How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance

Chi, Hsinkuang; Vu, Thinh–Van; Nguyen, Hoang Viet; Truong, Thanh Ha Article How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance Cogent Business & Management Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Chi, Hsinkuang; Vu, Thinh–Van; Nguyen, Hoang Viet; Truong, Thanh Ha (2023) : How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance, Cogent Business & Management, ISSN 2331-1975, Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Vol. 10, Iss. 1, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/294262 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oabm20 Cogent Business & Management ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oabm20 How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance Hsinkuang Chi, Thinh–Van Vu, Hoang Viet Nguyen & Thanh Ha Truong To cite this article: Hsinkuang Chi, Thinh–Van Vu, Hoang Viet Nguyen & Thanh Ha Truong (2023) How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance, Cogent Business & Management, 10:1, 2173850, DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. Published online: 06 Mar 2023. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 8277 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 3 View citing articles MANAGEMENT | RESEARCH ARTICLE How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance Hsinkuang Chi 1 , Thinh–Van Vu 2 *, Hoang Viet Nguyen 3 and Thanh Ha Truong 1 Abstract: While extensive literature is available on the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, rewards, and job performance, few studies examine the moderating roles of financial and non–financial rewards on these relationships. This study examines the moderating effects of financial and non–financial rewards on transformational leadership–job performance and job satisfaction–job performance relationships. It also examines the mediating effect of job satisfaction on transformational leadership and job performance. The data were obtained through questionnaires that were distributed to employees (N = 331) of private enterprises in Vietnam. The study uses the SPSS 23.0 software and the PROCESS V3.4 to test the hypotheses. The results demonstrate that transformational leadership significantly affects job satisfaction, which, in turn, is strongly associated with job performance. Job satisfaction also has a mediating effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. Interestingly, neither financial nor non–financial rewards have any moderating effect on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance, but financial rewards have a negative moderating effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. These findings suggest that managers may benefit from combining transformational leadership with financial rewards to motivate employees and improve job performance. Subjects: Business, Management and Accounting; Leadership; Human Resource Management Keywords: transformational leadership; job satisfaction; financial reward; non–financial reward; job performance 1. Introduction Organizational managers continually look for ways to increase the job satisfaction, job performance, and productivity of their employees to improve their organization’s competitive advantage. Employee motivation and job performance are key to improving organizational performance in every organization (Bashir et al., 2020; Khalid, 2020). Previous studies have shown that job performance is particularly influenced by transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and rewards (Bowling et al., 2015; Al Harbi et al., 2019). The correlations between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance reflect reciprocal exchange, as characterized by the theories of social exchange and organizational support (Jyoti & Bhau, 2015). According to the social exchange theory, as individuals receive support and assistance from others, they feel Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 1 of 18 Received: 30 May 2022 Accepted: 24 January 2023 *Corresponding author: Thinh–Van Vu, Department of Human Resource Management, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam E-mail: [email protected] Reviewing editor: Len Tiu Wright, De Montfort University Faculty of Business and Law, UK Additional information is available at the end of the article © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. obliged to help in return (Blau, 2017). The organizational support theory, which is based on the social exchange theory, proposes that subordinate employees develop positive attitudes and behaviors as they perceive support from their leaders in the organization (Eisenberger et al., 2014). Transformational leadership has been shown to be positively correlated with lower turnover and improvements in the job–related attitudes, employee commitment, trust, and job performance to develop themselves and achieve their goals (Avolio et al., 1999; Choi et al., 2016; Northouse, 2019). Transformational leaders stimulate subordinate employees through inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence (Bass et al., 1987; Escortell et al., 2020), which allows employees to believe in and enhances employees’ job satisfaction and job performance. Moreover, this topic has received significant attention in both research and practice because the development of human resource management in Vietnam is a remarkable example of developed countries spreading their conceptual knowledge and human resource management theories to developing Asian countries (Cooke, 2018). However, there has been no comprehensive investigation of the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, rewards, and job performance in the Vietnamese context. Previous work has instead focused on single constructs or the relationship between pairs of constructs, such as that of leadership style and job performance (Khuong & Quoc, 2016), leadership style and job satisfaction (Duong, 2013), reward and job performance (Stanton & Pham, 2014). According to theories of motivation (Alderfer, 1969; Herzberg et al., 1993; Maslow, 1943; Vroom, 1964), leaders often use financial and non–financial rewards to motivate employees and improve their job performance. While some studies have suggested that rewards have a positive effect (Ngwa et al., 2019; Seng & Arumugam, 2017), however, others have found there to be no effect at all (Ajila & Abiola, 2004; Njanja et al., 2013). Moreover, the cognitive evaluation theory (Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the motivation crowding theory (Frey & Jegen, 2001; Titmuss, 1970) suppose that rewards could adjust the impact of transformational leadership on subordinate employees’ job performance. In addition, few studies have examined how financial and non– financial rewards may moderate the relationships between job satisfaction and job performance (Judge et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1996). Thus, although researchers have tried to determine the role of financial and non–financial rewards in improving job performance, findings are often contradictory, and much remains unknown concerning how it moderates the relationships between transformational leadership and job performance and between job satisfaction and job performance. These research gaps will be addressed in the Vietnamese context in this study. Therefore, the research questions of this study are: (1) what are the relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance in the Vietnamese context; (2) how does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between transformational and job performance in the Vietnamese context; (3) how do financial and non–financial rewards moderate the transformational leadership–job performance and job satisfaction–job performance connections. A major motivation for this study is to further explore the relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance and the moderating roles of financial and non– financial rewards in Vietnam. First, it explores the potential connections between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance. Second, it considers the potential mediating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance in the Vietnamese context. This study can further support the social exchange and motivation theories in understanding the relationships among transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance in the context of developing countries. Finally and especially, this study examines the potential different moderating effects of financial and non–financial rewards on the relationship between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance. This study can contribute to enriching the application of the cognitive evaluation theory and the motivation crowding theory in explaining the moderating role of financial and non–financial rewards on the relationship between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance. By understanding these relationships and moderating influences in a developing country Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 2 of 18 context like Vietnam, researchers and practitioners can develop guidance that organizations may use to motivate employees and improve their job performance. 2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development 2.1. Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance Leadership is a truly interdisciplinary field of inquiry and practice that draws on concepts from management, psychology, sociology, political science, and education (Goethals et al., 2004; Gumah et al., 2021). In organizational research, leadership has been defined as one person’s influence over another in ways that relate to work (Holtzhausen & de Klerk, 2018; Northouse, 2019). Tannenbaum et al. (1961, p. 24) defined leadership as “the interpersonal influence exercised in situations and directed, through the communication process, toward the attainment of a specified goal or goals.” Leadership effectiveness is measured by goal achievement (or non– achievement) and by subordinate employees’ satisfaction in attaining their goals. A recurring aspect of existing definitions of leadership is the significance of the subordinate employees’ perception and recognition of their leaders’ attributes (Goethals et al., 2004). Transformational leadership has been argued to be one of the most effective leadership styles, and it has been the subject of a significant amount of study (B.M. Bass & Riggio, 2014; Northouse, 2019; Nurjanah et al., 2020). According to B.M. Bass and Riggio (2014), leaders with a transformational leadership style encourage and stimulate their subordinate employees to achieve extraordinary results and, in doing so, increase their own leadership capacity. B. M. Bass and Avolio (1994) and Avolio et al. (1999) proposed that transformational leadership comprises four components, namely intellectual stimulation (the degree to which a leader seeks employees’ views on issues and considers a range of opinions before making decisions), inspirational motivation (the degree to which a leader is able to motivate subordinate employees by clearly expressing his or her vision through words, signs, symbols, and imagery), individualized consideration (the degree to which a leader pays attention to each subordinate employee’s needs and desires, acts as a counselor, and provides instruction), and idealized influence (the degree to which a leader acquires admiration and trust by exhibiting a charismatic style that reflects a high level of ethics). Employee job performance is among the most important concerns for a manager because it can increase an organization’s overall performance, both directly and indirectly. Viswesvaran and Ones (2000, p. 216) defined job performance as the “scalable actions, behaviors, and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that is linked with and contribute to organizational goals.” Given that job performance is determined by an employee’s positive contributions to the organization’s productivity, it has been described as a multi–dimensional concept involving individual behaviors, achievements, and job requirements (Chu & Lai, 2011; Vo–Thanh et al., 2020). Van Scotter et al. (2000) divided job performance into two dimensions, namely task performance and contextual performance. Task performance relates to the production of goods, services, or actions that indirectly assist with core organizational transformation and maintenance. Contextual performance relates to individual efforts to shape the organizational, psychological, and social contexts that act as catalysts for tasks, activities, and processes (Chu & Lai, 2011; Jyoti & Bhau, 2015). Recent work has argued for two additional dimensions, namely adaptive performance (the ability of an employee to change his or her behavior to meet environmental or situational requirements) and counterproductive performance (non–task behavior that injures the organization; Pulakos et al., 2000). This study used task performance and contextual performance to measure job performance because they are correlated with rewards (Van Scotter et al., 2000) and can, therefore, provide insight into the moderating effect of rewards on the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance. Transformational leadership positively affects job performance as the principle of social exchange theory and organizational support theory. According to the social exchange theory, individuals that receive support and assistance from others feel obliged to help in return (Blau, Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 3 of 18 2017). The organizational support theory, based on the social exchange theory, posits that employees develop positive attitudes and behaviors when they feel supported by their organization. Eisenberger et al. (2014) indicated that perceived organizational support is part of the social exchange between an employee and a supervisor, who may be seen as representing the organization. Considering that transformational leaders may be perceived as particularly supportive, transformational leadership can influence employees’ job performance (Al Harbi et al., 2019). Transformational leaders provide their employees with constructive feedback, persuade them to make more of an effort, and inspire them to think creatively about complex issues, and therefore enhance their job performance (B. M. Bass & Avolio, 1994). In addition, transformational leaders increase their subordinate employees’ motivation and commitment by helping them to perform beyond their own expectations (Al Harbi et al., 2019). Furthermore, transformational leaders create organizational values and goals, and they support their employees’ efforts to achieve these goals (Lai et al., 2020; Podsakoff et al., 1996). This makes employees more willing to collaborate and has a positive effect on contextual performance. Herman and Chiu (2014) also indicated that by establishing a relationship between and among leaders and subordinate employees, transformational leaders are more likely to improve their employees’ task performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Thus: Hypothesis 1 (H1): Transformational leadership has a significant positive effect on job performance. Many previous studies have considered job satisfaction, which reflects factors including the emotions, feelings, and attitudes of employees (Buil et al., 2019; Bushra et al., 2011; Cranny & Cain Smith, 1992; Judge et al., 2001). Hoppock (1935) proposed that job satisfaction is indicative of individuals’ honest feelings toward their psychological, physiological, and environmental conditions. Job satisfaction can be divided into intrinsic and extrinsic aspects (Spector, 1997), where intrinsic job satisfaction concerns an individual’s feelings about the nature of his or her job duties, while extrinsic job satisfaction concerns an individual’s feelings about the working conditions external to these duties. High job satisfaction is associated with subjective well–being, organizational commitment, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior, while low job satisfaction is associated with depression, anxiety, burnout, intent to leave, actual turnover, increased absence, and counterproductive work behaviors (Chi et al., 2016; Judge et al., 2001; Locke, 1976). According to the theories of motivation (Alderfer, 1969; Herzberg et al., 1993; Vroom, 1964), when subordinate employees receive the support and guidance of their transformational leaders, they could feel appreciated by the organization and satisfied with their job in the organization. Choi et al. (2016) and Northouse (2019) have presented evidence that transformational leadership can enhance employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Jyoti and Bhau (2015) and Nurjanah et al. (2020) also demonstrated that transformational leaders might serve as antecedents to employees’ motivation and positive attitudes since the transformational leader can encourage and satisfy their subordinates with their helpful, friendly nature. Bogler (2001) suggested that the impact of transformational leadership on job satisfaction is the result of employees’ perceptions of transformational leadership behaviors, such as providing individual attention, empowerment, inspiration, and intellectual stimulation. Transformational leadership has also been observed to have a positive effect on job satisfaction in the specific contexts of the banking sector in Pakistan (Bushra et al., 2011) and the healthcare sector in Malaysia (Choi et al., 2016). On the basis of this theory and previous studies, this study makes the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2 (H2): Transformational leadership has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction. Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 4 of 18 The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has also been examined in many previous studies and is one of the most popular research traditions in industrial–organizational psychology (Bowling et al., 2015; Judge et al., 2001). Several models of the correlation between job satisfaction and job performance have been proposed. The longest–standing of these models suggests that job satisfaction has a causal influence on job performance (Judge et al., 2001). This model assumes that improved performance is the natural product of satisfying employees’ needs. It reflects the idea that organizations that make their employees feel happy will have more productive employees (Roberts & David, 2020). This model is also based on the reciprocity principle of social exchange theory. While a number of studies, however, have argued that job satisfaction has a significant association with job performance (Bowling et al., 2015; Edwards et al., 2008; Judge et al., 2001), other studies have argued that there is not a significant correlation between the two (Keaveney & Nelson, 1993; Michelle & Muchinsky, 1985; Shaikh et al., 2012). This study, therefore, explores the impacts of job satisfaction and job performance, advancing the ongoing debates on this effect in the context of developing countries. Additional work has also taken transformational leadership into account, proposing that it can improve job performance by increasing job satisfaction (Buil et al., 2019; Northouse, 2019). Many previous studies have found that transformational leadership leads to job satisfaction, and other studies demonstrated that job satisfaction leads to job performance. However, few studies have tested the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between transformational leadership and employee performance (Al–edenat, 2018). This research will examine the impact of job satisfaction on job performance in greater detail by considering how job satisfaction may play a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. The study makes the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3 (H3): Job satisfaction has a significant positive effect on job performance. Hypothesis 4 (H4): Job satisfaction has a mediating effect between transformational leadership and job performance. 2.2. Moderating role of financial and non–financial rewards Rewards have been identified as essential for improving employee job performance and productivity. Employees are more willing to try their best when they believe they will receive rewards (Aktar et al., 2012). The theories of motivation propose that leaders often use encouragement as a reward to motivate employees and improve their productivity and job performance (Alderfer, 1969; Herzberg et al., 1993; Vroom, 1964). Herzberg et al. (1993) distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, where intrinsic rewards occur naturally as part of a job (i.e., an individual experiences a successful outcome by completing a duty or attaining a target) while extrinsic rewards are external to the job itself (Malik et al., 2015). Armstrong and Murlis (2007) and Chiang and Birtch (2012) instead distinguished between financial rewards and non–financial rewards. Financial rewards are monetary and economic gains that employees get in the workplace, such as bonuses, commissions, profit sharing, allowances like housing, medical, transport, entertainment, hazards, welfare, pension and gratuities of employees, etc. Non–financial rewards are non–monetary gains in the workplace such as recognition, appreciation, involvement in decision– making, awards, opportunities for career development, on–job training, job security, study leave and sponsorship, etc. (Armstrong & Murlis, 2007; Chiang & Birtch, 2012; Lussier, 2019). Although many studies have shown that rewards have a positive effect on job performance (Ngwa et al., 2019; Seng & Arumugam, 2017), other studies have had different results. For instance, Bishop (1987) suggested that rewards do not clearly relate to job performance because of the enterprise’s specificity of discrepancies between how job performance is determined in different enterprises. Ajila & Abiola (2004) found that while there was a significant correlation between job performance and extrinsic rewards, there was no comparable correlation with intrinsic rewards. Njanja et al. (2013) also demonstrated that cash bonuses have no effect on employee Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 5 of 18 performance. These contradictory results on the relationship between rewards and job performance justify the necessity to further investigate this relationship in the new context. In addition, rewards may interact not only with job performance but also with the relationships between transformational leadership and job performance, and between job satisfaction and job performance. Goethals et al. (2004) argued that rewards play a central role in the social exchange approach to leadership. Transformational leaders inspire their subordinate employees to perform at a high level, reinforcing the effect of rewards (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Weiß & Süß, 2016). The relationship between leaders and employees “depends upon the level of trust, interaction, support, and rewards, which determines the quality of the relationship” (Jyoti & Bhau, 2015, p. 2). Unlike transactional leaders, transformational leaders do not focus on rewards and punishments to achieve goals or reject rewards for lack of productivity; they encourage and stimulate subordinate employees to achieve extraordinary results (B.M. Bass & Riggio, 2014). Therefore, transformational leadership may interact with two kinds of rewards (financial rewards and non–financial rewards) and impact employees’ job performance. According to the cognitive evaluation theory, one of the six mini–theories of self–determination theory, rewards could adjust individuals’ perceptions of the locus of causality, so lowering their feelings of autonomy and influencing both their extrinsic and intrinsic motivations (Deci et al., 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Because transformational leaders can create employees’ sense of autonomy, job motivation, and job performance (Al Harbi et al., 2019; B. M. Bass & Avolio, 1994), rewards could moderate the effect of transformational leaders on their subordinate employees’ job motivation and job performance. Additionally, according to the motivation crowding theory, under certain circumstances, rewards, and in particular financial (external) rewards, can crowd out or undermine an individual’s intrinsic motivation (Frey & Jegen, 2001; Titmuss, 1970). According to Van der Kolk et al. (2019), the phrase “motivation crowding out” stems from the field of economics, where it is employed to describe how rewards can make individuals’ behavior worse. Given that transformational leadership emphasizes creating subordinate employees’ intrinsic motivation through non–monetary benefits (such as acknowledgement, recognition, appreciation, awards, and opportunities for career development), financial rewards may interact with transformational leadership to change subordinate employees’ job motivation, leading to a change in their job performance. Andersen et al. (2018) supposed that if it is true that verbal rewards are typically viewed as less controlling than tangible rewards, cognitive evaluation theory and motivation crowding theory have comparable predictions: workers with leaders who use verbal contingent rewards to a larger extent will experience less control and have higher intrinsic motivation than other individuals. Wilke et al. (2000) also revealed that strong social rewards and low task rewards moderated suckers’ perceptions of injustice in the workplace. Therefore, financial and non–financial rewards can be moderators in the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. Moreover, according to Judge et al. (2001), rewards are one of the moderators of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Podsakoff and Williams (1986) found that the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance was somewhat stronger when rewards were linked to job performance versus when there was no performance–reward contingency. This study makes the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 5a (H5a): Financial rewards have moderating effects on the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. Hypothesis 5b (H5b): Non–financial rewards have moderating effects on the relationship between transformational leadership and job performance. Hypothesis 6a (H6a): Financial rewards have moderating effects on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 6 of 18 Hypothesis 6b (H6b): Non–financial rewards have moderating effects on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Based on all of the hypotheses given above, the research framework shown in Figure 1 was developed for use in this study: 3. Research methodology 3.1. Sample The data used in this study were collected from full–time employees working in private companies in the Vietnamese service sector. Vietnam’s private sector, which employs over 85% of the total workforce, is regarded as the key to Vietnam’s future economic success by virtue of its rapid growth and contribution to the economy (Su & Bui, 2017). Personal connections were used to identify and contact participants, who were sent the online survey questionnaire via email. The survey was designed in English, and all questions were subsequently translated into Vietnamese. Back translation was used to ensure equivalency between the two languages. A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, and 331 usable questionnaires were received, resulting in a response rate of 82.75%. 3.2. Measurement scales Scales with determined reliability and validity were used to operationalize the study’s variables. All items were rated on a seven–point Likert scale that ranged from 1, “strongly disagree” to 7, “strongly agree.” Transformational leadership was measured using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio et al., 1999), which includes three items for each of the four components of transformational leadership, namely intellectual stimulation (e.g., “My supervisor stimulates me to solve problems by myself.”), inspirational motivation (e.g., “My supervisor helps me to understand his or her visions by using tools such as images, stories, and models.”), individualized consideration (e.g., “My supervisor recognizes and appreciates that I have different skills, needs, and abilities.”), and idealized influence (e.g., “My supervisor creates the feeling that we are working on an important assignment.”). Financial and non–financial rewards were measured independently of each other. Financial rewards were measured using a six–item scale that used the items adopted by Chiang and Birtch (2012), e.g., “I get a bonus when I do a good job.” Non–financial rewards were measured on a seven–item scale that was based on the items used in Chiang and Birtch’s (2012) study, e.g., “I get a certificate of commendation when I do a good job.” H3 Transformational leadership Rewards – Financial rewards – Non–financial rewards Job satisfaction Job performance H2 H4 H5a H5b H6a H6b H1 Figure 1. Research framework. Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 7 of 18 intrinsic motivation as the principle of the motivation crowding theory. According to this theory, monetary rewards may impair intrinsic motivation, resulting in a reduction in the performance of those activities (Frey & Jegen, 2001; Titmuss, 1970). Consequently, transformational leadership is constantly accompanied by non–monetary benefits (such as acknowledgement, recognition, and appreciation), which may be drowned out or suppressed by monetary incentives, leading to a decrease in subordinates’ job performance. Therefore, this study contributes to developing the literature related to applying the motivation crowding theory in the research area of leadership, human resource management, and organizational behaviors. 4.7. Practical implications The results of this study offer several suggestions for managers that wish to increase employees’ job satisfaction, job performance, and productivity in order to give their organization a competitive advantage. First, managers should combine the transformational leadership style with a strategy of financial rewards to motivate employees and encourage their job performance. Transformational leaders should concentrate on encouraging and stimulating their subordinate employees through inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence, as opposed to distributing more financial rewards to employees because a focus on financial rewards may lead to decreased job performance. In order to raise employees’ job satisfaction and, by extension, job performance, managers should only provide financial rewards at a sufficient level, combining these financial rewards with the elements of the transformational leadership style. This is compatible with the Vietnamese context because most Vietnamese businesses are classified as micro, small, or medium–sized enterprises and have a limited financial capacity (Khuong & Quoc, 2016). When organizations do not have strong financial resources, managers can still motivate employees by supporting them, increasing their self–expectations, and instructing them so that they can achieve better job performance. Moreover, this way also could help avoid the crowding–out effect of extrinsic incentives (i.e., financial rewards) on intrinsic motivation as the principle of the motivation crowding theory. Second, managers should determine what kinds of financial and non–financial rewards their employees expect. Because differences may exist between departments, positions, and individuals within a single company, it is essential that suitable rewards be chosen for each department, position, and even individual employee. Third, managers should regularly conduct employee satisfaction surveys through various methods to understand their needs and expectations. Given the importance of employees’ job satisfaction in improving their job performance and organizational performance, organizations should determine what kinds of financial and non-financial rewards and other factors will best motivate their employees. Furthermore, managers and researchers should explore how other factors may influence job performance; doing so could provide a better understanding of human resource management and employee behaviors in the organization. 5. Limitations and future research This study had several limitations that should be considered or resolved in future research. First, this study only used cross–sectional data; although we presented the research in a way that proactively addresses concerns with common method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010), this kind of data still could overlook the antecedent–consequent relationship between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, rewards, and job performance. Hence, future research should conduct a longitudinal analysis with three stages of survey for the independent variable, mediating and moderating variables, and dependent variables or use a mix–method to address this limitation. Second, due to some difficulties encountered during the survey period, the study used a convenience sample. Thus, the results were not representative of all employees throughout Vietnam. Future studies should use a larger and more specific sample to increase the representation of all generational groups. Third, the study focused on the perceptions of employees in the service sector. Future studies can apply this model to investigate how financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance in other economic sectors or segments. Fourth, this study did not examine the effect Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 14 of 18 of specific types of financial and non-financial rewards on job satisfaction and job performance. Thus, future studies should test the impacts of specific type of rewards like ESOPs (a component of compensations and benefits) on these variables. Finally, this study was conducted in Vietnam, a developing country, and could be limited from a cross–national view. Therefore, further studies should be conducted in other countries whose economic, social, and cultural conditions are different in order to have comparisons between them. Funding The authors received no direct funding for this research. Author details Hsinkuang Chi 1 Thinh–Van Vu 2 E-mail: [email protected] ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2059-8981 Hoang Viet Nguyen 3 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6491-013X Thanh Ha Truong 1 1 Department of Business Administration, Nanhua University, Dalin, Taiwan. 2 Department of Human Resource Management, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam. 3 Board of Rectors, Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Citation information Cite this article as: How financial and non–financial rewards moderate the relationships between transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and job performance, Hsinkuang Chi, Thinh–Van Vu, Hoang Viet Nguyen & Thanh Ha Truong, Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850. References Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. Ajila, C., & Abiola, A. (2004). Influence of rewards on workers performance in an organizational. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09718923.2004.11892397 Aktar, S., Sachu, M. K., & Ali, M. E. (2012). The impact of rewards on employee performance in commercial banks of Bangladesh: An empirical study. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-0620915 Al–edenat, M. (2018). Reinforcing innovation through transformational leadership: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(4), 810–838. https://doi.org/10. 1108/JOCM-05-2017-0181 Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0030-5073(69)90004-X Al Harbi, J. A., Alarifi, S., & Mosbah, A. (2019). Transformation leadership and creativity. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1082–1099. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2017-0354 Andersen, L. B., Boye, S., & Laursen, R. (2018). Building support? The importance of verbal rewards for employee perceptions of governance initiatives. International Public Management Journal, 21(1), 1–32. https://doi. org/10.1080/10967494.2017.1329761 Armstrong, M., & Murlis, H. (2007). Reward management: A handbook of remuneration strategy and practice. Kogan Page. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 096317999166789 Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bashir, A., Amir, A., Jawaad, M., Hasan, T., & Wickramaratne, R. (2020). Work conditions and job performance: An indirect conditional effect of motivation. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1801961. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020. 1801961 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2014). Transformational leadership. Routledge. Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 105960118701200106 Bishop, J. (1987). The recognition and reward of employee performance. Journal of Labor Economics, 5(4), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1086/298164 Blau, P. (2017). Exchange and power in social life. Routledge. Bogler, R. (2001). The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 662–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00131610121969460 Bowling, N. A., Khazon, S., Meyer, R. D., & Burrus, C. J. (2015). Situational strength as a moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: A meta–analytic examination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(1), 89–104. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10869-013-9340-7 Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.014 Bushra, F., Ahmad, U., & Naveed, A. (2011). Effect of transformational leadership on employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment in banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(18), 261– 267. http://ijbssnet.com/view.php?u=http://ijbssnet. com/journals/Vol_2_No_18_October_2011/31.pdf Chiang, F. F. T., & Birtch, T. A. (2012). The performance implications of financial and non-financial rewards: An Asian Nordic comparison. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 538–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6486.2011.01018.x Chi, H., Yeh, H., & Liou, J. (2016). How internal marketing mediates the relationship between teacher’s organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Education & Social Policy, 3(1), 56–69. https://www. jespnet.com/journal/index/2265 Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 15 of 18 Choi, S. L., Goh, C. F., Adam, M. B. H., & Tan, O. K. (2016). Transformational leadership, empowerment, and job satisfaction: The mediating role of employee empowerment. Human Resources for Health, 14(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-016-0171-2 Chu, L. –. C., & Lai, C. –. C. (2011). A research on the influence of leadership style and job characteristics on job performance among accountants of county and city government in Taiwan. Public Personnel Management, 40(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10. 1177/009102601104000202 Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 Cooke, F. L. (2018). Concepts, contexts, and mindsets: Putting human resource management research in perspectives. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583. 12163 Cranny, P., & Cain Smith, E. F. S. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self–determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 Duong, M. –. Q. (2013). The effects of demographic and institutional characteristics on job satisfaction of university faculty in Vietnam. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 2(4), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.6007/ IJARPED/v2-i4/366 Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Jr., W, A., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology, 57(3), 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1464-0597.2008.00328.x Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., GonzalezMorales, M. G., Wickham, R. E., & Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 635–656. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.1877 Escortell, R., Baquero, A., Delgado, B., & Wright, L. T. (2020). The impact of transformational leadership on the job satisfaction of internal employees and outsourced workers. Cogent Business & Management, 7 (1), 1837460. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975. 2020.1837460 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 002224378101800104 Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589–611. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00150 Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership. Sage. Gumah, B., Wenbin, L., & Aziabah, M. A. (2021). Supervisors’ leadership styles’ influence on foreign teachers’ self– efficacy in a cross–cultural work setting: A moderated mediation analysis. SAGE Open, 11(1), 1–11. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244021994546 Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.) ed.). Prentice Hall. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression– based approach. Guilford Publications. Herman, H. M., & Chiu, W. C. K. (2014). Transformational leadership and job performance: A social identity perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2827–2835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012. 07.018 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1993). The motivation to work. Transaction Publishers. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. https://doi.org/10. 1177/014920639502100509 Holtzhausen, N., & de Klerk, J. J. (2018). Servant leadership and the Scrum team’s effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(7), 873–882. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-05-2018-0193 Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. Harper. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 Jyoti, J., & Bhau, S. (2015). Impact of transformational leadership on job performance: Mediating role of leader–member exchange and relational identification. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244015612518 Keaveney, S. M., & Nelson, J. E. (1993). Coping with organizational role stress: Intrinsic motivational orientation, perceived role benefits, and psychological withdrawal. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02894422 Khalid, K. (2020). The impact of managerial support on the association between pay satisfaction, continuance and affective commitment, and employee task performance. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2158244020914591 Khuong, M. N., & Quoc, T. H. (2016). The effects of organizational justice and ethical leadership on employee performance in Binh Duong’s Industrial Parks, Vietnam. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 4(4), 327–333. https://doi.org/10. 18178/joebm.2016.4.4.412 Lai, F. Y., Tang, H. C., Lu, S. C., Lee, Y. C., & Lin, C. C. (2020). Transformational leadership and job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. SAGE Open, 10(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244019899085 Locke, E. A. (1976). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Nature and Causes of job satisfaction (pp. 1297–1343). Rand McNally. Lussier, R. N. (2019). Management fundamentals: concepts, applications, skill development. Sage. Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., & Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1943 Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0054346 Michelle, T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.97.2.251 Ngwa, W. T., Adeleke, B. S., Agbaeze, E. K., Ghasi, N. C., & Imhanrenialena, B. O. (2019). Effect of reward system Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 16 of 18 on employee performance among selected manufacturing firms in the Litoral region of Cameroon. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 18(3), 1–16. https:// www.abacademies.org/articles/effect-of-reward-sys tem-on-employee-performance-among-selected-man ufacturing-firms-in-the-litoral-region-of-cameroon8226.html Njanja, L. W., Maina, R. N., Kibet, L. K., & Njagi, K. (2013). Effect of reward on employee performance: A case of Kenya power and lighting company Ltd., Nakuru, Kenya. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(21), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.5539/ ijbm.v8n21p41 Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage. Nurjanah, S., Pebianti, V., Handaru, A. W., & Foroudi, P. (2020). The influence of transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitments on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in the inspectorate general of the ministry of education and culture. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1793521 O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj. 2006.20786079 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(96) 90049-5 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. –. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879 Podsakoff, P. M., & Williams, L. J. (1986). The relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. In I. E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 207–253). Lexington Press. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https:// doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553 Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612 Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2020). Boss phubbing, trust, job satisfaction and employee performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 155. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109702 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self–determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well–being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55. 1.68 Seng, N., & Arumugam, T. (2017). Financial reward and motivation toward employee job performance in the hospitality industry in Klang Valley. Electronic Journal of Business & Management, 2(1), 51–60. Shaikh, M. A., Bhutto, N. A., & Maitlo, Q. (2012). Facets of job satisfaction and its association with performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 31, 322–326. http://ijbssnet.com/view.php?u=http:// ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_7_April_2012/36.pdf Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Sage. Stanton, P., & Pham, H. T. (2014). Managing employee performance in an emerging economy: Perceptions of Vietnamese managers. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(2), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13602381.2013.825975 Su, T. D., & Bui, T. M. H. (2017). Government size, public governance and private investment: The case of Vietnamese provinces. Economic Systems, 41(4), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.01.002 Tannenbaum, A., Weschler, I. R., & Massarik, F. (1961). Leadership and organization: A behavioral science approach. McGraw–Hill. Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The Gift Relationship. Allen and Unwin. Van der Kolk, B., van Veen–Dirks, P. M., & ter Bogt, H. J. (2019). The impact of management control on employee motivation and performance in the public sector. European Accounting Review, 28(5), 901–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2018.1553728 Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.85.4.526 Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216–226. https://doi. org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151 Vo–Thanh, T., Vu, T. V., Nguyen, N. P., Nguyen, D. V., Zaman, M., & Chi, H. (2020). How does hotel employees’ satisfaction with the organization’s COVID–19 responses affect job insecurity and job performance? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(6), 907–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020. 1850750 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley. Weiß, E. –. E., & Süß, S. (2016). The relationship between transformational leadership and effort–reward imbalance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/ LODJ-08-2014-0146 Wilke, M., Rutte, C. G., & van Knippenberg, A. (2000). The resentful sucker: Do rewards ease the pain? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943200417939 Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 17 of 18 © 2023 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Cogent Business & Management (ISSN: 2331-1975) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures: • Immediate, universal access to your article on publication • High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online • Download and citation statistics for your article • Rapid online publication • Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards • Retention of full copyright of your article • Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article • Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com Chi et al., Cogent Business & Management (2023), 10: 2173850 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2173850 Page 18 of 18