The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-9269.htm

Intrinsic
Do intrinsic rewards matter for rewards
real estate agents? matter
Pilar Mosquera, Maria Eduarda Soares and Daniela Oliveira
ISEG, Advance, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
207
Received 4 December 2019
Abstract Revised 27 April 2020
Purpose – Rewards’ management has long been used as a panacea to promote job satisfaction and labour 2 June 2020
Accepted 2 June 2020
retention. However, the relationship between these variables is not clearly defined in the real estate industry,
due to the scarcity of empirical studies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of both satisfaction
with intrinsic rewards (SIR) and satisfaction with extrinsic rewards (SER) on job satisfaction and turnover
intention in the real estate industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a sample of 220 employees from the three largest real estate
agencies in Portugal, the study analyses a conceptual framework and tests hypotheses by using partial least
squares (PLS), along with importance-performance map analysis (IPMA).
Findings – Results indicate that both SIR and SER have a positive impact on job satisfaction.
However, SER has a stronger impact on job satisfaction. Satisfaction with rewards and job satisfaction
are negatively related to turnover intention. Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between
satisfaction with rewards and turnover intention. Results also show gender and age differences. SIR is
more important for women and younger agents. SER has similar importance for men and women, but
higher importance for older agents.
Research limitations/implications – Findings of this study extend the existing literature on rewards
satisfaction and turnover intention to the context of the real estate industry. They present a contribution to the
current debate on extrinsic vs intrinsic rewards for this particular industry.
Practical implications – Following the results of this research, real estate managers should consider
intrinsic rewards because they also play a role for job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Human resource
managers should consider identifying employees’ needs and motivations and then implement adequate
strategies to promote their job satisfaction because it plays a mediating role between satisfaction with
rewards and turnover intention. Reward strategies should also consider gender and age differences by giving
women and younger agents more recognition, responsibilities and other intrinsic rewards because they are
important for their job satisfaction.
Originality/value – Previous studies on real estate agents rewards appear to have only focussed on
extrinsic rewards. To the best of the knowledge, this is the first study to analyse the effects of SIR on job
satisfaction and turnover intention in the real estate industry. Also, to the best of the knowledge, this study is
original in the use of IPMA to detect gender and age differences.
Keywords Satisfaction with intrinsic rewards, Satisfaction with extrinsic rewards, Job satisfaction,
Turnover intention, Real estate agents
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Employee retention is a particularly relevant issue in the real estate industry, which is
traditionally characterized by labour instability. High turnover rates in this industry are
often associated with its demanding conditions such as long working hours and interaction
with distressed clients, leading to burnout (Snyder et al., 2011), This is often compounded by Journal of European Real Estate
Research
Vol. 13 No. 2, 2020
pp. 207-222
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-9269
Tecnologia (Portugal), national funding through research grant UIDB/04521/2020 DOI 10.1108/JERER-12-2019-0051
JERER poor human resource strategies, especially regarding compensation and benefits (Phillips
13,2 and Roper, 2009). Portuguese real estate agencies also face acute problems in retaining their
human capital. The industry was, until the covid-19 pandemic, experiencing a remarkable
growth in Portugal, being one of the driving forces of the Portuguese economy, and the
Portuguese industry with the biggest gross return (0.81) in 2017 (Pordata, 2019).
Given the relevance of turnover rates in the real estate industry, the study of antecedents
208 of turnover intention in this industry could provide important contributions for both theory
and practice. However, there is a surprising scarcity of scientific studies on the subject that
have been carried out in the real estate industry. The few existing studies on real estate
agents (Munneke and Yavas, 2001; Winkler and Hughen, 2012) have mainly focussed on
extrinsic rewards, namely the effects of different compensation schemes, largely neglecting
the role of intrinsic rewards. Real estate brokers have frequently held the idea that
salespeople are only, or mostly, interested in money (Cooke, 1999; Rosenberg et al., 1981).
Even though, more recently, it has been pointed that intrinsic factors affect employee
engagement and job satisfaction (Giancola, 2014), there is still a research gap that needs to
be addressed. Therefore, our study aims to assess the extent to which both SIR and SER
influence job satisfaction and turnover intention.
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review on intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards, job satisfaction and turnover intention, leading to the research
hypotheses and the conceptual model of the study. In 3 and 4, respectively, we describe the
method of the empirical study and present its results. Finally, in Section 5, we discuss the
results and conclusions of the study, including its contributions, limitations and avenues for
future research.

2. Theory and hypotheses

2.1 Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
Reward is a central concept of the employment relationship, and therefore, reward
management systems play a crucial role for organizations in attracting and retaining
employees (Abdin et al., 2019; Akgunduz et al., 2020). Reward management can be described
as recognising and rewarding good performance and providing incentives to improve it
(Armstrong, 2012).
There is evidence (Azasu, 2009) that real estate firms that have a total rewards strategy
also have better performance than their counterparts who do not have one. Unfortunately,
rewards management is not included in the list of priorities for real estate fund managers
(Newell et al., 2004).
Vroom (1964) showed that workers tend to perform more effectively if their wages are related
to performance. However, many studies have shown that financial rewards are not the only way
to motivate employees to achieve higher levels of performance (Silverman, 2004). Ever since the
work of early motivational researchers such as Maslow (1954), Herzberg (1966), Deci (1975), a
distinction has been established between two sources of motivation, namely, intrinsic motivation
and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation can be defined as being the motivation to perform
an activity for its own sake, i.e. for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from the activity (Deci
et al., 1989). Extrinsic motivation can be defined as being the motivation that is derived from the
possibility of attaining a desirable consequence or avoiding an undesirable consequence (Deci
et al., 1989; Deci and Ryan, 2000).
While extrinsic motivation is usually equated with tangible aspects of rewards such as
pay, benefits and incentives, intrinsic motivation is more equated with intangible aspects of
rewards such as responsibility, autonomy, recognition and achievement (Armstrong, 2012;
Kuvaas et al., 2017; Mahaney and Lederer, 2006).
 Studies on real estate agents have mainly focussed on the role of extrinsic rewards. Most Intrinsic
of these studies have been devoted to the consequences of different compensation rewards
arrangements for real estate agents, such as full pay-out vs split commission. The
consequences are mainly measured in terms of productivity indicators such as selling price
matter
and property marketing time (Johnson et al., 2008; Munneke and Yavas, 2001; Zumpano
et al., 2009). Fewer studies have analysed the impact of fringe benefits on the productivity
and effort of real estate agents (Winkler and Hughen, 2012). Studies on the impact of
intrinsic rewards for real estate agents are even more scarce. The only study that we were 209
able to find in the real estate industry that included both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
involved 120 Swedish real estate agencies (Azasu, 2009). Findings from this study reveal
that nonfinancial rewards have an indirect positive effect on performance, reinforcing the
impact of financial rewards on performance. We were unable to find any study that
analysed the differentiated impact of the two types of rewards either on job satisfaction or
turnover intention, in this industry. Nevertheless, empirical findings from other industries
have emphasized the relevance of intrinsic factors for employee engagement and job
satisfaction (Giancola, 2014). Another study (Morgan et al., 2013) with healthcare workers
concluded that both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics are significant predictors of job
satisfaction, but only extrinsic characteristics impact in workers intent to stay.

2.2 Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one of the most studied variables in organizational behaviour. Locke
(1969) proposed an initial definition of job satisfaction. He suggests that job satisfaction is a
positive or pleasurable reaction resulting from the appraisal of one’s job, job achievement or
job experiences. More recently, Spector (1997) presents a similar definition, referring to job
satisfaction as people’s self-assessments about the extent to which they like or dislike their
jobs.
Several authors have analysed the relationship between reward management and job
satisfaction. Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory argues that intrinsic rewards such as
recognition, autonomy and achievement, lead to higher job satisfaction. Inversely, extrinsic
rewards such as salary, benefits and incentives, do not increase satisfaction but rather only
avoid dissatisfaction. This theory has received some support in a recent study by Kuvaas
et al. (2017), who found that intrinsic motivation was associated with positive outcomes and
that extrinsic motivation was negatively related or unrelated to positive outcomes.
However, other motivation researchers have considered that both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation can have positive effects (Giancola, 2014; Stajkovic and Luthans, 2003).
Focussing on job satisfaction as the positive outcome of reward management, Haider et al.
(2015) review the literature on the importance of non-financial rewards, i.e. intrinsic rewards,
and conclude that these are instrumental for job satisfaction. Other authors have found that
extrinsic rewards are positively associated with job satisfaction (Chew, 2005; Ghiselli et al.,
2001). More recently, empirical studies have found that both extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
rewards are significantly associated with job satisfaction (Rehman and Khan, 2010).
Consistent with this reasoning, we anticipate that both SIR and SER are positively
associated with job satisfaction. Therefore, we propose:

H1. SIR is positively associated with job satisfaction.

H2. SER is positively associated with job satisfaction.
JERER 2.3 Turnover intention
13,2 Turnover intention “refers to the employee’s emotions regarding the organization and work
before actually leaving” (Akgunduz et al., 2020, p. 171). Employee retention has been a major
concern in the retail sector (Chhabra, 2018), not only because of the detrimental effect of
salespeople’s turnover on customer relations, sales and revenues but also because of the
losses of human capital investments such as training and incentives (Sunder et al., 2017).
210 Rewards have widely been studied as a crucial instrument to avoid turnover in
organizations (Rosenberg et al., 1981). As far as financial (extrinsic) rewards are concerned,
some authors consider that they do not have a significant impact on turnover intention,
possibly because organizations often benchmark their financial rewards, and therefore
differentiation is difficult to achieve (Cappeli and Keller, 2013; Mitchell et al., 2001). However,
empirical studies have shown that different types of extrinsic rewards such as pay levels
(Gieter and Hofmans, 2015) and benefits (Frazis and Loewenstein, 2013; Parker and Rhine,
1991) play an important role in reducing turnover in organizations. Empirical studies show
that intrinsic rewards are also crucial to reduce turnover intention (Akgunduz et al., 2020;
Gieter and Hofmans, 2015). Consistent with this reasoning, we anticipate that both SIR and
SER are negatively associated with turnover intention. Therefore, we propose:

H3. SIR is negatively associated with turnover intention.

H4. SER is negatively associated with turnover intention.
There is a wide consensus among researchers that job satisfaction reduces turnover
intention (Griffeth et al., 2000; Lambert et al., 2001; McNall et al., 2009). Thus, we also
propose:

H5. Job satisfaction is negatively associated with turnover intention.

We also considered it may be relevant to analyse whether job satisfaction mediates the
relationship between turnover intention and both SIR and SER.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model of this study, which incorporates our research
hypotheses. Our model is based on Blau’s (1964) theory of social exchange. According to this
theory, human behaviour is motivated by the satisfaction of personal interests and by the
norm of reciprocity. Therefore, if employees are satisfied with the rewards (both intrinsic

Figure 1.
Conceptual model
and extrinsic) given by the employer, they will experience a greater level of job satisfaction Intrinsic
and feel obliged to reciprocate by remaining in the organization, thus reducing turnover rewards
intention. matter
3. Method
To test the hypotheses under study, we use partial least squares analysis (PLS) with
SmartPLS, version 3.0. The choice of PLS for structural equation modelling (SEM) relies on 211
its value for exploratory research, as it provides reliable estimates in situations where other
SEM methods fail (Henseler et al., 2014). Considering that the large majority of the original
variables in our study do not follow a normal distribution, this reinforces the need to use
PLS (Ringle et al., 2015).

3.1 Data collection and sample

An online questionnaire was sent to a convenience sample of employees from the three
largest real estate agencies in Portugal. All studied companies list properties for both sale
and lease and handle both commercial and residential properties.
A sample of a total of 220 valid answers was collected from respondents, of whom 127
were women (57.7%) and 93 were men (42.3%). About half of the respondents (51.8%) were
under 34 years old and the remaining (49.2%) were between 35 and 55 years old. As far as
education is concerned, most respondents had a higher education (54.1% were Bachelors
graduates and 13.2% had a Master’s degree), which represents a well-educated sample. To
comply with anonymity guarantees, we did not collect more personal data.

3.2 Measures
The questionnaire used in this study is divided into two sections. The first section is
composed of the following scales: satisfaction with rewards; job satisfaction and turnover
intention. The second part of the questionnaire includes three demographic variables,
namely, age, gender and level of education.
For the analysis of the replies, SIR and SER are measured by a 20 items scale developed
by Oyoo et al. (2016). Of these, 10 items measure SIR (e.g. “my efforts are acknowledged in
this organization”) and the other 10 items measure SER (e.g. “I am satisfied with my pay”).
Job satisfaction is measured by five items of the Hackman and Oldham (1980) Job Diagnostic
Survey, including, as an example, “generally speaking, I am very satisfied with my job”.
Turnover intention is measured by a three-item scale developed by Cammann et al. (1979),
which is included in the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. An example of
these items is “I will probably look for a new job next year”.
A five-point Likert scale was used, where (1) corresponds to “totally disagree” and (5) to
“totally agree”. The scales were originally in English and were translated into Portuguese
and then back-translated into English, to ensure item equivalence in the two languages
(Brislin, 1986). A pre-test was conducted to ensure the clarity of the instrument.

4. Results
4.1 Descriptive analysis
Initial analyses with PLS showed five cases of poor item reliability, which led to the
exclusion of these items from subsequent analyses. The usual criteria for deleting items is
when outer loadings are below 0.7. However, if the outer loading is between 0.4 and 0.7 and
the average variance extracted (AVE) of the latent variable is above 0.5, the item does not
JERER Bootstrap p-
13,2 Construct Indicators Mean SD Loading t-test value

SIR Q1_1 – I understand the intrinsic rewards the 3.94 0.66 0.688 9.547 0.000
organization offers
Q1_3 – The reward system recognizes superior 3.88 0.63 0.742 14.486 0.000
performance
212 Q1_4 – My achievements give me the zeal to stay 3.97 0.59 0.718 10.658 0.000
in this organization
Q1_5 – My achievements are recognized 3.85 0.71 0.829 24.782 0.000
Q1_6 – The responsibilities I have motivate me to 3.69 0.76 0.562 7.670 0.000
remain
Q1_7 – The responsibilities I am given are fitting 3.44 0.77 0.614 11.652 0.000
my qualifications
Q1_8 – My efforts are acknowledged in this 3.82 0.64 0.846 24.206 0.000
organization
Q1_10 – I am proud of my work in this 3.76 0.86 0.795 26.821 0.000
organization
SER Q2_1 – I am satisfied with my pay 3.76 0.80 0.869 31.305 0.000
Q2_2 – I am satisfied with the working condition 3.83 0.55 0.801 26.203 0.000
Q2_3 – Benefits provided by the organization are 3.65 0.81 0.849 30.788 0.000
satisfying
Q2_4 – I am satisfied with the bonuses I get in my 3.50 0.84 0.851 33.548 0.000
job
Q2_5 – My organization’s pay is benchmarked to 3.39 0.80 0.749 16.253 0.000
the market
Q2_6 – My organization’s pay is competitive 3.38 0.88 0.842 23.866 0.000
Q2_7 – The promotion systems of the organization 3.57 0.88 0.868 34.589 0.000
are fair
Q2_8 – I am satisfied with the allowance I get at 3.71 0.75 0.841 30.382 0.000
organization’s based on my grade
Q2_9 – My pay and grade are commensurate with 3.50 0.67 0.549 7.512 0.000
what my colleagues in the same job get
Job Q3_1 – Generally speaking, I am very satisfied 3.90 0.56 0.843 39.511 0.000
satisfaction with my job
Q3_3 – Generally speaking, I am very satisfied 3.85 0.55 0.637 5.965 0.000
with the kind of work I have to do on my job
Q3_4 – In my opinion, people with this job are very 3.70 0.56 0.761 13.460 0.000
satisfied with the kind of work they have to do
Table 1.
Turnover Q4_1 – I will probably look for a new job in the 1.85 0.97 0.969 115.244 0.000
Means, standard intention next year
deviations and Q4_2 – I will likely actively look for a new job in 1.88 1.01 0.965 119.932 0.000
standardized the next year
loadings of indicators Q4_3 – I often think about quitting 1.80 0.91 0.946 69.485 0.000

need to be deleted (Hair et al., 2017). Table 1 shows the final items used for each construct, as
well as their means, standard deviations and standardized loadings.

4.2 Measurement reliability and validity

Table 2 shows that, as far as reliability is concerned, all latent variables have composite
reliabilities above the acceptable level of 0.7, which indicates construct reliability (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2011).
 To analyse validity, we conducted tests of convergent and discriminant validity. For Intrinsic
convergent validity, we analysed the AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and found that it exceeds rewards
the threshold of 0.5 for all latent variables (Table 2). We also calculated bootstrap t-statistics of matter
the indicators’ standardized loadings (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). These were all found to be
significant at the 1% significance level (Table 1), which is further evidence of a high convergent
validity of the measurement model.
For discriminant validity, we used Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria, which consists of 213
comparing the square root of AVE with the correlations for each pair of latent variables. For
all pairs, the square roots of the AVE are higher than the correlations (Table 3), which is
evidence that each latent variable shares more variance with its own measurement than
with other constructs. Therefore, we can conclude that there is evidence of discriminant
validity.
As all measurements were provided by respondents at one single point in time, we tested
for common method bias. This was done through a full collinearity assessment approach
(Kock, 2015). All the variance inflation factor values were lower than the 3.3 threshold, an
indication that the model is free from common method bias.

4.3 Model estimation results

As the analyses of measurement models revealed evidence of reliability and validity, we
were able to proceed to the analysis of the structural model (Figure 2) to test the hypotheses
under study (Henseler et al., 2009).
Bootstrapping and pseudo-t-tests revealed that all path coefficients presented t-values
above 1.96 (p < 0.05) being, therefore, all significant (Figure 2).
To evaluate the explanatory power of the model, we analysed the coefficient of
determination (R2) of the endogenous construct (Sarstedt et al., 2014). The model
explains 62.8% of the variance on Job satisfaction and 54.9% on turnover intention.
These percentages are considered as very large in psychological research (Funder and
Ozer, 2019).
Subsequently, we analysed the path coefficients to verify the hypotheses. Table 4 shows
that SER has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction ( b = 0.526; p < 0.000) and a

Latent variables Composite reliability AVE

SER 0.943 0.653

SIR 0.900 0.534 Table 2.
Job satisfaction 0.793 0.565 Reliability and
Turnover intention 0.972 0.922 validity measures

Latent variables (1) (2) (3) (4)

SER (1) 0.808

SIR (2) 0.708 0.731
Job satisfaction (3) 0.758 0.700 0.751
Table 3.
Turnover intention (4) 0.672 0.646 0.686 0.960 Correlations between
latent variables and
Note: Numbers in italic denote the square root of the AVE square roots of AVE
JERER
13,2

214

Figure 2.
Structural model

Bootstrap
Criterion Predictors R2 R2 adjusted Q2 b (Path coefficients) t-test p-value f2

Job satisfaction SER 0.628 0.625 0.322 0.526 8.094 0.000 0.371
Table 4. SIR 0.328 4.326 0.000 0.144
Structural model Turnover intention SER 0.549 0.543 0.475 0.258 3.138 0.002 0.054
results and effects SIR 0.235 3.122 0.002 0.054
sizes (f2) Job satisfaction 0.326 3.626 0.000 0.087

negative and significant effect on turnover intention ( b = 0.282; p = 0.002). Similarly, SIR
has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction ( b = 0.328; p < 0.000) and a negative
and significant effect on Turnover intention ( b = 0.235; p = 0.002). Job satisfaction has a
negative and significant effect on Turnover intention ( b = 0.326; p < 0.000) and has
a significant mediation role between SER and turnover intention (p = 0.001), as well as a
significant mediation role between SIR and turnover intention (p = 0.003). Therefore, all the
proposed hypotheses are validated.
To analyse predictive relevance, we used blindfolding to calculate Stone-Geiser’s Q2.
When the values of Q2 are above zero, the model is considered to have predictive
relevance (Hair et al., 2011). This was the case for the two endogenous constructs in our
study (Table 4).
 Finally, we analysed effect sizes with Cohen’s f2 (Table 4). The effect sizes of the path Intrinsic
coefficients are all weak, except for the relationship between SER and Job satisfaction, where rewards
the effect size is strong (Cohen, 1988). Weak effect sizes are small to explain single events but
are potentially consequential in the long run. By contrast, strong effect sizes are potentially
matter
powerful in both the short and the long run (Funder and Ozer, 2019).

4.4 Importance-performace map analysis

In the sections above, we describe standard PLS-SEM analyses, providing information on
215
the relative importance of three constructs (SER, SIR and job satisfaction) in explaining
turnover intention in a structural model. In this section we present an importance-
performance map analysis (IPMA), which extends the results of PLS-SEM by considering
not only the importance but also the performance of each construct in explaining the
dependent variable.
The importance dimension considers the path coefficients of the structural model, where
the stronger the coefficient, the higher the importance of the variable to explain turnover
intention. The performance dimension considers the average values of the latent variable
scores, where the higher the average values, the higher the performance of the variable.
However, as different variables may be measured with different scales, higher averages do
not always represent higher performances. For example, an average of 4 in a variable
measured with a 7-point scale should not be considered higher than an average of 3 in a
variable that is measured with a 5-point scale. In both cases, the average obtained
corresponds to the theoretical mid-point of the scale and therefore the performance of the
two variables is similar. To facilitate the interpretation and comparison of performance
levels, the IPMA rescales indicator scores on a range between 0 and 100, with 0 representing
the lowest and 100 the highest performance.
We start by checking the requirements for carrying out an IPMA analysis. As mentioned
above, all indicator data are on an interval scale from 1 to 5. All indicators have the same
scale direction, except for Turnover intention. In the case of Turnover intention, the
minimum value of the indicators represented the best outcome and the maximum value the
worst outcome. Therefore, the scale had to be reversed, in order that the resultant
interpretation is that higher latent variable scores represent better performance.
Subsequently, when inspecting outer weights estimates, we find that all of them are positive.
Therefore, all the requirements for conducting IPMA analysis have been fulfilled and we
were, thus, able to proceed with the analyses (Ringle and Sarstedt, 2016).
Table 5 shows the importance and performance results for the three variables under
study, as well as the mean values.
As mentioned earlier, IPMA contrasts the importance (or total effects) of the latent
variables in shaping a certain target construct, with their average variable scores, indicating
their performance (Ringle and Sarstedt, 2016). Figure 3 contrasts the importance (effects) of
SER, SIR and job satisfaction in shaping turnover intention, with the performance (average
scores) of these variables.

Table 5.
Latent variables Importance Performance Data of the
Job satisfaction 0.326 70,557 importance-
SER 0.429 65,194 performance map for
SIR 0.342 70,517 turnover intention in
Mean value 0.366 68,756 the total sample
JERER
13,2

216

Figure 3.
Importance-
performance map for
turnover intention in
the total sample

By drawing a horizontal line with the mean value of performance and a vertical line with the
mean value of importance, it is possible to identify four quadrants, namely, low-importance
and low-performance; low-importance and high-performance; high-importance and low-
performance and; high-importance and high-performance. From Figure 3 it is noticeable
that, in the total sample, SER is in the high-importance and low-performance quadrant. By
contrast, job satisfaction and SIR are in the low-importance and high-performance quadrant.
This offers an important insight into the relevance of different types of rewards for
managerial action.
To further highlight significant areas to improve management activities, we proceeded to
carry out an analysis, which includes sociodemographic characteristics of gender and age.
The sample was divided into men and women and also into those younger than 35 and 35
and older. Table 6 shows the importance and performance results for the three variables
under study for each of the gender groups and for each of the age groups.
As far as gender is concerned, there is a major difference in the case of SIR. SIR is more
important for women than it is for men, however the performance is lower for women than it
is for men. For women, SIR is in the high-importance and high-performance quadrant, while
for men it is in the low-importance and high-performance quadrant. By contrast, job
satisfaction has a higher importance and performance for men when compared with women.
For men, job satisfaction is in the high-importance and high-performance quadrant, while
for women it is in the low-importance and high-performance quadrant. As far as SER is

Table 6.
Data of the
Male Female <35 > 35
importance-
Latent variables Import Perform Import Perform Import Perform Import Perform
performance map for
turnover intention in Job satisfaction 0.420 71,784 0.171 69,659 0.336 70,230 0.376 70,995
gender and age SER 0.482 66,512 0.456 64,138 0.403 65,378 0.504 64,984
groups SIR 0.121 71,904 0.378 69,257 0.364 69,769 0.273 71,297
 Intrinsic
rewards
matter

217

Figure 4.
Importance-
performance map for
turnover intention by
gender

concerned, the results place it in the high-importance and low-performance for both men and
women. However, for men, the performance appears to be higher (Figure 4).
For age groups, it is noticeable that SIR is more important for younger real estate agents,
who also register a lower performance. For younger agents, SIR is in the high-importance
and high-performance quadrant, while for older agents it is in the low-importance and high-
performance quadrant. By contrast, job satisfaction has a higher importance and
performance for older agents when compared with their younger counterparts. For older
agents, job satisfaction is in the high-importance and high-performance quadrant, while for

Figure 5.
Importance-
performance map for
turnover intention by
age group
JERER younger agents it is in the low-importance and high-performance quadrant. SER is more
13,2 important for older agents, who also register lower performance. However, for both age
groups, SER is in the high-importance and low-performance quadrant (Figure 5). As
extrinsic rewards such as wages, increase with years of experience (Benjamin et al., 2009) it
is possible that younger agents look at intrinsic rewards as a way to compensate a lower
income. These results corroborate the findings of Gieter and Hofmans (2015), who concluded
218 that younger employees were less satisfied with financial rewards and reported stronger
turnover intentions than their older counterparts.

5. Conclusion
Results indicate that both SIR and SER have a positive impact on job satisfaction and a
negative impact on Turnover intention. These results corroborate those from previous
research studies (Hofmans et al., 2013), which reinforce that intrinsic rewards, being relevant
for employees’ job satisfaction, deserve employers’ attention. However, it is noteworthy that
SER has a stronger effect on job satisfaction than SIR. These findings reinforce results from
previous studies, which highlight the importance of extrinsic rewards for sales workers
(Snyder et al., 2011).
As mentioned above, studies on real estate agents have focussed on extrinsic rewards.
To the best of our knowledge, no study, in the real estate industry, has analysed the effects
of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on job satisfaction and turnover intention. With regard to
extrinsic rewards, the effects analysed in previous studies include measures of productivity
and effort. By including both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and also by analysing their
effects on job satisfaction and turnover intention, this paper provides a contribution to
current research, as well as for human resource managers (HRM) in real estate agencies. It
highlights that intrinsic rewards also play a role in job satisfaction and turnover intention in
the real estate industry. Another important contribution of the study is the finding of the
mediating role of job satisfaction between rewards and turnover intention. HRM should
consider identifying employees’ needs and motivations and then implement adequate
strategies for promoting their job satisfaction. Reward strategies should also consider
gender and age differences by giving women and younger agents’ greater recognition,
responsibilities and other intrinsic rewards, which are all important for their job satisfaction.
This study corroborates previous studies, which consider that extrinsic rewards play a
major role for both job satisfaction and turnover. In the current sample, for all groups
studied, SER was in the high-importance and low-performance quadrant. The position in
this quadrant requires immediate managerial attention, as it corresponds to issues, which
are simultaneously both highly important and poorly addressed.
The findings of this study can be explained by the excellent economic success that the
real estate industry has recently experienced in Portugal, which is typified by high sales,
associated with large financial compensations. For example, this could explain the low
turnover intention found in the sample and also the low effects of satisfaction with rewards
and job satisfaction on turnover intention. Individuals may be unwilling to leave a job in an
industry that is going through a remarkable boom, with a high probability of future
opportunities.
Nevertheless, the low effects of rewards on turnover intention may also suggest that
there are other relevant antecedents of turnover intention that have not been considered in
our study. Work-family conflict, co-worker relationship, salary level and job stress are good
examples of variables that have proved to be relevant to understand the causes of turnover
intention in the real estate industry (Lee et al., 2014). Therefore, we suggest that future
studies on real estate agents’ retention should also include those variables. Also, although
we were unable to find studies relating individual differences such as self-efficacy and risk Intrinsic
aversion, to turnover intentions in the real estate industry, we believe that including rewards
personality variables would be an interesting avenue for future research.
The lack of data on real estate agents in Portugal do not allow us to analyse whether our
matter
sample is representative or not. Nevertheless, we suggest that future research includes a
wider sample of companies in more areas of the country. Another limitation of the study is
that the research is limited to a questionnaire survey, which is based on respondents’
perceptions. It would be interesting to include qualitative methodologies, which would allow 219
data triangulation, and thus increase the results’ explanatory power. It would also be
advisable to include an objective individual performance variable and measure the impact of
satisfaction with rewards and job satisfaction on employee performance. Finally, a
replication of our study in other countries, with different economic contexts, would allow for
a richer analysis of the results and would provide a better understanding of the impact of
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for real estate agents.

References
Abdin, F., Ismail, A. and Nor, A.M. (2019), “Trust in supervisor as a mediator of the relationship
between perceived interactional fairness in reward systems and organizational commitment”,
The South East Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 201-221.
Akgunduz, Y., Gök, O., A. and Alkan, C. (2020), “The effects of rewards and proactive personality on
turnover intentions and meaning of work in hotel businesses”, Tourism and Hospitality
Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 170-183.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Armstrong, M. (2012), Armstrong’s Handbook of Reward Management Practice, 4th Ed, Kogan Page,
London.
Azasu, S. (2009), “Rewards and performance of swedish real estate firms”, Compensation and Benefits
Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 19-28.
Benjamin, J.D., Chinloy, P. and Winkler, D.T. (2009), “Labor supply, flexible hours and real estate
agents”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 747-767.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, 12th Ed, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and
Berry J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA,
pp. 137-164.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), “The MI organizational assessment
questionnaire”, Unpublished Manuscript, University of MI, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cappeli, P. and Keller, J.R. (2013), “Classifying work in the new economy”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 575-596.
Chew, Y.T. (2005), “Achieving organizational prosperity through employee motivation and retention: a
comparative study of strategic HRM practices in Malaysian institutions”, Research and Practice
in Human Resource Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-104.
Chhabra, B. (2018), “Impact of core self-evaluation and job satisfaction on turnover intentions: a study
of Indian retail sector”, Organizations and Markets in Emerging Economies, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 292-310.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Ed, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale.
Cooke, E.F. (1999), “Control and motivation in sales management through the compensation plan”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 80-83.
JERER Deci, E.L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
13,2 Deci, E.L. and Ryan, A.M. (2000), “The ‘‘what” and ‘‘why” of goal oursuits: human needs and the Self-
Determination of behaviour”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989), “Self-determination in a work organization”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 580-590.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
220 variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frazis, H. and Loewenstein, M.A. (2013), “How responsive are quits to benefits?”, Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 969-997.
Funder, D.C. and Ozer, P.J. (2019), “Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and non
sense”, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 156-168.
Ghiselli, R.F., Lopa, J.M.L. and Bai, B. (2001), “Job satisfaction, life satisfaction and turnover intent:
among food-service managers”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42
No. 2, pp. 28-37.
Giancola, F.L. (2014), “Should HR professionals devote more time to intrinsic rewards?”, Compensation
and Benefits Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 25-31.
Gieter, S. and Hofmans, J. (2015), “How reward satisfaction affects employees’ turnover intentions and
performance: an individual differences approach”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 200-216.
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000), “A Meta-Analysis of antecedents and correlates of
employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 463-488.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley Oldham Reading, MA.
Haider, M., Aamir, A., Hamid, A.A. and Hashim, M. (2015), “A literature analysis on the importance of
Non-Financial rewards for employee’ job satisfaction”, Abasyn Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 341-354.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modelling in
international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 277-319.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J.,
Jr, Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS:
comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 182-209.
Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, Thomas Y Crowell, New York, NY.
Hofmans, J., Gieter, S. and Pepermans, R. (2013), “Individual differences in the relationship between
satisfaction with job rewards and job satisfaction”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 82 No. 1,
pp. 1-9.
Johnson, K., Zumpano, L. and Anderson, R. (2008), “Intra-Firm real estate brokerage
compensation choices and agent performance”, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 423-440.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A. and Nerstad, C.G.L. (2017), “Do intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 61,
pp. 244-258.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Barton, S.M. (2001), “The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: a Intrinsic
test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers”, The Social Science
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 233-250.
rewards
Lee, C.-C., Wu, Y.-Y., Chen, Y.-L., Kao, P.-F. and Feng, W.-K. (2014), “The impact of Work-Family
matter
conflicts, coworker relationships and salary levels on turnover intention: using real estate
brokers as examples”, Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 143-166.
Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4 221
No. 4, pp. 309-336.
McNall, L.A., Masuda, A.D. and Nicklin, J.M. (2009), “Flexible work arrangements, job satisfaction, and
turnover intentions: the mediating role of work-to-family enrichment”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Mahaney, R.C. and Lederer, A.L. (2006), “The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for developers on
information systems project success”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 42-54.
Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people stay: using job
embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 1102-1122.
Morgan, J.C., Dill, J. and Kalleberg, A.L. (2013), “The quality of healthcare jobs: can intrinsic rewards
compensate for low extrinsic rewards?”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 802-822.
Munneke, H.J. and Yavas, A. (2001), “Incentives and performance in real estate brokerage”, The Journal
of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Newell, G., Worzala, E., McAllister, P. and Schulte, K.-W. (2004), “An international perspective on real
estate research priorities”, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 161-170.
Oyoo, M.O., Mwandihi, N.K. and Musiega, D. (2016), “Influence of reward systems on employee
retention in faith-based health organizations in Kenya: a case of mukumu hospital, Kenya”,
International Journal of Commerce and Management Research, Vol. 2 No. 10, pp. 42-51.
Parker, D.F. and Rhine, S.L.W. (1991), “Turnover costs and the Wage – Fringe mix”, Applied Economics,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 617-622.
Phillips, D.R. and Roper, K.O. (2009), “A framework for talent management in real estate”, Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7-16.
Pordata (2019), “Base de dados Portugal contemporâneo [database]”, available at: www.pordata.pt/
(accessed 04 September 2020).
Rehman, M.Z. and Khan, M.R. (2010), “Effect of job rewards on job satisfaction, moderating role of age
differences: empirical evidence from Pakistan”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4
No. 6, pp. 1131-1139.
Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: the importance-
performance map analysis”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9,
pp. 1865-1886.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt.
Rosenberg, L.J., Gibson, C.K. and Epley, D.B. (1981), “How to retain real estate sales people:
what things work”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 36-43.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R. and Hair, J.F. Jr, (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modelling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers”, Journal of Family
Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 105-115.
JERER Silverman, M. (2004), Non-Financial Recognition: The Most Effective of Rewards?, Institute for
Employment Studies, Brighton.
13,2
Snyder, J.L., Claffey, G.F., Sr. and Cistulli, M.D. (2011), “How similar are real estate agents and human-
service workers? A study of real estate agents’ responses to distressed clients”, Journal of
Business Communication, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 300-318.
Spector, P.E. (1997), Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
222
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (2003), “Behavioral management and task performance in
organizations: conceptual backgrounds, Meta-analysis, and test of alternative models”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 155-194.
Sunder, S., Kumar, V., Goreczny, A. and Maurer, T. (2017), “Why do salespeople quit? An empirical
examination of own and peer effects on salesperson turnover behaviour”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 381-397.
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.
Winkler, D.T. and Hughen, W.K. (2012), “Fringe benefits compensation of real estate agents and
brokers”, International Real Estate Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 253-328.
Zumpano, L.V., Johnson, K.H. and Anderson, R.I. (2009), “Determinants of real estate agent
compensation choice”, Journal of Housing Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 195-207.

Further reading
Momanyi, N.B. and Kaimenyi, C.K. (2015), “An investigation into factors causing high nurse turnover
in mission hospitals in Kenya: a case for pcea chogoria hospital”, International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 55-86.
Schloderer, M.P., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2014), “The relevance of reputation in the nonprofit
sector: the moderating effect of socio-demographic characteristics”, International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 110-126.

Corresponding author
Pilar Mosquera can be contacted at: pilarconde@iseg.ulisboa.pt

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com