Bank report bhaskar

1. 1

2. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION

2. 2


3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I express my heartfelt thanks & gratitude to those who sincerely helped and
supported me throughout the project I have undertaken to do & without whose active
support & help it would not have been possible for me to complete the venture. As such, I
once again extend my sincere thanks & gratitude to all of them.
To this effect, at first I take the opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep
regards to my guide Mrs. Archana Singh for her active guidance and constant supervision
together with time to time providing with necessary information connected with the
project following active support in completing the project.
I also take the opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to my Faculty, Dr. Bibhas
Chandra, assistant professor of Department of Management Studies, Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad, for extending his cordial support, providing valuable information and
guidance, which helped me a lot in completing the task at various stages.
Finally, I would also like to express my earnest gratitude to my friends and family
members for their constant support & encouragement without which the assignment
would not have been completed, besides the constant blessings of Almighty.

3. 3

4. TABLE OF CONTENTS


Topic

Page No.

1. INTRODUCTION:
 Brief profile of student
 Brief profile of project mentor at the bank
 Brief profile of organization
 Nature of the project
 Brief objectives/ responsibilities assigned by the project
mentor.


4
5
5
5
8

9


2. FRAMEWORK OF STUDY
 Theoretical framework
 Specific objectives of the project
 Scope of study
 Limitations of study
 Period of study

10
10
12
13
13
14


3. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
 Methodology
 Analysis
 Conclusions
 Recommendations

15
15
18
50
51


4. BIBLIOGRAPHY



52

4. 4

5. LIST OF TABLES

a) Tabulation for the List of Directors on the Central Board of State Bank of India as on
26.05.2015.
b) Tabulation for within-subject effect of Method of Payment of incentive (Mauchly’s
Test of Sphericity)
c) Tabulation for the Result of Repeated Measures one way ANOVA.
d) Tabulation for the Pair wise comparison (Post-Hoc Analysis) consisting of pairs of
method of incentives which do not have significance of difference between their means.
e) Tabulation for the Descriptive Statistics of factor (different table for each factor)
f) Tabulation of the Multiple Response Analysis of factor (different table for each factor)
g) Tabulation of the Demographic Segmentation of respondents.

5. 5

6. INTRODUCTION

Brief profile of student

I, Bhaskar Kumar, undertook the project of ”Scope of Payment of incentives/bonuses through
Gift Cards/Achiever Cards to employees/Dealers/Channel partners by companies such as
Mobile Service Providers, Insurance Companies and other companies/factories needing to
pay incentives.”. I am a native of Darbhanga. In regard to my education, I did my schooling
and secondary education in Darbhanga, and B.Tech in Information Technology form
Hindustan College of Science and technology, Mathura. Currently I am pursuing my MBA
degree from ISM Dhanbad. I have maintained 7.02 CGPA in aggregate. Previously I did my
10th class with 83.2% aggregate and 12th with 62.2% aggregate in CBSE board and did my
B.Tech with 61.88%. Coming to my family background, My father is Professor at Marwari
college, Darbhanga and my mother, a perfect home-maker. My strengths are I am very
honest, optimistic and punctual. I can adapt myself to any environment and circumstances
and for that reason I can work with very ease .I am also quite good in team work .My hobbies
Swimming, Badminton, feeding stray animals and birds and travelling to unseen places. My
weaknesses are believing in others very easily coupled with a bit absent mindedness. But, If I
concentrate on anything I become so absorbed in that matter that I can’t listen even if
somebody calls me at that time. And that’s all about myself in brief.

Brief profile of project mentor at the bank
My project mentor at the bank is Mrs. Archana Singh, Chief Manager, State Bank of India,
ISM Campus Branch. She is the daughter of the Late Shri Giriraj Singh. She pursued
Bachelor of Arts (Honors) and joined SBI on September 1
st
1994 as Probationary Officer in
S.K. Puri Branch, Patna. Then in 1996, she joined SBI ISM Campus Branch and has been
working till date. She has an illustrious career and vast experience of 21 years in Banking
sector.

Brief profile of organization
State bank of India is Indian multinational, Public Sector banking and financial services
company. It is a government-owned corporation with its headquarters in Mumbai,
Maharashtra. State Bank of India (SBI), with a 200 year history, is the largest commercial
bank in India in terms of assets, deposits, profits, branches, customers and employees. The
Government of India is the single largest shareholder of this Fortune 500 entity with 61.58%

6. 6

ownership. SBI is ranked 60th in the list of Top 1000 Banks in the world by "The Banker" in
July 2012. The State Bank of India’s root lies in the first decade of 19th century, when the
Bank of Calcutta, later renamed the Bank of Bengal, was established on 2 June 1806. The
Bank of Bengal was one of three Presidency banks, the other two being the Bank of Bombay
(incorporated on 15 April 1840) and the Bank of Madras (incorporated on 1 July 1843). All
three Presidency banks were incorporated as joint stock companies and were the result of the
royal charters. These three banks received the exclusive right to issue paper currency till 1861
when with the Paper Currency Act; the right was taken over by the Government of India. The
Presidency banks amalgamated on 27 January 1921, and the re-organised banking entity took
as its name Imperial Bank of India. The Imperial Bank of India remained a joint stock
company but without Government participation.
Pursuant to the provisions of the State Bank of India Act of 1955, the Reserve Bank of India,
which is India's central bank, acquired a controlling interest in the Imperial Bank of India. On
30 April 1955, the Imperial Bank of India became the State Bank of India. The government
of India recently acquired the Reserve Bank of India's stake in SBI so as to remove any
conflict of interest because the RBI is the country's banking regulatory authority.
In 1959, the government passed the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, which made
eight state banks associates of SBI. A process of consolidation began on 13 August 2008,
when the State Bank of Saurashtra merged with SBI.
SBI has acquired local banks in rescues. The first was the Bank of Bihar (est. 1911), which
SBI acquired in 1969, together with its 28 branches. The next year SBI acquired National
Bank of Lahore (est. 1942), which had 24 branches. Five years later, in 1975, SBI acquired
Krishnaram Baldeo Bank, which had been established in 1916 in Gwalior State. . The bank
had been the Dukan Pichadi, a small moneylender, owned by the Maharaja. The new banks
first manager was Jall N. Broacha, a Parsi. In 1985, SBI acquired the Bank of Cochin in
Kerala, which had 120 branches. SBI was the acquirer as its affiliate, the State Bank of
Travancore, already had an extensive network in Kerala. There has been a proposal to merge
all the associate banks into SBI to create a "mega bank" and streamline the group's
operations.
On October 7, 2013, Arundhati Bhattacharya became the first woman to be appointed
Chairperson of the bank.
The SBI group has an extensive network, with over 20,000 plus branches in India and another
190 foreign offices spread over 36 countries across the world. As of 31st March 2014, the
group had assets worth USD 400 billion, deposits of USD 307 billion and capital & reserves

7. 7

in excess of USD 24.60 billion. SBI’s non-banking subsidiaries/joint ventures are market
leaders in their respective areas and provide wide ranging services, which include life
insurance, merchant banking, mutual funds, credit cards, factoring services, security trading
and primary dealership, making the SBI Group a truly large financial supermarket and India’s
financial icon. SBI has arrangements with over 1500 various international / local banks to
exchange financial messages through SWIFT in all business centres of the world to facilitate
trade related banking business, reinforced by dedicated and highly skilled teams of
professionals.
List of Directors on the Central Board of State Bank of India as on 26.05.2015
Sr. No. Name Designation
1 Smt. Arundhati Bhattacharya Chairman
2 Shri P. Pradeep Kumar Managing Director
3 Shri B. Sriram Managing Director
4 Shri.V.G.Kannan Managing Director
5 Shri Rajnish Kumar Managing Director
6 Shri Sanjiv Malhotra Director
7 Shri Sunil Mehta Director
8 Shri M.D. Mallya Director
9 Shri Deepak I. Amin Director
10 Shri S.K. Mukherjee
Officer Employee
Director
11 Dr. Rajiv Kumar Director
12 Shri Harichandra Bahadur Singh Director
13 Shri Tribhuwan Nath Chaturvedi Director
14 Dr. H.S. Adhia
Director

15 Dr. Urjit R. Patel Director

8. 8

Vision, Mission, Values of State Bank of India (SBI).
Vision
 My SBI.
 My Customer first.
 My SBI: First in customer satisfaction.
Mission
 We will be prompt, polite and proactive with our customers.
 We will speak the language of young India.
 We will create products and services that help our customers achieve their goals.
 We will go beyond the call of duty to make our customers feel valued.
 We will be of service even in the remotest part of our country.
 We will offer excellence in services to those abroad as much as we do those in India.
 We will imbibe state-of-the-art technology to drive excellence.
Values
 We will always be honest, transparent and ethical.
 We will respect our customers and fellow associates.
 We will be knowledge driven.
 We will learn and we will share our learning.
 We will never take the easy way out.
 We will do everything we can to contribute to the community we work in.
 We will nurture pride in India.
Nature of the project

This study is conducted to understand the scope of payment of incentive through gift cards by
various types of organisation needing to pay incentives to their
employees/distributors/channel partners. Basically we have described the perception of
employees, distributors and channel partners about gift cards in comparison with other
methods of payment of incentives. The nature of this project is to find whether gift card as a
method of payment of incentive satisfies organisations objectives to motivate, satisfy, attract
and retain existing as well as future human resource. Incentive system of an organisation
needs to be robust in order to nurture the most vital resource, i.e. human resource. As
perceived by many of us, cash is seems to be most preferable mode of payment of incentive.
But the study reveals that cash might not be most suitable option for many factors. Gift card

9. 9

on other hand has got characteristics of both ‘gifts’ and cash. It is also more suitable
financially as it provides more monetary value to user than its actual cost bearded by
organisation. The study is useful in determining acceptance level of gift cards as incentives in
various organisations belonging to different sectors of market. It will give an insight about
employees perception towards various method of payment of incentive. The perception of
employees categorised by age , gender , type of organisation , experience, position and other
demographic factors are described. This study may help the organisation in understanding
the perception of work force towards incentives for motivating them to exert more effort so
that it increases productivity of the firm.

Brief objectives/ responsibilities assigned by the project mentor

The research which I am asked to do is to find out The scope of incentive payment by gift
card in different organisations. To know that, first of all my project mentor asked me to
identify the respondents such as employees, distributor, channel partners of various
organization belonging to different sector such as banking, insurance, automobile, retail and
other such sectors in Dhanbad. The methods of payment of incentives to employees by
organizations has been evolving over time. A quote from David Ridell, Vice President of
certificate marketing at Marriott International echoes this sentiment: “We think companies
should use cash sparingly because it can be confused with compensation” (Incentive, 2000).
Incentive distribution system is a complex process that is unique to organisation. It is one of
the most critical decisions as it affects Human Resource , which is the most vital resource of a
business organisation. Due to its uniqueness, management has to reassess the system from
time to time to satisfy and adjust with the changing business environment. Due to change in
business scenario after globalisation and advent of information technology, there is cut throat
competition between organisations to retain talented workforce. An incentive system must be
evolving with time to satisfy both employer and employee. Thus, understanding why and
when to use tangible non-monetary incentives is an important endeavor, since U.S. firms
spent over $20 billion on tangible non-monetary incentives in 1999 (Incentive Federation,
2000). While this is a small fraction of the $4 trillion U.S. payroll, it is still a substantial
amount of money, and represents between 5% and 10% of total spending on employee
incentives.
Apart from research the work, I was asked to do is to meet the managers of various
organization of dhanbad and to know their views about insentive payment system in their
company. I observed that every company wants to retain its existing employees as well as

10. 10

attract fresh talent. For that they have to understand the current incentive payment practices
in market place and needs of their employees’.
I was also asked to visit channel partners of SBI such as SBI LIFE, SBI Mutual Fund etc. in
order to get a clear perception of employees of SBI family about existing method of payment
of incentive. I was able to visit 11 different company apart from SBI group such as Tata
Motors, Hyundai, HDFC life, Vodaphone, Airtel, Bajaj Allianz, Big Bazar, Pantaloons, Max
Life Insurance, Tata AIA Life Insurance, and Birla Sun Life Mutual Fund.


7. FRAMEWORK OF STUDY

A theoretical framework is a collection of interrelated concepts like a theory but not
necessarily so well worked out. A theoretical framework provides a well supported rationale
to conduct the study and helps to understand the perspective. A good theoretical framework
assures that the type of investigation propose is not based solely on your personal instincts or
guess, but supported by established theory and empirical facts obtained from credible studies.
So in this study the various factors which the builders should kept in mind while selecting his
financer is extracted from relevant research work and some previous studies. It is as
follows:-
Reference of various studies and projects conducted on related topic suggested that factors
influencing of employee’s behavioral outcomes and characteristics of methods of incentive
payment needs to be identified for determining the scope of gift cards as incentives.
Motivation is the set of psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, and
persistence of individual’s behavior toward attaining a goal (Greenberg and Baron, 2003;
Robbins and Judge, 2008,).Motivation is the internal processes that activates, guides and
maintains behavior (especially goal directed behavior)(Baron, 1991). Public sector managers
must motivate their employees to perform at the highest levels of productivity and
effectiveness and get “more for less” (Perry and Porter, 1982) Corporate employees still
consider financial incentives to be highly motivating (Wright, 2003, p.4). In fact, recently
Weibel, Rost, and Osterloh (2010) showed how the notorious pay-for-performance scheme
can successfully boost public personnel efforts, given the right circumstances and proper
implementation.
The general hypotheses of the principal-agent theory and especially that employee
satisfaction is determined exclusively by the level of salary received is criticized (Locke,

11. 11

1999).Job satisfaction is assumed to derive from a composed mix of incentives received on
the job, equity perceived and employee motivations. The various determinants of job
satisfaction can be summarized by exploiting the study by Locke (1969, 1976) and by
integrating his approach with notions of behavioral theory and results of empirical analyses.
job satisfaction depends on the estimation of many dimensions, which are classified in three
groups: the work, the context, and the rewards.
The wage is the central focus of the incentive scheme, which aims at inducing workers to
exert the optimal effort level. Most attention was devoted therefore to pay-for-performance,
deferred compensation and team production (Prendergast, 1999). Nevertheless, the main
inefficiencies in these contractual schemes are linked to the costs of contracting (starting
from Coase, 1937; Williamson, 1985, 1996) and incompleteness (starting from Grossman and
Hart, 1986; Hart and Moore, 1982). The main obstacles to the achievement of first-best
contracts emerge especially in multi-tasking activities, where employee performance consists
of both quantitative and qualitative activities. Meyer et al. (1993, 2002) argue that strong
affective commitment to an organization arises because employees share values with both the
organization and its members and it is therefore predicted to be positively associated with job
performance.
“Employees with a strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization
because they want to do so.” Meyer et al. (1993, 2002). Moreover, establishing a committed
and loyal workforce may be associated with enhanced firm performance through less
opportunistic behavior on the part of employees (Green, 2008). In addition, the WERS
commitment measure is found to be positively correlated with measures of job satisfaction
and employee well-being (Bryson and White, 2008).
Unscheduled absences, often termed absenteeism, are associated with lower levels of
organizational productivity (Dilts, Deitsch, & Paul, 1985; Harrison & Price, 2003; Huczynski
& Fitzpatrick, 1989; Rhodes & Steers, 1990; Steers & Rhodes, 1978). Absenteeism is
“nonattendance of employees for scheduled work when they are expected to attend”
(Huczynski & Fitzpatrick, 1989). Because absenteeism involves nonattendance from
scheduled work in terms of hours and days rather than minutes, it is distinguishable from
being late or tardy to work (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). There are various reasons why a person
may not attend work, such as an illness, family emergency, or just to have a day off from
work. Thus, not all use of sick leave is for actual illnesses. Absenteeism is generally seen as
the result of situational, contextual, and dispositional factors rather than an inherent trait
(Martocchio & Jimeno, 2003). Organizations can push or pull employees to be absent. The

12. 12

work environment has been found to impact absenteeism, especially in terms of producing
differing levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. organizations may turn to
operant conditioning by providing punishments for being absent and rewards for attending
work (Rhodes & Steers, 1990). Incentives for not being absent are generally seen as reasons
or pressures to attend work (Mowday et al., 1982). An employee may find the lack of
incentives and reinforces to attend work as a reason to be absent (Robins & Lloyd, 1983)
People want to belong (to a family, to a sports team, to a work group); so branding helps
build that belonging It gets employees or customers feeling that they’re getting premium
treatment. Name brand means name recognition and customers remember your company
provided a gift to them which was a name brand easy to remember and tell others about.(
Rick Ebel, Saritha Kuruvilla 2011). price and value are not synonymous. Brand does add
value, is certainly appreciated, and buyers in particular tend to relate it to their organization’s
reputation.
If an item is something that an employee values highly but would never purchase on his or
her own, then the opportunity to earn it as a reward for hard work provides a way to obtain
the desired object without violating one’s standards of justification (Hsee, 1996). To increase
the perceived value of earning the award, the prize should be something that is infrequently
purchased. In addition, items that are not frequently purchases are likely to attract the
attention of colleagues, increasing the so-called “trophy value” of the award.( Scott
Jeffrey,2002). Tangible non-monetary incentives are also remembered longer and more
clearly than a cash bonus (Hein, 1999).
Standard economic theory says that cash is always best due to option value(flexibility of
usage) and this result is also found in survey results which confirm that most people state a
preference for cash incentives (Hein, 1998) Economists would claim that money is always
better (or at least no worse) than any non-monetary incentive of equal market value because
cash has option value (List & Shogren, 1998; Waldfogel, 1993, 1996) .However if the
employee believes that the value of the award is high, then they will be motivated to enjoy it
as much as they predicted (Bem, 1967; Festinger, 1958; Quattrone, 1985).
Effectiveness is one of the major factor in determining value of reward and incentive for
employees. The uncertain value of tangible non-monetary incentives could make them less
effective if employees do not trust the firm. For example, employees may think that the firm
is just trying to save money by somehow cheating workers. This would have a negative effect
on the motivational power of the incentive and negative long term consequences for the
employees’ relationship with the firm (Guzzo, 1979). Non-cash rewards are more “effective”

13. 13

with certain types of employees. Those employees who place high personal relevance on cash
might not respond well to non-monetary incentives (Mitchell & Mickel, 1999).


Specific objectives of the project

1) To identify the factors which affect the perception of employees/distributors/channel
partners towards methods of payment of incentive.
2) To determine the scope of payment of incentive by gift cards.
3) To understand perception of different categories of respondents based on their
demographic features.

Scope of Study

This study focuses on perception of respondents towards method of payment of incentive and
thus determining the scope of gift cards for payment of incentive.
Market analysis has been carried out in city of Dhanbad to identify the
employees/distributors/channel partners for getting their response. Responding ranging from
age below 25, 26-35,36-45 years and above 45 years are selected for the research, specially
those in category of 26-35 years of age grabs the lion’s share of the research. Both male and
female respondents participated in survey. More than 70 responses are taken into account
and then analyzed. They were asked to fill up a questionnaire which includes 15 factors apart
from 7 question related to their demography. Out of the 15 factors 5 factors are about the
behavioral outcomes of the employees and remaining 10 factors are about characteristics and
features of various methods of payment of incentive. 1 question is about the satisfaction level
of the builders whether they are satisfied with their financer. These 7 questions and 15 factors
will help in finding the perception of the respondents towards various method of payment of
incentives.

Limitations of study
The constraints faced to complete the Project are as under:-
1. Due to academic study there is time constraint to complete such a project. Moreover,
the cost to complete the Project is considered meager considering its importance.
2. The employees are almost reluctant to share their views. However, after active
insistence, those who shared their views had also not done it properly.

14. 14

3. Format of the questionnaire was lengthy. A respondent roughly was required to
devote 20 minutes of precious time in order to understand and respond to questions.
4. This study is confined to only one city (Dhanbad).
5. The sample size of respondents was only 70.
Period of study

The data collection process of my study followed an action research spiral that involved four
phases. During each phase a theory and questions were first diagnosed then followed by
planned projects and initiatives. Each project or initiative was then evaluated. These
evaluations then served as the basis for more specific exploration in the next spiral.
Each phase of research adopted a different strategy in order to observe and analyze creative
policy in action. During the first fifteen days of my two months research an in-depth review
of the factors consider important for selecting the financer was studied. A brief literature
review of the factors was studied. The theory that emerged from this first experience was
then formulated and documented into a preliminary exploratory theoretical framework.
For the next five days a proper questionnaire was framed in order to get the responses from
the builders. During the next phase of research for fifteen days the questionnaires were made
to fill up by the builders.
My findings, analyses, conclusions and recommendations sections are the outcomes of the
remaining twenty five days of my research. This method permitted an in-depth analysis of a
real world situation and gave rise to recommendations which helped in writing the
conclusion.

Total research Period  11
th
May 2015 to 11
th
July 2015
Theoretical framework  12
th
May to 26
th
May
Framing of questionnaire  27
th
May to 31
st
May
Getting responses from builders  1
st
June to 15
th
June
Analyzing and completing  16
th
June to 10
th
July

15. 15

8. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS












Methodology

The study is quantitative and exploratory in nature, which aims to measure and compare the
impact of various methods of payment of incentive on different behavioral factors and
characteristics, in order to determine scope of Gift cards. Factors were identified by
Literature Review of the problem.
The Questionnaire is segregated into three parts. First part consists of 7 questions about
demographic profile of respondent. It includes Gender, Age, Type of Organisation, Type of
Association with Organisation, Department, Position and Experience.
Second part of questionnaire consists of 5 factors of behavioral outcomes. Motivation, Job
Satisfaction, Job Performance, Job Commitment, and Absenteeism are to be rated by
respondents.
The third part consists of 8 characteristics of method of payment of incentives namely
Branding, Personalization, Trophy Value, Flexibility of Usage, Secure to use, Easier to
Handle, Redemption, Effectiveness, Prevalent Method in my Organisation, and My Personal
Preference.
5 point Likert type scale ranging from 1 to 5 is used to gather perceptions of respondents. In
second section of questionnaire, respondents were required to compare 5 methods of payment
against each factor. Each method has to be ranked from 5(most likely) to 1(most unlikely),
based on its impact on behavioral outcomes (factors). In third section each method of
payment has to be ranked from 5(very high) to 1(very low) based upon possessiveness of
characteristics.
Primary data as well as secondary data has been used for the purpose of study. Questionnaire
is the source of primary data and various journals and research papers were referred for
secondary data.

16. 16

Total 70 questionnaires were distributed to respondents belonging to different market sector
such as Banking and Insurance, Retail, Telecom and others, out of which all were valid
generating a response rate of 100 %. Respondents were employees, channel partners, and
distributers of 15 different organisations. Respondents within an organisation were chosen
randomly. The survey was conducted in Dhanbad.
The questionnaire which was distributed among the respondents is shown below 


QUESTIONNAIRE

Objective of the Study: To understand perception of employees, distributers,
channel partners towards various methods of receiving incentives vis-a-vis gift
cards.

Demographic Data
1. Gender male female



2. Age below 25 26-35 36-45 above 45



3. Type of organisation Retail Banking and Insurance

Hospitality Telecom Others


4. Type of association Employee Distributer
with organisation
Channel partner


5. Department H.R Sales and marketing IT finance
Operations


6. Position Operative employee Supervisor Manager

17. 17

others


7. Experience less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-7 years
More than 7 years



Please rate the likelihood of behavioral outcomes corresponding to each
method of payment of incentives.
Rate the alternatives as
1. Most
Unlikely
2. Unlikely 3. Neutral 4. Likely 5. most likely






Parameters

Factors
Gift
items
Gift
cards
cash Insurance
Policy/
Retirement
Benefits
others
B O
E U
H T
A C
V O
I M
O E
U S
R
A
L

Motivation
Job satisfaction
Job performance
Job commitment
Absenteeism




Please rate the possessiveness of following features corresponding to each
method of payment of incentive.
Rate the alternatives as
1. Very Low 2. Low 3. Neutral 4. High 5. Very High

18. 18




Parameters

Factors
Gift
items
Gift
cards
cash Insurance
Policy/
Retirement
Benefits
others


C
H
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S

Branding
Personalization
Trophy value
Flexibility of usage
Secure to use
Easier to handle
Redemption
Effectiveness
Prevalent method in
my organisation

My personal
preference



Analysis

The data of survey were analyzed using Descriptive Statistics, One Way ANOVA (Repeated
Measures), Post-Hoc Analysis, and Multiple Response Analysis. The data were analysed
using IBM SPSS version 20 Statistical Package for windows. Comparative analysis for each
method of payment of incentive was done and honesty of their significance was also checked.
The report of each factor summarizes results of each statistical tool used and presents most
preferred method of payment of incentive affecting the factor.
In this project, Repeated Measures ANOVA is used as we have taken data from respondents
for different conditions (different method of payment of incentives) from same set of entities
(same set of respondents), which means that data from different conditions is related, so we
have to make an additional assumption of sphericity as Repeated Measures ANOVA is
susceptible to violation of assumption of sphericity. So before discussing repeated measures
ANOVA we need to test sphericity.

19. 19

The assumption of sphericity states that the relationship between pairs of experimental
conditions is similar, i.e. the level of dependence between pairs of condition is roughly equal.
Hence, the hypothesis needs to be tested to affirm whether assumption of sphericity holds
(for every behavioral outcome and characteristics) or not.
H0: The variance of the differences between conditions was significantly different.
H1: The variance of the differences between conditions was not significantly different.
Here, ‘conditions’ means different methods of payment of incentives such as Gift Cards ,
Cash, etc.
Mauchly’s Test of sphericity tests the Null Hypothesis stated above. Ideally, value of
Mauchly’s W is equal to 1, which means that data has perfect sphericity. As the value of
Mauchly’s W decreases from 1, the condition of sphericity decreases.
If the Mauchly’s test of sphericity is statistically significant (Significance < 0.05), we reject
null hypothesis.
If data does not violate the assumption of sphericity, we need to modify degrees of freedom.
If, the assumption of sphericity is violated, the F-statistic is positively biased rendering it
invalid and increasing the risk of a Type I error. To overcome this problem, corrections must
be applied to the degrees of freedom (DOF), such that a valid critical F-value can be
obtained. Correction is applied by calculating ‘Epsilon’. Both the Greenhouse-Geisser and
the Huynd-Feldt procedures attempt to estimate epsilon (ε). If value of sphericity is less than
.75 we use Greenhouse-Geisser correction for calculating epsilon (ε), otherwise Huynd-Feldt
corrections is used.
Repeated measures ANOVA is the equivalent of the one-way ANOVA, but for related, not
independent groups, and is the extension of the dependent t-test. It compares the means
between related groups and determines whether any of those means are significantly different
from each other. It is a test to detect any overall differences between related means. So to
establish a relationship between method of payment of incentives (dependent conditions) to
different factors of behavioral outcomes and characteristics of methods, this statistical tool is
used. In this study , same set of respondents were exposed to different but dependent set of
conditions, Repeated measures one way ANOVA is the most suitable tool to accomplish the
objective of study.
After comparison of overall means by repeated measures ANOVA, we perform pair-wise
comparison of conditions (methods of payment of incentive) to check honesty of significance
value by performing POST-HOC Analysis. It provides us whether differences between mean

20. 20

values of between pair of conditions is significant or not. This test is compulsory as overall
result of ANOVA might not hold true for all distinct pair of condition.
Further, Multiple Response analysis of data is done to understand difference of perception of
respondents based on their demographic features. MRA output shows frequencies of most
favored condition (method of payment of incentive) by respondents, for each factor (
behavioral outcomes and characteristics of payment methods). Demographic segmentation of
respondents is based on Gender, Age, Type of Organization, Type of Association with
Organization, Department, Position and Experience.



Following table explains within subject effect of method of payment of incentives.

21. 21


Table 1- Within subjects effect of Method of Payment of incentive (Mauchly’s Test Of
Sphericity)

22. 22

Following table shows type of correction method and corrected degree of freedom.


Table 2- Result of ANOVA

Following table shows pair wise comparison of method of payment of incentives whose mean
difference is not significant. Overall their are 10 different pairs that are compared. All the
pair that are not shown in table have significant differences between their means (at
significance level .05). Here i and j are methods that are being compared. Methods are named
from 1 to 5 as gift items, gift cards, cash, insurance policy/ retirement benefits and others.

23. 23



Table 3- Pair wise comparison (Post-Hoc Analysis)

24. 24

1.) MOTIVATION

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values is
to be tested in further analysis of data.
Table 4.1- Multiple Response Analysis for motivation
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 9.045, p= .433 (>0.05), so we must accept HO and reject H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)

25. 25

For test of within subjects effect, E=.874 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between motivation effects of method of payment of incentives. Then
after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

2.) Job Satisfaction

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

26. 26


Table 1.1- Multiple response Analysis for Job Satisfaction
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.

(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 19.460, p= .022 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.759 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.

27. 27

Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA also shows that
there is no significant difference between satisfaction effects of method of payment of
incentives. Then after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift
cards have better satisfying effect than rest of methods.

3.) Job Performance

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values is
to be tested in further analysis of data.

28. 28


Table 1.3- Multiple response Analysis for Job Performance
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 18.583, p= 0.029 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.759 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).

29. 29

(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA also shows that
there is no significant difference between performance effects of method of payment of
incentives. Then after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift
cards have better satisfying effect than rest of methods.

4.) Job Commitment

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

30. 30


Table 1.4- Multiple response Analysis for Job Commitment
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 10.418, p= .318 (>0.05), so we must accept HO and reject H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.857 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
( but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA

31. 31

As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between job commitment effects of method of payment of incentives.
Then after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have
better motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

5.) Absenteeism

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

32. 32


Table 1.5- Multiple response Analysis for Absenteeism
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 34.237, p= 0.000 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.602 (<0.75), therefore we Greenhouse-Geisser value is
being used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05.
Moreover, results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA

As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between absenteeism effects of method of payment of incentives. Then
after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

33. 33

6.) Branding

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Branding
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)

34. 34

Chi square = 26.935, p= .0.001 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=0.671 (<0.75), therefore we Greenhouse-Geisser value is
being used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05.
Moreover, results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift items & gift cards, gift items & cash and between gift card &
cash.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA also shows that
there is no significant difference between branding of method of payment of incentives. Then
after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Gift cards and Gift items have
better satisfying effect than rest of methods.

7.) Personalization

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

35. 35


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Personalization
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 27.312, p= .001 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.663 (<0.75), therefore we Greenhouse-Giesser value is
being used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05.
Moreover, results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)

36. 36

By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & gift items and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA also shows that
there is no significant difference between personalization of method of payment of
incentives. Then after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Gift items and
Gift cards have better satisfying effect than rest of methods.

8.) Trophy Value

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

37. 37

Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Trophy Value
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 24.487, p= .004 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.695 (<0.75), therefore we Greenhouse-Geisser value is
being used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05.
Moreover, results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & gift items.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA shows that there
is no significant difference between trophy value of method of payment of incentives. Then
after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Gift Items and Gift cards have
better satisfying effect than rest of methods

38. 38

9.) Flexibility of Usage

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Flexibility Of Usage
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 20.412, p= 0.016 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)

39. 39

For test of within subjects effect, E=.739 (<0.75), therefore we Greenhouse-Giesser value is
being used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05.
Moreover, results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash, gift item & gift card and between insurance
policy/retirement benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA also shows that
there is no significant difference between flexibility of use of method of payment of
incentives. Then after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift
cards have better satisfying effect than rest of methods.

10.) Secure to Usage

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

40. 40


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Secure To Use
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 22.792, p= 0.007 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=0.713 (<0.75), therefore we use Greenhouse-Geisser
value is being used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of
.05. Moreover, results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)

41. 41

By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash, gift items & cash and between insurance
policy/retirement benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
Contrary to findings of Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA also shows that
there is no significant difference between security of usage of method of payment of
incentives. Then after checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift
cards have better satisfying effect than rest of methods.

11.) Easier to Handle

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

42. 42


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Easier To handle
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 11.118, p= 0.268 (>0.05), so we must accept HO and reject H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.848 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)

43. 43

By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between handling of method of payment of incentives. Then after
checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

12.) Redemption

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

44. 44


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Redemption
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square =12.907, p= 0.167 (>0.05), so we must accept HO and reject H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.826 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)

45. 45

By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between redemption of method of payment of incentives. Then after
checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

13.) Effectiveness


Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

46. 46


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Effectiveness
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 10.972, p=0.278 (>0.05), so we must accept HO and reject H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=0.850 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)

47. 47

By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between effectiveness of method of payment of incentives. Then after
checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

14.) Prevalent method in my organization

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values are
to be tested in further analysis of data.

48. 48


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Prevelant Method
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 10.972, p= 0.022 (<0.05), so we must reject HO and accept H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=0.75 (>=0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is no significant difference in motivation induced to respondents
by different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)

49. 49

By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash, gift item & gift card, gift item & and cash and
between insurance policy/retirement benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between prevalence of method of payment of incentives. Then after
checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods

15.) My personal Preference

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statics shows cash as most preferred method. But Significance of these values
are to be tested in further analysis of data.

50. 50


Table 1.6- Multiple response Analysis for Personal preference
MRA output shows demographic segmentation of sample size and frequency of their most
favorable method. The table clearly shows preference of cash and gift cards by all categories.
(Table 1 – Sphericity)
Chi square = 13.477, p= 0.142 (>0.05), so we must accept HO and reject H1.
(Table 2 – Result of ANOVA)
For test of within subjects effect, E=.819 (>0.75), therefore we Huyhn- Feldt value is being
used. F is significant because its p value is 0.00, which is less than criterion of .05. Moreover,
results are same for all corrections.
Thus we can say that there is a significant difference in motivation induced to respondents by
different methods of payment of incentives.
(but this test doesn’t specify which method was most motivating).
(Table 3- Post-Hoc Tests)
By looking at values, we see that differences between pair wise comparison of mean are
insignificant only between gift-cards & cash and between insurance policy/retirement
benefits & others.
REPORT of one-way Repeated Measures ANOVA
As shown by Descriptive Statistics, Repeated measures ANOVA Also shows that there is
significant difference between preference of method of payment of incentives. Then after
checking for honesty of significance value we find that Cash and Gift cards have better
motivating effect than rest of methods.(tough difference between there means are not
significant so we cannot comment on the best method)

51. 51

Conclusions






















Figure: Demographic Segmentation of respondents
The table mentioned above shows demographic categorization of respondents and is self
explanatory. This study considers 15 factors which are divided into two categories namely
behavioral outcomes and characteristics of method of payment of incentive. The findings of
the study reveals that cash and gift cards are most favored method among all behavioral
factors but we cannot comment on best method between them as difference between their
means is not significant. Further investigation of factors based on characteristics, reveals that
gift cards and gift items were more favorable than cash for factors like branding, trophy value
and personalization. For rest of characteristics, cash and gift cards were most favored
alternative.

52. 52

Thus we may conclude that apart from cash, gift cards are best method of payment of
incentive.
This study also attempts to examine these factors along with the demographic factors of the
respondent. As Repeated Measures one way ANOVA test was used to establish a relationship
between methods of payment and factors, it was found out that respondents perceived each
and every method differently. It was found that there is no significant difference between
impact of cash and gift cards over various behavioral factors.

Recommendations

 The organization should provide incentive according to preferences of employees
depending upon their demographic preferences as shown in multiple response
Analysis Output.
 The organization should provide gift cards instead of cash wherever required as there
is no difference between acceptances of both of them as shown by study.
 The organization should provide gift items for incentives whose main aim is to
provide trophy value to recipient.
 As most of employees prefer Gift cards and cash over rest of alternatives,
management should try to give them gift cards wherever convenient or possible.

53. 53

9. Bibliography

Journals

i. Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B.A., and Grossman, B.S. 1986. Social influences on
creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol.50, pp 14-23.
ii. Brooks, c., Holtom Terence, R.,T, Mitchell.,W lee.,(2006) Increasing human and social
capital by applying job embeddednes theory, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35, No.
4, pp. 316–331
iii. Brown, S., McHardy, J., McNabb, R., & Taylor, K. Workplace Performance, Worker
Commitment and Loyalty, University of Sheffield Discussion Paper No. 5447
iv. Depedri, S., Tortia, E. and Carpita, M. (2010), Incentives’ Job Satisfaction and
Performance: Empirical Evidence in Italian Social Enterprises,(2011). Euricse
Working Papers, Vol 10, No. 12 pp. 33-45.
v. H,Chen-Jung., F,Tung., H,Sue-Chen.(2014). A study of the Effect of Incentive
System on Job Performance: An Example of Hotel’s IT Staffs in Taiwan, The Journal
of Global Business Management Vol. 10, No. 2, pp 57-66.
vi. Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1999). Job satisfaction and
performance: The moderating effects of value attainment and affective position.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 296-313.
vii. J, Gary.(2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda
Journal of Organizational Behavior Vol 31, pp. 519–542.
viii. K, Tung-Sheng., L, Mei-Mei. & L, Chun-Hsiung.(2013). Volunteer Turnover at
Nonprofit Organizations: A Study of Lifeline in Taiwan, Asian Social Science; Vol. 9,
No. 1.
ix. Matthew, C. Bloom., George., T. Milkovich.(1997). Cornell The Relationship
Between Risk, Incentive Pay, and Organizational Performance, Managerial
Compensation Research, Vol. 20, pp 1-26.
x. Steven J, Condly., Richard, E., Clark Harold. & D. Stolovitch. ( The Effects of
Incentives on Workplace Performance: A Meta-analytic Review of Research Studies
Steven, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol.16, No.3. pp 46-63.

54. 54

xi. U,Ugwu., Coker.M.A.(2012). Incentive Schemes, Employee Motivation and
Productivity In Organizations In Nigeria: Analytical Linkages, IOSR Journal of
Business and Management ,Vol 1, No. 4, pp 32-39.
xii. Yukl, G.A., Latham, G.P., & Pursell, E.D. (1976). The effectiveness of performance
incentives under continuous and variable ratio schedules of reinforcement. Personnel
Psychology, Vol 29,pp. 221-231.

Books

i. Malhotra, N.K.(2005),Marketing Research: An applied orientation, New Delhi:
Pearson Education..
ii. Robbins, Stephen P.,(2008). Organizational Behavior, 9th ed., New Delhi: Prentice-
Hall.
iii. Mamoria, C.B., Rao V.S.P.,(2012) Personnel Management, 13
th

ed..Mumbai:Himalaya Publishing house.

Annual Reports

i. State Bank of India. (2015). 2013-14 annual report of the State Bank of India.
Retrieved from http://www.sbi.co.in/portal/web/corporate-governance/annual-report-
2013-14.
ii. Vodaphone India Ltd. (2015). 2013-14 annual report of the Vodaphone India.
Retrieved from http://www.vodaphone.co.in/web/about-us/annual-report-2013-14

Electronic Version

i. Introduction about the organization. Retrieved July 1, 2015,
https://www.sbi.co.in/portal/web/about-us/evolution-of-sbi