Evaluating The Effect of Incentives System

on Employees Performance Level

in The large Municipalities of Gaza Strip

:

:
/


1428 2007

Abstract

7
:

10

10

10

12

12

21

21

21

23

26

26

28

28

29

29

31

35

37

39

39

39

40

42

44

44

45

47

51

53

57

63

63

63

65

70

71

71

71

73

75

77

77

81

82

84

86

94

100

100

102

103

111

: ) (
:

113

118

131

143

144

148

150

151

156

161

51

56

57

77

2005

80

2005

80

80

2005

81

2005

82

10

82

11

2005

83

12

2005

83

13

83

14

2005

84

15

2005

84

16

85

.1

102

.2

102

.3

104

.4

(
)

105

.5

(
)

106

.6

(
)

106

.7

(
)

107

.8

108

.9

) (

109

.10

109

.11

110

.12

110

.13

113

.14

113

.15

114

.16

114

.17

115

(
.18

115

.19

116

.20

116

.21

119

.22

121

.23

123

.24

125

.25

127

.26

129

.27

130

.28

131

.29

133

.30

134

.31

134

.32

135

.33

136

.34

136

.35

137

.36

139

.37

140

.38

141

.39

142

17

23

34

41

68





.



.



283
228.

%46.89
%68.35


%57

.%63.74


.

.



.







.

Abstract
The study of incentives effectiveness is still one of the
important issues among managers and professionals. Attracting and
maintaining competent people is one of the most important issues,
that must occupies the concern of managers and businessmen all
over the world as well as the competent people are considered one
of the most important asset in the organizations.
This study aimed to identify the relation between incentives
and performance of employees in the large municipalities of Gaza
Strip. This was conducted through analyzing relations between
incentives and performance, usage of abilities, competition between
employees, and preferable incentives. The study also aimed to
identify the effect of personal qualities on job satisfaction which are:
academic qualification, managerial level and years of experience.
The population of the study comprises the employees who
occupy the managerial levels from heads of departments to
managers, managers assistants, deputies and some heads of units
who are in charge of other employees, the total number was 283
person, however the sample of study was 228 person.
The results indicated that the effect of the available financial
incentives on employees performance was weak. The average
percentage of financial incentives is low 46.89%, and 68.35% for
non financial incentives. The effect of both financial and nonfinancial (moral) incentives on employees performance was
moderate. The financial incentives are not sufficient and of low
value. The incentives are not linked with goals achievement or
performance level. The available incentives does not encourage
employees competition to improve their performance with average
percentage 57%, and %63.74 for the usage of their abilities in the
work.
The study shows difference in job satisfaction due to the
dissimilarity of academic qualification and managerial level. The
most important incentives are salary, the feeling of job security and
stability and finally the job authorities and responsibilities.
The study recommends to improve financial rewards,
identifying levels of performance that deserve rewards, set standards
for promotions, reward excellent employees to retain them, apply
corrective measures according to appraisal of performance and
increase the participation of employees in formulation of plans and
decisions.



v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v



:

:
) (2004 %80
:



.



) :.(2006




.





) .(1995
2






.
:









) :.(2005
:

.
:
:

.
:

.
:


.
:

.
:

.
:

.
:

.
:

:
-1
-

.-

- .

 -2
- :
. - :
. :
.1
.
.2 .
.3 .
.4 .
.5
.
.6 .
.7 .

 :
.1

.
.2
.
.3



.
.4

.
.5
.
.6
.
:



:

.

SPSS
.
.

 :
-1


.
-2



.
-3 :
.
-4 ) ( :
.
-5
%80
21 ) :.(2005
-7 .2006
:
:
:

.
: :
: : : : 7

 : : : :
: : : :
: : :

.
: )
:

: : :
: - :



v
v
v
v
v
v
v



:

.
.
: : :
: :
: : .
:



).(1998

.
: :
) (1985
) (1997
.
) (2005
. ) (2002
.

.

10



).(2002
:
-1 .
-2 .
-3
.
) 2000 :(2002
-1 .
-2 .

.
) 2006 (2002 :
.1 .
.2 .
.3

.
) (1998

.

.

.


.

11

 :
(1 )1997 2000 2005
(Buchanan, 2001 :
:
:
:


.
:

.
(2
.
) 2000 ( Northcraft, 1990
:
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .
-4 .
-5 .
-6 .
-7 .
:

) .(2002 .

12

 (1 ) (2005
( :
) (2005





:
.1 ) :(Physiological Needs

.
.2 ) :(Security or Safety Needs



)
(.
.3 ):(Social Needs



.
Deficiency
Needs
.
Growth Needs
.
13

 .4 ):(Esteem and Ego Needs

....
.4 )( Self- Actualization Needs


.
) (2003
.



).(2002

)
.(1982
( Alderfer's E.R.G Theory


:
.1

Existence Needs

.2

Relatedness Needs

.3

Growth Needs

.
14

 (2 ) (2005
( :Adam's Equity Theory
1965
.

Outcomes .Inputs
:
.
).(2002

.

) (
: ) (
) ( ) (
.



.
.
) (2005


.

15


.
(3 )(1982
( Expectancy Theory


:
.1


.
.2

.
.3

.
) (1
.

16

 ) (1

)
(

.1

: ) " (1982 "

.

17

 (4 ) (2000

:
) (
" "
1959 .

.
. ""
:
(1 :

.
" " .
""
. .
""
.
:
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .
.4 .
.5 .

18

( :

. " "
:
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .
.4.
.5 .
.6 .


.


.
.
:
-1 Job Enlargement & Job Enrichment
-



.
-


.

19


.


.


.

20

 :
:
(2005) Monday

) (2002 Caplan

) (2001 )
(

(2001) Gibson

)
2002 2001 ( :
-1
.
-2 .
-3
.
-4
.
-5
.
:
) (Hans seyle
:
-2:
21


.
-2:
.
-3:

.

Gibson, Ivanovich and Donnelly

).(2001
) (2
.

22

 ) :(2

:
.
:



.
:

.
:

.

:
:
.
:
.
:
.
:



.
:

.

: )"(2001 : "
.

:
) (1998


-:
- :

23



:
.
.
.
.
.
.
( 2005) Mondy
.

) .(2005
- :

:
.
.


.



)
.(1998
- :
:
24

-1 .
.
.
.
.
) .(2001
-2 :
.
.
.
).(1998
-3 :
.
.
.
.(George, 1990)
-4
( 1990) George
.
- :


) .(2001

25

 :

.
.
- -:
-1
.
-2
.
-3
.
-4
).(Buchanan, 2001
:






.
) (2006 :

26


.

(2006) Dur.Robert


.
) (2006 :




.

27

 :
:
)2003
(86: :
" " .
) (1994 " "
) 1994 " (279 :
".
) 2001 (213: "
".
)2000 (161:
"
".
) (1985

.
:
-1 .
-2 .
-3
.
-4
.
:


.

28

 :


.
(2001) Armstrong

:
: .
) 2003
2001 1999 : (Appelbaum,1996
-1

.
-2 .
-3 .
-4 .
-5

:
- .
- .
- .
-6

.
:
) Applebum,2000 1982 Martin,1999London,1997
( Takahashi,2006
29

 -
-1

.
-2
.
-3
.
-4
.
-5 .
- 6
.
-
-1 ) (1982 ""

.


.
-2
.
-3
"" .
-4
.
-5
.
30

 -6

.
-
-1 .
-2 .
-3
.
-4 .
-5 .
:


) (3
.
(
) (1980 :
-1 .
-2 .
-3
-4 .
-5 .
-6 .
-7 .
-8 .

.
31

 :
-1 :
.
-2 : .
-3 : )
(.
-4 :
.
-5 : .
-6 :

.
-7 : .
-8 :
.
) (Brown,1995 ;Hoffman,1996


.
) (Brown,1995 ;Hoffman,1996:

.
) (
.
.
.
-11 : .
:
) (1980

32



.
) (2005

.
) (2000
:
: :
:
) (.
) (.
.
)
(.
) (
) (.
: :
:
.
.
.
) (.
)
(.


.

33

(
) (3

.2

: ) " (2002 "

.

34

 :
-

).(2001



.

.

.
-2

) (2005
.


.
) ( 1985 :
.
.
) (.

35

 ) ( 1995
) (

.
) (2005
:
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .
-4 .
-5 .
-6 .
-7 .
-8 .


.
-3


): (2001
-1

:
.
-2
.
-3
.
-4
.
36

 -5 .
(1999) Graeme


.
:
) : (2006
:
(1
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .
-4 .
-5 .
-6 .
-7 .
-8
(2

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

37

 (3
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .
-4 .
-5 ) 30(.
-6 )70(.
-7 .
-8 .
-9 .

38

.
) (2005

.


) (2000
.
:
) (2005

) (2005
) (1996

)
(1982
.


:
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .

39

 :




).(2005
:
-1:

).(2003
-2 :



) (2005
-3


) .(2000
-4




)
.(2005
-5

40



).(2002
(2005)
) (2005

.
-6


) .(1995
-7

.
-8

).(2004

.
) (4

: " (2005) "

.

41

 :

)
2005 2005 1992 2005
London, 1997 Sigler, 1999 (2005 :
-1

.
-3 .
-4 .
-5 .
-6

.
-7 : -
-
.
) (2005


.




).(Mccausland, 2005



42

43

) .(1982
) (1995
) (1982
:
.1 .
.2
.
.3 .
.4 .
) (1998

:
-1 .
-2
.
-3

)
(.
-4 .



44


.


.
:
(
) 1998
1997 2002 2005 1995 2001
2005 ( Bowey, 1989 :
-1 .
-2

.
-3
.
-4
.
-5
.
-6
.
-7
.
-8


.
45

 -9
.
-10
.
-11 .
-12
.
(
) 2000 2005 2001 2002
Hoffman,1998 :( Merchant,2003
-1 .
-2 .
-3
.
-4 .
-5
.
-6
.
-7 .
-8
.
-9

-10 .
-11
.

46

 :


) ( )
(.
-1 :



).(Bowey, 1989
) (


) .(2006
-2 ) (
.


.

).(Armstrong, 2001

47

 -3

Pay at risk (2001) Armstrong ) (
.
:
.1 :Performance Related Pay

.
.2 :Bonus
.
.3 :Incentives Pay
.
.4 :Commissions
.
.5 )( :Service Related Pay

.
.6 :Skill Based Pay
.
.7 :Competence Related Pay
.
.8 :
.
.9 :Contribution Related Pay

) .(2001,Armstrong
-4
.
48

 -5


(2001) Armstrong %70


)
Hoffman,1998 ( Merchant,2003 :
.1 .
.2 .
.3 .
.4 .
.5 .
.6
.
.7 .
.8
.
-6
) Hoffman,1998
(Merchant,2003:
.1 /


.
.2
49



.
.3
.
.4
.
.5

.
.6


.
.7
.
.8

.
.9
) (
.
.10
.
.11

.
(2001) Armstrong
)-:(1

50

 ): (1

Michel Armstrong (2001)," Human recourses Management Practice", 8th edition, Kogan :
page limited, London, UK.

: ) (
-1
) (
.

.

). (Merchant,2003

51

 -2
) (


(2003) Merchant

) (1997

.
/
-:
-

-
.
- .
- .
- ).(Armstrong, 2001
-3 ) (
.1 :

.
.2 :
)
(
.
.3 :
) .(2006
52

 -4
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
.
.
. ).(Armstrong, 2001
:

.
-1
)( ) (

1995

).(2006

(2003) Belfield

.

:
.1 .

53

 .2 ) (
.
.3 )(
.
.4 .
.5 .
.6
.
.7



.
.8 ).(Martin, 1999

-

-:
(1 .
(2 .
(3
)(Standard Performance
(4 .
(5 ) .(2006

-2


).(Armstrong, 2001
54

 -:
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .

.


).(Armstrong, 2001

).(2

55

 ) :(2

Performance Related Pay

Contribution Related

)(PRP

Pay

Michel Armstrong (2001)," Human recourses Management Practice", 8th edition, Kogan page
limited, London, UK.:

56

 :
) (2001
) (3 .
) :(3
) (2

) (1

) (3

: )" (2001 "

.

:

:
) (1
(
.

57

 .(
. .
(
.
. ....
.(
.
. . .
) (..... .
.) (2
(

58


.

.
( :

.


.
.

.
( :

.
.

.


.

59





:
-1 .






.
-2
.

.
-3 .


.
-4
:

.

.
-5

.
60



.

-1 :

.
.
.

.
.

.
-2 :

.


.

.
-3 :


.

61


.

.
.

62

 :
:


.


}
{.46

) (1982
}
{ 77


) (1998


.
:



}
{.82
63


.

}
{.107

))
(( ))
((

) ....(.

:
-1



"
".


}

{ 71 ))
(( .

) . (2000

64

 -2


.

}
{ 162

.
} { 13 }
{ 8 }
{ 11

.
:
-1

}
{ 85


}
{ 58 }
{ .60 }
{

7 .8

}
65

 { .21 }
{ .22




) .(2000
-2

}
( 26 ))
((
)) : ((
)) ((

.


)
.(1982


.
-3
} :
{ 19 : {

85 } : { 185
66

 } } {39 } {40
} {{41 41-39 ))
((.


.
-4


) (1982 ))
((
} { .37

) (4 .

67

 )(4

)(

-1 .
-2


-3

.1 : )" (1982 " ) (31 .

68

v
v
v
v
v
v
v

69



:


.

:
: .
:


.

70

 :
:
) (1996 ) (1995


.
1994


.


.
:
-1 .
-2 .
-3 .
:


).(1991
) 1995 (2002
:
(
-1 .
71

 -2 .
-3
.

.
) : (2006

.
( :
-1 .
-2




.
( :
-1

.
-2

.
-3 .

.
-4

.
72

 -5 .
:


) (2006-:
-1

:
-

.
-2


):(2006
- :


.

73

 - :


) (15 .1997
- :

) (27 1997
-3
:
.

.
.
.
. .
.
.
. .
-4
:
.
.
. ) (
.

74


.




.


.


.
:
) :
(2006 :
-1
.
-2
.
-3
.
-4 .
-5 .
-6
.

75

 -7
.
-8
.
-10
.
-11 .

76

 :
25 ) (4
.
) :(4


1

2

3

4

446
14
1769
10
335
11
332
3

: .2006

:
-1


54 2
2005
185,000.
)
(.
1917
1996
.
446 6 -:

.
-2
77





)
(.
-3
) ( 6

:
-
6 65 :



.
-

125

.
-

.
38 8
)
- .... (.
78

 -
3 8
)

) ...... (
.
-

32


.

.
-

136.


.
-4


) ( 5 ) ( 6
2005 ) (7 .

79

 ) :(5 2005

30

12

75

26

139

159

446

=
:

) :(6 2005

41

65

55

281

446

) :(7 2005

25

11

52

80


) 2006 (.
.
:
2005 400,000
45.2
1893
1994 .
19
:



.
61 1769 ) ( 8
) ( 9
2005 ) (10 ) 2006
(.
):(8 2005

98

1769

46

470

81

494

68

584

 ) :(9 2005

1769

230

16

175

272

1074

) :(10

20

61

47

24

152

:
2005 135,000
28.2
7 :
.
15 335 ) ( 11
) (12
2005 ) (13 .
) 2006 (.

82

 ) :(11 2005

18

335

11

23

68

24

) :(12 2005

59

40

52

181

335
:

) :(13

15

34

83

188

 :
2005 140,000
322

11 :

.
26 332 ) ( 14
) ( 15

2005 ) (16 .

) 2006 (.
) :(14 2005

18

335

11

23

24

68

) :(15 2005

35

48

335

84

30

218

188

 ) :(16

10

20

45

85



:
(1) (2005 :

.



.


.

.
(2 )(2005 :

.
:

:
.

.



86


11 .
(3 )(2005 :


.

:
.

.


.
(4 )(2005 :
1000


.




.


.

87

 (5 )(2005 :








.

.
(6 )(2004 :


990
.

) (%58,82
)
(.
) (
)
(
.

.
(7 )(2004 :

) (258.
88

 )

( .


.
(8 )(2003 :



:


.



.
(9 ) (2000 :

185
.



.
(10 ) (2000 :

421

89



)
(

.
(11 ) (1992:


.
:

)
(.

.

.


.

:
.
-:

.

.

90


.

.
(12 ) (1985 :

.


.



.
(13 )(1980:


.





.
:
.
.
.
.
91

 .
.
.
:



.

.
.

.

:
. . . .



.
.
(14 )(1970:

.
:
:
92


.
:
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
:

.

.

.
.

.


.


.

.

93

 :
(1 )(Kiyoshi Takahashi:2006

1832
818 928

.
(2 )(Toshiba HRD: 2006






.
(3 )(Ing-chung huang :2006
180



:
-1 .
-2
.
-3
.
-4 .
-5
.
94

 (904 )(Y.V.S.S, Prasada Rao :2006

.



.
(5 )(Gil s.Epstein &E ward :2006


.
:
A berdeen , Dundee ,Glasgow , Heriot-watt and St Andrews
689 64 17
%60 %79




.

.
(6 )(Hannu Pie kkola :2005

) (Performance Related Pay: PRP
2002-1996

%6 .
95

 (7 )(W.D. Mccausland :2005

10000
65 .


.


.
(8 )( Appelbaum & Kamal :2000
)
(

:


.
(9 )(Kevin J. Sigler : 1999


.

.

96

 (10 )(Huddleston Patricia : 1999

11



.
(11 )(Hoffman, roglberg : 1998

:

) (

.
(12 )( Wiley, Carolyin :1997

19461976 1986 1996
.
:

.

.
(13 )(Catalina Raule :1997

1998-1988

.

97

 (14 )(Calvin London :1997

.
(15 )(Jo, Evans :1995

Agency
problem


.

98

v
v
v
v

99



:

:
.

.



.
:



283

:
-1
55 43
41 %15

.

.%74.6

100

 -2

.
228


.




158
.%65.8
8
%5 :
N
N 2 +1

=n

N= 228 0.05 = :
n= 228/228(.05)2+1= 145
-3

20 2006 12 .2006
-4

.

101

 .
) :(1

45
121
73
44
283

* ) : (

:

.
-1
:
:

.
: 61 :
):(2

10
13
10
9
9
10
61

)(

1

2

3

4

5

6

102

81-100

61-80

41-60

21-40

0-20

.
:
7.
:
-1 :
.
. .


.


- .
. :



:
(1
.

103


) (55 41
.
:
) (3 ) (

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

.

.
) (.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.003** .427
.000** .708
.638

**.000

.666
.791
.725
.662
.645
.385
.301

**.000
**.000
**.000
**.000
**.000
**.000
*.0.027

** ).( =0.01
* ).( =0.05

)(3
) ( = 0.01
.

104

 ) (4 ) (

11

12

.

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

.554

** .000

.525

** .000

.697

** .000

.480
.627

** .002
** .000

.722

** .000

.396
.536
.502
.287

** .000
** .000
** .000
** .040

.250

.055

.382
.385

.197
*.007

** ).( =0.01
* ).( =0.05

) (4 ) (= 0.01
2122

.

21
22

.
.

.000 ** .572
.000 ** .690

= 0.01
.

105

 ) (5 ) (

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

.

.

.

.
.
.
.

.

.528
.493
.660
.617
.434

** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000

.308

** .000

.556
.731
.511

** .000
** .000
** .040

.371

** .009

** ).( =0.01

) (5
) ( ) (= 0.01
.
)(6 )
(

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

.
.
.

.
.

.
/ .
.
** ).( =0.01

106

.000 ** .804
.790
.495
.003
.095
.549

** .000
** .000
.48
.28
** .000

.000 ** .463
.000 ** .838
.000 ** .428

 ) (6 ) (= 0.01
3837

.
37
38

.
.

.000 ** .714
.000 ** .227

= 0.01
.
)(7 )
(

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.

.

.101

.270

.000 ** .491
.565
.542
.557
.514
.615

** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000

.000 ** .624
.000 ** .537

** ).( =0.01

) (7
) ( ) (= 0.01
43
.
43

.001 ** .640

= 0.01
.
107

 )(8 )
( .

52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

.
.
.
.
.

.
.

.

.

.

.313
.159
.254
.671
.465

** .000
.160
**.002
** .000
.200

.000 ** .645
.000 ** .606
.000 ** .436
.000 ** .585
.000 ** .556

** ).( =0.01
* ).( =0.05

) (8 ) (= 0.01
5356

.
53
56

.
.

*.01
.189
.000 ** .640

= 0.05
.

108

 (2

).(9
) (9

.584
.801
.634
.558
.459
.331

:
:
:
:
:
:

** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000
** .002
*.018

** ).( =0.01
* ).( =0.05

) (9 .
) (10
.
) (10

.584
.818
.759
.789
.649
.579

:
:
:
:
:
:

** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000
** .000

** ).( =0.01

-2 :Reliability

.
- :Split-Half Method

109


-
) (Spearman- Brown Coefficient :
2r
=
r +1

r
) - (11

.717

.835

.749

.857

:
:

:

.300
.700

.461
.824

.761

.865

.258

.410

.820
.694

) (11
.
- :Cronbach's Alpha Method

0.755 .903

.
) (12

.808
:
.795
:
.366
:
.622
:
.732
:
.485
:
) (12 .

110

 :
Statistical
(SPSS) Package for the Social Sciences
:
.1 .
.2 ) (Pearson Correlation Coefficient

.
.3 ) (Cronbach's Alpha
.
.4 T
%60 .
.5 - Shapiro- wilk
) (50
) ( KS
).(carver&nash, 2005
.6 ) ( ANOVA
) (Kruskal Wallis Test

.

111


) (

v
v
v

112


) (
:
-
) :(13

136
14
150

)(%
90.70
9.30
100.00

) (13 % 90.70 % 9.30

.
-2
) :(14
)(
29
40 30
50 41
51

9
40
66
35
150

)(%
6.00
26.70
44.00
23.30
100.00

) (14 % 6 30
% 26.7 ) (30 -40 % 44

) (40- 50 50 %23.3

113

 -3
) :(15

)(%

11

7.30

30

20.00

96

64.00

13

8.70

150

100.00

2
13.
) (15 % 64.0

.
-4
) :(16

3/1
4/2
D
C
A B
A

64
52
11
11
11
1
150

)(%
42.70
34.70
7.30
7.30
7.30
.70
100.00

) (16 % 42.7 3/1

%34.7 4/2 %7.3
. D ,C, A, B
3/1
C 4/2

114

 -5
)- 17( : ) (

2
25
22
39
5
48

)(%
1.30
16.70
14.70
26.00
3.30
32.00

6.00

150

100.00

)- 17(

) (


) ( ) -17(.
) -17( :

55
68
27
150

)(%
36.70
45.30
18.00
100.00

-6
) :(18
)(
2 10
11 20
21 30
31

20
69
53
8
150

115

)(%
13.30
46.00
35.30
5.30
100.00

 ) (18 % 46 20 10
%35.3 20 30


.
-7
) :(19

47
68
21
10
4
150

2500 1500
3500 2501
4500 3501
5500 4501
5500

)(%
31.30
45.30
14.00
6.70
2.70
100.00

) (19 %45.3
2500 3500 4500
%9.4 .
-8
(20) :

74

40

21

150

116

 ) (20





) (Wiley,1997 ).(Takahashi, 2006

117

 :
:
T ) ( n = 150
30
).(Carver & Nash, 2005
T .60
T .60
.60
T
:

118

 -1 :
) :(21 T
) (

Sig.
**.000

.
-4.364 51.713
.
-11.245 36.5267

.
) -15.193 31.467
(.
-6.236 46.327
.
-12.382 37.26
.
-6.653 45.767
.
-3.519 52.673
.
5.782 70.580

**.000

10

47.16

-5.691

**.000

46.89

-11.92

**.000

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

49.213

-4.824

**.000
**.000

**.000
**.000
**.000
**.000
**.005

** ).( =0.01

) (21
% 46.89 T ) (-11.92
).(0.00
) ( 9
119




) .(2005
%31.46
T ) (-15.193

%37.26 (-12.382) T
.
) (2005 ) (2004:

%58.82

) (2005 :
.
) (2000 :
. %68.35

.
) : (2006


.

120

 -2 :
) :(22 T
) (
T

Sig.

11 .001** 3.089 65.433

12 .000** -2.255 55.507

13 .013* 1.559 62.920

.

14 .060 4.773 68.207

15 .000** 6.077 69.673

16 .000** 8.283 73.507

17 .000** 26.914 86.213

.

18 .005** 18.230 81.953

.

19 .415 -.217 59.567

.

20 .000** 18.20 83.433 .

21 .000** 11.207 74.753

22 .000** -4.512 49.580

.

23 .156 -1.202 57.760

68.35

8.698

** ).( =0.01
* ).( =0.05
121

** .000

 % 68.35 T
) (0.00
.
22 % 49.580 T ) (-4.512



.
19 % 59.567 %5
.
-

17
% 86.213 T ) (26.914
.

20 % 83.433
.
(1999)Graeme


.
) (2005:
) (2005 :

) (Apprlbaum& Kamal: 2000

.

122

 -3 :
) :(23 T
) (

Sig.
24 .000** 27.726 85.107
.
25 .000** 26.155 84.787

26 .000** 18.918 82.733
.
27 .000** 16.106 80.827

28 .000** 19.745 85.593
.
29 .000** -6.740 45.827

.
30 .000** 10.532 74.460
.
31 .007** 1.493 63.087

.
.000** -7.793
32 42.58
.
**.000
33 - 37.307
11.252

.
**.000
9.344 68.23

** ).( =0.01

% 68.23 T) (9.344 ) (0.00

.
24 28 %80
.
123

31 %7 63.09
%
.

33 % 37.307 T ) (-9.344


.
29 ) :
(2006
2006

.

124

 -4 :
) :(24 T
) (

Sig.
34 .000** -10.825 38.060

.
35 .000** -9.827 38.800

.
36 .000** 12.270 76.173

.
37 .004** -2.689 54.533

.
** .000
38 9.185 76.533

.
39 .000** 12.027 76.600

.
40 .000** 13.194 78.513

.
41 .000** -7.319 43.767

/
.
42 .000** 11.141 76.713

.
.003** -2.783
57.00

** ).( =0.01

) (24 % 57.00 T ) (-2.783 ) ( 0.03

) (


125

) : (2006

.
34 35 %38




41 ) (2006 :
) :
(2006
.
) (Kevin, 1999

.
40 % 78.513
.
) (1980 :
.

126

 -5 :
) :(25 T
) (

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

51

87.293
.
76.933

.
67.100
.
70.013

.
75.867
.
72.313
.
77.413

.
71.620


.
69.780

.

74.26

4.396
10.456

3.809
5.824

9.900
8.512
11.092

Sig.
** .000

** .000

** .000

** .000

** .000

** .000

** .000

6.571

** .000

4.850

** .000

.000** 11.121

** ).( =0.01

. ) (25
%74.26 T ) (11.121 ).( 0.00

127

 43 % 87.293

.
45 % 67.100 .
-

) (1985 :

.

) (Appelbaum 2000
.

128

 -6 :
) :(26 T
) (

52
53
54
55
56
57

58
59
60
61

78.633

.
85.687
.
72.433

.
57.113

.
66.947

.
60.240


.
68.273
.
46.653

.
43.720

.
57.667


.

9.805

29.666
8.092

** .000

** .000

-1.283

.101

3.745

** .000

0.113

.455

** .000
4.121

.000** -5.343

-7.476

- 1.192

63.737

** ).( =0.01

129

Sig.
** .000

** .000

.120

.000** 3.797

 55 61 . ) (26 % 63.737
T 3.797 ) ( 0.00
.
53 . ) (1980 :
-7
(27) :

:

:



:

:

:

%
46.89
68.35
68.23
57.00
74.26
63.74

Sig.

-11.92

**.000

8.698

**.000

9.344

**.000

-2.783

**.003

11.121

**.000

3.797

**.000

** ).( =0.01

) (27 ) ( T
.

130

 :
-1 :

.
) :(28

Sig.

0.553

**.000

) (

0.358

**.000

) (

0.580

**.000

0.572

**.000

0.379

**.000

0.594

**.000

)
(

(
5

)
(

** ).( =0.01

) (28

0.530.572
0.000

) (0.580

)(0.594 )(0.358
)(0.379 =0.00
131





) : (2006
.
-

% 46.89 11.92- T

) (.
) (2005 : ) (Toshiba HRD: 2006

) (CatalinaRaule: 1997 .

132

 -2 :

.
) :(29

Sig.

0.604

**.000

0.638

*.000

** ).( =0.01

) (29 0.604 0.000

.

) (0.638 0.000
.
.
) :
(2006

.

133

 -3 :

.

30
Shapiro - Wilk :
) :(30 Shapiro - Wilk

Shapiro - Wilk

0.986

55

0.748

0.978

68

0.287

0.674

27

*0.000

) (30 0.05
.
Kruskal-Wallis test

).(31
) :(31Kruskal-Wallis test

55

66.75

68

73.87

27

97.44

150

134

 :
) :(32

)(2
2
) (
0.010
9.225

) (32 9.225 2 0.05
) (31

.




.
) (2000 : .

135

 -4 :

.
) (15
30
Shapiro-Wilk
) (33 0.05 .
) :(33 Shapiro - Wilk

Shapiro - Wilk

0.952

11

0.667

0.936

13

0.408

)(Sig

) 5.561 = (F 0.016 = Sig

.0.05
) :(34

11

53.688

8.072

30

56.297

10.772

96

59.533

10.566

13

65.896

10.935

150

59.008

10.754

136

 Post Hoc test

) :(35 Post Hoc test

)(Sig

12.209

*0.048

0.059

9.599

0.244

6.364

0.385

5.845

0.539

3.235

0.919

2.609

* 0.05

) (35
0.05




.
) (34

137


.
) (2004 : ) (2000 :) :
(2003 .
) (2005 : .

138

 -5 :

.

30
Shapiro - Wilk :
) :(36 Shapiro - Wilk

Shapiro - Wilk

0.969

55

0.16

0.979

68

0.290

0.934

27

0.084

)(Sig

) (36 0.05



) 7.283 = (F 0.001 = Sig
.
Post Hoc test

139

 ) :(37 Post Hoc test

)(Sig

....

4.620

0.148

...

9.030

**0.001

...

4.412

0.066

** 0.01

) (37
= 0.01

) (
.
) (37



.

140

 -6 :

.

) (18 30 30
Shapiro - Wilk :
) :(38 Shapiro - Wilk
)(

Shapiro-Wilk

10 2

0.978

20

0.899

20 11

0.983

69

0.482

30 21

0.985

53

0.761

30

0.915

0.391

)(Sig

0.05 .


) 1.346 = (F 0.262 = Sig
.

30
.
) (2004 : .

141

 :

.
) (39 30
Shapiro - Wilk :
) :(39 Shapiro - Wilk

Shapiro-Wilk

0.978

66

0.782

0.983

31

0.546

0.985

28

0.671

0.915

25

0.482

)(Sig

0.05 .


) 1.346 = (F 0.190 = Sig
.


.
) (2004 :
.
142

.



.
:
:
:

143

 :


-:
:
% 46.89 0.000

=0.000 T -11.92


.
:
-1

-2

.2000
-3

.
-4

.
-5

.
-6

-7

%31.47
.

144

 :
%68.35


:
-1
.
-2 .
-3

.
-4
.
-5
.
:
%68.23 =0.000
Sig :
-1
.
-2

.
-3


.
:
-1 .
-2 .
145

 -3 .
-4
.
-5 .
:
%57 Sig= 0.03
.
0.604
Sig= 0.00 :
-1
.
-2
.
-3
.
-4


.
:
%74.26 Sig=0.000
%66.75 %73.67
%79.44

0.000 :
-1 .
-2
.
-3 .
146

 :
% 63.740
:
-1 .
-2 .
:
.
.
. :

%12.2 = 0.048

.
:

%9.0 = 0.001
.
:



.

147

:
-1

.
-2


.
-3
.
-4

:
. . . .
-5

.

148

 -6

.
-7
.
-8

.
-9
.
-10

.
-11

-12

149

:
-1
.
-2 .
-3 .
-4
.
-5 .
-6 .
-7 .

150


:
(
.1 )"(2000 "
.
.2 ) "(1998 "
.
.3 ) " (1996 " .
.4 ) " (2005 "
) . . (
.
.5 )" (2000 "
.
.6 )" (2005 "
.
.7 ) ".(2003 " ).

. ( .
.8 ) ".(1999 " ) (
.
.9 ) " (2005 " ) .
. ( .
.10 )"(2003 "
.
.11 )" (1998
" .
.12 ) " (1986 "
.

151

 .13 ) " (2002 "

.
.14 )" (2002
" .
.15 )" (1997 : "
.
.16 ) " (1996 "
.
.17 ) "(1979 "
.
.18 ) " (2001 "
.
.19 )" (2006 " )
( . ..
.20 ) " (2002 "
.
.21 ) " (1996 "
.
.22)"(1995 :
" .
.23 ) " (1995 "
.
.24 )" (2002 : "
.
.25 ) "(2001 "
.
.26)"(1998 "
.
.27 )"(1985 : "
).(1985
.28 )" (2005 "
.

152

 .29 )"(2003 "

.
.30 )"(2002 "
.
.31 )" (2001 "
.
.32 ) " (1999 ) (
.
.33 ) " (1991 "
.
.34 ) " (1982 "
.
.35 )" (2005
" .
.36 )" (2003 " ) .
( . ..
.37 ) " (2001 "
.
.38 ) " (2001 " ) .
. ( .
.39 )" (2002 : "
.
.40 ) " (1982 "
.
.41 )" (1999 "
.
.42 ) " (1982 "
.

(
153

 .1 ) "(2000
" .

.2 ) " (1980
"
.
.3 ) " (2005
"
.
.4 ) " (2005 "
.
.5 )"(2005
"
.
.6 ) "(2005
" .
.7 ) " (2005
"
.
.8 )"(2004
"
.
.9 )"(2004
: "
.
.10 ) " (2003
"
.
.11 ) " (1992
"
.

154

 .12 ) "(1985 "

.
.13 )" (2000
"
.
.14 ) " (1970
"
.
(
.1 ) "(2006 " .
.
.2 ) "(1982 "
) (31 .
.3 )"(1995 " "
) ( .

.4 ) "(1995
" ) 22 (
.
.5 ) "(1995
" )
( .
(
.1 ) (2006
.2 ) (2006 .
.3 ) (2006 .
.4 ) (2006 .
.5 ) (2006 .
.6 ) (2006 .
.7 ) (2006 .
.8 ) (2005 .
.9 ) (2005 .
155

 /
:(
1. Armstrong, Michel (2001)," Human recourses Management
Practice", 8th edition, Kogan page limited, London, UK.
2. Buchanan,

David

and

Huczynski,

Andrzej,

(2001),

"Organizational Behavior", fourth edition, Pearson Education

Inc, Harlow, England.
3. Bowey, Angela, ( 1989), "Managing Salary & Wage Systems",
Gower Publishing Company Limited, Vermont, USA.
4. carver & Nash, (2003)," Doing Data Analysis with SPSS",
Thomson, USA.
5. E. Levitt, Raymond & L.Rounds, Jerald, (1996 "Project
Management For Engineering and Construction", McGraw-Hill
Co., Singapore.
6. Mondy,

R.wayne,

Noe

RobertM.,(2005),Human

resource

Management, Pearson Education Inc.

7. Merchant, Kenneth & Van der stede, Wim A. (2003),"
Management Control systems, Performance measurement,
evaluation and Incentives", Prentice Hall, USA.
8. Northcraft,

George

and

Neale,

Margret,

1990),

"Organizational Behavior", Dryden Press, USA.

9. Putti, Joseph, (1980), " The management of securing and
maintenance the work force", S. chaud company Ltd., New
Delhi, India.
(
1- Alberto Bayo-Moriones, Emilio Huerta-Arribas, (2002) "
Organizational incentive plans in Spanish manufacturing industry"
Journal: Personnel Review, Volume: 31 Issue: 2.

156

2- Appelbaum, Steven H. and Mackenzie, Loring, (1996) "

Compensation in the year 2000: pay for performance?", Health
Manpower Management, Volume 22 Number 3.
3- BEBCHUK, LUCIAN ARYE (2005) " Pay without Performance:
Overview of the Issues ", Journal of Applied Corporate Finance,
Vol. 17, No. 4.
4- Benot Mahy, Robert Plasman, Franois Rycx, (2005) " HRM and
job performance incentives", International Journal of Manpower,
Research paper, Volume: 26 Issue: 7/8.
5- Belfield, Richard (2003), " Performance Pay, Monitoring
Environment, and Establishment Performance", International,
Journal of Manpower, vol.: 24, issue: 4.
6- Brian Ferguson, Jennifer N.W. Lim, (2001)" Incentives and
clinical governance: Money following quality?" Journal of
Management in Medicine, Volume: 15 Issue: 6.
7- Brown, Duncan Ian, (1995)" Team-based reward plans ", Team
Performance Management, Volume 1 Number 1.
8- Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes, Traci Mach, (2003) " Performance pay
and fringe benefits: Work incentives or compensating wage
differentials?", Research paper, International Journal of Manpower,
Volume: 24 Issue:6
9- Carolyn, Wiley, (1997) " What motivates employees according to
over 40 years of motivation surveys", International Journal of
Manpower, Volume 18 Number 3.
10-

Delfgaauw, Josse and Dur, Robert, (2006) "Incentives and

workers in The Public Sector ", The Tinbergen Institute is the

institute for economic research of the Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam, Universiteit vanAmsterdam, and Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam.
11-

Dickinson, Julie, (2006)" Employees' preferences for the bases

of pay differentials ", Employee Relations, Volume 28 Number 2.

157

12-

ERNST, FEHR, (2002) " Psychological Foundations of

Incentives", University of Zurich - Institute for Empirical Research

in Economics (IEW), IZA Discussion Paper No. 507; CESifo
Working Pape.
13-

Eric Van Tassel, (2000) " A study of group lending and

incentives in Bolivia", Case study, International Journal of Social

Economics, Volume: 27 Issue: 7/8/9/10.
14-

Edwin Wilde, (1995)" Managerial Incentives A Case Study",

Journal: Work Study, Volume: 43 Issue: 3.

15-

GEORGE P. BAKER and MICHAEL C. JENSEN, (1998)

" Compensation and Incentives: Practice vs. Theory", Journal of

Finance, Vol. 63.
16-

Hoffman, Jopdy, (1998)" A guide to team incentive systems",

Team Performance Management, volume 4 Number 1.

17-

Huddleston, Patricia, (1999) " Job motivators in Russian and

Polish retail firms", International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, Volume 27 Number 9.
18-

Ing-Chung, Huang and others, (2006) " Constructing factors

related to worker retention", International Journal of Manpower,

Volume 27 Number 5.
19-

Jochen Wirtz, Patricia Chew, (2002) " The effects of incentives,

deal proneness, satisfaction and tie strength on word-of-mouth

behavior", International Journal of Service Industry Management,
Research Paper, Volume: 13 Issue: 2.
20- Jo Evans, Charlie Weir, (1999) " Decision processes, monitoring,
incentives and large firm performance in the UK", Journal: Management
Decision, Research paper, Volume: 33 Issue: 6.

21-

Kiyoshi Takahashi, (2006) " Effects of wage and promotion

incentives on the motivation levels of Japanese employees"

Research paper, Journal: Career Development International,
Volume: 11 Issue: 3.
158

22-

KEVIN J. MURPHY, (1999) " Performance Standards in

Incentive Contracts", University of Southern California - Marshall

School of Business.
23-

Kevin J. Sigler, (1999) " Challenges of employee retention",

Journal: Management Research News, Volume: 22 Number: 10.

24-

Karl McCleary, and others, (1995) " The effect of financial

incentives on physicians' behavior in health maintenance

organizations" Journal of Management in Medicine, Research
paper, Volume: 9
25-

Issue: 1.

LUCIAN ARYE BEBCHUK, (2005) " Pay without

Performance: Overview of the Issues", Journal of Corporation

Law, Vol. 30, No. 4.
26-

London, Calvin and Higgot, Kim (1997) " An employee

reward and recognition process", The TQM Magazine Volume 9

Number 5
27-

McCausland, W.D and others, (2005) " Some are punished and

some are rewarded : A study of the impact of performance pay on

job satisfaction ", Research paper, International Journal of
Manpower, Volume 26.
28-

Martin, Graeme, (1999) " Performance Related Pay: Theory,

Practice and Prospect", University of Southern California Marshall School of Business.

29- MICHAEL C. JENSEN, (1998)" Self Interest, Altruism, Incentives, and
Agency Theory", Journal Of Applied Corporate Finance.

30-

Prasada Rao, Y.V.S.S.S.V, (2006) " Motivation model for

improving productivity in a manufacturing unit a success story",

International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Volume 55 Number 5.
31-

Piekkola, Hannu , (2005) " Performance-related pay and firm

performance in Finland ", Research paper, International Journal of

Manpower, Volume 26.
159

32-

PAUL OYER, (2000) " Why Do Firms Use Incentives that have

No Incentive Effects?", Stanford Graduate School of Business;

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
33-

ROBERT S. GIBBONS, (1999) " Incentives and Careers in

Organizations", Sloan School and Department of Economics, MIT;

National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
34-

- Toshiba HR Department, (2006) " sparks a wave of

innovation: New structures and incentives stimulate employee

creativity", Journal: Human Resource Management International
Digest, Case study, Volume: 14 Issue: 6.
35-

YISONG S. TIAN, (2006) " Managerial Incentives and

Corporate Fraud: The Sources of Incentives Matter", EFA 2006

Zurich Meeting, York University - Schulich School of Business.
36-

Zobal, Cheryl , (1998) " The ideal team compensation system

- an overview ", Team Performance Management, Volume 4

Number 5.

160

....

.



.


.

:


_
:2006

161

 :
) \ (
-1
-2

......................................
(
)
(
)

-3

-4

)
)

( 2 /4
(C

)
)

( 1/3
( A B

)
)

(D
( A

-5

-6

....................................

-7
....................................
-8 )
-9

)(................
(
)
)

(
(

(
(

:
...............................................................................................................

162


:
:

) (
81 100 ) (91
.

81-100%

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

11

81-100

1
2

41-60% 61-80%

21- 40%

91

0 -20%

.


.
)
(.

.
.

.
.

.

.
:

.

163

61-80

41-60

21-40

0 -20

81 -100%

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

.

.
.
.

.

.

.

.
.

.

.

.
:

.


.

.

.

.

.

.

.

164

61 -80%

41 -60%

21 - 40%

0 -20%

-100%
81

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

/ .

.
:

.


.

.

.

.

.

.


.

165

41 -60% 61 -80%

21 - 40%

0 -20%

-100%
81

41 -60% 61 -80%

21 - 40%

:
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

.

.

.

.

.


.

.

.

.


.
:

) 1 (7 ) ( 1
....
) (
) (
) (
) (

) (
) (
) (

166

0 -20%