Research purpose: The aim of the study was to identify certain categories of rewards that employees consider to be most important, including base pay, contingency pay, benefits, performance and career management, quality work environment, and work–home integration. The impact of these reward categories on an organisation’s ability to attract, motivate and retain employees was explored, together with the influence of demographic variables on reward preferences.

Motivation for the study: There is much debate over whether reward packages should be tailor-made to suit individual employees. It has been argued that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach with regard to rewards is no longer effective.

Research design, approach and method: A structured questionnaire, based on the total rewards model, was used to achieve the objectives of the study. A sample of 250 employees from 11 medium-sized to large-sized organisations participated in the study.

Main findings: The results showed that base pay is deemed to be the most preferred reward component amongst respondents; however, they are most dissatisfied with the level at which this reward is provided by their current employers. Base pay is also the most important reward when attracting and retaining employees. Differences between reward preferences and demographic variables, including age, gender and job level, were found.

Practical/managerial implications: Organisations should design their reward systems according to the preferences of their employees by focusing on base pay and contingency or variable pay. These rewards will also serve to retain them; although, to motivate employees, non-cash awards and recognition should be emphasised.

Contribution/value-add: This study contributes to literature on reward preferences, which is lacking in a South African context. It also provides support for segmentation of rewards based on certain demographic variables.

During the past several years, the concept of total rewards has become a popular topic of discussion. According to Heneman (2007), the shift from the phrase ‘compensation and benefits’ to ‘total rewards’ has resulted from the inability of many organisations to offer pay increases and added benefits because of intense competition in the marketplace. Employers therefore have to find alternate, less costly forms of rewards that will still attract, retain and motivate employees (Heneman, 2007). ‘Total rewards’ thus describes a reward strategy that combines compensation, employee benefits, work–life balance, personal recognition and career development in the benefits package (Armstrong & Brown, 2001; Costello, 2010; WorldatWork, 2007). These elements represent an inventory from which organisations can design reward packages that create value for the organisation and its employees. A total rewards framework allows employers to consider employee preferences in accordance with individual needs and be more flexible when designing reward packages (Bussin, 2011). It also enables organisations to identify the correct combination of rewards for its particular workforce (WorldatWork & Towers Watson, 2012). This understanding of total rewards forms the key focus of this study.

In addition, growing concern regarding the retention of high performers has resulted in employers rethinking the way in which they reward their employees (Deloitte Consulting LLP, 2008), particularly because of the shortage of skilled and executive employees in Africa (Sutherland, 2011). Businesses in Africa are struggling to find the skilled employees they require, with many skilled African graduates emigrating to developed countries (World Economic Forum et al., 2011). Meyer and Kirsten (2012) agreed with this, stating that there has been a steady loss of skilled and qualified individuals from South Africa as a result of emigration, which poses a problem because of the need for skills to promote production in the country. Furthermore, Generation X and Y employees now comprise a large part of the South African workforce, resulting in new strategies needing to be formulated to successfully retain and motivate these younger employees (Grobler et al., 2011).

In today’s turbulent working environment where competition is rife, companies are moreover under pressure to add value and demonstrate flexibility in dealing with new challenges and opportunities (Armstrong & Brown, 2001). South Africa in particular is characterised by strong market competition (World Economic Forum et al., 2011), especially because globalisation has driven the need to be competitive (Swanepoel, Erasmus & Schenk, 2008). Demographic and sociological changes (Vandenberghe, St-Onge & Robineau, 2008), as well as differences in employee preferences as a result of generational differences and life stages (Giancola, 2008) and cultural influences (Chiang & Birtch, 2007), all present employers with major challenges when attracting, retaining and motivating employees. Companies are now required to adopt innovative ways of management in order to differentiate themselves in the labour market (Heneman, 2007), particularly with regard to how their reward systems are developed and managed. Organisations have responded to these pressures by adopting more flexible structures such as total reward packages, which better position organisations to attract and retain high quality employees (Bussin, 2011).

However, Nienaber and Bussin (2011) explained that it is virtually impossible for large-sized and medium-sized companies to administer rewards based on the unique preferences of individuals, because of the difficulty such companies would experience in administering and governing thousands of unique reward profiles. One manageable way to address this issue is to design reward packages according to different employee groups or segments. This would entail clustering various types of rewards depending on the needs of certain employee segments. For example, according to Mercer’s seventh global total rewards survey (Mercer, 2008), different rewards are often offered for different employee groups specifically according to job level, job family, business unit, product line or lifecycle, as well as geographic location. Further examples of ways by which to segment a workforce include categorising it by generation, age, gender, family size, occupation, educational level or religion (Du Toit, Erasmus & Strydom, 2007). Segmentation is one of three key principles that, once applied to organisations’ reward and talent management models, will result in significant improvements to both talent return on investment and human capital risk management (WorldatWork & Towers Watson, 2012).

Chiang and Birtch (2006) stated that demographic variables such as gender affect reward preferences. Nienaber et al.’s (2011) research showed that women have a stronger preference for remuneration and benefits as well as for a conducive working environment. Additionally, Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb and Corrigall (2000) revealed that men place greater importance on career advancement and promotions as well as increased responsibility without the interference from managers. However, Fisher and Yuan (1998) found no gender differences in reward preferences such as wages, working conditions, interesting work and growth and promotion opportunities. Similarly, Chow and Ngo (2002) established that a high salary and good working conditions are considered to be important by both male and female employees.

In terms of age, it has been found that needs change as employees get older; for example, employees who are older value rewards such as flexible work arrangements and skill development rather than cash compensation (Hedge, Borman & Lammlein, 2006). Therefore, it can be suggested that a higher age is related to a preference for rewards that offer work flexibility and training and development opportunities. This is in contrast with research by Cennamo and Gardner (2008), who discovered that extrinsic rewards such as pay and benefits are valued more highly by older employees than younger employees. Lawton and Chernyshenko (2008) concluded that young employees with simpler jobs value training and development opportunities more than their older peers, a finding that is also contrary to that of Hedge et al. (2006). Nienaber et al. (2011) discovered that reward categories, such as remuneration and benefits, as well as a conducive working environment, are valued more by younger employees, reducing in need as employees age. Younger employees also may prefer more tangible rewards, such as medical plans or maternity or paternity leave, whereas older employees may value stock options or retirement plan contributions (Mehta, Anderson & Dubinsky, 2000). Furthermore, Fisher and Yuan (1998) found that younger employees place more importance on promotion, growth in skills, as well as interesting work, whereas older employees value job security and sympathetic help with personal problems more than their younger peers.

Based on the above, it is suggested that if employers have an understanding of the demographic characteristics of employees, they will be able to design rewards packages such as personal benefit schemes that will create unique value for their employees and ultimately lead to a competitive advantage in the labour market (Lawton & Chernyshenko, 2008).

Presently, four distinct generations of people are interacting in the workplace (Murphy, 2007). Generational experts typically place individuals into the following generations according to their birth date: Veterans, the Silent Generation, Traditionalists or the GI Generation (1925–1942), Baby Boomers (1943–1960), Generation X (1961–1981) and Generation Y or Millennials (1982–Present) (Giancola, 2008). According to Bussin (2011), each generation has a different view on rewards. The most valued rewards for Veterans are flexible schedules, part-time hours and recognition of expertise and experience. Baby Boomers prefer recognition of hard work, healthcare and retirement benefits and autonomy. Generation X values flexible work arrangements, work–life balance and rewards that are tangible. Lastly, learning and development opportunities, immediate performance feedback, working in teams and having positive role models are important to Generation Y (Hewlett, Sherbin & Sumberg, 2009; Reynolds, 2005; Zingheim & Schuster, 2008). Cennamo and Gardner (2008) also discovered that Generation Y employees value work–life balance, freedom and flexibility in their jobs.

Despite the above research, Jorgensen (2003) questioned whether there is enough empirical evidence to base workplace strategies and practices on the differing values, likes and dislikes of the generations. According to findings of research conducted by Noble and Schewe (2003), there was no empirical evidence to support the validity of generational segmentation in the workforce. In South Africa, research conducted by Moore (2009) and Nienaber et al. (2011) revealed that different generations do not have different reward preferences. The implication therefore is that structuring reward packages around generational differences can lead to dissatisfaction amongst employees.

However, Smola and Sutton (2002) argued that companies do need to examine their reward systems in relation to the needs and expectations of generational groups, because failure to address these differences can result in lower levels of employee productivity, conflict in the workplace and miscommunication. This is especially because employees in different generational groups expect the rewards they receive to meet their individual needs (Dencker et al., 2007). Yet, a survey conducted in 2008 to gain insight into how employers are handling the challenge of rewarding a multigenerational workforce revealed that 56% of organisations do not even consider generational differences when designing and implementing total reward programmes (WorldatWork, 2008). This means that although there is an awareness of generational differences, organisations may be underestimating the importance of addressing the needs of each generation and rewarding them accordingly (WorldatWork, 2008).

In terms of retention, Grobler et al. (2011) noted that inadequate compensation is often the cause of turnover. This is confirmed in the South African context by Mohlala, Goldman and Goosen (2012), who found that monetary rewards were lacking in their organisation under study. This negatively affected retention, especially for those who had been employed there for longer periods of time. Respondents confirmed that employees had left the organisation to move to where they had been offered better salaries. Good benefits can also be used to increase retention, but Phillips and Gully (2012) mentioned that this will only affect retention positively if employees understand and appreciate the benefits provided. Furthermore, these authors suggest that workplace flexibility, in the form of alternate job arrangements, could assist in retaining employees, because arrangements such as job sharing, flextime and telecommuting could help employees to better balance their work and home lives. Recognition of performance is also stated by Rose (2011) as helping to reduce employee turnover, as well as improve the engagement and motivation of employees.

Armstrong and Brown (2009, p. 53) stated that strategic rewards can assist an organisation in establishing itself as a ‘great place to work’, which will result in attracting high-performing individuals to work there and thereafter remain working there. The ability of rewards to recruit and retain can thus be incorporated as evaluation criteria for assessing the effectiveness of rewards, such as by measuring rates of involuntary turnover and the retention of high performance or key skill staff (Armstrong & Cummins, 2011).

Rewards and recognition have also been shown to lead to engagement, which comprises motivation, commitment and organisational citizenship and, in turn, leads to improved performance (Armstrong et al., 2010). Motivation can be improved by rewarding good performance and offering incentives (Grobler et al., 2011). These authors elaborate that organisations can make use of rewards such as promotions and merit increases, as well as intrinsic rewards such as goal accomplishment, to encourage continued high levels of performance from employees.

Therefore, based on the above, the research question for this study is: ‘What preferences do South African employees hold in terms of rewards?’

The biographical profile of the sample is summarised in Table 1. It is evident from this table that there was a fairly equal distribution of genders and that the majority of respondents earned over R20 000.00 per month, were White, married, had over four people in their household, held a postgraduate qualification and had been working for their current employer for over 10 years.

As a result of these modifications to the original RPQ, the questionnaire was piloted with 15 randomly selected respondents in industry. After completing the pilot study, suggestions from the respondents were noted and the questionnaire was amended accordingly. Based on the above insight into the development of the questionnaire, an explanation of the questionnaire’s two sections will now be provided.

Section A – Demographics: Section A contained demographic variables in order to determine their influence on reward preferences. The items included gender, age, racial group, marital status, level of education, number of members in the household, household income per month, job level, job category and years of service. The response format consisted of a range of options for each item and respondents were asked to select the box which best represented their own personal characteristics.

Section B – Reward preferences: Section B consisted of three sub-sections that collected responses with regard to different reward categories. Section B1 aimed to determine the importance of the reward categories included in the total rewards mix model, as well as the levels of satisfaction that the respondents experienced with the rewards that they currently receive from their employers. This section was divided into six categories or dimensions of rewards, with a total of 42 items. Examples of items in each category are:

• Base pay: ‘A market-related salary’.
• Contingency or variable pay: ‘Merit increases linked to personal performance’.
• Benefits: ‘Medical aid benefits through a medical aid scheme’.
• Performance and career management: ‘Constructive feedback on my performance’.
• Quality work environment: ‘A good working relationship with my colleagues’.
• Work–home integration: ‘The ability to work flexible working hours’.

A five-point Likert scale was used to measure both reward preferences (importance) and satisfaction. The scale ranged from 1 = ‘Not important at all’ to 5 = ‘Extremely important’ for reward preferences and 1 = ‘Very dissatisfied’ to 5 = ‘Very satisfied’ for satisfaction.

In Section B2, respondents were requested to indicate which of the six reward categories listed above would have an impact on an organisation’s ability to attract, retain and motivate them. The aim of this sub-section was to understand the key elements in the total rewards model that would attract, retain and motivate talented and high performing employees.

Section B3 consisted of two open-ended, ranking questions. The first question asked the respondents to list two rewards in order of importance, excluding salary, which they would include in their total rewards package. The second question asked the respondents to list the two most important factors, such as lifestyle, economic situation or family, which would affect their reward choices. The aim of these questions was to enable the respondents to express their attitudes and opinions and to assist the researchers in interpreting the answers to the structured questions in the previous sub-sections.

Data for this study were collected in two ways. Originally, electronic questionnaires in Microsoft Word format were sent to respondents (Format 1). However, when the response rate for these questionnaires proved low because respondents had to email the questionnaires back to the researchers, it was decided to develop an online version of the questionnaire using an online survey tool to assist in increasing the response rate (Format 2). The advantages of using online questionnaires are that the response time is shorter and the data are collected into a central database, therefore saving time and resources associated with the data capturing process (Ilieva, Baron & Healey, 2001).

Respondents were given 2 weeks to complete the questionnaire and either return it to the researchers via electronic email (Format 1) or complete the questionnaire via the online survey tool (Format 2). A total of 124 responses were received via electronic mail from the respondents (Format 1) and a total of 126 responses were received from the online questionnaire (Format 2), bringing the total number of respondents to 250. Once the completed questionnaires were received in either of these formats, the responses were captured electronically in one central database and sent for statistical analysis.

From Table 2, it can be seen that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient scores were almost all greater than 0.60, the recommended minimum value for reliability (Malhotra, 2010). One exception was the importance score for contingency pay, with a value of 0.52. However, with this exception, the observed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients confirmed the reliability of the reward categories’ summated scores.

The extent to which each of the six reward categories had an impact on an organisation’s ability to attract, retain and motivate respondents is reflected in Table 3, in which the reward categories are ranked in order of importance based on mean scores. It is seen from this table that base pay (monthly salary or remuneration) is the reward that most strongly attracts and retains employees, whereas performance recognition and career management is the reward that most strongly motivates employees.

Inspection of the groups based on the significance of between-factor mean score differences, revealed the following with regard to the ranking of reward categories as perceived by respondents:

• Importance: base pay is the most important reward factor, whilst contingency pay, performance and career management and quality work environment are the second most important, followed by benefits in third place and, finally, work–home integration.

• Satisfaction: respondents were most and second-most satisfied with quality work environment and benefits, respectively. Grouped together in third place were performance and career management, work–home integration and base pay. The least satisfactory reward category was contingency pay.

• Attract, retain and motivate: there were no significant differences amongst the top four rewards, that is, base pay, performance and career management, contingency pay and work–home integration. Benefits and quality work environment were single factor groups placed second and third.

It is worth noting from these results that whilst base pay was deemed the most important reward category and also placed first with regard to its impact to attract, reward and motivate employees, it came second last in terms of respondents being satisfied with this reward.

Multivariate ANOVA was conducted to determine which, if any, of the biographical variables are related to the importance of rewards construct. The biographical variables are listed in Table 5, a summary of the results of the first MANOVA iteration. It is evident that gender, age and job level have a statistically significant relationship with importance, because their p-values were lower than the significance value of 0.05.

Table 7 indicates the statistics for those factors related to biographical variables according to the significant results shown in Table 6. A small practically significant difference can be seen when Cohen’s d statistic falls in the interval of 0.20 < |d| < 0.50 and a moderate practically significant difference is found when Cohen’s d statistic falls in the interval of 0.50 < |d| < 0.80.

• Gender: men perceive base pay, quality work environment and work–home integration as less important than women.

• Age: employees in the age group 18 – 29 years regard base pay and contingency pay as less important than older employees. The younger the employee is, the more important he or she deems work–home integration.

• Job level: the job levels ranked according to the perceived importance of benefits for the group are: administrative or clerical, followed by junior management, specialist or professional, general management and, finally, senior management. The differences amongst groups are significant, except for those between junior management, specialist or professional and general management.

Respondents were asked in the last two open-ended questions to list, in order of importance, the two most important rewards (excluding salary or base pay) that they would include in their total reward package and the two most important factors that would affect their reward choices. The results of the content analysis are depicted in Tables 8 and 9, ranked in order of importance based on the number of first-placed responses. It is evident from Table 8 that contingency pay, benefits and performance and career management are the top three rewards mentioned in terms of importance (similar to findings in Table 4). Family needs, lifestyle and financial security are the most important factors influencing the choice of rewards, according to Table 9.

The results in Table 4 also reveal that whilst base pay and contingency or variable pay were deemed to be important reward categories and were also placed first with regard to their impact on attracting, rewarding and motivating employees (in line with findings by WorldatWork, Scott, McMullen & Royal, 2012), respondents were the most dissatisfied with both of these categories. This suggests that organisations are not providing their employees with sufficient financial rewards to fund their needs outside of work, or to ensure that their chosen or desired lifestyles can be maintained. Interestingly though, quality work environment was show to be the least important factor in attracting, retaining and motivating employees (Table 3); yet, respondents were most satisfied with this element of their total reward package (Table 4). This indicates that employers are not focusing their efforts on ensuring that employees are satisfied with those rewards that hold the greatest importance in attracting, motivating and retaining employees, such as base and contingency pay.

Table 3 showed that performance and career management was rated the most important reward in terms of motivating employees and rated the second-most important factor in retaining staff. This supports research conducted by WorldatWork (2010) that showed that performance and development rewards were most important in motivating and retaining employees. Therefore, although pay is one of the most important factors when it comes to attracting and retaining employees, organisations should not only use this element of rewards to attract, retain and motivate employees but rather non-financial elements as well (Hill & Tande, 2006). As stated by Chen and Hsieh (2006), high performing employees with valuable skills work for more than just money, looking for a job that can offer them an optimistic future, an opportunity for professional and personal growth, a positive working environment, as well as recognition.

The study also aimed to determine whether certain demographic variables were related to the importance of rewards. Table 5 indicates that gender, age and job level were found to be related to reward preferences, whereas marital status, education level and number of household members held no relationship with the importance of rewards. In terms of gender, the results in Table 7 revealed that women prefer base pay, quality work environment and work–home integration more than men. The fact that women place more importance on pay and a conducive working environment is in line with South African findings by Nienaber et al. (2011), yet is in contrast to Chow and Ngo’s (2002) study that showed that both male and female employees consider high salary and good working conditions to be important in their jobs. The finding that women place more importance on integrating their work and home lives is also in contrast to findings by Paddey and Rousseau (2011), who found no gender differences in South Africa with regards to restructuring work to accommodate one’s home life such as family responsibilities. Work–family conflict can have serious implications for organisations, such as poor performance, lower levels of commitment and loyalty and an increase in employee turnover rates (Fu & Shaffer, 2001; Thornthwaite, 2004), no matter whether experienced by men or women. This was confirmed in the present study, with work–home integration being found to be a key factor in the attraction, retention and motivation of employees. Additionally, in a 2009 job satisfaction survey, 46% of employees rated flexibility to balance life and work as very important (Society for Human Resource Management, 2009), regardless of gender. Thus, organisations cannot downplay the importance of work–home integration both to male and female employees.

Job level was found in this study to influence employees’ preference for benefits, with administrative and junior management level employees exhibiting the highest preference for benefits. This finding correlates with Nienaber et al.’s (2011) South African study, in which it was discovered that employees occupying lower level jobs, such as administrative and junior management levels, had significantly higher preferences for remuneration and benefits when compared to senior and executive management. The researchers suggest that this could be because employees first need to be satisfied with pay and benefits before intrinsic rewards such as career management or work–home integration can be effective in motivating individuals. This is in line with Tang and West (1997), who stated that when people have enough money, they may then turn their attention to satisfying intrinsic needs such as recognition, achievement and career advancement.

With regard to age, the study showed that respondents in the age group 18–29 years (Generation Y) place less importance on base pay and contingency or variable pay than older respondents. This is in contrast to Nienaber et al. (2011), who found no significant differences in reward preferences amongst generations in South Africa, with all generations stating that salary and benefits are important aspects of rewards. Yet, Cennamo and Gardner (2008) found that older employees value extrinsic rewards, such as pay and benefits, more than younger employees, which is in line with the present study’s findings. They argued that this may be as a result of the career stage of employees; that is, older employees may be at a stage in their working career where they receive higher salaries and benefits, therefore placing more importance on these types of rewards.

Younger employees, on the other hand, place more emphasis on rewards such as work–home integration, as revealed in Table 7. In support of this finding, Cennamo and Gardner (2008) discovered that employees who fall into the Generation Y category value freedom in their jobs, such as work–life balance, and prefer rewards that allow them to have a more flexible lifestyle. Owing to the changing demographics of the workforce, companies are becoming more aware of the importance of these types of benefits, especially for the younger generation (Milkovich et al., 2011).

The present findings do not agree with Giancola (2008) and Cennamo and Gardner’s (2008) statements that employees prefer to select their benefits according to their life stage (for example, retirement benefits being less important to employees in their twenties but becoming more important as they age), because no significant age differences were found for benefits. However, based on the other generational results discovered, this study does support certain generational reward differences.

These results adequately answer the research question posed earlier, as they have demonstrated the preferences that South African employees hold in terms of rewards.

However, Rose (2011) explained that non-cash awards, such as retail shop vouchers, magazine subscriptions or tickets to sporting events, should in fact be emphasised in the workplace for their motivational ability, instead of cash incentives. This is because the tangible effect of such a non-cash award will last longer than a cash award and such awards can be tailored to the interests and needs of employees, thus making them more personal. Furthermore, contingent pay in the form of incentives often results in the majority of employees not receiving the incentive and thus being demotivated instead of motivated. Recognition of achievement should thus be used as a motivator instead, provided it is differentiated from an employee’s base pay and the message conveyed is one of celebrating success. This will reinforce current effective performance as opposed to incentivising performance through a typical carrot-and-stick incentive plan (Rose, 2011). As stated by this author, incentives extrinsically motivate employees, resulting in ‘the danger of destroying some intrinsic motivation by putting a price on it through cash’ (Rose, 2011, p. 109). Organisations need to bear this in mind when developing incentive and recognition programmes.

The results of this study provide useful guidelines for organisations to structure their reward packages according to the needs and preferences of their employees based on factors such as gender and age, for example by emphasising work–home integration to women and younger employees, or providing flexible or ‘cafeteria’ styles of benefit arrangements to employees of differing job levels (see Meyer & Kirsten, 2012). This emphasises the fact that traditional forms of rewards are no longer solely applicable in today’s diverse workforce and employers need to understand that rewards now encompass the overall value that a company offers its employees. Furthermore, family needs, lifestyle, financial security and career ambitions were all found to be important factors affecting the reward choices of employees. A rewards programme that does not take such examples of employees’ needs into account may decrease the motivation levels of employees (Salie & Schlechter, 2012).

Additionally, research that focuses more specifically on reward preferences amongst generations, such as Generation X and Y differences, would be useful in today’s working environment where organisations are dealing with a workforce composed of four different generations. This is in line with Giancola (2006), who specified that generational research is lacking in academic journals, which incorrectly indicate to experts that the concept lacks long-term value.

This study did not investigate two other important influences on the attractiveness of elements in total rewards packages, namely cultural and personality influences, which were briefly discussed in the literature review. These aspects have been empirically measured in previous studies internationally but have been largely neglected within South African research. Culture and personality thus indicate avenues for future research within a multicultural country such as South Africa.

Categories of generations differ from culture to culture and nation to nation and the use of the existing cohort model may be inadequate for a South African analysis. Further research is thus required into appropriate South African categories. Additionally, the influences of culture and personality on reward preferences was introduced in the literature review, but were not investigated empirically in this study. Finally, a range of variables were analysed in relation to reward preferences, but a more focused analysis of specific variables in relation to reward preferences is necessary in future research.

Armstrong, M., & Brown, D. (2009). Strategic reward: Implementing more effective reward management. London: Kogan Page.

Armstrong, M., Brown, D., & Reilly, P. (2010). Evidence-based reward management: Creating measurable business impact from your pay and reward practices. London: Kogan Page.

Armstrong, M., & Cummins, A. (2011). The reward management toolkit: A step-by-step guide to designing and delivering pay and benefits. London: Kogan Page.

Bussin, M. (2011). The remuneration handbook for Africa. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.

Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person- organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904385

Chen, H., & Hsieh, Y. (2006). Key trends of the total reward system in the 21st century. Compensation and Benefits Review, 38(6), 64–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886368706292542

Chiang, F.F.T., & Birtch, T.A. (2005). A taxonomy of reward preference: Examining country differences. Journal of International Management, 11(3), 357–375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2005.06.004

Chiang, F.F.T., & Birtch, T.A. (2006). An empirical examination of reward preferences within and across national settings. Management International Review, 46(5), 573–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11575-006-0116-4

Chiang, F.F.T., & Birtch, T.A. (2007). The transferability of management practices: Examining cross-national differences in reward preferences. Human Relations, 60(9), 1293–1330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726707082849

Chiu, R.K., Luk, V.W., & Tang, T.L. (2002). Retaining and motivating employees: Compensation preferences in Hong Kong and China. Personnel Review, 31(4), 402–431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480210430346

Chow, I.H.S., & Ngo, H. (2002). Gender differences in job attribute preferences and job choice of university students in China. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 18(2), 15–25.

Corby, S., Palmer, S., & Lindop, E. (2009). Trends and tensions: An overview. In S. Corby, S. Palmer & E. Lindop (Eds.), Rethinking reward, (pp. 3–20). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Costello, R. (2010). Communicating total rewards: Spotlight on the employee value proposition. Aon Consulting: Ready e-newsletter, 2(7), 1–3. Retrieved June 14, 2012, from http://www.aon.com/attachments/total_rewards_spotlight.pdf

Deloitte Consulting LLP. (2008). 2008 Top five total rewards priorities survey. Retrieved 11 May, 2009, from https://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_consulting_hc_2008Top5TotalRewards_130508.pdf

Deloitte Development LLP. (2009). Under pressure: Compensation and retention during a turbulent economy. Retrieved 11 May, 2009, from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Austria/Local%20Assets/Documents/Studien/HC/019_2009_Under%20pressure.pdf

Dencker, J.C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J.J. (2007). Employee benefits as context for intergenerational conflict. Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 208–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.04.002

Du Toit, G.E., Erasmus, B.J., & Strydom, J.W. (2007). Introduction to business management. (7th edn.). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Fisher, C.D., & Yuan, X.Y. (1998). What motivates employees? A comparison of US and Chinese responses. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 9(3), 516–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095851998341053

Fu, C.K., & Shaffer, M.A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain-specific determinants of work-family conflict. Personnel Review, 30(5), 502–522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005936

Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality. Human Resource Planning, 29(4), 32–37.

Giancola, F. (2008). Should generation profiles influence rewards strategy? Employee Relations Law Journal, 34(1), 56–68.

Grobler, P.A., Wärnich, S., Carrell, M.R., Elbert, N.F., & Hatfield, R.D. (2011). Human resource management in South Africa. (4th edn.). Andover: Cengage Learning.

Gross, S.E., & Friedman, H.M. (2004). Creating an effective total reward strategy: Holistic approach better supports business success. Benefits Quarterly, 20(3), 7–12.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. (6th edn.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hedge, J.W., Borman, W.C., & Lammlein, S.E. (2006). The aging workforce: Realities, myths, and implications for organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11325-000

Heneman, R.L. (2007). Implementing total rewards strategies: A guide to successfully planning and implementing a total rewards system. Retrieved August 14, 2012, from http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/documents/07rewardsstratreport.pdf

Herman, R.E., & Gioia, J.L. (2000). How to become an employer of choice. Winchester: Oakhill Press.

Hewlett, S.A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y and Boomers will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7/8), 71–76.

Hill, B., & Tande, C. (2006). Total rewards: The employment value proposition. Workspan, 10(6), 19–22. Retrieved June 11, 2010, from http://www.tandehill.com/pdfs/Total-Rewards.pdf

Ilieva, J., Baron, S., & Healey, N.M. (2001). On-line surveys in international marketing research: Pros and cons. Retrieved June 09, 2010, from http://www.e-space.mmu.ac.uk/e-space/bitstream/2173/1640/1/ilieva%2520wp01_10.pdf

Jiang, Z., Xiao, Q., Qi, H., & Xiao, L. (2009). Total reward strategy: A human resources management strategy going with the trend of the times. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(11), 177–183.

Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y? Policy implications for defence forces in the modern era. Foresight, 5(4), 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636680310494753

Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593

Lawler, E.E. (2000). Rewarding excellence: Pay strategies for the new economy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawton, K.E., & Chernyshenko, O.S. (2008). Examining determinants of employee benefit preference: Joint effects of personality, work values, and demographics. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(2), 220–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1038411108091759

Malhotra, N.K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation. (6th edn.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Human resource management at work: People management and development. (3rd edn.). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Mehta, R., Anderson, R.E., & Dubinsky, A.J. (2000). The perceived importance of sales managers’ rewards: A career stage perspective. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 15(7), 507–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620010351779

Mercer (2008). Mercer snapshot survey: Total rewards – US report. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from http://www.imercer.com/uploads/US/pdfs/mercer_us_total_rewards_survey_%20sept2008.pdf

Meyer, M., & Kirsten, M. (2012). Introduction to human resource management. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Milkovich, G.T., Newman, J.M., & Gerhart, B. (2011). Compensation. (10th edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mohlala, J., Goldman, G.A., & Goosen, X. (2012). Employee retention within the information technology division of a South African bank. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(2), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v10i2.438

Moore, A. (2009). Reward preferences for generations in selected ICT companies. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.

Murphy, S.A. (2007). Leading a multigenerational workforce. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/cs/misc/leading_a_multigenerational_workforce.pdf

Nienaber, R., & Bussin, M. (2011). Remuneration policy and strategy. In M. Bussin (Ed.), The remuneration handbook for Africa: A practical and informative handbook for managing reward and recognition in Africa, (pp. 1–18). Randburg: Knowres Publishing.

Nienaber, R., Bussin, M.H.R., & Henn, C. (2011). The relationship between personality types and reward preferences. Acta Commercii, 11(2), 56–79.

Noble, S.M., & Schewe, C.D. (2003). Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity. Journal of Business Research, 56(12), 979–987. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00268-0

Paddey, M., & Rousseau, G.G. (2011). The effects of the global recession on the work restructuring levels of managers in the South African automotive industry. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 14(3), 346–360.

Pfau, B.N., & Kay, I.T. (2002). The five key elements of a total rewards and accountability orientation. Benefits Quarterly, 18(3), 7–15.

Phillips, J.M., & Gully, S.M. (2012). Strategic staffing. (2nd edn.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Price, A. (2011). Human resource management. (4th edn.). Andover: Cengage Learning.

Reynolds, LA. (2005). Communicating total rewards to the generations. Benefits Quarterly, 21(2), 13–17.

Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S., & Goldberg, L.R. (2005). The structure of conscientiousness: An empirical investigation based on several major personality questionnaires. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 103–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00301.x

Rose, M. (2011). A guide to non-cash reward. London: Kogan Page.

Salie, S., & Schlechter, A. (2012). A formative evaluation of a staff reward and recognition programme. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v10i3.422

Schuler, R.S., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Understanding compensation practice variations across firms: The impact of national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(1), 159–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490030

Smola, K.W., & Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.147

Society for Human Resource Management. (2009). 2009 Employee job satisfaction: Understanding the factors that make work gratifying. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/documents/09-0282_emp_job_sat_survey_final.pdf

Sutherland, M. (2011). Foreword. In M. Bussin (Ed.), The remuneration handbook for Africa. Randburg: Knowres Publishing.

Swanepoel, B.J., Erasmus, B.J., & Schenk, H.W. (2008). South African human resource management: Theory and practice. (4th edn.). Cape Town: Juta.

Tang, T.L., & West, W.B. (1997). The importance of human needs during peacetime, retrospective peacetime, and the Persian Gulf War. International Journal of Stress Management, 4(1), 47–62.

Thornthwaite, L. (2004). Working time and work–family balance: A review of employees’ preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 166–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1038411104045360

Vandenberghe, C, St-Onge, S., & Robineau, E. (2008). An analysis of the relation between personality and the attractiveness of total rewards components. Industrial Relations, 63(3), 425–453.

Westerman, J.W., Beekun, R.I., Daly, J., & Vanka, S. (2009). Personality and national culture: Predictors of compensation strategy preferences in the United States of America and India. Management Research News, 32(8), 767–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170910977988

WorldatWork. (2007). WorldatWork total rewards model: A framework for strategies to attract, motivate and retain employees. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.worldatwork.org/pub/total_rewards_brochure.pdf

WorldatWork. (2008). Rewarding a multigenerational workforce. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=28411

WorldatWork. (2010). The relative influence of total rewards elements on attraction, motivation and retention. Retrieved June 18, 2012, from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=37008

WorldatWork, Scott, D., McMullen, T., & Royal, M. (2012). Retention of key talent and the role of rewards. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=62016

WorldatWork, & Towers Watson. (2012). The talent management and rewards imperative for 2012: Leading through uncertain times. Retrieved August 12, 2012, from http://www.worldatwork.org/waw/adimLink?id=56563

World Economic Forum, World Bank, & African Development Bank. (2011). The Africa competitiveness report 2011. Retrieved January 18, 2013, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_Africa_Report_2011.pdf

Zingheim, P.K., & Schuster, J.R. (2001). Winning the talent game: Total rewards and the better workforce deal! Compensation and Benefits Management, 17(3), 33–39.

Zingheim, P.K., & Schuster, J.R. (2008). Managing total compensation to achieve multiple objectives. MWorld, 7(1), 37–40.