 2.9
Chinese 0
Coloured 39.2
Indian 17.7
White 36
Other 0.5
Size of organisation Small (0-100) 213 30
Medium (101-200) 12
Large (201 +) 58
Type of organisation Privately owned 206 34.5
JSE listed 16
Multinational company 23
Family business 11
I do not know 15.5
Industry of organisation Basic materials 208 0
Consumer goods 3.8
Financials 16.3
Health care 6.3
Industrials 3.4
Media 1.9

32
Retail 35.1
Travel & Leisure 1.9
Telecommunications 13
Technology 18.3
Note. M=the mean; SD=the standard deviation for the sample; N= the number of participants included in the
analysis. % = the valid percentage (total percentage of participants, taking into account missing data).
C. Mediation Analyses Results
Note.** Significant at the p<0.01 level; * Significant at the p<0.05 level. EFRS= satisfaction with financial
rewards (extrinsic), NFRS= satisfaction with non-financial rewards, AC= affective commitment and IS=
intention to stay.
Table 7: Mediation analysis(Barron & Kenney approach)
Hypothesis
Number
Adjusted
R2
F ratio Regression
coefficient
(β)
Gradient
coefficient
(b)
Partial
Correlation
coefficient
Relationship
5
Regressing
IS on EFRS
.329 108.02** .576**
Regression
AC on EFRS
.239 48.89** .493**
Regressing
IS on AC
.473 201.00** .690**
Regressing
IS on EFRS
& AC
.742 132.25**
Beta AC .537** .565**
Beta EFRS
Partial
correlation
AC(C)
.312** .373** Mediation
exists
r=.375** Partial
6
Regressing
IS on NFRS
.351 78.95** .595**
Regressing
AC on NFRS
.258 76.97** .511**
Regressing
IS on NFRS
& AC
.549 134.09**
Beta AC .519** .546**
Beta NFRS .329** .429** Mediation
exists
Partial
correlation
AC(C)
r=.390** Partial

33
D. Questionnaire
Note: Scales not relevant to the present study are not shown here (this included an additional
32 items)
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN
ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT
HONOURS PROGRAMME
2013
Rewards and Recognition
Questionnaire
Supervisor: Professor Anton Schlechter
Genevieve Karlein
Husain Boodhoo
Ayesha Gaffoor
Hishaam Loofer

34
UCT ORGANISATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY HONOURS
PROGRAMME
2013 RESEARCH PROJECT
You have been invited to participate in the UCT Organisational Psychology Honours research
project. This particular research project requires us to investigate the relationship between
various perceived rewards, and employees’ levels of affective commitment, job satisfaction
and organisational citizenship behaviour and intention to stay. Your participation may aid us
in our understanding of the relationship between these constructs. The results obtained
may be published.
A brief questionnaire that comprises of a series of questions covering the study’s research
questions is attached. The questionnaire should take approximately 30 minutes to
complete. We are asking you to complete the questionnaire and return it should you decide
to partake in the research project.
You will not be exposed to any risks should you decide to participate in this survey. All your
responses will remain confidential and your identity anonymous. Participants are allowed to
withdraw any point during this study. At the end of the questionnaire, we require that you
provide us with your personal details which are essential to this project. Should you decide
to complete and submit this questionnaire you are accepting your participation as
voluntary.
Should you have any questions or concerns relating to the questionnaire or study, you may
contact Assoc. Professor Anton Schlechter at Anton.Schlechter@uct.ac.za. The Commerce
Ethics Committee at the University of Cape Town has approved this study and the
questionnaire.
ORGANISATIONAL REWARDSR

35
1.) Rewards Scale
Rewards your organisation
gives you
How you value rewards
Please show how much you
personally value each of the
following rewards by ticking a
number from 1 to 5 (1= not at
all important to you ; 5= very
important to you)
How you are rewarded
Please indicate how you feel
about your current
organisations provision of the
following rewards by ticking a
number from 1 to 5 (1= highly
dissatisfied; 5=highly satisfied)
Not
at
all
important
Not
important
Neutral
Important
Very
Important
Highly
dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Highly
satisfied
Belowis an example whichshows how to respondto each item.
By tickingblock5 in the firstsection,thismeansyouregardstockoptionsasveryimportantto you.
By tickingblock1 in the secondsectionthismeansyouare highlyunsatisfiedwithyourorganisations
provisionof stockoptionstoyou.
e.g. Stock options 1 2 3 4
5 1
2 3 4 5
1 Fair payfor workdone 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2 Pay increases 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3 Bonuses 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4 Medical Aid 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5 PensionFund 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6
Effective promotional
policies
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
7
Opportunitiesforcareer
advancement
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8
Workingconditionsthatare
conducive forhighjob
performance
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
9
Trainingto increase personal
performance/development
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
10 Clearjobexpectations 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
11
Clearlydefinedjob
objectives
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
12
Clearlydefinedjob
responsibilities
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
13
A jobthat requiresavariety
of skills
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
14
Executionof jobtasksat
your owndiscretion
(Autonomy)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

36
2.) Affective Commitment Scale
How you feel about your relationshipwith
your organisation
Please show how much you agree with
each of the following statements by
ticking a number from 1 to 5 (1=strongly
disagree; 5=strongly agree)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
e.g.
I enjoybeinginvolvedin my organisations’day to
day activities
1 2 3 4 5
1 I am veryhappybeinga memberof thisorganisation. 1 2 3 4 5
2 I feel ‘emotionallyattached’tothisorganisation. 1 2 3 4 5
3
I wouldfinditdifficulttobecome asattachedto
anotherorganisationasI am to thisone.
1 2 3 4 5
4 I feel like ‘partof the family’atmyorganisation. 1 2 3 4 5
5
I enjoytalkingaboutmyorganisationwithpeople
outside it.
1 2 3 4 5
6 I feel a‘strong’sense of belongingtomyorganisation. 1 2 3 4 5
Rewards your organisation
gives you
How you value rewards How you are rewarded
Not
at
all
important
Not
important
Neutral
Important
Very
Important
Highly
dissatisfied
dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Highly
satisfied
15
Feedbackonjob
performance
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
16
Recognitionforgood
performance
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
17
Involvedindecisionmaking
processes
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

37
3.) Intention to Stay Scale
How you feel about your future at your
organisation
Please show how much you agree with
each of the following statements by
ticking a number from 1 to 5
(1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1 I often thinkof leaving the organisation. (NA) 1 2 3 4 5
2
It is very possiblethatI will lookfor a new job nextyear.
(NA)
1 2 3 4 5
3
If I may choose again,I will choose toworkfor my
currentorganisation.
1 2 3 4 5
4 My currentjobsatisfiesmyfinancialneeds. 1 2 3 4 5
5
I would acceptanotherjob withhigher financialrewards
than whatI amreceiving at my current job.(NA)
1 2 3 4 5
6
I planto stay withthisorganisationforaslongas
possible.
1 2 3 4 5
7
The benefitsprovidedbymycurrentorganisation
preventme fromleaving.
1 2 3 4 5
Note. NA= not applicable (not used in the present study)

38
4.) Demographics Section of the survey
ABOUT YOURSELF (Please do NOT put your name on any part of this questionnaire)
1. Gender:
□ Male
□ Female
2. Age(InYears):
___________
3. Home Language:
_____________
4. Work Status:
□ Full time permanent
□ Fixedtermcontract
□ Part time/Casual
5. Current level ofemployment:
□ Non-Management
□ Supervisor
□ Team Leader
□ Middle Management
□ SeniorManagement
□ Executive
6. Highestlevel ofeducation:
□ Lessthan grade 12 or Matric
□ Grade 12 or Matric
□ Diploma
□ Bachelor’sdegree
□ Post-graduate degree
7. Months employedat the organisation:
_______________________________
8. Months reportingto supervisor:
9. GrossMonthly income (before tax and
deductions):
(Or)
10. Gross annual package:
11. Race (for statistical purposes):
□ Prefernotto answer
□ Black
□ Chinese
□ Coloured
□ Indian
□ White
□ Other

39
ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION:
1. The name of the organisation(optional):
______________________________________________________
2. The size of the organisation:
□ Small (0-100)
□ Medium(101-200)
□ Large (201 +)
3. The type of organisation:
□Privatelyownedcompany
□ JSE listedcompany
□ Multinational Company
□ FamilyBusiness
□ I do notknow
4. Industry:
□ Basic materials
□ Consumergoods
□ Financials
□ Healthcare
□ Industrials
□ Media
□ Retail
□ Travel & Leisure
□ Telecommunications
□ Technology
5. GeographicLocation:(e.g. Retreat,Cape Town,WesternCape)
Thank you for completing this questionnaire. The information you have provided is confidential
and your results are anonymous

RewardsandRetention:The Role of Affective Commitment
40
E. Permission letters
1.) Permission to conduct survey at 1-UP Cash and Carry

RewardsandRetention:The Role of Affective Commitment
41
2.) Permission to conduct survey at Global ASP Ltd

THESIS FINAL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to THESIS FINAL

Similar to THESIS FINAL (20)

THESIS FINAL