The Motivational Power of Incentive Travel:
The Participant’s Perspective
Scott A. Jeffrey
Monmouth University
Author’s Notes
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott A. Jeffrey,
Monmouth University, Leon Hess Business School, 400 Cedar Ave. West Long Branch, NJ
07764. Telephone: (732) 263-5519. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
This article reports the results of a survey given to 1003 participants who were eligible to receive
travel incentives. Both recipients of the incentive (714) and non-recipients (289) replied to
questions regarding what makes a travel incentive motivating, what could make the incentive
more motivating, and how travel’s motivational appeal compares to other incentives offered by
companies. In addition, participants were asked to ask how they felt about the firm offering
these incentives. The article finds that travel is highly motivating to employees and creates
positive feelings towards the company by recipients of the incentive. The article also finds that
there are limited negative feelings towards the company expressed by non-recipients.
Implications for design and implementation are discussed.
Keywords: Incentive Travel, Employee Attitudes, Employee Motivation
Introduction
Incentive travel can be defined as “exceptional travel experiences to motivate or
recognize superior performance” (Incentive Research Foundation, 2008, pg 1). Essentially, this
means any travel paid for by a company in order to reward an employee for specific
performance. The incentive travel market was $13.4 Billion US in 2006 and when motivational
meetings and special events are included, this number rises to $77.1B (Ingram, Lee, & Skinner,
1989). Past research on sales force motivation has shown that travel is a more effective motivator
than cash and merchandise but this research fails to examine the specific elements of travel that
make it motivating (Caballero, 1988). While other research has asked sales person’s opinions of
the sales program and for their preferences for rewards (e.g. Chonko, Tanner, & Weeks, 1992),
the author believes that this is the first article that actually asks the recipients of travel incentives
what makes a travel incentive motivating.
This article contributes both to the academic realm and practitioner realm. For an
academic audience, this article can contribute to research on motivation, in particular, the
individual mechanisms that make specific rewards motivating. For the practitioner, this research
will assist in the design and implementation of travel programs so as to maximize their
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
122
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
effectiveness. This research is particularly important now as incentive travel has been
experiencing a large amount of negative media coverage and poor public opinion (Auffermann,
2009). Therefore, both academics and practitioners need to understand if firms should continue
to invest in incentive travel and how best to design and deliver this type of incentive.
This article is unique in the sense that it addresses the viewpoint of recipients of incentive
travel rather than the opinions of those who provide these incentives in order to explore why
travel motivates (rather than whether or not it does). In addition, it departs from a great deal of
research on incentive travel which only looks at how sales employees view them, by adding nonsales employees and channel partners to the sample.
Literature review
What Motivates Employees
Early work on motivation surrounded needs theories. When a person had an unfulfilled
need, this caused the person to engage in behavior to satisfy that need (Alderfer, 1972; Maslow,
1970; McClelland, 1961; McGregor, 1960). Later, theorists added the role of cognition into
motivation theory, stating that people must believe that the item that will fulfill a need is actually
obtainable. Expectancy theories, developed initially by Victor Vroom (1964) created two types
of expectancy beliefs. The first dealt with whether or not employees believed they could achieve
the required level of performance to become eligible for a reward. The second became known as
instrumentality, the belief that if an employee did actually perform at the requisite level,
company management would actually deliver the rewards. The third part of this theory was
known as valence, the amount the employee valued the reward (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980;
Vroom, 1964).
Goal setting theory was developed independently but complements expectancy theory in
by outlining how an appropriate performance target should be set. Locke and his colleagues
(Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham,
1981) demonstrated that specific difficult goals drive better performance provided they were
accepted and committed to. This stream of research also showed that commitment was more
likely to goals that were viewed as fair and clear (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987; Hollenbeck,
Williams, & Klein, 1989).
Recent work on motivation relevant to this work has focused in on valence, what makes
an incentive attractive. This research has shown that beyond being more motivating in the
valence-instrumentality-expectancy framework (Vroom, 1964), high valence items improve
employees moods, making them choose higher goals, perform better, and maintain a more
positive view of their employers (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004).
How Does Travel Motivate
Travel incentives accomplish motivation predominantly through valence. The travel
event itself is frequently a unique event which an employee would find difficult to duplicate on
their own. The high valence drives effort (Bonner & Sprinkle, 2002; Naylor et al., 1980) and
leads to more positive employee emotions which also increase effort and performance (Seo et al.,
2004).
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
123
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Travel can also increase long term performance by enhancing the relationship between
the employee and employer. Incentive awards in general provide a signal of recognition of good
performance from employees which leads to more of the same behavior in the future (Long &
Shields, 2010; Mone, Eisinger, Guggenheim, Price, & Stine, 2011; Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003).
This praise also leads employees to feel valued by the organization and leads employees to
increase their commitment to the organization (Shore & Wayne, 1993; Wayne, Shore, Bommer,
& Tetrick, 2002). Travel is better at delivering this type of recognition due to the fact it is highly
memorable and often more expensive than most other incentives. Higher levels of organizational
commitment then lead to better task performance as well as an increase in the incidence of
organizational citizenship behaviors (Allen & Rush, 1998; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997; Smith,
Organ, & Near, 1983).
Finally, the uniqueness of travel increases motivation through three additional
mechanisms: justifiability, social reinforcement, and separability (Jeffrey & Shaffer, 2007).
Since travel tends to be expensive and often viewed as a luxury, it is difficult for people to
purchase is using their own funds, as they have difficulty clearing a “justifiability” hurdle. Since
this travel essentially becomes a “guilt-free” indulgence, as it is being purchased by the
company, its valence increases. Additionally, going on a trip becomes a more socially
acceptable way to discuss good performance. It allows an employee to discuss the reward more
readily than a cash incentive, due to social proscriptions against the discussion of cash (Hays,
1999; Palmer, 2008; Webley & Wilson, 1989).
Travel also increases the relationship with the company as it provides tangible artifacts of
the trip, such as photos and souvenirs. This physical reminder of the incentive reinforces the
feeling of being valued by the company (Jeffrey, Nummelin, & Silbert, 2007). Having these
artifacts also makes it more likely that a colleague will broach the subject of earning the reward.
This means that the employee can discuss his positive performance without appearing to brag.
Finally, cash incentives are often viewed as simply “more salary”, making them more
susceptible to the effects of diminishing marginal utility. A separate “mental account” is set up
for non-cash incentives which means they tend to be viewed in isolation and therefore less
susceptible to these negative effects (Heath & Soll, 1996; Thaler, 1999). This increases the
anticipated enjoyment (valence) of the incentive and makes it more motivating.
Past Research on Incentive Travel
Research on sales contests has a rich tradition of trying to inform sales managers
regarding the best way to increase sales effort and performance with much of it focused on award
type. Research by Chonko, Tanner, and Weeks (1986) surveyed sales people and asked for
pairwise comparisons of their preferences between pay raises, promotion opportunities, fringe
benefits, recognition, and incentive awards. Their research showed that sales people had a strong
preference for pay raises over all of the other potential rewards. Incentive awards came in fourth
in the list of five. This finding needs to be interpreted carefully before any conclusions regarding
the motivational power of travel can be drawn. This is because these authors defined incentive
awards vaguely as “salesperson of the year, million dollar club, qualification of spouse for sales
convention, and bonuses” (pg 75). There is substantial room for construal in the way this
question was asked by the authors so that sales people may not have immediately thought of
travel incentives when answering this question. Other research however makes the construal
explanation less likely and points to sales person preferences for incentives other than travel. In
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
124
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
a conjoint analysis of the preferences of 796 salespeople in 46 business units at 3 companies,
cash was regularly stated as the most preferred reward (Hunt, Chonko, & Wood, 1986).
Drawing the conclusion that travel is not as motivational as cash would be premature, as
past research has shown that what employees say they want is not necessarily that for which they
will exert the most effort. In a laboratory study among university staff members, a strong
preference for a cash incentive was found yet the performance uplift was stronger for a non-cash
tangible incentive (Jeffrey, 2009). Further evidence of a discrepancy between performance and
preference comes from a study which offered three different incentives to three groups working
at a life insurance company. The group that was working in pursuit of a travel incentive
outperformed two other groups who were offered cash and merchandise respectively (Caballero,
1988).
These divergent findings might be interpreted as casting doubt upon the effectiveness of
travel as an incentive, but two observations argue in favor of the effectiveness of travel. The first
is the fact that travel is still widely used as an incentive for salespeople. If it were not effective,
then companies would most likely have stopped using it a long time ago. The second is
hypothesized by Moncrief and colleagues (2006) who discuss the additional motivational
benefits of what they call “trophy value”. This is defined as the additional value that comes from
rewards that provide a tangible reminder of the performance that led to their receipt. This trophy
value has also been discussed in other research (Jeffrey & Shaffer, 2007).
Other researchers have examined how organizational commitment and job commitment
affect sales force behavior. Theoretical research suggested that organizational commitment
would increase salesperson effort (Hunt et al., 1986), but empirical work however failed to find
this association ("Successful Companies Reward Top Employees, Despite Cost Pressures," 2003;
"Top Tools for Motivation," 2005). This same research however found that job commitment was
positively correlated with performance ("Successful Companies Reward Top Employees,
Despite Cost Pressures," 2003). Even with mixed results on commitment, a consistent finding in
the literature is that organizational commitment does lower the intent-to-leave and therefore
lowers turnover (Incentive Research Foundation, 2008; "Successful Companies Reward Top
Employees, Despite Cost Pressures," 2003). To the extent that travel incentives can increase
organizational commitment it can contribute to job commitment and thereby improve
performance. The provision of recognition through the use of different types of incentives,
particularly travel, can increase commitment through an increase in perceived organizational
support (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001).
Method
The author designed the first draft of a survey which then underwent review by a Delphi
panel of professionals practicing in the area of travel incentives. Once final comments received
from these experts were incorporated into the survey, the final survey was provided to the market
research firm Research Now® who translated the survey into the online format that participants
in the survey would see. This survey included a number of screening questions to make sure that
survey respondents met the criteria outlined by the researcher team as discussed below.
ResearchNow™ sent 120,869 invitations to participate to members of their mailing list.
Of those sent an e-mail request, 24,699 clicked on the link representing a 20.5% click through
rate. Of those that clicked through, 16,052 attempted to qualify by answering screening
questions (13.3%). Based upon industry data, this is a high rate when compared to the general
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
125
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
rate of less than 5% (Callegaro, Kruse, Thomas, and Nukulkjj, 2009). Participants were allowed
to continue with the survey if a) the potential participant had been eligible to earn travel within
the last 5 years, b) an employee or dealer/distributor of the program sponsor, c) was the person to
whom the travel was rewarded, and d) the participant was 25 years of age or older. A total of
1003 participants passed through all of the screening questions and completed the survey.
Results
Sample Description
The detailed information of the sample can be seen in Table 1. Of the participants,
83.3% were male, and 16.7% were female. This is a reasonable percentage of women in the
survey based upon the type of employees who are generally offered travel as an incentive
(Mukherjee, 2010). The median age of the sample was 44 with an interquartile range between 35
and 54. More than sixty-eight percent (68.7%) of the sample reported being married, 20.7%
were single, and 8.2% reported that they had been previously married (e.g. widowed or
divorced). Nearly 62% (61.9%) of the sample reported no children living at home, with 18.5%
reporting one, and 14.4% reporting two. The balance of the sample (5.2%) reported more than
two children living at home. The full demographic make-up of the sample can be seen in Table
1.
Participants were asked their role in the company that provided the incentive travel
opportunity. 43.5% of the sample was in a sales role, with 40.0% reporting that they were a nonsales employee. Slightly less than 3% of the sample reported being a channel partner
(distributor) with 13.7% reporting “other”. This is consistent with previous research that shows
travel is predominantly offered to sales personnel (Mukherjee, 2010). As stated earlier, this
research provides a departure from much of the previous research as most past research has been
performed using sales personnel only. So while these results are applicable to that audience, this
research can also speak to non-sales employees.
Table 2 shows the type of travel offered by employee role. For all participants,
individual travel was offered to 63.4% of participants, while 36.6% reported group travel. This
is also consistent with research done on the mix of group vs. individual travel (Mukherjee, 2010).
Interestingly, the percentage of group travel for sales employees was 46.3%, significantly higher
than the percentage of group travel offered to other types of participants, χ2(3, N=1003) = 32.4, p
< .001.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
126
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Table 1
Respondent Details
Industry
Financial Services
Technology and Telecomm
Automotive
Healthcare
Other
14.7%
19.1%
4.2%
10.3%
51.7%
Firm Size
Less than 500
501 to 1000
1001 to 5000
More than 5001
35.0%
14.4%
17.9%
32.7%
Gender
Male
Female
83.3%
16.7%
Marital Status
Married
Single
Previously Married
68.7%
20.7%
8.2%
Age
Mean: 44.7
Number of Children
None
One
Two
More
61.9%
18.5%
14.4%
5.2%
Role
Sales
43.5%
Non-Sales
Channel
Other
40.0%
2.8%
13.7%
Median: 44
Table 2
Type of Travel by Employee Role
Within Role
Sales
Non-Sales
Channel Partner
Other
Group
46.3%
29.4%
35.7%
26.8%
Individual
53.7%
70.6%
64.3%
73.2%
Total
36.6%
63.4%
Total (by role)
43.5%
40.0%
2.8%
13.8%
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
127
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Overall Motivational Power
The survey asked participants specific questions regarding the motivational power of
incentive travel. The responses to the question: “In general terms, how motivated are you to earn
the current travel award offered?” can be seen in Table 3. Nearly 77% of respondents reported
that they were either motivated or extremely motivated with only 1% responding that they were
not at all motivated by the potential to earn travel. Sales people reported being more motivated
by travel than non-sales employees, Tukey HSD p < .05.
There were no differences found in the motivational power of travel between men and women,
t(1001) = 0.70, ns. There was no correlation between age and the motivational power of travel
incentives, r(1003) = .03, ns. In addition, marital status did not affect the motivational power of
travel as all Tukey HSD comparisons were not significant. Finally, there was no statistically
significant difference in the motivational power of individual vs. group travel.
Table 3
Overall motivation level
Motivation Level
Not at all motivating
Relatively not motivating
A little motivating
Motivating
Extremely motivating
No Opinion
Percent Responding
1.2%
3.0%
17.4%
46.0%
30.7%
1.7%
The question of overall motivation level was further analyzed by splitting responses
between those who had earned travel and those who had not. Unsurprisingly, earners found
travel more motivating than non-earners (Mearners = 5.05 vs Mnon-earners = 4.77), t(1001) = 4.12, p <
.001, Mann-Whitney U = -3.67, p < .001. Both groups were asked “How will your level of
motivation change when working towards the next travel award opportunity (assuming the same
destination)?” On a response scale of strongly disagree (2) to strongly agree (6), those who had
earned an incentive had a higher mean response of 4.62 than those who did not earn the award
who had a mean score of 4.47, t(1001) = 2.48, p < .05. This question was asked again with
participants asked to assume a different destination. The pattern here was repeated, with earners
reporting higher levels of motivation than non-earners, t(1001) = 7.37, p < .001. While these
results may suggest that non-earners may have been discouraged by not winning the reward,
responses to another question tell a different story. A large majority of non-earners (67.4%)
reported that their motivation would either increase or significantly increase while only 2.7%
said that it would decrease or significantly decrease, t(288) = 23.47, p < .001.
Motivational Power of Elements of Incentive Travel
The survey asked questions about the impact of specific elements of travel events. These
responses can be seen in Table 4. For each of the four questions, a Chi-Square analysis shows
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
128
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
that far more respondents agreed with those statements than disagreed with those statements (all
p < .001).
Table 4
Motivating effects of incentive travel elements (percentage expressing opinion)
Statement
SD
D
N
A
SA
Earning incentive travel allows me to interact with higher
level executives of the company offering the award.
χ2(4) = 574.5, p < .001
5.1%
8.7%
23.8%
48.1%
14.3%
Earning incentive travel allows me to build relationships with
peers away from work.
χ2(4) = 667.0, p < .001
3.7%
6.6%
16.1%
49.7%
23.9%
Earning incentive travel allows me to experience something
unique that I could not do on my own.
χ2(4) = 514.4, p < .001
2.4%
8.2%
18.0%
42.4%
29.0%
Earning incentive travel makes me feel recognized by the
company and my peers.
χ2(4) = 967.5, p < .001
1.0%
2.7%
8.9%
48.4%
39.0%
Notes: SD = Strongly Disagree, D = Disagree, N = Neither Agree nor Disagree, A = Agree, SA = Strongly Agree
χ2 test compares agree (SA + A) with disagree (SD + D)
Table 4 shows that the recognition value of travel is more important than the other
aspects of travel that were asked about. Over 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with
the statement that travel made them feel recognized. In paired t-tests, the level of agreement
reported for recognition was higher than that reported for the other aspects of incentive travel.
There was a higher level of agreement on that question when compared to the opportunity to
spend time with executives, t(1002) = 19.65, p < .001, building relationships with peers away
from work t(1002) = 12.85, p < .001, and the ability to have a unique experience t(1002) = 10.02,
p < .001. Of these, time spent with top management was significantly less motivational than the
either the ability to experience something unique or the ability to develop relationships with
peers, t(1002) = 10.15, p < .001, t(1002) = 8.91, p < .001, respectively.
The survey went on to ask participants how incentive travel could be improved to make
travel more attractive to them. These responses can be seen in Table 5. Looking at the total of
“much more” and “very much more” motivating, Table 5 shows that having more destination
choices (44.5%) and increased leisure time (44.9%) are the items that would most improve
motivation among participants in incentive travel programs.
To test for demographic differences in the responses to the questions regarding what
elements could increase motivation, the responses were analyzed by respondents’ reported
marital status. Statistical significance is reported based on Tukey HSD post-hoc tests. For the
statement “more guests of my choosing,” single respondents found that this change would
increase motivation more than individuals who were married, p < .01. In addition to this, single
people reported that they would experience higher increases in motivation if there were fewer
mandatory company functions, p < .05. Single respondents also believed that their motivation
would be increased more if more leisure time were available, p < .05.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
129
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Table 5
What could make travel more motivating?
NM
LM
M
MM
VMM
Increased trip duration
15.1%
28.1%
29.4%
16.1%
11.4%
More Guests of my choosing
26.7%
21.9%
21.0%
17.8%
12.5%
Fewer Mandatory Company Functions
29.9%
24.2%
22.3%
14.8%
8.8%
More Choice of Destinations
11.1%
18.6%
25.7%
27.4%
17.1%
More Leisure/Unscheduled Time
10.2%
15.3%
29.6%
26.9%
18.0%
Going to All-Inclusive Resorts
22.2%
20.0%
24.8%
19.0%
13.9%
Payment of any Personal Tax
31.0%
17.9%
19.9%
13.8%
17.3%
More Information about the Destination
24.3%
29.3%
29.7%
11.2%
5.5%
Different Award Levels
17.3%
22.1%
31.4%
17.5%
11.6%
More Frequent Promotion of the Award
17.3%
20.8%
29.3%
16.9%
15.6%
Notes: NM = No More Motivating, LM = A Little More Motivating, M = More Motivating, MM = Much More
Motivating, VMM = Very Much More Motivating.
Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Differences for the presence of children in the family were also tested. Only one question
had significant correlation with the number of children in a household and that was the desire to
bring more guests of one’s own choosing. In families with no children living at home, the mean
value was 2.58, while for those with at least one child, the mean response was 2.83, t(1001) =
2.85, p < .01.
Attitudes of Participants
This article reported results that showed that the desire to strive towards future
opportunities to earn travel was not greatly diminished by failing to earn the travel award,
suggesting that non-earners were not overly discouraged by the failure to achieve the stated goal.
Beyond this, there was concern about any negative attitudes harbored about those who did earn
the incentive as well as the company providing the incentive opportunity. Therefore non-earners
were asked a number of questions regarding their attitudes toward earners and the company
offering the incentive. Because of the potential for positive feelings increasing the commitment
of employees, earners were also asked questions about their feelings towards the provider of
incentive travel. This section reports these results.
Non-Earners. Non-recipients were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “I am
envious of the people earning the award.” Twenty-nine point four percent of non-earners agreed
or strongly agreed with that statement, while 41.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed, t(288) =
3.06, p < .01. In addition, envy was not strongly correlated with the desire to work towards
receipt of the incentive in the future. The correlation between envy and the level of motivation
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
130
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
reported was .13 for the same destination and .14 for a different destination. Although
statistically significant, r(289) = .183, p = .002 and r(289) = .156, p = .008 respectively, they do
not rise to the level of practical significance and are only significant due to the large sample size.
Table 6
Non-earner attitudes towards company providing travel incentives
Disagree
1
2
1.
I feel bitter towards my employer
65.8%
--
2.
I feel unfairly treated by my employer
62.3%
.78***
--
3.
My overall level of engagement with the company
offering the incentive is lower
49.8%
.53***
.58***
3
--
Note: Disagree = Disagree or Strongly Disagree, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Non-earners were also asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: “It seems
to be the same people earning the travel each year.” While not an overwhelmingly large number,
36.3% of non-earners stated that they agreed or strongly agreed. This percentage was not higher
than the percentage of respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing (30.1%) with this
statement. This response was also not significantly correlated with a willingness to work harder
in the future (.13 for the same destination, .03 for a different destination). The responses to this
question are somewhat correlated with the feelings of envy, r(289) = .28, p < .001.
Finally, non-earners were asked how they felt about the company who provided the
opportunity to earn travel. Only 9.0% of non-earners stated that felt bitter towards the company
and 10.7% reported feeling unfairly treated. This sentiment is consistent with responses to the
question regarding engagement with the company. Only 18% of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement that their overall level of engagement with the company was lower,
while 52% disagreed or strongly disagreed with that statement.
Earners. Questions regarding attitudes towards the firm were also asked to employees
who had earned travel incentives. The responses to these questions and the correlation can be
seen in Table 7. As can be seen in Table 7, travel incentives are successful in driving positive
attitudes towards the firm that provides them. The highest of these was in response to the
question “Earning the travel award made me feel appreciated,” with 88.0% agreeing or strongly
agreeing. People who received a travel incentive reported higher feelings of loyalty (71.7%),
feelings of “belongingness” (76.1%), and feelings of trust (62.4%). Table 7 also shows a high
level of correlation between responses to all of the questions.
Because of this high correlation, these questions were tested as a single factor
representing positive attitudes towards the company. A reliability analysis on these four
questions produced a Chronbach’s alpha of .904, suggesting that all questions can be represented
by a single latent variable. This latent variable was created as an average of the responses to
these four questions. This was correlated significantly with the overall level of motivation
r(714) = .43, p < .001.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
131
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Table 7
Earner attitudes towards company providing travel incentives
Correlations
Agree
1
2
3
Earning the travel award made me feel appreciated
88.0%
--
I have an increased feeling of loyalty towards the
company that provided this award to me
71.7%
.60***
--
Earning the travel award increased my feelings of
"belongingness" to the company that provided this
award
76.1%
.66***
.71***
--
Earning the travel award increased my feelings of trust
towards my company
62.4%
.54***
.72***
.68***
4
--
Note: Agree = Percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed,
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Motivational Power of Travel vs. Other Alternatives
The survey asked respondents their beliefs regarding the effectiveness of incentive travel
relative to other incentive options. These responses can be seen in Table 8. A large percentage
of respondents believed that travel is a better motivational tool than merchandise, Z = 26.5, p <
.001. In addition, respondents believed that cash would be a more effective reward than
incentive travel, Z = 2.38, p < .05. A majority of respondents seem to feel that paid vacation
time would be more motivational than company sponsored travel, t(989) = 5.87, p < .001. There
were no significant difference in responses given by earners and non-earners to these questions.
Table 8
Relative motivational power of other incentives
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I believe that cash (or near cash like a prepaid
debit card) would be a more effective
motivational tool than travel. (n = 988)
6.5%
25.7%
30.7%
26.9%
10.2%
I believe that merchandise would be a more
effective motivational tool than travel (n =
988).
20.0%
I believe that paid vacation time would be a
more effective motivational tool than travel.
(n = 990)
7.8%
Disagree: 32.0%
42.5%
Agree: 37.1%
24.6%
Disagree: 62.5%
22.1%
11.0%
1.8%
Agree: 12.8%
28.7%
Disagree: 28.9%
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
30.1%
11.3%
Agree: 41.4%
132
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Implementation Issues
Respondents were asked specific questions regarding the clarity and fairness of the goal
as well as the quality of feedback they received regarding progress. The responses to these
questions can be seen in Tables 9 and 10. Respondents reported that they believed the goals
were fair, clear, and achievable. Employees who completed these surveys also felt that for the
most part, they received adequate feedback on their progress toward necessary goals. That clear,
fair, and achievable goals with adequate feedback are motivating is confirmed by looking at the
correlations between employee perceptions of goals and the motivational power of travel,
r(1003) = .32, .36, .28, and .30 respectively, all p < .001. Since the responses to these questions
were all highly correlated, they were tested to see if they were a latent factor regarding goals. A
reliability test showed that these questions did load well on a single factor, Chronbach’s =
.793. The impact of fairness and feedback was confirmed by a significant correlation between
this scale and the overall motivational power of travel, r(1003) = .41, p < .001.
These responses were compared across people who had earned and not earned travel and
the only significant difference reported was to the question regarding achievability. Participants
who met the goal believed it was more achievable, t(1001) = 4.5, p < .001. Both earners and
non-earners believed that they received sufficient feedback from management. Using a Fisher rto-Z transform, the correlations between attitudes towards goals and the motivating potential of
travel was compared across earners and non-earners. The only correlation that differed was that
between the clarity of goals and the motivational power of the travel incentive, Z = 2.44, p = .01.
Two additional questions were asked regarding qualification rules. First, the survey asked
whether or not people who came close to earning the award should be given the opportunity to
“buy in” to the event. The average response for non-recipients did not significantly differ from
the “neither agree nor disagree” response of 4, t(288) = .53, ns. Earners, however, expressed a
willingness to allow non-earners to buy in to the event providing an average response of 4.28,
higher than the neutral response, t(713) = 6.33, p < .001. Earners reported a higher level of
agreement with allowing the ability of non-earners to buy-in than did non-earners, t(1001) = 3.8,
p < .001.
Table 9
Participant attitudes towards goals
Earners (N = 714)
Correlations
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I believe the performance goal
necessary to earn the travel is clear.
I believe the performance goal
necessary to earn the travel is
achievable.
I believe the performance goal
necessary to earn the travel is fairly
determined.
I receive ongoing feedback that helps
me understand my progress towards
the incentive travel award.
In general terms, how motivated are
you to earn the current travel award
offered?
Agree
1
2
3
74.0%
--
80.4%
.52***
--
76.8%
.52***
.62***
--
58.5%
.47***
.36***
.36***
--
NA
.27***
.33***
.26***
.31***
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
4
--
133
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Table 10
Participant attitudes towards goals
Non-Earners (N = 289)
1.
I believe the performance goal
necessary the travel is clear.
2.
I believe the performance goal
necessary to earn the travel is
achievable.
I believe the performance goal
necessary to earn the travel is fairly
determined.
3.
4.
5.
I receive ongoing feedback that helps
me understand my progress towards
the incentive travel award.
In general terms, how motivated are
you to earn the current travel award
offered?
Correlations
Agree
1
2
3
4
69.2%
--
71.0%
.47***
--
68.6%
.51***
.62***
--
54.6%
.52***
.40***
.30***
--
NA
.43***
.43***
.33***
.28***
5
--
Notes: Agree = Percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed,
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
The survey also asked respondents their view on the possibility of tiered incentives,
whereby higher performers would receive a better experience (better accommodations, more
events, etc.). The analysis of these questions followed the same pattern as that observed with the
buy-in option, with earners reporting more agreement than non-earners, t(1001) = 3.67, p < .001.
As with the buy-in question, non-earners did not agree nor disagree with the statement, t(288) =
1.27, ns, while earners thought that a tiered program would be a good idea, t(713) = 8.66, p <
.001.
Discussion
The most important finding reported in this article is the high levels of motivation
reported by participants with respect to travel. This was true for both sales employees (the
standard group of subjects) and non-sales employees, although sales people did report being
more motivated. Thus, even in the face of the increased popularity of gift cards and the negative
attitudes towards incentive travel expressed in the media, travel is still an effective motivator.
The data also show that even though non-earners reported being less motivated by travel than
those who had earned it, they did not seem to be discouraged by not earning the reward. In fact,
they reported nearly as much willingness to work for future incentives as those who had earned
travel.
A low percentage of non-earning employees felt bitter towards the company or unfairly
treated. Non-earners reported level of engagement with the company was also not affected by
the failure to earn a travel reward. This suggests that people feel personal responsibility for not
earning the award rather than any ill will towards the firm offering the rewards. The apparent
lack of negative attitudes expressed by non-earners shows there is limited downside to providing
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
134
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
travel incentives. This was also confirmed by the low levels of envy toward earners reported by
non-earners.
Earners of travel felt positively towards their company, reporting a high level of feeling
appreciated. They also reported an increased feeling of belongingness with their company. This
increase in positive feelings from earners will drive increases in commitment and performance
(Rhoades et al., 2001; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Wayne et al., 2002). Future research should
examine the performance and commitment levels of employees that have received a travel
incentive and participated in the event to confirm these ex-post effects.
Non-earners reported that they were not envious of people who earned the incentive. It
was also found that reported envy was uncorrelated with the willingness to work hard for the
incentive in the future. Employees also did not seem to believe that the same people were
earning the travel incentive every year. This belief was also not correlated with the willingness
to exert effort to earn travel in the future. These results suggest that even if employees feel
negative emotions towards the winners, it does not diminish their willingness to strive for the
incentives in the future.
This article explored the individual aspects of what makes travel motivating. Results
showed that the recognition aspect of travel is the most motivating element. Also motivating to
employees was the ability to experience something unique, and the ability to develop closer
relationships with peers. These findings have clear implications for those employees charged
with the design and implementation of incentive travel programs. Interestingly, and perhaps bad
news for senior executives, the opportunity to spend time with them was the least motivating
aspect of incentive travel.
This article also reported the elements that employees said could make travel more
motivating to them. High on the list was an increase in destination choices, but at the top of that
list was an increase in leisure activities and more free time. Given the finding that business
meetings are increasingly included in incentive travel (Mukherjee, 2010), these findings should
give pause to companies that want to increase the number of such events in incentive travel.
While it is clearly a way to lower the overall costs of incentive travel, it may decrease the overall
motivational power of travel. Therefore, it is important for firms to understand this trade-off and
carefully analyze the costs and benefits of adding company events to travel. Participants with
children also stated that bringing more guests of their choosing would increase the motivational
power of travel. A cost-benefit analysis on the addition of children is beyond the scope of this
article but should be carried out prior to implementation by a company.
The survey reported here also asked the relative motivational power of travel vs. other
incentives. While travel is preferred to merchandise, most respondents reported that they would
prefer cash incentives. Rather than an overwhelming preference for cash as might be expected
given western cultures’ viewpoints on the option value of money (Weber, 1998; Webley, Lea, &
Portalska, 1983; Webley & Wilson, 1989), travel and cash were viewed as almost equally
motivating. It is dangerous to read too much into stated preference, as this is often weakly
correlated with motivational power (Jeffrey, 2009). It may also be the case that people are simply
responding as if they were choosing between cash and travel. As has been shown in past
research, the relative motivating power of a non-cash incentive may be higher than cash even in
the presence of a stated preference for cash (Jeffrey, 2009; Shaffer & Arkes, 2009).
Additionally, employees overwhelmingly believe that paid time off would be more
motivating. This is consistent with the statement by employees that more personal time would
make travel more motivating. The implication here is that incentive travel, if it is to be used,
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
135
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
should be promoted as a true vacation, and not a company sponsored business event. This may
be moving against a trend toward including more company sponsored meetings in business
events. The results in this article suggest that firms should add work related events cautiously.
Finally, this article covered implementation issues such as goals and the ability of nonearners to “buy-in” to the event. Both earners and non-earners reported that they believed the
goals were fair, achievable, and clear. Extensive research on the use of goals in organizations
has found that this can increase commitment to goals and thereby increase achievement. In
addition, participants reported that they received sufficient feedback on their progress. This also
can increase performance toward goals (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987; Hollenbeck et al., 1989).
These attitudes towards goals were also highly correlated with the motivational power of the
travel incentive offered.
Participants who earned a travel incentive were more likely to want non-earners to have
the ability to “buy-in” to the travel event by purchasing it on their own. Surprisingly, nonearners were less likely to want that ability. Earners also reported a higher desire for so-called
“tiered” incentives whereby better performance would lead to a better experience. The pattern of
responses to these two questions may be representative of a desire for top performers to receive a
more exclusive event yet still allow non-earners to participate at a less extravagant level. The
correlation between the two responses for earners suggests that this may be a reasonable
explanation, ρ(714) = .42, p < .001. This implies that practitioners should further examine tiered
travel incentives as they may prove to be more motivational.
Conclusion
This article reports the results of a survey conducted on 1003 workers who had been
eligible to earn travel incentives. Seven hundred and fourteen qualified for the travel, while 289
respondents did not earn the travel. This article is a unique contribution to the literature on travel
incentives because it explores the perspective of recipients rather than the opinions of those who
design or sell incentive travel programs. In addition, this article is unique because it addresses
the opinions of non-sales employees in addition to sales employees who tend to be the focus of
most research in this area.
The results reported in this article show that travel incentives still deserve a place in a
firm’s motivational portfolio, even though there is often a stated preference for gift cards and
cash. Incentive travel motivates employees by making them feel valued and giving them the
opportunity to enjoy a unique experience that they would have a hard time replicating on their
own.
Finally, the provision of incentive travel increases positive feelings in those who earn the
incentive towards an employee’s firm without discouraging those who don’t qualify for travel.
Because these positive feelings can increase organizational commitment, this provides another
positive reason to keep incentive travel in the firm’s motivational tool kit.
The findings from this article increase the knowledge of both academics and
practitioners. For academics, it begins to open up the black box of motivation by examining the
elements of travel that increase the valence of the incentive. For practitioners, this article
provides information on how to improve the motivational power of travel through both the
design and implementation of incentive programs.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
136
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
References
Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. New York: The Free Press.
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 247-260.
Auffermann, K. (2009). The new business class: Managing unprecedented problems of
perception about corporate travel. Public Relations Tactics, 16(6), 9-15.
Bonner, S., & Sprinkle, G. (2002). The effects of moentary incentives on effort and task
performance: Theories, evidence, and a framework for research. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society, 27(5), 303-345.
Caballero, M. J. (1988). A comparative study of incentives in a sales force contest. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 8(1), 55-58.
Callegaro, M., Kruse, Y.,Thomas, M., and Nukulkjj, P. 2009. The effect of email invitati on
customization on survey completion rates in an internet panel: A meta-analysis of 10
public affairs surveys, Working Paper, Knowledge Networks, Menlo Park, CA,
http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/jsm2009/The_Effect_of_Email_Invitatio
n_Customization_JSM_2009_submitted.pdf.
Chonko, L. B. (1986). Organizational commitment in the sales force. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 6(3), 19-27.
Chonko, L. B., Tanner, J. F. J., & Weeks, W. A. (1992). Selling and sales management in action:
Reward prefernces of sales people. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
23(3), 67-75.
Hays, S. (1999). Clashing views on cash rewards. Workforce, 78(9), 104-104.
Heath, C., & Soll, J. B. (1996). Mental budgeting and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 23(1), 40-52.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal setting process:
Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
72(2), 212-220.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the
antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 1823.
Hunt, S. D., Chonko, L. B., & Wood, V. R. (1986). Organizational commitment and marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 112-126.
Incentive Research Foundation, (2008). The market for incentive travel, motivational meetings,
and special events. The Incentive Research Foundation, New York
Ingram, T. M., Lee, K. S., & Skinner, S. (1989). An empircal assessment of salesperson
motivation, commitment, and job outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 9(3), 25-33.
Jeffrey, S. A. (2009). Justifiability and the motivational power of tangible non-cash incentives.
Human Performance, 22(2), 143-155.
Jeffrey, S. A., Nummelin, M., & Silbert, L. T. (2007). Thanks for the memories: The effect of
reward recall on perceived organizational support. Working Paper. Monmouth
University.
Jeffrey, S. A., & Shaffer, V. (2007). The motivational properties of tangible incentives.
Compensation and Benefits Review, 39(3), 44-44.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
137
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practical and useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment.
Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 23-29.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance
1969-1980. Psychological bulletin, 90, 125-152.
Long, R. J., & Shields, J. L. (2010). From pay to praise? Non-cash employee recognition in
Canadian and Australian firms. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
21(8), 1145-1172.
Lopez, T. B., Hopkins, C. D., & Raymond, M. A. (2006). Reward preference of sales people:
How do commissions rate? Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26(4), 381390.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (second ed.). New York: Harper and Row.
McClelland, D. C. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C. (2011). Performance management
at the wheel: Driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business &
Psychology, 26(2), 205-212.
Mukherjee, K. (2010). Exploring the Mediating Effect of Perceived Organizational Support
Between Organizational Justice Dimensions and Affective Commitment. Globsyn
Management Journal, 4(1/2), 9-22.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New
York: Academic Press.
Palmer, A. (2008). Cash Concerns. Incentive, 182(12), 6-6.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior
on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human
Performance, 10(2), 133-151.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
the contribution of perceived organizational support. The Journal of applied psychology,
86(5), 825-836.
Seo, M.-G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423-439. doi:
10.5465/amr.2004.13670972
Shaffer, V. A., & Arkes, H. R. (2009). Preference reversals in evaluations of cash versus noncash incentives. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(6), 859-872.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and Employee Behavior - Comparison of
Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational
Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774-780.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-665.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in
organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models.
Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 155-194.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
138
MOTIVATIONAL POWER OF INCENTIVE TRAVEL
Successful Companies Reward Top Employees, Despite Cost Pressures. (2003). Community
Banker, 12(11), 76-76.
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3),
183-206.
Top Tools for Motivation. (2005). Incentive, 179(11), 10-10.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment
and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590-598.
Weber, M. (1998). The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Vol. 2nd). Los
Angeles: Roxbury.
Webley, P., Lea, S. E. G., & Portalska, R. (1983). The unacceptability of money as a gift.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 4(3), 223-238.
Webley, P., & Wilson, R. (1989). Social relationships and the unacceptability of money as a gift.
Journal of Social Psychology, 129(1), 85-91.
Copyright © 2014 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All Rights Reserved.
139