1
Compensation Systems and Their Effects on Employees' Satisfaction
at Tour Operators in Egypt
Dalia Mohammad Soliman
Assistant professor, Department of Tourism Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel
management, Helwan University, Egypt.
Published by: World Journal of Tourism, Leisure and Sports, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2009) 30-37
Contact details: Tel.: 0020104986270 E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Compensation issues as a human resource function have a significant effect on
employees' satisfaction, both economically and psychologically, in other words
compensation systems influence both job satisfaction and employee motivation. This
research first examines relevant literature on compensation policies, their objectives,
factors they are affected by, types and systems in addition to the effect of
compensation on employees' satisfaction. The research then investigates the
compensation systems applied at tour operators in Egypt and their effects on
employees' satisfaction. Results indicated that although the majority of the employees
are satisfied with their salaries, they do not feel that fairness and equity are addressed
at their firms' pay systems. However, incentives are used and the employees are
almost satisfied with them. Although benefits are offered to the majority of the
employees, they gave low importance to this type of compensation. They stated also
that the policy of pay secrecy adopted at their firms doesn't affect their trust.
Recommendations for actions which could improve compensation systems are
suggested in this study, and a further research is recommended too.
2
Keywords: Tour operators, Egypt, Salaries, Incentives, Benefits, Employees'
satisfaction.
Introduction
At a broad level, compensation includes anything an employee values and desires that
an employer is able and willing to offer in exchange for employee contribution
(Cascio, 2006). It is also the human resource management function that deals with all
types of reward employees receive in exchange for performing their organizational
tasks (Ivancevich, 1998). According to Byars and Rue (2003) compensation and pay
are not synonymous terms, as compensation refers to all extrinsic rewards, but pay
refers only to monetary payments or financial benefits. Walker (2006) also indicated
that compensation is more than a paycheck, it is a comprehensive reward system,
consisting of established policies and procedures to govern the compensation
package.
Old compensation system is detached from strategic organizational objectives,
focuses on rewarding seniority and is characterized by organizational hierarchies and
incremental progression, while new system focuses on integrating compensation with
corporate strategies to achieve organizational objectives and on managing financial
reward to communicate the right message about performance and corporate values to
employees (Beech and Chadwick, 2006). This agrees with what was mentioned by
Cascio (2006) who stated that today there is a continuing move away from policies of
salary entitlement, in which inflation or seniority, not performance were the driving
forces behind compensation increases, therefore performance is considered now the
new mantra. As stated by Ivancevich et al. (1997) from the employees point of view
the compensation received from work is one of the chief reasons people seek
employment, compensation is the means by which employees provide for their own
3
and their families' needs. They added also that compensation has a significant
psychological role, as employees consider it as an indicator to their worth to the
organization.
Compensation objectives
The objective of the traditional compensation function is to create a system of
rewards that is equitable to employer and employee alike (Ivancevich, 1998). Byars
and Rue (2003) claimed that while this objective is straight forward, successfully
attaining it is not an easy task. In order to establish a compensation system, there are
some basic criteria that need to be addressed. They are summarized by Ivancevich
(1998: 309) as follows:
1. Adequate: minimal governmental, union and pay levels should be addressed.
2. Equitable: each employee should be paid fairly, in line with his or her effort,
abilities and training.
3. Balanced: pay, benefits and other rewards should provide a reasonable reward
package.
4. Cost effective: pay should not be excessive, considering what the organization
can afford to pay.
5. Secure: pay should be enough to help an employee feel secure and aid him or
her in satisfying basic needs.
6. Incentive providing: pay should motivate effective and productive work.
7. Acceptable to the employee: the employee should understand the pay system
and feel it is a reasonable system.
Cascio (2006) pointed out that the most important objective of any compensation
system is fairness or equity, which can be assessed on three main dimensions (1)
4
internal equity: in terms of the relative individual jobs to an organization, are pay
rates fair?, (2) external equity: are the wages paid by an organization fair in terms of
competitive market rates? and (3) individual equity: is each employee's pay fair
relative to that of other individuals doing the same or similar job?. Ducharme et al.
(2005) emphasized that pay satisfaction is a key goal of an organization’s
compensation system because it affects employee behaviors and organizational
outcomes, such as job satisfaction, turnover, absenteeism, work stoppages, and
employee performance. Haksever et al. (2000) added that the successful
compensation system has a role in developing the public image of the company such
that employees have pride in working for the firm.
Factors affecting compensation:
Compensation systems are affected by a complex set of forces. Besides the laws
governing compensation, there are several basic factors that should be considered by
the organization's management in order to implement an appropriate and effective
compensation policy. Sliedregt et al. (2001) and Beech and Chadwick (2006(reported
that these factors are the value of the job to the organization, the value of the
employee to the organization and the value of the job or employee in the market
place.
Others such as Montana and Charnov (2000) argued that supply and demand are
important factors that should be included. They mentioned that supply and demand of
labor influence the cost of acquiring and retaining human resources, therefore the
management is faced with the task of measuring, analyzing and if possible
anticipating the changing supply and demand for labor. For example, if travel firms
are growing and expanding there is a great competition for the available labor supply,
so in such an expanding industry the management must pay more to acquire and retain
5
employees. Conversely, if the labor supply is more than the demand for it,
organizations tend to decrease compensation. Scarborough and Zimmerer (1996)
reported that although the forces of supply and demand work very slowly, their
impact is powerful. Cascio (2006) provided another factor, which is the managerial
attitudes, in other words the management's desire to maintain or improve morale,
attract high- caliber, reduce turnover, and improve employees' standards.
According to Bateman and Snell (1996) compensation systems are based on three
crucial managerial decisions (1) pay level, refers to the choice of whether to be a high,
average or law paying company, (2) the pay structure decision, to decide how to price
different jobs within the organization, and this is almost by grouping jobs together
into families, then determining a pay grade, with a floor and ceiling for each job
family and (3) individual pay decisions, to decide differences in pay within job
families according to seniority and performance.
Compensation systems
Employees have a variety of changing, and often conflicting, needs and expectations
at work which they seek to satisfy in a number of different methods (Mullins, 1998).
Therefore Riley (2000) emphasized that employees have quite separate feelings about
pay that produces their earnings. Montana and Charnov (2000) stated that
compensation could be categorized into two types: cash, which refers to wages or
salaries, and non-cash, which includes all other benefits offered by the organization to
its employees. Ivancevich et al. (1997) provided three selected methods of
compensation; employees can be paid for the time they work (flat rates), the output
they produce (individual incentives), or a combination of those two methods.
Salaries
6
Scarborough and Zimmerer (1996) claimed that most employees concentrate too
much on wages or salaries and have less appreciation of the value of the other types of
compensation. Cascio (2006) indicated that the broad objective in developing a pay
system is to assign a monetary value to each job in the organization (a base rate) and a
procedure for increasing the base rate (e.g., based on merit and inflation). As stated by
Boella and Turner (2005) job evaluation may be defined as the process that
established the relative value of jobs in a job hierarchy so that an equitable rate of pay
can be determined for each job. In that respect Zingheim and Schuster (2003) and
Cascio (2006) stressed on the importance of identifying and surveying pay rates in
relevant labor markets, in addition to linking pay to skills or depth of knowledge
(competencies).
Byars and Rue (2003) provided basic methods for job evaluation: (1) job ranking
method; that ranks jobs in order of their difficulty from simplest to most complex, (2)
job classification method; that determines the relative worth of job by comparing it to
a predetermined scale of classes or grades of jobs, and (3) point method; in which a
quantitative point scale is used to evaluate jobs on a factor-by-factor basis. Certo
(1997) pointed out that when employees believe that the pay system is unfair; they
may change their work inputs to better match pay they are receiving, they may also
try to change pay they receive by asking for a raise, or they may decide to quit the job.
Ferris and Buckley (1996) claimed that pay systems have an impact on the
organization's image, performance and the effective use of its human resources.
Not all employees are in favor of job evaluation because it evaluates a job rather than
the person's contribution to the employer, but this criticism can be met, however,
through incentives and merit awards in a well-designed salary structure (Boella &
Turner, 2005).
7
Incentives and benefits
As indicated earlier, pay includes only the actual money employees receive in
exchange for their work, incentives are rewards offered in addition to the base salary
and are directly related to performance, and benefits are rewards employees receive as
a result of their employment in the organization (Byars and Rue, 2003).
Incentives are offered in order to focus the employees' attention on the employer
objective; therefore managers consider incentives as the oil that makes the
organization system functions effectively (Hill and Jones, 1998; Boella and Turner,
2005 ; Rubenfeld and David,2006).
In that respect Koh and Neo (2000) stated that incentives schemes if effectively
managed can be a useful mechanism to enhance employee satisfaction, even if the
influence is restricted to their satisfaction with pay and with the organization itself.
Scarborough and Zimmerer (1996) and Cascio (2006) claimed that many incentive
programs are improperly designed, because they violate one or more of the following
rules:(1) be simple; the rules of the system should be clear and understandable, (2) be
specific; employees need to know precisely what they are expected to do, (3) be
attainable; every employee should have a reasonable chance to gain something and (4)
be measurable; measurable objectives are the foundation on which incentive plans are
built.
Individual incentives
An individual incentive system consists of an objective standard against which the
employee's performance is compared, and if effectively designed, individual incentive
plans can be a powerful motivator (Bateman and Snell, 1996).
8
Ferris and Buckley (1996) argued that management's inability to accurately measure
individual contribution often results in incentives being incongruent with actual
performance, and the motivational affect disappears. In that respect Baker (2002) and
Lyons and Ben-Ora (2002) added that the strength and value of incentives in
organizations are strongly affected by the performance measures available. Therefore
Ivancevich et al. (1997) emphasized that individual incentives are possible only in
cases where performance can be well specified in terms of output, they added also
that individual incentives are attacked by advocates of teamwork and employee
involvement-oriented plans, thus the encouragement of teamwork is assumed to be
virtually impossible with the traditional plans of individual incentives.
Group incentives
Group incentives mean paying incentives to all group members according to the
performance of entire group; the group may be as large as the entire organizational
work force or as small as three or four members of a work team (Byars and Rue,
2003; Richardson and Fluker, 2004).
Using group incentives is recommended when it is difficult to separate or evaluate
individual performance and when the organization goals or the nature of work
demands close cooperation in the workforce (Ferris and Buckley, 1996; Hill and
Jones, 1998; Wilkinson et al., 1998). Thus, group incentives have the advantage of
encouraging cooperation among employees, on the other hand, group incentives may
lead to competition between teams; and employees will not be able to see their
individual contributions to the output of team, so they will not be motivated enough to
produce more (Cascio, 2006).
Profit sharing systems
9
Profit sharing systems are designed to reward employees on the basis of the profit a
company earns in a specific period, as this encourages employees to take a broad view
of their activities and feel connected with the company as a whole (Hill and Jones,
1998). In that respect Certo (1997) claimed that profit sharing system makes
employees think more like an owner and ultimately do a better job of building a
successful organization.
Other authors (Dale et al., 1997; Ivancevich et al, 1997; Byars and Rue, 2003 ;
Cascio, 2006) also stated that this system (1) improves productivity and quality (2)
establishes a flexible system that reflects a company's actual economic position and
(3) encourages employees to reduce costs in order to raise the organization profits. On
the downside, many employees may not feel that their performance have a direct
impact on profits, or at least they can't see that link, specifically with the existence of
many factors affecting profits such as the strength of the demand and competition, so
there is no guarantee that profits will increase automatically according to performance
(Cascio, 2006).
Non- financial benefits
Byars and Rue (2003) defined benefits as all rewards employees receive as a result of
their employment. Non-cash compensation is becoming an important factor in
attracting and retaining qualified employees (Montana and Charnov, 2000). As
indicated by Stahl (1995) and Donnelly et al. (1998) benefits are usually tied to
employment, not performance, as the form of behavior that is rewarded is joining the
organization and staying in it; therefore they are considered as supplementary
compensation, over the salary. Benefits often include: holiday, life insurance, personal
accident insurance, company car schemes, mobile telephone package, and retail
vouchers (Bateman and Snell, 1996; Beech and Chadwick, 2006). It is worth noting
10
that benefits vary widely in availability, depending on the size of the tour operator
company and the number of employees; since many tour operation companies use a
small skeleton staff of employees, benefits packages are not too common( Eberts et
al., 2006).
There are other types of benefits that raise the image of the job such as private offices,
cafeterias, advanced communications systems and modern conferences rooms
(Haksever et al., 2000) as much benefits contribute to the quality of working life and
make it an attractive and worthwhile place in which to be employed (Armstrong,
2006).
In his book "How to motivate every employee" Bruce (2003) explained that benefits
offered by the organization should fit for the employee desires and needs, for
instance, a telemarketer appreciates a week-end with meals and accommodation
provided, but for a tour leader such a benefit may not excite him, who spends a great
deal of time in hotels and restaurants. In that respect Byars and Rue (2003)
emphasized that the organization should learn what the employee perceives as a
meaningful reward, which is not necessarily what management perceives.
Certo (1997) claimed that non-monetary benefits can be also through advertising jobs
internally before going outside to fill vacancies, which makes employees committed
and motivated.
Open vs. secret pay
Many organizations have a policy of not disclosing pay- related information; in order
to avoid any discontent that might result from employees' knowing what every
employee else is being paid (Byars and Rue, 2003). In that respect Ferris and Buckley
11
(1996) claimed that pay secrecy leads to low trust, and on the other hand open pay can
induce management to effectively administer the pay system.
Employees' satisfaction
Torrington et al. (2005) argued that the compensation policy should be satisfactory
for both the employer and the employee, and meets the objectives of these two parties.
According to Suliman (2007) job satisfaction influences work performance, in that
respect Mullins (1998) stated that motivation, job satisfaction and work performance
are affected by the employees' needs and expectations, and the extent to which they
are fulfilled. Therefore in this more perspective view, Nickson (2007) argued that
employees seek a range of monetary and non-monetary rewards and benefits from
employment, of which money is only one aspect, even if it is often the primary
consideration for employee. Thus employees seek: (1) extrinsic rewards; which
relates to tangible rewards such as pay, fringe benefits and conditions of work, (2)
intrinsic rewards; which relates to psychological rewards and internal feelings such as
the sense of personal satisfaction from the job, challenge, achievement and being
treated in a considerate manner (Mullins, 1998). Everton et al. (2007) stated that when
an organization is perceived to be fair and supportive, employee deviant behavior
(i.e., unexplained absenteeism and stealing) will decrease. As emphasized by Negi
(2002), Kotler et al. (2003) and Kandampully (2007) employee satisfaction produces
ultimately customer satisfaction. Concerning the relation between the retention of
employees and compensation system, Jones and Haven-Tang (2005) mentioned that
there is a correspondence between these factors, they added also that there is a link
between the firm size, pay levels and the retention of employees, because of the fact
that employees in small enterprises often have to apply for jobs in other firms if they
want better positions with higher payment.
12
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was threefold:
1. To investigate compensation systems applied at tour operators in Egypt.
2. To examine the employees' degree of satisfaction with the different types of
compensation applied at their firms.
3. To suggest recommendations for actions which could enhance the employees'
satisfaction with the compensation systems.
Method
The sample population for the study was employees at tour operators in Egypt. The
data collection instrument was a self completion questionnaire. The questionnaire was
designed to solicit information about compensation systems applied at tour operators
in Egypt and their effects on employees' degree of satisfaction. The questionnaire was
pre-tested using eighteen employees at five tour operators. Changes were made to the
questionnaire form based on their responses. Surveys were distributed to 163
employees. After eliminating partially completed questionnaires, a total of 108 (from
46 tour operators) usable questionnaires (66.26% response rate) remained in the
analysis.
Results and discussion
The employees indicated their degree of dis/satisfaction with their monthly salaries.
As illustrated in table 1, over half of the respondents (53.7%) rated their satisfaction
above the midpoint of the five- point scale (mean 3.08).
Table1. Degree of dis/satisfaction with the monthly salary
13
Category of choice n=108
Frequency
mean= 3.08 s.d.= 1.23
%
1. Very dissatisfied 10 9.3
2.Dissatisfied 38 35.2
3.Neutral 2 1.8
4. Satisfied 49 45.4
5. Very satisfied 9 8.3
Regarding the pay equity, results in table 2 indicated that only 35.2 per cent agree that
fairness and equity are considered at their firms' pay systems (mean 2.93). In that
respect Terpstra and Honoree (2005) warned that employees who perceive inequities
might reduce expended effort and decrease the quality of their output. Certo (1997)
added that the more equitable an employee perceives the pay to be, the greater the
satisfaction that employee will experience as a result of receiving it.
Table2. Pay equity
Category of choice n=108
Frequency
mean= 2.93 s.d.= 1.24
%
1. Strongly disagree 13 12.0
2.Disagree 33 30.6
3.Neutral 24 22.2
14
4. Agree 24 22.2
5. Strongly agree 14 13.0
Concerning individual incentives, 67.6 per cent (73 employees) stated that they are
offered at their companies. Further investigation of the employees' opinions regarding
the contradiction between individual incentives applied at their companies and the
sense of teamwork, revealed that over half of them indicated that there is no
contradiction between individual incentives and teamwork (mean 2.86) (table 3).
This indicates that individual incentives applied at these companies are well designed
and administered. It is worth noting that thirty employees out of seventy three (40%)
stated that individual incentives applied at their companies have bad effects on sense
of teamwork. In that respect Cascio (2006) suggested that if an employee is overly
competitive with fellow employees, the incentives of this employee should be smaller
in order to foster the notion of teamwork.
Table 3. Contradiction between individual incentives and sense of teamwork
Category of choice n=73
Frequency
mean= 2.86 s.d.= 1.43
%
1. Strongly disagree 12 16.4
2.Disagree 30 41.1
3.Neutral 1 1.4
4. Agree 16 21.9
15
5. Strongly agree 14 19.2
Regarding group incentives, 52.8 per cent (57respondents) stated that they are offered
at their companies. Over half of these employees (mean 2.75) stated that this type of
incentives doesn't lead to the dependence of some employees on the others. This
result is in consistency with that reported by Byars and Rue (2003) that if a group
member is not performing well and thus is lowering the production of the entire
group, the group will usually pressure the individual to improve. Nevertheless, this
way might not work all the time, therefore twenty one employees believe that group
incentives lead to inequity (table4).
Table 4. Relation between group incentives and inequity
Category of choice n=57
Frequency
mean= 2.75 s.d.= 1.35
%
1. Strongly disagree 10 17.5
2.Disagree 23 40.4
3.Neutral 3 5.3
4. Agree 13 22.8
5. Strongly agree 8 14.0
Regarding fringe benefits offered to investigated employees, the most used types of
benefits are discounted or free vacations and free drinks during the working hours,
followed respectively by medical insurance, full or partial payment for mobile phone
expenses, retail vouchers and free meals during working hours (table 5). It is worth
16
noting that only twelve respondents (11.1%) stated they do not receive any type of
fringe benefits. As observed by Boella and Turner (2005), although the presence of
many fringe benefits may not be a positive incentive to work harder, the absence of
fringe benefits, on the other hand, may be a disincentive and will put the firm at a
disadvantage in recruiting and retaining employees.
Table 5. Employees' fringe benefits programs
Type of benefit
Yes No
Frequency % Frequency %
Free drinks 53 49.1 55 50.9
Free meals 10 9.3 98 90.7
Medical insurance 51 47.2 57 52.8
payment for mobile expenses 28 25.9 80 74.1
Discounted or free vacations 53 49.1 55 50.9
Retail vouchers 14 13.0 94 87.0
Further investigation regarding the employees' dis/satisfaction with the workplace
standard of furniture revealed that the majority (mean 3.84) stated that they are
satisfied with their firms standard of furniture (Table 6). It is worth noting that the
satisfactory standard of office furniture enhances the image of the job as well as the
quality of work life.
Table6. The workplace standard of furniture
17
Category of choice n=108
Frequency
mean=3.84 s.d.= 1.01
%
1. Very dissatisfied 3 2.8
2.Dissatisfied 13 12.0
3.Neutral 8 7.4
4. Satisfied 58 53.7
5. Very satisfied 26 24.1
Concerning the issue of pay secrecy, the results depict that 57.4 per cent (62
respondents) stated that pay secrecy policy is applied at their companies. Furthermore,
as shown in table7, these respondents stated that this policy doesn't negatively affect
their trust (mean 2.69).
This finding doesn't entirely concur with Ferris and Buckley's (1996) assertion that
pay secrecy leads to low trust. In that respect Cascio (2006) stated that pay openness
forces managers to reduce differences in pay among subordinates in order to avoid
conflict and the need to explain such differences to disappointed employees.
Table7.The effect of pay secrecy on lowering the trust
Category of choice n=62
Frequency
mean= 2.69 s.d.= 1.51
%
1. Strongly disagree 15 24.2
18
2.Disagree 21 33.9
3.Neutral 4 6.4
4. Agree 12 19.4
5. Strongly agree 10 16.1
Respondents were asked to state their degree of dis/agreement on five statements as
reasons or motivations influencing their decision in case of deciding to leave their
current companies to other ones. As shown in table 8, the highest level of agreement
was recorded for "higher salaries"(mean 4.10), with the lowest standard deviation
(1.03), followed respectively by "bigger firm size"(mean 3.37), "higher position"
(mean 3.36) and "better physical working environment"(mean 3.34). Only one
statement received aggregate mean score below the midpoint of three indicating
disagreement with the statement, this statement was "better fringe benefits i.e.
healthcare" (mean 2.73).
These results support what was stated by Scarborough and Zimmerer (1996), Boella
and Turner (2005) and Cascio (2006), who emphasized that most employees
concentrate too much on salaries and give lower importance to the other types of
compensation. The reason behind the second and third motivations could be that
employees often have to apply for jobs in larger firms if they want promotion (Jones
and Haven-Tang, 2005).
The low mean score recorded for fringe benefits does endorse the view that most
employees have very little appreciation of the value of the fringe benefits they receive
(Scarborough and Zimmerer, 1996).
Table8. Motivations affecting decisions of leaving current companies
19
Statement Mean Rank s.d.
Higher salary 4.10 1 1.03
Higher position 3.36 3 1.19
Bigger firm size 3.37 2 1.45
Better fringe benefits 2.73 5 1.31
Better working environment 3.34 4 1.71
Conclusion and recommendations
Compensation is every type of reward that employees receive for performing
organizational tasks. Compensation can be categorized into: cash; as salaries and
incentives, and non-cash; as insurance and working conditions. There are main
characteristics that should be addressed by the successful compensation system;
amongst them are adequacy, equity and incentive-providing. Compensation system
should be satisfactory for and meet the objectives of both the employer and employee.
The research objective was to investigate the compensation policies adopted at tour
operators in Egypt and to examine their effects on employees' satisfaction. Research
findings have shown that over half of the employees are satisfied with their salaries.
Moreover, they stated that fairness and equity are almost not addressed at their firms'
pay systems. Regarding individual incentives, about two thirds of the employees
stated they are applied at their firms, and they indicated that there is no contradiction
between this type of incentives and the sense of teamwork, which indicated that
individual incentives at their firms are well designed and administered. Concerning
20
group incentives, they are less applied, as only about half of the employees stated they
are offered, and they believe that this type of incentives doesn't lead to inequity;
therefore this proved that group incentives are well designed at their companies, as
every employee carries his share of the load. Furthermore, results revealed that the
most used type of fringe benefits are discounted or free vacations as well as free
drinks during working hours. Regarding the work place standard of furniture, the
majority are satisfied with it. It was stated also by the majority that their firms apply
the policy of not disclosing pay related information and it was surprising that this
policy doesn't negatively affect their trust. Moreover, they stated that when deciding
to leave their current firms, they concentrate firstly on higher salary followed
respectively by bigger firm size, higher position and better physical working
conditions. In terms of fringe benefits, they were given low importance which was
unexpected.
In order to achieve and induce the employees' job satisfaction, the firm should
regularly investigate pay satisfaction, and accordingly adjust compensation systems
applied, because it is believed that the employee's satisfaction positively affects his
general attitude toward the job and produces customer satisfaction. It should be noted
that the employee should be very satisfied not only satisfied. Furthermore, the tour
operators should use various types of compensation, to benefit from the advantages of
these different types. For incentive plan to be effective, it should be viewed by
employees as being fair, plus it should be well managed and employed to enforce the
sense of team work. Regarding fringe benefits , since results stated that the majority
of the employees do not value the importance of fringe benefits, it is better for the
tour operators to explain the importance of benefits provided(specially in the form of
health care) than to minimize benefits offered, because this influences retaining
21
employees. Finally, it should be noted that the more employees believe in pay equity
within their firms, the more confidence and trust will be developed.
Further study
It is recommended that a further study could be conducted to examine and evaluate
the intrinsic rewards as well as the psychological working conditions that affect
employees' satisfaction at tour operators in Egypt.
References
Armstrong, M. (2006). Handbook of human resource management practice. London:
Kogan .
Baker, G. (2002). Distortion and Risk in Optimal Incentive Contracts. Journal of
Human Resources, 37 (4), 728-751.
Bateman, T. & Snell, S. (1996). Building competitive advantage. Chicago: Irwin.
Beech, J. & Chadwick, S. (2006). The business of tourism management. London:
Prentice-Hall.
Boella, M. & Turner, S. (2005). Human resource management in hospitality industry:
An introductory guide. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Bruce, A. (2003). How to motivate every employee: 24 proven tactics to spark
productivity in the work place. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Byars, L. & Rue, W. (2003). Human resource management. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Certo, S. (1997). Modern management: Diversity, quality, ethics and the global
environment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.
22
Dale, B. Cooper, C. & Wilkinson, A. (1997). Managing quality and human resources:
A guide to continuous improvement. Oxford: BlackWell Business.
Ducharme, M.J. Singh, P. & Podolsky, M. (2005). Exploring the links between
performance appraisals and pay satisfaction. Compensation & Benefits
Review,37 (5), 46-52.
Donnelly, J. Gibson,J. & Ivancevich, J. (1998). Fundamentals of management.
Boston: Mc Graw-Hill.
Eberts, M., Brothers, L. & Gisler, A. (2006).Careers in travel, tourism and hospitality.
New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Everton, W.J., Jolton, J. & Mastrangelo P.M. (2007). Be nice and fair or else:
Understanding reasons for employees’ deviant behaviors. Journal of Management
Development, 26 (2), 117-131.
Ferris, R. & Buckely, M. (1996). Human resources management: perspectives,
context, functions and outcomes. New Jersey: Prentice - Hall.
Haksever, C., Render, B., Russell, R. and Murdick, M. (2000). Service management
and operations. Singapore: Pearson Education.
Hill, C. & Jones, G. (1998). Strategic management theory: An integrated approach.
Boston: Houghton Mufflin Company.
Ivancevich, J. M., Lorenzi, P., Skinner, S. and Crosby, P. (1997). Management quality
and competitiveness. Chicago: Irwin.
Ivancevich, J. M., (1998). Human resource management. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, E. & Haven-Tang, C. (2005). Tourism SMEs: Service quality and destination
competitiveness. UK. : CABI publishing.
23
Kandampully, J. (2007). Services management: The new paradigm in hospitality.
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Koh,W.L.& Neo, A (2000). An experimental analysis of the impact of pay
performance on employee satisfaction, Research and practice in Human Resource
Mnagement,8 (2), 29-47.
Kotler, P., Bowen, J. & Makens, J. (2003). Marketing for hospitality and tourism.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Lyons,F. H. & Ben-Ora, D. (2002). Total rewards strategy: The best foundation of
pay for performance. Compensation & Benefits Review, 34 (2), 34-40.
Montana, P. & Charnov, B. (2000). Management: Classical management theory and
organizational structures, human resource management and much more. New
York: Barron's.
Mullins, L. (1998). Managing people in the hospitality industry. London: Longman.
Negi, J. (2002). Marketing and sales strategies for hotels and travel trade. New Delhi:
S. Chand Company LTD.
Nickson, D. (2007). Human resource management for the hospitality and tourism
industries. Oxford: Elsevier.
Richardson, J. & Fluker, M. (2004). Understanding and managing tourism. Australia:
Pearson Hospitality Press.
Riley, M. (2000). Managing people. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Rubenfeld,S. & David,J.(2006). Multiple employee incentive plans: Too much of
good thing?. Compensation and benefits Review, 38(2),35-40.
24
Scarborough, N. & Zimmerer, T. (1996). Effective small business management.
London: Prentice Hall.
Sliedregt, T.V., Voskuijl, O. F. & Thierry, H. (2001). Job evaluation systems and pay
grade structures: do match?. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12(8), 1313-1324.
Stahl, M. (1995). Management and total quality in a global environment. Oxford:
Black-Well Business.
Suliman, A.M. (2007).Links between Justice, satisfaction and performance in the
work place: A survey in the UAE and Arabic context. Journal of Management
Development, 26 (4), 294-311.
Terpstra, D.E. & Honoree, A. L. (2005). Employees' responses to merit pay inequity.
Compensation & Benefits Review, 37(1), 51-58.
Torrington, D., Hall, L & Taylor, S. (2005). Human resource management. London:
Prentice Hall.
Walker, J. (2006). Introduction to hospitality. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Wilkinson, A., Redman, T, Snape, E. & Marchington (1998). Managing with total
quality management: Theory and practice. Hong Kong: Macmillan Business.
Zingheim, P.K. & Schuster, J.R. (2003). Competencies and rewards: Substances or
just style. Compensation & Benefits Review, 35 (5), 40-44.
Top Related