Can Employers Better Motivate Employees through Smarter Benefit Packages in the UK - Literature review Example

Running head: HOW CAN EMPLOYERS BETTER MOTIVATE EMPLOYEES? In a Gloomy Economic Environment, can Employers Better Motivate Employees through Smarter Benefit Packages in the UK? Introduction The global financial crisis of 2007-2008 resulted in financial difficulties for many organisations. In the UK and other countries that were affected by the crisis, many organisations were forced to reduce their workforce, leading to high unemployment. Specifically, the UK’s unemployment rate during the crisis was by and large at par with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 8.8 per cent in 2009 and 8.2 percent in 2011 (Hill, 2012, p. 212). This means that many organisations could not sustain some of their employees during the period of the financial crisis and were consequently forced lay them off in order to have fewer employees whose pay packages they could easily afford. Oftentimes, many organisations turn to this strategy of downsizing whenever there are financial difficulties in the market in order to survive. Still, there are those organisations that introduce pay cuts as a way of managing their employees during difficult times. However, while such strategies may work to the advantage of the organisations that are affected in the short-term, they cause challenges to the concerned employees, who are rendered jobless and are left to look for employment again or are forced to earn less in spite of the inflation associated with financial crises. This is not to say that downsizing does not have ramifications for organisations that reduce their workforce or reduce their workers’ pay packages. Indeed it does, since organisations that frequently lay off their workers or reduce wages can be adjudged to be unstable. Such organisations may thus face difficulty in attracting new talents in the future since prospective employees regard them insecure. Reduced pay for employees may also cause some of them to leave in search of better packages. Moreover, employees may exit an organisation when they realise that the organisation cannot offer them a pay rise during a recession. Organisations can however find ways of motivating and retaining their employees even in gloomy economic environments. They can come up with other ways to motivate and retain their employees even during times of crisis without necessarily having to increase their basic pay packages. This report is premised on this aspect of motivating employees during turbulent economic times through incentives other than pay. By answering the question ‘how could more flexible benefits schemes motivate employees better?’, the report presents arguments on how employers in the UK and elsewhere can better motivate employees through smarter benefit packages so as to survive in a gloomy economic environment. Using relevant theories on motivation, the report analyses the various ways in which the global financial crisis affected or still affects both employees and employers and how employers in the UK can motivate their employees during such times. ­Impacts of the Financial Crisis on Employers and Employees Impacts of the Financial Crisis on Employers When faced with tumultuous financial periods, employers seek different ways of managing their organisations in order to survive. A case in point is the global financial crisis of 2007-2008, which according to the Australian Psychological Society Ltd (2009, p. 1), caused many companies to re-examine every facet of their operations including their ways of doing work and their business models. The same source indicates that direct labour costs fall in the range of between 30 and 80 per cent of an establishment’s total costs depending on the sector in which the organisation operates. Labour costs can therefore be viewed as one of the largest costs that organisations incur, and as such, employers will always attempt to reduce them if and when they are faced with financial difficulty. It is based on this that it is argued that labour cost acted as a soft target for reducing costs during the financial crisis amid the declining profits and revenues that organisations faced (The Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2009, p. 1). The UK is one of the countries that were hard hit by the 2008 global financial crisis, especially because of the significance of its financial sector (Lin, Edvinsson, Chen & Beding, 2014, p. 17). Lin et al. (2014, p. 17) have also outlined some of the major effects of the crisis which had major implications for employers in the UK. Among these effects is that home prices declined sharply, there was high consumer debt, and the economy was in deep recession towards the end of 2008. Additionally, the UK GDP contracted sharply between 2008 and 2009, with the lowest quarterly GDP growth being experienced in the first quarter of 2009 at –2.6 per cent. Further, the pound sterling depreciated by over 30 per cent and investments fell by approximately 10 per cent. More importantly, growth in private consumption declined and persisted, meaning that many companies could not sell their items. The corollary of these effects is that there was reduced production, which necessitated massive layoffs since many companies could not manage high numbers of employees. The finance, construction, manufacturing, and business services sectors were the most affected, with about 300,000 jobs lost in manufacturing globally (Lin et al., 2014, p. 17). While downsizing may appear as relief to organisations affected by financial meltdowns, it has some negative consequences. Tennant (2012, p. 302) argues that the downside of knee-jerk dismissal of employees due to crises does not create positive outcomes. Tennant further notes that when firms reduce costs in panic or without paying attention to their strategy, they harm their own competiveness. Another point is that because of the financial crisis, many organisations have faced challenges in obtaining credit due to tight bank lending conditions (Lin et al., 2014, p. 17) a situation that means that many organisations are not in a good position to implement pay rises, invest in the training and development of their employees, or even hire more people. Generally, this means that many employers are finding it difficult to motivate their employees through traditional incentives such as higher pay packages. In the UK for example, although the country was emerging from the recession caused by the 2007-2008 financial crisis in 2012 and despite the point that employment was growing, many employers remained cautious in regard to increasing salaries (Raconteur, 2012). Figures quoted by Raconteur (2012) regarding salary forecast indicated that salaries would increase only 2.5 per cent between 2012 and 2013 in spite the high level of inflation experienced at that time. Thus, it can be argued that in addition to massive downsizing as a result of the impacts of the recent financial crisis on the UK, employers in the country are still hesitant to increase the remuneration of their employees. This undoubtedly means that employers in the UK and in other countries across the world which are affected by economic recessions need to find alternative ways of motivating their employees in order to retain them and hence maintain their competitiveness. Impacts of the Financial Crisis on Employees The impacts of any economic crisis on employees can be evaluated in terms of employees’ living conditions and their incentives of performance improvement at the workplace. One obvious effect of an economic crisis on workers is massive layoffs as has been discussed above. Apart from the sectors that were adversely affected by the crisis in the UK, many companies in Europe, especially those in the financial services sector, laid off a considerable number of their personnel (Gennard, 2009, p. 452). Another impact of the financial crisis is that workers who were retained in the banking sector in Europe during and after the crisis have had to contend with declines in working conditions due to their employers reacting to the crisis by implementing further cost cutting measures (Gennard, 2009, p. 452). A case in point is where some bank employees had to forgo premium payment for normal work (Gennard, 2009, p. 452). As well, in the UK and the rest of Europe, many organisations implemented wage cuts and wage freezes (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2013, p. 2). The reason for the massive wage cuts and wage freezes during any economic crisis is that employers frequently prefer to make savings on costs of labour using wage cushion by offering variable pay. But the most notable impact of wage cuts and wage freezes is that they are detrimental with respect to the job engagement and motivation of employees. The groups that were most affected by wage reductions and freezes include younger people with low skills and especially those who had low levels of pay (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 2013, p. 21). The impact of wage cuts and wage freezes that are introduced by organisations during periods of economic recession is that implementing such measures affects employees’ wellbeing and hence their attitudes toward the organisation for which they work. Rynes, Gerhart and Minette (2004, p. 387) are of the view that the significance of pay is likely to be more prominent when organisations make changes to their pay systems. This is because when a pay cut is introduced in an organisation, it is likely to affect the decision of the employees to put up with their lower earnings or to leave their organisations and look for others that offer better pay. This is aptly captured by Rynes et al. (2004, p. 387) when they suggest that employees are very sensitive to reduction in their salaries. Further, according to Greenberg (cited by Rynes et al. 2004, p. 387), employees are more likely to develop deviant behaviour when they are subjected to pay cuts. Another significant effect of the financial crisis on employees is the risks associated with job insecurity due to downsizing. Employment and job insecurity have been found to have dire consequences for individuals’ physical and mental health (Chung & van Oorschot, 2010, p. 6). This is because of the fear, anxiety and worry among employees that is related to the point that they might lose their jobs at any foreseeable time in the near future due to the effects of the financial crisis (Chung & van Oorschot, 2010, p. 7). This state of anxiety and fear leads to lack of motivation even among people who still have their jobs since they can plan for their goals effectively. A review of literature on the effects of job security to employees conducted by Probst and Brubaker (2000, p. 139), also suggested that job insecurity leads to job dissatisfaction. As well, employees who have insights of low job security are noted to be more likely to get involved in withdrawal behaviours, showing low commitment to their organisations, and exhibiting low levels of absenteeism, which in most cases culminates in them leaving the organisation (Probst & Brubaker 2000, p. 139; Wustner, 2010, p. 251). It is also argued that employees who witness downsizing taking place in their place of work often lose confidence and become averse to taking risks (Wustner, 2010, p. 251). In contrast, some research studies have suggested that job insecurity leads to increased involvement and work effort (Galup et al. 1997, cited by Jordan, Ashkanasy & Härtel 2002). However, in their analysis, Jordan et al. (2002) also argue that feelings of job insecurity result in emotional reactions such as high job-related tension and low affective commitment to work. Thus, based on the ideas that have been analysed so far, it is apparent that job insecurity in deed has an impact on employee wellbeing in terms of how employees are motivated to do their work. How Could More Flexible Benefits Schemes Motivate Employees Better? As seen from the above discussion, employers often turn to measures such as downsizing and wage cuts as reactive responses to in order to deal with challenging economic situations such as the global financial crisis. However, it has also been discussed that such interventions are likely to harm the organisations that implement them. From the discussion, it can be seen that some negative impacts of downsizing on employees such as low job satisfaction, risk aversion, poor mental and physical health, general lack of motivation to work and absenteeism have adverse consequences on employers or the organisations for which the affected people work. Similarly, wage cuts can lead to exits of employees, deviant behaviour such as theft, and lack of commitment from employees to work for the organisation that reduces their pay. Therefore, in gloomy economic environments, organisations can come up with other ways of reducing their costs as opposed to wanton downsizing and implementation of pay cuts. Introducing flexible benefit schemes can help motivate employees even when their salaries are not increased or when wage cut becomes inevitable. Such an approach can help demystify the high value placed by many organisations on pay as a way of attracting and retaining talent, especially during recessions. Some points regarding individuals’ perceptions towards pay are outlined in the table below. Examples of conditions that affect individuals’ perception towards pay Individual difference conditions Situational conditions 1. Pay is more important to some people than others (e.g. extroverts attach a high value to pay more than introverts). 2. Pay based on performance is more important to people with higher qualifications than it is to people with lower qualifications. 3. High performing employees prefer significant pay increases while low performing individuals prefer low pay systems. 4. Pay appears to be more important to males than to females. 5. Individuals with high need to achieve prefer pay systems that match pay to performance more closely. 1. Pay is more important in a job when it varies widely between employers than when it is considerably more homogeneous. 2. There is a diminishing marginal utility to increases of pay. That is, people oftentimes reject low-paying jobs without making consideration for other factors. 3. Workers are especially responsive to pay cuts. 4. Reactions of employees to wage reductions rely significantly on communication of the rationale for the wage reductions. Wage cuts without implemented reasons and communication of the same to employees are more likely to lead to high deviant behaviour among employees. Proper communication reduces deviant tendencies. 5. People are likely to do little to increase performance when pay increases are equal irrespective of individual achievement. Performance-based rewards increase performance. Source: Rynes et al. (2004, p. 387) The points in the above table show that different individuals have different attitudes towards the pay they obtain from work. While some employees prefer performance-based pay, others would like to have their pay fixed. There are also others who seem to prefer high pay due to different reasons (such as by virtue of being an extrovert or being male) while others can only be motivated when they know that they pay is pegged on how they perform. What is more interesting from the table is the issue of pay cuts. It is indicated that when pay cuts are implemented without adequate communication regarding why they are done, employees are likely to become more hostile than when pay cuts are accompanied with proper communication regarding their implementation. This suggests that employees are not entirely opposed to pay cuts during times when organisations experience financial difficulties since they also almost always understand the situation. What seems to be true is that employees are usually opposed to haphazard and sudden wage reductions. Therefore, when wage increments become difficult to implement or wage cuts become inevitable, employers can find ways to motivate their employees with flexible benefits instead of rushing to implement layoffs. Flexible benefits are benefits plans that permit every employee to enjoy a benefits package that is individually customised to meet their own situations or needs (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 259). How Employees’ Motivation can be Enhanced Using Flexible Benefits Motivation can be defined as an internal state that gives rise to a pressure or desire to act (Westwood, 1992, cited by Furnham, Eracleous & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2009, p. 765). This implies that motivation is what drives employees to do their work well. Therefore, it can be roughly stated that what well motivated employees will perform betters and vice versa. However, motivation is not a fixed trait (Wiley 1997, p. 263) and is therefore perceived in different ways by different individuals. As a result, in a gloomy economic environment, employers can use various types of benefits other than pay to motivate their employees in different ways. This view is premised on the thinking that motivation is a complex phenomenon that cannot be achieved using one incentive such as pay alone. Various theories on motivation and the relevance of flexible benefits In order to motivate employees, Ude and Coker (2012, p. 33) argue that employers must realise that individuals have expectations or needs that they would like to satisfy. According to Herzberg’s theory of motivation-hygiene (motivation-hygiene theory), factors that contribute to job satisfaction are intrinsic to the job and are referred to as motivators (Singh, 2007, p. 34). These include a desire to earn money, to build a career, to make an impact, and to make a discovery among others (Atkova & Tuomela-Pyykkonen, 2015, p. 106). Such factors are defined by the individual characteristics of people, and therefore, it is considerably difficult for organisations or employers to totally satisfy them as they vary from individual to individual. The other set of factors are extrinsic factors, which may or may not affect job satisfaction (Singh, 2007, p. 34). These are factors such as organisational reward systems as well as benefits meant to increase individuals’ sense of self-worth, recognition and achievement (Atkova & Tuomela-Pyykkonen, 2015, p. 106). Since employers can control the extrinsic factors in the motivation-hygiene theory, they can use them to increase job satisfaction and hence motivation among employees. One way of doing so is the use of flexible benefits. Offering flexible benefits to employees can also enable them to meet the needs identified in Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs. According to this theory, human beings perpetually desire new things. Thus, people, including employees at their place of work, are motivated by the yearning to meet their various needs, which keep on changing and expanding as they are met one after the other (Samad, 2006). These needs were classified by Maslow into five groups in order of their importance as physiological needs, safety needs, love or belonging needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs (Ramlall, 2004, p. 54). Once lower order needs are satisfied, an individual yearns to satisfy needs in the next level of the hierarchy. Flexible benefits are a good way of meeting needs at various levels of the hierarchy. Equity theory also emphasises the significance of flexible benefits. This theory appreciates that people attach value not only to the absolute quantity of rewards that they get for their effort, but also on the relationship of this quantity to what their colleagues get (Ramlall, 2004, p. 54). That is, based on employees’ inputs, for instance effort, competence, experience, and level of education, it is possible to compare outcomes like wage levels, salary increases, recognition and so on (Ramlall, 2004, p. 54). It is believed that when employees perceive an imbalance in their input-outcome ratio in comparison to others, there is likely to be tension in an organisation. But the good side of such a situation is that it offers a basis for motivation as individuals work hard to achieve what they perceive to be fairness and equity (Ramlall, 2004, p. 54). Employers can make good use of such scenarios to offer competitive flexible benefits to their employees as a way of motivating them. Another theory that supports how flexible benefits schemes motivate employees better is expectancy theory. This theory proposes that motivation depends on the expectations of individuals regarding their ability to carry out tasks and receive the rewards they desire (Daft, 2009, p. 450). That is, individuals expect that when they put effort in a given task, they will be rewarded for it. Employers can therefore capitalise on this theory by offering flexible benefits that match the effort put by individuals in their tasks. Examples of flexible benefits and their advantages and disadvantages Flexible benefits have been suggested as one of the ways of rewarding employees when markets are in turmoil (Global Economics Crisis Resource Centre, 2010, pp. 26-27; Oladapo, 2014). It is also notable that today, many companies across the world are offering flexible benefits to their employees to motivate them. According to Robbins and Judge (2013 p. 259), in the US, nearly all the major companies offer such benefits. The same authors also argue that flexible benefits are becoming commonplace in other countries as well. For instance, a survey conducted on firms in the UK found that nearly all major corporations were offering flexible benefits programmes, with choices ranging from insurance to discounted bus travel, holiday trading, as well as childcare vouchers (p. 259). One of such organisations is Lloyds Banking Group. According to Mackay (2011, p. 122), Lloyds TSB Group (now Lloyds Banking Group), a major UK banking institution, has been running a well designed flexible benefits package since 2003. Dubbed ‘Flavours’, the scheme entails allocating an additional four per cent of employees’ monthly salaries so that the employees can spend as they wish on a wide array of benefits provided by the company. Employees can choose to add as much as 50 per cent of their actual wage to the bonus or opt to take the cash and forgo benefits. For employees who opt to take benefits, they can choose from three main areas: health, leisure, or future planning. Lloyds Banking Group also provides a share ownership programme and a save-as-you-earn scheme that can be used to buy shares at lower prices (p. 122). Another organisation that offers flexible packages is software developer Oracle Corporation. Robbins and Judge (2013, p. 259) point out that employees of Oracle Corporation receive a basic benefits package and are also allowed to choose additional benefits that suit their particular individual needs and those of their dependents. Known as OracleFlex, the programme offers employees ‘flexible’ credit cards that they can use in buying benefits so that they control the amount they use on each package. Employees who remain with credits may elect to the direct balance to taxable income, dependent care reimbursement or health care reimbursement (p. 259). The examples above show that pay is no longer the only thing that can be used to motivate employees. More significant is the point that employers do not necessarily have to incur extra costs to provide these benefits. This because flexible benefits sometimes operate on the basis of a salary sacrifice, meaning that a worker’s salary is reduced in exchange for the provision of the added range of benefits that they select. The advantage of choosing benefits is that they are not subject to income tax or national insurance deductions (Robbins & Judge, 2013, p. 259). Research studies show that flexible benefits are becoming more and more popular among employers and employees especially in 2015 and the years to come (Edenred, 2014). According to findings published in the Employee Benefits Magazine (cited by Edenred, 2014), one in three employers have indicated that they look forward to restructuring their benefits so as to improve efficiency. As well, 44 per cent of employers indicated that they have enhanced their range of benefits and plan to do even more. This is meant to attract and retain employees. Additionally, 41 per cent of employers indicated that they would introduce new benefits because their employees had requested for them. This implies that employees also influence the kind of flexible benefits offered by their employers. More importantly, the benefits must match the needs of employees as suggested by 72 per cent of employers in the survey (Edenred, 2014). Evidently, there are many advantages of flexible benefits. The overriding one, as discussed so far and as indicated by Robbins, Judge, Odendaal and Roodt (2009, p. 182), is that flexible benefits enable each employee to get a benefits package that is tailored to their own situation or need. It thus replaces the conventional one-benefit-suits-all plans that have been used in organisations for more than 50 years. More importantly, flexible benefits help meet the expectations of a number of motivation theories, including expectancy theory’s premise that rewards should be commensurate with every employee’s goals (p. 182). The other advantages of flexible benefit plans are that they cater for the changing needs of the workforce and that employees own the choice of benefits by satisfying their specific needs (van Aswegen, 2009, p. 215). There are also several disadvantages of flexible benefits. These include the fact some employees may make wrong choices and that they may lead to high administrative costs (van Aswegen, 2009, p. 215). The issue of employees making wrong choices is particularly significant because it affects how employees perceive the flexible benefits. Poor communication regarding a flexible benefits plan may result in poor uptake of an otherwise good scheme (Edenred, 2014). This is because employees may end up not enjoying the benefits as would be desired. For instance, according to Canaan (2015), 52 percent of employees of the National Health Service (NHS) of the UK feel that communication regarding employee benefits from their employer is “poor or very poor”. This means that the employees may end up making the wrong choices or even not take the benefits at all. How employers can overcome some of the challenges associated with flexible benefits Employers need to overcome issues such as poor communication of flexible benefit packages by making good use of available technology. As stated by Edenred (2014), organisations can use devices such as mobile phones, personal computers and tablets to communicate their benefit plans to employees. For example, these technologies can be used to carry out surveys about the specific types of benefits that employees want and provide guidance on the same (Jackson, Schuler & Werner, 2012, p. 465). But as things stand currently, the utilisation of these devices and technologies such as the Internet to enlighten employees about flexible packages is still low. Thus, it is argued that better use of technology is one of the best opportunities for employers to convey information about benefits more effectively, elicit engagement with the benefit plans and make what is offered more accessible (Edenred, 2014). Conclusion Gloomy economic environments such as those occasioned the global economic crisis of 2007-2008 have several impacts on both employers and employees. Employers are forced to reduce salaries, freeze pay increases or even downsize in order to survive. Such strategies have negative ramifications for both organisations and employees and imply that organisations have to struggle to attract and retain personnel. It has been discussed that employers can use alternatives such as flexible benefits to motivate their employees in turbulent economic times. Such benefits may even involve slightly reducing salaries slightly but the reduction is compensated for by the fact employees are in a position to choose the benefits that are most appropriate for their specific needs. Flexible benefit plans deviate from the traditional reliance on fixed pay and one-size-fits-all reward packages and thus motivate employees more since they feel more valued and appreciated. Employers in the UK can therefore benefit from the fact that flexible benefit packages are becoming more and more popular to introduce different product or services to motivate their employees even without pay increases. Although there are challenges such as poor communication of such benefits, employers can make use of the existing technologies such as the Internet, mobile phones, computers and tablets to reach and ask their employees the kind of benefits they need and offer them guidance on how to choose flexible benefits packages that best suit their needs. References Atkova, I., & Tuomela-Pyykkonen, M. (2015). Knowledge sharing barriers in procurement: Case of a Finnish-based construction company. In P.O. de Pablos, L.J. Turro, R.D. Tennyson & J.Z. Zhao (Eds.), Knowledge management for competitive advantage during economic crisis (pp. 100-116). Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference. Calnan, M. (2015, February 9). Over half of NHS staff feel benefits communication is poor. Employee Benefits. Retrieved from http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/benefits/communication/over-half-of-nhs-staff-feel-benefits-communication-is-poor/106333.article Chung, H., & van Oorschot, W. (2010). Employment insecurity of European individuals during the financial crisis. A multi-level approach. REC-WP 14/2010, Working Papers on the Reconciliation of Work and Welfare in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.socialpolicy.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/55508/REC-WP_1410_Chung_Oorschot.pdf Daft, R.L. (2010). Management (9th ed.). Mason OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Edenred. (2014). Towards 2015: The benefits trends that matter. Retrieved from http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/Journals/2014/06/18/Edenred-Towards-2015-The-Benefits-Trends-That-Matter-Edenred-414940.pdf European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2013). Impact of the crisis on working conditions in Europe. Retrieved from http://eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_files/docs/ewco/tn1212025s/tn1212025s.pdf Furnham, A., Eracleous, A., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Personality, motivation and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the big five. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(8), 765-779. Gennard, J. (2009). The financial crisis and employee relations. Employee Relations, 31(5), 451-454. Global Economics Crisis Resource Centre. (2010). Global economic watch: Impact on business. Mason OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Hill, J.G. (2012). Why did Australia fare so well in the global financial crisis? In E. Ferran, N, Moloney, J. Hill & J.C. Coffee, Jr. (eds), The regulatory aftermath of the global financial Crisis (pp. 203-300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S., & Werner, S. (2012). Managing human resources (11th ed.). Mason OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Jordan, P.J., Ashkanasy, N.M., & Härtel, C.E.J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioural reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 361-372. Lin, C.Y., Edvinsson, L., Chen, J., & Beding, T. (2014). National intellectual capital and the financial crisis in France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. New York: Springer. Mackay, A. (2011). Motivation, ability and confidence building in people. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Oladapo, V. (2014). The impact of talent management on retention. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(3), 19-36. Probst, T.M., & Brubaker, T.L. (2001). The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2), 139-159. Raconteur. (2012, November 15). Benefits bring cheer in continuing economic gloom. Retrieved from http://raconteur.net/business/benefits-bring-cheer-in-economic-gloom Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organisations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 52-63. Robbins S.P. & Judge, T.A. 2013, Organizational behaviour (15th ed.). New Jersey. Pearson Education. Robbins, S. P., Judge, T.A., Odendaal, A., & Roodt, G. (2009). Organisational behaviour: Global and Southern African perspectives (2nd ed.). Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa (Pty) Ltd. Rynes, S.L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K.A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 381-394. Samad, S. (2006). The contribution of demographic variables: job characteristics and job satisfaction on turnover intentions. Journal of International Management Studies, 1(1), 1-12. Singh, B.D. (2007). Compensation and reward management. New Delhi: Excel Book. Tennant, D. (2012). Factors impacting on whether and how businesses respond to early warning signs of financial and economic turmoil: Jamaican firms in the global crisis. In A. Deshpande & K. Nurse (Eds.), The global economic crisis and the developing world: Implications and prospects for recovery and growth (pp. 297-325). Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon. The Australian Psychological Society Ltd. (2009). Managing your business’workforce as Australia emerges from the global financial crisis. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.org.au/assets/files/managing-your-businesses-workforce-emerging-from-gfc.pdf Ude, U., & Coker, M.A. (2012). Incentive schemes, employee motivation and productivity in organizations in Nigeria: analytical linkages. IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSRJBM), 1(4), 32-39. van Aswegen, S., Botha, S., Kleynhans, R., Lotz, O., Markham, L., Meyer, W., … Schlecter, A. (2009). Human resource management: Fresh perspectives. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa (Pty) Ltd. Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys. International Journal of Manpower, 18(3), 263-280. Wustner, K. (2010). Public sectors becoming a flexible labour world. Consequences for the employees. In C. Azaïs (Ed.), Labour and employment in a globalising world: Autonomy, collectives and political dilemmas (pp. 247-256). Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang. Read More