1

Personality traits, satisfaction with fairness of PBI’s system and research1performance of university teachers in Public sector universities of Pakistan2

345

Abstract67

This study aimed to describe how incentives and personality types are perceived to be having8impact on research performance of teachers working in the Public sector universities of9Pakistan. Study tested the relationship hypothesis of the personality types as well as10expectancy, instrumentality and valence of performance based incentives and their perceived11impact on research performance and output. It has also discussed incentive types and their12motivational impact on research output. A survey was conducted from 130 faculty members out13of total 650 faculty members on the basis of probability sampling technique named as stratified-14cum- judgmental sampling technique from one of the major public sector universities of Pakistan15named as Punjab University. The instrument comprised measuring various dimensions of three16variables personality type, performance based incentives and research performance. The17findings are based on an analysis of data by not only using quantitative (SPSS software) but18also qualitative research methods (content analysis and interviews).19

Keywords:Personality; Incentives; research; Performance; TTS faculty20

2122

23

24

25

26

2728293031

INTRODUCTION32

There is strong desire among all the stakeholders of public universities to diagnose the33problems, which are underpinning the university’s performance especially their unsatisfactory34grading by the local and international organization.In this connection, among other factors,35performance related rewards along with personality traits of the teachers working in universities,36could have a significant bearing on the teacher’s motivation and commitment towards better37research performance. For instance the success of a merit pay plan rests on employees’38perceptions of the link between pay and performance and on their perceived fairness of the39procedures for merit decisions(D. Eskew & Heneman, 2002).Several researchers have40

UNDER PEER REVIEW

2

recognized that it is important to identify what types of teachers are inclined to engage in41research activity(Barnes, 1997; Bendapudi & Berry, 1997)However, so far there has been no42such empirical research available providing detail insight of this issue in the context of Pakistan.43Therefore, there was a compelling need to bridge the gap to add value to the public university’s44performance management system. The research has identified the different personality traits of45the faculty, structure of existing Performance based system with regard to transparency and46fairness issues, type of research performance measures and standards used. It has also47assessed the types of incentives given, level of teacher’s satisfaction towards PBI system48(TTS) and its impact on their research performance in particular and departmental and49universityperformance in general. It has also envisaged perceived risks and challenges relating50to optimum utilization of PBS system and for improving research performance. That can be51used as a basis to formulate practical guidelines and suggestions for decisive management of52public universities in Pakistan. Such guidelines is an attempt to provide basis for gearing up the53motivation level of teacher staff to the highest and sustainable levels so that desired standards54of quality higher education are achieved in public sector universities in particular and private55universities in genera can be met.56

LITERATURE REVIEW57

Personality traits5859

In English, more than 18,000 personality terms have been used (Allport & Odbert, 1936).60Allport (1937) has defined traits as a structured mental makeup that changes from an individual61to individual, and which sets off behavior. Cattell (1973) found out that traits should be62understood by real world actions not solely under laboratory like setting. Allport (1961)63discussed that during one situation, any given traitmay notsuccessfully predict behavior. The64major traits like extraversion and neuroticism are supposed to be associated to some basictraits65of an individual, which may even be genetically effected(Eysenck, 1967).Cattell (1946) mainly66emphasizedon the use of questionnaire items for measuring personality. He cut down67thequantumof traitvariables to thirty five, and assessed personality through sixteen personality68factor questionnaires. Despite the importance of this instrument, new measures were also69introduced after it.70

Fiske (1949) reassessed the Cattell's measuringtoolby adding more factors using personality71trait terms. This was further discussed by (Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981). Norman72(1963)indicated that five alike factors could be got from personality ratings from the subject's73peers. Tupes and Christal (2006)studied theinterdependence of personalitytraits by giving74following five major factors. Although it is not currently adopted ( 1) Surgency;(2) Agreeable;(3)75Dependability( 4) Emotional stability; and(5) Culture76

Cattell (1973)discussed the two types of personality traits. One is the "source trait,"which is the key factor of personality, and can only be found out by using factoranalysis. The other one is "surface trait," which is a mix of more than one source trait.Costa and McCrae (1992) developed personality factors measuring toll that includesfive factors: Neuroticism; Extraversion; Openness; Agreeableness; andConscientiousness. The origin (Costa & McCrae, 1976) research was Cattels 16

UNDER PEER REVIEW

3

personality factors, extracted to the three domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, andOpenness. This was the original model called the NEO.

The term personality is defined as the relatively fixed prototype of behaviors and stable77psychological conditions that depicts changes in individual’s behavioral tendencies (McShane &78Von Glinow, 2000). An empirical support for an association between personality and the degree79of satisfaction with PBI’s and research performance is somewhat scarce. (Roccas, Sagiv,80Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002)discussed a strong positive association between the personality trait of81agreeableness and the value of benevolence considered as a dimension of trust. The Five82Factor model (FFM) suggests a brief and simple way of explainingall possible factors for83measuring personality traits (Costa Jr & McCrae, 1995). It is now dominantly used by84researchers measuring personalities(Funder, 2001; Goldberg & Saucier, 2008). The five85dimensions comprise of: conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, emotional86stability, and agreeableness (McCrae & Costa, 1987). These brief description of traits in a87research mentioned(Samuels et al., 2002).88

Conscientiousness- This shows attributes like to be responsible, hardworking and dependable89and on the other side to be irresponsible, careless and not dependable.90

. Agreeableness – It includes the tendency to be getting along with other people. The other side91indicates to be rigid and not flexible.92

. Emotional stability – This trait points out how much control one have over ones emotions. One93can be good and poor in controlling one’s emotions.94

. Openness to experience or creativity – It is one of the key trait which shows to what degree a95person is like to experience new things or the person is poor in imagination and creativity.96

. Extraversion – The fifth trait tell about the introvert and extrovert behavior of a person.97

98Faculty and Performance based compensation system:99

100Shifting faculty compensation to a performance-based system serves as a powerful influence101tool, where the difference is between compensating for time given corresponding to102compensating for work performed. (Tarquinio, Dittus, Byrne, Kaiser, & Neilson, 2003). In103addition to it, teachers responded according to theories of economics, as teachers behave104positively when given more rewards in terms of money on number of research published but105negatively when financial benefits are not there (Backes-Gellner & Schlinghoff, 2008). Jawwad,106Mazhar & Amer (2012) described that extrinsic rewards are primary motivators for job107satisfaction of teaching faculty.108Faculty members are financially rewarded for enhancing institutional prestige. One109consequence according to economic theory is that faculty members will spend more time on110prestige enhancing research outputs. Since spending more time on teaching (or other activities)111has no effect on salary even in comprehensive universities or liberal arts colleges, faculty112members, according to the same economic reasoning, can no longer be expected to exert high113

UNDER PEER REVIEW

4

efforts on these other activities including teaching, advising or community services (Melguizo &114Strober, 2007).115Performance related rewards rely on both objective measures like sales and subjective measure116like contribution by the staff. Output in some jobs is not possible to be gauged through objective117performance indicators as combined output and some job descriptions are not able to be118measured tangibly (Baker, Jensen, & Murphy, 2012). Results suggest that monetary and119affiliative rewards have different effects: affiliative rewards clearly have beneficial effects,120whereas the picture for monetary rewards is more nuanced than typically assumed in121literature(Kunz & Linder, 2012). Workers are the human resource of a firm. In case they are122motivated and satisfied they will perform positively. (Ali & Akram, 2012). Performance rewards123help institutions to show to its workforce what its requirement is by allocating pay for124performance in relevant fields. An employee often think that performance pay supports the125association between their efforts and the compensation they get (Milkovich & Wigdor, 1991).126Heneman (1992) stated about the features of performance reward. It has two elements: (1)127yearly performance assessment of workers productivity; and (2) associating compensation128raises subject to results of performance assessment. Academic and research performance129impact compensation appropriation for teachers who have extra-ordinary documented research130output(Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992).131Tenure track system132Hohm and Shore (1998) stated that Tenure results in high standards for teaching and research.133Institutions without tenure are not considered "real" universities. Tenure allows faculty to134become involved in university governance. Public universities are helping in educating people135and boosting economic growth by financing higher education(Weerts & Ronca, 2006). Tenure-136track teaching staff appears to be not having bad impact on learning and longer times-to-degree137etc. when compared with non tenure teachers (Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005). The economic and138social costs of the tenure system are outweighed by the fact that tenure is vital to academic139freedom. Brown and Kurland (1990) discussed the types of tenure which are of two types one is140term tenure and other is interruptible tenure. The "term tenure" meant for replacing long term141appointments say five or seven years with no assurance of continuation. Tenure means142indefinite employment terminable only for cause (or for certain specified constraints such as143financial pressure). Term tenure is not tenure, and does little to protect academic freedom.144Moreover, reappointment decision-making under term tenure is burdensome. Where as145"interruptible" tenure meant a system that maintains to give tenure and at intervals of five or146possibly ten years while conducting a periodic performance review of the tenured professor's. In147the university, the critical decisions are to be made especially who will advance in the148ranks(Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). So not agreeing on individual promotion and tenure cases149may generate kind of conflict an academic unit can experience(Holton & Phillips, 1995).150Organizational performance can be enhanced through significant contribution in the area of151research, teaching and administration by able tenure and non tenured faculty. Age factor led to152satisfaction with performance based compensation system(Guest, 1999).Gender type is related153to satisfaction with performance based compensation system(Flood, 1999). Perceived impact of154supporting environment led towards satisfaction with performance based compensation system155

UNDER PEER REVIEW

5

is related with the performance based system of compensation (Adelien Decramer, 2012;156Arthur, 1994; D. Eskew, & Heneman, R., 1996).157

158Pakistan’s experience159

Developing human capital through initiating tenure track system by HEC in Pakistan in 2002160was a challenging and cumbersome job. By providing funds and support in increasing the161number of PhD’s in Pakistan, HEC has helped in creating knowledge based economy by162developing human capital. It is evident from the literature that number of PhD’s produced in last163ten years is almost double as compared to those produced during previous fifty years and164research output has also increased. (HEC, 2012).165Human resource development within the higher education reform process is serving dual166objective of enhancing organizational effectiveness along with improving the qualification level167of university teachers (HEC, 2012).168On the basis of the literature studies so far, it is strongly stated that understanding teachers169personality traits and performance pay help in increasing the output and productivity at both170individual and group level. Monetary and non monetary types of rewards supports in aligning the171worker’s goal with that of group and organizational goals.172

Still, there is a need to ascertain the application of such behavioral display by using mechanism173of compensation based on productivity in the work environment of Pakistan with particular174reference to TTS offered in public universities of Pakistan and how it has contributed towards175the research output and economic growth in Pakistan.176

177Satisfaction with transparency and fairness of Performance based compensation178system179

PB salaries aresalaries connected to the attaining pre defined goals which are directed to180motivate employees in order to be at higher level of performance. Therefore, a precisely defined181(Heneman, 1992, Bartol and Hagman, 1993; Liccione, 1997; Zingheim & Schuster, 1997),182properly implemented (HEC, 2008, Podgursky & Springer, 2007, Hassel, 2002, Varadarajan183&Futrell, 1984, McAdams and Hawk 1994, Heneman & Milanowski, 1999), and transparent PBC184(Vroom, 1964, Porter & Lawler, 1986, Lazear, 1996, Khim O. K., Shi Yun A.A.., Wei L. C., Wei185S. H., 2008) increases faculty satisfaction level with such system and subsequently leads186towards higher faculty motivation (Kaplan & Atkinson, 1998, Armstrong 2000, Dowling &187Richardson, 1997, Lazear, 1996, Guest 1999) and commitment to achieve the desired188performance.189

190

Perceived Teaching and Research performance:191

Performance is meant both behavior and result. Behaviors emanate from the performer and192transform performance from abstraction to action. Same applies to university teachers, whose193performance may be measured in terms of their academic, research and administrative194contribution made against predetermined standards. It is stated that a higher level of teachers’195

UNDER PEER REVIEW

6

satisfaction with PRR system is likely to attract in higher degree of teacher performance196particularly research performance(Delaney & Huselid, 1996; Ismail, 2010; Kalleberg & Moody,1971994; Mahsood Shah, 2012; Shun-Hsing Chen, 2009).198

Research performance of teaching staff may be assessed in terms of research output, research199contribution, research funding/grants, research recognition, scholar enrollment.200Keeping in view the teacher performance measures in general and research performance201measures in particular as described in the preceding paragraphs, the basis of standard setting202is mutually decided, which to the extent possible are expected to be realistic and achievable.203

204

Big Five Traits, Satisfaction with transparency and fairness of PBI system and205research performance206

Herzberg () presented the Two-factor theory. Job satisfaction is the opposite of no satisfaction,207such as workers are not satisfied with their working environment orsatisfaction with both intrinsic208and extrinsic type of compensation.It is stated that it is not necessary that satisfaction with job209and performance can be got on account of providing congenial working environment only.Same210is applicable in case of satisfaction with performance based compensation system and research211performance. Seashore and I'aber (1975) found the two important elements i.e. one is heredity212and the overall environment. Researchers also pointed out three features of satisfaction at work213place, first is that this kind of satisfaction indicates animportantproduct of our culture, secondly,214itmight be an alarming tool of managerialissues and lastly, It can give corporations/institutions or215administration a valuable dimensionto measure. So researcher believes that personality types216are linked to job satisfaction and job performance as confirmed by fisher and Hanna research217also (Fisher & Hanna, 1931). In Weitz (1952) study, he concluded that the an individual who is218unsatisfied with their compensation is subsequently becomes not only unsatisfied but also this219thing drive towards poor job outcomes. But(Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986) revealed that the220person who holds a positive emotion and keeps it for a long time has positive job satisfaction221and shows productivity. Also, Staw and Ross (1985)discovered that different timing and work222conditions influenced job satisfaction and job performance.223

224225

Conscientiousness226(Organ & Lingl, 1995) discussed that Conscientiousness is to be associated withnot satisfied at227work place as it shows the tendency to involve oneself into normal job duties and subsequently228more probability of getting satisfactory extrinsic and intrinsic types of compensation like pay,229promotions,sense of appreciation, sense of personal achievements. Literature of human welfare230also proposed a strong and direct link between Conscientiousness and job satisfaction (DeNeve231& Cooper, 1998).It is also suggested that Conscientiousness as one of the element of232personality traits,indicates persistentlink to all job performance standards for all types of233occupations and professions(Barrick & Mount, 2006). Moreover, one of the research also stated234that conscientiousness is a better indicator to observe growth in performance and235productivity(Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese, & Thoresen, 2004).236Agreeableness237

UNDER PEER REVIEW

7

(Costa Jr & McCrae, 1991; McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 2006)) It is stated by different research238that Agreeableness another important variable for measuring the personality should be239associated to happiness as agreeable personalities have more commitment and drive to attain240interpersonal understanding, which appears to greater levels of well-being. Undoubtedly, they241stated that presuming these same publicdrivers are present in the job, then the same procedure242would be followed with regard to job satisfaction and performance. (Organ & Lingl, 1995) are of243the view that Agreeablenessanother important trait of personality is engaging oneself with244othersin pleasant and satisfying relationships Both Openness and Agreeableness traits are245considered as true predictors of training proficiency(Salgado, 1997). One of the feature of246agreeableness is to be straightforward, it is stated in a study that to be less straightforward is247linked to the capability of getting adapt to changing working environment and most importantly248achieving job related objectives and goals(Piedmont & Weinstein, 1994).249Emotional stability/Neuroticism250It is argued that neurotic individuals due to their negative mentality dofaceconsiderably bad life251time experiences than any other body(Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993)partially, as they252put themselves into conditions that promoteadverseimpacts(Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1985).253To the degree that similar circumstances occur on or with regard to the job, they would cause254poor job satisfaction and subsequently job performance. It is evident from research that two255important traits of personalities first is Conscientiousness and other one is Emotional Stability256both are better indicators for various types of occupations and professions(Salgado, 1997).257Similarly another research it is found that that low score on Neuroticism( More emotional258stability) and good score on the trait of Extraversion also helps to measure higher level of job259performance(Piedmont & Weinstein, 1994). The sum total of neuroticism is low emotional260stability and varying ill emotions(Izard, Libero, Putnam, & Haynes, 1993).261

Openness to Experience262Another well discussed trait of personality is Openness to Experience which is referred as263technical and creative creativity (Feist, 1998)deviatingthoughts, less inclination toward religious264believes, and more political open-mindedness(McCrae, 1996). These mental constructs and265thoughts appear to be not linked to satisfaction at work place. Moreover, (DeNeve & Cooper,2661998) stated that this particular trait work on two different extremes where a person can fell well267or worse.Both Openness and Agreeableness traits are considered as true assessors of training268proficiency (Salgado, 1997). It is found that association betweenpersonality characteristics and269the performance with respect to the above mentioned tait is very week except for some270professions where work is like investigating and exploring new things which are lesser in271number(Griffin & Hesketh, 2004). In our scenario, the case of TTS faculty and non tenured272faculty engaged in research development activities and the departmental heads invoved in273exploring and designing new ways to monitor the activities of their department efficiently and274effectively.275Extraversion:276As discussed Neuroticism is linked to the experience of negative life events, extraversion trait of277personality includes scores , higher score on this scale shows tendency to be extrovert and it278depends on experiencinglevel of positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It is argued that279extraverts like to be more social than do introverts and they found getting rewards on account of280

UNDER PEER REVIEW

8

this likeliness of their social behavior(Watson & Clark, 1997). Similarly in another research it is281found that that low score on Neuroticism( More emotional stability) and good score on the trait282of Extraversion also helps to measure higher level of job performance(Piedmont & Weinstein,2831994). Extraversion trait can be measured through following dimensions,positive emotionality,284the discrete emotions of interest, enjoyment, and shyness(Izard et al., 1993)285Different studies found that there is role of an individual personality is significant in determining286the job satisfaction. (Tokar & Subich, 1997)(Greenberg & Baron, 1993) confirmed this in his287research also.Different researches also stated that demographic variables like age are also288associated with job satisfaction and performance(Reiner & Zhao, 1999). But another289demographic variable gender is appears to be not even moderately related to job satisfaction290(Brush, Moch, & Pooyan, 1987). It is also concluded that job satisfaction and job performance291are directly and strongly associated with each other (McLean & Andrew, 2000; Reiner & Zhao,2921999).293Given that teachers with different personalities have a tendencies to perform in a unique294way(Guthrie, Coate, & Schwoerer, 1998) with respect to higher education sector along with the295significantutilization “Big Five”in research(Perrewé & Spector, 2002)the following hypotheses296are presented for four of the five broad dimensions of personality:297

298

H1-H4. There is a relationship between teacher personality traits of agreeableness,299conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional stability and his/her satisfaction with300transparency and fairness Of PBI’s.301

302

H5-H8. There is a relationship between teacher personality traits of agreeableness,303conscientiousness, extraversion and emotional stability and his/her satisfaction with research304performance.305

306

H9. There is a positive association between satisfaction with transparency and fairness Of PBI’s307and satisfaction with research performance.308

309

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework310

UNDER PEER REVIEW

9

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY321

A combination of Interview and survey techniques is used. A purposeful survey questionnaire is322used as a primary data collection instrument. The questionnaire is composed of four sections.323Section one is containing information on demographic attributes of the respondent. Section two324is requesting information regarding organizational setup and respondents understanding and325perception regarding its vision, mission, administration/management style and HRM practices.326Section three consists of questions requesting data on teacher’s personality traits, perceptions327of faculty members regarding the availability, types and transparency and fairness issue of PRR328system according to a five point Likert scale. Section four is for research performance measures329and standards used to evaluate their research performance and how their satisfaction level330towards PRR system impacts their performance.331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:341

342

Transparency andFairness

Of PBI’s

Teacherawareness

Decision making

Supervisors’Competenceand Biasness

Teacher ResearchPerformance

ResearchRecognition

Researchcontribution

ResearchFunding/Grants

Researchscholarenrollment

ResearchOutput

Adjustment

Agreeableness

Surgency

Personalitytype/attributeConscientiousn

ess

Openness toexperience

UNDER PEER REVIEW

10

The objective of this research was to measure the teacher’s personality,feelings regarding PBIs343and its effect on their researchproductivity, to point out suggestions for betterment. Main risks344and challenges confronting by the current performance based compensation system and345research performance standardskeeping into consideration the personality types of teachers.346

347Reliability of the instrument being used was checked through Cranach’s alpha test as given in348table 1.349

Table 1 Reliability Analysis – Scale (alpha)350

Reliability Coefficients

No. of Cases = 76 No. of Items = 63

Alpha = .850351

The Cronbach’s alpha value of .845 is very good.352353

The questionnaire was given to 135teachers working in university having different designation354from the 15departments and centers of the university. A response rate of 59% was observed as355shown in the following figure:356

357

Figure 2: Population, sample and response analysis358

359

360

Table 2: Faculty Demographic Analysis –Experience361

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Lecturer

No. F

acult

y St

aff

TOTAL POPULATION SIZE SAMPLE SIZE RESPONSE OUT OF SAMPLE SELECTED

UNDER PEER REVIEW

11

Experience

(years)Professors Associate

Professor

Assistant

Professors Lecturer Total

F % F % F % F % %

0-5 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 17 41% 17 22%

5-10 0 0% 0 0% 2 12% 14 34% 16 21%

10-15 0 0% 0 13% 7 41% 7 17% 15 20%

15-20 1 0% 0 0% 5 29% 2 5% 7 9%

20 and

above 10 100% 7 88% 3 18% 1 2% 21 28%

Total 11 100% 7 100% 17 100% 41 100% 76 100%

362

Table 3 Faculties Demographic Analysis – Gender363

Gender Frequency Percent

Ph.D 29 37%

M.Phil/MS 26 35%

Masters 22 28%

Total 77 100%

364

Table 4: Descriptive

UNDER PEER REVIEW

12

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

Satisfaction withPBI’s (X)

76 73.00 141.00 155.5658 12.47354 155.589

Performance (Y) 76 75.00 104.00 88.4211 7.04796 49.674

Valid N (listwise) 76

365

Gamma Test366

In order to test the strength of association between individual dimensions of variables, gamma367test has been applied to the data, results of which are as follows:368

369

Table 5:Gamma Test– Satisfaction with PBIs and Teacher Performance370

Value Asymp. Std.Errora

Approx. Tb Approx.Sig.

Ordinal by Ordinal Gamma 0.460 0.069 6.590 0.000

N of Valid Cases 76

371

The above Gamma test shows that results are significant. As value is less than.05. The value of372the test .460 shows a good and positiveassociation between satisfaction with performance373based compensation system and faculty research output.374

In order to further analyze the strength of association between different variables under study,375gamma test has been applied to the data, results of which are as follows:376

377

Table 6: Symmetric Measures – Enabling Environment and TeacherPerformance in Research

ValueAsymp. Std.

Error Approx. TApprox.

Sig.

UNDER PEER REVIEW

13

Ordinal byOrdinal

Gamma.108 .091 1.183 .237

N of Valid Cases 76

378

As indicated in Table 6 above, research performance is positively associated with the research379performance but indicates a weaker relationship with the enabling environment. This may be380due the reason that most of the enabling factors are perceived to be targeted towards day to381day administrative and teaching activities rather research.382

Table 7: Symmetric Measures – Transparency and fairness Incentives andTeacher Performance in Research

ValueAsymp. Std.

Error Approx. TApprox.

Sig.

Ordinal byOrdinal

Gamma.252 .087 2.867 .004

N of Valid Cases 76

383

Table 8: Correlation among personality traits, transparency and fairness of PBI’s and384

teacher research performance385

Research

Performance

transparencyand

fairness of PBI

Surgency

Agreeableness

Adjustment

Conscientiousness

Opennesstoexperience

ResearchPerformance

PearsonCorrelation 1.000 .595 .749 .644 .700 .715 .676 .

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 . 000 .

UNDER PEER REVIEW

14

Research

Performance

transparencyand

fairness of PBI

Surgency

Agreeableness

Adjustment

Conscientiousness

Opennesstoexperience

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

transparency andfairnessof PBI

PearsonCorrelation .595 1.000 .400 .326 .345 .346 .313 .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .007 .004 .002 .002 .006 .

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

Surgency PearsonCorrelation .749 .400 1.000 .832 .812 .846 .838 .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .000

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

Agreeableness

PearsonCorrelation .644 .326 .832 1.000 .599 .709 .892 .

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .004 .000 . .000 .000 .000 .

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

Adjustment

PearsonCorrelation .700 .345 .812 .599 1.000 .987 .855

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .0002 .000 .000 . .000 .000

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

Conscientiousness

PearsonCorrelation .715 .346 .846 .709 .987 1.000 .927

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .000 .000 .000 . .000

UNDER PEER REVIEW

15

Research

Performance

transparencyand

fairness of PBI

Surgency

Agreeableness

Adjustment

Conscientiousness

Opennesstoexperience

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

Openness toexperience

PearsonCorrelation .676 .313 .838 .892 .855 .927 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .0061 .000 .000 .000 .000 .

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

.

N 76 76 76 76 76 76 76

386

The above tabulation indicates correlation between different Neuroticism, Extraversion,387Conscientiousness, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, transparency and fairness of PBI,388andResearch Performancedimensions of both the variables (including within the same variable).389The correlation of surgency, conscientiousness, adjustment, openness to experience and390agreeableness with research performance are .749, .715, .700, .676 and .644 respectively. The391correlation of surgency, conscientiousness, adjustment, openness to experience and392agreeableness with transparency and fairness of PBI’s are .40, .346, .345, .326 and .313393respectively.The proposition ofsatisfaction transparency and fairness with PBI’s are strongly394correlated with perceived research performance registering a value of 0.595. Results of this395study suggest that the five-factor model is good for assessing the satisfaction level of faculty396with transparency of performance based compensation system and particularly with research397job performance In particular, the traits of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness398displayed moderate correlations with research job satisfaction and satisfaction with fairness of399compensation system based on performance as TTS.400

401

Table 9: Types of incentives at Punjab University402

Position FinancialNon-

FinancialCombination

of both Total

UNDER PEER REVIEW

16

F % F % F % F %

Professors 1 9% 0 0% 10 91% 11 100%

Associate Professors 1 14% 2 29% 4 57% 7 100%

Assistant Professors 4 24% 2 12% 11 65% 17 100%

Lecturer 3 7% 2 5% 36 88% 41 100%

Total 9 12% 6 8% 48 63% 76 100%

403

The analysis of responses as to priority for each type of financial and non-financial rewards is404graphically presented as follows:405

406

Figure 3: Financial Benefits407

408

409

410

411

412

Figure 4:Non-Financial Benefits413

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Perform

ance b

ased b

onus

Sponsor

ed tra

ining a

nd edu

cation

Sponsor

ed rec

reation

/entert

ainment

Salary i

ncrem

ent

Accelera

ted pro

motion

Special

prize

Sponsor

ed tra

velOthe

rs

Rank

ing

UNDER PEER REVIEW

17

414

Key Risks and Challenges415

As shown in Figure below, It has been observed that greatest risk faced by the performance416based incentive system is lack of vision and strategic direction, followed by lack of transparency417and teacher involvement in the process. Similarly vague or ambiguous policies and procedures418and lack of funding and resources have also been identified as threats to existing PBI system.419So, to improve the performance based incentive system, the HR and Performance Reward420Committees of the University must review the situation afresh and take necessary steps to421mitigate these risks and challenges.422Figure 5: Ranking of Risks and Challenges423

424

425

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Assignm

ent of

additio

nal ch

arge/a

uthorit

y

Teacher

of the

month o

r year

award

Issuan

ce of C

ertific

ate of

Merit/Hono

r/Appr

eciatio

n

Acknow

ledgem

ent of

perfor

mance in

officia

l jo...

Ceremony

arrang

ed in r

ecogni

tion of

perform

ance

Enclave

/place

ascript

ion in

the na

me of an

exc... Othe

rs

Rank

ing

-102030405060708090100

Lack of vi

sion and

strategic

direc.

..

Lack of te

acher i

nvolvement i

n t..

Imposed

implementa

tion

Lack of fu

nding and res

ources

Lack of Transp

arency

and F

airness

Highly op

timisti

c and

difficu

lt to a..

.

Ineffec

tive PBI sy

stem monito

ing

Lack of S

upervis

ory co

mpetence

Lack of H

R managem

ent culture

Uncontrolloa

ble ele

ments hin

der...

Lack of aw

arenes

s in tea

chers

Vague o

r ambiguou

s policie

s an...

Universit

y, depar

tmental and ind

i...Others

UNDER PEER REVIEW

18

Conclusions426

The findings of the study add to the existing evidence suggesting that the employees’427commitment at the first stage, influenced by their evaluation and perception of the enabling428environment in which they operate. The enabling environment constitutes human resource429practices, organization vision mission, setup and administrative policies. It has been observed430that enabling environment and culture must incorporate the aspirations of all stakeholders to431achieve desired performance.432Further the success of performance management system depends upon institution,433departmental and teacher’s performance. So, it is essential that the performance management434system is implemented and fully functional.435The findings of the study further indicates that higher amount of perceived value attached to436incentives attract higher level of teacher performance. The perceived value attached to437incentives is dependent upon several factors like adequacy and compatibility with similar438institutions, clarity of objectives, well defined and documented form; published and easy to439access policies and procedural guidelines, which increase teacher awareness and satisfaction440towards such system and are expected to create a positive impact on his/her performance.441Based on the analysis of survey results, it has also been observed that better understanding of442the personality types is very important for taking significant decisions like recruitment and443selection, allocating duties, training, compensation and promotions.In the statistical analysis of444personality traits, it has been found thatSurgency, Adjustment, and Conscientiousness445indicatesstrong correlations with research performance and satisfaction with transparency and446fairness of currently available performance based compensation system and that the role of447five-factor model in this context is indeed effective.448Moreover, fair budgetary allocation of resources for award of performance based incentives to449

teachers is also very crucial and need to be further improvised. To achieve the increase level of450perceived value attachment to such rewards, there is a need to thoroughly review and modify451the existing incentives schemes which incorporate a combination of incentives i.e. financial and452non financial.453The findings of the study reveals that higher degree of perceived probability to realize incentives454also lead to higher impact on teacher satisfaction and performance, which could be further455increased through a fair and transparent performance based incentive system. Some of the456suggestions include (a) strong involvement and engagement of faculty staff in the entire457performance based incentive system and related committees, (b) fair and unbiased supervision458and decision making, (c) appropriate alignment of PBIs with departmental culture and459organizational structure and (d) more weight age to be given to student feedback and external460recognitions in performance evaluation process.461

The Tenure Track System (TTS) introduced by the HEC was partially implemented in the462University during financial year 2008. However, due to practical implications and ambiguities in463the system, its implementation has been slow till due date with some exceptions. During the464survey, majority of the faculty staff have favored the implementation of such system provided its465bottlenecks and deficiencies are removed.466

UNDER PEER REVIEW

19

Further there is need to preempt, mitigate and control key risk and challenges faced by the467existing performance based incentive system such as lack of vision and strategic direction, lack468of transparency and fairness, lack of teacher involvement in the process. A proper due diligence469of the existing performance based incentive system may prove to be very helpful in attracting470higher degree of teacher performance.471The higher satisfaction with PBIs will lead to affirmative impact on perceived performance and472there will be enlightened chances to accomplish the vision of the university through increase473teacher participation in students output, teaching methodology, research output, research474contribution, research recognition, their contribution to university administration/ management475and contribution to community and external world.476

477478479480481482483484485486487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512

UNDER PEER REVIEW

20

REFERENCES513

Adelien Decramer, C. S., Alex Vanderstraeten, Johan Christiaens, Sebastian Desmidt. (2012). External514pressures affecting the adoption of employee performance management in higher education515institutions. Personnel516

Review,, 41(6), 686 - 704.517Ali, A., & Akram, M. N. (2012). Impact Of Financial Rewards On Employee’s Motivation And Satisfaction518

In Pharmaceutical Industry, Pakistan. Global Journal of Management And Business Research,51912(17).520

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.521Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological monographs,522

47(1), i.523Arthur, J. B. (1994). 'Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover'.524

Academy of Management Journal, 3(37), 670-687.525Backes-Gellner, U., & Schlinghoff, A. (2008). Monetary rewards and faculty behaviour: how economic526

incentives drive publish or perish. Southern Management Association Proceedings, St. Pete527Beach: Southern Management Association (SMA), 725-730.528

Baker, G. P., Jensen, M. C., & Murphy, K. J. (2012). Compensation and incentives: Practice vs. theory. The529journal of Finance, 43(3), 593-616.530

Barnes, J. G. (1997). Closeness, strength, and satisfaction: examining the nature of relationships531between providers of financial services and their retail customers. Psychology and Marketing,53214(8), 765-790.533

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big534Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology; Journal of535Applied Psychology, 78(1), 111.536

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2006). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a537meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.538

Bendapudi, N., & Berry, L. L. (1997). Customers' motivations for maintaining relationships with service539providers. Journal of retailing, 73(1), 15-37.540

Brown, R. S., & Kurland, J. E. (1990). Academic tenure and academic freedom. Law and Contemporary541Problems, 325-355.542

Brush, D. H., Moch, M. K., & Pooyan, A. (1987). Individual demographic differences and job satisfaction.543Journal of organizational behavior, 8(2), 139-155.544

Cattell, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality.545Cattell, R. B. (1973). Personality and mood by questionnaire: Jossey-Bass.546Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. (1991). Trait psychology comes of age. Faculty Publications, Department of547

Psychology, 363.548Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the549

Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of personality assessment, 64(1), 21-50.550Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1976). Age differences in personality structure: A cluster analytic approach.551

Journal of Gerontology, 31(5), 564-570.552Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual553

Differences, 13(6), 653-665.554Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on555

perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949-969.556DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and557

subjective well-being. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 197.558

UNDER PEER REVIEW

21

Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-559analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research,56016(2), 149-170.561

Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human562Resources, 40(3), 647-659.563

Emmons, R. A., Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1985). Choice of situations and congruence models of564interactionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(6), 693-702.565

Eskew, D., & Heneman, R. (1996). A survey of merit pay effectiveness: End of the line for merit pay or566hope for improvement. Human Resource Planning, 19(2), 12-19.567

Eskew, D., & Heneman, R. L. (2002). A survey of merit pay plan effectiveness. Strategic Reward568Management: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation, 395.569

Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality: Transaction Pub.570Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social571

Psychology Review, 2(4), 290-309.572Fisher, V. E., & Hanna, J. V. (1931). The dissatisfied worker.573Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources.574

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329.575Flood, P. C., Turner, T. and Pearson, J. (1999). Knowledge Workers and the Psychological Contract. Paper576

presented at the first Dutch HRM Conference, Rotterdam: Erasmus University.577Funder, D. C. (2001). Accuracy in personality judgment: Research and theory concerning an obvious578

question.579Goldberg, L. R., & Saucier, G. (2008). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of personality, 66(4), 495-524.580Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1992). Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective.581

Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 921-955.582Greenberg, E. R., & Baron, J. A. (1993). Prospects for preventing colorectal cancer death. Journal of the583

National Cancer Institute, 85(15), 1182-1185.584Griffin, B., & Hesketh, B. (2004). Why openness to experience is not a good predictor of job585

performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(3), 243-251.586Guest, D. E. (1999). 'Human Resource Management – The Workers' Verdict'. Human Resource587

Management Journal, 3(9), 5-25.588Guthrie, J. P., Coate, C. J., & Schwoerer, C. E. (1998). Career management strategies: the role of589

personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13(5/6), 371-386.590Heneman, R. L. (1992). Merit pay: Linking pay increases to performance ratings: Addison-591

Wesley/Addison Wesley Longman.592Herzberg, M. Peterson, and Capwell (1957). Herzberg, Mausner, and.593Hohm, C. F., & Shore, H. B. (1998). The academy under siege: informing the public about the merits of594

academic tenure. Sociological Perspectives, 827-831.595Holton, S. A., & Phillips, G. (1995). Can't live with them, can't live without them: Faculty and596

administrators in conflict. New Directions for Higher Education, 1995(92), 43-50.597Ismail, N. A. (2010). Activity-based management system implementation in higher education598

institution: Benefits and challenges. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(1), . 40 - 52.599Izard, C. E., Libero, D. Z., Putnam, P., & Haynes, O. M. (1993). Stability of emotion experiences and their600

relations to traits of personality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(5), 847.601Kalleberg, A. L., & Moody, J. W. (1994). Human resource management and organizational performance.602

American Behavioral Scientist, 37(7), 948-962.603Kunz, J., & Linder, S. (2012). Organizational Control and Work Effort–Another Look at the Interplay of604

Rewards and Motivation. European Accounting Review, 21(3), 591-621.605

UNDER PEER REVIEW

22

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of606objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(5),6071046.608

Mahsood Shah, C. S. N. (2012). The changing nature of teaching and unit evaluations in609

Australian universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), 274 - 288.610McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin; Psychological611

Bulletin, 120(3), 323.612McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments613

and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81.614McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Piedmont, R. L. (2006). Folk Concepts, Natural Language, and Psychological615

Constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the Five‐Factor Model. Journal of616personality, 61(1), 1-26.617

McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2000). Organizational Behavior, 6/E.618Melguizo, T., & Strober, M. H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of prestige. Research in619

Higher Education, 48(6), 633-668.620Milkovich, G. T., & Wigdor, A. K. (1991). Pay for performance: Evaluating performance appraisal and621

merit pay: National Academies Press.622Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor623

structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,62466(6), 574.625

Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. The626Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 339-350.627

Perrewé, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (2002). Personality research in the organizational sciences. Research in628personnel and human resources management, 21, 1-63.629

Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1994). Predicting supervisor ratings of job performance using the630NEO Personality Inventory. The Journal of Psychology, 128(3), 255-265.631

Reiner, M. D., & Zhao, J. (1999). The Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among United States Air Force632Security Police A Test of Rival Theoretical Predictive Models. Review of Public Personnel633Administration, 19(3), 5-18.634

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors and personal635values. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 28(6), 789-801.636

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European637Community. Journal of Applied psychology, 82(1), 30.638

Samuels, J., Eaton, W. W., Bienvenu, O. J., Brown, C. H., COSTA, P. T., & Nestadt, G. (2002). Prevalence639and correlates of personality disorders in a community sample. The British journal of psychiatry,640180(6), 536-542.641

Shun-Hsing Chen, H.-H. W., King-Jang Yang. (2009). Establishment and application of performance642

measure indicators for universities643

The TQM Journal, 21(3), 220 - 235.644Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime645

longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56-77.646Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes.647

Journal of Applied Psychology; Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 469.648Tarquinio, G. T., Dittus, R. S., Byrne, D. W., Kaiser, A., & Neilson, E. G. (2003). Effects of performance-649

based compensation and faculty track on the clinical activity, research portfolio, and teaching650mission of a large academic department of medicine. Academic Medicine, 78(7), 690-701.651

UNDER PEER REVIEW

23

Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D. (2004). The big five personality traits and652individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages.653Journal of Applied psychology, 89(5), 835.654

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in655academe: SUNY Press.656

Tokar, D. M., & Subich, L. M. (1997). Relative contributions of congruence and personality dimensions to657job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50(3), 482-491.658

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (2006). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. Journal of659personality, 60(2), 225-251.660

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core.661Weerts, D. J., & Ronca, J. M. (2006). Examining differences in state support for higher education: A662

comparative study of state appropriations for Research I universities. The Journal of Higher663Education, 77(6), 935-967.664

Weitz, M. (1952). TS Eliot: Time as a mode of salvation. The Sewanee Review, 48-64.665

666

667

UNDER PEER REVIEW