Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev.

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Pay for Performance in Private Sector Higher Education Institutions in UAE


Affiliations
1 School of Business,University of Bolton, Academic Centre, Ras Al Khaimah, Al-Hudaiba Bareraat,, United Arab Emirates
2 Heritage Business School,994, Madurdaha Chowbaga Road, Anandapur, Kolkata 700107, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


UAE has higher education institutions and universities from several countries, each of them practicing different systems of educators’ compensation. The present article studies the nature of pay-for- performance in UAE’s private higher education sector and evaluates the employee perception of the role of pay-for-performance in encouraging the performance. The study has considered the feedback of 144 educators from 5 major categories of the higher education institutions in UAE. Data analysis and hypotheses testing have been through standard statistical tools such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov with Lilliefors correction and Shapiro-Wilk test, Kruskal – Wallis H test, Mean-ranks and Mann- Whitney test, spearman correlation, regression analysis etc. The research has found that pay-forperformance is not considered as a replacement to regular pay hike.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Ahmed, K. &Royen, J. (2010), “Academic Motivation among Educators in Middle East”, Journal of Industrial Psychology, 67 (2), 2309-18

  • Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Willey, London Akerlof, G. (1982), “Labor Contracts as Partial Gift Exchange, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4): 543-69.

  • Akerlof, G. & Yellen, J. (1986), Efficiency Wage Models of the Labor Market, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  • Arrow, K. (1974), The Limits of Organization, W.W. Norton and Company, New York and London.

  • Barkema, H.G. (1995), “Do Top Managers Work Harder When They Are Monitored?” Kyklos, 48(1): 19-42.

  • Baker, J. & Murphy, K.J. (1998), “Performance Pay and Top Management Incentives”, Journal of Political Economy, 98 (2): 225-64.

  • Becker, G.S. (1976), The Economic Approach of Human Behavior, The University of Chicago Press

  • Blinder, A. (1990), “A Shared Evidence on Theories of Wage Stickiness”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 105 (4): 1003-15.

  • Buchholtz, A.K. , Schulze, W.S. & Dino, R.N. (1996), “Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence”, Organization Science, 12(2): 99-116.

  • Calder, B.J. & Staw, B.M. (1975), “Self Perception of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(4):599-605

  • Csiksztmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, Jossey-Bass Publishers, London

  • DeCharms, R. (1968), Personal Causation: The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior, Taylor & Francis, London

  • Deci, E.L. (1972), “The Effect of Contingent and Non- contingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation”, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 8: 217-29

  • Deci, E.L. (1975), “Intrinsic Motivation”, Perspectives in Social Psychology, 45(1): 561-601.

  • Deci,E.L& Ryan, R.M. (1985), “Self Determination Theory and Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development and Well Being”, American Psychologist, 55(1): 68-78.

  • Deci, E.L. & Flaste, R. (1995), What We Do What We Do, Putnam’s Sons, New York.

  • Donaldson, T. (1995), “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidences and Implications”, The Academy of Management Review,20 (1): 65-91.

  • Guddi, T. & Koestk, H. (2007), “Award and Motivation: A Meta-analysis”, Journal of Human Behavior, 22(3): 56-67.

  • Eisenberger, R. & Cameron, J. (1996), “Detrimental Effects of Reward: Reality or Myth?’ Journal of American Psychological Association, 51:1153-66.

  • Enzle, M.E. & Anderson, S.C. (1993), “Surveillant Intentions and Intrinsic Motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2): 257-66.

  • Frank, B. (1992), “Knowledge and Knowledge Organization”, Organization Studies, 16(6): 1021-46.

  • Frey, B.S. (1992), Economics as the Science of Human Behavior: Towards a New Social Sciences Paradigm, Springer Books, London.

  • Frey, B.S. (1997), Not Just for Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation, Edward Elgar Publications, Cheltenham Glos, UK.

  • Frey, B.S. & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1997), “The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding- Out”, The American Economic Review,87(4): 746-55.

  • Ghosal, S. & Moran, P. (1996), “Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory”, The Academy of Management Review, 21 (1):13-47.

  • Green, H. & Croker, J. (1989), “Human Motivation at Work: Meta Analysis”, Journal of Psychology, 6(1): 70-89.

  • Guth, W. (1995), “An Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Cooperative Behavior by Reciprocal Incentives”, International Journal of Game Theory,24(4): 323-44.

  • Heckhausen, H. (1991), Motivation and Action, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelbarg

  • Husaini, Al-Shamsi &Ruckjah, P. (2010), “Issues and Challenges of Employee Motivation in Higher Education”, Journal of educational psychology, 33 (1):701-18

  • Kenderson, D. & Hooker, T. (2008), “Strategy in Compensation Management: a Comparative Analysis”, Journal of Business Strategy and Human Resource Management, 5(9): 670-79.

  • Kohn, A. (1993), Punished by Rewards: a Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, As, Praise and Other Bribes, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, Massachusetts

  • Kruglanski, A. W. (1975), The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory, Psychological Review, 82(6), 387-406.

  • Lane, K. (1991), The Community Social Psychology, Springer, London.

  • Lawler, E. (1990), “Strategic Pay: Aligning Organizational Strategies and Pay Systems”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 30(1): 301-18.

  • Lepper, M.R. & Greene, T. (1978), “Intrinsic Motivation and External Rewards: a Metaanalysis”, Review of Psychological Research, 56(1): 1908-20.

  • Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, Mc-Grawhill, New York

  • Loewenstein, G. (1999), “Experimental Economics from the Vintage -point of Behavioral Economics”, The Economic Journal,109: F25-F34.

  • March, R. (1999), “Obligations and Motivations in Workplaces”, Journal of Work Psychology, 40(1): 3715-29

  • McGregor, D.M. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, Willey, London.

  • Morrison, E.W. & Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When Employees Feel Betrayed: A Model of How Psychological Contract Violation Develops”, The Academy of Management Review, 22 (1):226-56

  • Osterioh, M. & Frey, B.S. (2009), “Motivation and Knowledge Transfer in Competitive Firms”, Organizational Science,17(1): 1602-23

  • Pittman, T.S. & Heller, J. (1978), “Control Motivation and Attitude Change” in: Weary G., Gleicher F. & Marsh K.L. (eds), Control Motivation and Social Cognition. Springer, New York,

  • Rao, K.K. &Sinha, L.N. (2005), “Issues and Challenges of Motivation: A Panel Data Research on Indian Higher Education”, Indian Journal of Policy and Research, 19(1):432-39.

  • Report of Higher Education (2016), Social Research Foundation, Dubai

  • Richard, P. (2007), “Organizational BehaviorNew Way”, Journal of Management Issues and Himan Behavior, 16(4): 79-98

  • Richard, J. & Benn, A. (2009), “Motivation and policy of Reward in International Practices”, Psychology Review, 23(1): 310-39

  • Robins, T.S. (2009), “How Effective Is Pay- forPerformance to Motivate the Employees? Psychology Analysis, 6(10): 169-78.

  • Rotter, J. (1966), “Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement”, Psychological Monographs, 80(1): 1-28

  • Rousseau, D.M. (1995), Psychological Contracts in the Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements, Sage Publishing, London.

  • Rousseau, D.M. & Parks, McLean J. (1993), “The Contracts of Individuals and Organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 15(1): 47

  • Schein, E.H. (1965), Organizational Psychology, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

  • Stigler, G.S. & Becker, G.S. (1977), “De Gustibus Non EstDisputandum”, The American Economic Review,67(2):76-90

  • Suhail, A. & Aslam, F. (2009), “Human Resource Development Practices in Higher Education in Middle East”, Journal of International Business, 7(3):380-89

  • Tang, S.H. & Hall, V.C. (1995), “The Over Justification Effect: A Meta analysis,”Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(5): 365-404.

  • Tinman, K. & Roger, A. (2000), “Experimental Research Practices on Human Behavior”, Journal of Industrial Psychology, 8(3): 209-18

  • Tusing, R., Tenn. J. & Robert, K. (1998), “Education Sector Workforce Motivation: a Cross-Functional Analysis”, Journal of international Business”, 9(1): 301-11.

  • Upton, J.L. (1973), Design for Thinking, John L. Lerz, Pacific Book Publishers, Manchester.

  • Yuiand, Tasaki (2008), “Work life Benefits and Positive Organizational Behavior: Is There a Connection?” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2): 171-92.

  • Wiersma, W.J. (1992), “The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards in Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta analysis”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65(2): 101-14.

  • Williamson, O.E. (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford Massachusetts.


Abstract Views: 161

PDF Views: 0




  • Pay for Performance in Private Sector Higher Education Institutions in UAE

Abstract Views: 161  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Indranil Bose
School of Business,University of Bolton, Academic Centre, Ras Al Khaimah, Al-Hudaiba Bareraat,, United Arab Emirates
Soma Bose Biswas
Heritage Business School,994, Madurdaha Chowbaga Road, Anandapur, Kolkata 700107, India

Abstract


UAE has higher education institutions and universities from several countries, each of them practicing different systems of educators’ compensation. The present article studies the nature of pay-for- performance in UAE’s private higher education sector and evaluates the employee perception of the role of pay-for-performance in encouraging the performance. The study has considered the feedback of 144 educators from 5 major categories of the higher education institutions in UAE. Data analysis and hypotheses testing have been through standard statistical tools such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov with Lilliefors correction and Shapiro-Wilk test, Kruskal – Wallis H test, Mean-ranks and Mann- Whitney test, spearman correlation, regression analysis etc. The research has found that pay-forperformance is not considered as a replacement to regular pay hike.

References