ArticleHeliyon2023
Total reward satisfaction profiles and work performance: A person-centered approach.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing the "Lying Flat" Challenge in China: Incentive Mechanisms for New-Generation Employees through a Moderated Mediation Model.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evidence of validity and reliability of the controlling motivational style questionnaire in the work context.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Total Rewards and Work Engagement in Critical Care Nursing: A Cross-Sectional Analysis From Lebanon.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has recently become an incentive management challenge for organizations to implement a total reward system. Existing variable-centered studies have neglected to explore the incentive effect of a total reward system from the perspective of individual differences. Our study aimed to initially investigate the profiles of total reward satisfaction (TRS) and the impact of these profiles on work performance. Using a person-centered approach, two studies were conducted using retail industry employees in China as samples. Study 1 identified the TRS profiles of 429 samples using latent profile analysis. Study 2 replicated Study 1's configuration of profiles and examined the relationship of these profiles with demographic variables and work performance using 885 samples. Our results were as follows: (1) there were four quantitatively and qualitatively distinct profiles (subpopulations) of TRS, namely, dissatisfied (DS), development and career opportunities satisfied-dominant (DOS-dominant), work-life balance satisfied-dominant (WLS-dominant), and compensation satisfied-dominant (CS-dominant); (2) demographic variables involving gender, age, education, and position level affected the likelihood of membership in each TRS profile; and (3) the four profiles predicted different levels of work performance, or more specifically, different levels of task and contextual performance. The task and contextual performance of the four subpopulations listed from best to worst were WLS-dominant, DOS-dominant, CS-dominant, and DS. For practical management, organizations should customize a classified total reward system according to employee subpopulations to improve work performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.