{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]




Subject Business Pages 23 Style APA



Abstract  3

Introduction   4

Literature Review    8

Employee Engagement in Retail Industry  8

Walmart (ASDA)  9

Challenges Facing Retail Industry  10

Pay and Benefits  14

Employee Engagement  19

Theories of Employee Engagement  19

Low-Waged Workers in Retail Industry such as Walmart  21

Summary  22

Research Questions and Hypothesis  23

Methodology  27

Data Collection   27

Measurement and Questionnaire Design   27

Methods Used   28

Results  33

Analysis  36

Research Limitations  39

Recommendations and Conclusion   42

References  44

Appendix 1:  Survey Questionnaire   49

Appendix 2: Ethics Considerations  53





This research study investigates the impact of pay and benefits on employee engagement among low-waged workers at Walmart (UK). It acknowledges that the retail industry is undergoing changes which have led to low employee engagement. Therefore, it is necessary to establish with certainty how the retailers can boost the levels of engagement. To investigate this topic, a sample population of 104 respondents from the Bletchley, Milton Keynes Supercenter was used. The respondents volunteered to engage in the research by filling in survey questions on pay, benefits, employee engagement and proposals that could help Walmart and other retailers heighten employee engagement. The research onion model was used to guide the research process which collected qualitative data and information on the correlation of the two variables. The findings showed that pay and benefits have adverse effects on employee engagement. Poor pay and benefit systems lead to disengagement while favorable pay and benefits schemes nurture higher levels of engagement among low-waged employees. It is recommended that Walmart and other retailers improve their pay and benefits systems to increase levels of engagement.

Key words: pay, benefits, employee engagement, motivation, commitment, low waged workers, and Walmart.

Investigating the Impact of Pay and Benefits on Employee Engagement among Low-Waged Workers at Walmart


Low-waged workers are an important element in the functioning of the retail industry. In most cases, these are the employees who interact directly with the customers and perform the hands-on duties. They have a better mastery of the routine processes and day-to-day operations than the highly paid and management teams. As a result, these employees possess more knowledge on the problems and challenges facing essential processes in the retail sector. In spite of their role, these employees are the least motivated (Khoreva & Wechtler, 2018). They are mostly sidelined on the assumption that they lack the knowledge to qualify them for higher pay and benefits as the managers and other senior employees. The low-waged employees are denied opportunities to influence decisions and strategies. In some organizations, the decisions by the senior managers is binding to the junior staff, yet the leaders hardly understand the challenges of the low-waged employees (Moran, 2019). At times, their work is treated as meaningless, since they are easily replaceable. In fact, this challenge is acerbated by the fact that most low-waged workers are part-timer, hourly employees or seasonal employees who are hired when the retailers are overwhelmed with work during peak seasons.

Given the high number of low-waged employees, the management often focus on cost cutting rather than using pay and other financial incentives to motivate them to work more. The feeling of underappreciation from the employees often trigger resentment from the low-waged employees who only work for the money and not out of passion (Swarnalatha and Prasanna, 2013). Given the current challenges facing the retail industry, more employee engagement is required to sustain higher levels of customer satisfaction. It is necessary that the retailers begin recognizing the low-waged employees and appreciating their role in the ultimate satisfaction of the customers. Rather than seeing them as a liability, they should invest in them by introducing pay and benefits schemes that entice them into higher levels of employee engagement. Since the industry is facing an unprecedented future, coupled with intensive rivalry from online retailers, in what is known as the ‘Amazon effect’, it is important that the low-waged employees are made to feel as part of the wider team and collectively contribute towards the sustainability of the industry (Head, 2017). The low-waged employees, whether on permanent or contractual basis should be assured of job security.

According to Moran (2019), terrified employees are hardly productive because they cannot concentrate on their job. This negative effect derails them from optimizing their levels of engagement. Osborne and Hammoud (2017) describe employee engagement as the level of passion and commitment shown by the employees towards their jobs and their organization. Usually, high levels of engagement motivate the employees to put in additional discretionary effort which enhances customer satisfaction, workplace efficiency, and the overall productivity of the organization. It is possible therefore that most underperforming retailers fail to create the right conditions that reassure their employees, which reduces engagement levels. The problem of low employee engagement not only affects the senior employees, but also the low-level employees. Nonetheless, most research only focus on the top-level personnel while disregarding the impact of changes in industries on low-waged workers (Jaiswal, Pathak & Kumari, 2017). Because of these reasons, it is quintessential to probe the impact of pay and benefits on employee engagement among low-waged workers in the retail industry, and in particular, Walmart (UK).

Rationale of Study

Given the negative impact of disruptive forces in the retail industry and the resulting ‘retail apocalypse’, there is need to study how the retailers can maintain highly engaged employees who contribute positively to its bottom-line (Helm, et al. 2020). According to Delery and Roumpi (2017) pay and benefits is the commonly used human resource (HR) strategy for motivating employees and boosting their engagement levels. These sentiments are seconded by Nankervis et al. (2019) who describe pay and benefits as intangible and tangible rewards issued to employees to enhance job satisfaction, attendance and retention, trust, and organizational commitment, which in turn contribute to worker engagement. Gruman and Saks (2011) define employee engagement as a workplace tactic or strategy outcoming in the appropriate situations for organizational workers to deliver the best daily, be dedicated to the company’s values and goals, and be inspired to contribute to the company’s achievement, with a better perception of their wellbeing. As such, worker commitment contributes to the strength of emotional and mental connection workers feel towards their workplaces, which in turn increases productivity. While defining these terms, Delery and Roumpi (2017) caution that employee engagement should not be confused with employee involvement since the former refers to the passive acceptance of the organization’s objectives and goals, while the latter is the active pursuit of the organization’s objectives.

Studies focusing on the influence of benefits and pay on worker commitment have mixed outcomes. For example, the results of studies conducted by Khoreva and Wechtler (2018) show a positive correlation between employee engagement, pay, benefits, and extrinsic/ intrinsic reward systems. On the other hand, the outcomes of studies executed by Ogbonnaya, Daniels, and Nielsen (2017); Kulikowski and Sedlak (2017) reveal a negative or no correlation between remunerations and pay, and worker engagement. Therefore, it is within this context that this research will investigate the influence of salary and benefit on worker involvement at Walmart by seeking to establish whether pay and benefits positively or negatively impact employee engagement.

Research Aim

The research aims to investigate the impact of pay and benefits on employee engagement among low waged workers at Walmart.

Research Questions and Objectives

The primary objective of this research is to probe the impact of pay and benefits, on the level of engagement shown by the low waged employees at Walmart (UK). The retailer is known as ASDA in the UK where the Bletchley, Milton Keynes Supercenter is used for the research because of its large population of employees. These objectives are represented as research hypothesis in the literature review section.




Literature Review

Employee Engagement in Retail Industry

Industry experts have noted that the retail industry needs more employee engagement now more than ever before. These sentiments are particularly expressed by Stolpe (2020) who explains that the global retail industry has been going through incredible degree of political and economic turbulence. This trend has been persistent over the past decade. The resulting factors have had undeniable impact on the experiences of the employees. Secondly, Stolpe (2020) laments that contrary to common belief, the employees in the retail industry, especially those in low paying sections are not faceless. They have emotions which, depending on how they are treated, could impact their performance and ability to satisfy the employees and contribute towards cost saving.

These two elements are important in the sustainability of retail operations. Helm, Kim and Van Riper (2020) document that most challenges with employee engagement begun during the 2008 – 2009 Great Recession. This was a time, when the most countries experienced a financial crisis that strained profitability causing financial constraints. Shuttered by the changes, retail stores opted to lay off employees in response to their declining profitability. Other structural changes were adopted to cut costs. Since then, the industry has been struggling to recover. Over the past 10 years since the economic recession, the retail industry has experienced further challenges, such as forced implemented of the Minimum Wage Act aimed at promoting fair compensation of the low paid workers. Despite these attempts, other underlying factors such as disruptive e-commerce sector, lower disposable income, and the shift to experience economy, has led to plummeting sales. Consequently, more retailers continue to close down leading to the retail apocalypse concept. The latest blow to the retail industry is the Corona Virus pandemic which has led to regulatory measures limiting movement of people. In reaction to this trend, retailers are opting to analyze the impact of pay and benefits on the engagement levels of employees in the retail industry.

Walmart (ASDA)

Walmart Inc. is a leading multinational retailer based in the USA. It operates chains of discount department stores, grocery stores, and hypermarkets. Walmart currently operates in 27 countries using different brand names. For instance, it uses Walmart in Canada and USA, ASDA in the United Kingdom, Flipkart in India, and Seiyu in Japan. Asda Stores Ltd. is a subsidiary of Walmart that operates in the British market. It is currently the second largest retailer after Tesco. From a HR perspective, Walmart has been involved in lawsuits for allegations such as low wages, inadequate healthcare, strong anti-union policies, and generally poor working conditions especially for the low waged workers. In one of the reports, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) established that employees in 13 states around the USA, had been barred from engaging in strikes over the company’s illegal disciplinary action against some workers. Other critics have criticized Walmart for its high attrition or turnover rate which points at the low motivation, and possible lack of employee engagement. Moran (2019) describes Walmart’s workforce as unhappy. More than 70% of its low-waged workers leave in the first year of work.

Additionally, Walmart has been working on plans to introduce robots and automate its store operations to reduce labor costs. Regardless, Walmart is still ranked as the largest private employer. The company employs the largest population of African Americans. The company has the Associate Education Benefits which was rebranded to Live Better U in 2019. Its core focus is empowering its promising employees by providing them opportunities for educational advancement. Another significant part of its HR practice is the introduction of anti-discriminatory policy accommodative of its LGBT customers and employees. Similarly, the company provides its transgender employees with full healthcare benefits. Another significant move by Walmart was its 2014 decision to boost the benefits and pay of its employees with the intent of promoting higher levels of emotional attachment to their jobs (Mitchel, 2014). In support of these changes, Walmart’s management argued that such an undertaking would make their employees happy, which in turn would translate to better services and into more customer traffic. Six years have elapsed since the organization made this decision.

Asda being a subsidiary of Walmart in the UK has prominently been listed among the best employers. Some of its benefits include a 10% discount on most items purchased by the employees with few exceptions such as tobacco, and fuel. On the other hand, the company was fined £850,000 for enticing its employees to give up unionization. In 2013, Asda experienced a tax compliance issue that saw part time workers and full-timer workers charged by the HM Revenue and Customs.

Challenges Facing Retail Industry

The retail industry globally continues to face tough times. These challenges have caused a ripple effect that is being felt by the human resources department. According to Swarnalatha and Prasanna (2013), the industry is being affected by digital transformations such as the rise of Amazon which has cutting-edge innovative technologies. In response, Walmart has invested in digital technologies to differentiate itself and to deliver high value proposition to its customers. Seay (2020) explains that in the retail industry, workforce engagement and technological advancements work hand in hand. Store employees represent a significant part of the retail’s workforce, and their ability to use technologies is important in improving their service delivery, brand image, and customer satisfaction. Failure to equip the low-waged store workers with the right tools and attitude will have a damaging effect on the performance of the business. Swarnalatha and Prasanna (2013) highlight that some of the common and recurring challenges related to human resource management (HRM) across retailers include; first, a disconnected workforce. The emergence of click and collect retail trends puts retailers in precarious positions. As much as they have to satisfy the needs of the customers, they also have to ensure that the low-waged workers do not feel underappreciated. Nonetheless, most retailers are failing to provide mechanisms through which store personnel can continue engaging with each other. Delery and Roumpi (2017) explain that sustaining the connection among low-waged workers is important since interactions among themselves creates a stronger workplace community which gives the employees a sense of belonging. Doing this enables them to support each other especially when facing stressful situations or when they want quick solutions to workplace challenges. Contrary, most retailers only maintain top-down interactions where the senior staff only pass down commands, without creating room for engagement. This approach leads to low engagement and high attrition rates.

Apart from low engagement levels, retailers are facing challenges with misinformation of low-waged employees. Most retailers including Walmart are known to rely on seasonal employees, who are hired during peak periods and dismissed thereafter. Bringing these employees on board and enculturating them into the organizations culture is often a challenge. Retailers are required to teach them the technical and soft skills which consumes time and finances. Regardless, some employees take longer to master these skills. The cycle has to be repeated over and over when new employees are hired during each season. Another challenge that is hampering employee engagement and performance in the retail industry is overload of business tools. Seay (2020) explains that retail employees, especially the low waged workforce is often overburdened by a lot of front office, back office and sales floor business tools used by the organization. This leads to confusion and thus, taking most of their time learning how to use these tools than focusing on engagement. The retailers need a collaboration hub that will combine the different tools thus enabling the employees to access important information on the daily tasks they need to perform thus freeing up more time for other activities including maintaining cordial relationships with the other employees.

Seay (2020) proposes that additional ways to resolve these challenges and encourage higher levels of engagement among employees is not to focus on pay and benefits but rather, begin by breaking down the silos of leadership by embracing flat organizational structures. A reformed structure will ensure effective internal collaboration and communication between the different levels of employees and the customers. In addition, the retailers can introduce knowledge management systems that encourage higher levels of interactions, sharing of knowledge, and engagement among the employees. Sharing ideas and interactions among the low-waged workers helps them foster engagement. Stolpe (2020) summarizes these recommendations by using the term – holistic digital workplace. Evidently, information is a valuable asset among retailers. Making information sharable and accessible plays an important role in influencing the offerings and strategies used by retailers. Therefore, providing the low-waged employees such as store employees and data analysts with a holistic digital workplace can help enhance their engagement levels and improve the overall results realized by the organization.

Some authors have noted that the retail industry needs to invest more in employee engagement. This debate is spearheaded by Stolpe (2020) who argues that to counter the political and economic turbulence that has been facing the retail industry for the past decade, firms such as Walmart need to critically look into the impact of their operations on the experience of the employees. Stolpe (2020) insists that low-wage employees in the retail industry are not faceless. He uses this term to mean that the productivity of these employees has an enormous impact on the performance of the retailers such as Walmart. He adds that whereas organizations determine the levels of employment and loyalty received from their low-waged employees, the level of employee engagement influences the overall customer experience. Because of these interconnections, there is need for the retailers to foster employee engagement at all levels. However, the best approaches to optimizing employee engagement could be through the use of benefits and pay. Some of the strategies for enforcing higher levels of engagement include making the work of the low-waged employees meaningful. Secondly, there is a need to build strong relationships. Seay (2020) believes that maintaining strong relationships with colleagues is an important attribute in shaping the levels of engagement in the workplace.

The author explains that when an employee has a best friend at work, they are more likely to perform better, and feel that their work is appreciated and meaningful. It is equally important that there is a meaningful employee-manager relationship. This sentiment is backed by the saying that more often than not, when employees leave an organization, they leave the managers and not the company itself. When the employees are irritable with the managers, they could easily leave for a rival offering a slight increase in their wages. The third strategy for winning over the engagement of low-waged employees, and especially those employed on contractual basis by involving them in decision making. It is common practice that low-waged employees are ignored in strategizing and management of changes in organizations. It is common that leaders will turn to the highly paid employees without giving thought to the low-waged. In most cases, the highly paid are assumed to be knowledgeable and empowered than the low-waged employees. In addition, it is often assumed that the higher waged workers are more valuable thus, better positioned to propose winning strategies. On the contrary, the low-waged workers interact directly with the customers and have a better understanding of the daily operations in the retail stores. These employees understand most processes better than the managers and highly paid employees since they perform the duties each day. It is prudent that they are not only involved in high level-strategic decisions, but also awarded higher pay and benefits depending on their contribution to the improvement of the retailer’s value proposition and profit margin.

Pay and Benefits

Pay and benefits is classified under the sub-discipline of human resource management that is focused on employee compensation. Pay and benefits are classified as tangible rewards while work-life balance, development, and recognition are considered to be intangible rewards. Combining the tangible and intangible rewards creates total rewards (CIPD, 2020). Sharma and Krishnan, 2012) second this definition noting that employee compensation is a term used to represent pay. Employee benefits and compensation are classified into four categories; guaranteed pay, variable pay, benefits, and equity-based compensation. Guaranteed pay denotes fixed monetary rewards or the cash rewards paid to employees as compensation for their contribution to the organization (CIPD, 2020). A common example of guaranteed pay is base salary; however, this category of pay could include cash allowances such as transport allowance, and housing allowance, in addition to differentials such as shift differentials, premiums namely night shift pay and holiday differentials.

The second category is variable pay.  It is a non-fixed monetary incentive or cash reward that is paid to the employees by their employer. Variable pay is mostly dependent on performance, results, and discretion. The most common variable pay includes incentives and bonuses. Sharma and Krishnan (2012) define benefits as programs used by employers to supplement compensation. This includes medical insurance, company car, and paid time off among other alternatives. On the other hand, equity-based compensation refers to introducing the employees to offers for stock programs which guarantee them either perceived or actual ownership of the company. This approach to compensation makes the employees responsible for the long-term success of the firm. An example of this form of compensation is stock options. Compensation and benefits programs can be adjusted to achieve a given organizational objective (CIPD, 2020). For instance, it can be used to either boost performance, adjust financial results and labor costs, and foster employee retention.

Other authors have contributed towards creating a better understanding of the topic of pay and benefits. This includes journal articles by Landrum and Edwards (2019) noting that both pay and benefits are used by organizations to create either lasting or short term economic and social impacts on the communities and the employees. For instance, the compensation policies of a company can be used to either transfer burden from, or add stress to the local social service systems as a result of offering adequate or inadequate benefits and wages. For an organization to be sustainable, it has to ensure that its compensation and benefits structure is equitable and fair. Internal equity is considered an important element in encouraging employee engagement as it assures them that they will be paid fairly for their work. External equity on the other hand, ensures that employees receive relative pay to the other employees in similar industries offering same services. Fatemi and Fooladi (2019) confide that creating equitable and fair pay and benefits programs is difficult.

It is much more difficult to achieve equitability and fairness in the retail industry as it is dependent on seasonal and hourly employees. These sentiments are affirmed by Tuckey et al. (2017) who report that more than 60% of the retail employees are employed on part time or seasonal basis and are more prone to receiving low-wages compared to the permanent employees. This group of employees is the most easily ignored and laid off during downsizing of retail organizations. In spite of this reality, they perform most of the duties requiring constant interaction with the employees. Fatemi and Fooladi (2019) advise that in order to promote equitability and fairness, it is important that organizations conduct annual studies to ensure they have competitive pay and benefit programs. It is further noted that the human resource department should conduct continuous annual surveys to monitor the effectiveness of their compensation and benefits programs.

The future of the physical brick and mortar industry will likely be dependent on the input of the low-waged employees such as store keepers and other floor employees who guide customers around the retail premises. As result, Tuckey et al. (2017) present retailers with the options of either using an egalitarian system or an elitist system. Whereas an elitist system encourages the establishment of varied compensation and benefits plans for the different groups or categories of employees, the egalitarian systems advocates that firms have most of their employees under the same or equal compensation plan. The egalitarian system is mostly preferred in industries and firms that are innovative and those that continuously invest in new projects and technologies (Fatemi & Fooladi 2019). This system encourages sustainability as it provides flexible alternatives for remunerations where there are few differences between grades of employees. It further creates a flat organization structure as it reduces status-dependence perquisites. Fewer differences in pay and benefits creates fairness and equality therefore fostering employee engagement, task accomplishment and higher cooperation among employees.

Another important trend noted across sustainable firms is that they have transparent pay and benefit systems. According to Ogbonnaya et al. (2017), transparency should not only be focused on remuneration, but also in the way issues are handled around the organization. When information on pay and benefits is concealed from the low-waged employees, they might create negative perceptions that they being underpaid and this, affects their levels of engagement. It is natural that employees will compare their pay and benefits to the other employees. Lacking transparency could create an atmosphere where these employees feel like they are unfairly compensated which creates dissatisfaction, increased turnover, absenteeism, and less productivity. Another important point expressed by Sharma and Krishnan (2012) is that offering low-waged employees with living wages is better than the minimum wages. Minimum wage refers to the minimum pay per hour of labor mandated by the government. Contrary, living wage is the minimum income required by any person to sustain a desirable quality of life, depending on factors such as economic conditions and location where the person is employed. Living wage is higher than the minimum wage rate.

Firms that are sustainable tend to recognize the need to pay living wages rather than minimum wage. In addition to the living pay, some organizations use benefits to motivate the low-waged employees. Standard benefits could include offers for health insurance, paid sick leave, and dental insurance. Ogbonnaya et al. (2017) highlight that supplemental benefits that would be effective in the retail industry include work-life balance or flexible working arrangements. A thoughtful combination of these pay and benefit packages will enhance the quality of life of the employees thus boosting their motivation and commitment to their work. Additional benefits could revolve around programs such as provision of child care centers, time off or leave to attend to sick children or an elderly member of the family, paternity leave, flextime work, job sharing, telecommuting, and tax breaks among other employee-friendly benefits. Rheem (2018) adds that some firms offer life insurance, retirement plans, vacations, employee stock ownership plans and disability insurance among others. This author criticiz
To cater for this disadvantage, retailers should be thoughtful about their pay and benefit packages by introducing alternatives such as flexible benefit plans. Sharma and Krishnan (2012) contributes to this literature noting that there are tangible and intangible benefits. Intangible benefits are less direct and include appreciation from seniors, promise of promotions, and good work environment. While elaborating the discussion on pay and benefits. Ogbonnaya et al. (2017) point out that motivated employees are productive and they play a crucial role in the success of the organization regardless of the industry or size of company. However, the question is how best to motivate them, more so the low-waged workers. Unlike other literature, these authors emphasize that the employee pay should be tied to an employee performance-based incentive scheme where employees are compensated based on their performance and contribution to the profitability of the organization. As much as this strategy could be effective, when applied to groups, it could trigger contentious behaviors such as complains such as unfair distribution of pay, and increased work-related stress. Guided by this literature, the following correlation was deciphered.

Figure 1: Correlation between Pay/ Benefits and Employee Engagement   

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is an essential domain of human resource management that is closely intertwined with all the other aspect of managing employees. Over the years, there have emerged diverse definitions of employee engagement. A common trend across these definitions is that employee engagement relates to the willingness for the employees to be actively involved in the advancement and realization of the goals of an organization. Other factors considered in defining engagement is the level of commitment from the business and willingness to embrace positive behaviors. Detailed definitions associate employee engagement with the measure of the emotional and mental connection that the employees feel towards their workplace. Osborne and Hammoud (2017) associate employee engagement with the level of commitment and enthusiasm exhibited by employees. Watson denotes that the term refers to the level of psychological investment in an organization, which influences their ability to contribute to the overall success of the organization. Engaged employees are optimistic, productive, and loyal while disengaged employees are pessimistic, disloyal, and unproductive (Swarnalatha & Prasanna 2013). Other characteristics of engaged employees include willingness to go above and beyond, being solution oriented, selfless, showing passion, and team oriented. 

Theories of Employee Engagement

According to Rheem (2018), literature on engagement is posited under the theory of employee engagement by William Kahn. Kahn is known as the father of employee engagement. He believed that individuals make decisions on how much of their personal selves they can express and reveal at their workplace based on how they are treated. Kahn therefore premised that the conditions that fostered employee engagement included psychological availability, psychological safety, and meaningfulness in their work. He argued that employees would be more engaged if they felt that they were contributing to the success of the organization, they were well rewarded and the organization provided a healthy environment to nurture supportive relationships with the managers, coworkers, and supervisors (Swarnalatha & Prasanna, 2013). He added that employees are likely to be more engaged when they are afforded psychological and physical resources, they need to accomplish daily duties.

In addition to the engagement theory by William Kahn, Millard (2019) elaborates the motivation-hygiene theory of employee engagement. The author begins by clarifying that contrary to the believe that employee engagement and employee motivation can be used interchangeably, the two terms are different. However, motivated employees are more engaged. The Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory argues that employee’s engagement levels are determined by motivating and hygiene (risk) factors. Hygiene factors foster employee retention. If these factors are ignored, the employees become dissatisfied, disengaged and could easily leave the organization. Regardless, improving hygiene factors do not increase motivation levels. On the other hand, motivation factors are specifically targeted at motivating the employees to perform better. Motivation is considered to be the foundation for employee engagement since it extends the discretionary efforts shown by employees. This enables them to become emotionally invested which in return, heightens their levels of engagement. According to this theory, combining high motivation and high hygiene creates a perfect workplace that favors engagement and retention. Low motivation and high hygiene are the most common situation where employees only work to keep their jobs (Millard, 2019). High motivation and low hygiene lead to workplaces with frustrated employees who are willing to engage yet the conditions are not favorable. Low motivation and low hygiene create an unfavorable workplace with high turnover.

Low-Waged Workers in Retail Industry such as Walmart

Most low-waged workers across the retail industry have low skills. As a result, they have a low bargaining power in terms of pay increases. Most of these employees are young and hold entry level jobs. A lifecycle model of the wage rates predicts that new entrants to the retail industry receive relatively low wage rates as a result of differences in education, training, and experience (McKnight et al. 2016). These employees then gain experience and other skills which makes them more valuable and productive. Even as some managed to progress in their careers, there are some that remain in the low-wage category or low wage careers. The retail industry is synonymous for providing low-wage careers. Such jobs are taken by individuals stuck in low paying jobs for prolonged periods. Such jobs are also taken up by people who cycle between unemployment and low-paid works. For instance, someone takes up a job because of the fear of being unemployed (McKnight et al. 2016). This concept is known as labor market disadvantage and could mostly affect minority groups. Retailers and other organizations that depend on low-wage workers should therefore consider the prospects of introducing policies that help low-wage workers increase their upward mobility as a way of motivating them and encouraging employee engagement.

Most low-waged workers are minority and non-college educated individuals. They are mostly concentrated in the retail industry which offers low pay jobs to minimize operation costs. Such jobs are characterized by low wages, little upward mobility and few benefits (Ogbonnaya, Daniels & Nielsen 2017). In spite of these characteristics, the low wage workforce is quickly transitioning and accommodating more male and individuals who are highly educated. This trend is expected to worsen as the likelihood of becoming a low-wage employee has increased. In total, the US retail industry employs 2.7 low-waged workers who work checkout lanes, deli counters, and back stock room. Their annual salary range is $25,000 – $75,000. Their career ladder mostly progresses from entry level positions such as stock clerk or cashier to department manager then store manager. Most have minimum educational levels such as high school diploma.


This literature review section argues that pay and benefits impact the commitment and motivation of employees, thus, heightening their commitment to the organization. It is noted that Walmart is among the largest employer where it accommodates some of the highest number of low-waged employees. Walmart operates in the retail industry which is facing intensive competition from e-retailers. Additionally, workers are demotivated by mass lay-offs and the mass closure of retail stores. It is therefore prudent for the organizations to understand the concept of pay and benefits and its impact on employee engagement. The theory of engagement and theory of hygiene motivation solidly support the need for better pay and benefits in fostering employee engagement among low-waged workers.

Research Questions and Hypothesis

  1. What is your opinion about the current pay scheme?

H0: There is no relationship between employee wages and belief in the scheme’s equitability.

H1: There is significant relationship between employee wages and belief in the scheme’s equitability.

This research question seeks opinions on the relationship between the current pay scheme and the level of employee engagement at Walmart (UK).

  1. Is there a relationship between feeling of equitability in the current pay scheme and employee motivation?

H0: There is no correlation between feeling of equitability in the current pay scheme and employee motivation

H1: There is significant correlation between feeling of equitability in the current pay scheme and employee motivation

This question probes the impact of pay on motivation and employee engagement

This research question evaluates whether changing the pay scheme at Walmart will boost employee engagement.

  1. What benefits are conferred to low-waged employees at Walmart?

H0: there is no relationship between employee wages (both basic salary and additional benefits) and employee engagement.

H1: there is a linear relationship between employee wages (both basic salary and additional benefits) and employee engagement.




Procedure and Participants

In order to best reach the employees of Walmart (UK), quantitative research survey was conducted through face-to-face admission of survey questionnaire. While the homogeneity of the subjects, being employees of a single organization, results in low variability which affect replicability and assessment of remuneration variability, the hierarchical selection of participants ensured representation of various ranks within the company’s employee organization, hence ensuring reliability. Invitation to participate in the study was sent via mail before physical administration of questionnaire. Confidentiality and anonymity was assured to optimize honesty and frankness by mitigating possibilities of stigmatization by colleagues or management based on the answers individuals gave. The questionnaire was designed with respect to work environment while also taking into account ethical responsibilities in social research and highly considering possible psychometric influences of the study – hence the environmentally friendly language was employed. The participants were adequately informed on the bidirectional purpose of the research study and the effects it would have on improving employee engagement.  

The survey was taken by a total of 250 respondents (50.8% being males, hence attaining equitable gender distribution). The mean age of the participants was 46.7 (SD=15.4) and most of them were aged between 50 and 70, with the median tenure of 4 (Mode = 2) – hence a high number of participants had been in the company for a period between 6 months and 1 year (see Appendix 3). The participants had a fair distribution across the ethnic groups. 51.2% of the participants were full-time employees with the rest being part-time. The modal class of basic salary was £15 to £20, with a majority of the respondents being in the classes below the modal class.


Measures of central tendency, dispersion, Pearson’s correlations and reliability between the study variables are presented in the tables attached. Employee engagement was measured using a version of work engagement scale that considered the various indicators of engagement (Career development, pride of place of work, relationship with colleagues, ethos and valuation of the organization, productivity, work-life balance, and commitment), as also jointed by Schaufeli and Salanova (2006). A sample item in the questionnaire is ‘I would recommend working at our company to a friend or family?’ – These items were measured in a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly Agree = 5), hence taking into account the psychometric measures provisions. To assess, wages, participants were asked to select their basic salary brackets due for ethical as well as confidentiality reasons, and they were further asked to indicate whether they obtain any additional financial benefits. Concerning the payment scheme, the participants were asked to express their feeling and view in regards to the systems equitability and if it motivates them in their lines of duty. Socio-demographic information (age, gender, position at work, and ethnicity) was also collected. Employee engagement was the dependent variable with ‘Basic Salary’ and ‘Additional Financial Benefits’ variables being the independent variables in the main hypothesis.

Statistical Analysis

In order to test the research hypothesis, linear regression was conducted in IBM SPSS v21.0. The focus is especially on the R2, in the bid to explain variability in the prediction of the dependent variable by use of the independent variables. The Employee engagement was predicted as a factor through principle component analysis of the variables attributed to its measure. Collinearity between the component variables was checked as well as reliability.



The modelling of the employee engagement factor yielded unforeseen results as seen in Table 1 below, in which the initial Cronbach’s alpha of 37.7% was highly derailed by the other variables, yet the absence of ‘Pride’ and/or ‘Recommendation’ variables from the additivity resulted in negative Cronbach’s (lack of internal consistency). Therefore, only these two items were found to be sufficiently reliable or significantly internally consistent for inclusion in the factoring of the component. The resulting Cronbach’s alpha of these two variables is 91.7%, with a correlation of 0.85. Therefore, the other items were dropped from the prediction of the ‘Engagement’ factor in the final analysis.


Initial Cronbach’s alphs (0.377)

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted


























Job Elsewhere





















Table 1: Initial reliability test of the employee engagement items.

In testing hypothesis 1, it was found that both basic salary and additional benefits have significant correlations with belief in the scheme’s equitability, as expected. Table 2 below shows the correlations, with both salary and benefits having significantly strong negative correlations with equitability, i.e, low-income employees believe the scheme is not equitable and vice-versa, while also those who get additional benefits feel the scheme is not equitable.







Pearson Correlation




Sig. (2-tailed)









Pearson Correlation




Sig. (2-tailed)









Pearson Correlation




Sig. (2-tailed)









Table 2: Correlation matrix between wages and feeling of scheme equitability.

On hypothesis 2, it was found that there is indeed a significant correlation (0.6, p-value>0.05) between feeling of equitability in the current pay scheme and employee motivation.

On the main hypothesis, Table 3 and 4 show the regression results between the component and wages. While the model is entirely significant, only basic salary’s coefficient is significant in the model at α=0.05. Overall, the hypothesis that there is a linear relationship between employee wages and employee engagement to work is indeed true and significant at Walmart (UK).


Model Summary



R Square

Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

Change Statistics

R Square Change

F Change



Sig. F Change











a. Predictors: (Constant), Benefits, Salary


Table 3: regression model summary.




Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients




Std. Error





















a. Dependent Variable: Employee Engagement


Table 4: Regression Coefficients table.






The findings made in this research align with the intent of the paper which is to investigate the impact of pay and benefits on employee engagement at Walmart. This section analyses the magnitude of deviations between the findings and the literature review. The findings correlate to McKnight et al. (2016) report noting that the labor market disadvantage mostly affects individuals from minority groups. The minority groups include people from some ethnicities such as Hispanics, and Blacks who form the bulk of the low-waged workers. Similar findings are expressed in this research which established that Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans are the dominant ethnicities involved in provision of low-wage labor for the retail industry and particularly Walmart. However, this does not mean that majority ethnic groupings are not involved in the provision of low-wage labor as there are few whites in the low-waged employee’s segments. An analysis of the age groups shows that people below the age of 17 years are not involved in the provision of cheap labor. This is against government policies on the minimum working age. However, those above 18 years are allowed to be actively involved in the workforce. Most of the individuals in the age group of 18 – 25 years are students and prefer working as part timers to raise capital for their personal needs. Additionally, this group also includes people who have failed to pursue further education thus opted for employment. Bus since they lack the skills, they are forced to work as low-waged laborers. Those in the age groups of 26 – 35 years are youths and young adults with a better understanding of the job market. Those still in the retail industry working as low waged employees could be attributed to either underemployment or labor market disadvantages which work against some individuals especially those with good academic qualifications. Those people above 36 years to 65 years working in the retail industry as low waged workers are curtailed by personal and corporate factors that limit their upward mobility in the workplace. A noticeable trend is that individuals in these age groups tend to hold top positions among the low-waged employees such as store managers. Their jobs mostly require more of experience than academic knowledge. The findings contradict McKnight et al. (2016) who noted that the ratio of men to women was increasing and thus, more men than women were working in the retail sector as low waged laborers. Most of the low-waged workers were concentrated in job groups ranging from stock clerk, cashiers, greeters, and customer service agents. These job groups attracted the least annual pay ranging from $25,000 – $75,000. Mostly these jobs require less academic knowledge, yet they are labor or time intensive. This forces the retailers to hire more people and offer them low wages to minimize their operation costs. Escobari, Seyal and Meaney (2019) add that the low wages are further justified by the fact that most of the low-waged employees were non-college educated individuals. Others had opted for tertiary education. Their lack of diploma and other advanced formal education predisposed them to low wages, little upward mobility, and few benefits.

An analysis of Walmart’s pay system shows that it is not adequately designed and optimized to boost employee engagement. This observation is seconded by reports showing that the retailer pays its employees poverty line wages which is an equivalent of minimum wages. Such wage rates are uncompetitive and fail to motivate its employees to fully commit to their jobs. This statement is seconded by reports of high absenteeism and turnover rates as most employees seek new employment opportunities with better pay. In most cases, engaged employees could opt to stay at an organization because of the deep connection with the employees. This reality however does not mean that a better pay is not needed. Mann and Harter, (2016) reinstate this point noting that paying living wage helps employees achieve a better quality of life which makes them more productive and less likely to leave an organization. Working for a long time enables them to gain new skills, and experiences, which enable them to serve the customers better or be more productive in their jobs. The pay systems should further be complemented by fairness and equitability whereby employees have access to reports on the pay scales of their colleagues and if necessary, that of the employees in senior positions. Divulging such information will create an atmosphere of transparency and challenge some employees into advancing themselves academically as they anticipate to take up the competitive positions at the organization. This approach creates a competitive workforce which tends to be more productive.

An analysis of the benefits provided by Walmart showed that the low-waged employees felt discriminated by the benefits scheme which favored the senior and highly paid employees and the founders. Most of the low-waged employees felt like they did the most work engaging the customers at the floor level and performing the menial labor yet they were not entitled to much benefits. In fact, the part timers complained of lacking access to even the most basic of benefits. The full time low-wage employees were grateful for the medical insurance, which is again mandated by the government, and the paid time off. Regardless, they noted that their input into the productivity of the organization was significant and thus, they deserved a more advanced and rewarding benefits scheme. These low-waged employees proposed that if they are offered better benefits, they will likely be more engaged. They wanted Walmart to consider offering life retirement plans, vacations, and paid sick leaves. They believed that if Walmart introduced some common benefits vouched for by majority of the low-waged employees, then they would be more motivated, committed, and engaged. These sentiments are seconded by the theory of employee engagement by Kahn and Herzberg motivation-hygiene theory.

According to Kahn, it was necessary for Walmart to create conditions that foster employee engagement. This means introducing pay and benefits packages that make the employees emotionally available, ensure their psychological safety, and that the system should win over their commitment and loyalty. He emphasized the employees are likely to be more engaged if they felt satisfied that they were positively impacting the organization and in return, they are rewarded with satisfying pay and benefits that matched their input. Failure to meet this goal will result into resentment as the employees feel like they are underappreciated and exploited. Kahn adds that apart from benefits and pay, Walmart should provide physical and psychological resources needed by the employees to accomplish their duties. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory further builds on the theory of employee engagement.  Evidently, this research shows that employee motivation and commitment are different concepts that should not be used interchangeably. However, motivated employees are more committed and engaged. To heighten levels of engagement, Walmart needs to improve its hygiene and motivation factors. Motivation is considered to be the foundation for employee engagement since encourages employees to be more available. As a result, they become emotionally invested which in return, heightens their levels of engagement. According to this theory, combining high motivation and high hygiene creates a perfect workplace that favors engagement and retention. As it stands, the low-wage employees at Walmart feel the organization provides low hygiene and low motivation which creates an unfavorable workplace which justifies the high employee turnover.

Research Limitations

There is hardly a perfect research. Johnston (2014) attributes the imperfections to limitations encountered during the research process. For this particular research, limitations arose in different dimensions. First, there were limitations in the selection of the sample population for the survey. It was confusing to decide whether to include both the part time and full-time employees in the surveys. Basically, these two groups of employees have different motivations, and different expectations from their employer. For example, part time employees have less expectations of their employer because they work for limited time periods. On the contrary, full time employees work for the same employer for a prolonged time period. Combining these two groups therefore leads to divergent results on pay and benefits. The part timers will tend to value financial rewards in form of higher pay while full time employees have a tendency of preferring a balance of pay and benefits such as retirement plans. However, selecting one and ignoring the other could lead to biased results. Similarly, the retail industry is overly dependent on part-time employees since they attract low costs. Therefore, as much as the researcher would have wished to establish the impact of benefits and pay on full time employees, it was not possible to ignore or prioritize on group of respondents.

The second limitation is the insufficient size of respondents. Walmart has more than 2.2 million employees or associates.  These employees are distributed globally. In the UK, the retailer has 1.5 million employees. This study was conducted in the largest Walmart Supercenter covering a floor area of 24,000 square meters. The branch is located at the Bletchley, Milton Keynes Supercenter. On average, Walmart supercenters employ 350 people with two thirds of the population falling within the low-waged employees. Because of these dynamics, the researcher opted to use 104 as a suitable sample population. As much as this population is large fraction of the employees at the Walmart supercenter, it fails to adequately represent the pay and benefits needs of all remaining more than 1 million employees at all the Walmart branches. Regardless, it provides an insight on the impact of pay and benefits on employee engagement in the retail industry. The main reason for using a small sample population is logistical reasons. The available time for this research project was not adequate to enable the collection of diverse data from several Walmart branches.

Another limitation was noted with the selection of a data collection technique. Using open ended survey questionnaires led to diverse responses. As a result, the researcher was forced to interpret the findings on behalf of the respondents in order to sort the answers correctly. As a result, there are errors of omission and commission especially in areas where the respondents might not have expressed themselves clearly. This limitation amounts to an insignificant degree of subjectively in the reporting of the researcher. The limitation was unavoidable since open ended questionnaires help collect detailed information that was extracted to facilitate a deeper understanding of the impact of pay and benefits on employee engagement among low-waged employees.




Recommendations and Conclusion

Guided by this research, the following recommendations are made. First, Walmart should restructure its pay and benefits system to nurture a more emotionally invested low waged labor force. As emphasized in the findings and analysis, better pay and benefits will heighten motivation, and commitment, which in return, creates a favorable environment where engagement thrives. The employees should be accorded support, and systems that foster interpersonal communications, and career growth. These efforts create a more engaged workforce that is more willing to sacrifice their comfort for the sake of the organization. In return, Walmart will benefit from increased productivity. Secondly, Walmart should ensure transparency, fairness, and equitability of its pay and benefits system. As reported by the employees, they feel like the organization is not fair and equitable. Providing information on the pay scales of employees in the different work categories will create a more competitive organization. Additionally, employees will be more engaged knowing that the pay and benefit system is equitable and fair. They are more likely to invest their emotions in the job and this heightens their engagement levels. The third recommendation is that Walmart should create a system for conducting annual surveys to evaluate and monitor effectiveness of their compensation, pay, and benefits programs. Given the correlation between pay and benefits, and their subsequent impact on the levels of employee engagement among the low-waged workers. Annual surveys will help collect employee feedback on their engagement levels and how best the organization can design and customize its pay and benefits schemes to heighten their satisfaction. Engaging in these processes will improve the levels of engagement shown by the employees which in return creates a more productive workforce.

In conclusion, this research is timely in addressing the challenges facing retailers such as Walmart. As evident in the findings, retailers are having a hard time surviving the avalanche of changes happening in the retail industry. The massive digitalization caused by globalization has led to mass layoff of employees and other cost-cutting approaches. This explains why Walmart pays minimum wage rates to its low-waged employees. However, it would be prudent to adjust the pay and benefits system to ensure that these employees feel encouraged to emotionally invest in the organization. The pay and benefits system should be made to foster commitment and motivation which in return, encourages the employees to engage more. Failure to adopt the recommendations could mean a more disengaged employees which affects service delivery. The customers are likely to feel the disengagement among employees and this will push them away. Instead, the retailers should create an engaged workforce that will attract more customers and maximize its productivity and profitability.






Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. Procedia-Social and behavioral sciences40, 498-508.

Asher, D. and Popper, M., 2019. Tacit knowledge as a multilayer phenomenon: the “onion” model. The Learning Organization.

CIPD. (2020). Employee pay: Understand the fundamentals of employee pay, rewards and bonuses. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/people/pay

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.

Davidavičienė, V., 2018. Research Methodology: An Introduction. In Modernizing the Academic Teaching and Research Environment (pp. 1-23). Springer, Cham.

Delery, J.E. and Roumpi, D., 2017. Strategic human resource management, human capital and competitive advantage: is the field going in circles? Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), pp.1-21.

Escobari, M., Seyal, I. and Meaney, M., 2019. Realism about Reskilling: Upgrading the Career Prospects of America’s Low-Wage Workers. Workforce of the Future Initiative. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution.

Fatemi, A., & Fooladi, I. 2019. A primer on sustainable value creation. Review of Financial Economics.

Head, B., 2017. The Amazon effects. Company Director, 33(10), p.22.

Helm, S., Kim, S.H. and Van Riper, S., 2020. Navigating the ‘retail apocalypse’: a framework of consumer evaluations of the new retail landscape. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 54.

Jaiswal, G., Pathak, R. and Kumari, S., 2017. Impact of employee engagement on job satisfaction and motivation. Research Gate Journal.

Johnston, A., 2014. Rigor in research: theory in the research approach. European Business Review.

Keraminiyage, K., 2013. Research Methodology: what the nested model and the research onion have to say. In Postgraduate workshop.

Khoreva, V. and Wechtler, H., 2018. HR practices and employee performance: the mediating role of well-being. Employee Relations.

Kulikowski, K. and Sedlak, P., 2020. Can you buy work engagement? The relationship between pay, fringe benefits, financial bonuses and work engagement. Current Psychology, 39(1), pp.343-353.

Landrum, N. E., & Edwards, S. 2019. Sustainable business: an executive’s primer. Business Expert Press.

Mann, A. and Harter, J., 2016. The worldwide employee engagement crisis. Gallup Business Journal, 7, pp.1-5.

McKnight, A., Stewart, K., Himmelweit, S.M. and Palillo, M., 2016. Low pay and in-work poverty: preventative measures and preventative approaches. Evidence Review prepared for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.

McNamara, C., 2018. Employee benefits and compensation (employee pay). Adapted from the Field Guide to Leadership and Supervision, Authenticity Consulting, LLC.

Melnikovas, A., 2018. Towards an explicit research methodology: Adapting research onion model for futures studies. Journal of Futures Studies, 23(2), pp.29-44.

Mende, M., 2019. Retail Apocalypse or Golden Opportunity for Retail Frontline Management? Journal of Retailing, 95(2), p.84.

Millard, M. 2019. The Motivation-Hygiene Theory of Employee Engagement. Retrieved from: https://blog.kainexus.com/employee-engagement/employee-engagement-software/the-motivation-hygiene-theory-of-employee-engagement

Mitchel, D. (2014). Walmart’s Problems Go Beyond Underpaid Workers. Retrieved June 13, 2020 from: https://time.com/3715877/walmart-satisfaction-index/

Moran, N., 2019. Examining attitudes on pay for low level workers: do consumers care? Journal of Consumer Marketing.

Nankervis, A., Baird, M., Coffey, J., & Shields, J. (2019). Human resource management. Cengage AU.

Ogbonnaya, C., Daniels, K. and Nielsen, K., 2017. How incentive pay affects employee engagement, satisfaction, and trust. Harvard Business Review.

Ogbonnaya, C., Daniels, K. and Nielsen, K., 2017. How incentive pay affects employee engagement, satisfaction, and trust. Harvard Business Review.

Osborne, S. and Hammoud, M.S., 2017. Effective employee engagement in the workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), p.4.

Rana, S. and Chopra, P., 2019. Developing and sustaining employee engagement: the strategic perspective in telecom company. In Management Techniques for Employee Engagement in Contemporary Organizations (pp. 142-164). IGI Global.

Rheem, D. 2018. William Kahn: Father of Employee Engagement. Retrieved from: https://donrheem.com/william-kahn-father-of-employee-engagement/

Ruan, N. 2017. Corporate Masters & Low-Wage Servants: The Social Control of Workers in Poverty. Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just., 24, 103.

Sahay, A., 2016. Peeling Saunder’s Research Onion. Research Gate, Art, pp.1-5.

Schaufeli, W. and Salanova, M., 2007. (2006). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. DSSW Gilliland, Research in social issues in Management: Vol Managing social and ethical issues in organization. Green, CT: InformationAgePublishers, http://www. ibam. com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol10/no1/JBA M_10_1_3. pdf (accessed January 8, 2011).

Seay, R. 2020. 3 Employee Engagement Strategies for Hourly Workers. Retrieved from: https://bonfyreapp.com/blog/three-employee-engagement-strategies-for-hourly-workers

Sharma, D. and Krishnan, V.R., 2012. The impact of pay satisfaction and transformational leadership on employee engagement. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Management and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 1-12).

Sinha, T., Clarke, S. and Farquharson, L., 2018. Shrek, Saunders and the Onion Myth: Using Myths, Metaphors and Storytelling. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies (p. 366).

Stolpe, M. 2020. Why We Need Retail Employee Engagement Now More Than Ever. Retrieved from: https://bonfyreapp.com/blog/retail-employee-engagement

Swarnalatha, D.C. and Prasanna, T.S., 2013. Employee engagement from a retail sector perspective. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM), 4(1), pp.01-07. https://www.academia.edu/3254091/EMPLOYEE_ENGAGEMENT_FROM_A_RETAIL_SECTOR_PERSPECTIVE

Tuckey, M.R., Boyd, C.M., Winefield, H.R., Bohm, A., Winefield, A.H., Lindsay, A. and Black, Q., 2017. Understanding stress in retail work: Considering different types of job demands and diverse applications of job resources. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(4), p.368.

Westcott, M., Clibborn, S. and Wright, C.F., 2019. Financialisation and the growth of low-wage, insecure work. Contemporary Issues in Work and Organisations., Abingdon, Routledge.

Williams, C.L. and Connell, C., 2015. “Looking good and sounding right” aesthetic labor and social inequality in the retail industry. Work and Occupations, 37(3), pp.349-377.

Zeng, Z., & Honig, B. 2017. A study of living wage effects on employees’ performance‐related attitudes and behavior. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’ Administration, 34(1), 19-32.

Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?