©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 Empirically testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money and pay satisfaction Azman Ismail Oscar Dousin Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Malaysia) Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Malaysia) iazman@fcs.unimas.my azisma08@gmail.com Antonia Girardi Zainal Ariffin Ahmad Murdoch University (Australia) Universiti Sains Malaysia (Malaysia) a.girardi@murdoch.edu.au drzaba2001@yahoo.com Mohd Noor Mohd Shariff Abdul Halim Majid Universiti Utara Malaysia (Malaysia) Universiti Utara Malaysia (Malaysia) mdnoor@uum.edu.my ahalim@uum.edu.my Muhammad Madi Abdullah Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Malaysia) muhdmadi@gmail.com Zalina Ibrahim Universiti Teknologi MARA (Malaysia) zalinaibrahim@sarawak.uitm.edu.my Received April, 2009 Accepted July, 2009 Abstract: Compensation management literature highlights that income has three major features: salary, bonus and allowance. If the level and/or amount of income are distributed to employees based on proper rules this may increase pay satisfaction. More importantly, a thorough investigation in this area reveals that the effect of income distribution on pay satisfaction is not consistent if perceived value of money is present in organizations. The nature of this relationship is less Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 235 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 emphasized in pay distribution literature. Therefore, this study was conducted to measure the effect of the perceived value of money and income distribution on pay satisfaction using 136 usable questionnaires gathered from employees who have worked in one city based local authority in Sabah, Malaysia (MSLAUTHORITY). Outcomes of hierarchical regression analysis showed that the interaction between perceived value of money and income distribution significantly correlated with pay satisfaction. This result confirms that perceived value of money does act as a moderating variable in the income distribution model of the organizational sample. In addition, discussion and implications of this study are elaborated. Keywords: income distribution, perceived value of money, pay satisfaction, Malaysia. JEL Code: O15 1. Introduction Income is a crucial element of compensation management system (Drucker and White, 2000; Henderson, 2006; Mitchell and Mickel, 1999) where it is often viewed as monetary reward, direct payment, cash payment and/or extrinsic reward (Bergmann and Scarpello, 2002; Chiu et al., 2001; Milkovich and Newman, 2008). Specifically, it consists of three major features: salary, bonus and allowance (Lowery et al., 2002; Tang, 2007; Young, 1999). Salary is often viewed as a base pay that is given to employees on a weekly, monthly or yearly basis based on job structure (e.g., basic salary, but not including incentives) (Henderson, 2006; Young, 1999). Bonus is usually seen as cash payment provided to employees based on their performance (e.g., monetary incentives for achieving job targets) (Bloom and Milkovich, 1998; Gupta and Shaw, 1998; Lowery et al., 2002). Allowance is often related to additional financial rewards legally provided to employees based on the employment contract or organization related service (e.g., entertainment allowance or allowance fixed for particular jobs or service schemes) (Bergmann & Scarpello, 2002; Milkovich and Newman, 2008). These income packages are designed to reward employees who perform a specific job or service (Anthony et al., 2002; Dessler, 2006; Ismail, 2007). Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 236 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 Income distribution is a segment of pay design issues where it is often interpreted based on two major perspectives: quantitative and qualitative. From a quantitative perspective, it is often viewed as the level and/or amount of income that an individual receives from his/her employer based on a mathematical formula, such as statistics, economics, finance and/or accounting (Henderson, 2006; Milkovich and Newman, 2008). Conversely, from a qualitative perspective, the level and/or amount of income package is often viewed based on human psychology, that is, an individual’s perception, feeling or judgement (Greenberg, 2003; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). From this perspective, employees often perceive that the level and/or amount of income package that they receive from their employers as adequate if such income packages meet their needs and expectations (Adams, 1963, 1965; Allen and White, 2002; Luna-Arocas and Tang, 1998; Tang et al., 2004b). Traditionally, most organizations design a standard income package to reward their employees based on job structure, such as position, seniority and/or length of service (Bergmann and Scarpello, 2002; Dessler, 2006; Giacobbe-Miller et al., 1998). These income packages are widely used by organizations that operate in a stable marketplace environment, but they are not able to attract, retain and motivate competent employees to sustain and increase organizational competitiveness in dynamic marketplace (Lawler, 2000; Milkovich and Newman, 2008). In the present era of global competition, many organizations have shifted their paradigms of compensation program from a traditional job based income to organizational culture and strategy (Anthony et al., 2002; Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992a, 1992b; Henderson, 2006). In order to realize this objective, an employer designs income distribution rules that align to dynamic changes that occur outside and inside organizations. External organizational factors or external competitiveness variables that the organizations have to deal with include economic pressures, government policies, law and regulations, ownership, custom and practices. Inside organizational factors are also said as internal alignment variables, which refer to corporate strategy, management philosophy, type of job and productivity level (Anthony et al., 2002; Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992a, 1992b; Milkovich and Newman, 2008). These variables strongly affect many organizations to design income distribution rules based on performance (Giacobbe-Miller et al., 1998; Henderson, 2006; Lee et Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 237 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 al., 1999). Performance based income is often referred to as provision of additional monetary rewards, on top of employees’ basic pay, based on contributions made by the employee (Gomez-Mejia and Balkin, 1992a, 1992b; Lee, et al., 1999; Milkovich and Newman, 2008). Many scholars think that job based income and performance based income use different treatments, but properly implemented, such income systems based on appropriate rules may increase pay satisfaction in organizations (Heneman et al., 1997; Tang, 1995; Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2004b). According to several scholars, pay satisfaction may be viewed as an individual who perceives that his/her employer allocates the level and/or amount of pay equitable with his/her needs and expectations, this feeling may lead to increase in the notion of pay satisfaction (Heneman et al., 1997; Lawler, 1971; Tang et al., 2002, 2004b; Roberts et al., 1999). Surprisingly, observation of such a relationship revealed that the effect of income distribution on pay satisfaction is not consistent if perceived value of money is present in the organizations (Adams, 1963, 1965; Allen and White, 2002; Lawler, 1971; Tang et al., 2004a). Perceived value of money is often interpreted based on an individual’s frame of reference and/or in the eye of the beholder (Aryee, 1999; Hoon and Lim, 2001; Tang, 1992, 1993; Tang, 2007). From this perspective, the value of money may be seen as useful and valuable if it can be used by an individual to meet basic needs, improve standard of living and increase status in society (Aryee, 1999; Furnham and Okamura, 1999; Maslow, 1943, 1945; LunaArocas and Tang, 2004; Tang, 2007). Within a pay design framework, many scholars think that income distribution; perceived value of money and pay satisfaction are distinct constructs, but highly interrelated (Aryee, 1999; Luna-Arocas and Tang, 1998, 2004; Tang, 1995; Tang and Chiu, 2003). For example, the ability of an employer to properly allocate the level and/or amount of income based on proper rules will increase pay satisfaction if employees perceive that their incomes can be used to meet their needs and expectations (Luna-Arocas and Tang, 1998, 2004; Tang et al., 2004a, 2004b). Although the nature of this relationship has been studied, the moderating effect of perceived value of money in pay distribution models is less emphasized. Perceived value of money has been less emphasized because previous studies over emphasized on a segmented approach in analyzing income distribution rules, and neglected the importance of human needs in developing income distribution Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 238 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 models. This approach may not be able to highlight the moderating role of perceived value of money in income distribution literature (Heneman et al., 1997; Tang, 1995; Tang et al., 2004a, 2004b). Hence, it motivates the researchers to examine the effect of income distribution and perceived value of money on pay satisfaction that occurs in one city based local authority in Sabah, Malaysia (MSLAUTHORITY). For confidential reasons, the name of this organization is kept anonymous. 2. Context of the Study Many researchers argue that the nature of Malaysian public service sector has become one of the key factors that strongly affect the design of pay systems in government agencies (Ismail et al., 2007; Sulaiman and Mamman, 1996). For example, several reports of the Malaysian Royal Commission on salary (Aziz Report, 1968; Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, 2002; Suffian Report, 1967) reveal that compensation policies and procedures for public sector employees in Malaysia are designed, administered and monitored by a central government agency, namely Public Service Department (PSD). For example, in 1991, the New Remuneration System (SSB) was implemented in the Malaysian public sector to strengthen the traditional job based pay by adding merit principles as a criterion to determine extra rewards for high performing employees (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, 1991; Mahathir Report, 1991). In order to increase the effectiveness of public service sector in meeting great challenges in 21st century, pay distribution rules as practiced in the SSB were replaced by the Malaysian Remuneration System (MRS) in 2002 (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, 2002; Malaysian Public Service Department, 2006). This new pay system has strongly influenced pay systems implemented in one city based local authority in Sabah, Malaysia (MSLAUTHORITY). In order to understand the nature of compensation system practiced in the organization, in-depth interviews were conducted involving one executive officer and one assistant administrative officer during and before the pilot study. In terms of income distribution, the HR department is not given sufficient autonomous power to design the income packages for all job categories, but they are allowed to use their creativities and innovations to improve the process and systems of allocating the level and/or amount of monetary rewards within the limits set up by Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 239 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 the PSD (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, 2007). In the organization, all employees are entitled to receive three types of income: salary, bonus and allowance. As a government entity, this income is determined to all employees based on job (position, seniority and/or length of service) and/or performance (merit). Employees who work in different and/or similar job groups have different views about the implementation of such distribution rules. For example, if employees perceive that the level and/or amount of income that they receive are allocated based on proper rules (i.e., job and/or performance), this will lead to higher pay satisfaction (e.g., no complaints, positive judgments and appreciate the implementation of pay systems). Further, a thorough investigation of the interview results reveals that employees who perceive the money that they receive from their employers as high value (i.e., meet basic necessities and improve standard of living), this may lead to higher pay satisfaction. The nature of this relationship is interesting, but the moderating role of perceived value of money in the income distribution model of the organization is less emphasized because of the paucity of research literature in this country (Dousin, 2008). 3. Relationship between Income Distribution and Pay Satisfaction Previous studies using a direct effects model shows that income distribution has a significant impact on pay satisfaction (Tang, 1995; Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2002, 2004b). For example, three surveys about income distribution were conducted using different samples, such as 456 employees from nursing departments in a large Midwestern hospital in a metropolitan area (Heneman et al., 1997), 390 R&D personnel in three Indian public sector (Das and Bhadury, 1997), 211 full-time employees in Hong Kong, China (Tang and Chiu, 2003), 458 participants in the Southern US (Tang, 2007), and 332 US and Belgian employees in US organizations (Harris et al., 2008). These studies found that the ability of managers to adequately allocated the level and/or amount of income based on employee contributions (e.g., job and/or performance) had strongly invoked employees’ satisfaction with pay in the organizations. Thus, we hypothesized that: H1: There is a significant relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 240 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 4. Relationship between Income Distribution, Perceived Value of Money and Pay Satisfaction Many recent studies using an indirect effects model have focused on the relationship between pay distribution, perceived value of pay and pay satisfaction, but such studies have overlooked to emphasize the moderating variable of perceived value of money in the relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction (Adams, 1963, 1965; Allen & White, 2002; Tang et al., 2004a; Williams et al., 2006). For example, two studies about pay distribution that were conducted in different samples, such as 311 university lecturers in US and Spain (Tang et al. 2004a) and 213 samples from 182 studies gathered in the metaanalysis of multiple dimensions of compensation satisfaction (Williams et al., 2006) revealed that employees who perceived the level and/or amount of income that they received from their employers could be used to fulfill their needs and expectations (e.g., basic needs, and improve standard of living, quality of life and statuses) had strongly invoked employees’ perceived value of money. Consequently, it could lead to higher pay satisfaction in the organizations (Tang et al., 2004a; Williams et al., 2006). The compensation research literature is consistent with the notion of organizational behavior theory. For example, Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1977) ABC model states that money may be viewed as an affective component (not as a devil), cognitive component (a sign of success), and behavior component (ability to use money to meet individuals’ needs and expectations). Relying on these views, individuals who perceived money as useful, important, valuable and breadwinner are individuals who have high economic values and feelings of satisfaction with high level and/or amount of income (Aryee, 1999; Tang, 1995, 2007; Tang et al., 2000, 2002). Besides that, Adams’ (1963, 1965) equity theory, Allen and White’s (2002) equity sensitivity theory and Lawler’s (1971) discrepancy theory explicitly posit that as a result of comparison between rewards (e.g., money) and job ratio will affect individuals’ cognitives and emotions, this may influence their behaviors (i.e., action) in organizations (Adams, 1963, 1965; Allen and White, 2002; Lawler, 1971). These theories have used different treatments in studying compensation issues, but the notion of expectations and perceptions of one actual received can be applied in income distribution (Blau and Kahn, 2003; Greenberg, 2003; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993). Application of the theories in Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 241 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 pay distribution framework highlights that individuals often compare outputs (e.g. income) that they receive with inputs that they contribute (e.g. education, experience, skills and effort) in organizations. If individuals perceive that they receive an equitable income-contribution ratio, this will increase their perceived value of money, which in turn, will lead to higher pay satisfaction (Lawler, 1971; Tang et al., 2004a). The literature has been used as a foundation to develop a conceptual framework for this study as shown in Figure 1. Independent Variable Moderating Variable Dependent Variable Income Distribution Pay Satisfaction Perceive Value of Money Figure 1. “Perceived value of money as a moderator in the relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction”. Source: Authors Based on the framework, it seems reasonable to assume that income distribution will influence MSLAUTHORITY employees as this feeling influences the Western employees. Organizational behavior theory suggests that if the MSLAUTHORITY employees perceive that the money that they receive from their employers as high value, this may lead to greater pay satisfaction. Therefore, we hypothesized that: H2: Perceived value of money positively moderates the effect of income distribution on pay satisfaction. 5. Methodology Data for this study were gathered through in-depth interviews, pilot study and survey questionnaires. experienced employees, In-depth namely interviews one were executive first officer conducted and one with two assistant administrative officer who have worked for more than seven years in the studied organization. They were selected based on purposive sampling where they have good knowledge and experiences about the compensation and benefits program. Information gathered from these employees helped the researchers to understand Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 242 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 the income level policies and the procedures of perceived value of money features and pay satisfaction characteristics, as well as the relationship between such variables in the studied organization. After refining, categorizing and comparing the information with relevant theoretical and empirical evidence, the triangulated outcomes were used as a guideline to develop the content of a questionnaire for a pilot study. The pilot study was conducted by discussing the questionnaire with the interviewees in order to verify the content and format of the questionnaire. Back translation technique was used to translate the items in the questionnaires into Malay and English in order to increase the validity and reliability of the instrument (Hulland, 1999; Wright, 1996). The items used to measure the research variables were shown in Table 1. Variable Income distribution Measured items* 1. The starting salary of my position are sufficient to cover my expenses. 2. The increase of my yearly salary is align with the increasing of daily expenses. 3. Annual bonus is paid to me upon my length of service / seniority. 4. Even I accomplish my task very well, the amount of salary that I receive is not aligned with current living expenses. (5) The level of my salary is higher than other private company. (6) The allowance that I received is relevant with the responsibility of my job. Source Blau and Kahn, 2003; Gupta et al.,1992; Henderson, 2006; Lee et al., 1999; Mikovich and Newman, 2008 perceived value of money 1. Money is valuable to me. 2. Money is an important factor in our life. 3. Money attract me to work harder. 4. Money is a symbol of my success, achievement and work performance. 5. Money is used to make a comparison with other employees, 6. I am motivated to work hard for money. 7. Money reinforces me to work harder. 8. Becoming rich is my dream. Tang, 1992, 1993, 1995; Luna–Arocas and Tang, 1998, 2004, Tang and Chiu, 2003, Tang et al., 2002, and Tang et al., 2004a, 2004b. 1. Information the organization gives about pay issues. Heneman and Schwab, 2. Pay of other jobs in organization. 1985. 3. Consistency of the organization pay policies. 4. Differences in pay among jobs in the pay satisfaction organization. 5. How the organization administers pay. Note: *These items were measured using a 7-item scale ranging from “strongly disagree/dissatisfied” (1) to “strongly agree/satisfied” (7). Demographic variables were used as controlling variables because this study focused on employee attitudes. Table 1. “Measurement scale” Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 243 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 The targeted population for this study was 1147 employees who worked in the studied organization. In the first step of data collection procedure, the researchers met the division/department heads to understand the rules for distributing the questionnaires in the organization. Considering the organizational rules, a convenient sampling technique was used to distribute 250 survey questionnaires to employees through contact persons (e.g., secretary of department heads, assistant managers and/or human resource managers) in organization. A total of 150 usable questionnaires were returned to the researchers, yielding a 60 percent response rate. The number of this sample exceeded the minimum sample of 30 participants as required by probability sampling technique to allow for the data to be analyzed using inferential statistics (Sekaran, 2000). The survey questionnaires were answered by participants based on their consensus and on a voluntary basis. The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 was used to analyze the data. Firstly, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to assess the validity and reliability of measurement scales (Hair et al., 1998; Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). Relying on the guidelines set up by these statisticians, a factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation was first done for all items that represented each research variable, and this was followed by other tests, that is, Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Test (KMO), Bartlett’s test of sphericity, eigenvalue, variance explained and Cronbach alpha. The value of factor analysis for all items that represent each research variable was 0.5 and more, indicating the items met the acceptable standard of validity analysis. All research variables exceeded the acceptable standard of KaiserMeyer-Olkin’s value of 0.6 and were significant in Bartlett’s test of sphericity, showing the measure of sampling adequacy for each variable was acceptable. All research variables had eigenvalues larger than 1, signifying the variables met the acceptable standard of validity analysis (Hair et al., 1998). All research variables exceeded the acceptable standard of reliability analysis of 0.70, indicating the variables met the acceptable standard of reliability analysis (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). Variables that meet the acceptable standard of validity and reliability analyses will be used in testing hypotheses. Secondly, analysis of variance, Pearson correlation analysis and descriptive statistics were conducted to analyze the research variables and the usefullnes of the data set. Finally, a hierarchical regression analysis, as recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983), was used to measure the moderating effect of perceived value Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 244 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 of money in the hypothesized model. This procedure stresses the development of a multiplicative term, which is used to encompass the interaction effect, and to calculate two R²s, one for the equation, which includes only main effects (maineffect model) and the other for a three-term equation (product-term model), which includes both the main and interaction effects. This technique may separate the component parts of the product term from the term itself to account for the complex combination of variance due to main and interaction effects. Standardized coefficients (standardized beta) were used for all analysis. Results of an interaction are evident when the relationship between interacting terms and the dependent variable is significant. The fact that the significant main effects of predictor variables and moderator variables simultaneously exist in analysis does not affect the moderator hypothesis and is significant to interpret the interaction term (Baron and Kenny, 1986). 6. Results Table 2 shows the sample profile for this study. Most respondent were female (57.4 %), aged between 26 to 35 years old (44.1 %), non-management workers (81.6 %). Many of the respondents were SPM holders (41.9 %) who had been in the workforce from to 5 years (28.7 %). Gender (%) Male =42.6 Female =57.4 Education Master Bachelor Diploma STPM SPM SRP/PMR (%) =1.0 =11.0 =22.8 =5.9 =41.9 =17.6 Length of Service (%) <1 years =7.4 1-5 years =28.7 6-10 years =17.6 11-15 years =16.2 16-20 years =5.9 > 21 years =24.3 Position (%) Management = 18.4 Non-management = 81.6 Age (%) 18-25 =15.4 26-35 =44.1 36-45 =26.5 >46 =14.0 Note: SRP/ PMR: Sijil Rendah Pelajaran Malaysia/Penilaian Menengah Rendah SPM/MCE: Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia STPM: Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia Table 2. “Participants characteristics (N=136)” Table 3 shows the results of validity and reliability analyses for measurement scales. A factor analysis with direct oblimin rotation was first done for four variables with 19 items. After that, Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin Test (KMO) which is a measure of sampling adequacy was conducted for each variable and the results indicated that it was acceptable. Relying on guidelines by Hair et al. (1998) and Nunally and Bernstein (1994), these statistical analyses showed that (1) the value Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 245 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 of factor analysis for all items that represent each research variable was 0.4 and above, indicating the items met the acceptable standard of validity analysis, (2) all research variables exceeded the acceptable standard of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin’s value of 0.6, were significant in Bartlett’s test of sphericity, and (3) all research variables had eigenvalues larger than 1 (Hair et al., 1998). Besides that, all research variables exceeded the acceptable standard of reliability analysis of .70 (Nunally and Bernstein, 1994). These statistical analyses confirmed that measurement scales used in this study have met the acceptable standard of validity and reliability analyses as shown in Table 3. Measure Income Distribution Perceived Value of Money Pay Satisfaction Items Factor Loadings KM O Bartlett Test of Sphericity 6 .50 - .76 .76 318.58 8 .44 - .87 .85 5 .75 - .94 .88 Eigenvalue Variance Explaine d Cronbac h Alpha 3.29 54.77 .83 659.47 4.54 56.79 .88 606.15 3.95 78.93 .93 Table 3. “The results of validity and reliability analyses for measurement scales” Variance analysis, Pearson correlation analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the research variables used in this study. Firstly, analysis of variance techniques are used to compare the mean scores between two or more groups in the studied organization. In this case, independent samples t-tests are used to compare two different (independent) groups of people (i.e., gender) and ANOVA is used to compare three and more different (independent) groups of people (i.e., age) (Hair et al., 1998; Yaacob, 2008). Outcomes of one-way ANOVA showed that education was found to have a significant difference, which means that income distribution, perceived value and pay satisfaction were found to be differently perceived by education level. Table 4 shows the results of Pearson correlation analysis and descriptive statistics. Mean scores for all the variables are between 4.3 and 6.0, signifying the levels of income distribution, perceived value of money, and pay satisfaction are ranging from high (4) to highest level (7). The correlation coefficients for the relationship between the independent variable (i.e., income distribution) and the moderating Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 246 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 variable (i.e., perceived value of money), and the relationship between the dependent variable (i.e., pay satisfaction) were less than 0.90, indicating that data were not affected by serious collinearity problem (Hair et al., 1998). In addition, the outcome of testing a direct effects model showed that income distribution positively and significantly correlated with pay satisfaction (r=0.55, p<0.01), therefore H1 was supported. This result demonstrates that income distribution is an important antecedent of pay satisfaction in the organizational sample. Variable Mean Standard Deviation Pearson Correlation (r) 1 2 3 1. Income Distribution 4.3 1.2 1 2. Perceived Value of Money 5.5 1.1 .30** 1 3. Pay Satisfaction 6.0 1.2 .55** .41** 1 Note: Significant at **p<0.01 Reliability estimation are shown in a diagonal (value 1) Table 4. “Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis” Variable Control Variables Gender Age Position Education Length of Services Independent Variable Income Distribution Perceived Value of Money Moderating Variable Income Distribution x Perceived Value of Money R2 Adjusted R2 R2 Change F F Change Note: Significant at ***p<0.05; ***p<0.001 Dependent Variable (Pay Satisfaction) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 .04 .03 .04 .36** .21 .19 .12 .16 .15 -.19 -.27** -.24* -.02 .04 .04 .47*** .24*** -.39 -.30 1.16** .10 .06 .10 2.74* 2.74* .42 .39 .33 13.38*** 36.23*** .45 .42 .03 12.91*** 5.95* Table 5. “Results for hierarchical regression analysis” Table 5 shows the outcomes of testing research hypothesis in Model 3. The interacting variables (income distribution x perceived value of money) significantly correlated with pay satisfaction (=1.16, p<.01), therefore H2 was supported. This result demonstrates that before the inclusion of perceived value of money in Step 2, income distribution significantly correlated with pay satisfaction (=0.47, Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 247 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 p<.0001), accounting for 42 percent of the variance in dependent variable. After the inclusion the perceived value of money in Step 3, the previous significant relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction become non significant (β=-.39, p>.05). In terms of explanatory power, the inclusion of perceived value of money in the Model 3 had explained 45 percent of the variance in dependent variable. This result meets the requirements of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) moderating model testing, which sends a message that the perceived value of money acts as a moderating variable in the relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction in the organizational sample. 7. Discussion and Implications The findings of this study confirm that perceived value of money acts as a moderating variable in the relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction in the studied organization. In the studied organization, the HR department uses the policy and procedures formulated by the stakeholder to determine standard income packages for all employees. The majority of employees perceived that employers have provided the level and/or amount of income to employees based on proper rules. Employees perceived that the level and/or amount of income that they receive have increased their perceived value of money. As a result, it may lead to an increased pay satisfaction in the organizational sample. The implications of this study can be divided into three major areas: theoretical contribution, robustness of research methodology, and practical contribution. In terms of theoretical contribution, the findings of this study has presented substantial evidence in understanding the notion of the perceived value of money (i.e., the utility of money to meet basic needs and improve standard of living) and its interaction with income distribution (i.e., allocation of monetary rewards according to proper rules) as a major predictor of pay satisfaction. This finding has supported and extended previous research conducted in most Western countries (see Adams, 1963, 1965; Allen and White, 2002; Lawler, 1971; Tang et al., 2004a, 2004b). In sum, this study confirms that the effect of income distribution on pay satisfaction is not direct, but its effect is indirectly affected by perceived value of money. The ability of managers to adequately distributed incomes based on employee contribution (job and/or merit criteria) will motivate employees to Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 248 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 perceive that the income that they receive will fulfill their basic necessities, and improve standards of living and statuses in society. Consequently, it may lead to higher pay satisfaction. Regarding the robustness of research methodology, the data gathered from compensation management literature, the in-depth interviews and the survey questionnaire have satisfactorily met the requirements of validity and reliability analysis; this may lead to the production of accurate and reliable findings. With respect to practical contributions, the findings of this study may be used as guidelines by HR practitioners to improve the design and administration of compensation system in organizations. Firstly, the level of monetary rewards need to be designed based on multiple criteria (such as job, performance, needs and/or competitor’s pay) in order to appreciate high performer contributions. Secondly, adequacy of monetary rewards need be designed not only based on mathematical formula, but also need to consider individual employee differences, such as marital status, number of children and geographical area. This allocation rule can help employees to meet their basic needs, and improve their standards of living and status in society. Thirdly, the contents and methods of compensation training program need to be renewed according to external and internal organizational changes, such as business strategy, technology advancement and job complexity. If training programs consider such changes this may increase the capabilities of HR managers and/or managers to properly design and administer pay policies, and practice good interaction styles in handling employees’ complaints and demands. Finally, human resource policies need to focus on hiring knowledgeable and experienced employees than fresh graduates to fulfill important positions (e.g., supervisory and managerial positions). For example, knowledgeable and experienced employees may use their technical skills to design creative income packages that appreciate employee contributions, human skills to tackle employees’ complaints, and conceptual skills to assist top management in formulating pay policies that support organizational strategy and goals. If these suggestions are considered and applied, this may motivate high performing employees to support the implementation of compensation management system in their organizations. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 249 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 8. Conclusion This study formulated the research model based on compensation research literature mostly published in Western settings. The valid and reliable measurement scales were used to measure the moderating effect of perceived value of money in the hypothesized model. Outcomes of testing the moderating model using a hierarchical regression analysis revealed that perceived value of money moderated the effect of income distribution on pay satisfaction, therefore hypothesis 2 (H2) was supported. Statistically, the findings confirm that the level and/or amount of income that are allocated based on proper rules have increased employees’ perceived value of money (i.e., meet their demands). As a result, it may lead to higher positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, especially pay satisfaction. This empirical result also has supported and extended compensation research literature mostly published in Western settings. Therefore, current researches and practices within the pay system models need to consider the perceived value of money as a critical aspect of income distribution. This study further suggests that the ability of HR managers and/or managers to properly design and administer pay distribution rules will help employees to receive income packages that meet their needs and expectations. As a result, it may increase employees’ appreciation and acceptance about pay systems that implemented in organizations. Thus, these positive attitudes may lead employees to maintain and sustain organizational competitiveness in the global economy. This study acknowledges several limitations. First, a cross-sectional research design was used to gather data at one point within the period of study. This may not be able to capture the developmental issues and/or causal connections between variables of interest. Second, this study did not specify the relationship between specific indicators for the independent variable, moderating variable and dependent variable. Third, the outcomes of multiple regression analysis focused on the level of performance variation explained by the regression equations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), however, a number of unexplained factors need to be incorporated to identify the causal relationship among variables and their relative explanatory power. Fourth, the survey questionnaires relied heavily on the respondents’ self-responses that were selected based on convenient sampling Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 250 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 technique. Finally, the samples were taken from one public organization that allowed the researchers to gather data via survey questionnaires. These limitations may decrease the ability of generalizing the results to other organizational settings. Future studies should be expanded to all public service agencies in Malaysia. On that same note, the study can also be replicated in the private sector to see if the findings hold in different contexts.The conceptual and methodological limitations should be considered when designing future research. Firstly, several organizational (e.g., type, ownership and size) and personal (e.g., age, education and type of pay) characteristics should be further explored, this may provide meaningful perspectives of how individual similarities and differences affect pay systems within an organization. Secondly, other research designs (e.g., longitudinal studies) should be used to collect data and describe the patterns of change and the direction and magnitude of causal relationships between variables of interest. Thirdly, to fully understand the effect of income distribution and perceive value of money on pay satisfaction, few organizations need to be used as a pay referent in future studies. Fourthly, other theoretical constructs of perceive value of money, such as perceive value of salary, perceive value of bonus and perceive value of financial claims need to be considered because they have widely been recognized as an important link between income distribution and many aspects of individual attitudes and behaviors (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, turnover, performance, and work ethics) (Anthony et al., 2002; Hoon and Lim, 2001; Mitchell and Mickel, 1999). Fifthly, other individual attitudes and behaviors such as job satisfaction, job performance, organizational commitment, turnover, and deviant behaviors should be considered because they are given more attention in compensation research literature (Ismail, 2007; Ismail et al., 2007; Tang and Chiu, 2003). The importance of these issues needs to be further elaborated in future study. References ADAMS, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67:422-436. ADAMS, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2:267-299. Academic Press, New York. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 251 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 AJZEN, I.; FISHBEIN, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analyses and review of empirical research. Psychology Bulletin, 84:888-917. ALLEN, N.J.; WHITE, J.P. (2002). The measurement and antecedent of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63:1-18. ANTHONY, W.P.; PERREWE, P.L.; KACMAR, K.M. (2002). Strategic human resource management. Harcourt Brace and Company, New York. ARYEE, S. (1999). An examination of the moderating influence of breadwinner role salience on the pay-life satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 52(10):12791290. AZIZ REPORT. (1968). Report of the Royal Commission on the teaching services. West Malaysia, Unpublished Report, Public Services Department, Malaysia. BARON, R.M; KENNY, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51:1173-1182. BERGMANN, J.J.; SCARPELLO, V.G. (2002). Compensation decision making. SouthWestern, Australia. BLAU, F.D.; KAHN, L.M. (2003). Understanding international differences in the gender pay group. American Economic Review, 21(1):106-145. BLOOM, M.; MILKOVICH, G.T. (1998). Relationships among risk, incentive pay, and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14:224-247. CHIU, R.K.; LUK, V.; TANG, T.L.P. (2001). Hong Kong and China: The cash mentality revisited. Compensation and Benefits Review, 33(3):66-72. COHEN, J.; COHEN, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. DAS, P.; BHADURY, B. (1997). Pay satisfaction of R&D personnel in manufacturing organizations: The role of career comparison process. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8(2):171-186. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 252 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 DESSLER, G. (2006). Human resource management. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. DOUSIN, O. (2008). Relationship between income distribution and pay satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived value of money, Final year project, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. DRUCKER, J.; WHITE, G. (2000). The context of reward management, in White, G., & Drucker, J. Reward Management: A Critical Text, Routledge Studies in Employment Relations, London. FURNHAM, A.; OKAMURA, R. (1999). Your money or your life: Behavioral and emotional predictors of money psychology. Human Relations, 52(9):1157-1177. GIACOBBE-MILLER, J. K; MILLER, D.J.; VICTOROV, V.I. (1998). A comparison of Russian and U. S pay allocation decisions, distributive justice judgements and productivity under different payment conditions. Personnel Psychology, 51(1):137- 364. GOMEZ-MEJIA, L.R.; BALKIN, D.B. (1992a). Compensation, organizational strategy, and firm performance. Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing Co. GOMEZ-MEJIA, L.R.; BALKIN, D.B. (1992b). The determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5):921–955. GREENBERG, J. (2003). Creating unfairness by mandating fair procedures: The hidden words of a pay-for-performance plan. Human Resource Management Review, 13(1):41-57. GUPTA, N.; SHAW, J.D. (1998). Let the evidence speak: Financial incentives are effective!. Compensation and Benefits Review, 26:28–32. GUPTA, N.; LEDFORD, G.E.; JENKINS, G.D.; DOTY, D.H. (1992). Survey-based prescriptions for skill-based pay. ACA Journal, 1(1):50-61. HAIR, J.F.; ANDERSON, R.E.; TATHAM, R.L.; BLACK, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, (5th Ed.). Prentice Hall International, Inc., New Jersey. HARRIS, M.M.; ANSEEL, F.; LIEVENS, F. (2008). Keeping up with the joneses: A field study of the relationships among upward, lateral, and Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. downward 253 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 comparisons and pay level satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3):665673. HENDERSON, R.I. (2006). Compensation Management in a Knowledge basedWorld. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. HENEMAN, H.G.; SCHWAB, D.P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multidimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychology, 20(2):129-141. HENEMAN, R. L.; PORTER, G.; GREENBERGER, D.B.; STRASSER, S. (1997). Modeling the relationship between pay level and pay satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(2):147–158. HOON, L.S.; LIM, V.K. (2001). Attitudes towards money and work: Implications for Asian management style following the economic crisis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(2):159-172. HULLAND, J. (1999). Use of partial least square (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2):195-204. ISMAIL, A. (2007). Relationship between pay distribution system, distributive justice and work attitudes and behaviours within Malaysian institution of higher learning. UNITAR E-Journal, 3(1):1-22. ISMAIL, A.; ISMAIL, Y.; SULAIMAN, M. (2007). Distributive justice, pay structure, and attitudes and behavior: A case of Malaysian public institutions of higher learning. This paper was published in the proceeding of Academy for Global Business Advancement, 4(1):619-618. JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA. (1991). Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 9 Tahun 1991: Pelaksanaan Sistem Saraan Baru Berdasarkan Laporan Jawatankuasa Khas Kabinet Mengenai Gaji Sektor Awam 1991. JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA. (2002). Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 4 Tahun 2002. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 254 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 JABATAN PERKHIDMATAN AWAM MALAYSIA. (2007). Pekeliling Perkhidmatan Bilangan 7 Tahun 2007: Pemberian Kenaikan Gaji Kepada Pegawai Perkhidmatan Awam Persekutuan Di Bawah Sistem Saraan Malaysia. LAWLER, E.E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychology view. McGraw Hill, New York. LAWLER, E.D. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. Jossey-Bass, California. LEE, C.; LAW, K.; BOBKO, P. (1999). The importance of justice perceptions on pay effectiveness: A two-year study of a skill-based pay plan. Journal of Management, 25(6):851-873. LOWERY, C.M.; BEADLES, N.A.; PETTY, M.M.; AMSLER, G.M.; THOMPSON, J.W. (2002). An empirical examination of a merit bonus plan. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14:100–117. LUNA-AROCAS, R.; TANG, T.L.P. (1998). The economic psychology of money: Analysis of the MES and the money attitudes scale (E.A.D-6). Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14(1):295-313. LUNA-AROCAS, R.; TANG, T.L.P. (2004). The love of money, satisfaction and the Protestant work ethic: Money profiles among universities professors in USA and Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(4):329-354. MAHATHIR REPORT. (1991). Report of the special committee of the Cabinet on salaries for the public sector (a translated version), Unpublished report, Public Services Department, Malaysia. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50: 370-396. Maslow, A.H. (1945). Motivation and personality. Harper and Row, New York. MCFARLIN, D.B.; SWEENEY, P.D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3):629-638. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 255 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 MILKOVICH G.T.; NEWMAN, J.M. (2008). Compensation, (9th Ed.). McGraw Hill International Edition, USA. MITCHELL, T.R.; MICKEL, A.E. (1999). The meaning of money: An individual difference perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(3):568-578. NUNALLY, J.C.; BERNSTEIN, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York. ROBERTS, J.A.; COULSON, K.R.; CHONKO, L.B. (1999). Salesperson perceptions of equity and justice and their impact on organizational commitment and intent to turnover. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(1): 1-16. SEKARAN, U. (2000). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John Wiley and Sins, Inc., New York. SKARLICKI, D.P.; FOLGER, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:434-443. SUFFIAN REPORT. (1967). Report of the Royal Commission on the Review of Salaries and Conditions of Service in the Public Services, Unpublished Report, Public Services Department, Malaysia. SULAIMAN, M.; MAMMAN, A. (1996). Managerial attitudes to pay system in the Malaysian public sector. Malaysian Management Review, 31(1):29-43. SWEENEY, P.D.; MCFARLIN, D.B. (1993). Workers’ evaluation of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1):23-49. TABACHNICK, B.G.; FIDELL, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Sydney: Allyn & Bacon. TANG, T.L.P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13:5197-202. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 256 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 TANG, T.L.P. (1993). The meaning of money: Extension and exploration of the money ethic scale in a simple of university students in Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14:93-99. TANG, T.L.P. (1995). The development of short money ethic scale: Attitudes toward money and pay satisfaction revisited. Personality and Individual Differences, 19: 809-816. TANG, T. L.P. (2007). Income and quality of life: Does the love of money make a difference?. Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4):375–393. TANG, T.L.P.; CHIU, R.K. (2003). Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and unethical behaviour: Is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong employees?. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1):13-23. TANG, T.L.P.; KIM, J.K.; TANG, D.S.H. (2000). Does attitudes toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover. Human Relations, 52(2):213-245. TANG, T.L.P.; KIM, J.K.; TANG, D.S.H. (2002). Endorsement of the money ethic, income and life satisfaction: A comparison of full-time employees, part-time employees, and non-employed university student. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17:442-467. TANG, T. L. P.; LUNA–AROCAS, R.; SUTARSO, T.; TANG, D.S.H. (2004a). Does the love of money moderate and mediate the income–pay satisfaction relationship?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19:111–135. TANG, T.L.P.; TILLERY, K.R.; LAZAREVSKI. B.; LUNA-AROCAS, R. (2004b). The love of money and work related attitudes: Money profiles in Macedonia. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19:542-548. WILLIAM, M.L.; McDANIEL, A.M.; FORD, L.R. (2006). Understanding multiple dimensions of compensation satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3):429-459. Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. 257 ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 – 5(3): 235-258 – ISSN: 1697-9818 doi: 10.3926/ic.2009.v5n3.p235-258 WRIGHT, I.L. (1996). Qualitative International Management Research, in Punnett, B.J and Shenker, O. Handbook for International Management Research, BlackWell Publishers Inc., Oxford, UK. YAACOB, M.R. (2008). SPSS for business and social science students. Pustaka Aman Press Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia. YOUNG, I.P. (1999). Salary discrimination: A test of the paradoxical female hypothesis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3):379-397. ©© Intangible Capital, 2009 (www.intangiblecapital.org) El artículo está con Reconocimiento-NoComercial 2.5 de Creative Commons. Puede copiarlo, distribuirlo y comunicarlo públicamente siempre que cite a su autor y a Intangible Capital. No lo utilice para fines comerciales. La licencia completa se puede consultar en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/es/ Empirical testing the relationship between income distribution, perceived value money… Ismail et al. View publication stats 258