Chapter 1: Introduction
Background of the Study: In the competitive financial sector, firms
often shift reward structures to foster collaboration. However, the
transition from individual to team-based incentives can inadvertently
alienate high-performers, a phenomenon known as "social loafing" or
the "free-rider" effect.
Statement of the Problem: This study aims to determine the impact
of team-based incentives on the retention of top-tier talent at Global
Finance Inc.
1. What is the level of perceived fairness of team-based
incentives?
2. What is the level of retention intention among high-potential
employees?
3. Is there a significant relationship between incentive fairness
and retention intention?
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework: This study is anchored on
Equity Theory by John Stacey Adams, which posits that employees
seek a balance between their inputs (effort) and outputs (rewards).
o IV: Team-Based Incentive Structure (Perceived Fairness).
o DV: Retention Intention of High-Potential Employees.
Hypothesis: $H_o$: There is no significant relationship between the
perceived fairness of team-based incentives and the retention intention
of high-potential employees.
Scope and Limitation: The study is limited to the Sales and
Brokerage departments of Global Finance Inc. for the 2024 fiscal year.
Significance of the Study: This study will benefit Human Resource
Managers in redesigning compensation packages and Strategic
Leaders in mitigating talent flight.
Definition of Terms: * High-Potential Employees: Individuals
consistently ranked in the top 10% of performance evaluations.
o Team-Based Incentives: Rewards distributed equally among a
group regardless of individual contribution.
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature
Introduction: This chapter explores the literature regarding
compensation systems and organizational behavior.
Conceptual Literature: Literature suggests that while Incentive
Structures (Variables) promote teamwork, they must be aligned
with the psychological needs of high-performers to ensure Retention
(Output).
Research Literature: Studies by Lazear (2000) indicate that "Pay-for-
Performance" is the strongest driver for top-tier talent, whereas team
rewards may lead to dissatisfaction among high-achievers.
Synthesis: The reviewed literature establishes that rewards are not
just financial tools but psychological signals of value, justifying the
study's framework.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
Introduction: This chapter outlines the technical roadmap for the
investigation.
Research Environment: The study will be conducted at the
headquarters of Global Finance Inc.
Research Design: A Descriptive-Correlational design will be
utilized.
Respondents of the Study: 50 identified "High-Potential" employees
selected via Purposive Sampling.
Data Gathering Instrument:
o Construct: A researcher-made 5-point Likert Scale questionnaire.
o Validation: The instrument will undergo Content Validation by
a panel of MBA faculty.
o Administration/Scoring: 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly
Disagree).
Data Gathering Procedure: (1) Secure permit from HR; (2) Distribute
via corporate email; (3) Tabulate results for analysis.
Statistical Treatment of Data: 1. Weighted Mean: To determine the
levels of perceived fairness and retention.
2. Pearson $r$ Correlation: To test the relationship between the two variables
at a 0.05 level of significance.
Pacing Cheat Sheet for the 90 Minutes:
Chapter 1 (30 mins): Do not overthink the Background. Spend most
of your time on the SOP and Framework—these are the "bones" of
your grade.
Chapter 2 (20 mins): Since you don't have a library, use "General
Knowledge." Mention a theory (Equity, Maslow, etc.) and move on.
Chapter 3 (30 mins): Be very specific here. Professors look for the
name of the Statistical Tool.
Review (10 mins): Ensure the variables in the Title match the
variables in the Hypothesis and Stats.
1. Descriptive Statistics (Profiling)
When to use: For SOP #1 and #2 (e.g., "What is the level of...?")
The Tools:
o Weighted Mean: To find the average "score" of a variable (e.g.,
average Job Satisfaction).
o Standard Deviation: To see if the respondents' answers were
consistent or widely spread out.
2. Relationship/Link Statistics (Correlational)
When to use: When you want to see if two variables move together.
The Tools:
o Pearson $r$ Correlation: Used when both variables are
"continuous" (e.g., Age vs. Salary, or Stress Score vs.
Performance Score).
o Spearman Rho: Use this if your data is "ordinal" (ranked data).
3. Difference Statistics (Comparative)
When to use: When the case study asks if there is a "difference"
between two groups (e.g., Male vs. Female, or Morning Shift vs. Night
Shift).
The Tools:
o Independent T-Test: Compares the means of two distinct
groups.
o Paired T-Test: Compares the same group "Before" and "After" a
change (e.g., Sales before training vs. Sales after training).
o ANOVA (Analysis of Variance): Compares the means of three
or more groups (e.g., Productivity of Dept A vs. Dept B vs. Dept
C).
4. Impact/Prediction Statistics (Causal)
When to use: When the case asks "To what extent does X predict Y?"
or "What is the impact of X on Y?"
The Tool:
o Linear Regression: This tells you how much the Dependent
Variable (DV) will change based on the Independent Variable (IV).
sStandard "Defensive Phrases" for Chapter 3
If the exam asks you to justify your tool, use these pre-written sentences:
For Mean: "The Weighted Mean was used to describe the central
tendency of the respondents' perceptions regarding [Variable]."
For Pearson $r$: "Pearson $r$ was utilized to determine the strength
and direction of the linear relationship between [IV] and [DV]."
For T-Test: "An Independent T-Test was employed to identify if a
significant statistical difference exists between the two groups' mean
scores."
Final Strategy for your 1.5-Hour Exam:
1. Read the SOP: Look for the key verb (Relationship? Difference?
Level?).
2. Match the Tool: Use the table above.
3. Check the Scales: Ensure you mentioned a 5-point Likert Scale, as
most of these tools require "interval-ratio" data.