SOAL UJIAN MID ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND CULTURE

PROGRAM MM ANGKATAN 35 (WEEK DAY)

Petunjuk:

Pilihlah salah satu jurnal sesuai NIM anda, Jika NIM anda bernomor Gasal maka pilihlah satu diantara 3 pilihan yang tersedia, bgtu pula jika NIM anda Genap.

Setelah memilih jurnal maka langkah selanjutnya buatlah ringkasan jurnal tersebut dengan ketentuan sebagai berikut:

o Latar Belakang Tuliskan apa sajakah yang mendasari penulis melakukan penelitian ini

o Telaah Pustaka Sebutkan teori-teori apa sajakah yang ada pada jurnal tersebut

o Metode Bagaimana peneliti melakukan riset tersebut (sebutkan sampel dan metode

saja)o Hasil dan diskusi

Bagaimana hasil penelitian ini menjelaskan masalah penelitiano Kesimpulan

Apakah kesimpulan, saran dan penelitian yang akan datang (jika ada)

Jawab pertanyaan berikut:

Berdasarkan jurnal tersebut jelaskan bagaimana hubungan artikel yang anda pilih dengan konsep hubungan antara ilmu perilaku organisasi dan disiplin ilmu lainnya sebagaimana tergambar dalam skema berikut:

Batas pengerjaan soal ini adalah +- 1 minggu terhitung dari tanggal 8 februari 2015 hingga 16 februari 2015.

JAWABAN:

1. Latar belakang penulis melakukan penelitian tersebut ialah

The ongoing debate about the effects of bonuses on managers’ performance and the role of reward systems in organizations has still not led to a unanimous conclusion among academics and practitioners. Those in favor of bonuses state that applying bonuses and putting emphasis on monetary rewards increases productivity and organizational performance, while those against bonuses claim that use of bonuses and monetary rewards leads to counterproductive results.A key question often overlooked in the discussion is: How important is handing out bonuses for an organization to become and stay successful for a longer period of time? This paper seeks to address these issues.

Sejak maraknya kejadian skandal keuangan yang mengguncang dunia bisnis dan diikuti dengan krisis keuangan dunia, perdebatan para akademisi dan praktisi tentang dampak bonus terhadap kinerja terutama manajer dan peran sistem reward dalam suatu organisasipun terkuak (Sikula, 2001). Perbedaan pendapat di kalangan akademisi menjadi jelas setelah adanya kajian ilmiah mengenai bonus dan sistem penghargaan dilakukan. Di satu sisi yaitu di sisi pendukung teori bonus menyatakan bahwa penggunaan bonus dan penekanan pada hadiah uang meningkatkan produktivitas dan kinerja organisasi.

Berbagai pro dan kontra antara pendukung dan penentang mengai bonus insentuf membuat peneliti tertarik untuk mengetahui tingkat kepentingan suatu pembagian bonus di dalam suatu organisasi untuk menjadi dan tetap sukses untuk jangka waktu yang lebih lama. Salah satu cara untuk mengetahuinya ialah dengan mempelajari hasil penelitian karakteristik dari organisasi yang berkinerja tinggi atau high-performance organizations (HPos). Penelitian ini bertujuan mengidentifikasi karakteristik yang menjelaskan tentang keberhasilan yang berkelanjutan dari suatu organisasi (de Waal , 2012). Jurnal ini membahas set-up dan hasil penelitian tentang HPO, serta menjelaskan secara lebih rinci tentang beberapa temuan di bidang sistem reward dan bonus. Konsekuensi dari hasil penelitian memberikan dampak pada peranan sistem reward dalam menciptakan dan mempertahankan Hpos juga dibahas dalam jurnal ini.

2. Telaah pustaka yang digunakan pada jurnal tersebut antara lain:

Yao (1997) mempelajari dampak bagi hasil dan pembayaran bonus terhadap kinerja industri negara Cina dan menyimpulkan bahwa lebih dari setengah dari pertumbuhan nilai tambah industri ini berasal dari insentif bonus. Belfield dan Marsden (2003) menemukan saat mempelajari data dari 1.998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey yang dilakukan di Inggris, terbukti kuat bahwa pembayaran yang dikaitkan dengan suatu kinerja dapat meningkatkan outcome dari kinerja tersebut, meskipun hubungan ini dipengaruhi oleh struktur lingkungan kerja. Hollowell (2005) mengamati hubungan antara kontrak gaji para eksekutif yang berbasis high-insentif dan kinerja perusahaan jangka panjang dan ditemukan bahwa organisasi dengan struktur dengan pemberian kompensasi yang kuat pada kalangan eksekutif menunjukkan adanya kinerja saham sejajar dengan harga saham yang superior dan bersifat jangka panjang. Berdasarkan

pandangan tersebut terdapat pertanyaan, yaitu " Apakah gaji eksekutif merupakan suatu fungsi kinerja atau kinerja eksekutif yang menjadi fungsi dari gaji ?".

Lazear dan Oyer (2009) memberikan gambaran dari penelitiannya mengenai pengaruh insentif dalam organisasi bahwa insentif dapat menjadi alat manajerial yang kuat untuk mempengaruhi perilaku individu dengan cara yang positif. Secara khusus, produktivitas dapat ditingkatkan dengan menggunakan insentif. Namun, Lazear dan Oyer (2009) juga membahas suatu studi yang menunjukkan bahwa meskipun insentif memberikan pengaruh, dalam arti bahwa mereka memiliki efek positif pada hasil, mereka tidak selalu bekerja secara konsisten, atau bekerja dengan efek berkepanjangan dan tidak jarang bahkan menghasilkan pengaruh dan konsekuensi yang tidak diinginkan seperti manipulasi hasil.

Di sisi lain, pada pihak yang kontra terhadap konsep bonus dan hadiah uang yaitu Bloom (1999) menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan dengan pembayaran yang lebih tinggi mengelami penderitaan yang dirasakan baik oleh manajer sampai pada karyawan. Ia juga menemukan bahwa tim bisbol liga utama yang memiliki kesenjangan besar antara pemain dengan bayaran tertinggi dan terendah lebih sering mengalami kekalahan; mereka mencetak nilai yang lebih rendah dan bahkan lebih rendah dibandingkan tim dengan sistem distribusi pembayaran yang lebih terkompresi. Insentif bagi para pemain yang berkinerja baik jauh lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan pemain dengan berkinerja rendah, dengan jelas terlihat adanya pihak yang mengalami ketidakadilan dan penurunan kinerja atau usaha oleh pihak tersebut akan terlihat nantinya. Gneezy dan Rustichini (2000) menemukan bahwa memperkenalkan skema insentif yang baru pada karyawan yang menginginkan adanya insentif moneter dapat menyebabkan kinerja mereka akan lebih buruk daripada karyawan yang tidak ditawarkan kompensasi. Siegel dan Hambrick (2005) menunjukkan bahwa perusahaan teknologi tinggi dengan gaji yang lebih besar mengalami ketidaksetaraan pada tim manajemen puncak mereka, karena penggunaan bonus memiliki lebih nilai Rata-rata market-to -book dan pengembalian saham yang lebih rendah daripada perusahaan dengan lebih melakukan equal management pay.

Beberapa peneliti mengamati hubungan antara kinerja perusahaan dan bonus. Tosi dkk,. (2000) mengemukakan bahwa kinerja perusahaan menyumbang 0,5 % dari varian insentif. Temuan ini didukung oleh Fattorusso dkk., (2007) yang menemukan bahwa kinerja keuangan perusahaan Inggris tidak menunjukkan hubungan yang signifikan dengan besarnnya bonus insentif. Duffhues dan Kabir (2008) menemukan hal yang sama setelah mengamati beberapa direktur eksekutif perusahaan Belanda yang terdaftar, dan hal tersebut menjadi suatu tantangan bagi para pemegang kebijaksanaan konvensional. Terlihat bahwa insentif bagi para eksekutif membantu untuk menyelaraskan kepentingan pemegang saham dengan orang-orang dari manajerial. Batu dkk., (2010) jelas menyatakan : efek dari insentif keuangan tidak dapat diandalkan. Terdapat suatu studi dengan hasil yang berbeda dengan hal diatas, yaitu studi yang

dikemukakan oleh Bonner dkk., (2000) bahwa jenis tugas yang dilakukan dan jenis skema insentif yang digunakan mempengaruhi efektivitas insentif keuangan. Samuels dan Whitecotton (2011) yang menemukan hal yang serupa yaitu bahwa efek insentif tergantung pada faktor-faktor kontekstual .

3. Metode penelitian

This paper describes the results of research into the characteristics of “high performance organizations” (HPOs) and the role of bonuses and reward systems in creating and maintaining HPOs.

4. Hasil dan diskusi

The research results show that use of bonuses or implementation of certain types ofreward systems have neither a positive nor a negative effect on organizational performance. This may be explained by the fact that reward systems are a hygiene factor for an organization. If an organization does not have an appropriate reward system (whether or not including bonuses), it will run into trouble with its employees and have difficulty improving its performance. If it does – a situation which employees expect and consider to be normal – it can start working on becoming an HPO.

3. Results with respect to bonuses and reward systemsIn 55 of the 290 studies reviewed in phase 1, elements in relation to bonuses and rewardsystems could be identified. This meant that in nineteen percent of the sources bonusesand reward systems were found to be potentially important in creating and sustainingan HPO. The HPO research yielded 12 potential HPO characteristics with respectto bonuses and reward systems:(1) A fair reward and incentive structure: in a worldwide study into thecorrelation between employee attitudes and financial success, Maister (2001)found that these employee attitudes are positively influenced by rewardsystems that pay out a fair compensation. In research of Taiwanese highperformingorganizations, Huang (2000) concluded that these perform betterthan low-performing organizations among others because they stress internalequity when designing their compensation systems. Corby and White (2003)discovered, while researching the introduction of performance pay inEngland’s National Health Service, that the new reward system in theory wasviewed favorably but that there was a big fear that the system would not beused fairly and equitably and therefore would be ineffective. Underwood(2004) found that good performing international companies used rewardsystems that value their employees. Sirota et al. (2005) in their researchof what motivates employees to excel, discovered that equity was veryimportant to them: to be treated justly in relation to the basic conditions ofemployment and having a sense of elemental fairness in the way they aretreated, which could be achieved by for employees satisfactory compensationand fringe benefits. Holbeche (2005) called this “a fair employee deal”which is important for creating the impression of a fair compensation systemamong employees, as Prinsloo et al. (2007) also found. Burney et al. (2009)found that tying the reward structure directly to a strategic performancemeasurement system increases the feeling of fairness employees have towardthe reward system.(2) Reward systems that reinforce core values and strategy: Montemayor (1996)found that American high-performing firms although they used many

different types of pay policies, yet these policies always were congruent withtheir strategy, while inferior firm performance was associated with the lackof fit between pay policy and business strategy. Lewis (2000) discovered thesame during his research at a bank. Lawler (2003) stated in his overviewof HRM practices of companies that the best organizations devised andimplemented reward systems that reinforced their core values and strategies.(3) Pay and incentives linked to long-term performance: in a literature reviewinto characteristics of high-performing organizations, Kling (1995) foundthat linking employee pay and incentives to long-term performance of theorganization had a positive relationship with productivity. Weller andReidenbach (2011) argue that, in the light of the recent recession andponderous economic recovery, a better balance in the incentives for short-runand long-run performance has to be achieved as currently corporatemanagers have stronger incentives to pursue short-term profit-seekingactivities than to invest in longer-term productive activities This is also anissue in the public sector as Bebchuk and Fried (2010) state.(4) Rewards based on RP: one of the key components of the beyond budgetingconcept is rewarding success based on RP vs competitors, as Hope and Fraser(2003) state. Another form of RP is discussed by Guojin et al. (2011), which ispeer performance within an organization, in which incentives are paid outafter a comparison of an individual’s performance with that of his peersin the same function. Matsumura and Shin (2006) found that financialperformance improved following the implementation of an incentive planthat includes RP measures.(5) Group compensation: Hammer (2001), while reviewing emerging businessconcepts developed by best companies to deal with the increasingly turbulentenvironment, found that these organizations employed reward systems thatemphasized group performance over individual performance. In his researchinto productive companies, Jennings (2002) assumed that the pay plans ofthe companies were the reason they achieved high productivity. Insteadhe found that these pay plans, which were based on group productivitybasedcompensation, drove and reinforced the culture that in turn increasedproductivity. The same was found by Guthrie (2001) for New Zealandorganizations. Pizzini (2010) found that productive benefits induced by groupincentives used in medical partnerships offset reductions in output associatedwith free-riding and efforts devoted to monitoring.(6) Creative and flexible rewards: in their study of companies which dealtsuccessfully with creative destruction in the marketplace, Foster and Kaplan(2001) found that these companies used reward structures that reflectedand increased the freedom these organizations needed to deal with flexibilityin the market. Tuominen et al. (2004) found that the higher the level ofadaptability of a firm the higher the level of environmental complexity thatcan be handled by that firm and the better the chances of its long-termsurvival, and an integral part of that adaptability was a flexible rewardstructure. Smith et al. (2005) mentioned that high-performing organizationshave a wider repertoire of approaches toward reward management than lowperformingorganizations.(7) Pay-for-performance: Bae and Lawler (2000) found that Korean organizationsthat used a high-involvement HRM strategy achieved better results thanthose that did not, and that performance-based pay was an integral partof that HRM strategy. The same results were found by Challis et al. (2005)and Knight-Turvey (2005) for Australian companies, de Kok andden Hartog (2006) for Dutch small- and medium-sized companies, Chang(2006) for South Korean firms and Origo (2009) for Italian metalworkingfirms. Joyce et al. (2003) identified that successful US companies usedeight management practices, among which pay-for-performance systems.This finding was similar to that of Martel (2002) in a study of some ofAmerican best companies.

(8) Emphasis on intrinsic rewards (fun, growth, teamwork, challenge,accomplishment): Katzenbach (2000) and O’Reilly and Pfeffer (2000) foundin their studies of successful and well-known American companies that theseconstrained monetary rewards in favor of more meaningful intrinsic rewards.Annunzio (2004) discovered that organizations which employed manyemployees specifically used non-financial recognition for group performanceto motivate people. In their study of family controlled businesses, Miller andLe Breton-Miller (2005) found that high-performing businesses put moreemphasis on using intrinsic incentives than low-performing family controlledbusinesses did. Prendergast (2008) even stated that it might be better fororganizations to, instead of using monetary incentives, match the intrinsicmotivations of employees with the tasks they need to do and as suchemphasize the intrinsic nature and reward of the job itself.(9) Employee stock as incentive: Guthrie (2001) in a study of New Zealandbusinesses which used high-involvement work practice found that rewardingemployees with stock was used as an incentive instrument. The same wasdiscovered by Knight-Turvey (2005) among successful Australian companies,and by Chen (2007) for Taiwanese companies. The research results in Taiwanwere confirmed in a later study performed by Lin et al. (2010).(10) A minimum threshold for incentive pay and no cap on pay-outs of incentives:Zhou and Swan (2003) found that using bonus thresholds in executivecompensation contracts is efficient in the sense that it mitigates agencycost. Hewitt (2004) discovered, in a study of high-growth high-profitableorganizations, that these companies installed reward systems which had aminimum threshold below which no incentive was paid and at the same timehad no cap on pay-outs either. Kelley and Hounsell (2007) identified that usinga gain-sharing program without cap resulted in considerably increasedprofitability at the distribution warehouses where this scheme was used.Sohoni et al. (2011) found, in an experiment at dealerships, that using bonusthresholds reduced sales variance and increased sales performance.(11) Skill-based pay: Lawler et al. (1998) in their studies of Fortune 1,000corporations discovered they designed their reward systems in such a waythat they supported employees in strengthening their skills so they can takeon more decision-making responsibility. Challis et al. (2005) and Knight-Turvey(2005) both found that well-performing Australian companies rewarded theiremployees for knowledge and skill development, which was also found byGuthrie (2001) for New Zealand organizations. Dierdorff and Surface (2008)found that skill-based pay had a positive influence on the rate of learning ofemployees. It has to be noted that Giancola (2009) remarked that in recent yearsskill-based pay is increasingly replaced by competency-based pay.(12) Rewards for results, not efforts or seniority: Quinn et al. (2000) concludedthat for a company to become a responsive organization it among othershas to install incentive systems that reward for performance and notfor effort. Guthrie (2001) in a study of New Zealand businesses which usedhigh-involvement work practice found that they specifically rewardedemployees for their results, not for their seniority in the company. The sameresult was found by Knight-Turvey (2005) among successful Australiancompanies, and also by Goldsmith and Clutterbuck (1997) in a review of theworld’s most admired companies. van der Berg and de Vries (2004), in theirstudy of Dutch high-performing organizations, stated that these companiesused incentive systems that specifically rewarded employees for theirperformance and punished them for poor results. Sirota et al. (2005), intheir research of what motivates employees to excel, found that highperformingemployees take pride in their accomplishments by doing thingsthat matter and doing them well and then receiving the (financial) recognitionfor these accomplishments.Although most pay-related HPO characteristics may be considered to be fairlyindependent from each other (e.g. 1, 3, 4, 5), some may be correlated positively

(e.g. 1 and 2) or negatively (e.g. 8 and 9, 7 and 11 or 7 and 12). This suggests that thereis not one systematic way to construct a reward system suitable for an HPO but thatthere could be many different types of reward systems that potentially lead to highperformance. For the 12 characteristics the weighted importance was calculated and itbecame apparent that only one characteristic surpassed the threshold of the weightedimportance of 9 percent: A fair reward and incentive structure. This was because theother 11 characteristics were not mentioned enough in Category A studies to surpassthe 9 percent threshold. This means that previous researchers did not find enoughevidence that characteristics with regard to bonuses and reward management play amajor consistent role in creating and maintaining HPOs. Further, during the empiricalstudy in phase 2, the remaining characteristic A fair reward and incentive structuredid not show a significant correlation with competitive performance, which means thatthis characteristic in the end also was not related to organizational performance. Thisleads to the conclusion that bonuses and reward systems are not distinguishing factorsfor creating and sustaining HPOs. Thus, well-performing organizations are as likelyto use bonuses or certain types of reward systems as they are not. Using bonuses willtherefore not help nor hurt organizations in achieving sustained high performance.In the following section we discuss possible explanations for this research result.

5. Kesimpulan

The literature review described in this paper showed that there are 12 characteristics,found in research studies into HPO, that have a bearing on the type of bonusesand reward systems that organizations can apply to achieve high performance.However, 11 of these 12 characteristics seem to have a minor role compared to othercharacteristics found in the literature review (which relate, among others, toorganizational structure, quality of management, quality of workforce, informationtechnology and communication) and did not make the cut into the empirical study.In the empirical study, the remaining characteristic A fair reward and incentivestructure did not show a significant relation with organizational performance. Theconclusion therefore is that using bonuses or implementing certain types of rewardsystems does not have a positive nor a negative effect on organizational performance.A possible explanation for this result is that reward systems are a hygiene factor for anorganization. If the organization does not have an appropriate reward system, with orwithout bonuses, it will run into trouble with its employees. If it does, which employeesexpect and consider as normal, it can start working on improving its performance.This research result puts the ongoing debate on the use of bonuses and rewardsystems to improve the results of organizations in a different light. Putting a lot ofeffort in introducing bonuses or a certain type of reward system and then expectingthe organization to improve its results and maybe become an HPO, is unrealistic.The reward system is not a determining factor for high performance. However,there may be other arguments for designing a reward system. For instance, anorganization should not differ too much from other organizations in its sector (Dimaggio and Powell, 1991) or, for equity reasons, internal pay dispersion should notbe too large. The practical implication of this study is that organizations shouldnot spend a great deal of time on designing and implementing elaborate andsophisticated reward systems to improve performance. They just have to make sure anappropriate reward system is installed that is considered to be fair and equitable byemployees. This creates a good foundation for building an HPO.There are several limitations to this study. Despite the fact that the literaturesearch was extensive, potentially valuable studies may not have been included.

In this respect, it should also be noted that predominantly published studies were takeninto account, which created a potential bias as unpublished studies may containdifferent outcomes (Ashworth et al., 1992). Another potential bias is the presence ofsubjectivity in the choice of literature sources that were included in the study(Ashworth et al., 1992). This problem has been alleviated by including literature frommany different disciplines during the selection process. As common in questionnairebasedresearch and self-reported scores, there is the possibility of attribution. Is itpossible that the respondents reporting high performance and those reporting lowperformance make implicit attributions of characteristics, and in fact, causation.The studies used in the descriptive literature review, by definition, looked at whatorganizations did in the past and the results are therefore not necessarily valid fora dynamic future (Morton, 2003).