Types of reward:

There are various types of rewards:

Intrinsic rewards it can be define as if an employee is working efficiently in an organization then

intrinsic reward is the satisfaction which is he got from the job itself as an example; being a key
member of a team, having pride in work so it’s very important that an employee is satisfied with his
job then he is going to put an extra effort in his job.

Extrinsic Rewards:

It deals with promotion, benefits and money. It plays vital role as an individual by having extrinsic
rewards will try to bestow his efforts for the growth and progress of the company.

Orientation and additional interpretation

Arthur Andersen (1996) Boardroom Pay in UK Quoted Companies, London.

Conoley, M.. (1995) Executive Share Options : a New Dilemma for HR people
Management, 10th August.
Hewitt Associates (1995) Corporate Governance and Executive Remuneration ,
Executive Compensation , vol.1, March.
Income Data Services (2004) Executive Compensation Review, IDS
Institute of Directors (1992) The Remuneration of Executive Directors, The Director
Publications Ltd, London.
IRS (1995) Greenbury : a brake on boardroom pay? Pay and Benefits, August.
Williams, A. (1994) The Truth About Executive Pay, Kogan Page, London.
Wright, V. (1993) Directors' Remuneration, Human Resource Management and
Strategy, Cromer Publications, London.
PAYING FOR INNOVATION - THE VAUXHALL EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, Suggestion Schemes have had a bad press in some quarters. They have
had an undervalued and old-fashioned feel about them, often reflected in the image of the
'Suggestions Box' with paint peeling off, that sits in the corner of the works canteen in
1950s Ealing comedies.
They originated as a genuine attempt to harness the enthusiasm and experience of the
workforce to produce new ideas in the workplace and to reward those ideas that proved
successful. As ideas increased in number, it became necessary to formalise the scheme of
rewards. What had originated as a quick 'thank-you' to a bright young production recruit
by the Works Manager on his own initiative in the 1950s, became part of Personnel
systems in the 1960s to ensure parity, fairness and consistency across the shop floor.
For some of the schemes, the formalisation produced dysfunctional results. In the l east
successfulschemes, decisions could no longer be taken instantly - they had to be first
considered by a Suggestions Committee when it next met, then costed, evaluated and
finally agreed by a Director some months later. Even then, payments could only be made
if the budget allowed. This was another instance of the many cases of dis-empowerment
of Supervisors and Managers, along with recruitment, selection, quality and safety. The
dead hand of central control usually meant a listless or even lifeless scheme, where the
occasional attempt at resuscitation failed after a brief spell of activity. In any case, the
scheme was isolated, paying no part in the general thrust of company policy, and was
treated as such by management.
Unions co-operated in this viewpoint, regarding all ideas on improvements to be the role
of management and not something that employees should bother themselves about,
particularly as only the odd individual would benefit - that is, unless the suggestion was
about improving the terms and conditions of employees, which was their job - for which they did
not expect payment!